Get Meta, or, Talking About Talking About
"Anything you can do, I can do meta..." ---Douglas Hofstadter, "Godel, Escher, Bach".
Philosopher Thomas Nagle sparked discussion with a paper entitled "What Is It Like To Be A Bat?" Daniel Dennett points out that he did not ask what it's like to be a brick. I'll point out that bricks and bats don't (it seems likely) ask what it's like to be anything. But the foundation of our version of self-awareness seems to involve pretty much nothing but knowing what something is like. Or more generally, everything we do, and think about, is about something.
"Aboutness" is another way of referring to meaning, inspired by Jon Stewart telling Jim Cramer "This song ain't about you." He was referring to Carly Simon's song that famously referred to, while claiming not to, James Taylor.
The world seems to be trending toward a recursive runaway. Stuff exists, but we are the main thing worrying about why it does. We worry that it might mean something that there is anything (actually, most of us hope so, fervently). Bats are less likely to worry so, if the lack of recorded songs or published arguments on the topic are an indication.
I mention recursion because I feel there is a noticeable escalation in the "about" factor present in today's headlines. The best news coverage is about the news coverage. Politics is about Reagan, or FDR. Movies are based on comic book characters. And the best threads here are often about blogging in general or TPM in particular.
Being aware of being aware, or self-awareness, is a simulation trick, maybe. In the movie "Apollo 13", the Mission Control folks in Houston try one after another workaround for the damaged systems on the spacecraft. Instead of trying to invent new engineering, they just use a simulator, in their case an actual piece of hardware. It's easier to do this until you hit something that works, if your goal is only that. Since it meant life or death, rigorous theory was kinda secondary. Note the word "meant"; the source of meaning is life and death. But only living things die, and self-aware things make movies about it.
That living things live or die is how and why they evolve. If a proton's expected lifetime is greater than the age of the universe, it's safe to say it doesn't much care who wins. But we do (see, Super Bowl, Cold War, Rapture). And we talk about it.
"You know it seems the
more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it,
But let's talk about it;
Wouldn't it be nice?"
("Wouldn't It Be Nice To Live Together?", Beach Boys)
Neurologist Antonio D'Amasio ("The Feeling of What Happens") writes about the observable modeling going in the brain, seen with functional MRI and PET scans. He can point to where we hold a representation of our physical state, such as the large-muscle stuff, and other conditions. It doesn't seem a stretch to assume we can hold a model of our current thinking. I use the term loosely, since it is less accurate but sounds more organic than "low-level automatic prioritizing-by-popularity-contest". Once we can think "about" the tentative decision to buy the BMW instead of the Ford, we are self-aware. The self was fine with the Beemer, but once it was echoed, the awkward note of "What would Sheila think?" made it a different question.
In an essay called "What Would a Neuron Want?", Dennett points out that brain cell death, the winnowing that happens during development, is correlated with not enough interconnections. The nutrition of a particular cell is apparently dependent on how many friends it has. And the multiple-module functioning of the brain shown in MRI images, when nothing we think of is restricted to lighting up only one location, is explainable with the FaceBook model of decision-making. When there are enough votes for an outcome, action occurs. This is not what most of you do involves, only those things which you stop to consider consciously. (Other actions may be effectively hard-wired stuff like walking, or ducking thrown shoes.) But we have those "mirror" neurons, that are shown to light up in sympathy to another person apparently experiencing pain or pleasure. They are involved in lots of unconscious brain activity, and presumably are the foundation, once reflected a few more times, of self-consciousness.
Is society becoming self-aware? What would a society want?
First item in that priority list would be survival, by definition, since the alternative negates itself in short order. As one biologist said, there are countless ways of being dead, and only a few for being alive. Why hasn't there been a nuclear war? The number of really close calls is unsettling, being substantially greater than zero.
Number two in the "wants" column might be having something to "think" about. And is thinking best described as a thorough exploration of the various scenarios, conflicts, outcomes that a proposition yields? Is that why we never stop fighting? Or watching TV talking heads? Or TV beheadings?
