Another "Coincidence"?

I am speechless

Is it really a coincidence that someone wrote a book about a ship that sinks? Of course not. I'm sure I could find stories of someone writing a book about an airplane crashing. It just follows that that makes a good story - someone says "my ship won't sink!" and it turns out that yes, ships sink.

I might right a book about some cereal that doesn't get soggy in milk, then I'll put a twist ending in where the cereal DOES get soggy, and everyone cries. I'm sure someone will call me up and ask how I knew when their "new and improved" cornflakes get soggy.

"....that leads some of us to strongly think that there is much more to this universe than simple mathematically explainable phenomena."

. As I ponder the totality of the various thoughts you have put forth over the last few days I am left with the conclusion that you are dancing around the perimeter of an as yet unrevealed central premise.

I am not inclined to argue with the premise that there is more to the universe than can be explained by current reach of science. At the same time history has seen one unexplained phenomena after another fall to a scientific explanation. It matters little in the end whether the explanations emerge as the result of perspiration or inspiration.

The question (s) I throw back at you is this:

Are you suggesting that the unexplained is unexplainable or that the as yet unknown is unknowable? Is there an impenetrable boundary between the material and the divine?

WM H.: I am simply saying that there are things about this universe that are beyond our present capacity to explain with the tools and methods we have currently available. Some of the things we have recently discovered (such as with quantum physics) was inexplicable and totally surprising to the science of just a few years ago. I am also alleging that some of the "unapproachable" proposals related to spirituality and religious beliefs are not simply due to "overactive" imaginations but to an ability within our makeup to know intuitive things before our brain is able to explain them according to a rational paradigm. I hypothesize that we humans have something about our basic and intrinsic nature that transcends the limitations of our bodily functioning. Just as (which quantum physics has proven) we have the transcendental power to alter the fundamental nature of a photo by simply looking at it impinge on a photo plate and do that retroactively by billions of years, we have other transcendental powers not yet discovered by science but "on the way" to discovery. I also think that we are in a unique position by our fundamental supranormal nature as proposed by religion in the past (but not explained since we were not -- and still aren't -- capable of understanding it if explained) to become knowledgeable about a host of abstractions and theoretical constructs concerning the reality of "things." The only impenetrable boundary between the material and the divine is that of the Godhead Itself.

Tristan Russell: You are too intelligent to make such a bland statement concerning what I presented. Please read it in detail and then comment. It is not just a story about a ship on the ocean. The coincidental similarities are far too many to be explained by your quick and rather hasty "blow off." I am not a fool and didn't believe it either until I actually obtained the book, read it, and verified the many, many coincidental aspects between the book story and what actually took place four years later. I am not suggesting that you agree with my opinion. But I think your mind can come up with something better than "someone wrote a book about a boat that sinks."

Seers, Foresight and Coincidence


for Donald Hawley - 7/1/2008


soothsayers, seers and saints
have a corner on the future,
perhaps scientists do not,
stuff happens, no longer a dream.

mankind's karma or pure accident?
palm reading to some, to others
science fiction or merely imagination?
the stuff of dreams can be very real.

yin and yang together, our reality
coincidences there may be,
science or astrology --
fiction, guesswork or totality.

universal truths escape us,
the truth, the future, man's place
in the universe, the natural order
of things we may never foresee.


By the way Danald, this was inspired after percolating or meditating, if you will, on some of your very powerful posts, thoughts and / or questions!

Donald, sorry I misspelled your name at the bottom comment of my previous post!

poetrandy R.: Thanks so much for your contribution.

So Donald, does the "meaning" of this poem have any "ring" or comment on your postings? (I meant the poem to have more than one literal meaning!)

poetrandy R.: Yes, of course. It depends upon the thoughts that are stirred up in a reader's mind. It can mean different things to different people. But then, the subject of the article itself is open to wonder and speculation, which is the purpose of it. No one has all the answers to these questions. In fact, the subject is really outside of the realm of ordinary reality and rationalization. I think we will eventually develop a new and "hard to boil down" paradigm about reality and the full range from the ultra microcosmic to the ultra macrocosmic.

It's the same kind of crap we get when we hear reports of things like the 9/11 attacks being "foretold" in the bible code (or the so-called prophesies in the bible itself), or someone had a dream that something was going to happen before it did.

You drew this conclusion after the fact. Even if being able to write a book or paint the future (high five Heroes fans), how would it be useful if nothing can be done about it anyway?

I think you came across a stunning coincidence and made the conclusion that something "spooky" happened because you're inclined to think that way. Who knows, maybe Mr. Lord had some "gift", or maybe his namesake had a deeper meaning. The fact that you used this as some kind of "proof" to silence dissenters is laughable.

Oh that's right, you didn't mean it to be any kind of proof, right? You're not willing to definitively say that this man really did foresee the sinking of the Titanic, right? You only want to use it to show that if we just keep an open mind, we might find that universe is more complex than we can imagine. To that I agree, but you've got to do better than a book about a sinking ship. Turn up an author who can foretell and PREVENT the next big disaster in the world, and I might listen to you then.

Tristan Russell: Each one to his own interpretation. Personally, I think that the coincidence factor here is too complex, too complete (even to the name of the ship, the Titan) to be just coincidence. But then, that's how I see it. However, I must say in all candor that if your view is as shallow and "juvenile" as it sounds or reads to me, then I am surprised at you... especially when you keep on taking such a trivialized view of the facts in evidence. But then, as the French say, "Each one to his own tastes."

Well, thank you for letting me have my own taste. I'm not trying to sound "juvenile" at all, but your interpretation of this as some kind of mystical cosmic event is just plain silly to me. So what that the author chose the name of his big-ass, unsinkable conqueror-of-the-oceans to be "Titan"? It seems to me to be a nice choice if you're writing a story about an unsinkable ship, with perhaps notes of arrogance-getting-just-rewards? I haven't read the book, but it sounds like that may be the case if only from a writer's standpoint. Ever seen the movie? It uses the same device.

If this book is your "evidence" to something, then should we haul Mr. Lord up on charges?

We can't...he's dead now.

By the way, do you mean this book?

Seems like you jumped the gun, eh? From Wikipedia: "A Night to Remember is a 1955 non-fiction book by Walter Lord about the sinking of the ocean liner R.M.S. Titanic in 1912."

Wow. It seems it WAS about the Titanic, only he wrote it AFTER it sank, "four years prior" as you claimed. My arguments still stand, even if it was somehow written before the sinking. I really should have looked up the book sooner, but I -- for some reason -- trusted your words.

Too bad the universe let you down. Keep hoping, though.

I'm sorry, but this is just too good. I can't help but feel that you needed something like this. You sought a supernatural explanation first, without ever even checking into the damn book! That says it all. If it was written before 1912, then I'd still say that while does have striking characteristics, there's no way it could have been about the Titanic. But seeing now that those striking characteristic are due to it actually being about the Titanic only proves my point that this spiritual cosmic connection that you and Jerry and the like seem to favor is only due to your lack of understanding of the natural world, lack of understanding in the scientific method, or just hyper-active wishful thinking. You're just offering a "God of the Gaps" argument -- shoving a supernatural explanation in to a box labeled "we don't yet know". Please leave this article and subsequent comments up, Donald. This is just too good.

Tristan Russel, the one who his "peers" think has something to offer ??? You may not "intend" to sound juvenile Tristan, but when you are, it just shows through, you can't seem to hide it no matter how hard you try.

Soggy KornFlakes or not, juvenile it all is ... the mark of a fearfully closed mind, that of an egotistical dualist that MUST be "right so he won't be "thought" wrong by those he wants to impress ... so much false pride presented to hide the deeper inadequacies of real ignorance ... presenting the silly little ridiculous "straw-men" examples ... grow up why dontcha ?

I would suggest you take a serious look into the Urantia Book as an example ... but then forget that ... Martin Gardner already dismissed it ... geesh.

