On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 1:46 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK John, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
I think fundamentally we agree more than we disagree.
> let me summarize yet another good argument for psi.
>If our sci/tech continues to develop, it seems likely or at least plausible that one day, perhaps in only >a few centuries, most humans will have brain implants with neural lace connected to whatever the >internet will become. In other words, most humans will be telepathic. We will also be able to control >some kind of utility fog to move things and act in the physical world. In other words, most humans >will have psychokinetic abilities. I could continue and cover all parts of psi... So psi will exist in our >universe.
I agree, except that in a few centuries (perhaps a few decades) it will not be biological humans that have such abilities but our descendants the machines, what Hans Moravec called our "Mind Children" in his book by the same name, a book I highly recommend.
> if we can find a way to do something, I guess nature must have found ways to do the same thing. >Some degree of psi would evidently have evolutionary value, so I guess it is included in Darwin's >playbook.
Not necessarily because random mutation and natural selection is horribly cruel, inefficient and slow, but until it finally managed to produce a brain, after billions of years of fumbling around, it was the only way complex objects could get made. Intelligent design works much faster, we only got serious about building brains about 70 years ago and look at the enormous progress we've made in that short time.
Hi John, I also think fundamentally we agree more than we disagree. The difference is that you *want* to be a hard-line skeptic and I *want* to think that the universe is an enchanted place where magic can happen.
I agree that our mind children will be very much unlike us. Perhaps they will be uploaded minds of upload/AI hybrids that interact with each other and the rest of the world via connected thought streams and utility fogs. When this is the case we (this includes our superhuman mind children) will be well on our way to make the universe an enchanted place where magic can happen.
I'm open to the possibility that there's also natural magic that happens in the unaided universe, and that science will understand natural magic better and unveil new ways to use it. As you say, evolution is cruel, but it is also very clever in exploiting whatever is there to exploit. But again, if natural evolution hasn't yet enabled us to use psi, technology-driven evolution will. And I think technology-driven evolution is just a continuation of natural evolution.
Moving to cultural matters, I think openness to an enchanted world is needed to counter the "bureaucrats of philosophy" (the woke/cancel freaks of science and philosophy). It is the politically incorrect choice that we need to make at this moment. In a presentation that I'll soon share I said that one of the main problems of today's world is that there's *not enough* wishful thinking.
> Hi John, I think we are talking past each other. If I really want to
believe that psi is a thing, and you really want to believe that it
isn't, no argument will ever change my mind or yours.
I plead guilty as charged: I really want to believe that psi is a thing.
I wish it were real, I think it would've been great fun if psi had turned out to exist and I think most people feel that way too, but the universe is not required to conform to the wishes of human beings. You don't need a $10 billion particle accelerator to investigate it so if psi had been real it would have been proven to be so many centuries ago to the satisfaction of even the most skeptical, and today high school freshmen would be repeating those classic 17 century psy experiments in their science fair projects. It's a pity but that's just not the universe we live in.
> while not yet supported by direct experimental evidence, string theory has produced results (e.g.
AdS/CFT) that can be used to calculate things in the real world (e.g.
duality between quark-gluon plasma in the lab and hyperdimensional black holes).
String theory has never made a prediction confirmed to be correct by an experiment that had not already been predicted by other far less convoluted theories. To confirm a new string theory prediction you would need a particle accelerator that can reach energies at the Planck level, and with current technology that would require a machine at least as big as the solar system.
> Some speculative (I guess you would call them fringe)
string-based models seem to provide theoretical models for psi.
As I said, before I become interested in making a model of something I'd want to know that something exists that needs modeling. There is no burning need to explain how psy works, just as there's no burning need to explain how magic works in books like Harry Potter or the Bible. By the way, I found one of those books to be very entertaining.
> I have too much respect for my fellow human beings to entirely dismiss the
"anecdotal evidence" provided by countless people over the centuries.
There are a lot of things I respect about my fellow human beings but being able to give accurate accounts of what they just saw or experienced is not one of them. There was anecdotal evidence, or to be more precise there was allegedly anecdotal evidence, that Mohammed flew from Mecca to Jerusalem in one day on the back of a flying mule and then climbed to heaven on a ladder. And I don't believe one word of it.
OK John, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
However, let me summarize yet another good argument for psi.
If our sci/tech continues to develop, it seems likely or at least plausible that one day, perhaps in only a few centuries, most humans will have brain implants with neural lace connected to whatever the internet will become. In other words, most humans will be telepathic. We will also be able to control some kind of utility fog to move things and act in the physical world. In other words, most humans will have psychokinetic abilities. I could continue and cover all parts of psi... So psi will exist in our universe.
If we can reach this point, then I guess some advanced aliens must have reached it long ago. So psi exists in our universe here and now.
You are thinking, but this doesn't count because it is artificial psi!!!
But if we can find a way to do something, I guess nature must have found ways to do the same thing. Some degree of psi would evidently have evolutionary value, so I guess it is included in Darwin's playbook. There are indications that quantum entanglement plays a role in the brain of birds and bats, and in plants.
So I calmly wait for more theoretical and experimental studies of psi. You agree that psi researchers must remain free to research psi, and that private donors must remain able to fund them if they so want. I agree that you and all skeptics must remain free to withdraw money and attention. So this is it. We agree on the most important things. And time will tell.
Sorry to cut this short, but now I really have to listen to what my spirit guide is telling me.
> I'll have to read Smullyan's book again, I loved the beginning but
never finished the book (this is a side effect of having too many good
books).
For me Smullyan's nonfiction book (The Tao Is Silent) was as enjoyable as any novel I've ever read, and far more intellectually stimulating. Smullyan was an interesting guy, he had the talent to be a concert pianist but instead became one of the world's leaders in the logical foundations of mathematics.
><<<John: There is no scientific theory that predicts the existence of
psi, and as there is no experimental evidence to suggest that it
exists it just doesn't have any scientific interest.>>>
> On the contrary, there are scientific models that are compatible with
the existence of psi.
Well sure, the theory of continental drift is compatible with psi because it has nothing to do with it, and so is string theory because string theory has not been able to make any quantitative predictions at all. But I'm not even asking the psi people to give me a theory, I'm not demanding an answer, all I want them to do right now is to prove to me there is a question worth asking, a phenomenon that needs explaining. After that I'll worry about finding an answer, but first I must know the question.
> there's plenty of first person experimental evidence, from
thousands of years, all over the world and in all cultures.
It's not first person experimental evidence it's just anecdotal evidence, and if the history of religion has taught us anything it's that sort of evidence is absolutely worthless. Haven't you ever noticed that the less a psy experiment adheres to the demands of the scientific method the stronger the psy effect, and the greater the rigor the weaker the psy?
> To me, this indicates that scientific studies of psi could yield spectacular
results.
It's not as if nobody has tried, so where are all the spectacular results?!
> Live and let live, develop your theories and let others develop theirs, and let the best theories win.
That is exactly what science has done, and that is exactly why psy lost and is scientifically dead.
<<<John: universities should be allowed to give tenure to professors
who make scientific discoveries and not give tenure to professors who
just repeat experiments that have already been performed dozens or
hundreds of times previously, and I should be allowed to spent quite a
lot of my hard earned money to send my children to universities of
that type and not to the unscientific type.>>>
> Universities should be allowed ("allowed" ??? WHO is in charge of
"allowing" ?) to give tenure to whoever they like
The president and Board of Directors of the university obviously. And if you disagree with their decision then don't spend your money to send your kid to that University.
> and parents should
be allowed (same comment) to send their kids to whatever university
they like.
Sure, and high-tech companies should be allowed to only hire people who graduated from universities that take the scientific method seriously. That's why INTEL hires more people from MIT than from Bob Jones University.
> Call it whatever you want! Just don't interfere with the intellectual
freedom of others.
If I decide I don't wanna hire somebody for my high-tech company or my university that is not interfering with the intellectual freedom of others. I can't hire everybody, I've got to pick and choose. After all, you don't want Caltech to hire somebody who insists the earth is flat and only 6000 years old to be a professor of astronomy do you? You wouldn't spend lots of money to send your kid to such a place would you?
><<<John: For every Galileo there were about 6.02*10^23 people who
thought they were scientific geniuses but were just crackpots.>>>
> Right. And the only way to know which one is Galileo is to let them all try.
Who is saying otherwise? Certainly not me. By the way, would you agree that there are vastly more crackpots than there are Galileos?
Hi John, I think we are talking past each other. If I really want to believe that psi is a thing, and you really want to believe that it isn't, no argument will ever change my mind or yours.
I plead guilty as charged: I really want to believe that psi is a thing.
But this is not what I'm arguing. I'm just arguing that scientific progress needs open minds.
You mention string theory. Well, a good string theory book ( https://www.amazon.com/Why-String-Theory-Joseph-Conlon-ebook-dp-B01KHWTA56/dp/B01KHWTA56/ ) has a chapter titled "Direct Experimental Evidence for String Theory," which is probably the shortest chapter I ever read in a science book. The full text reads "There is no direct experimental evidence for string theory."
Yet, many scientists find string theory promising enough to invest their career prospects. And, while not yet supported by direct experimental evidence, string theory has produced results (e.g. AdS/CFT) that can be used to calculate things in the real world (e.g. duality between quark-gluon plasma in the lab and hyperdimensional black holes). Some speculative (I guess you would call them fringe) string-based models seem to provide theoretical models for psi.
But we don't even need to invoke string theory. Back to the OP, Bell's theorem says that reality is non-local behind the scenes. We haven't been able to find ways to exploit non-locality for FTL or backward messaging. Yet. But perhaps we will. And who's to say that this doesn't play a role in the brain?
I like to keep an open mind (in physics and elsewhere). Also, I have too much respect for my fellow human beings to entirely dismiss the "anecdotal evidence" provided by countless people over the centuries.
I think we agree that universities are and must remain free to hire whoever they like and support whatever research they like, and that funding agencies and students/parents are and must remain free to vote with their wallets. This is healthy. With wallet voting, if 90 percent of people agree with you, then 90 percent of the funding and 90 percent of the students will not go to the universities that support psi research. I hope you are happy with 90 percent, I'm happy with 10 percent, so let's leave well enough alone.
Of course I agree that there are vastly more crackpots than there are Galileos. But my point is that the difference is not always evident before they all have done their best. Also, history shows that the Galileos are often called crackpots before their work forces everyone to agree.
> The Nobel Prize goes to research on “spooky action at a distance,” aka quantum entanglement.
I was delighted this happened! Pretending that the foundations of quantum mechanics is not worth bothering about has gone on for far too long.
> Clauser takes distance from what he calls “pseudo-physics.” Scientific rigor “sadly began to decline,” he says. “I am not much of a fan of Eastern mysticism.”
I agree with Clauser about that 100%.
> Perhaps even the far fringe of psi (the paranormal) research (sorry, “pseudo-physics”) will become mainstream science one day.
People have been predicting pseudo-physics will become mainstream for a very long time, but in 2022 it has come no closer to becoming a reality than it was in 1922, or 1822 or even 1822BC. Never mind how explaining how psi is supposed to work, the evidence that there's even something that needs to be explained has not increased 1 nanometers since the days when "psi" was called "spiritualism", and there's no reason to believe that situation will change. I think it's time to put a fork in psi and call it done and move onto a line of research that is likely to be more productive because scientists are not immortal and every hour somebody spends on yet another research program into spoon bending or tea leaf readings or prayer is an hour they could've spent on something a bit less dubious. After all, it's not as if there's nothing better to do.
I was also delighted, and I'm persuaded that research on the foundations of quantum mechanics is among the most important (arguably THE most important) research direction today.
<<<> Clauser takes distance from what he calls “pseudo-physics.” Scientific rigor “sadly began to decline,” he says. “I am not much of a fan of Eastern mysticism.”
I agree with Clauser about that 100%.>>>
To me, scientific rigor is one thing, and Eastern mysticism is another thing. The two are not correlated. One can be inspired by Eastern mysticism and do rigorous science, and one can be inspired by other metaphysical views and do sloppy science.
In his review of "How the Hippies Saved Physics," Clauser says: "Elizabeth Rauscher frequently visited my lab and invited me to attend the FFG’s seminar series and join the group. She also invited two other LBL physicists, Henry Stapp and Philippe Eberhard, who were also studying Bell’s theorem. She assured us that strict scientific rigor would be required for all proceedings of the group."
To me, the work of the FFG was inspired by Eastern mysticism AND aspiration to scientific rigor. Of course, individual members of the group were more focused on one or the other (e.g. respectively Sarfatti and Clauser). Herbert combined both, and his book "Quantum Reality" is a masterpiece of both metaphysical imagination and scientific rigor.
<<<People have been predicting pseudo-physics will become mainstream for a very long time...>>>
People have been predicting the Higgs boson for 50 years before experimental confirmation. People have been predicting gravitational waves for 100 years before experimental confirmation. In both cases we had to wait for sufficiently powerful technology. Let's keep an open mind and let experiment decide.
<<<I think it's time to put a fork in psi and call it done... After all, it's not as if there's nothing better to do. >>>
Hold on right here. WHO calls psi done? WHO says what is better to do? The government? The Ministry of Truth? A committee? And WHO is in the committee? The thought police of forced political correctness and cancel culture?
I say let individual scientists choose what they want to spend their time and energy on. If a scientist wants to work on psi, and if he manages to find the money (likely through private donations), I say let him work on psi. Live and let live. What he chooses to work on is not your business or mine, and perhaps something good will come out. History shows that the scientists who worked against the established consensus of their time often (not always, but often) enabled spectacular scientific advances.
> Herbert combined both, and his book "Quantum Reality" is a masterpiece of both metaphysical imagination and
scientific rigor.
I agree, that was a good book. I was also very impressed with Raymond Smullyan's book "The Tao Is Silent", It's one of the most enjoyable books I've ever read.
> <People have been predicting pseudo-physics will become mainstream
for a very long time...>
> People have been predicting the Higgs boson for 50 years before
experimental confirmation.
Unlike the case with psi, for 50 years everybody agreed there was a question that needed explaining, namely why quarks have mass. But despite centuries of effort by psy investigators nobody has ever made a convincing case that there is something that needs explaining.
> People have been predicting gravitational waves for 100 years before experimental confirmation.
Not a good analogy. If it had turned out that gravitational waves did not exist then that would've been a very important scientific discovery because it would have meant that a major scientific theory, General Relativity, that has so far passed all experimental tests with flying colors, was wrong. There is no scientific theory that predicts the existence of psi, and as there is no experimental evidence to suggest that it exists it just doesn't have any scientific interest.
> In both cases we had to wait for sufficiently powerful technology.
But experiment has already decided, it did so long ago. Psi has been tested many many times and experiment has determined there is nothing to psi and there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over and over again and getting the exact same null results, it's time to move on to other far more promising areas of research. The jury can't stay out forever, eventually it has to make a decision, and it has. I admit that the insertion of psi into fiction has produced some enjoyable books and movies but it's just not part of the universe we live in, if I were God I might've made it so, but unfortunately I didn't get the job.
> Let's keep an open mind and let experiment decide.
As Carl Sagan said, “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
> Hold on right here. WHO calls psi done? WHO says what is better to do?
The government? The Ministry of Truth? A committee? And WHO is in the
committee? The thought police of forced political correctness and
cancel culture?
I'm a libertarian, I think people should be allowed to conduct psi research if they want to, and universities should be allowed to give tenure to professors who make scientific discoveries and not give tenure to professors who just repeat experiments that have already been performed dozens or hundreds of times previously, and I should be allowed to spent quite a lot of my hard earned money to send my children to universities of that type and not to the unscientific type.
> I say let individual scientists choose what they want to spend their
time and energy on. If a scientist wants to work on psi, and if he
manages to find the money (likely through private donations), I say
let him work on psi.
Well of course! If somebody wants to work on psi, or calculate the first thousand digits of pi with just pencil and paper, or collect stamps, or build model airplanes then fine go for it, just don't expect me to call it science
> History shows that the scientists who worked against the established consensus of their time often (not always, but often) enabled spectacular scientific advances.
For every Galileo there were about 6.02*10^23 people who thought they were scientific geniuses but were just crackpots.
I'll have to read Smullyan's book again, I loved the beginning but never finished the book (this is a side effect of having too many good books).
<<<John: There is no scientific theory that predicts the existence of psi, and as there is no experimental evidence to suggest that it exists it just doesn't have any scientific interest.>>>
On the contrary, there are scientific models that are compatible with the existence of psi. These models haven't yet advanced to the point of giving quantitative predictions, but perhaps future models will. And there's plenty of first person experimental evidence, from thousands of years, all over the world and in all cultures. To me, this indicates that scientific studies of psi could yield spectacular results. I don't know if there's natural psi (we are advancing toward technological psi so soon it won't matter much), but I'm open to the possibility. The bureaucrats of science that dismiss all those who question the diktats of politically correct worldviews are doing a disservice to science. Live and let live, develop your theories and let others develop theirs, and let the best theories win.
<<<John: As Carl Sagan said, “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out...”>>>
I'm one of those who really love Carl Sagan. But some of his quotes, like this one and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," have been appropriated (without understanding) by the bureaucrats of science and used to attack (often with personal insults and career death threats) all sorts of highly imaginative research. This is, I think, the very last thing Sagan would have wanted.
<<<John: universities should be allowed to give tenure to professors who make scientific discoveries and not give tenure to professors who just repeat experiments that have already been performed dozens or hundreds of times previously, and I should be allowed to spent quite a lot of my hard earned money to send my children to universities of that type and not to the unscientific type.>>>
Universities should be allowed ("allowed" ??? WHO is in charge of "allowing" ?) to give tenure to whoever they like, and parents should be allowed (same comment) to send their kids to whatever university they like.
<<<John: If somebody wants to work on psi, or calculate the first thousand digits of pi with just pencil and paper, or collect stamps, or build model airplanes then fine go for it, just don't expect me to call it science>>>
Call it whatever you want! Just don't interfere with the intellectual freedom of others. I hereby declare that I firmly believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Call me whatever you like, but don't interfere with my freedom to believe in whatever I want, and to promote my beliefs without forcing others to accept them.
<<<John: For every Galileo there were about 6.02*10^23 people who thought they were scientific geniuses but were just crackpots.>>>
Right. And the only way to know which one is Galileo is to let them all try.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 1:46 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK John, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
I think fundamentally we agree more than we disagree.
> let me summarize yet another good argument for psi.
