Recent content by Collin237

There is one website I found that seems to be doing what I'm looking for. At the risk of sounding like a spammer: http://www.thefunisreal.com/ Is it me, or is it Stenger? You and SpecialFrog both seem to have some attachment to this one specific book. When I expressed doubt about the title...

Dragan Glas, you seem to be talking past me. Let's just agree we don't understand each other.

I think I do have a fair amount. I would definitely like to talk to this person and learn more.

I agree. But that needs to be done in an educational environment and in the context of psychological intervention. It's not part of the work of the mostly isolationist ivory-tower society of the scientists that actually propose and test physical theories. And it's not at all an answer to my...

Firstly, thinking for yourself doesn't require being an atheist. Secondly, an excuse for not thinking for yourself is not necessarily a god; specifically to this thread, the Copenhagen observation process is such an excuse. If you explain why a fraudster is wrong, then the fraudster will...

Philip Pearle (http://cds.cern.ch/record/421060/files/0001041.pdf): Without consulting an expert, we don't know if an argument that reasons like this is sound. But we intuit that it can be sound. Why? What distinguishes this from the things Chopra says? This intuition needs to be Socratized...

Science can advance only if practiced by people skilled in innovative use of the tools of thought it's developed. Scientific thought is constrained by logic and experimental data, not by the dictates of other people. If you just recite argumentatively why fraudsters are wrong, you don't inspire...

It's exactly this sense of "sufficiency" that I'm complaining isn't properly explained. It's possible, and arguably necessary, to make assumptions beyond the established theory while still matching observed reality, but only in very limited ways that are rarely made explicit. If a chemist...

Yes, of course, our understanding of QM is limited, but not nearly as limited as our knowledge. My point is that there is a lot we understand may be behind QM, without knowing how well any of those hypotheses match reality. From the review by Yossarian, it sounds like Stenger is using QM to...

There's no such thing as the findings of a theory. There are only the findings of the experiments on which the theory is based. QM, which seems to be the maximum testable and verified conclusion of quantum experiments, correctly predicts and describes only their results, not the behavior that...

Given that quantum mechanics on the one hand explains amazingly well various real physical phenomena, but on the other hand seems to deny reality, you'd think the world would be filled with people discussing how to reconcile quantum mechanics with the existence of the real world that exemplifies...