Epstein Secrets

:41:45 +0000 Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields themselves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, about it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fields, a very similar concept to your pr

nd of probability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational principles. Morphic resonance only applied to the latter. Best Rupert On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, jeffrey E. wrote: why would they influence rather than actually just be a probability field themselves. . it also might

wrote: Dear Jeffr=y, They could be probability fields themselves, you4k=80.re right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fie=ds, a very similar concept to your pr

probability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational principles.4>Morphic resonance only applied to the latter. <=u> Best Rupert On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, jeffrey E. wrote: why would they influence rather than a=tually just be a probability field themselves.. 0 it also might

wrote: Dear Jeffr=y, They could be probability fields themselves, you4o=8040re right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded EFTA_R1_01560705 EFTA02457133 like what he called propensity fie=ds,

probability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational principles.4>Morphic resonance only applied to the latter. <=u> Best Rupert On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, jeffrey E. wrote: why would they influence rather than a=tually just be a probability field themselves.. 40 it also migh

< > > wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fie=ds, a very similar concept to your pr

probability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational principles.4,Morphic resonance only applied to the latter. <=u> Best Rupert On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, jeffrey E. wrote: why would they influence rather than a=tually just be a probability field themselves.. 41ir it also mi

o.uk» wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fie=ds, a very similar concept to your pr

f probability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational principles.*Morphic resonance only applied to the latter. <=u> Best Rupert On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, jeffrey E. wrote: why would they influence rather than a=tually just be a probability field themselves.. 4> it also migh

o.uk> =rote: Dear =effrey, They could be probability fields =hemselves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, =bout it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity =ields, a very similar concept to your pr

ealm. We are off for Canada tomorrow and away for 2 =onths on a remote island in BC. I =ope still to be in email contact most of the time. =/span> Rupert On 12 Jul 2016, at 16:47, jeffrey E. =rote: <Screen Shot 2016-07-12 at =1.46.52 AM.png> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sheldrake <mailto

Re: fields Dear =effrey, They could be =robability fields themselves, you're right. When I first put =orward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, =bout it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity =ields, a very similar concept to your pr

ind of =robability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational =rinciples. Morphic resonance only =pplied to the latter. Best Rupert On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, jeffrey E. =rote: why would they influence rather =han actually just be a probability field themselves. = it also might