Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:24:47 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 14:39:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 27, 2002 at 12:26:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On September 27, 2002 at 12:18:17, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I did not understand the second reply of Rolf so I did not answer >>>about it. >>> >>>Uri >> >>What exactly didn't you understand? >> >>Rolf Tueschen >I did not understand the following words of you: > >******************************************************************************* >"But Uri, this is only true if you forget about the morphic field influence >(Sheldrake) for a moment! Because in reality the 8 taken cups still exert their >full power of probability on the single left cup in 'their' _camp_!!! So that is >a force you can't deny, no? > >Rolf Tueschen" >******************************************************************************* > > >To be more specific: > >I did not understand what is the meaning of the following expressions: > >1)morphic field influence(Sheldrake) > >2)the 8 taken cups still exert their >full power of probability on the single left cup in 'their' _camp_!!! > >Uri Oh yes, now I see. Thanks for the question. I speak in all honesty, ok?! For me the explanation that for the scenario of a single unique trial, people here and also this famous woman with IQ 228 could only think more than a nano second about the possible rise/ increase of the probability of the door the host left and did not open, just by the magic (??) opening of 1 door or maybe some million doors, is so unreal, to omit other expressions, that I wanted to help out with this known force of morphic fields. That is a force found by Sheldrake, a British expert, which allows the influence of a living entity, I forgot if it's also true for not-living entities, like sand or stone, on a specific place -- although the entity is already gone and living at another place. You know the known long-distance contact of twins or animals. Because the increase for the doors is impossible to be explained by probability alone. There must be another force somehow. n my post the Proof I proved why probability lost the fight against me, better my argument. Hopethis helps. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.