Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
May I Offer My Agreement

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Clerk on December 4, 2003 13:19:23 UTC

I read above that this is a free forum and that anyone is free to contribute to a conversation. But I do interject into your discourse with some caution and pray that this post is acceptable.

My agreement is that scientists do try to keep things simple. I have long been a student of the paranormal and have been dismayed tht scientists are so hesitent to conduct research in that arena. Your thoughts on simplicity suggests to me that scientists live in an already complicated enough world without adding the paranormal to complex natural phenomena.

However, I do notice that those few who do venture there regard the paranormal as simple even if they regard the natural as complex. I would expect more or less equivalent complexity. Perhaps simple fundamentals leading to complex manisfestations in both areas.

As an example, the most prominent physicist to embrace the paranormal is Brian Josephson, famed for his invention of the Josephson Junction and winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in physics. He is currently Director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the University of Cambridge.

His most recent thoughts on the paranormal may be found at
in a paper entitled:

String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal

The point is that what he presents has nothing to do with string theory or a universal mind. He merely proposes that "thought bubbles" may exist that humans may share. Most of the paper is a review of critics of the paranormal.

He does admit that the theory is "a bit sketchy". But it seems that he suffers from the now called 'simplicity syndrome' of physics.

Or perhaps he is just hesitant to say in detail exactly what he thinks for fear of criticism, just as I am in preparing this interjection.

Warm regards,


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins