Re: a QM response

From: John W Burgeson (burgytwo@juno.com)
Date: Mon Apr 30 2001 - 15:53:56 EDT

  • Next message: Lawrence Johnston: "Methodological Naturalism"

    Howard observed:

    "Two noteworthy features of the message you copied:

    > It may be that the "non-locality" explanation is a
    > conceptual "dead-end" and that the alternative explanation will be a
    more
    > rewarding intellectual enterprise for your students -- especially if
    they
    > take the Genesis account seriously!

    I suspect that this "seriously" means "in the way that _I_take it"

    > I am writing anonymously ...

    Anonymous messages deserve to be trashed immediately."

    If I had been sure of the first point I'd have followed the second one
    rather quickly. But I am way over my head on this particular subject and
    I don't want to ignore a potentially valid point.

    I appreciate the comment. I don't think this author's point is quite as
    far out as, say, Veliokowsky or ICR, but maybe... .

    I remember doing the MM experiment in college, almost SURE that I'd be
    the one to find a light speed difference! < G >

    Burgy (John Burgeson)

    www.burgy.50megs.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 10:18:47 EDT