From: mitchell@seas.smu.edu (Gary Mitchell)
Subject: Re: What is reality?
Organization: SubGenius Inner Cabal Knights - Lodge #273 - Dallas
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:34:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.171608.11009@PA.dec.com> dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr10.132459.27045@PA.dec.com>, stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) writes:
>|>>For an informative look at modern "scientific" theories that attempt
>|>>to answer this question (and for a look at just how bizarre quantum
>|>>theory can get), see the book "Paradigms Lost" (I forget the author).
>|>
>|>I think this was science populist Frank Casti ?  Excellent presentation of the
>|>way (and limitations) of scientific method as applied to philosophical 
>|>questions.  He also wrote a book about 'certainty,'  but I haven't read it.
>
>I read some more last night and STILL forgot to get the guy's name. Oh
>well...While I haven't gotten to the end of the "what is reality"
>chapter, the explanation of Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem is very
>interesting, to say the least.
>

There is another book called *The Conscious Universe* (written by a
quantum physicist and a science historian) that, though very technical,
explains the full impact of modern scientific theory on philosophy, the
other sciences, and on human consciousness itself. Among its topics is
Niels Bohr's 'Copenhagen Interpretation,' which basically states that
scientific theory does not describe an ultimate reality, but merely 
models it. In this regard, anyone claiming that science has all the
answers is committing folly. And unfortunately for the dogmatics, every
scientific theory seems to conform to the Copenhagen Interpretation very
well. In fact, it relieves the burden of some scientists -- instead of
chasing after some vision of reality, they can create models that work
well enough to be useful, without being burdened with areas that can
be ignored despite conflict.

The test for the 'truth' of science is its usefullness, not its conformity
to 'reality.'

There IS a 'reality' under it all, but everything you can 'know' about
it is filtered and interpreted by the brain. So there can be no pure
knowledge.

Another good book to consider is Walter Truett Anderson's *Reality Isn't
What It Used To Be*. Despite a few misapprehensions on Anderson's part
(i.e. his coloring-book description of Timothy Leary as an 'LSD guru'
without understanding Leary's motivations or mindset), this book
clearly shows that it's not just us magicians, counterreligious preachers,
acidheads, mind-machine enthusiasts, etc., that realize that realities
are as choosable as today's shirt.

>|>Do Chaos magicians actually study Chaos math, or do they borrow the
>|>term and general concept primarily ?   
>
>I've only limited contact with Chaos magick (I read _Practical Sigil
>Magic(k)_ by Frater U.D.), but it wasn't mentioned at all. I think
>they are refering to Chaos as in Chaos vs. Law, not Chaos as in
>Sensitivity to initial conditions.

I for one would like to see a discussion on Chaos magick. I've heard a
lot about it, and would like to find out more. From what I've heard, it
seems to be related in mentality to Scottish magick....

Rev. Sheldon der Wehr, H.o.t.S.F.
SubGenius Inner Cabal Knights
and acolyte magician at large

mitchell@star0.seas.smu.edu