Matter, Mind and God (Yes, Virginia-well how bout keep an open mind, Virginia

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/godphys.html ^ | 1995 | Jack Sarfatti

[101st-Eagle]

Just still have questions relating to mostly physics that leave open the metaphyical. Will these courses be on the hit list too some day?

[101st-Eagle]

*Ontological in search for truth *ping*

[Strategerist]

Just so you know, despite having actual advanced physics degrees from real universities, Sarfatti is one of the more famous cranks from USEnet. He's basically gone "off the reservation" like Richard Hoagland.

[Coyoteman]

Just still have questions relating to mostly physics that leave open the metaphyical. Will these courses be on the hit list too some day?

Is it science or religion?

Are the articles appearing in peer-reviewed scientific journals or in creationist pamphlets and websites?

Answer these two questions and you may have discovered the answer to your question.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Was Bell's Theorem proven?

[Rudder]

Indeed, the quantum force violates Newton's idea that for every action there must be a reaction. This is the key idea of Bohm's theory which cannot even be formulated in Bohr's theory.

Are there data supporting this assertion?

[101st-Eagle]

No, I don't do the creationist thing and didn't see anything relating to a pamphlet. I enjoy discussing ontology and the concept of reality..

I think there is ample peer-review concerning reality concepts and observational aspects surrounding quantam field theory and it can throw in to question the validity of empiricism. That can come across as heresy, with the oh-so-predictable "you must be a creationist."

I think the degree to which we think we have knowledge is not too palatable.

[101st-Eagle]

Was Bell's Theorem proven?

Yes, Here's one proof-bad link. American Journal of Physics 50, 811 - 816 (1982).. Here's a statement made by the professor doing the proof:

Einstein died many years ago, and so is not here to defend himself against claims of what he would or would not do today. Nonetheless, I tend to think that if he were alive today, Bell's theorem would force him to accept Quantum Mechanics.

AUTHOR This document was written in February 1999 by David M. Harrison, Department of Physics, University of Toronto,

[Coyoteman]

No, I don't do the creationist thing and didn't see anything relating to a pamphlet. I enjoy discussing ontology and the concept of reality.

I think there is ample peer-review concerning reality concepts and observational aspects surrounding quantam field theory and it can throw in to question the validity of empiricism. That can come across as heresy, with the oh-so-predictable "you must be a creationist."

I think the degree to which we think we have knowledge is not too palatable.

I simply asked a couple of simple questions. You seem to have come across articles in peer-reviewed journals, so that sounds like science.

(I have not reviewed anything in this field, so have no idea of the accuracy of the claims; I am a simple bone man.)

[101st-Eagle]

I simply asked a couple of simple questions. You seem to have come across articles in peer-reviewed journals, so that sounds like science.

lol, . Guess I'm jumpy. Didn't necessarily mean you. Just meant got that impression in general.

[101st-Eagle]

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Inertia.htm

[b_sharp]

This is quite interesting but I am skeptical of Safarti's analysis. Generally he makes more mistakes than he should given his training. Even in this review he anthropomorphises far too freely.

If I get some time tomorrow I'll look into Bohm's theory to see what it's all about.

[muawiyah]

Whether it violates anything at all is an unanswerable question. On the other hand, Einstein's "Spooky Action At a Distance" is real, more or less, and probably serves as the basis for communication systems between and among vast advanced civilizations in the far reaches of the universe.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

I read Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'. A first rate work, in fact his aquarium analogy and holography is remarkable, but it seems to indicate that Reality has a great deal of things going on of which we currently are unaware. Kinda like how the garbage always gets picked up on time and there's always beer in the beer case. So much is going on behind the scenes that we don't yet know about and it just gets done. IMHO he's got it, but proving it requires knowledge of the Hidden Variables, which we don't have yet. Just like Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

[No Longer Free State]

Einstein believed in God, didn't he?

[Rudder]

Thanks for the link--It's late and I'm flaggin'. I'll get back after reading it tomorrow.

[Rudder]

...the basis for communication systems between and among vast advanced civilizations in the far reaches of the universe.

Thanks. That's a lot to contemplate. I'm retiring for the night. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[Dimensio]

Eintein attributed divinity to the universe itself, in a pantheistic sense. He didn't believe in a personal deity that concerned itself with the affairs of humanity, or even an afterlife.

[101st-Eagle]

Einstein attributed divinity to the universe itself, in a pantheistic sense. He didn't believe in a personal deity that concerned itself with the affairs of humanity, or even an afterlife.

In an anthropological sense his writings and interviews say he didn't. But given today's physicists feel the proof of Bell's theorem would have forced him to accept Quantum Mechanics, and that fact he held imagination in such a high regard, who's to say what ideas he might entertain now?

"Anyone not shocked by Quantum Mechanics doesn't understand it."-Niels Bohr...

[grey_whiskers]

Answer these two questions and you may have discovered the answer to your question.

I was just wondering whether this Jack Sarfatti guy and Deepak Chopra have ever been photographed together.

The old "philospher in a box" conudrum :-)

Cheers!