Twice :) (The second time, you actually understand what he's talking about. I'm of the opinion that GEB is actually an interlocking 3- dimensional concept map that just had the misfortune to have to be presented in the form of linear writing [there's actually a partial 2-D version of this on page 370]. Stupid human limitations...)
Unum Plurum wrote:
Well, actually, my point was to lead to a discussion on this, but I'm too stoopid when it comes to quantum physics (or at least as yet ignorant) to adequately debate about it. And that's really all I have to say, as everything else seems to be in agreement with what I would say.
Damn, I killed the thread by saying too much again, didn't I? Gotta stop doing that... And the way I see it, a
discussion is an exchange of ideas and arguments, where the participants are willing to change their opinions. A
debate is a useless practice where the participants bludgeon each other with their opinions, with neither side is willing to change their minds (think "presidential debate"). The only possible use of the latter is for the sake of any spectators. If you really want to know more about quantum physics, you might want to try Richard Feynman's
QED. It leaves a lot out, so I can't recommend it as strongly as GEB (a lot of acronyms with these physics books...), but it's a good place to start.