Is God just society deciding what it wants? Consider that if there is a full stop coming, an E.L.E. end-of-universe thing, meaning vanishes. Only the future supports meaning in the present, and can keep the past alive. Thus various versions of Afterlife, which list now includes Second Life, (more like a second mortgage, perhaps, but you don't have to wait). I'm kind of fond of physicist Frank Tipler's version, of a distant-future civilization employing Big-Bang-scale power to compute a simulation/reincarnation of every individual (that they know of or care about).
Fun to talk about it, isn't it?
Well-written, thought-provoking post. I've read a bit about the origin of consciousness and what it means to be self-aware. I'm hearing a lot lately about what some consider the next stage in our evolutionary process-the rise of social consciousness. Sort of a "global brain", as theoretical physicist Peter Russell puts it. He wrote about a kind of "10 billion threshold". It took 10 billion atoms to create, or provide the prerequisite complexity for the earliest and simplest forms of life. It took 10 billion cells to create the next evolutionary stage--the human brain; we became self-aware. Capable of reflecting on individual consciousness. We are now approaching the next evolutionary phase, another 10 billion milestone--that is 10 billion human brains. And that, he believes, will give rise to social consciousness. Now the whole "10 billion" number is not meant to be exact, maybe it's 7 billion, 9 billion, his point is that there do seem to be these stages of critical mass, a certain complexity must be reached before each leap is made.
I hope I haven't bastardized his thinking here, just trying to add to the discussion.
March 14, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh TPM Gary, I read something about that 20 years ago when I was deep in sci fi. How it would be like a fine net around the earth. I want to say the writer called it an oo oosphere. I finally stopped talking about what a great idea it was after about the tenth time I was called a weirdo. I do wish I could remember more about it but I don't. Well, here we are. I just googled oosphere and ended up with noosphere and then I got this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere.
How wonderful to rediscover that. I have so often thought of the idea over the years (silently to myself!) Thank you TPMgary for leading me back. And thank you Tom for the great post. For some reason I cannot fully grasp the concept of meta though I have tried. I have trouble with understanding humility too. I read the definitions but I am just not comfortable with my knowledge of those two words. But I enjoy reading posts like yours a lot.
March 14, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bet this is fun to talk about.
"I'll point out that bricks and bats don't (it seems likely) ask what it's like to be anything."
That is just one of five really fine lines in this essay of yours. Make that ten or twenty. I will come back. This hungry neuron thing. Gees.
"The nutrition of a particular cell is apparently dependent on how many friends it has"
I think, therefore...I was just thinking about this virtual universe. I will actually dream I am blogging. hahahhaa
What is an urge? A selfish urge. Decades ago, middle class people would say, if only I had a million dollars. Is the urge the consciousness or the striving to satisfy the urge?
Madoff did not feel safe to plead guilty until there was 70 million dollars waiting for him.
The theory of relativity. I want more. So that 'Iam' translates somehow into 'I want more'.
I am lost right now. I sure hope this catches fire tonight. I want to see the reaction of others. Gary's reaction was great.
March 14, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He was referring to Carly Simon's song that famously referred to, while claiming not to, James Taylor."
Whoa! Are you ever out of the loop!
.
.
.
Carly Simon wrote this song long before she married JT
March 14, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Details, details.... get on the meta foot.
March 14, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Curly Tail. TomW is writing about the human mind and I am supposed to worry about Simon?
Oh and
DONT DRINK THE WATER.
hahaha
March 14, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're right that she marrie him later, but she was known to have had some relations with him before the song release. I forgot that several other friends/lovers were considered subjects of that song, as well.
March 14, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
warren beatty
March 15, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Met a meta too too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOqD3uMIRs
March 14, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
March 15, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tom. Thanks for this. Just some wandering thoughts, down here at the bottom....
