Physicist Dr Thomas Campbell "My Big TOE"

[philosophy]

Has this man actually found a Theory Of Everything?
Is there a god? Answer: only if you want one in your reality.
Does there have to be a god? No, not if you don't want one in your
reality.
So, are both theists and atheists correct?
Well, you'll have to either read his books to come to that conclusion,
or watch the videos and make your own determination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ

[showmethehoney]

the existance of 'god' is not dependent on what one wants. belief or
disbelief in 'god' in no way indicates its existance, or lack thereof.
things can exist despite ones disbelief and likewise, belief doesnt
create anything.

[Dead Kennedy]

I think the London School of Economics may wish to contact the guy
over the introductionary note on the video.

Im not sure they would be happy to be confused with the London College
of Spirtituality.

On 30 Nov, 13:04, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Has this man actually found a Theory Of Everything?
> Is there a god? Answer: only if you want one in your reality.
> Does there have to be a god? No, not if you don't want one in your
> reality.
> So, are both theists and atheists correct?
> Well, you'll have to either read his books to come to that conclusion,

> or watch the videos and make your own determination.[hide]

[Lawrey]

philosophy,

I have listened to most of what Campbell has to say now,
and apart from the subjectivity over objectivity, which we
have discussed and are discussing, the rest is disappointing
and does not lend itself to a general overal conclusion;
indeed it relies on the indivdual's own subjectivity.


Rather a 'like a like it or lump it theory of nothing,' more
than a "theory of everything."


I would go out on a limb here and say that a theory of
everything is a Pie-In-The-Sky idea that is going nowhere
very fast.


He invokes many scientific terms and refers to many
well known scientists, but only in passing and without
anything tangible to cling to. For instance he quotes
Einstein but leaves you wondering why he bothered.


He speaks vaguely about experience, consciousness
and the larger reality, throws in entropy (disorder),
but himself is disordered, when he turns to physics
speaking of photons, quantum mechanics,
probability distributions, random states, probability
functions, parallel reality and the physical world and
digital reality. Consciouness and reality.


What it all boils down to at the end of the day is
that your consciousness is your reality, it is subjective
to you. If you choose to believe something you will and
it may become for you, your reality. So if you choose to
believe that there is a metaphphyical something
unknown and unknowable save to you, then to you
it is real and has its own reality, that is your reality.


There is nothing new here, it is warmed up stew with
a few new herbs added, i.e. digital reality and the
quantum equasion. Anyway how could he or anyone
know if there is a parallel reality, it is a ghost of an
idea only. Please feel free to slap me down.

The London School of Spirituality is a money making
oganisation that holds seminas which you can attend
for a couple of hundred pounds or more for a three day
love your neighbour session. It is an all-faiths religious
set-up.

Not sure how he got the London School of Economics
banner or what it had to do with his pitch?

[Simon Ewins]

> it may become for your reality. So if you choose to

> believe that there is a metaphphyical something
> unknown and unknowable save to you, then to you

> it is real and has its own reality that is your reality.

>
> There is nothing new here, it is warmed up stew with
> a few new herbs added, i.e. digital reality and the
> quantum equasion. Anyway how could he or anyone
> know if there is a parallel reality, it is a ghost of an
> idea only. Please feel free to slap me down.

There will be a satellite launched in the near future that will be
measuring the gravitational affect of a parallel universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

>
>
> On Nov 30, 1:04 pm, philosophy<smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
>


--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm

"Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their
suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little."
[Buddha]

[philosophy]

On Dec 1, 1:02 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> I think the London School of Economics may wish to contact the guy
> over the introductionary note on the video.

I am sure they already know, DK.

[philosophy]

FANTASTIC! That will be truly interesting to hear about.
I understand they are possible mathematically, but to have
it verified or debunked would lead us forward. Of course
that is an assumption. They may not be able to tell us
either way. But great news.

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 1:04 pm, philosophy<smwil...@tpg.com.au>  wrote:
> >> Has this man actually found a Theory Of Everything?
> >> Is there a god? Answer: only if you want one in your reality.
> >> Does there have to be a god? No, not if you don't want one in your
> >> reality.
> >> So, are both theists and atheists correct?
> >> Well, you'll have to either read his books to come to that conclusion,
> >> or watch the videos and make your own determination.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[philosophy]

On Dec 1, 2:27 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> philosophy,
>
> I have listened to most of what Campbell has to say now,
> and apart from the subjectivity over objectivity, which we
> have discussed and are discussing, the rest is disappointing
> and does not lend itself to a general overal conclusion;
> indeed it relies on the indivdual's own subjectivity.

