[ExI] Psi (no need to read this post you already knowwhatitsays )

John Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net
Mon Jan 11 16:53:55 UTC 2010

On Jan 10, 2010, Damien Broderick wrote:

>>  After well over a century's effort not only have Psi
>> "scientists" failed to explain how it works they haven't even shown that
>> it exists.
> You *don't* know that, because you refuse to look at the published evidence##

THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT IS TYPING. There is no point in me looking at it I already know what it's going to say: I set up the experiment this way, I had these controls, all the people were honest and competent, I got these amazing results, and I was really really really really careful. The trouble is I have no way of knowing if one word of that is true, I don't even have a way of know if there was a experiment done at all, for all I know it's just an exercise in typing.  

> the usual objection to psi from heavy duty scientists at the Journal of Recondite Physics and Engineering is, "We don't care about your anomalies, because you don't have a *theory* that predicts and explains them."

Damien, I think even you know that is Bullshit. Nobody has a theory worth a damn explaining the acceleration of the entire Universe and nobody predicted it, yet the fact of its existence is accepted by those foolish conservative stick in the mud mainstream scientists because the evidence is just so good.

Before it was observed nobody predicted the existence of Dark Matter even though it is by far the most abundant form of matter in the universe, and to this day nobody can explain it, nevertheless those silly mainstream scientists believe it exists because the evidence is just so good.

Nobody predicted X Rays before Röntgen discovered them and neither he nor anybody else had a theory to explain them, but he became the most lionized physicist of his day and received the very first Nobel Prize in Physics.

And even Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which has about as much emotion and prejudice aimed against it as it's possible for a Scientific theory to have, was accepted by the mainstream scientific community in only about a decade, and when he died Darwin was given a hero's funeral and buried in  Westminster's Abbey right next to Newton.

You are asking us to believe that third string experimenters using equipment that cost almost nothing can detect a vital new fact about our universe, and have actually been doing exactly that for centuries; and yet in all that time not one world class experimenter can repeat the feat and allow the fact of Psi to become generally accepted, and you expect this grotesque situation will continue for at least another year, hence your refusal to take my bet. Damien that just is not credible.

> I *suspect* the same might be true of "cold fusion."

I too suspect the same is true for cold fusion, more than suspect actually.

> what happened in 2001 when the Royal Mail in Britain published a special brochure to accompany their issue of special stamps to commemorate British Nobel Prize winners. Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel physics laureate in 1973, took the opportunity to draw attention to anomalies research: “Quantum theory is now being fruitfully combined with theories of information and computation. These developments may lead to an explanation of processes still not understood within conventional science such as telepathy

In the last 9 years microprocessors have become about 65 times as powerful, it was found that the Universe is expanding, and a probe was sent to Pluto, in the last 9 years what new advances have occurred in "these developments" that Josephson speaks of? Zero, nada, zilch, goose egg. 

> Josephson responded in the Observer newspaper on October 7, 2001:
> The problem is that scientists critical of this research do not give their normal careful attention to the scientific literature on the paranormal: it is much easier instead to accept official views or views of biased skeptics . . . Obviously the critics are unaware that in a paper published in 1989 in a refereed physics journal, Fotini Pallikari and I demonstrated a way in which a particular version of quantum theory could get round the usual restrictions against the exploitation of the telepathy-like connections in a quantum system. Another physicist discovered the same principle independently; so far no one has pointed out any flaws.

I assume that Josephson is talking about the short paper "Biological Utilisation of Quantum
NonLocality", well.... to find a flaw in something the thing in question must have some substance. That paper makes no predictions, suggests no new experiments, and contains not a single equation; its just a bunch of vague philosophical musings  

> An academic and science correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph, Robert Matthews, commented sharply in November 1991:

> "there is now a wealth of evidence for the existence of ESP"

In the last 19 years microprocessors have become about 6500 times as powerful, how much has this "wealth of evidence" in support of ESP increased in that time? Zero, nada, zilch, goose egg.

And who the hell is Robert Matthews?

> It turns out quantum theory is right, Einstein’s wrong and that particles or systems that are in part of the same system, when apart, retain this nonlocal connection . . . If quantum theory is truly fundamental, then we may be seeing something analogous, even homologous, at the level of organisms. Insofar as people are thinking theories of telepathy, then this is one of the prime contenders.

That is incorrect. Yes non local connections exist and yes you can instantly change something on the other side of the universe, but you can't use that fact to send information and that's what you'd need to do to make telepathy work.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100111/ccd3db29/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list