>If our sci/tech continues to develop, it seems likely or at least plausible that one day, perhaps in only >a few centuries, most humans will have brain implants with neural lace connected to whatever the >internet will become. In other words, most humans will be telepathic. We will also be able to control >some kind of utility fog to move things and act in the physical world. In other words, most humans >will have psychokinetic abilities. I could continue and cover all parts of psi... So psi will exist in our >universe.
I agree, except that in a few centuries (perhaps a few decades) it will not be biological humans that have such abilities but our descendants the machines, what Hans Moravec called our "Mind Children" in his book by the same name, a book I highly recommend.
> if we can find a way to do something, I guess nature must have found ways to do the same thing. >Some degree of psi would evidently have evolutionary value, so I guess it is included in Darwin's >playbook.
Not necessarily because random mutation and natural selection is horribly cruel, inefficient and slow, but until it finally managed to produce a brain, after billions of years of fumbling around, it was the only way complex objects could get made. Intelligent design works much faster, we only got serious about building brains about 70 years ago and look at the enormous progress we've made in that short time.
John K Clark
Hi John, I also think fundamentally we agree more than we disagree. The difference is that you *want* to be a hard-line skeptic and I *want* to think that the universe is an enchanted place where magic can happen.
I agree that our mind children will be very much unlike us. Perhaps they will be uploaded minds of upload/AI hybrids that interact with each other and the rest of the world via connected thought streams and utility fogs. When this is the case we (this includes our superhuman mind children) will be well on our way to make the universe an enchanted place where magic can happen.
I'm open to the possibility that there's also natural magic that happens in the unaided universe, and that science will understand natural magic better and unveil new ways to use it. As you say, evolution is cruel, but it is also very clever in exploiting whatever is there to exploit. But again, if natural evolution hasn't yet enabled us to use psi, technology-driven evolution will. And I think technology-driven evolution is just a continuation of natural evolution.
Moving to cultural matters, I think openness to an enchanted world is needed to counter the "bureaucrats of philosophy" (the woke/cancel freaks of science and philosophy). It is the politically incorrect choice that we need to make at this moment. In a presentation that I'll soon share I said that one of the main problems of today's world is that there's *not enough* wishful thinking.
> Hi John, I think we are talking past each other. If I really want to
believe that psi is a thing, and you really want to believe that it
isn't, no argument will ever change my mind or yours.
I plead guilty as charged: I really want to believe that psi is a thing.
I wish it were real, I think it would've been great fun if psi had turned out to exist and I think most people feel that way too, but the universe is not required to conform to the wishes of human beings. You don't need a $10 billion particle accelerator to investigate it so if psi had been real it would have been proven to be so many centuries ago to the satisfaction of even the most skeptical, and today high school freshmen would be repeating those classic 17 century psy experiments in their science fair projects. It's a pity but that's just not the universe we live in.
> while not yet supported by direct experimental evidence, string theory has produced results (e.g.
AdS/CFT) that can be used to calculate things in the real world (e.g.
duality between quark-gluon plasma in the lab and hyperdimensional black holes).
String theory has never made a prediction confirmed to be correct by an experiment that had not already been predicted by other far less convoluted theories. To confirm a new string theory prediction you would need a particle accelerator that can reach energies at the Planck level, and with current technology that would require a machine at least as big as the solar system.
> Some speculative (I guess you would call them fringe)
string-based models seem to provide theoretical models for psi.
As I said, before I become interested in making a model of something I'd want to know that something exists that needs modeling. There is no burning need to explain how psy works, just as there's no burning need to explain how magic works in books like Harry Potter or the Bible. By the way, I found one of those books to be very entertaining.
> I have too much respect for my fellow human beings to entirely dismiss the
"anecdotal evidence" provided by countless people over the centuries.
There are a lot of things I respect about my fellow human beings but being able to give accurate accounts of what they just saw or experienced is not one of them. There was anecdotal evidence, or to be more precise there was allegedly anecdotal evidence, that Mohammed flew from Mecca to Jerusalem in one day on the back of a flying mule and then climbed to heaven on a ladder. And I don't believe one word of it.
John K Clark
OK John, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
However, let me summarize yet another good argument for psi.
If our sci/tech continues to develop, it seems likely or at least plausible that one day, perhaps in only a few centuries, most humans will have brain implants with neural lace connected to whatever the internet will become. In other words, most humans will be telepathic. We will also be able to control some kind of utility fog to move things and act in the physical world. In other words, most humans will have psychokinetic abilities. I could continue and cover all parts of psi... So psi will exist in our universe.
If we can reach this point, then I guess some advanced aliens must have reached it long ago. So psi exists in our universe here and now.
You are thinking, but this doesn't count because it is artificial psi!!!
But if we can find a way to do something, I guess nature must have found ways to do the same thing. Some degree of psi would evidently have evolutionary value, so I guess it is included in Darwin's playbook. There are indications that quantum entanglement plays a role in the brain of birds and bats, and in plants.
So I calmly wait for more theoretical and experimental studies of psi. You agree that psi researchers must remain free to research psi, and that private donors must remain able to fund them if they so want. I agree that you and all skeptics must remain free to withdraw money and attention. So this is it. We agree on the most important things. And time will tell.
Sorry to cut this short, but now I really have to listen to what my spirit guide is telling me.
> I'll have to read Smullyan's book again, I loved the beginning but
never finished the book (this is a side effect of having too many good
books).
For me Smullyan's nonfiction book (The Tao Is Silent) was as enjoyable as any novel I've ever read, and far more intellectually stimulating. Smullyan was an interesting guy, he had the talent to be a concert pianist but instead became one of the world's leaders in the logical foundations of mathematics.
><<<John: There is no scientific theory that predicts the existence of
psi, and as there is no experimental evidence to suggest that it
exists it just doesn't have any scientific interest.>>>
> On the contrary, there are scientific models that are compatible with
the existence of psi.
Well sure, the theory of continental drift is compatible with psi because it has nothing to do with it, and so is string theory because string theory has not been able to make any quantitative predictions at all. But I'm not even asking the psi people to give me a theory, I'm not demanding an answer, all I want them to do right now is to prove to me there is a question worth asking, a phenomenon that needs explaining. After that I'll worry about finding an answer, but first I must know the question.
> there's plenty of first person experimental evidence, from
thousands of years, all over the world and in all cultures.
It's not first person experimental evidence it's just anecdotal evidence, and if the history of religion has taught us anything it's that sort of evidence is absolutely worthless. Haven't you ever noticed that the less a psy experiment adheres to the demands of the scientific method the stronger the psy effect, and the greater the rigor the weaker the psy?
> To me, this indicates that scientific studies of psi could yield spectacular
results.
It's not as if nobody has tried, so where are all the spectacular results?!
> Live and let live, develop your theories and let others develop theirs, and let the best theories win.
That is exactly what science has done, and that is exactly why psy lost and is scientifically dead.
<<<John: universities should be allowed to give tenure to professors
who make scientific discoveries and not give tenure to professors who
just repeat experiments that have already been performed dozens or
hundreds of times previously, and I should be allowed to spent quite a
lot of my hard earned money to send my children to universities of
that type and not to the unscientific type.>>>
> Universities should be allowed ("allowed" ??? WHO is in charge of
"allowing" ?) to give tenure to whoever they like
The president and Board of Directors of the university obviously. And if you disagree with their decision then don't spend your money to send your kid to that University.
> and parents should
be allowed (same comment) to send their kids to whatever university
they like.
Sure, and high-tech companies should be allowed to only hire people who graduated from universities that take the scientific method seriously. That's why INTEL hires more people from MIT than from Bob Jones University.
> Call it whatever you want! Just don't interfere with the intellectual
freedom of others.
If I decide I don't wanna hire somebody for my high-tech company or my university that is not interfering with the intellectual freedom of others. I can't hire everybody, I've got to pick and choose. After all, you don't want Caltech to hire somebody who insists the earth is flat and only 6000 years old to be a professor of astronomy do you? You wouldn't spend lots of money to send your kid to such a place would you?
><<<John: For every Galileo there were about 6.02*10^23 people who
thought they were scientific geniuses but were just crackpots.>>>
> Right. And the only way to know which one is Galileo is to let them all try.
Who is saying otherwise? Certainly not me. By the way, would you agree that there are vastly more crackpots than there are Galileos?
John K Clark
Hi John, I think we are talking past each other. If I really want to believe that psi is a thing, and you really want to believe that it isn't, no argument will ever change my mind or yours.
I plead guilty as charged: I really want to believe that psi is a thing.
But this is not what I'm arguing. I'm just arguing that scientific progress needs open minds.
You mention string theory. Well, a good string theory book ( https://www.amazon.com/Why-String-Theory-Joseph-Conlon-ebook-dp-B01KHWTA56/dp/B01KHWTA56/ ) has a chapter titled "Direct Experimental Evidence for String Theory," which is probably the shortest chapter I ever read in a science book. The full text reads "There is no direct experimental evidence for string theory."
Yet, many scientists find string theory promising enough to invest their career prospects. And, while not yet supported by direct experimental evidence, string theory has produced results (e.g. AdS/CFT) that can be used to calculate things in the real world (e.g. duality between quark-gluon plasma in the lab and hyperdimensional black holes). Some speculative (I guess you would call them fringe) string-based models seem to provide theoretical models for psi.
But we don't even need to invoke string theory. Back to the OP, Bell's theorem says that reality is non-local behind the scenes. We haven't been able to find ways to exploit non-locality for FTL or backward messaging. Yet. But perhaps we will. And who's to say that this doesn't play a role in the brain?
I like to keep an open mind (in physics and elsewhere). Also, I have too much respect for my fellow human beings to entirely dismiss the "anecdotal evidence" provided by countless people over the centuries.
I think we agree that universities are and must remain free to hire whoever they like and support whatever research they like, and that funding agencies and students/parents are and must remain free to vote with their wallets. This is healthy. With wallet voting, if 90 percent of people agree with you, then 90 percent of the funding and 90 percent of the students will not go to the universities that support psi research. I hope you are happy with 90 percent, I'm happy with 10 percent, so let's leave well enough alone.
Of course I agree that there are vastly more crackpots than there are Galileos. But my point is that the difference is not always evident before they all have done their best. Also, history shows that the Galileos are often called crackpots before their work forces everyone to agree.
> The Nobel Prize goes to research on “spooky action at a distance,” aka quantum entanglement.
I was delighted this happened! Pretending that the foundations of quantum mechanics is not worth bothering about has gone on for far too long.
> Clauser takes distance from what he calls “pseudo-physics.” Scientific rigor “sadly began to decline,” he says. “I am not much of a fan of Eastern mysticism.”
I agree with Clauser about that 100%.
> Perhaps even the far fringe of psi (the paranormal) research (sorry, “pseudo-physics”) will become mainstream science one day.
People have been predicting pseudo-physics will become mainstream for a very long time, but in 2022 it has come no closer to becoming a reality than it was in 1922, or 1822 or even 1822BC. Never mind how explaining how psi is supposed to work, the evidence that there's even something that needs to be explained has not increased 1 nanometers since the days when "psi" was called "spiritualism", and there's no reason to believe that situation will change. I think it's time to put a fork in psi and call it done and move onto a line of research that is likely to be more productive because scientists are not immortal and every hour somebody spends on yet another research program into spoon bending or tea leaf readings or prayer is an hour they could've spent on something a bit less dubious. After all, it's not as if there's nothing better to do.
John K Clark
I was also delighted, and I'm persuaded that research on the foundations of quantum mechanics is among the most important (arguably THE most important) research direction today.
<<<> Clauser takes distance from what he calls “pseudo-physics.” Scientific rigor “sadly began to decline,” he says. “I am not much of a fan of Eastern mysticism.”
I agree with Clauser about that 100%.>>>
To me, scientific rigor is one thing, and Eastern mysticism is another thing. The two are not correlated. One can be inspired by Eastern mysticism and do rigorous science, and one can be inspired by other metaphysical views and do sloppy science.
In his review of "How the Hippies Saved Physics," Clauser says: "Elizabeth Rauscher frequently visited my lab and invited me to attend the FFG’s seminar series and join the group. She also invited two other LBL physicists, Henry Stapp and Philippe Eberhard, who were also studying Bell’s theorem. She assured us that strict scientific rigor would be required for all proceedings of the group."
To me, the work of the FFG was inspired by Eastern mysticism AND aspiration to scientific rigor. Of course, individual members of the group were more focused on one or the other (e.g. respectively Sarfatti and Clauser). Herbert combined both, and his book "Quantum Reality" is a masterpiece of both metaphysical imagination and scientific rigor.
<<<People have been predicting pseudo-physics will become mainstream for a very long time...>>>
People have been predicting the Higgs boson for 50 years before experimental confirmation. People have been predicting gravitational waves for 100 years before experimental confirmation. In both cases we had to wait for sufficiently powerful technology. Let's keep an open mind and let experiment decide.
<<<I think it's time to put a fork in psi and call it done... After all, it's not as if there's nothing better to do. >>>
Hold on right here. WHO calls psi done? WHO says what is better to do? The government? The Ministry of Truth? A committee? And WHO is in the committee? The thought police of forced political correctness and cancel culture?
I say let individual scientists choose what they want to spend their time and energy on. If a scientist wants to work on psi, and if he manages to find the money (likely through private donations), I say let him work on psi. Live and let live. What he chooses to work on is not your business or mine, and perhaps something good will come out. History shows that the scientists who worked against the established consensus of their time often (not always, but often) enabled spectacular scientific advances.
> Herbert combined both, and his book "Quantum Reality" is a masterpiece of both metaphysical imagination and
scientific rigor.
I agree, that was a good book. I was also very impressed with Raymond Smullyan's book "The Tao Is Silent", It's one of the most enjoyable books I've ever read.
> <People have been predicting pseudo-physics will become mainstream
for a very long time...>
> People have been predicting the Higgs boson for 50 years before
experimental confirmation.
Unlike the case with psi, for 50 years everybody agreed there was a question that needed explaining, namely why quarks have mass. But despite centuries of effort by psy investigators nobody has ever made a convincing case that there is something that needs explaining.
> People have been predicting gravitational waves for 100 years before experimental confirmation.
Not a good analogy. If it had turned out that gravitational waves did not exist then that would've been a very important scientific discovery because it would have meant that a major scientific theory, General Relativity, that has so far passed all experimental tests with flying colors, was wrong. There is no scientific theory that predicts the existence of psi, and as there is no experimental evidence to suggest that it exists it just doesn't have any scientific interest.
> In both cases we had to wait for sufficiently powerful technology.
But experiment has already decided, it did so long ago. Psi has been tested many many times and experiment has determined there is nothing to psi and there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over and over again and getting the exact same null results, it's time to move on to other far more promising areas of research. The jury can't stay out forever, eventually it has to make a decision, and it has. I admit that the insertion of psi into fiction has produced some enjoyable books and movies but it's just not part of the universe we live in, if I were God I might've made it so, but unfortunately I didn't get the job.
> Let's keep an open mind and let experiment decide.
As Carl Sagan said, “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
> Hold on right here. WHO calls psi done? WHO says what is better to do?
The government? The Ministry of Truth? A committee? And WHO is in the
committee? The thought police of forced political correctness and
cancel culture?
I'm a libertarian, I think people should be allowed to conduct psi research if they want to, and universities should be allowed to give tenure to professors who make scientific discoveries and not give tenure to professors who just repeat experiments that have already been performed dozens or hundreds of times previously, and I should be allowed to spent quite a lot of my hard earned money to send my children to universities of that type and not to the unscientific type.
> I say let individual scientists choose what they want to spend their
time and energy on. If a scientist wants to work on psi, and if he
manages to find the money (likely through private donations), I say
let him work on psi.
Well of course! If somebody wants to work on psi, or calculate the first thousand digits of pi with just pencil and paper, or collect stamps, or build model airplanes then fine go for it, just don't expect me to call it science
> History shows that the scientists who worked against the established consensus of their time often (not always, but often) enabled spectacular scientific advances.
For every Galileo there were about 6.02*10^23 people who thought they were scientific geniuses but were just crackpots.
John K Clark
I'll have to read Smullyan's book again, I loved the beginning but never finished the book (this is a side effect of having too many good books).
<<<John: There is no scientific theory that predicts the existence of psi, and as there is no experimental evidence to suggest that it exists it just doesn't have any scientific interest.>>>
On the contrary, there are scientific models that are compatible with the existence of psi. These models haven't yet advanced to the point of giving quantitative predictions, but perhaps future models will. And there's plenty of first person experimental evidence, from thousands of years, all over the world and in all cultures. To me, this indicates that scientific studies of psi could yield spectacular results. I don't know if there's natural psi (we are advancing toward technological psi so soon it won't matter much), but I'm open to the possibility. The bureaucrats of science that dismiss all those who question the diktats of politically correct worldviews are doing a disservice to science. Live and let live, develop your theories and let others develop theirs, and let the best theories win.
<<<John: As Carl Sagan said, “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out...”>>>
I'm one of those who really love Carl Sagan. But some of his quotes, like this one and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," have been appropriated (without understanding) by the bureaucrats of science and used to attack (often with personal insults and career death threats) all sorts of highly imaginative research. This is, I think, the very last thing Sagan would have wanted.
<<<John: universities should be allowed to give tenure to professors who make scientific discoveries and not give tenure to professors who just repeat experiments that have already been performed dozens or hundreds of times previously, and I should be allowed to spent quite a lot of my hard earned money to send my children to universities of that type and not to the unscientific type.>>>
Universities should be allowed ("allowed" ??? WHO is in charge of "allowing" ?) to give tenure to whoever they like, and parents should be allowed (same comment) to send their kids to whatever university they like.
<<<John: If somebody wants to work on psi, or calculate the first thousand digits of pi with just pencil and paper, or collect stamps, or build model airplanes then fine go for it, just don't expect me to call it science>>>
Call it whatever you want! Just don't interfere with the intellectual freedom of others. I hereby declare that I firmly believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Call me whatever you like, but don't interfere with my freedom to believe in whatever I want, and to promote my beliefs without forcing others to accept them.
<<<John: For every Galileo there were about 6.02*10^23 people who thought they were scientific geniuses but were just crackpots.>>>
Right. And the only way to know which one is Galileo is to let them all try.
For comments on Carl Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" see this section of my first book:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cAhT1O1AkGXM8Mm4hRhfFw1W9Zi-hc6_6Zwe4IaHAKg/edit#heading=h.qfp95smml021