To me, Spanish makes everything sound greasy and ignorant. Lesson learned: Spanish doesn't make things sound beautiful, it makes things sound like what you think Spaniards are like.

No, that wasn't it at all, but again, thank you. If you ever have a question on a subject that I have expounded as fully as you've expounded here, don't hesitate to ask, and I'll try to answer just as helpfully.

Yes, thank you. Applestrophes and I just don't get along for some reason.

PS-I'm saying that because I imagine you thinking it's a great way to prove science wrong when all it will really do is prove you wrong.

There is a famous popular myth regarding electrons being seen in two places at once. I say it's a myth because the people spouting off about it don't have any more idea about it than if it were completely untrue (cf. yourself). As it happens, it is partly real and has mostly to do with the equation for the probability that an electron will be in a certain volume of space at a certain instant. The equation is defined for all space and time, with the result that the electron is calculated to be in all possible places at any instant, though when you actually observe an electron you find that it's actually only in one place at any instant. For reasons beyond my comprehension, some people say the wave function has "collapsed" at that point and it's some huge mystery. Now, since I've been nice and told you, let me make a serious suggestion that I hope you will seriously consider: PLEASE DON'T WRITE ABOUT THIS.

Are you ten years old?

Oh. I imagine there being all kinds of problems with that.

Lol!

Can't I? Oh, alright then.

You can't actually believe it's so mathematically simple?

No. For example, to say "Ian loves Felicity" is merely shorthand for "Ian experiences a strong, partially sexual attachment to Felicity, due to a combination of a hormonal response and envionmental factors," or something. If you say, "Ian is enamoured of his darling Felicity," then that doesn't add any information, it just makes it sound more soppy. QED.

"... which has now been replaced by the dynamic reality of quantum mechanics." Yes, that's right. Up until 1904, everyone in the scientific community believed that all objects were stationary.

I bet that is probably just popular science bullshit, or at least a discovery that has been made to sound much more weird and glamorous than it actually is by some journalist who doesn't really understand it.

You are a very silly person. Here is why: "Science could be called systematic knowledge of the physical or material world." No, Science is the mystical black art of trying things out to see if they are true or not. "It is "true" only to the extent that we trust our methods of measurement and observation. Many people, myself inluded, doubt that any real "truths" exist at the empirical level." Everybody thought of that when they were about five. It is just a useful approximation to assume that things exist and that inference is reliable. "In quantum mechanics, there exists a basic oneness that transcends the physical, more of an intuitive truth than a factual one." What? A basic oneness? Do you mean that all wavefunctions must be normalized to one? That is just a statement of the conservation of probability. Did you claim at some point to have a qualification in some kind of scientific discipline? Did your degree come off the back of a cereal packet or something? Now go away and think about what you've done.

No. Now read the following very, very carefully before continuing to bang on like an escaped nitwit with a saucepan stuck over his head. "Reality", as zodiac said earlier, is simply a word referring to all things that exist. To say that something is real is simply to say it exists, nothing more. To say something is unreal is to say it doesn't exist. Reality is the collection of things that are real -- that is what it means. Do you accept this? I'm sure you're going to think you don't. But shut up for a minute, and read this. You're claiming that if "humanity ceases to exist", i.e. if all humans die, then "so too would reality." Now there are TWO SEPARATE reasons why this is absurd, which if you're going to argue about you're going to have to address separately. 1. If all humans died of poison, the universe would not stop existing. This has been a subject of philosophical argument for centuries, so I'm not going to insist one way or the other. If you want to think the universe would stop existing, great. 2. Reality is a set. It is the set of all things that exist. Now if you know your elementary set theory, you know that no set can contain itself. Therefore reality does not contain itself. Therefore reality is not a "real thing" -- It is not something that you can say "exists". The idea that reality could exist or cease to exist is just wrong-headed. But according to you, "reality would cease to exist". This is trivially a paradox. Actually, the stupidest thing of all is that none of this has anything to do with quantum physics or scientific revolutions. Thanks!

Are you aware of how many times you've contradicted yourself on this page? PS-stop hitting return at the ends of your lines. It marks you as a world-class moron!

Thanks. But really it's about whether Quarton's poem is a festering mound of nonsense. When I called him on his crap science, he grasped for the bit about "reality becomes fantasy" and has clung on for his life ever since, though it's meant contradicting himself at every turn.

Reality is a human concept. Should humanity cease to exist, so too would reality. And the physical world Has changed and will continue to do so as we expand our knowledge. Our reality today may be rubbish tomorrow and what is left will be the oneness of all that we perceive to be separate. Kinda like the quantum effect where the parts are only manifestations of the whole.

P.S. You're an idiot.