🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1/10/2010 4:51 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote >
>> ----
>> 1 Is there intelligent life anywhere in the Galaxy other than Earth?
>> Look again
>>
>> 2 Does dark matter really exist?
>> that must have been an illusion
>>
>> 3 Was there really a lost city called Atlantis?
>> Not my house - a house of merchandise
>> (house = place to live = city of treasure)
>>
>> 4 Does Qantum phase entanglement represent something real?
>> Tourist who lost his way.
>> (Is he a real citizen??)
>>
>> 5 Is there a binary, or greater, neutron star pair near enough to render
>> humans extinct when they merge as a result of radiating gravity waves?
>> Hermanas, La Cinta, La Ibense, Los Parientes, El Bar Angeles
>> (to name a few)
>>
>> 6 Will a single theory-of-everything ever prevail?
>> "I'm sorry" he said.
>> ---
>>
>> "Look again" could equally apply to Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5. Ok, not Q6.
>
> No, it's most definitely a hit with Q1, looking for aliens.

Why not looking for dark matter, or Atlantis, or the reality underlying 
Qantum entanglement, or the neutron stars that will destroy humankind? I 
really cannot see what's special about Q1.

>
>
>
>>
>> "That must have been an illusion" could apply to Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4.
>
> No, best hit is obviously DARK MATTER,

> it matches the grammar of Quantum Entanglement but since it's proven
> to exist it doesn't match the context.

Quantum entanglement exists in the mathematics, but the question 
specifically relates to whether it represents something real. Perhaps 
Quantum entanglement is a mathematical artefact, and in a recasting of 
QM, albeit with the same predictions, quantum entanglement would be 
replaced by something rather different whose real counterpart was rather 
more obvious. In that sense, Quantum entanglement would be an illusion.

After all, it seemed clear that light consisted of real waves. The 
mathematics described a wave. Light diffracted, reflected and iterferred 
like a wave. Yet, in the end, it became apparent that light does not 
consist of real waves - the waves are in the mathematics, not in the 
real world.

>
>
>>
>> "Not my house - a house or merchandise" I wouldn't have picked any. I
>> haven't thought of Atlantis as being a city of treasures. Maybe that
>> just means my knowledge of the legend of Atlantis is lacking, but if
>> so that's the situation in which I would have been working.
>
> Anybody could spot HOUSE OF MERCHANDISE as a match for
> CITY OF ATLANTIS.
>
> Absolutely trivial.

It may be trivial, but I have stated that I could not spot it. I can't 
see what possible grounds you have for disbelieving me.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> "Tourist who lost his way". I'd say Q1 only. Specifically not Q4 -
>> your link between tourist and citizen is not a link I would be
>> inclined to make, not even after seeing it.
>>
>> "Hermanas, ..." I would have no clue about.
>>
>> "I'm sorry" - could be a negative answer to any question that
>> contained a suggestion that the questioner is hoping for a an
>> affirmative answer, or an affirmative answer where the questioner is
>> likely hoping for a negative answer (as in my Q5).
>>
>
>
> You had no inside info on "I'm sorry" RE: me being the author,
> but with only a few options left the last 3 are easy too.

At this stage I don't only have a few options left, because I am unable 
to allocate the first few.

>
> That was out of SIX options and quite easy to score well.

>
> With TWO options - me against a control selective a true random phrase
> it is TRIVIAL TO PROVE PSYCHIC CHANNELING.
>
> I've heard your "I DUNNO" copout again and again, leave it.

Remember, I'm not saying that your matches are wrong. I'm saying that 
other people won't be able to spot them, which will mess up the test. 
You think the matches are self-evident, but they're not to me. I see no 
reason to think they'd be self-evident to other people.

Sylvia