omahaceleb

Good job, Jake. An old fox from my hometown, a sort of guru of prog/jazz-rock, told me not just good things, but excellent things about it. It's the right opportunity to delve deeper. Regards (P.S. George Benson is a phenomenon!)

Beautiful, the Johnnie Walker works perfectly.

Recommended. Ah, the Japanese aren't too bad on first listen! Hi Giona :)

Great Doctor, I almost feel sorry to tarnish this marvel with my pointless comment. Regards.

Sorry again for the length of the comment, I had a bit of free time and took advantage of it. I'm going to have a Guinness in Piazza Sant'Oronzo, greetings to everyone and sorry for any inaccuracies.

Sorry again for the length of the comment, I had a bit of free time and took advantage of it. I'm going to have a Guinness in Piazza Sant'Oronzo, greetings to everyone and sorry for any inaccuracies.

@macaco: I'm not saying you're gullible for heaven's sake; I'm agnostic, and honestly, I would tread carefully with these "revealing" experiments. I just want to tell you that sometimes I attend conferences related to ecology and marine biology. Very often, researchers conduct surveys, and at the time of presentation, there remain strong doubts about the validity of the experiment, because there are a myriad of variables to consider, and the data (for even trivial reasons) are not always reliable. And we're not talking about events related to "parascientific" phenomena like the ones you described, but rather species censuses, cartographic surveys, much more down-to-earth matters. I would be cautious with hasty conclusions.

Then, vanity of matter; I'm referring to the book "Answers on the Meaning of Life" by the Dalai Lama, which discusses a meeting between Him (or him, as you prefer) and representatives of the scientific community. I read it four years ago, and the memories are quite vivid regarding the key concepts. For Buddhism, reality is vain, it is illusory, and even the spirit (karma) is illusory, a reflection of samsara, the Circle of Life.
So, matter also does not exist and is illusory. The lama believes that through practice one can "divide," to separate matter, until it dissolves. Essentially, there is no elementary particle of matter. Science rejects this concept since it seems we have identified elementary particles that have their characteristics, more or less known.
However, I won't venture into the details of new quantum theories, as it isn't exactly my field, and I would be rather imprecise.

I'm back to respond to @psycroptic. I'm not very well-versed in philosophy, maybe a bit more in epistemology, but I don’t want to act like I know it all because I can’t afford to, and I trust your expertise. I study environmental sciences (so lots and lots of chemistry), and I can assure you that in genetics class, they say "genetic dogma: DNA-RNA-Protein," because the theory is based on the a priori assumption that no other "entities" participate in the synthesis (put very simply). It's been working well so far, and it will probably continue to work forever, but if not, we switch to another model, and there’ll be a lot of Nobel Prizes to be won. Boundary science is always or almost always empirical; it relies on insights later confirmed by experiences. The same goes for string theory, which is practically empirical.

Good monkey.
I preface this by saying that my knowledge of Eastern philosophy comes from what I've read, without going into depth. Psycroptic, I too have an aversion to everything you've mentioned, but science is also based on dogmas. One example is the DNA-RNA-Protein dogma, on which practically the whole theory of protein synthesis is based (without delving too deeply into it, that is still a dogma). Greene's book is great; you are right.
There are analogies between Taoist and Buddhist philosophy and the philosophy of science, but there are also important differences. For example, science rejects the concept of the vanity of matter, which is intrinsic to Buddhism ("Answers on the Meaning of Life" by the Dalai Lama). If you're interested, I humbly recommend "The Quantum Brain" by Jeffrey Satinover.