Tristan....I think Donald is referring to the book "Futility" or "The Wreck of the Titan" by Morgan Robertson. This book is mentioned in the foreword of Lord's book.

From what I can determine, the book was written in 1898...the original version...14 years prior to the sinking of the Titanic. There was little interest in the book upon it's first release (Robertson had some trouble getting a publisher) but the book did mention the sinking of a big new super liner after it hit an iceberg. The account of this wreck was covered in less than a page...more like a half a page, and the ship's sinking was not the main theme of the story.

The original release title of this short novella was "Futility" and the story line was that of a seaman's rejected love. This former Naval officer takes a job on a new ship which sinks on it's maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg.

Fifteen years after the book was first published, after the sinking of the Titanic, the author rewrote parts of the book in order to release the book with a new title "The Wreck of the Titan". Some of the changes Robertson made to the story include changing the size of the ship and a few other details that further enhanced the comparison of his ship to the Titanic. Interestingly, it is believed that a copy of "Futility" was included in the library of the Titanic. My speculation is that the book, the original publication, may have been an influence in the naming of the Titanic.

So...yes Donald...I think this is "still another coincidence" and one that has been enhanced by fiddling with the original story.

I want to comment further about the use of selection bias when associating two different events. My thoughts also include specific references to the use of the term 'coincidence" and the use of statistical probabilities.

The use of selection bias when comparing the occurrences of the sinking of the Titanic and the story of the Titan include the "coincidental" fact that both the fictional ship and the real ship were manufactured in Britain. Britain was, at the time, the largest ship builder in the world...by far.

Concerning the lack of life boats...both for the fictional and the actual ships... White Star's management (White Star commissioned the construction of the Titanic) was employing the technique of money management v risk management...a practice still very much used today. What is the cost of the safely measure vs the cost of the risk of NOT spending the amount needed to insure the highest probability of safety...is it cheaper to pay off a failure than may never occur or to save the cost of the maximum safety measure? Harold Sanders of White Star made the argument that the life boats would be of little help in the North Pacific because of the nature of the stormy seas. The regulations of the day only demanded that life boats be provided for 962 people...even though the total capacity of the Titanic was over 3500...crew and passengers. This fact, about the current regulations, could have easily been known by Morgan Robertson when he penned the first copy of the book that later became "The Wreck of the Titan".

As to the name of the two ships...the Titan and the Titanic. There were references to at least 3 more ships with a similar name.."Titania". At least one of these ships met a fate similar to the fictional Titan and the real Titanic. It ran into an iceberg in the North Atlantic and sank....in 1880...18 years before "Futility" was published. (The London Times July 10. 1880, pg 12) . As a matter of fact...many ships hit ice bergs in the North Atlantic and sank in 19th century ...dozens. This was a somewhat likely occurrence, given the lack of technology at the time. (It was very hard to see an iceberg in the day time, much more difficult at night).

An event which exceeds, statistically, the probability of that event occurring can still happen and there are many odds defying events to serve as examples.

Coincidences do occur. It is tempting for some to assign the influence of a higher being or a supernatural force to events which exceed our usual expectations for predictability.

In my opinion, there are no coincidences.

Ah, I see now. Thanks Slim. I thought that Don was referring to 'A Night To Remember', not some other book. I apologize.

Still, I'm with you there...like I said, it's a book about a ship that sinks. As you pointed out many ships sank due to icebergs in the North Atlantic. It doesn't seem too far fetched to hear of a book about a ship....that sinks....in the North Atlantic....due to an iceberg. I wouldn't be surprised if there were books about planes disappearing either.

Carla G..."In my opinion, there are no coincidences."

Care to elaborate?

REading this has been fascinating--and I agree with Carla. A better term is:

Synchronicity -- A non-causal connection between two or more various phenomena (psychic and/or physical).

I have often, change that, more than often written things that are 'dictated' to me. My latest post is about a novel I wrote -- The Secret Something Within

Many years ago my nightly journal writing was dictated. Words and thoughts I wasn't even sure what they meant slipped into the nightly writings. I put the piece I call, Directed Writing in my Essence of Me web site -
Directed Writing

I have had so many experiences of 'Something beyond mortal life' that I believe in 'The Divine Matrix' by Gregg Braden.

