Re: no more lottery talk

From: Mike Dougherty (
Date: Sun Jan 01 2006 - 17:48:42 MST

I was not about to prove a point, but to throw out the idea that psi
"results" may be so heavily observer dependant that for any significantly
large measure of time, (or other computational data) the likelihood of
isolating a specific influence from the background noise of chaotic forces
would currently be too difficult to be reproducible.

If Schroedinger's neighbor hated cats, would he exist in a superposition of
happiness that the particle decayed and unhappiness that it did not? I
believe we exist in a superposition of infinite states inside a singularity
of experience. That experience can be remembered or predicted or just
observed, but the realization of any given state redefines the meaning of
all others. We're all stuck trying to conceive of that moment when the
singularity is again realized. If my current understanding of 'singularity'
differs from that of this list, please illuminate my flaw so I can correct
my thought model.

On 1/1/06, Phillip Huggan <> wrote:
> I don't understand what your 1st sentence means. Disinvolve the skeptic
> from the psi testing procedure. Seal off any unbeliever particles or fields
> being emminated and continue the empirical testing. Feel free to use only
> believers along with inert observational tools and documentation, unless a
> camera gives off bad vibes too.
> *Mike Dougherty <>* wrote:
> Suppose a system exists in multiple states (ex: psi observed & explained,
> observed & not explained, not observed)
> If that system is affected by each researcher that becomes entangled with
> it, then why can't we say that the involvement of a skeptic actually
> influences the results? Would anyone accept that the only way the research
> is valid is if there are no "non-believers"? This is completely counter to
> the scientif! ic method of testing a theory. Maybe psi is inherently
> undetectable using this methodology. Sailors used lodestones to determine
> north-south bearing long before magnetism was proposed as the magic that
> made them work. Perhaps psi has a mechanism that we have not been able to
> determine. Perhaps it does not.
> ------------------------------
> Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.<*>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT