Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 147
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 147
Thursday, February 8th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Current Affair Upcoming Expose (?)
Re: Current Affair Upcoming Expose (?)
Re: Melchizedek (To David Stark)
Re: Skeptics and QM (To: Paul Faeder)
QM Book List
Replies to QM and other things (To John Chalmers)
Replies/QM
Greenhouse Effect
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: Current Affair Upcoming Expose (?)
Date: 7 Feb 90 15:21:00 GMT
> Well, surprisingly enough it was a basically positive show...no
> revelations, he didn't "get to the bottom" of anything...but it
> was a positive broadcast.
That's good. What stories were covered, anything we know about?
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Current Affair Upcoming Expose (?)
Date: 8 Feb 90 03:03:00 GMT
I take it you missed the show? I pretty much covered the same ground
as most other shows. It summerized with a summary (how odd!) that
basically said -- Any good evidence should be discounted since there is
allways the possbility it could have been faked (like photos) and any
weak evidence is weak (how odd!) so it can be discounted too. So,
suprise, suprise, there is really no evidence. They showed the
Catalina Island film and the Japan video. As to the Japan video, they
didn't seem to find it overly impressive on they only showed maybe 10
seconds of it. You could see a blurry round thing at a distance and
then it looked like the camera zoomed in or else the UFO zoomed closer
and you could start to make out it's saturn like appearance and then
the clip ended. How does that compare to the Japan Video as you know
and love it? I had gotten the impression it was much longer and much
more impressive then what they showed. They also showed WHitley
Stribers CAT scan showing a little white dot which, drum roll, *could*
be an alien implant. Opposeing diagnostic views were not presented. I
have it on tape if you care to see it sometime. (Plus I have the teaser
for the next days program on the SI Swimsuit edition, Nothing
unidentifed in THAT part.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Melchizedek (To David Stark)
Date: 8 Feb 90 18:00:54 GMT
+
+ From: paranet!f28.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!David.Stark
+ Subject: Melchizedek
+
+ Not all of us in "Christian circles" speculate that Melchizedek may be "an
+ example of the pre-incarnate work of Christ". Some Bible students, such as
+ Jehovah's witnesses, believe that Melchizedek was a prophetic picture of
+ Jesus Christ as King. Melchizedek's lack of discernable origin prefigured
+ the heavenly origin of the man Jesus and the various titles that he had,
+ such as "King of Salem (peace)" also foreshadowed the fact that Jesus would
+ be referred to as "Prince of Peace".
David, I didn't mean to imply that all Christian thinkers and
theologians speculate this to be the case. It is just one of many
possible thoughts. And this doesn't take into account anything written
in the Jewish literature. All we know about Melchizedek is his meeting
with Abraham and then what Paul discusses in Hebrews with regards to
priesthood.
The title King of Salem while foreshadowing Jesus' title of Prince of
Peace also points to the fact that Jerusalem is a very old city. It
existed in the time of Abraham evidenced by the the title that
Melchizedek had.
+
+ I don't wish to get into an extended discussion of Scripture, and I'm sure
+ you don't either. ;-)
I rather think it would be a short discussion since there is very little
written about Melchizedek in the Bible. And beyond what is written, we
have merely speculation.
+
+ I just want to point out another viewpoint that does not necessitate making
+ up an explanation based on something not yet proven, such as
+ extraterrestrial corporeal life.
I did not say that this was the case. I merely echoed what had been
speculated as a question with a smiley.
+ Serious Bible students do acknowledge the
+ existence of other life forms besides humans; we just don't believe that
+ they are flesh and blood.
Would you care to elaborate?
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Skeptics and QM (To: Paul Faeder)
Date: 8 Feb 90 18:11:24 GMT
+
+ From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
+ Subject: Re: Skeptics and QM
+
+ Sorry Gene. When usenet or internet messages come in here they say
+ they're from infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com. Your name is listed in the
+ message body but I must have missed it.
No sweat!! Just that John may not want to take any credit or blame for
my idiocy. ;-) Though I'm more than happy to share it all. 8-)
+
+ OK tell me if I'm way off here or not. Are you (or David Bohm) saying
+ that our universe is (or may be) a subatomic particle in another, larger
+ universe while at the same time subatomic particles in our universe may be
+ a universe in themselves?
I wouldn't say that this local universe is a particle in another
nonlocal universe. Let me see if I can explain Bohm's thinking a bit
better. But realize that I'm explaining the ideas of another person and
may not do a great job of it.
Bohm, even before Aspect's experiment, felt that there was enough
evidence to convince him that subatomic particles were correlated (this
is the term physicists prefer over connected) with each other in ways
that defied our classical understanding of reality. However, he did not
accept the idea that this correlation was due to some faster-than-light
signaling process. Instead, he concluded that their existence pointed
to a nonlocal level of reality beyond the quantum. That is, all the
particles we see at the subatomic level are not really separate things
at all. At some deeper level of reality the particles are merely the
extensions of the same fundamental "something."
Bohm called the level of reality in which the particles appear to be
separate (the level that we inhabit) the *explcate* order. The deeper
level of reality where the separateness vanishes he called the
*implicate* order. When I speak of the local universe, I'm talking
about the explicate order. When I speak of the nonlocal universe, I'm
talking about the implicate order.
To give an example of this, let me quote from Michael Talbot's book,
_Beyond_the_Quantum_.
"To illustrate how a level of unbroken wholeness might explain such
correlations without involving faster-than-light signaling processes,
Bohm gave the following example. Imagine an aquarium in which a fish
swims. Imagine also that there are two television cameras directed at
the aquarium. One, which we will call camera A, is directed at the
front of the aquarium. The other, camera B, is directed at the
aquarium's side, and each camera is hooked up to a corresponding
television monitor. Imagine that you cannot see the aquarium or the
fish directly, but only have knowledge of them from the two images you
see on the television screens...
"As Bohm pointed out, when you look at the screen, because you only know
the fish from the monitors, you might assume that what you are watching
is really two fish. However, as you continue to watch, in time you
begin to realize that when the fish on monitor A moves, the fish on
monitor B also makes a corresponding movement. If you continue to think
of the fish as two separate fish you might incorrectly assume that some
sort of instantaneous communication must be occurring between the two
fish, but this is not the case. The instantaneous correlations between
the movements of the two fish are due instead to the fact that on a
deeper level of reality, the reality of the aquarium, the two fish are
not really separate entities at all.
"According to Bohm's way of thinking, this is roughly analogous to what
is going on when we measure the correlations between the two photons..."
The implicate interpenetrates us and we it, infinitely.
We have long labored under the illusion that our local universe is a
gigantic machine. To understand it, we merely have to disassemble it
and examine its many parts. Yet this model breaks down a the subatomic
level as we approach the implicate order. Bohm concludes that the
correlations between the subatomic particles indicate that a
revolutionary new understanding of order is right around the corner.
This new understanding will be one in which the local universe is no
longer viewed as a machine but more properly as a stupendous
multidimensional hologram. The superholographic universe that I
mentioned.
+
+ And when you say "superhologram" do you mean that the larger universe is
+ projecting into ours and ours in turn, is projecting into a smaller universe?
If Bohm is correct, we are infinitely interpenetrated at all levels.
Think about this for a few days and I can almost guarantee you a
charlie-horse of the brain. ;-)
Now if I take this and speculate, I can see such a "reality" as
explaining a multitude of things. The paranormal may simply be a
function of this greater reality. I won't attempt to delve into this
any further simply because my thinking is still in its formative stages.
But I think that if what Bohm and others propose here, we could say that
telepathy is a clear cut example of this "reality." Indeed, it may be
that many things that we consider strange or bizaare or abnormal may
simply be the results of this. Consider those who hear voices from God
or long dead people. Are they really insane, or are they just too
sensitive to the hologram?
Bohm was stuck by an experiment done with a container filled with
glycerine. In the center of the container was a cylinder that could be
turned by hand. A drop of ink was introduced into the glycerine. The
demonstrator turned the cylinder and the ink spread out. Then when the
cylinder was turned in the opposite the direction the ink reformed the
original spot. This, according to Bohm, gives us an idea of what
happens with time in the reality he proposes. Time is enfolded and not
simply lost somewhere. Could it be that there are those sensitive
enough to perceive the various folds of time in such a way that they
hear voices? Could this also be the source of the ability to see things
from the past and/or the future?
Lots of possibilities and even more questions. I'll pop off the list of
books sometime today.