I am glad I found this group and delighted to read all the different viewpoints. I look forward to reading more posts.

Namaste

Mary...you say that you agree with Carla...who does not believe in the incidence of coincidences...and yet, Carl Jung, who coined the term "synchronicity" defines this term as "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism".

You have contradicted yourself. You don't belief that coincidences exist and yet you believe that meaningful coincidences exist. Maybe you and Carla mean that you believe in coincidences...believe that coincidences occur, but that all coincidences have meaning.

If this is the case, then it follows that the occurrences of coincidences can have different statistical probabilities and therefore we must allow for long odds...remote chances that events which are seemingly related can occur.

Sorry--I miss read Carla's comment. I thought she meant she didn't believe in coincidence, as I don't since I believe that things that seem to be coincidental are actually not and do have meaning.

Coincidence is the noteworthy alignment of two or more events or circumstances without obvious causal connection.

I believe everything has connection.

It's only noteworthy because of the sharpshooter fallacy. We tend to ignore the misses, and only remember the hits.

You didn't misunderstand Carla...you repeated what she said. I think I understand you to be saying the same thing....that there is no such thing as coincidence....that coincidence only SEEMS to exist, but actually does not as all circumstances have at least a causal connection. ...Your last sentence..."I believe everything has connection."

I don't agree. I believe that the effort to connect two events which have no relationship to one another is an error of logic. Using your "logic' it would follow that ALL events must be connected to one another. ("I believe that everything has a connection.") In other words. If I stump my toe, any other event that happens on this planet...or in the universe, will somehow have a connection to my stumped toe.

It may be true that SOME events have a connection to another event(s)...but logic will not allow for an association of all events.

Michael H aka ac slim: Thanks for your detailed analysis. Quite impressive. However, I am not convinced. While you may think (and perhaps rightly so) that I have a predisposition to accepting my theory of writers being influenced by spiritual "reaches", I have the same reservations about your analysis, which includes such things as Morgan Robertson perhaps having knowledge about the need to conserve funds by not having enough life boats and his access to information (possibly) about other ancillary aspects of the coincidence. That part of your proposal is pure conjecture and not based on any fact. That he might have known has no bearing on whether he did in fact know or was even aware of these aspects. To suit your argument it would be convenient if he had known and applied it. But again, that is pure biased predilection. As you probably know, there are many other similarities, including the tonnage, the fact that it was a newly built ship with the extra water tight compartments, etc. Could he have possibly been aware of such a need (considering the history of sinkings by ice bergs in the North Atlantic? Yes. Did he? I don't know and you don't know. Is it reasonable to presume that he did. No.

One of the reasons why there is not more serious consideration of some of these proposals that our universe is not as simply constructed as the "Lago set" of modern physics is that so many people prefer to expend their mental energies in thinking up reasons why they can't be possible. I dare say that if anyone had proposed (say in a science fiction novel) the quantum effects of the human influence on a photon retroactive a billion years or so prior to its discovery and proof of existence by modern physics, there would have been a lot of articles and papers written (and possibly published in THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER) debunking such an absurd proposition.

I am not claiming that this TITAN/TITANIC incident has been proven not to be a coincident, only that I think that it is not a coincidence and that it is evidence that there is more to this universe than "meets the eye." Your excellent comment above is valuable in and of itself, but I think that it is logically somewhat spurious and based a lot on pretty irrelevant data (such as the number of ships named similarly and the number of sinkings by ice bergs on the North Atlantic. Given these facts, they do not even mildly support the many faceted "coincidences" of the WRECK OF THE TITAN and the actual sinking of the TITANIC four years later. You are taking a hodge podge of assertions spread over time and putting them together to build your case. Good thinking, "but no banana."

