= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
endoself comments on Identity Isn't In Specific Atoms - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
You are insane.
Feel free to make further claims you have no evidence for. Here's an article from arXiv you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4144
I'm surprised that you put arXiv in the same class you put whatever it is you mean by journals. Maybe I should take the above article seriously? After all, arXiv makes it available. Get out of town.
I never stated that every paper on the arXiv was good.
You have neither confirmed nor denied my actual statement.
I'm not sure what your point is here. If you stick quantum mechanics and Maxwell's equations together, everything is entailed, but quantum electrodynamics did not give identity back to specific particles. It would be very unlikely for quantum gravity to do that either; certain parts of nature fit perfectly into a very rigid structure and the basic framework of quantum mechanics can be explained but will probably not be eliminated. You can't point to a specific part of a theory and say "the theory is wrong, so that result is wrong"; theories get improved, but they still have to have enough of the same structure to derive the results already tested by experiment.