And that is why it will be difficult, if not impossible to
verify. Just like religion is a subjective experience, and not
objective.

>
> Rather a 'like a like it or lump it theory of nothing,' more
> than a "theory of everything."
>
> I would go out on a limb here and say that a theory of
> everything is a Pie-In-The-Sky idea that is going nowhere
> very fast.

Certainly it seems to be. However, I am not a physicist
and do not pretend to know anything remotely like
what this man knows. Obviously this theory works for
him. Can it work for others? I don't know, and that's the
problem with it. Given our understanding and scientific
method, can we prove or disprove anything? I suggest
not. I further suggest we are left with the same
dilemma we've always had. However, I will give him
full marks for trying, and to be brave enough to "put it
out there" so to speak. As he has said, "one has to be
fearless", and I will give him his due. For the ribbing he
is going to get from his colleagues, fearless he is.

>
> He invokes many scientific terms and refers to many
> well known scientists, but only in passing and without
> anything tangible to cling to. For instance he quotes
> Einstein but leaves you wondering why he bothered.
>
> He speaks vaguely about experience, consciousness
> and the larger reality, throws in entropy (disorder),
> but himself is disordered, when he turns to physics
> speaking of photons, quantum mechanics,
> probability distributions, random states, probability
> functions, parallel reality and the physical world and
> digital reality. Consciouness and reality.
>
> What it all boils down to at the end of the day is
> that your consciousness is your reality, it is subjective
> to you. If you choose to believe something you will and
> it may become for you, your reality. So if you choose to
> believe that there is a metaphphyical something
> unknown and unknowable save to you, then to you
> it is real and has its own reality, that is your reality.

Yes, we discuss those realities on this forum every
day. We have people like Smoley and dJ who have
their religious reality, and can't seem to relate to the
world without it. Then we have others who wouldn't
go down that road if you paid them, because their
reality is totally different - usually come to through
exploration and education.

>
> There is nothing new here, it is warmed up stew with
> a few new herbs added, i.e. digital reality and the
> quantum equasion. Anyway how could he or anyone
> know if there is a parallel reality, it is a ghost of an
> idea only. Please feel free to slap me down.

Not at all. Why should I? I have always contended and
will continue to contend that my understanding of the
world is due to my history and whatever other input
I enter into my existence. In that much I agree with him.
It is subjective. Does the rest of what he says have any
basis, or is it pie in the sky? I honestly have no idea.
I don't know. For those brave enough to say yeah or
nay, fine. I still don't know. So, I guess on this one I am
more agnostic than atheist. Have I changed my position
on atheism? Not a bit. I still believe that even if this
sort of thing proves to be even minimally correct, I
really can't see what a god has to do with it. My
contention is simply that religion has held us back.
Religion is the cause of much suffering in the world,
pas and present. I do believe the man is right when
he says we need to grow up - but for different reasons
he gives.

>
> The London School of Spirituality is a money making
> oganisation that holds seminas which you can attend
> for a couple of hundred pounds or more for a three day
> love your neighbour session. It is an all-faiths religious
> set-up.

Like many "new-age" things are. It is a shame he
associated himself with them - it loses credibility. Still,
maybe that's part of his fearlessness.

>
> Not sure how he got the London School of Economics
> banner or what it had to do with his pitch?

Me either.

I posted this for our religious friends to have a think about.
However, I know that many will not even bother listening to
him. They are so entrenched in their ideology, that their
minds will be unable to cater for such a discussion.

[philosophy]

On Nov 30, 11:27 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> the existance of 'god' is not dependent on what one wants. belief or
> disbelief in 'god' in no way indicates its existance, or lack thereof.
> things can exist despite ones disbelief and likewise, belief doesnt
> create anything.

From an objective reality you are absolutely correct.
From a subjective reality you are absolutely incorrect.
Watch the videos first, and then come back and comment.

[philosophy]

On Dec 1, 4:11 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

Simon, I have just had a chance to watch this. WOW!
Isn't it fantastic to think that the physicists have come this far.
On another one he discusses god. The god of Spinoza.
Makes sense to me.
Thank you SO much for posting this, I am now going to
make sure I watch as much of this as possible.
AWESOME stuff!!

>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 1:04 pm, philosophy<smwil...@tpg.com.au>  wrote:
> >> Has this man actually found a Theory Of Everything?
> >> Is there a god? Answer: only if you want one in your reality.
> >> Does there have to be a god? No, not if you don't want one in your
> >> reality.
> >> So, are both theists and atheists correct?
> >> Well, you'll have to either read his books to come to that conclusion,
> >> or watch the videos and make your own determination.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[ornamentalmind]

Phil, thank you very much for posting this video lecture. I may have
heard of his book but was not at all acquainted with his work. While I
retain a little skepticism, after almost 40 years of meditation and
having had small, similar experiences/insights, I enjoyed listening to
someone talk about these things quite a bit. I listened to all 18 and
could point at a few issues and say ‘no way’, but will not. The basic
premise is sound.

Thanks again.


PS

Even though there is a bit of the snake oil salesman in the
advertising style, for those who suggested Tom Campbell didn't address
any of the scientific substance, his printed work can be found
here...including the large book he referenced in the lecture.

http://www.mybigtoe.com/

> > [Buddha]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[philosophy]

On Dec 1, 7:43 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you for your comments. I think it is a good idea to keep an
open mind. The video that Simon posted is great. This looks at
things from a scientific perspective, not an experiential one. As I
said, I don't know if Campbell is correct, but I will take on board
the
fact that he is a physicist, he has researched for 35 years (and
that's
35 years more than I), and he certainly appears to have the unruffled
aura around him that so many of my meditative friends seem to
exude. As I said, good on him for being fearless. I think we can all
learn a lot from him about that much.
Cheers
PS. Glad you enjoyed them.

[Dead Kennedy]

if they didnt , they do now.

I sent them an email.

[philosophy]

On Dec 1, 5:43 pm, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> if they didnt , they do now.
>
> I sent them an email.

Chuckle.
Good for you. It's important to follow through when
things get under your skin.

[Lawrey]

Philosophy,

Ah! like me you live in ignorance where physics are concerned.
We are constantly told a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
but even some knowledge for me, I would consider a boon.

I so wish I had this discipline to my elbow, but alas 'tis far too
late for me now.

May I suggest you appeal to our resident physicist, Rap' and
ask him for his opinion, I have a high regard for his lucid and
knowledgable capabilities.

It's easy for me to pour scorn on something I don't fully
understand using the lack in the little I know, or not. I am
always happy to be constructively corrected.

> > > or watch the videos and make your own determination.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ- Hide quoted text -

[philosophy]

On Dec 1, 7:50 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Philosophy,
>
> Ah! like me you live in ignorance where physics are concerned.
>  We are constantly told a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
> but even some knowledge for me, I would consider a boon.
>
> I so wish I had this discipline to my elbow, but alas 'tis far too
> late for me now.
>
> May I suggest you appeal to our resident physicist, Rap' and
> ask him for his opinion, I have a high regard for his lucid and
> knowledgable capabilities.

Yes, that's a good idea. He has pointed out errant physicists
before, and I'm sure he will do so again, if he feels there is
naught in the pot, so to speak. I am a little reluctant, I must
admit, because he is very busy with his work. Still, I can
send him the links and if he has any time, he may drop in.
If not, I totally understand.

>
> It's easy for me to pour scorn on something I don't fully
> understand using the lack in the little I know, or not. I am
> always happy to be constructively corrected.

I don't think you will need correction on this one Lawrey,
but we can wait and see. I'll send Rappy an email now
and we can see what happens.

> > > > or watch the videos and make your own determination.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ-Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

On Nov 30, 8:04 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

Short story: The guy is a quack.

Long story: He actually doesn't have a theory of everything. This is a
very specific concept that real-life physicists work on. String theory
is a candidate theory of everything. This isn't.

The understanding of science that this guy presents is abysmal. He
appeals to authorities incessantly (David Bohm and Albert Einstein, to
name a few) and accepts what they say as dogma. This is stupid.
There's no dogma in science. Just because David Bohm says something,
doesn't make it true (not to mention that the quotes are actually
quote-mined and don't really refer to what he thinks they're referring
to).

There is no theory here because there is no model, no predictions that
are falsifiable, no definition explanations offered, just hippie-go-
lucky pat-yourself-on-the-back pseudoscience haptrap.

Okay, that was a bit harsh. But parading a self-serving "system" that
is there merely to confuse is the height of dishonesty. Either this
guy is totally incompetent (which I'm betting) or he's a deliberate
con-artist that just wants to steal people's money.

[Lawrey]

Simon,

I'm sorry, just noticed your comment and it is interesting
and I imagine very exciting for physicists.

