Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sri-unix!mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Hear, Hear to Peter Mikes Message-ID: <491@sri-arpa.ARPA> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 17:54:59 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.491 Posted: Mon Aug 12 17:54:59 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 22:20:04 EDT Lines: 39 From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes) Paul Koloc:(Talking about laser, tele-watch etc)..: the point I'm making is that the "vision" came whether the science or technology was ready or not and in a number of cases has proven to be long before the invention was demonstrated. Now, let's think up or dream up a real physics mechanism that can explain it. LUCKY GUESS YOU SAY!!.... Rather than " (telepathy, psycho kinesis, precognition) " Reply: Of course not. I DO NOT SAY " LUCKY GUESS " (implying chance). Just about any invention, from airplane to typewriter was first envisioned, than tried without succes and finally invented. It does not provide any evidence for above ( by which I suppose you mean transfer of informa- tion from an absolute future (of the light cone) into the past). It just so happens that people have similar dreams and models of universe and so come to similar visions and ideas. Often the real inventor is building on the past visions. Before you offer esoteric ex- planations, you should dispose of the conventional ones. Paul Koloc: Just for the record, I think chasing Super-Symmetries is at least as nuts, and at best it will have very limited application to the simplification and refinement of physics. On the other hand, let's come up with some interesting hypotheses to explain this "psychic" stuff, or find another place to discuss it. Reply: I tend to agree with you there. Becouse I agree that concepts of 'con- sciousness' and 'information' are of great interest to (future) phy- sics I believe that we should use them carefully and dig our their real meaning and relevance. Using them out of conventional context without offering (at least informal) new definitions and ignoring the similar courtesies of learned discourse and logic betrays an intelectual arrogance, which one suspects, the perpetrators mistake for brilliance. Peter M.:> There are no 'non-physical forces' Tell me, please, what was the "physical force that caused the big bang". Reply: I will answer this simple question in the next posting. Peter