I tend not to ponder to much whether (or when) the Earth or society will become "self-aware" in some new sense, but focus more on what it/we will become aware OF. I think if we forge connections to NEW things or ideas or form new or new kinds of relationships, and we find them interesting or satisfying enough that other people follow & strengthen those connections... then sooner or later we'll either have created this "self-awareness" thingie, or not.
Now shift to simulation & Apollo 13. Ok, in many ways, Earth has become Apollo 13. We were headed somewhere, and we blew some gaskets, sprang some leaks. The economy as the big fat obvious example, but there were lots of other holes and weaknesses - the "environment" just being one. So... what if the web and these lovely little niches we've developed, such as TPM, are little "simulators," like the one back in Houston, where we can test-drive new solutions? The global mind, being called into action, in 000's of little simulators... right when humanity blew up its main spaceship?
Because there's a problem with the fact that you identified that "the best news coverage is about the news coverage." I think that's incredibly useful... and problematic. To the degree that more & more people are becoming aware of incredible distortions, shallowness and misguided nature of "the news" (and this tends to sweep wider and wider with every go, taking in politics, the media, etc.) then people may get freed up to move to make new connections, forge new networks, support new ideas. i.e. Once they're no longer absorbed inside the news, but can get some leverage outside it, new things can happen.
But on the negative side, there's absolutely no guarantee the new ideas they grasp will be smart, forward-thinking ones, ones that will help spring loose a good future for us. Rather, they may well be weighted toward some of our deepest, darkest, heaviest brain patterns - violence, xenophobia, picking out one institution for blind trust, dividing us along simplistic old villain/hero, evildoers/victim lines, etc.
Which is why I have such difficulty with the repetition, even on this site, of messages which are - in essence - "mainstream." Like support for Keynesianism, or repetition that we need "re-regulation," or that certain bad individuals simply need to go to jail. These things strike me as "old" solutions, and to forecast that they'll resolve our problems is basically to say, "I'm going to blank out any fuller picture of what's been going on. Blank out any possibility or probability that things might get much much worse. And blank out the possibility or NEED for ideas or actions which are larger or surprising or innovative or newer or older etc."
It'd be the equivalent of a non-self-conscious ape coming "awake," and using this new power simply to do more of the same. Maybe that's how it happened historically, and maybe we have to do the same, and maybe that quantitative extension of what we've been doing will eventually lead to qualitative change, and maybe that's all to the good. I don't know. But where are our equivalents to step-changes like - cave paintings and stone tools and domesticated animals and cooked food and and and....
Which pokes at the issue of survival as our #1 goal. Lots of individuals and peoples have died or been killed or gone extinct. It's not that they didn't want to survive. It's that maybe they didn't know HOW to adjust or change or create, but just.... kept... hitting... that... same... button.... Running that same routine.
Nuff' & too much said. Thanks again for the post TW.
March 15, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Geoffrey miller's answer to the fermi paradox?
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens/
March 15, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that. The last two paras had me laughing. Too close to my clan. "They will combine the family values of the religious right with the sustainability values of the Greenpeace left."
Truth is, I don't see the details of our electronic fascination and consumer-mania as some independent "evolutionary stage" so much as the trappings it's taken on during a quite particular economic, political and cultural period. The corporate lords have tried to hard to tell us they created it, they're driving it, and we should just lie back in our pods and suck... but I'm not sure it's going to move very much in the direction they've described.
Good link though! ;-)
March 15, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice link! a little response below...
March 15, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin, great link. Fits right in with Q's comments. Fermi, I have heard about him before.
March 15, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I read you: We need to put things together in novel ways. If so, I sure agree. Think through the dross. That may be why the "take down" of Cramer was such a bombshell. There's too little real thinking going on.
March 15, 2009 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If society is becoming self-aware, it does not follow that it becomes wise. After all, people are (we assume) self-aware, and few of us wise.
We're just the operators in Searle's Chinese Room, and we hope it understands what it's doing.
March 15, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If society is becoming self-aware, it does not follow that it becomes wise."
I really hate it when you manage to sum up one of my 28 paragraph slobberings in one sentence, Tom. ;-)
March 15, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
re strange philosophical obsessions with China based thought experiments - I quite like Ned Block's China Brain. I tend to think that the kind of mind that will emerge from a complex society will be quite unlike our human mind, and notions like self-awareness just won't apply nicely to it... just a thought.
March 15, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, there may be no guarantee that thinking outside of the news we're subjected to would help shape a better future for us, but isn't the world of news inside the news already "weighted toward some of our deepest, darkest, heaviest brain patterns - violence, xenophobia, picking out one institution for blind trust, dividing us along simplistic old villain/hero, evildoers/victim lines, etc"?
I think we would escape the world inside the news for a better world.
Otherwise--same world, just a new medium. Right?
March 15, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything makes sense looking back on it. Causes, influences, power relationships – all the details succumb easily to organizational diagrams about what happened. Every element of the event becomes a thing – a cause, an effect, a catalyst. It all seems quite rational even if it is pathological. But in the moment when the choice had to be made, every element was discrete and independent. The smell in the air, the taste in the mouth, the irritation from some noise in the background. The only thing that exists at the moment of choice is nausea. Strategies can be envisioned but choosing one over the other is either a guess or just a repetition, a neurosis. The future can not be known so the relative merits of any world view at the moment of choice are pure speculation. One either chooses, without hope as they say, or stays in the nausea waiting for the moment to pass , that is, to be saved, or retreats from the choice by some form of self-deception.
But again this is the little drum I’ve been beating lately. The U.S. is at a moment of choice and most don’t want to choose yet. What they are waiting for I have no idea. I guess godot.
March 15, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Waiting for Gravol.
March 15, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think many have "lost their way" in a strange sense, Larry. Because the soul of the nation is up for grabs. On one side, I think there's a bunch of us trying to think through the values that really matter in terms of our current situation (political, financial, social, spiritual, everything) - trying to find ways to have a free and compassionate society and world. And on the other side there seem to be people bent on simply destroying all our arguments. Not really building up an alternative, but just attacking and smashing as if to prove how useless all our efforts are. That's what worries me. I see that on blogs. I see that in the congress. There's a need to restore faith and trust in what a society can accomplish for itself and its members, but it's as if there are other forces willing to destroy those efforts in order to take power and say: "See, their ideas will never work. Theirs is a useless effort." It's as if the one group is trying to build/create/restore - big ideas and huge amounts of compassion, brought to bear to solve problems and create spaces and social networks for that to happen. And the other group is working against any type of social contract or creative (and ethical) problem-solving. (I've just repeated myself about 4 times!)
I suppose that's all meta too. And it's too simplistic a view really. But still, it's my impression. In the middle of these two groups, you probably have the non-choosers, Larry. Those who are either tuned out or so flummoxed by what's going on that they simply can't fathom what's happening or what to do about it OR whether to join the fight, which looks so brutal.
March 15, 2009 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Being aware of being aware, self awareness..”
This post by Tom seemed to me to be about what an Existential psychologist would identify as angst. I thought it to be an interesting question to ask. Can a society have a moment of dread, of Either Or? As I first read his observations I couldn’t help but think of Dostoyevski’s “man of acute consciousness” in Notes From Underground. The title is a slightly misleading translation. The Russian word translated as “Underground” is actually the word for the place between the floors of a building. It is only a logical place, not a physical one. There is no real place called “underground” except in some logical sense of an instant when one is neither above the floor nor below the floor of a building. Again I took it as Tom’s meaning that on the one hand we can’t really be where we are these days and yet we do indeed seem to be there. We are obsessing about our being and not our options.
