--Thanks, I'll get back to you in about 2 hrs to copy more of the article. The idea that scientific inquiry could have a bearing on free will is a new twist to me, since I thought it was solely a philosophical question. OTOH, Einstein and others were fascinated by the question raised by Bishop Berkeley: is a tree "there" if nobody's looking at it? Of course, Einstein thought the whole idea was abusurd; (the importance of an observer was emphasized a great deal by his opponent, Neils Bohr; so Einstein brought up a new twist: is the MOON there if nobody was looking at it?) Einstein thought it unnecessary to have an "observer" in the category of a human, for a number of reasons. An alternative viewpoint, voiced by a recent contributor, is that the universe Itself is the Observer; and this proposal eliminates the need to have humans in a special favored "place" in the universe (as opposed, to say...chimps, who also can observe;, but if chimps, then why not other creatures like cockroaches?). I'm also planning on presenting some summaries of other recent articles, from New Scientist and Scientific American; that tend to support a basis for a "New, New, Physics" as opposed to the "New Physics" propounded by MMY and a few other people during the 70's. (specifically, such persons equated "Being" with some QM entity). This attempt at equating the Unmanifest with something within the realm of science, bombed; as we know; and such persons could have saved themselves the trouble of promoting that false identity if they had only paid more attention to the writings of the original quantum pioneers such as Schroedinager, Bohr, Heisenberg, and DeBroglie. The original pioneers already were aware of the possibility of equating some QM "entity" (a field?) to the Unmanifest, but the notion was rejected on the grounds that any such QM entity discovered so far is strictly a relative phenomenon. OTOH, some QM principles may "point" to the Unmanifest in some analogous way; but one must be careful about proclaiming an actual identity when none is there. There's always the danger that noble intentions can cross the boundary into "Ignoble" science, as Dr. Hagelin found out.(1994). [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" > <matrixmonitor@> wrote: > <snip> > > I > > left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy > > what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. > > I sure would love it if you could copy in more > when you have access to the article again--at least > if it's not too technical. > > Many thanks for the summary. Somehow I doubt dueling > mathematical formulas are going to lead to a > definitive resolution of the issue, but the arguments > ought to be fun! > > Definitive scientific proof of determinism would most > likely be disastrous for the psyche of the human race, > absent some larger concept along the lines of that > advanced by Schroedinger to validate the *sense* of > free will in the Atman = Brahman type of context. >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
