Journal of Nonlocality

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
A new journal has just been published, the Journal of Nonlocality, with the provocative mission statement of bringing together physics, parapsychology and neuroscience to “(forge) unholy tools in search of the quantum enigma.”

journals.sfu.ca...

Looks very interesting! Provocative articles...

Towards a Forensic Parapsychology in the OT Paradigm
Radical Nonlocality
A Split Beam Approach to Remote Mental Interactions: Expectation, Bonding and Temporal Footprints
TGD Inspired View About Remote Mental Interactions and Consciousness-Related Anomalies, Part I
TGD Inspired View About Remote Mental Interactions and Consciousness-Related Anomalies, Part II
Augmented Cognition to Enhance Human Sensory Awareness, Cognitive Functioning and Psychic Functioning: a Research Proposal in Two Phases
Expanding the Paradigm in DMILS/HI Research: a Proposal in Four Phases
Quantum Mind in TGD Universe
Exploring the Mechanisms of Interaction between Human Consciousness and Networks of Living Neurons




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


A good find. It's too bad they used the word "unholy" (...to forge unholy tools). WDTEM! (translation=what does that even mean!) The mission statement indicates a subject which, when collected in one journal or website, can combine a great deal of data, and from the paper titles seems well on its way to doing so. But "unholy"? They should change that one, imnho, in the name of credibility.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-1-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I think it's just a tongue-in-cheek thing, but maybe you're right.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
The journal is not exactly new:


The Journal of Nonlocality started out as an open access, non-peer reviewed publication in 2002 under the title Journal of Nonlocality and Remote Mental Interactions (JNLRMI). Volumes I-IV are accessible in full text at emergentmind.org...

In 2011 ICRL decided to adopt the title Journal of Nonlocality for its new peer-reviewed publication, building on the research directions outlined by the now-retired JNLRMI, but with an exclusive focus on experimental design and empirical results. While some of the original editorial board members remain, a sustained effort has been made to broaden the expertise area and reach out to the mainstream research community in related fields such as biophysics and foundations of quantum mechanics.


journals.sfu.ca...

Now all they need is an editorial board that is qualified to review the papers:


EDITORIAL TEAM



















journals.sfu.ca...



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

It's not just an editorial board they're missing. The link to their sponsor returns a big fat 404, too.

The sponsor exists, though: International Consciousness Research Laboratories, basically a bunch of refugees from Princeton's ill-fated Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR), which was ingloriously shut down in 2007 after 28 years of trying to prove the interaction of consciousness with matter and nothing to show for it but a few dubious statistical correlations.

With reputations for flakiness firmly established, I guess these guys would have been out of luck looking for new positions in academia, so they started their own shop. At least one has to applaud their modesty: all they claim to be doing is 'furthering the establishment of a science of the subjective'. So, no science yet, then.

edit on 12/1/13 by Astyanax because: there was a link to add.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Quantum physics is no science anyway, it's mysticism and Taoism.
This a non-logical (because non-deterministic), therefore non-sensical, stance on reality.
Most of the concepts used to describe 'reality' at a quantum level are utterly ludicrous.
Reality suddenly transforms and become non-deterministic (non-locality, superposition, virtual particles, duality wave/particles) and magical at the quantum level... A hundred years that this charade has been going on. PATHETIC.
edit on 12-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit
edit on 12-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



Quantum physics is no science anyway, it's mysticism and Taoism.


No, it describes observable phenomena. How do you explain the Photoelectric Effect? Surely you have a solar powered calculator. It works. Does EU theory explain that?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



Quantum physics is no science anyway, it's mysticism and Taoism.


No, it describes observable phenomena.


« describes »

And there lies the death of science and the promotion of Taoism and mysticism.
Science should EXPLAIN phenomena, not simply describe them.
But, who cares? « It works. » right?
By the way, The only reason it works is because we’re so low in the scale of scientific knowledge that we don’t need to be precise enough for it to make much of a difference.

In fact, that’s what you ask of me now despite the fact you don’t demand the same of Quantum Mechanics (well chosen name since it indeed is not a science).

Still, according to Quantum Mechanics, there is nothing to explain. In fact it forbids you to even try.

This is the stance of the non locality principle (the cornerstone of QM):
It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine simultaneously both the speed and the position of a particle 
That’s what it basically says, right?

It doesn’t say we can’t do it NOW/YET because of our lack of knowledge/technical advancement. It says it’s PHYCALLY impossible. This is the LAW of physics/nature.
And bang! There goes causality and determinism (in a word: LOGIC)… Out of the window!

This is EXACTLY the claim of Taoism: « Truth CANNOT be known. » Therefore don’t waste your time looking for it. Do not seek knowledge. It’s useless. Become one with nature and rediscover yourself, your own DUALITY and the one of the universe… All that BS.

Do you think it to be a coincidence?
And that let the door wide open for mysticism and ANY para/pseudo science you can think of.
Concepts like the ones I already mentioned in previous posts are nothing short of mystical. They have not a quark of science/logic in them. One could say that wearing a white blouse doesn’t make a scientist out of a fortune teller.
Well, it goes for QM too, this is dressed as a science but it’s NOT.
Look at all the New Age Gurus teachings and how they use QM. This very thread speaks volume about that.
Not surprising when you know that Wolfgang Pauli wrote a book (with C.G. Jung, the pseudo/mystico psychoanalyst) on synchronicity and Quantum physics. That Niels Bohr himself asked for the Taoism symbol to be put on his prize for his ‘work’ on the Atom and in QM (Copenhagen school).

QM gives no explanation, no true predictions based on theories and facts. They use only probabilities and statistics. This is not how a theory is supposed to work. It shouldn’t be about average but about certainty.

[Off topic] You know I don’t mind people not knowing or scientists being so stupid or corrupt to keep on with this charade. Because people are stupid. They deserve no better. That’s 15 years I, more or less, sit on what I know and have seen pretty much no one come close to the simple observations I make.
What I mind is not being part of the circle. Those who really know. What I want is knowledge for myself. And I know there is a lot out there. [/Off topic]

If you wanna know more about my take on QM and these concepts just check my recent posts in other threads. And we can discuss about it if you want.

edit on 13-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit
edit on 13-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


Quantum physics is no science anyway, it's mysticism and Taoism.

Quite unlike mysticism or Taoism, quantum theory makes reliable, falsifiable predictions about things in the real world. The purpose of science is to provide answers to physical questions, not metaphysical ones, and quantum theory has been admirably successful in this.


This a non-logical (because non-deterministic), therefore non-sensical, stance on reality.

It is not necessary to propose a causal mechanism in order to relate a series of events. A statistical correlation is quite sufficient.

edit on 14/1/13 by Astyanax because: the same old hypermetropia.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



This is EXACTLY the claim of Taoism: « Truth CANNOT be known. »


Your understanding of Taoism is on a par with your knowledge of science.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



This is EXACTLY the claim of Taoism: « Truth CANNOT be known. »


Your understanding of Taoism is on a par with your knowledge of science.


Taoism main stance is that the Tao (which can be interpreted has Truth) is ineffable. Which means "can not be told", which means cannot be understood.

You should check your understanding of Taoism.. and (Quantum) Reality.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


Quite unlike mysticism or Taoism, quantum theory makes reliable, falsifiable predictions about things in the real world. The purpose of science is to provide answers to physical questions, not metaphysical ones, and quantum theory has been admirably successful in this.


Not true. Most of quantum physics concept are unfalsifiable: virtual particles, non-locality, quantum superposition and duality... The only way to invalidate them is to get out of quantum mechanics and propose alternative theory. Create a new branch of science alltogether. They've tightened the (Gordian) knot pretty hard.

