That show couldn't be more remote from my life: I'm not in school, haven't been for two years now. Never have been in a band of any kind. And being without a band or instrumental talent or the desire for either, any possibility for me to strike a deal with a record company is quite thoroughly gutted. Oh, and I've never surfed in L.A. with my fellow "dudes and dudettes" or drove around in my daddies beat-down 69' corvette. Only similarity to be found is dreamin.. two severly polarized and opposed kinds of dreamin that are about as familiar as Peaches and Mayo. 'less you have anything contrary to the above, that joyfully settles it- in either case that is. Good day.

I have always said there is no such thing as absolute truth. There is no contradiction between that and saying usefullness is a matter for pragmatics. A model is a model not because it is useful, something is useful because it is useful.

I'm sorry if that's the case. When I wrote "-like", I was honestly trying to convey what I later decribed to you in more detail. Besides, you're hardly one to talk; blabbering on about science being the quest for "absolute truth", (saying, if I recall correctly, that science couldn't be about producing pragmatic models of the world because there is nothing absolute in that) is hardly the best way to say: 'The purpose of science is to model the physical world, not to define it.'

'When scientists believed in Newtonian physics, it was still the case that 'reality' behaved in a Quantum-like manner.' is probably not the best way to say: 'The point I was trying to make was that reality (as any sane person understands its definition) hasn't changed; only our means of modelling it have.' As a member of a poetry site one would think you would work harder on your articulation.

As I mentioned in my previous post, all I mean by "quantum-LIKE" is that certain aspects of the physical world exhibit quantum-like behaviour, which is unexplainable in Newtonian terms. I have never claimed that the world does not contain Newtonian-like observables, for the very obvious reason that Newtonian mechanics gives you accurate (as verified by experiment) results for everyday objects travelling at low speeds. Does the world behave in a Newtonian-like manner? Yes, but it isn't exactly Newtonian because, for example, you don't seem to be able to go faster than light. Just as it probably isn't exactly Quantonian. Have a look at Quarton's stance: he is saying that when we believed in Newtonian mechanics, reality was exactly Newtonian, and there were no observables that could only be explained with Quantum physics; then when we dismissed Newtonian mechanics in favour of Quantum mechanics, Quarton thinks reality was exactly Quantonian, etc. The point I was trying to make was that reality (as any sane person understands its definition) hasn't changed; only our means of modelling it have. As to your stance on science, if you have consistently been arguing what I said in my last few sentences, then great! Because we agree, and have probably been bizarrely misinterpreting each other. Either that, or you're lying and haven't been consistently arguing that. I definitely have been arguing that. And in a mature and kindly manner, as well. Since you deleted the whole discussion, I GUESS WE'll NEVER KNOW LOL

'P.S I said the world behaved in a "quantum-LIKE" manner' Is no get out because you claim that the world did not work in a newton-model-like way when scientists believed in newtons model. By throwing out the newton model you are using very strict standards of usefulness which you must apply to the Quantum model. Also I have consistently said what you have said in your final sentences. I would go as far as to say any description that does not regard light (and we are not encompassing the physical properties of light) as purely light is making a jump accross modes that could be regarded as metaphysical. I've changed my mind about Quartons poem, as far as I am concerned he can write it about Newtonian mechanics if he wants. If he maintains internal consistency the poem does not fail. 'Call the roller of big cigars' I say to him.

Good eye! I thank you!

Thats part of my tribute to Allen Ginsberg... you should take a look at his poem "The Charnel Ground". That'll probly give more clarity to the issue.. heh..

is that like a porcelain henway?

Thanks, and I'll look for a meter tweak.

P.S I said the world behaved in a "quantum-LIKE" manner. I know that Quantum Physics isn't a perfect model, I'm fairly sure it will be changed at some point in the future, but the fact remains that many observable properties are quantum-like in that quantum mechanics gives a reasonably accurate model of their behaviour, where newtonian mechanics fails utterly. That won't change, nor has it ever been the case in the past that the physical world didn't exhibit such quantum-like properties. There are also many properties that can be explained using Newtonian mechanics, and yes these have also always been there, even before scientists knew about Newtonian mechanics. It is no coincidence that for objects travelling at low speeds, the model based on relativity, and Newton's model, both give you very similar results. What Quarton seems to have been suggesting is that before Newtonian mechanics, reality wasn't Newtonian in nature; then when Newtonian physics came along, reality was Newtonian; and when Quantum Physics came along, reality wasn't Newtonian, it was Quantonian, etc. One of the first things my Quantum physics lecturer said to me (and I only studied it in my first year at University) was "Light isn't a wave. Light isn't a particle. Light is light." His point was that the job of physics is to model the physical world, not to define it. Thanks for listening.

Zanken you dave i iz good to see someone gets it. yar deas ar my own brand of limericks i iz triing moor things later keep whatching diz space?