"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:56:25 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...

Powell wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged
animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude
that the precence of sound difference which
physically exist could be directly verified and
attributed to them -- by listening?

From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry
information only (no energy) and are available
throughout time and space without any loss of
intensity after they have been created.

Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been
around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have
never been scientificially proven to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance

Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study
of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial
machines" like CD players as it is neither a
biological or crystalline system.

WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous
systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully
understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on
it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop
puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than
his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when
he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis.

A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:

http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html

This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy.
It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is
a
closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic
system. The axioms may be viewed at
http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publ...nmagIndigo.pdf

The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are
puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for
the
"correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers
of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that
prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system.

Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify
speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is
pointless.
Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to
associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum
mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the
axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of
reasoning.

The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's
musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand
that
merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another
example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and
free
will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the
"apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at
Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes
this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but
capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference.


I'm glad you cleared that up for us, Robert. It was keeping me awake.

On Robert's behalf, you are welcome.
SHP (good twin)