In individuals this is what happens when real choice stares them in the eye. It is both dreadful and exhilarating. One feels both impotent and all powerful at the same time. One may even wish to remain in this kind of moment, to linger and to enjoy the thrill of it all. If one does linger then one becomes deranged because, as Tom suggests I think, the only realities are the things chosen which, once chosen, become “meaningful.” The fever goes away and life becomes mundane again, thank god.
Kiekegaard called it “antipathetic sympathy and sympathetic antipathy.” A person has a certain fondness for their present condition but no great élan for it. At the same time that person has an attraction to other conditions but no compelling desire to change. Then circumstances force one to act.
I don’t have a problem with asserting some group, some societal gestalt, a list of things chosen and an agreement on the meaning of those things. That just seems like a description of human history. I am not at all certain about my idea that a group can have a moment of angst. As Tom has documented here, and I have observed in my own observation, we do seem to be in a moment that I find to be at least analogous to angst. I have no problem with your analysis of the political landscape as you summarized it above. I just can’t understand why we don’t get on with it. Pouring money down a rat hole like AIG seems as demented as anything I can imagine unless there is something like fear that keeps everyone from moving on. Maybe I need to answer the question “Fear of what?”
March 15, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The moment of decision is one thing for an individual and another for a society. I think to decide one has to have one's eye on the ball. But many in society at looking at different balls.
Thanks for your long and careful reflection, Larry. I'm off to do some volunteering for a few hours.
March 15, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing something huh? Never thought of that.
Bless you.
March 15, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I passed your blessing on, Larry. :)
March 15, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice link Saladin! I always thought there wasn't much of a paradox to the Fermi issue. If I were an alien intelligence watching the Earthling guy in the corner playing russian-roulette-solitaire screaming 'why won't anyone talk to me', I'd probably stay quiet and out of his way as much as possible as well.
Great post Tom, and great comments. Food for thought! As so often, I come to these parties much too late. Just one thought before my head explodes and I start rambling: on our meta-media. I think there's an important distinction between going meta and having self-awareness, or between narcissism/self-absorption and the latter. Our media is great at the narcissism, bad at self-awareness. Creating an intelligent system with meta-intentional states is easy. Most computers already are. But that to my mind has little to do with self-awareness. Self-awareness is a very special kind of meta-state. it involves seeing the object as a Self - as (in the now hollowed out expression) an 'agent of change' in the world. And the prevalent meta-attitudes - thinking of finance and media players - doesn't see the object - their ostensible selves - as 'agents', but simply as passive moved-movers shuffling about within the bounds of some pre-established rule-set: 'this is what the system determines us to do'. it's all passivity and no agency. In this kind of meta-attitude, the serious notion of Self evaporates, and they can serenely go about their mindless ways, because they really have no responsibility for what they do - they see themselves just moved about by whatever invisible hand is at work.
damn, I'm rambling...
March 15, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh - and Carly was CLEARLY talking about Beatty!
March 15, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
The point holds. The song is recursive, self-referential, while telling the subject that he is too self-referential.
There are good arguments for us being the first to make radio noise, at least in our part of the galaxy, in that it takes several generations of supernovae to build up those handy heavy elements like oxygen and iron. But if anyone was made nervous by our birth cries of broadcasting, they might think to arrange an argument-ending comet strike, before we get off-planet in any big way. Let's fund those survey telescopes, and keep a few nukes on the shelf.
March 15, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! let's not project too much pathological paranoia onto our inter-galactic neighbors... who knows, they're probably listening to you too, Tom!
As for Carly, i actually have no clue. this present minute i'd actually opt for a Quinean 'indeterminacy of reference' thesis. But the example actually is kind of relevant to the distinction I'm trying to make. There's Beatty- clearly self-obsessed, and not very self-aware, and Taylor who is quite the opposite...
March 15, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I accept Beatty, having heard only rumor, at a distance, and didn't really pay attention. Maybe I just don't like Taylor.
March 15, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's cut to the core of Tom's piece, instead of getting caught up in all this bullshit.
