Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus74  Most, if not all, experts on the field wouldn't agree with his ideas. |
To be honest, Fred doesn't really have any original ideas. His real contribution is taking the work of Einstein, Bohm, Bohr and others, and translating it into a more accessible format.
It is true that the experts do not all agree with each other.
For example, Everett insists that there are multiple universes, and every time a consciousness (it could be you) makes a measurement (eg checks the lottery spin machine to see what numbers have come out), the universe divides again.
However, Bohm says that the balls simply do not exist, unless and until a consciousness focuses on them - leaving open the question of what would happen to the balls, if the consciousness were to change in any way (eg it think different thoughts about the balls).
Etc etc.
The point is that you are losing objectivity.
When I tell you about LOA in a simpler way, you say it's weird and unscientific.
When I tell you about PhD physicists whose views suggest that LOA might be true, you suggest that they are fruitcakes. For no other reason than that their views suggest that LOA might be true.
I pointed you to people like Bohm, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, and alluded to his research - which suggests, at the very least, that:
(1) reality is very far from what you think it is; and
(2) consciousness affects reality (nothing is real unless it is observed).
If you were open-minded, at this point you should at least sit up and wonder about LOA. But no, I guess you're about to say that David Bohm, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, is also a fruitcake.
By the way, Anna Kulagina was studied for years by Russian scientists researching her psychic powers. I bet you also think that the Russian scientists are fruitcakes. Ditto for the American scientists and Czech scientists who were also invited to do research on her.