Re: Gods

From: Robert J. Bradbury (
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 20:57:08 MST

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, namacdon wrote:

> Magick is a taboo subject on Extropian lists, typically. I'd quit while
> you're ahead.

Not "taboo", but requiring plausible explanations and if it
involves "extraordinary" claims, it requires "extraordinary" proof.

I'd argue that 90% or more of the people on the list cannot explain
how the 5-40 million transistor microprocessor in their computer
actually works. To someone of my grandparents' generation it
certainly *seems* like magic even though it follows the principles
of physics as we now understand them.

Even worse nobody in the world is able to explain the functioning
of a human body or the human mind. Certainly "magic" from where
we now stand, though we "suspect" they follow principles of physics.

Now, if I happen to suggest that the alignment of the planets
results in fluctuations in the quantum gravity field that
dictates how chromosomes recombine which results in the
variations in personalities that we happen to associate
with star signs, due to my "reputation" for not invoking
magic physics, at least some people might think I was making
a serious claim. But people are going to want to see the data.

I was recently asked my opinion about this site:

All I could say was that at first glance they seemed to be
proposing technologies that would violate a number of accepted
laws of physics.

So -- that may be the "razor" when it comes to "Magick" -- if
you can propose a magick that appears magical but does not
violate laws of physics then it is reasonable to bring it
to the table. If you propose magick that appears to violate
laws of physics then the burden of proof is on your shoulders
to explain where the laws of physics need to be extended or
how such ideas do not violate the laws.

I would sooner believe that one could change the neural connections
in your mind to *really* believe that magick had happened than
you could change the physical laws of the universe. It comes
down to a simple question of which is more malleable.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:38 MST