Gene
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: QM Book List
Date: 8 Feb 90 19:26:02 GMT
Hello y'all,
I've had a request from Paul Faeder and others for a list of books on QM
that I'd recommend. Here is a list. It is by no means exhaustive nor
complete. I've got this list in electronic form now, so I'll update it
as time goes along. If any of you have books that you think should be
added to this list, especially in other disciplines, please let me know.
I'll add them to the list and post an addendum to the list periodically
to update one and all.
[List starts.]-----------------------------------------------------
The following is a list of books that I've found very helpful in
understanding quantum theory and its implications to our lives. But
before I get to the list, I'd like to quote from Niels Bohr about
quantum theory:
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not
understood it."
If you read some of the following books, I think you'll understand how
shocking quantum theory really is. Books marked with two asterisks
mean that the contents are technical and may require knowledge of math
in order to wade through them.
Timewarps
John Gribbin (Delacorte Press, 1979)
In Search of Schrodinger's Cat
John Gribbin (Bantam Books, 1988)
Taking the Quantum Leap
Fred Alan Wolf (Harper & Row, 1981)
Space-Time and Beyond
Bob Toben and Fred Alan Wolf (Bantam Books, 1982)
(don't be fooled by its simplistic approach--lots of good
information)
Beyond the Quantum
Michael Talbot (Bantam Books, 1988)
A Survey of Hidden Variable Theories **
F. J. Belinfante (Pergamon Press, 1973)
The Riddle of Gravitation
P. G. Bergman (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968)
Cosmic View
Kees Boeke (John Day Co., 1957)
Labyrinths
Jorge Luis Borges (New Directions, 1964)
The Tao of Physics
Fritjof Capra (Bantam Books, 1977)
The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences
William Kingdon Clifford (Dover Publications, Inc., 1955)
The Minds of Robots
J. T. Culbertson (University of Illinois Press, 1963)
The Many-worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
B. DeWitt and N. Graham (Princeton University Press, 1973)
Space-Time Physics
John A. Wheeler (Freeman, 1971)
The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time **
S. W. Hawking and G. Ellis (Cambridge University Press, 1973)
Relativity and Cosmology
William J. Kaufmann III (Harper & Row, 1973)
The Cosmic Frontiers of General Relativity
William J. Kaufmann III (Brown and Company, 1977)
General Theory of Relativity **
C. W. Kilmister (Pergamon Press, 1973)
Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
Hans Reichenbach (University of California Press, 1965)
Geometrodynamics
John A. Wheeler (Academic Press, 1962)
These books should get you started. I have most of them. I can tell
you that the ones marked with ** are definitely not for the weak of
heart mathematically. So be aware of that--I only wish that my higher
math was better. Maybe others out there can add to this list. I have
other books on my "To Buy" list. Also, some of the books may be out of
print now, so you'll have to scour the used bookstores or the library to
find copies.
Happy reading.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Replies to QM and other things (To John Chalmers)
Date: 9 Feb 90 00:19:38 GMT
+From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
+Subject: Replies/QM
+
+ Gene and others: the January 16, 1990 issue of SCIENCE
+ has an article on the effects of very low level electrical
+ fields on cells. The latest issue has an article on a
+ possible substruture for the electron itself.
The December, 1989, issue of DISCOVER also has an article on this very
topic. Picked it up for the article on the search for TOP and the one
on fusion.
+ To your and Clarke's question, I'm not familiar
+ with Herzfeld's work, or at least not under that name,
+ so I don't have an opinion. Sorry.
Clark asked the question. I've got some information at home in one of
the "billions and billions" of boxes. (Be sure to mimic Sagan's voice
when you say "billions and billions". ;-)) I'll dig around this weekend
and see if I can find it. Otherwise, Clark might be able to post
something before I do.
+ By Lamarckian, I mean the transmission of acquired
+ characteristics. While genetics with very few apparent
+ exceptions does not employ Lamarckian mechanisms (antibody
+ specifying genes in lymphocytes, methylation patterns, etc.),
+ human cultural transmission can be interpreted as an example
+ of a generalized Lamarckian process. the capacity for language
+ is genetic, but there in no evidence that the specific
+ properties of languages are anything but acquired. I would omit
+ onomatopeic words and other types of sound-symbolism from this.
+ The observed universals almost always have counter-examples; in
+ any case, most could be explained by descent from a common human
+ language.
