Epstein Secrets

From: Rupert Sheldrake < To: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: fields Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:41:45 +0000 Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability field

elegant. and as good a theory as any scientist can propose. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake > wrote: Dear Jeffrey, Yes, I think Brian Josephson is indeed rather scattered. I don't think Deepak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll succeed in moving him towards the

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:38 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields are you having fun On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rupert Sheldr=ke vrote: Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for the gra=h. Yes, its a

. and as good a theory as any scientist can propose. </=iv> On Mon, Jul 1=, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert sheldrake wrote: Dear Jeffrey, Yes, I think Brian Josephson =s indeed rather scattered. I don't think De=pak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll succeed in moving him toward= the

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:08 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields Be patient . I will leave you to your holiday, =but the coin , is mere;y a metaphor for a random process. 4> no external for

. and as good a theory as any scientist can propose. </=iv> On Mon, Jul 1=, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake wrote: Dear Jeffrey, Yes, I think Brian Josephson =s indeed rather scattered. I don't think De=pak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll succeed in moving him toward= the

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:48 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sheldrake <=pan dir="ltr"> <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: Dear Jeffrey, The

ood a theory as any scientist can propose. </=iv> On Mon, Jul 1=, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake < :•<=span> wrote: Dear Jeffrey, Yes, I think Brian Josephson =s indeed rather scattered. I don't think De=pak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll succeed in moving him toward= the

From: Rupert Sheldrake Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:54 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: fields Dear =effrey, Thanks for the graph. Yes, =ts a fairly general shape,

very very elegant. =nd as good a theory as any scientist can propose. On Mon, Jul 11, =016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake Dear Jeffrey, Yes, = think Brian Josephson is indeed rather scattered. rote: I don't think =eepak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll succeed in moving him towa

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:49 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: why would they influence rather than actually just b= a probability field themselves.. it =lso might be fun to think of " luck" as

very elegant.Q and as good a theory as any scientist can propose. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 =t 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake < Dear Jeffrey, Yes, I think Brian Josephson is indeed=rather scattered. <mailto > w=ote: I don't think De=pak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll succeed in movi