Are you some sort of lunatic? To my knowledge, not a single person on this page has disputed the fact that there are significant differences between Quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics. Nor have they disputed the fact that Quantum mechanics is a better model of the physical world than Newtonian mechanics. All anyone has said is that although our models of the physical world have changed, the physical world itself hasn't changed. When scientists believed in Newtonian physics, it was still the case that 'reality' behaved in a Quantum-like manner. That hasn't changed. We just didn't know about it. You and zodiac have already both agreed that by 'reality' you actually mean 'our perception of reality'. This entire argument has nothing to do with whether or not anyone has read some popular science books. Its just a stupid dispute over the definition of the word 'reality'.

Listen buddy, you and Dark Angel are the ones with the foul language and name-calling. In fact, you started this whole thing. And once more for your feeble mind, the central theme in quantum mechanics is the basic inter-relationship and inter-connectedness of ALL things. It is a complete change in how physicists view the world and the old, Cartesian reality has been replaced by a perceived oneness. So the reality of Newton and other scientists of his time has been replaced by the new physics of quantum. Our reality Has changed, you dupe, but you are obviously unable to grasp such a basic and obvious fact. And don't be surprised if our current realities change once again as we gain more knowledge of the universe we all share. And PLEASE read a good book on quantum mechanics and spare me your obvious ignorance on the subject.

I don't find that it's necessary to make those distinctions. When I'm thirsty, the set of impressions which I call a coffee cup do a decent job getting the set of impressions I call liquid where I want them. I guess you could call that a guffy way to deal with the problem of coffee-cup existence/nonexistence - and it is. And it's convenient. If it's ever not - if, say, a coffee cup suddenly becomes gaseous in my hand or fails to act according to my notion of gravity - I'll have to modify my behavior to account for the change. I imagine I would be pretty level-headed about it, anyway, but it hasn't happened yet. At any rate, I do believe there's a reality of "coffee cup" only dimly perceived and expressed by me. Why shouldn't there be?

You've been so helpful. Thank you so much!!!

Before I tell you (clue: and it's not as fearsome and 'reality-shattering' as you think!) I want to ask you something: Why are you so excited about using some bit of science you admittedly don't know very much about in a poem? Considering that all of the science-poem lovers on this site have long ago admitted to finding science bunk and a really piss-poor way of looking at 'reality' (or 'realities'), does it not strike you that you're in the middle of a giant contradiction? I see two possible explanations: 1) That you think science needs to be shot down, tied to the back of a pickup truck, and dragged through town for its narrow-minded hubris; and the best way you can think of doing this is by using the language of science against it; or 2) That science-words give your poem a credibility and appearance of depth which other words don't, even though you don't personally know much about science or think it's necessary to know much about science other than it's bad. And can't you see that both of these ideas are first-rate crap? For one thing, nobody even remotely connected with science on this site has said anything like you imagine scientists (on, say, "The Hulk") saying. They don't believe their current ideas about 'reality' are correct and infallible. They don't cling to some disproven notion, or discount the possibility of other models for things. In short, they don't cackle madly, mutter myopically over beakers in basement labs, oblivious to the 'reality' going on around them, or anything of the sort, except in the guff daydreams of silly young poets. Besides, since practically no one on this site can manage to use a science-word coherently in a sentence, and since a scientist is likely to consider incoherent babble rather meaningless, then it's not like you're going to hurt them, nor anyone else who believes in science, reason, or anything except floundering guff-talking. As for possibility 2 - well, clearly they don't, since science poems, like this poem, are almost always obviously wrong. Wouldn't it work a lot better, seem deeper, etc., if you simply used language and concepts you were familiar with instead of the foreign language of science? You're asking about a dust-particlee being observed in two places at once - Can you not think of A SINGLE EXAMPLE of something similar in your everyday life? (Hint: I can!) Why don't you just use that instead?!!?!

Ahh, but tell me this zodiac: do you make a distinction between an object and its sensible properties? You can see your coffee cup, you can touch it, and if you tap it with your spoon you can hear it ping. Are all these properties what you mean by the word "coffee cup", or do you think the coffee cup is the 'thing itself', something separate from what we might say about the coffee cup?

I have a friend who speaks incredible, erection-inducing Russian. I think Arabic, the language I'm learning now, is beautiful, though most people say it sounds like crap.

How do you think Spanish makes the mundane sound beautiful?

Yes.

Yes, the bit from -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment which you quoted is perfectly specific. It leaves no room for any confusion about either what kind of people -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. likes to help or how he likes to help them. Anyone even halfway literate knows -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. likes to "help people who are colossal boobs by telling them they're colossal boobs". For that matter, so do I. You are a colossal boob. Three days into this conversation, you still have no idea what's the difference between somebody's perception of reality and reality itself. You're still talking about how some "reality may be once again proven to be bogus", which is not only grammar-rape but STILL TOTALLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! And instead of even TRYING to get it, you've tossed a bunch of nasty names around here, calling -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. and I and a lot of other people "simpletons", "clothes-minded", and "hopeless crippled introverts", and generally made a HUGE FLOUNDERING BOOB out of yourself. But let me tell you something: I least we can grasp the basic concept of most English words (especially science-words such as "reality") having specific and more-or-less inviolable meanings, while you still fancy them some kind of unwieldy rank meat-hat signifying 'winner' with every burbling sweet-sick exhalation.

Obviously your grasp of Spanish is extremely weak. The reason I like this poem is because it is completely accurate. Spanish makes even the mundane sound beautiful.

Speaking from Paris, a dubius distance from France, I agree that the last verse is a good stand-alone poem, but the first two stories don't match up, so commenting in general on the "poem" I'd have to say it's more of a line-broken story.