I would say 0:
0. All a Coincidence (I don't see *big* coincidences)
and then 5.
I'm agnostic about what you talk about. I love the book by Suzanne
Blackmore "In search of the light" because it shows parapsychology can
be done seriously, but then the evidence are until today rather
negative. "Drinking coffee in the morning" is sufficiently miraculous
for me now. With comp, evidence of precognition could be evidence for
the very low-levelness of the substitution level.
Le 05-juin-05, à 19:34, rmiller a écrit :
Another hypothetical. In 1939, let's say, a writer comes up with a
sci-fi story, which is published the next year. It involves (let's
say) a uranium bomb and a "beryllium target" in the Arizona desert
that might blow up and cause problems for everyone. His main
character is a fellow he decides to name "Silard." Two other
characters he names "Korzybski" and "Lenz." Two cities are named in
the story: Manhattan and Chicago. Along about the same time, in 1939
an out-of-work scientist named Leo Szilard is crossing a street in
London (no, he doesn't know the sci fi writer.) Four years later Leo
Szilard will be working with a guy named George Kistiakowski---whose
job it is to fashion a lens configuration for the explosives
surrounding a nuclear core for the first atomic bomb---code named, the
Manhattan Project. Some of the other scientists, Enrico Fermi, for
example, are from Chicago (where the first man-made nuclear pile was
constructed---under the ampitheater.)
Now, pick one:
1. All a Big Coincidence Proving Nothing (ABCPN)
2. The writer obviously was privy to state secrets and should have
3. Suggests precognition of a very strange and weird sort.
4. Might fit a QM many worlds model and should be investigated further.
5. I have no clue how to even address something like this.