So that we are batting on the same wicket, I was refering to
a parallel reality, proposed by Campbell, and since our
consciousness defines our view of reality for us and is
perforce our own subjectivity expressed as we experience it;
it would seem to the layman something of an impossiblity
to then propose a parallel reality, it is my subjectivity or it
is not.

I am very grateful to you for this info' and while I freely admit
my ignorance on the subject I am agog to learn more.

At this point in time I call this type of science "If or Maybe"
because of my ignorance I am incapable of fully understanding
the possibilities that so enthuse the big boys of physics, but I
find I am pulled along on a wave of fervent expectation of new
discovery and the launch of Liza "IF" a success, "MAY" add
to the knowledge of the likes of Michio Kaku and even our own
Rappocio.

As an aside, if you'll forgive me, I listened to Kaku on god and
was very surprised at the way he sort of side/stepped
the issue for me, but he is after all a Bhuddist, but it also
pleased me because he referred to the god of Spinoza, which
led me all the way back to Aristotle and further confirmed my
own conviction, were it necessary.

If I have lost you already, let me explain:
Spinoza's own experience had led him to feel the pressure of
social tradition in its effect to coerce human thought. He wrote
treatises on the guidance of the intellect, on the State, and on
the relation of political pressure to religious belief.
In discussing theology, he, like Hobbes, raised questions
about the internal evidence of the Bible as to its own authorship.

He rejected Descartes' dualism and came to the same
conclusion as Bruno that "substance," the ultimate subject of
discourse, is infinite and there cannot be more than one.
This substance is god, or nature, and has an infinite number of
attributes; to us the most important of these are extension and
thought. So we arrive at Aristotle for he too believed that god/s
are of the mind.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

>
> --
> Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
>
> "Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their
> suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little."

> [Buddha]- Hide quoted text -

[philosophy]

On Dec 2, 12:19 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:04 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Has this man actually found a Theory Of Everything?
> > Is there a god? Answer: only if you want one in your reality.
> > Does there have to be a god? No, not if you don't want one in your
> > reality.
> > So, are both theists and atheists correct?
> > Well, you'll have to either read his books to come to that conclusion,
> > or watch the videos and make your own determination.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ
>
> Short story: The guy is a quack.

That's all we needed to know.

>
> Long story: He actually doesn't have a theory of everything. This is a
> very specific concept that real-life physicists work on. String theory
> is a candidate theory of everything. This isn't.

Yes, I watched Simon's link on Michio Kaku - fantastic stuff, and he's
so understandable.

>
> The understanding of science that this guy presents is abysmal. He
> appeals to authorities incessantly (David Bohm and Albert Einstein, to
> name a few) and accepts what they say as dogma. This is stupid.
> There's no dogma in science. Just because David Bohm says something,
> doesn't make it true (not to mention that the quotes are actually
> quote-mined and don't really refer to what he thinks they're referring
> to).

I would also posit that from the talks I've seen Bohm give, he would
not want his thoughts put down as dogma. He didn't seem to be the
type.

>
> There is no theory here because there is no model, no predictions that
> are falsifiable, no definition explanations offered, just hippie-go-
> lucky pat-yourself-on-the-back pseudoscience haptrap.
>
> Okay, that was a bit harsh. But parading a self-serving "system" that
> is there merely to confuse is the height of dishonesty. Either this
> guy is totally incompetent (which I'm betting) or he's a deliberate
> con-artist that just wants to steal people's money.

I'm fascinated to think that Kakus theories will be tested when the
satellite goes up in five/six years. He's great, from the point of
view,
that he says he may be wrong. The fact he's open enough to say,
well, I think we've got it right, but we'll have to find out, is both
humbling and awe inspiring. I feel that all should be able to be
proved as knowledge advances, and Kakus work is certainly
heading that way.

Thanks you for your precious time. I am sure we all appreciate it.

[philosophy]

On Dec 2, 3:54 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Lawrey
Here's some more:

http://mkaku.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnQLsERqTIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMG7LA4Rsq8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzP6XhtAXo&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0LqsBe_iw&NR=1

Cheers

[Lawrey]

philosophy,

Well I sat through it, and honestly I ended up in more
confusion than when I began. I have already admitted
my ignorance in physics, but there are bits that do make
some sense but there is much more that seem to me to
be inordinate nonsense when we start talking about string
theory. That of course is unfair and it is my ignorance
rather that the possible realisation of the present theory.

The hypothesis is that there is a vibrating superstring
which contains a condensation of all subatomic particles,
an uberforce of matter, if you will. The idea is not new,
it is derived from the Pythagoreans who first experimented
with number theory and the numerical relations of lengths
of string and the harmonious sounds given off by their
vibrations, they also formulated an astronomical theory
which represented the earth and other bodies of our
solar system revolving round a central fire.

Today we have reached the stage in physics where we
are now considering the unified field theory, (string theory)
or theory of everything. It is all way beyond my ability to
comprehend. I noticed and I think I pointed out in an
earlier post that Kaku concluded along the lines of
Spinoza and god of the mind (Thought), I noticed here
he mentions on more than one occassion "If I were god"
when trying to explain the muddle of the various equasions
they have come up with for the theory, and he ends up
saying somewhere, "Its like the mind of god resonationg
through ten dimentional hyperspace."

I am vaguely conscious of a break from reality in some of
his thinking, but then genius develops from the most
unlikely sources.

I conclude that we are not going to see this theory
develop further than the mass of equasions that are
offered in support of it. But I am the last person to
pontificate on a subject about which I understand so little.

On Dec 1, 9:27 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:54 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Lawrey
> Here's some more:
>
> http://mkaku.org/
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnQLsERqTIghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMG7LA4Rsq8&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzP6XhtAXo&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0LqsBe_iw&NR=1

[Lawrey]

philosophy,

P.S.

That is not to say that I do not enjoy his lectures, I
do and I find them extremely interesting, he has a
vibrant enthusiasm that is intrigueing, but he leaves me
hanging in the air clutching at nothing tangble, and
wanting desperately to understand.

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnQLsERqTIghttp://www.youtube.com/watc...

[philosophy]

On Dec 3, 10:11 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> philosophy,
>

> P.S.
>
> That is not to say that I do not enjoy his lectures, I
> do and I find them extremely interesting, he has a
> vibrant enthusiasm that is intrigueing, but he leaves me
> hanging in the air clutching at nothing tangble, and
> wanting desperately to understand.

Well, you and me both chum. It is amazing to me that
he is able to come up with this stuff. Still, as he says
once LARA (?) goes up, he may be proved wrong.
(That's the satellite he was talking about). He's good
like that, he seems happy to be proven either right or
wrong, it doesn't seem to matter to him. He's got that
interesting ability to apparently say "Okay, now I know
that x,y,z is the answer, let's drop a,b,c and explore
the concept of x,y,z further). Not many people even
in civic street can do that - their ideas are too
precious to them.

In one of his videos he says "the mind of God is
music" the sound of the resonating of the strings.
I got the impression that his concept of god is more
attuned to "nature", but I maybe wrong. He's certainly
an interesting, interesting character. He is so
enthusiastic and seems to live every moment in his
"hypothesized universe/s". Yet, with all of that I can
follow him - at a basic level.

Remember, what he is talking about is not tangible -
yet. It is all theoretical physics. The interesting
thing will be if the satellite that is going up, proves
him right. That will be mind boggling. Can you imagine
where his mind will take him then? Wow. I can mentally
see him popping through all the different multiverses,
time travelling in the cocoon of invisibility. No wonder
sci-fi is so addictive to some people!!

[Lawrey]

philosophy,

In the mean time, I think I'll keep myself grounded
and stick to the tried and tested assurity of the
old if tired, good old terra firma. ;))

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

He isn't. He would be pretty appalled at this nonsense. ;)

>
>
> > There is no theory here because there is no model, no predictions that
> > are falsifiable, no definition explanations offered, just hippie-go-
> > lucky pat-yourself-on-the-back pseudoscience haptrap.
>
> > Okay, that was a bit harsh. But parading a self-serving "system" that
> > is there merely to confuse is the height of dishonesty. Either this
> > guy is totally incompetent (which I'm betting) or he's a deliberate
> > con-artist that just wants to steal people's money.
>
> I'm fascinated to think that Kakus theories will be tested when the
> satellite goes up in five/six years.  He's great, from the point of
> view,
> that he says he may be wrong. The fact he's open enough to say,
> well, I think we've got it right, but we'll have to find out, is both
> humbling and awe inspiring.  I feel that all should be able to be
> proved as knowledge advances, and Kakus work is certainly
> heading that way.

Most reputable scientists are this way. Well, at least the non-
egomaniacal ones :)

> Thanks you for your precious time. I am sure we all appreciate it.

No problem ;)