On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna > and I are talking about. > It is a form of cosmic entanglement. >
how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific idea or a catch-all explanation? > > However, if you recall I extrapolated from G&P's paper that black holes > must be intelligent to be monogamous > I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to include 'intelligent' - presumably conscious....black holes? What are they talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory before it comes up empirically? > And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on > the same basis. > same response as above -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
