From: jasonp@cunix4.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci)
Subject: Re: empathic links
Keywords: Re: empathic links
Organization: Prime Computer, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:25:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.211640.19128@linus.mitre.org>, tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:
> 
> 
> Hi kids -

Hey, Dad. Can I have some money? :)

> 
>  "In 1964, physicist J. S. Bell published a mathematical proof called Bell's
>   theorem. Bell's theorem mathematically supports the concept that subatomic
>   'particles' are connected in some way that transcends space and time, so
>   that anything that happens to one particle affects other particles. This
>   effect is immediate and does not need 'time' to be transmitted. In Bell's
>   theorem, effects can be 'superliminal,' faster than the speed of light. Bell's
>   theorem is now supported by experimentation. We are now talking about a 
>   phenomenon that stands outside Einstein's theory of relativity. We are trying
>   to go beyond the wave/partcle duality."
> 

I'm sorry, maybe I'm a little rusty, but didn't Bell's theorem get 
superceded by, or perhaps was just explaining the effects of,  Quantum 
Mechanics? Wasn't it just that there is zero time lag between the 
observation of a particle, and the 'resolution' of the probability
wave-form. It's outside of relativity, because it doesn't have anything
(really) to do with it, not because of so-called 'superluminal'
transmission of data. 

>  and further
> 
>   "Recently, physicist Dr. David Bohm said in his book "The Implicate Order" 
>   that primary physical laws cannot be discovered by a science that attempts 
>   to break the world into parts. He has written of an implicate enfolded order 

A nice theory, but unsubstantiated/able. It's the same old philosophical 
debate of 'Can man ever know God?'. 

>   which exists in an unmanifested state and is the foundation upon which all 
>   manifest reality rests............(quoted from his book) "Parts are seen to 
>   be in immediate connection, in which their dynamical relationships depend in 
>   an irreducible way on the state of the whole system..." "

This is saying the same thing as an 'equasive' theory of the universe,
which is (basically) that there is a mathmatical formula which, from point 
in (t or tau) to point in (t or tau), that describes the universe. 

Taken to the logical extremes, it's basically the same argument
for predestination or perhaps Karma, which for the participants is 
'uninteresting'...i.e. it doesn't help to know for sure, and it
is most likely know knowable 'for sure'. You've got to role with 
the punches, as it were, in any case. 

>   the preceding quotes are from "Hands of Light" by Barbara Brennan

This name rings a bell...what else did she write?

>   Basically what it means is that we are all connected, that each of the pieces
>   is aware of the whole...........in that they are inseperable. The mind becomes
>   aware of the specific by focus of awareness, or attunement. The hologram is 
>   used as an analogy...............from each of the pieces of a shattered holo-
>   graphic image the entire hologram may be viewed. Each piece contains the 
>   whole. There is no time and space to the whole, only to the pieces.

First, I take exception to glossing over the 'awareness' bit, it really doesn't 
seem to work out within the idiom, but I'll try to see the essence of 
your...commentary:

Nice theory, but unsubstantiated, and (in my opinion) unsubstantiable 
within 'rules of nature', as we (and I use the general) play them. 
Occam's razor works well with theories like this. And, additionally,
because we know how the hologram works, this isn't a good analogy,
and it doesn't hold up on (close) inspection. Perhaps a better analogy is 
as follow:
Basically, all this says is, you step on a particular daisy, and
through a (known or unknown) causality, Alpha Centauri blows up. 
Big deal, and equally 'untracable' within the framework we can (I believe)
comprehend intellectually. As for 'spiritual comprehension', if
there is such a thing, who knows, and who cares. :)

If, in fact, you are attempting to describe the general 'psychic
phenomenon', then Occam's Razor, I believe, is really needed. 
Of course, if you take this away, (As your commentary above re:
an implicate order,  says),then, yes, this is as plausable (or implausable)
a theory as any could put out. Removing Occam's Razor doesn't make it any 
more 'correct', but it makes it more plausable.

>   Wm T.
> 
> .standard disclaimer

I might comment that your examples perhaps would get a better
roasting on sci.philosophy.meta, but I did my best for the moment. 
I'd be interested to see what they had to say, if you were to forward
your contentions to them. (Puts on sunglasses.)

-- 
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com

There was once a zen student and Mason,
whose knowledge surpassed his reason. 
Being as wise as he thinks, 
he was quiet as the Sphynx, 
And didn't get roasted by Jason. 
	-Anonymous :) :) :)