From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:53:52 GMT

In article <Bw5G7F.LJF@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct13.182823.1218@spectrum.xerox.com>, eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
|> |> |> ...[stuff]...
|> |> Hmmm -- maybe Lao-tse, the Buddha, and the Hindus were right all along about the
|> |> fundamental nature of the universe. And they didn't even have particle accelerators -
|> |> just good observational skills and insight.
|> 
|> -<vehement exclamation starts here>-
|> 
|> Oh no, not _this_ again. Been reading the "Tao of physics", 
|> or the "Poncing wu li masters" have we?
|> 
|> -<vehement exclamation ends here>-
|> 
|> Eastern mysticism is no substitute for physics. Even if you want to believe
|> that Lao-tse, the Buddha, etc were "right", then it can only have been
|> by chance. They had NO way of observing quantum effects. There is NO
|> evidence that they did any rigorous science.
|> 
|> The insights they had were psychological at best. NOT physics.
|> -- 
|> +soluble fish+
|> "It's hollow, it goes on forever, and ... my God, it's full of shit!"
|> (apologies to ACC)
|> 

-<rambling philosophical response starts here>-

Who said anything about substituting insight for physics? I agree totally with
you that they did not follow the "scientific method," nor did they have any way
of observing quantum effects. The veiled point I was making was that they had some
pretty interesting views that relate very well to what science is beginning to
find out. I only mentioned "fundamental nature" (i.e. concepts like impermanence of
all things, the voidness of all things, etc.). What should lead anyone to believe that
we can't perceive the essence of a thing without observing quantum effects? There are
many levels of perception, from both macro to micro. If you subscribe to the notion
that the whole is contained in the part, which I do, this is not a stretch.
Theirs is a philosophy of the unity of all things in the ultimate sense, and that any
sense of separateness is a product of the human faculty of reason. What thing can you
point out that is truly separate from everything else?
"Rigorous science" - what is it anyway? What is science apart from the faculty of
the human intellect? Science is limited by the human intellect -- "nature" is not.
What does this mean for the "scientific method?" How can science cope with things
beyond the current capacity of human reason and intellect? What is anything anyway?
What is the fundamental nature of existence, and who realizes it? What is IT all
about? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-<rambling philosophical response ends here>-

(No, please, no more Thorazine! Anything but that!!!)

Well, I think that neatly sums things up in a very small nutshell, don't you? :-)

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism