Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley From: mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.ARPA Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Re: Why net.physics might be a forum for some psi discussion. Message-ID: <425@sri-arpa.ARPA> Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 00:46:46 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.425 Posted: Fri Jul 19 00:46:46 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 23:54:33 EDT Lines: 35 From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)>If there really is a definite, TESTABLE, proposal for interaction >of brain states with quantum states, be it called "psi" or not, >then, yes, that would be a good subject for informed discussion. >But if that is just another one of the "fundamental particle theory >proves that taoism was right" type of vague suggestions, it is not >sufficiently scientific to waste time on. Let's try to keep to >matters that can be settled and not debate unexplained mysteries. Bravo. Anything untestable is sheer philosophy. I know a retired physicist, here in Berkeley, who doesn't believe in Newtonian gravity. Instead, he believes that matter emits gravitational waves that vary with the matter's "state": put better, he does not believe in the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Experiments to the contrary don't show the variation because it is too slight to be detected under terrestrial conditions. Experimental error, he says, overrides this effect. Well, I've read his papers. But his definition neither illuminates the nature of gravity (it's simply action-at-a-distance with a twist), nor is it testable (experimental error, remember?). He'll go to his deathbed believing that his theory's right and "big physics" is wrong. But in some sense, *it just doesn't matter*. An untestable theory that says nothing fundamental about the nature of the universe isn't wrong -- it's just content-free. If you think that I put Gellerism, Psi, meta-physics and tao into the same boat as my friend's gravity theories... well, you'd be right, mate. Rick.