User talk:Really2012back

Dispute resolution

Hi, Really. You suggested that I threatened dispute resolution. Note that it wasn't a threat. Per WP:CONSENSUS we should agree on changes. If we can't agree, then there are mechanisms for mediating our differences. TimidGuy (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG I agree wwith you completely. However, looks like we are now working towards a consensus, or at least heading that way - which is good for the artcle. Look forward to working with you, Peace my friend Really2012back (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really. And peace to you. TimidGuy (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Really, I appreciate the apology, and the lovely little picture.(olive (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi Really2012...thanks!!!!

Hi Really,

At WTBDWK, you made a comment "I'm quite serious about this - if I get one more first year undergraduate student throwing up a question about quantum physics and consciousness again, based on the fact that they think a lot of scientists support this nonsense, I'll scream. Might be fine for a theology or philosophy lecture but there are limits.

Wow did you say a mouthful, and I've been meaning to stop by here to say hi since you posted it! I share your concerns, I have dealt with the same frustrations as you describe (both personally and professioanlly) for quite some time.

I'm commenting here rather than at the talk page...because the one thing there that seems least welcome in these topics is a "middle" point of view, it gets criticized and flamed from both extremes and just makes things worse.

Teaching physics in California is particularly difficult in this area (in this context, a friend once reminded me that California is the largest exporter of fruits and nuts in the world) so in "Quantum Enigma", Rosenblum and Kuttner speak from that perspective, share your experience and your frustrations, and propose a solution.

"Since quantum theory works perfectly, for all practical purposes physicists can ignore -- even deny -- any mystery. But by doing so, we leave the aspects of the theory that most intrigue nonphysicists to misleading presentations such as, to take just a single example, the movie What the Bleep? The real quantum enigma is not only more fascinating than the "philosophies" such treatments espouse, it is more bizarre. Understanding the true mystery requires a bit more mental effort, but it's well within the grasp of an intelligent nontechnical person." Here are more snippets.

Thought you might want to check out the book and see if it helps bring some peace, and thanks for your contributions to the discussion, and (especially) for joining in support of the mediation.... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page style

Hi, Really. Maybe follow this guideline regarding avoiding excessive markup on the Talk page. [1] TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC) And while I'm giving advice . . . You might want to consider getting involved in other articles so that you don't appear to be a single purpose account. This will be especially helpful to you if we go to mediation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that TG - but I am already involved in other articles - but kind advice. Addition: Oddly we seem to be involved in many of the same articles.

Sorry TG - the excessive markup was not excessive. It appeared that you and Olive were not seeing the bits I was referring to. it was not shouting my friend but highlighting

I'm sorry to be such a pest on your talk page. It would be great if you could point to the specific policy where you got this[2]. Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG. Your never a pest my friend. You can find both here - my apologies for not providing the link orginally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Business_and_Commerce

Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. I may have a solution you will like. Need to think about it a bit. More tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Really thank you for these comments . I do not in any way feel you are denigrating my spiritual beliefs. I expect we are all trying to be neutral, and I haven't seen you make remarks that indicate you are making comments about my belief system. The editing of the article is a neutral issue for me. I can't allow my belief system, whatever that may be to get tied up with the article for personal reasons but also for editing reasons.I think your comments on the article have helped us all look the thing from multiple perspectives and that can only be good for the article.(olive (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

No, not a rumour and thank you for your thoughts . In reality, as many have noted he seems to continue on. Huge numbers of people from all over the world are converging on India where he will be placed in the Ganges River.The great Indian saints from all over the country are expected to converge and the shankarcharya will officiate. Its not a sad time it seems, but a time of great celebration for a life lived to the highest of standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding my thanks. I hope to draft the paragraph today that we discussed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC

Apropos of nothing -- other than that I believe you're in the U.K. The BBC was here last week. A whole film crew. Someone by the name of Stephen Frye. I'd never heard of him. So is he famous there? He stopped me as I was walking to our daily group meditation and did a very brief interview. I flubbed -- doubt I said anything that will make it on air. But I was really impressed with him as a person -- he was charming and kind. TimidGuy (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your questions...

I will try to explain and perhaps apologize at the same time. My reaction to what I interpret (perhaps incorrectly) to be your "vaguely worded denigrations" of people and ideas...both on and off Wikipedia...who choose to believe in the mystery, when also combined with what (again, I interpret -- correctly or not) to be your appeals to personal authority based on your academic position -- to be an ever so subtle form of discrediting attack -- at least that is my personal reaction.

You will note my previous visit to your talk page was spurred by your characterization of quantum derived belief systems as "nonsense". My sensitivites in this regard were triggered again by your comment at WTBDWK -- the one that I posted on the other editors talk page -- but you will note that I did so in as discrete a manner as possible.

If I have misconstrued your intent, or if I have misinterpreted your previous comments, as is certainly possible, please accept my sincere apology.

I am not able, and indeed in honesty can not, apologize for the effect your comments in these contexts have had on me personally. Take that for what it is worth, if anything.

I will look to you to be respectful of other belief systems and hope you will join me in chastising, when and where appropriate, comments directed to other editors that may be seen as disrespectful of any given editor's beliefs.

Again, if I have misinterpreted your comments, I do apologize. WNDL42 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Really...Bleeping critics!!! - Victor Stenger

Sure and thanks for asking...I posted it just earlier here

Also. just this week, Stenger has released a pre-press version here of an article to be published in the March 2008 editions of Skeptical Briefs, which again reiterates the connection to "Bleep" - quoting Stenger's latest (snipped for...brevity);

In 1989 the eminent Oxford mathematician and cosmologist Roger Penrose published a bestselling tome called The Emperor’s New Mind that was packed with wonderful material on physics, mathematics, and computers...Fine, so far. But then he went off the deep end with the incredible proposal that the actual mechanism had something to do with quantum gravity...met with considerable skepticism...also among physicists who could not see what quantum gravity could possibly have to do with a large, hot structure such as a brain...Penrose then teamed up with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff in proposing a model for how quantum mechanics operates in the brain. Here’s how they explain it: According to the principles of OR [objective reduction, proposed by Penrose in his 1994 book Shadows of the Mind], superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometries. When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to a sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state, thus preventing “multiple universes.” In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum classical reduction occurs and one or the other is chosen. Thus consciousness may involve self-perturbations of space-time geometry. Hameroff was one of the subjects interviewed in the 2004 independent documentary film What the Bleep Do We Know? That film...exploited the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality (see Reality Check September, 2007). In his Scientific American column of January 2005, Michael Shermer give Bleep a scathing review. Referring to the Penrose-Hameroff model, Shermer references my 1995 book The Unconscious Quantum that discussed their proposal in some detail as well as the general question of whether the brain is a quantum device...

Thanks Really, that was the nicest thing to say...enjoy your WP:TEA WNDL42 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the section as per your request.(olive (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)