From: dlawn@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: jB
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:29:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:peg:523300009:peg:523300012:000:9159
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!dlawn    Apr 16 00:29:00 1992


I, Don Lawn, am responding to Shava Nerad Averett's response 
to my Chemical Machine item.

Also, this may in some part cover the discussion between Shaman and
Tim Warren

>>In article <523300009@peg> dlawn@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>>"My Brain is a chemical machine. 
>>Therefore my thoughts are predictable, and I can have 
>>no free will"

>What is 'jB,' anyway?

Its a combination my clumsiness, inexperience with BBS', 
and noise on the line. Sorry.

>>"My Brain is a chemical machine. 
>>Therefore my thoughts are predictable, and I can have 
>>no free will"

>Go read J Gleik's (I hope I spelled this right) _Chaos_ for a reason
>that this is non-sensical to a physicist.

I have read Chaos, but thanks for the reminder. 
I take it you are implying that my free will may be the result
of chemistry/physics modified with sensitive dependence 
on initial conitions, etc.
Chaos theory may offer a possible explanation of how
self will can arise from a chemical machine, but
it is only a hypothesis, far from proof. It does not render
my statement non-sensical.
I think  I'll keep looking for another explanation.

>>If there is something outside of physics, then
>>I shall call it Magick, and study it.
>>
>By all means.  When you have studied it enough to understand it, maybe 
>it will be part of physics again...  Not that I don't believe in magick,
>but I *do* believe in physics.

I guess here we are getting down to the basic problem.
I AM a physicist (B.App.Sc.(phys) 1979), and have been 
studying Magick in one form or other since about 1985, 
and basically there is no way that ANYTHING I have seen in 
Magick is even close to being precise and rigourous 
enough to qualify as Physics.
I like Magick because it often deals with concepts I do not know how to 
express in terms adequate to physics.

This doesn't mean that I am knocking Magick. I just keep them separate.
Here's why:-  (My own thoughts)

Physics basically divides the physical universe into known and unknown.
The known stuff really is KNOWN - completely describable by mathematics,
and completely reproducible (except where we get it wrong, of course). 
Even the stuff that is subject to randomness (i.e. all of it)
has its random aspects described by the precise mathematics of statistics,
and is reproducible within known statistical limits. The student physicist 
can often get full marks for a wrong answer, provided he can fully account
for the error in terms of experimental technique. Knowing HOW accurate you 
are is more important than just knowing that you are correct.

Physicists work at the boundary between the known and unknown, 
carefully working outwards while retaining a sure footing in the known.
Physicists who say things like "Physics is the study of everything, so I
can study anything and call it physics" will find it very difficult to
get published, and advancement will be slow in coming.
There are things that will ONE DAY become suitable subjects for
scientific study, but which are too far from the known stuff to be 
considered suitable.
Today, there are many aspects to Magick which are not part 
of Physics. Therefore Magick itself is not part of Physics. (Set theory)

The other side of the coin is Magickians who say 
"Magick is everything, so I can study anything and call it Magick"
This is fine. If the body of Magick thought accepts this definition,
then that is how it is defined.
My point though, is that I am not going to waste my time posting 
discussions of Physics study here. I will discuss it with Physicists, 
not Mages. When  I, Don Lawn, discuss Magick, I am
talking about that part of it which is outside of Physics.

Really, the definition of the word Magick should be the perogative
of the man who invented it - Crowley.  He defines Magick approximately as 
"any Act of Will".
This is clearly not Physics, as Physics goes to great lengths to exclude
the effects of Human Preference from its experiments. Physics focuses
on understanding natural processes which proceed irrespective of human will.
I believe there is a discipline called ParaPhysics which attempts to 
prove that human will can influence natural processes to an extent
that is beyond the explanations of Physics, but I am not aware of any 
such experiment which has succeeded to the point of convincing the
body of Physicists around the world. Perhaps when this can be done, then
ParaPhysics will become part of physics, and the boundary of Known Stuff
will move outwards once again.  This has not happened yet.
Physics is not part of Magick, because it excludes the effects of Will from its
considerations.
(The PURSUIT of Physics is a Magicakal, because it is a Human endeavour,
but the body of Known Stuff, Physics itself, is not.)

So, Physics is not part of Magick, and Magick is not part of Physics.
They are distinct fields of study.

Why then do I, a Physicist, take an interest in Magick?
Because I also want to think about those things that are outside of  Physics.

I also like to think about those things that pertain to a category outside of
both Natural Law, and Human Will. I believe Mages call this Mysticism.
To Tim and Shaman -
Physics (or perhaps its Maths) recognises that no system can fully describe
a larger system which includes the first. Therefore, if physics studies 
the rules of this material universe, and IF the spirit world is outside the 
material 
universe, then physics can make no comment about the spirit world. It may be
possible for the spirit world to understand ours, or determine ours, or drop 
hints about ours, or to be totally separate. We cant really say for sure.
I therefore agree with Tim. Sorry Shaman, serious physics doesnt take itself 
seriously enough to attempt to know the will of the gods.  We leave that 
to priests and Shamans.


When I study Physics, I strive to PROVE my theories.
When I study Magick, I only have to convince myself of the validity of
my theories. I only have to BELIEVE them.
This is the essence of the difference between Physics and non-Physics.
PROOF vs BELIEF.

>>Two Definitions:- 
>>  Free will - the ability to make my own choices
>>              outside of heredity and environment.
>>
>I absolutely promise you you have this.  I have a notion you probably use
>it on a regular basis.
Yes, I BELIEVE I have free will. I cannot PROVE it. Thats basically
what prompted the *jB posting originally.



>>Which, if either, has a soul?

>What's a soul?  If I'm an animist, it certainly would...

Which 'it', the one without Free Will, or the one With, or Both?

>>Can Free Will be created by science?

>Well, short of the quantum folks, most scientists would probably tell you
>that since Free Will isn't quantifyable, science really couldn't give a 
>damn. 

EXACTLY !.   Since science does not predict or explain Free Will,
I look elsewhere for understanding - i.e. Magick

>>  (I mean those outside of explanation by science)?
>Do you mean '...currently' or '...if any' ?

I mean AI's with Free Will, if any, currently outside 
of explanation by science.
After all, who am I to predict what science may discover 
in the future.

>>Are we (provably) capable of acts of Magick?

>Nothing like experiential truth.  If I am that well deluded, then the 
>question is moot anyway...

Experiential truth is what I would call belief.
Its no match for experimental evidence.
Also, it may well be that we are both but chemical machines
deluded into thinking we have Free Will. In typical human style,
I am questioning my own nature by raising these issues. It may be
that I will never find proof, but I enjoy thinking about it.

This may give you some idea of what I would consider proof :-
Do you keep full records of all experiments, both successes and failures?
Do you write up your proposed experiments, including what 
you consider success criteria, before performing them?
What are the odds that your successes are just co-incidences. 
How often do you repeat them to get statistical significance.
etc. etc. 
To show I'm serious, not being sarcastic, I offer this.
Whenever my Magickal experiments have produced significant results,
they have done so within 24 hours. Therefore, if I were being scientific
about it, I would set some similar criterion. No point in claiming success 
with attracting a blue feather ( a la "illusions" - Richard Bach), if it 
turned up 3 years later. I would then attempt to do this 10 days in a row,
and count my successes. Then, as a control, I would count the number of 
blue feathers found in a similar period of time without berforming the
Magickal Act. 
If the results showed promising, I would increase the repititions so something
more like 100, and perhaps include other mages in the experiment, allowing
for background and experience etc.

>>What constitutes proof, beyond all reasonable doubt?
>Nothing.  You are about to disappear in a puff of paradox.

As a starter, try for a Magickally induced result which is 
at least 3 standard deviations from the control result.


>Gosh, I sound like josh!  

Nah, there was nothing directly insulting in it at all!
In fact, on re-reading, I think I may be overreacting a bit.
If so, my apologies.