> >Warhol was a magician who created a currency and laughed all the way to
> >the bank
> >
> >I would like to ask, 'what is the differnce between this artist sorcerer
> >and any scientist who has a particular 'theory'?'
> In the one case, the 'cognoscenti' collude with Warhol, and the value
> could be totally a human creation (although some of the cognoscenti
> might claim to see something objectively valuable, some 'statement'
> perhaps, in Warhol's magic trick); in the other case, nature 'colludes
> with the scientists - or rather, it either colludes or it doesn't.
Okay, but what about the scientists who find what they are looking for in
nature? The ones who seem to actually 'create' the phenomenon?
We are PART of nature, we grew out of it, we weren't placed here as
objective observers by God. We grew out of that which we observe and we
cannot separate the observer from the observed (except in thought and
language).
Proof of LSD causing chromozome damage has been both 'proved' and
'disproved' by teams of researchers for and against the theraputic use of
LSD.
Also, light can be seen as particles or waves, depending on the observors
assumptions, techniques, biases etc. etc.
So which is the TRUE NATURE of light? Or is it true that there is no
nature aside from the observed (and therefore created)?
To paraphrase Heisenberg et al, to observe and study nature we need to
isolate it, but to observe it we need to have interaction. The last link
in the chain of observation will always be a human nervous system, which
is not only full of quantum uncertainty but is also result forming in
itself.
just a few thoughts... I dunno.
"If your not confused, you don't know what is really going on."
M.
________________________________________________
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,
For we are such stuff that dreams are made of.
____________ MikeRose@journalist.com ___________