🚀 go-pugleaf

Monsieur André Michaud
Je suis content de vous voir écrire sur ce forum, de constater la
pugnacité toujours effective de l'adversaire acharné des idioties de
Copenhague, l'adversaire du refus des causalités par le fasciste
Heisenberg.
Celui-ci cherchait à protéger son héros du déterminisme antérieur : il
ne fallait pas le Fürher soit déterminé par toute l'histoire humaine
antérieure.
Son apologie imbécile de la "volonté" n'est que propagande éhontée
pour le facisme.===========
Mr André Michaud
I am glad to see you writing on this forum, to note the always
effective pugnacity of the keen adversary of idiocies of Copenhagen,
the adversary of the refusal of causalities by the Heisenberg fascist.
This one sought to protect its hero from the former determinism: one
did not need Fürher is determined by all the former human history.
Its idiotic apology for the “will” is only shameless propaganda for
the facism.

===================
Au fait, monsieur Michaud:quand allez vous donc cesser de me
considérer come transparent ?
Quand allez vous vous décider à répondre
 -ou aux courriers que je vous ai envoyés, il y a plusieurs années,
sur vos deux boîte-aux-lettres
- ou aux messages publics que j'ai rédigés suite aux vôtres.
PS les inégalités de Heisenberg contiennent UNE chose et rien
d'autre : il existe un photon , le plus massif avec la plus courte
longueur d'onde.
La quantification des longueurs d'onde est un ajout.
=========================
With the fact, Mr Michaud: when thus cease regarding me as
transparency?
When will decide to you to answer
 - or with the mails that I sent to you, several years ago, on your
two letter-box
- or with the public messages which I wrote following yours.
PS the inequalities of Heisenberg contain a thing and anything else:
there exists the photon, most massive with the shortest wavelength.
The quantification wavelengths is an addition.
=========================

On 1 mai, 20:58, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 1 mai, 09:58, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 9:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
>
> > > THERE IS NO such proof.
>
> > > There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
> > > there is no "in -between".
>
> > > There is no proof of this. None.
>
> > > If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
> > > whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
> > > existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
> > > with probability .5 say.
>
> > > Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
> > > math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
> > > to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
>
> > > There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
> > > that does not prove that this is universally true.
>
> > > The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
> > > a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
> > > somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
> > > of solutions _is_ a dichotomy.
>
> > You confuse indeterminate solutions with existence or no of solutions.
>
> > There are systems of logic where the law of excluded middle is not
> > used, i.e. pV~p is not required for consistency.
>
> > In QM something neither exists nor it does not, until you observe it.
>
> This is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The non-copenhagen
> interpretation (causalist) simply is that QM is unable to determine
> whether something exists or not while it is not being observed.
>
> André Michaud
>
> > Maybe, by sending telescopes in space, we are changing the universe
> > and affecting the way it operates. By the way, this is not my crackpot
> > theory, some well-known phycists came up with it.
>
> > Mike