davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (05/06/85)
In article <377@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> wenn@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (John Wenn) writes: > >There is to the universe what there is to the universe. ... >... So the universe is itself, but each person >has his (or her) own subjective universe. This is in how that >particular person actually percieves the universe; that is, the actual >absolute universe that actually exists with or without anybody imposing >their subjective views on it. It is true that science cannot percieve >your subjective experience, but that experience may *involves* the >absolute universe, it doesn't *change* it. > Somehow this all reminds me of the pre-relativistic view that coordinates used in describing time and space are or can be 'absolute' in some way shape or form. The concept that the external universe 'out there' perceived by our conciousness is an absolute fixed entity with which we merely 'probe' with our crude sense aparatus seems to be highly dubious to me. I've had too many personal experiences which would seem to imply that somehow we have a lot more to do with what is 'out there' than to be merely taking in data points as detached individuals. I certainly agree that making a basic assumption that there is a singular 'out there' simplifies to a great degree our analysis of our everyday interaction with the physical world. However, I suggest that just as our sight determines that the planet we live on is flat (more or less) we also leave ourselves open to vast misinterpretations if we disregard the possibility that we may in subtle yet important ways actually be causing what we so freely examine 'out there' in the physical world. I used to think such thought was sheer nonsense. But after careful analysis of many personal events and those of close friends I think there is a distinct possibility that something like this is happening - that we have more to do with our surounding physical circumstances than would otherwise be apparent. To you physics brains: What does current thinking say about all of this. What is the current view of how we relate to what's 'out there?' I understand that the uncertainty principle has been widely misused in the past to promote 'mythical' or at least highly unfounded mystical views in the popular press. Any personal feelings here? - AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT - I cannot resist quoting to the many scientific minds on the net that so easily dismiss events they personally do not encounter the following quotes of an interview with former astronaut Gorden Cooper: [BTW, I personally rank Omni right above the level of National Enquirer at this time, but this is from their first year or so when they were still somewhat level-headed. They may have fudged Cooper's statements somewhat, but I would be suprized if they invented all of the following.] Omni: Didn't you go after some UFO's as an air force pilot in Germany in the 1950's? Cooper: Yes, several days in a row we sighted groups of metallic, saucer- shaped vehicles at great altitudes over the base, and we tried to get close to them, but they were able to change direction faster than our fighters. I do believe UFOs exist and that the truly unexplained ones are from some other technologically advanced civilization. From my association with aircraft and spacecraft, I think I have a pretty good idea what everyone on this planet has and their performance capab- ilities, and I'm sure some of the UFOs at least are not from anywhere on Earth. Omni: Aren't you concerned about the reaction of people who may read this? Cooper: I've always been honest about my views on this subject. Because the astronauts have been so badly misquoted by irresponsible journalists, it's up to each of us to say what he believes in. I'm engaged in a lawsuit against people who used my name for a commercial venture, quoting me to the effect that I'm dedicated to forcing the government to tell the truth about UFOs. I never said that at all. If any UFO information is being suppressed, it's certainly not in the U.S. Air Force, because I was at a high enough level to know about it. In defense of the military attitude, I can't really blame them for being negative when I consider the ridiculous things that have been said and written and the fact that the military is responsible for national security. It's a little embarrassing to acknowledge they can't explain some things. ..... Omni: Are people psychologically ready to face it if UFOs should prove to be manned by visiting aliens? Cooper: People want to know what's going on in the world around them, and I think they're prepared for the truth, whatever it is. And a lot of people are afraid of the unknown. But the more we know, the greater the likeli- hood of treating UFOs in a friendly fashion. Well I'm really interested in comments on this. I think the netters who consider themselves scientist will have one of three reactions: 1) Just ignore it as though they haven't seen it. These kind don't like to think that there could be anything to UFOs at all because if there were and given their very high IQ, they would CERTAINLY know about it anyway. (I.E. its impossible for UFOs to be alien craft and for them to simultaneously be ignorant of the fact.) [I used to be in this bracket.] 2) Wonder just how much of the article is accurately reported and wonder as well just how 'sane' Cooper may really be, but at least allow for the possibility. [I'm in this group.] 3) Absolutely believe in UFOs as intelligent alien beings. They even have a license plate number of a craft. [Just a joke, son. No scientist here, just rabid readers of National Enquirer. BTW I HAVE met people who thought they communicated with alien craft and were told the license num. They also thought Jesus was the pilot. (Sorry to say I'm not joking here.)] Well, does this earn the "SOMETHING DIFFERENT" status? I occasionally get tired of the Free Will debate. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet