mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley> If anyone wants to discuss the above matters, I would ask that they do it on other bboards. Physicists often speculate about the universe, but in my experience rarely do so unless the phenomena in question either can be observed directly or indirectly (that is, the consequences of the phenomena may be observed). PK. magic, life-forces, God, clairvoyance, and ESP may well exist. However, unless and until repeated, controlled experiments demonstrate any of the above phenomena, or the phenomena in question are observed in a fashion that suggests a decisive experiment, I for one do not give a damn. Rick.
RP@CUPID.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (07/08/85)
From: Richard Pavelle <RP@CUPID.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via INTERNET with SMTP id 270249; 8 Jul 85 12:15:33-EDT
Received: from sri-unix.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 8 Jul 85 12:16:56 EDT
Received: by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16)
id AA27820; Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:07:32 pdt
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA (ucb-vax.arpa.ARPA) by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16)
id AA27804; Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:07:13 pdt
Received: from ucbkim.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.48)
id AA02178; Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:03:38 pdt
Received: by ucbkim.ARPA (4.24/4.48)
id AA19535; Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:08:09 pdt
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:08:09 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8507081608.AA19535@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: ihnp4!nwuxg!cuuxc!cuuxb!ltuxa!mgnetp!we53!busch!mte@Berkeley,
physics@sri-unix
Subject: Re: questions: light, time, psychic phenomenon
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 11-Jul-85 23:37:29 PDT
If anyone wants to discuss the above matters, I would ask that they
do it on other bboards. Physicists often speculate about the universe, but
in my experience rarely do so unless the phenomena in question either can be
observed directly or indirectly (that is, the consequences of the phenomena
may be observed). PK. magic, life-forces, God, clairvoyance, and ESP may
well exist. However, unless and until repeated, controlled experiments
demonstrate any of the above phenomena, or the phenomena in question are
observed in a fashion that suggests a decisive experiment, I for one do not
give a damn.
Rick.
I do not agree with your point of view. I believe that if you wish to
cause a discussion to end then there should be an opportunity for the
readers to voice themselves. As a physicist I find these discussions
particularly interesting and do not believe they should appear outside
of the physics mailing list. I think this is the proper place for this
information.
Can we have a vote please? DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA (07/08/85)
If we are going to vote on whether or not to continue the discussion of psychic phenomena, I vote with Richard Pavelle (I think - the only thing clear about the horrendous message header is that it is "via CHAOS".) I am another physicist who finds discussions of odd phenomena much more interesting than dozens of messages about whether it is hydrogen or helium that is flammable. Let's hear it for fork bending and firewalking!!! - Mike -------
AI.Mayank@MCC.ARPA (07/10/85)
From: Mayank Prakash <AI.Mayank@MCC.ARPA> The point is not whether these "odd phenomena" are interesting or not, but is this the appropriate bboard for such discussion. If you are interested in discussing them, go to the proper forums, such as net.scifi or net.religion or something. The net is already crowded with messages, and let us at least work towards keeping things organised so that people don't have to waste time going thru messages that do not interest them. - mayank. "Human mind is a wonderful thing - it can rationalize anything it has decided to believe in" - Ben Franklin (I think). -------
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/10/85)
I agree with Rick: net.physics is not the place for the discussion of psychic phenomena *even if they were universally believed in* any more than religion or magic--or psychology or sociology or chemistry or architecture or the game of Go. If you must discuss it, form a separate newsgroup. --JoSH
mte@busch.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (07/12/85)
I was kind of surprised when I read this group for the
first time and found the Uri Geller articles in it. I'm curious
about a few things and hope to interest you in them for my sake.
Having read alot of sf and fantasy novels there seems to
be a difference in opinion regarding time, ie- is it an element or
dimension. Perhaps light is used in an ill fitting context when
describing jumps to hyper-space etc? What is the exact connection
between other dimensions and time. Back when Rubik's cube came out
there was this kid who said that taking it into the 4th or 5th dimension
would ease the solution of the puzzle.
Some of the great Jewish mystics who studies kabbala, or
Jewish mysticism centuries ago highly praised the study of mathematics
and meta-physics. While I see the connection, I would like a quick
overview of what meta-physics covers (beyond E=mc2 etc..), which courses
lead up to the study of meta-physics and an estimate of what kind of
difficulty this study has.
Having always been fascinated with magic and psychic phenomenon
it really was nice to take a few courses in Chinese meditation. These
were given by my karate teacher. Basically- the Chinese martial arts
consider "soft" techniques aswell as hard. There are breaking techniques
done by touch- not loud, yell, break your arm and 15 tiles stuff. Just:
pick up a rock, meditate with it, get to know it- saturate it with your
chi (your own life force) see the break work and then do it. So far this
is the closest thing to magic that I've seen in our mundane world. It's
a real experience to see someone take a concrete slab and have it break
at their touch. Aspiring towards this I studied the meditation and joined
this with my study of Tai-Chi-Chuan which is a soft form of Chinese martial
arts. It's interesting to learn of energy channels and meridians throughout
the body- which can be used for health purposes as well as self-defense.
The flow of chi, energy, is a tangible thing after an indefinite period of
practice and development. I would welcome further discussion regarding this.
Moshe Eliovson
{ihnp4, allegra}!we53!busch!mtezben@umd5.UUCP (07/13/85)
Seems to me that the real physics discussion has been taking place on
net.astro.expert, since the metaphysics people have taken over net.physics
with the amazing randi et al... :-)
--
Ben Cranston ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben zben@umd2.ARPArwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (07/14/85)
> The point is not whether these "odd phenomena" are interesting or not, but > is this the appropriate bboard for such discussion. If you are interested in > discussing them, go to the proper forums, such as net.scifi or net.religion or > something. The net is already crowded with messages, and let us at least work > towards keeping things organised so that people don't have to waste time going > thru messages that do not interest them. > > - mayank. -- I'm not convinced that a technical discussion of psychic phenomena belongs anywhere *but* in a newsgroup dealing with scientific topics. (BTW, the term is SF not sci-fi -- that only applies to Japanese monster pictures.) A general complaint about the hard sciences has always been that they are to staid. New ideas take a long time to take root, but once they do, the ``new-wavers'' quickly become the ``old guard''. I think that it would be beneficial to the science as a whole to explore outre` ideas. Perhaps you've heard of Einstein, Planck, Hawking? As for wasted bandwidth on the net, I'm sure both your article and mine would qualify as such to *somebody*. Surely you don't think that tiring articles explaining why the sky is blue are any more informative or instructive. Or any less a waste of my time. -- Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl
brad@kontron.UUCP (Brad Yearwood) (07/17/85)
> dozens of messages about whether it is hydrogen or helium that is flammable. > Let's hear it for fork bending and firewalking!!! On this net, everything seems flammable. Quoting first hand observations or procedures by which first hand observations can be repeated, hypotheses and generalizations drawn from such observations, and suggestions for future such work is _science_, and physics is supposed to be a science. Maybe ESP/PK/whatever can become a science if a few reliable and reproducible examples are found. I am not saying that, as non-science they are not worthy of a forum for discussion, only that that forum should not be net.physics.