[thechat] rationality is not enough (was: New Year's Resolution)

[Joe Crawford]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tony Crockford wrote:
> Which is why I drew Quantum into it - the uncertainty principle being
> that you can measure one attribute exactly and the more exact you are
> about one attribute the less exact you are on the other.

Things do appear to get strange at certain scales. :-)

> So in a way proving sprituality is like quantum measurement - the more
> you try to prove it, the more you affect it an the less likely you are
> to be able to measure it.

I'm not sure I agree. The principle of being able to measure the location
OR the speed, but not both, seems pretty clear to me, despite the
uncertainty. Again, the reproducibility of the results, /as we understand
them now/ by independent scientists sets it apart from many issues of
spirituality.

Spirituality it seems is a slippier thing to prove, yes?

> Maybe i'm an optimist but I like to believe I'm a particle effect of a
> wave and that the wave continues when the particle effect is destroyed.

I certainly like to think that there are electromagnetic phenomena, and
phenomena we don't understand, which will give us evidence of some of the
things psychics talk about. But as of yet, they're not reproducibly
measurable. :-\

> Besides a lot of scientific "proof" requires us to have a lot of faith
> in the scientist - I for one have to blindly accept the maths is
> right....

Ah yes, but like open source code, were you to take the time to learn the
maths, you *could* peer review their reason, logic, and math. And anyone
can do that if they like.

I've been reading CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" of late. Interesting
stuff. But in the end, the reliance is still on individual, personal
faith. This remains in my eyes outside the realm of reason I think of as
scientific.

We're in subtle-distinction land, and I pray (ha!) that my words don't
strike you as rude.

Best,

	Joe