[extropy-chat] Why do you think ESP is Bull?
robert.bradbury at gmail.com
Tue Feb 27 19:31:36 UTC 2007
On 2/15/07, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Do you believe that there are some things that can't
> be explained?
Any rational person would have to answer this "yes" at this time.
For, even when you take all the theories of how physics really works and
wrap them up in a big ball, you can still not answer the very simple
"Why did the big bang happen?"
You can propose some interesting hypotheses but there is no way IMO to prove
or disprove them. Without creating hundreds of universes you cannot get to
the p < 0.05 which is the benchmark of scientific "certainty". So one would
generally have to accept that the existence of the universe (and therefore
"us") cannot be explained.
Now, where you are skating on the edge is when or how you argue that things
from the "unexplainable" realm (e.g. how or why the universe began) are
leaking into the "explainable" realm (e.g. all things we currently observe
must obey known laws of physics -- and therefore ESP can only be explained
in such terms -- and if it cannot be explained in such terms (which most ESP
fans don't even bother to attempt) then it is a fictitious concept.)
One cannot, as Picard so often did "Make it So". You have to explain why or
how it is so. We are no longer cave persons subscribing to the most recent
theory of the local witch doctor. In the old days you could make up
anything and simply sell it to people (the success of an idea depended in
large part on the seller) -- now-a-days the idea has to have some throw
weight (because I am no longer that naive cave person).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat