From: heintzelman-george@CS.YALE.EDU (George Heintzelman)
Subject: Re: Psionics
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:36:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.164746.4299@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> cassidy@indian.cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
>In article <13742@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>>a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu (Brandon Cope) writes:
>>
>>> Most games I've seen generally do this (treat it[psionics] as a science); any
>>> 'inconsistancies' are easily explained by some races being more 'psychically
>>> aware' than others.
>>
>>That's mere handwaving.  The "explanations" don't include a plausible
>>scientific explanation for why a basic force (along the lines of gravity and
>>the strong nuclear force) in the universe can't be detected on instruments, yet
>>can be detected and controlled by a sack of electrochemical activity (a brain).
>>The common way around this is to claim that there is something special about
>>life or sentient life.  This translates as "magic".
>
>	I hate to have to seem mystical on this point, but information is a 
>"force" that cannot be measured quantitatively.  I can send information to 
>another person over a long distance and his sack of electro-chemical energy can
>translate information into actual physical force.  I can be a construction    	
>contracter and be making the a deal in New York, and I can call my partner in LAover a small narrow signal which can trigger actions of energy that can dwarf 
>the quantitiy of power used to set that motion into action.  Yet that small
>signal is indeed a "cause" of the massive earth-moving that is being done on the
>other coast.  If I hadn't called, or if the deal hadn't gone through, the 
>earth-movers and the backhoes would have just sat there instead.  On the other hand I can use a LOT of bandwidth on a worldwide network and say nothing ( c.v.
>alt )  I can create a macro that puts in random strokes in a more or less struictured fashion.  Without an understanding of what my message means we can have no
>estimation about the amount of information in my message.  
>
>	Now if we accept that this is something that can be done by not only 
>the human brain, but a configuration of forces somewhat similar-- at least in  
>effect, perhaps not structure, we can begin to see how more massive effects can
>be accomplished my a tramittance of a signal that is a effectively invisible in
>the magnitude that the effect is visible.  For example, about the construction
>idea, a spy sattelite would find tracing the signal energy almost impossible 
>over a continent, but would well be able to spot the construction site.
	This is a valid point. Strictly speaking, seeing how much we
DON'T understand about how the brain works, there could be a minute
force manipulated in ways by our brains, that we don't understand.
	However.
	The example you have given of a minute amount of information (energy)
causing a fairly large effect is not a parallel to what has been
depicted as psi, or any concievably useful notion thereof. In order
for those energies to be released, there must have been special
conditions in effect beforehand -- ie you called your partner, not
just any old person. If you called any old person with the same
information, absolutely nothing would have happened. There are many
other very specific conditions, prearraged understandings by people
and so forth, that allow this effect to occur. 
	By analogy, such a minute force would need a tremendous amount
of special circumstances, moreso than the elctromagnetic interaction
(the one you used with your phone call, the strongest force) in your
example did. It could never approach the effects described in the
scientific literature.

>
>	About life or sentient life being "special" being indentical to magic: 
>we already know that there is something special about sentience, Scientists 
>know it.  Perhaps we don't know in what exact way sentience is special. 
>Perhaps there are special consequences to sentience in order to create all the 
>effects that sentience requires?  
	No. We do NOT know that sentience is special. We humans have a
strong bias towards wanting to think that way, because we are sentient
(or at least, we think we are. :), but there is no accepted scientific
evidence to suggest that sentience cannot be produced with the
laborious application of the current physical model. If there were, it
would be reason to tear down the physical model & work on a new one.

>Any future investigation of science into this
>would be its own science, proposing a new avenue of scientific investigation is
>fair game for SF.  Do we really KNOW all the ways that science will evolve?
>If this all seems like handwaving to you, you can ignore it.  But I would be   
>interested in specific questions on this subject if you wish.

	No, we don't know all the ways that science will evolve.
However, anything postulated must not produce observations different
from those currently well-known, within the limit of the accuaracy of
those measurements. In hard SF, it must provide an explanation as to why we
HAVEN'T observed it yet. 
	Frankly, I've never seen a satifactorily done explanation of
psi effects, by anyone. The relatively common '5th force' postulate
falls down almost always because, in order not to be observed, it must
be either 1) incredibly weak, and therefore useless (except in very
sepcial circumstances, see above) 2) Incredibly short ranged (ie
inside quarks) and therefore useless for macroscopic effects -- every
macroscopic effect we have seen can be explained with quantum
electrodynamics & general relativistic gravitation; or 3) Effective
only between rare types of particles, and therefore again, generally
useless.

George Heintzelman

Ignore the above address, its just where I read news...email should be
sent to heintzel@cernapo.cern.ch

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy