Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: JB
From: twarren@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:54:19 CST
Organization: University of Missouri-Kansas City

Sorry this is late, but the Usenet feed died for a while and I just got this
post. I will try and cut the length down considerably...
 
[stuff about physics deleted]
 
[some more stuff about models that I essentially agree with]
 
> Now of course, what Tim probably means is that somewhere out there
> beyond the models, is the real world which he calls physical.
> However, in my usual arrogant and contentious way, I want tim to look
> squarely at a proposition that I have looked at - namely that he
> cannot say that because physics works, it is any proof that the
> reality that lies out there is physical.
 
Arrogant because you make numerous assumptions about what I think and feel from
a fairly short post. *grin*
 
[some stuff about reality and engineering]
 
> Again, I split hairs. Prove that in fact (for example) quantum
> physical effects existed before we noticed them :-)
 
All we ever have to work with is models and the current model is good to about
10^-11 seconds after the big bang, or something like that.
 
[good point about relativity deleted, but I already knew that anyway]
 
        Why should relativity or quantum mechanics call into question
        the use of physics as a model of the world?
 
> Occams razor. If the theory is *that* weird,  - try a different
> theory.
 
Occam's razor says that? I understood it to mean that you use a simple rather
than complex solution. Essentially why you use a heliocentric system. But
Occam's razor doesn't say anything about weirdness.
 
        Sure, quantum mechanics gets very weird... but that is
        because it is describing weird things.
 
> Rubbish! what's more natural than an atom bomb? :-)
> Why should the very basic stuff of reality be weird? It is the most
> ordinary stuff of all surely?
 
Ordinary? Not by any normal usage. The macro world we live in is the ordinary
world. And what do atom bombs have to do with this anyway? Of course they're
natural, how could they not be (depending of course on how you define natural).
 
[alternate reality model proposed]
 
>    Judge for yourself. However Tim's view contains the classic
                                 ^^^^
     my model? now we are getting to the real reason I replied...
 
>    paradox - the physical world, which is what we - the mind -
>    perceives, gives rise to the thought (via all that brain chemistry)
>    that does the perceiving.I.e. we have a self referential situation.
>
[some more stuff deleted]
 
        Disclaimer: I'm not saying that physics is or is not the best
        model of the world, but am differing with Shaman's post. And
        historically physics *has* been a very useful model of the
        world. Most every modern convenience is based on physics
        research (like computers? satellites? the list is very long)
 
I would have thought that the above would have made it clear that I was *not*
espousing a materialistic world view. I *was* defending its usefulness which is
a different thing entirely.
 
[some more stuff deleted]
 
> If Tim's choice is to reduce everything to the physical, then that is
     ^^^^
Here we go again. Just because I defend the usefulness of a world view (which
you don't quite seem to deny) you conclude that I am a materialist. True or
not, that is *not* what I said.
 
> fine - but he should be aware that in my bok at least, that isn't the
> only choice, and provability and repeatability are not necessarily my
> main criteria for choosing the primary way in which I view Life
> the Universe and Everything :-) In the end whether you call it
 
I don't think I came across as judging how you should view the world. I saw it
more as defending materialism from an attack claiming that it was worthless
simply because things got odd at the extremes of the model. Gee, and I thought
that in magic the
middle part was weird! *grin*
 
[some more stuff deleted]
 
> A change of model is no big deal anyway for someone who recognises that
> their reality is that - a model.
 
Well on a different note than the rest of this post *grin*: I recognize that it
is a model and have for some time. It just so happens that the model used in
physics and the sciences is a very useful model.
This does not make it a singular truth and I know that.
 
It seemed that Shaman decided to make an example of me -- and in doing so I
feel that he misrepresented my position. For the record my world view is not
entirely materialistic -- otherwise I suspect I wouldn't have objected to his
post as much.
 
-=- Tim