At 15:46 17/12/96 -0600, you wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:
>
>[CLIP]
>
>> >2) There's a big oversight when you have two high-power theories [explain
>> >much, extensively verified] that are immiscible [like oil and water].
>> >The problem is, *where* the oversight is, is unknown.
>>
>> That's very very interesting. This is presumably thing like the EPR paradox
>> etc... here's one for XYZ... Einstein's mates and Bohm's posse, the two
>> gangs that have explained the most phenomena ever, each with townsful of
>> evidence, fighting it out, locked in debate. That'll be memes competing for
>> brainspace, then.
>
>The EPR paradox, superficially, is a linguistic problem. I'm thinking of
>garbage like nonconservation of mass-energy, or the sudden lack of
>existence of a particle in the nonrelativistic domain.
Superficial? Linguistic problems? I don't ENCODE many of my science-related
opinions in non-linguistic terms. BUT I'm sure you're other examples are
equally important. Cool.
The memetic equivalent of a G3 bullpup-design assault rifle blowing a full
clip at my opponent.
-Alex Williams
Phonecalls: 01494 461648 Phights: 10 Riverswood Gardens
High Wycombe
HP11 1H
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 23 2002 - 04:00:34 MDT