----- Original Message ----- From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 5:07 PM Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
> I wrote: > > >I'd love to see your opinion of it > > > when you get a chance. It's called the transactional interpretation, > >and > > > John Cramer's paper on this interpretation can be found at: > > > http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html > > Dan replied: > >Its been kicking around since David Bohm in the '50s. It had some support > >before the work of Bell and Wagner. > > > >The key sticking point with this interpretation is that it requires real > >hidden backwards in time signals. These signals violate causality... > > [major snip] > > Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate you taking the time to cover the > pros and cons. Did what I say make sense to you? Do my posts on QM make sense? Or are you just being polite? There are times I get very frustrated with my own ability to communicate ideas that are fairly clear to me. ;-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