John, I'm not sure that agree with you that the capacity for language is
genetic. That was Chomsky's point, and I find it wholly unsatisfying
for the reasons that I stated in my previous post. But like you, I
can't explain language acquisition either. So I guess we'll have to
keep nosing around until we get some better answers. I tend to side
with the idea of M-fields only for its simplicity. This doesn't mean
that that is all there is to it. Certainly culture plays a large part
in language as does the limit on phonemes.
Our use of language is also an interesting sidelight to all of this.
Just consider how language shapes our thinking and mental images. If I
say the something is blue, you'll have a fairly standard mental image of
that blue (standard to you, which might be a light shade of blue; I tend
to visualize a cobalt blue when someone just says blue). Do you see
what I just did to your image of blue. I took you to blue, then light
blue, and then an even more specific blue, cobalt blue. Think about it
for a while folks. When someone mentions something without giving you
details--tree for example--what image does it bring up?
Now think about the reports that come in on UFOs. The precision of
language is far more important than maybe some folks think it is. That
is why I'm glad to see that investigators are doing more than just
reporting what "someone says" they saw.
+ I don't know of MacDougal's work, Can you EMail me refs?
Give me an email address that I can get to from my UNIX box, e.g.,
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com.
+ By the way I once reviewed the literature on Ethylene
+ Dibromide as a mutagen and teratogen. I'd appreciate if you
+ could EMail me some references to your wife's research.
I'll ask her if they've done anything on it and what refs she can
provide.
+ RE dimensions and Mathematical Formalism: I haven't tried to get
+ into the actual math of superstring theory, though a lot has been
+ published on it, so I can't answer you question specifically. I added
+ that as a disclaimer because the article I had read on 26-D spaces to
+ model fermionic superstrings did so.
Where did you see this article? BTW, there is a book out on superstring
theory, written by one of the physicists that is involved in the
thinking on this. Saw it when I went to the bookstore this weekend.
Almost bought it--but then I saw the price and it didn't match my
wallets contents. ;-) But I scanned it. The illustrations seemed
excellent and helped to explain some of the text, which got a bit dense
in spots. Plan to buy it later this month.
+ I hope this clarified things
+ somewhat rather than confuse them further.
John, you done good, guy!! I don't think anybody wanted wall-to-wall
equations. If they do, maybe they can find such in one of the more
technical texts available on the market. As you were talking, you
mentioned that scientists use the dimensions in locating a point.
Reminded me of the 6-DOF simulations I've seen run. Lots of fun reading
through the computer "vomit." ;-)
+
+ Enough spleen this evening--I just got invited to go out drinking
+ with some shrinks and social workers.----John
Now that must have been some fun! "John, what does drinking Scotch and
soda mean to you?" 8-) 8-) Personally, I prefer Stout--about a pint at
a time.
Again, enjoyed it, John. Thanks.
Gene
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Greenhouse Effect
Date: 9 Feb 90 00:20:00 GMT
Jim Speiser and John Daly:
Both of you have talked about the Greenhouse effect, and I responded to
one of John's posts about it. Well, synchronicity is hard at work.
In this months issue of COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM (ACM==Association for
Computing Machinery), had the following articles in the News Track
section:
"GREENHOUSE REVISITED...A new computer simulation predicts that the
Northern Hemisphere will endure significantly more heat than the
Southern Hemisphere by the year 2030. The prediction seems to ease the
most feared consequence of the greenhouse effect: that the ice sheets of
Antartica would melt and contribute to rising sea levels. According to
a recent article in NATURE magazine, the computer model is a new and
improved version of previous models because it takes into account the
ability of oceans to influence climate. Although the simulation is more
detailed, scientists warn there are still many unknowns accompanying
these forecasts."
And in our for what it's worth department: rumor has it that the
Tasmanian Devil is actually a Klingon pet. Is this true, John? ;-)
Did some checking about the "meteors" seen a while back. So far, the
local people are saying that was all that was seen. It got maybe a 2
second sound byte on the local news. I don't recall it even making page
one. Any more on the meteor that came to earth in Alabama(?) ?
Any more about the mutilations in Charlotte, NC? We've had a spate of
reports on Satan worshippers in the Durham area. In fact, one of the
houses that the Satanists used for their rituals was featured on a
special report done by a local reporter. The house burned down this
past weekend. Evidently done by the Satanists themselves--so say the
cops and reporters. The Fire Chief says that the fire was deliberately
set.
Later,
Gene
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