Also, QM doesn't make any predictions (unless you count probabilities and average as predictions) since CAUSALITY and DETERMINISM are denied. QM, in its essence, is based on the theory of games.
And what is a 'science' that doesn't explain anything but only observes phenomena??
"How" isn't a scientific question anymore?


It is not necessary to propose a causal mechanism in order to relate a series of events. A statistical correlation is quite sufficient.


Sufficient for what? To call it a science? Certainly NOT.
edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



Taoism main stance is that the Tao (which can be interpreted has Truth) is ineffable. Which means "can not be told", which means cannot be understood.


I can only assume that English is not your native language. Taoism does not say that things cannot be understood. It does say that understanding cannot be expressed in mere words.

There are indeed similarities between some mystical traditions and modern science. In science, there are descriptions of the world that are purely mathematical. Any attempt to render them into verbal descriptions seems nonsensical. Wave/particle duality is an example of this. An observable phenomenon can be described in terms of a "probability wave." One cannot readily imagine this, and yet it is mathematically true.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



Not true. Most of quantum physics concept are unfalsifiable: virtual particles, non-locality, quantum superposition and duality... The only way to invalid them is to get out of quantum mechanics and propose alternative theory. A new branch of science alltogether.


No. Every single one of those concepts arose from actual experimentation. Quantum Theory, as counter intuitive as it sounds, is the only way we currently have to explain these observed phenomena.


Also, it doesn't make predictions (unless you count probabilities as predictions) since CAUSALITY and DETERMINISM are denied.


Causality and determinism are abstract logical constructs and do not necessarily apply to the real world.


And what is a 'science' that doesn't explain anything but only observe phenomena?? The "how" isn't a scientific answer anymore?


I don't understand the question. Quantum Theory explains things perfectly. It just doesn't agree with what we call "common sense."



It is not necessary to propose a causal mechanism in order to relate a series of events. A statistical correlation is quite sufficient.



Sufficient for what? To call it a science? Certainly NOT.


This from someone who argued that extra-terrestrial life is a FACT because "the probability for it is too enormous for it to don't be a fact. ""



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001



Taoism does not say that things cannot be understood. It does say that understanding cannot be expressed in mere words.


If one cannot expressed something in "mere" words it means that ‘one’ doesn't understand 'it'.
If NO ONE can express a concept in a satisfying rational/logical way, then this concept doesn't have any COGNITIVE value.
Most Quantum physic’s concepts are ILLOGICAL in the purest sense of the word since they don’t respect basic laws of logic.
Alternative causal/deterministic theories CAN replace them. So, tell me, why aren’t they even considered or are ridiculed like you, other posters and most of the scientist community, do?

What is more ridiculous to defend and promote illogical concepts as truth or to propose rational/causal/meaningful alternative ones?


There are indeed similarities between some mystical traditions and modern science. In science, there are descriptions of the world that are purely mathematical. Any attempt to render them into verbal descriptions seems nonsensical.


Because, as mysticism, they ARE.

Wave/particle duality is an example of this. An observable phenomenon can be described in terms of a "probability wave." One cannot readily imagine this, and yet it is mathematically true.

What you don't understand is that mathematics are like any other language. A sentence can be grammatically correct and still makes no sense (doesn‘t describe anything real). (e.g. "Walls dream of cars")
Language, like science, has to reflect reality. It doesn't CREATE any it/any.

Mathematics are not truth. Mathematics are simply a language with its own rules (grammar).
A valid equation, doesn't make it SOUND nor true (meaning conforming with Reality).
Also, mathematics rules are (should be) subject(ed) to change and to evolve.

The best and simple example is demonstrated (indirectly) by Zeno's paradox(es).
If mathematics were always sound, we couldn't even move... (since any and every distances can be divided ad infinitum).
Yet, we can.

(Formal) LOGIC should preside over mathematics since mathematics are a subset of it.
Therefore concepts like the "wave/particle duality", quantum (superposition) states... shouldn't even be considered at all. Other (logical and causal) explanations should be sought.

As for "duality", how about the possibility that the movement of the particles CREATES the waves which, then, interact with those particles and creates the effect we see in the double-slit experiment for example.
Yes, we would have to accept the fact that the ‘Ether’ exists. Too complicated, too cumbersome for lazy minds?

My point is that Mathematics are not "Truth". They have to be confronted with reality and explained, in plain words (new concepts can be created though) and CONFORM TO LOGIC. Which is clearly NOT the case for Quantum Mechanics (see the laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction).



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



If one cannot expressed something in "mere" words it means that ‘one’ doesn't understand 'it'.


Explain to me how you can balance on one foot, in terms that will allow me to do the same. Remember, you need to explain what balance is, and how I can access this faculty.


If NO ONE can express a concept in a satisfying rational/logical way, then this concept doesn't have any COGNITIVE value.


How did people see the color red before science explained how the nervous system processes visual light? And who must be satisfied with the logic? What form of logic?


Most Quantum physic’s concepts are ILLOGICAL in the purest sense of the word since they don’t respect basic laws of logic.


What form of logic? There are several to choose from. In some a proposition can be both true and false.


Alternative causal/deterministic theories CAN replace them. So, tell me, why aren’t they even considered or are ridiculed like you, other posters and most of the scientist community, do?


They are considered. Einstein spent quite a bit of time trying to find alternatives, but they simply don't explain observed phenomena as well as QT.


What is more ridiculous to defend and promote illogical concepts as truth or to propose rational/causal/meaningful alternative ones?


If you can find an alternative to QT that is falsifiable and explains things better, there will be a Nobel in it for you.



There are indeed similarities between some mystical traditions and modern science. In science, there are descriptions of the world that are purely mathematical. Any attempt to render them into verbal descriptions seems nonsensical.



Because, as mysticism, they ARE.


That is a metaphysical statement in and of itself!



Wave/particle duality is an example of this. An observable phenomenon can be described in terms of a "probability wave." One cannot readily imagine this, and yet it is mathematically true.


What you don't understand is that mathematics are like any other language. A sentence can be grammatically correct and still makes no sense (doesn‘t describe anything real). (e.g. "Walls dream of cars")
Language, like science, has to reflect reality. It doesn't CREATE any it/any.


Agreed. There were mathematical systems like non-Euclidean geometry that were internally consistent yet appeared to make no sense. It turns out that these counter intuitive mathematics actually describe the nature of the physical world!


Mathematics are not truth. Mathematics are simply a language with its own rules (grammar).
A valid equation, doesn't make it SOUND nor true (meaning conforming with Reality).


But when it does conform to reality, that is, it accurately describes what can be observed, then it is both sound and true.


Also, mathematics rules are (should be) subject(ed) to change and to evolve.


They do. There are vast realm of theoretical mathematics that have yet to find practical applications. But you never know.


The best and simple example is demonstrated (indirectly) by Zeno's paradox(es).
If mathematics were always sound, we couldn't even move... (since any and every distances can be divided ad infinitum).
Yet, we can.


I'm not quite sure what this false paradox is intended to prove. It is usually used as an argument against formal logic!


(Formal) LOGIC should preside over mathematics since mathematics are a subset of it.


Others consider formal logic to be a subset of mathematics.


Therefore concepts like the "wave/particle duality", quantum (superposition) states... shouldn't even be considered at all. Other (logical and causal) explanations should be sought.


This is a purely dogmatic assertion.


As for "duality", how about the possibility that the movement of the particles CREATES the waves which, then, interact with those particles and creates the effect we see in the double-slit experiment for example.
Yes, we would have to accept the fact that the ‘Ether’ exists. Too complicated, too cumbersome for lazy minds?


But experiments have shown that the ether does not exist. It seems that the laziness is on the part of people who cannot master the mental gymnastics necessary to comprehend QT.


My point is that Mathematics are not "Truth". They have to be confronted with reality and explained, in plain words (new concepts can be created though) and CONFORM TO LOGIC. Which is clearly NOT the case for Quantum Mechanics (see the laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction).


The problem here is that your understanding of logic is about two millennia out of date.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1


ME: If NO ONE can express a concept in a satisfying rational/logical way, then this concept doesn't have any COGNITIVE value.



YOU: How did people see the color red before science explained how the nervous system processes visual light?


You don't need any understanding of the nervous system (nor physics for that matter) to experience the color red and for others to relate, since they experience the same thing. It doesn't mean you understand what is the color red and how it comes to be, though.
The existence of a phenomenon (and the fact that we can observe it) doesn't imply, in any way, that we understand it. A phenomenon can be observed/real and yet everything that is said about it can have no COGNITIVE value because of misinterpretation (e.g religious ‘explanations’ of reality). This, of course, applies to QT concepts.


What form of logic? There are several to choose from. In some a proposition can be both true and false.


Formal/classical logic.
The 'logic' that accepts that a proposition can be true AND false is no Logic at all.
'Logic', now, is derived from mathematics and quantum mechanics? This is insane.
As their equations/theories don't conform with causal and deterministic logic, they create a new ‘logic‘... This is ludicrous.
Again, phenomena and observations CAN be explained using causality. That's what I try to do here. I present credible alternatives. But one has to, at least, consider them instead of disqualifying them only because they don't conform to the dominant (non-sensical) theory since, well, that’s the POINT.

Yet I‘ll admit that I'm no mathematician. What I do is fundamental (theoretical) research and proposing valid, sound concepts based on a different (causal and logical), interpretation of observations and experiments.


Agreed. There were mathematical systems like non-Euclidean geometry that were internally consistent yet appeared to make no sense. It turns out that these counter intuitive mathematics actually describe the nature of the physical world!


Counter-intuitive doesn't mean anything since the concept of intuition is worthless. I'm not against QM because it's counter-intuitive but because it is irrational.
And countless other, once valid, equations have been demonstrated to be false.
You simply prove that some mathematicians do mathematics as a game. They, sometimes, have no idea what to apply their equations to, yet they keep on writing them. This is NOT science.
Also, they don’t necessarily describe the physical world (Reality). They, sometimes, simply (make them) fit the Quantum Theory INTERPRETATION of the physical world.
You could argue that’s the best one we have today, I try to suggest otherwise.


But when it does conform to reality, that is, it accurately describes what can be observed, then it is both sound and true.


Agreed.
Yet, and again, most of the maths used in QM don't describe reality, they create one based on illogical and twisted concepts. These maths are directly influenced by QM's ideology.
And let's not forget that another reason (than ideology) for choosing the probabilistic and non-causal path is because it's a lot EASIER.
To get around it would require the creation of an entirely new branch of science.
Also, ALL scientific minds are now formatted/influenced by QM from school and anyone daring challenging it is ridiculed and ostracized (losing his job/chair/funding)... Well, no wonder why no one has come up with any credible mathematical alternative.


They are considered. Einstein spent quite a bit of time trying to find alternatives, but they simply don't explain observed phenomena as well as QT.


ONE guy didn't succeed so it proves QM is right? How many in the last 50 years did even try?

To be continued in the nex post
edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



1. I'm not quite sure what this false paradox is intended to prove.
2. It is usually used as an argument against formal logic!


1.It still is a paradox since no one has given a satisfying mathematical solution. And, before to say « yes, it has », remember that an equivalence isn’t an equality. (1/2+1/4+1/8...1/n is EQUIVALENT to 1. It, in no way, EQUALS 1.)
Still, this paradox proves that mathematics don’t describe reality at all since if, as it is mathematically valid, distance could indeed be divided ad infinitum no movement could exist. REALITY COULDN’T EXIST.
Can you understand that?
I have the true answer to this paradox btw. Can you come up with any?

2.

Sure, they can’t come up with a decent/sound (mathematical) solution so, instead of reevaluating their belief, they blame it on formal logic and declare it to be false and change it.
This is beyond ludicrous.
I’ll give you a hint. As crazy as it sounds, the solution to this seemingly mathematical paradox (it’s a metaphysical one in fact. One level higher than maths) is NOT mathematical.
If you can’t find the solution with that…


Others consider formal logic to be a subset of mathematics.


Sure, and we see why they’d like that, don’t we?


BUT this cannot be. Language cannot preside over cognition. We don't learn anything from language. We use language to express ideas and concepts that are formed mentally beforehand. That’s why I speak of cognitive value too.
Yet, mathematicians don't do that. They, sometimes, write grammatically correct (valid) sentences (equations) and hope they'll have a meaning one day. Or, worse, try to create a conception of reality that conforms to these equations.

Do you understand how stupid and preposterous it is??
It’s like writing « Walls dream of cars » and, because it’s grammatically valid, accept it, ipso facto, as sound/true.
And then, philosophers should try to create an interpretation of reality where this sentence makes sense.

The fact is that mathematics are an obscure language for many (almost everyone at a certain level). That’s why/how mathematicians and scientists get away with this stupid way to operate. People don’t realize what’s happening. They blindly trust scientists and science.

But the fun begins when they start to put these concepts into intelligible words and meaningful sentences.
The problem is not that QM is about abstract mathematical concepts too difficult for people to understand.
The problem is that they are just that: (meaningless unsound) abstract concepts that have NO basis in Reality (the physical world).
But we must accept them as real simply because they are (mathematically) valid?? Certainly not!

They have it all cornered though, they use mathematical equations based on the theory they developed, change the rules of Logic to validate their concepts and MAKE them sound and, then, they interpret the results of experiments in a way that doesn’t contradict or challenge the theory (no matter, that to be able to do that they have to come up with more and more stupid concepts that, in turn influence other interpretations on reality).
Alternative theories simply cannot « win »!
That’s why I say an entirely new paradigm must be created. Or, more likely, we simply must get rid of QM concepts and go back to true Logic.

Probabilities and stats could still be used but BY DEFAULT, knowing they are a 'lesser evil’, NOT the ONLY way to apprehend Reality… Until we come up with a truly causal, deterministic and predictive alternative.
The actual paradigm (and dogmas) doesn’t even ALLOW the pursuit of these alternatives since reality is declared a-causal (non-deterministic) BY NATURE!


But experiments have shown that the ether does not exist. It seems that the laziness is on the part of people who cannot master the mental gymnastics necessary to comprehend QT.


Not being able to detect interactions doesn't mean there are none. Again, beside logic, there are phenomena/experiments that indirectly imply/prove the existence of the Ether. The double slit experiment being one. In fact, any experiment putting in evidence a wave phenomenon also is.
Also, as developed in my previous point/paragraph, QT doesn't require simply some "mental gymnastics" but to abandon logic and rationality altogether.


The problem here is that your understanding of logic is about two millennia out of date

This is a choice and I would say more like 100 years... Since science has been hijacked by mystics like Bohr and Pauli.
edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 

It's plain from your discourse that your acquaintance with quantum mechanics is based on reading articles about it, not from learning about quantum mechanics or actually doing any yourself.

You know, quantum mechanics does have something in common with Taoist thought. The common feature is that they are not within everybody's capability to grasp. Some people find it hard to reconcile themselves to this, so they reject them out of hand. I call this the Argument from Intellectual Incapacity.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 

You know, quantum mechanics does have something in common with Taoist thought. The common feature is that they are not within everybody's capability to grasp. Some people find it hard to reconcile themselves to this, so they reject them out of hand. I call this the Argument from Intellectual Incapacity.


Brilliant.
Anyone challenging Quantum Mechanics/Theory can ONLY do it because he's too dumb to understand QM concepts?

That's your trump card?

Anyway, I adressed that point in my last comments. Did you read them? I bet you didn't understand half of them... Intellectual incapacity... It seems you're severly affected by it.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join