It was Warren Beatty. Wiki does a good job of laying out the argument, compiling all of Carly's known statements and hints to date. But we always knew it was Beatty. Easy. Because of that line about flying "up to Nova Scotia" to see an eclipse. That nails Beatty. Because Beatty's Mum was a Nova Scotian, and he and Shirley visited a lot.
And ONLY an American who'd gone out with a Nova Scotian would know where it IS, see? I checked the latest "Mapping Americans' Geographic Knowledge" survey, and only 0.4% could place NS properly on a map. In fact, only 11% had even heard the news that Nova Scotia had recently absorbed Ontario, Prince Edward Island, the south of France, Lady Diana's grave and Avalon to form "Greater Nova Scotia."
But see, Beatty would've known that.
March 15, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I still think James Taylor is a whiny wimp.
Is Nova Scotia the referent in "just a skosh", meaning a bit more of that spiritous liquor?
March 15, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
JT definitely deteriorated after his first album released on the Apple label, (and he kicked his dependence issues). Regarding Nova Scotia, let me add, (oh-so-proudly), that I was the 'Tourist of the Year' in Mahone Bay back in the mid-late 80s. My recollection of the locals and their talent for imbibing 'spiritous liquors' may help support the derivation of 'just a skosh' as an locally referential idiom.
March 15, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looked it up and some claim "just a skosh" came over from Japan with American troops from the Korean War in the '50's.
As for Mahone Bay, M2O, that's on the South Shore. And real Nova Scotians know they're a bunch of lousy criminal drunks who only ever did anything halfway useful during Prohibition. "Tourist of the Year?" Jeez man, you might've got that for having all your teeth. Truth is, we don't regard those people as REAL Nova Scotians at all, they're more like Cape Bretoners. Or those useless slickers in Halifax. And up Northumberland way, well, say no more. Tossers.
In sum, "Nova Scotia" is best defined by a radius of about 2 miles around my house. Leaving out, of course, the McKenzies and the Thompsons, and my cousin Chet. What an asshole. ;-)
March 15, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...all my teeth." Not far off Q. I was staying at a B & B there during a bicycle tour, and that morning, the hostess, informed me that they were opening their new tourist center, and needed some tourists for a photo op for the local rag. After inspecting my companion's and my teeth, we were in. The event entailed the mayor, (he looked barely sober, and his socks didn't match, wearing black high-top keds), arriving in a convertible with a life-sized carving of a mermaid, and presenting us with the keys to the city or some such thing... can't really remember. Sorry to see your post get hijacked like this Tom. What would you expect on a Sunday morning? A discussion of cultural self awareness, or music and travel?
March 15, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, my blogging rule is, after you've gotten a few "Thoughtful, well-written" kudos and a handful of thoughtful comments... the blog is basically fair game for ransacking. And when you throw in incendiary stuff like his slur on James Taylor, well, in the words of the Dude, "This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man."
March 15, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, and I subscribe to it. Even if the few kudos have been garnered by others I think it's fair game. Just wanted to let Tom know that I feel his pain in a 'meta' kinda way if he was hoping for something a little more highbrow.
March 15, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it too early for a skosh? Actually, I have to go to work, but not long after, maybe.
March 15, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers, Tom!
March 15, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No discussion about consciousness would be complete without touching upon quantum physics, and the idea of entanglement-- everything is connected, literally. Here's a clip from that old movie "What the Bleep Do we Know?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU
The whole movie is posted on Youtube in clips.
Humbling and empowering.
March 15, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deep, Tommy, deep.
March 15, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cussin' the weather's mighty poor farmin'. Aint that sexy, either.
There's still hope for you guys, though, with the help of God, loving women, and follicle therapy, and so forth. Love would be the operative word there. But I've been telling T that in these pages for years now ...
Ah, Tish, we hardly knew ye.
(signed)
Home from the hot kilt contest
March 15, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are a group that is challenging the the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum
Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the
flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on
the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity: Super Relativity
March 17, 2009 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink