Some comments:

1. I gotta get me some of THAT shit, Cedric.

2. Why do I get the feeling that Russell enjoys this for more than
scientific reasons? Is QM the current best friend of the theologian? *

3. The entities who run the simulation we are all living in will have to
increase resolution soon... or kill off all the quantum researchers... ;)

--
James.

*Here is a story that is totally inappropriate for this list, or maybe it is
appropriate; it doesn't attempt to prove anything improvable: When I was a
young man, my mom and I would drive about 1/2 hour each Sunday to attend a
fellowship in Applegate, OR. The pastor was a great speaker. One Sunday, he
made a comment predicting that when the scientists finally climb the last
hill of understanding, they will find the theologians sitting in the valley
on the other side. He went on to explain what is generally known about atoms
and that science has no real explanation for the nuclear binding force which
holds all the positively charged neutrons tightly together in the center of
each atom. He said that those neutrons should otherwise be flying apart due
to their like charges and the force that held them together was unknown; and
in his opinion, this force was none other than the mighty hand of GOD. He
went on to quote some scriptures on the subject. The congregation ooo'd and
ahhh'd. 

My faith vanished in that instant.

For I knew that religion has, again and again, throughout the ages,
attributed to the hand of GOD any number of things, both good and bad, that
were, at that point, unexplained by science. For some reason, I had never
through of it as a competition between science and religion until that
sermon. I just thought of poor, sad, uneducated peoples trying to find some
way to control their plight; to predict and influence their future and an
equally uneducated church leader trying to help them feel better about their
lives. But I realized that no matter how many times science shows the church
that there is a physical, real, reason for everything that happens, pastors,
no matter how well educated, will always try to claim that the point just
beyond the current reach of science is, smugly, their domain. And each time
science pushes on, they will trust that the people will forget, and readjust
their boarders, just a bit further into the unknown.

Perhaps there are religions that do not depend on cultivating this fear of
the unknown among their membership (in fact I know there are), and perhaps
there is some value in religion beyond addressing this fear. That is not my
point.

Please note that what I am discussing here is the sociology of the use of
the fear of the unknown to influence people. I am not saying that religions
are bad or good or otherwise: Only that many religious organizations use
that fear or promise to influence their membership, and many times, in the
past, when science has shown that it can right and truly conquer the
unknown, those same organizations have denigrated, persecuted, and even
killed men and women of science. This is a historical fact, not open to
debate.

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of
altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their
views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the
facts that needs altering." Doctor Who, Face of Evil



-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@MIT.EDU [mailto:piclist-bounces@MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of
Cedric Chang
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 20:58
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE]:: It's official - there is no reality - QM rulez - yay

I read the article and then tried entangling two blue couches.  It  
worked.  From across a 7 meter wide room I was able to rotate one  
couch with my hands and the other couch counter-rotated.  I then lost  
conciousness ( i think ).  Later I woke up and had cheese and wine  
with my best friend.  Talk about success !
cc


> On Jun 8, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Apptech wrote:
>
> This is not a joke.
>
>> From paper below:
>
>    " ... Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality  
> is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless  
> certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."
>

<SNIP>

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist