From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 (gpmap@runbox.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 08:52:45 MDT
When this was announced a few days ago I was curious, so I downloaded both
papers of Lynds are read them. Perhaps I did not understand anything of what
he is trying to say, but I was not impressed. It seems to me that he is
assuming from the very beginning what he wants to prove, and that he is not
explaining why the standard view of these things (that we learn in first
year calculus) is wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: "randy" <cryofan@mylinuxisp.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:19:52 +1000, you wrote:
>
> >At 03:53 PM 7/31/03 -0700, Jeff wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
> >
> >I see that this poorly written and somewhat Sokal-like piece of fluff is
> >attributed to a PR agent:
> >
> >Brooke.Jones@australia.edu
> > Independent Communications Consultant
> >
> >< "Naturally the parameter and boundary of their respective position and
> >magnitude are naturally determinable up to the limits of possible
> >measurement as stated by the general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's
> >uncertainty principle, but this indeterminacy in precise value is not a
> >consequence of quantum uncertainty. What this illustrates is that in
> >relation to indeterminacy in precise physical magnitude, the micro and
> >macroscopic are inextricably linked, both being a part of the same
parcel,
> >rather than just a case of the former underlying and contributing to the
> >latter." >
> >
> >Naturally. Yeep.
> >
> >Damien Broderick
>
> Slashdot discussion on this:
>
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/03/029213&mode=thread&tid=1
34
>
>
> -------------
> -Randy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 09:06:22 MDT