For instance, while I am myself quite skeptical (and even read the book to assuage that skepticism), I am not so "self assured in my 'intelligence'" that I make brash and flippant statements such as Tristan does about this being simply about a boat sinking in the North Atlantic. It is much more involved than that. And if you or Tristan want to refute my theory, you'll have to do more than just laugh at me and my ideas (not that either of has done this in fact) and present a bunch of unrelated possibilities.

As to your statement about stumping your toe and it being related to "any other event that happens on this planet," I am not so sure that this is so ridiculous as you seem to imply. Everything that happens effects everything else in the universe to some degree.

"Everything that happens effects everything else in the universe to some degree."

Prove it.

Oops! All the comments are "out of their boxes and almost unreadable" so I have to post something just to get them back in.

Donald, if you just hit your 'refresh' button, everything will go back as they are supposed to be.

Tristan Russell: Please forgive me if some of my comments seem inconsistent. I am having a hard time keeping up with the comments. I don't know if you have discovered your error in an above comment yet but I was referring to A NIGHT TO REMEMBER by Lord only with respect to it's forward, which tells the story of the book, THE WRECK OF THE TITAN. THE WRECK OF THE TITAN is the book that was written four years prior to the sinking of the Titanic.
Believe me. I value your opinions and frame of mind if only because it is reflective of a lot of people who I think should reconsider their own possible prejudices concerning "religion" and how they (the prejudices, whether justified or not) might influence them to become so deeply mired in "naive realism" that they can't even think rationally about questions such as I pose. I think you have great potential as a thinker but I also think that you need to reevaluate your mind-set which seems as "block headed" as you think others are "on the other side of this coin."
I am at a moment's notice ready to change my mind about any of these things but I have not so far seen any arguments or presentations that are sufficiently convincing to make me change my mind. "Michael H. aka ac slim"'s presentation is so far one of the best I've encountered. And that's good. But I just don't buy his rationale yet, because it uses "coincidences" to prove that this TITANIC/TITAN "coincidence" is not a coincidence. He only points out possible scenarios for explaining why it is not a coincidence but no direct evidence to the contrary... only suppositions of possibilities.

I would like to see you open up your mind just a crack and consider all possibilities with a critical eye before simply taking a negative stand about "a boat sinking." It is much more than a story "about a boat sinking."

Tristan Russell: As to my statement that everything in the universe effects everything else, you say, "prove it." Isn't this an absurd statement of yours? Such a thing is not provable. It is a basic axiom of reality. It probably breaks down into a chaotic practical ineffectiveness somewhere along the line. And please remember that I am not trying to "prove" that this or that is not a coincidence. I am trying to open eyes (including yours) to look at all possibilities and not simply ignoring them because they can't be or haven't been proven to your satisfaction yet. If I shoot an arrow into the air a million times (quite a feat) and it falls to earth a million times, I have probably proven that any arrow shot into the air (unless it hits and sticks in a flying bird) will fall back to the earth. But that still does not prove that on the millionth and one time the arrow will somehow simply continue on it's way into outer space. Perhaps it was swallowed up by a gravitational anomaly. Do you know that there is no such thing as a gravitational anomaly? You can doubt it and so can I, but that doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing. The latest paradigm for science, which has superseded the "naive realism" still hanging over our heads (and in your mind) since Newton or before (perhaps back to Socrates or earlier) does not rely wholly on observation and experiment to tell us "the truth."

Good heavens Donald...you think that your conjecture ..." Personally, I think that the writer -- probably without knowing it -- had the story "fed to him" from another world, the world of the future." is less preposterous than mine? I have given several POSSIBILITIES that MAY help explain some of the similarities of the sinking of the fictional ship and the sinking of the actual Titanic. Again...I have offered POSSIBILITIES.

You have offered ONE possibility and that is that supernatural forces from another world have been feed to an unsuspecting writer.

Your words "As you probably know, there are many other similarities, including the tonnage,..." the tonnage is ONE of the descriptions that Robertson CHANGED in 1912 or 1913 when he renamed his book for re-publication. Certainly there are many other similarities...but it is you friend, who is not willing to explore other possibilities. The possibilities I have presented ARE NOT unrelated. They are POSSIBILITIES...things to consider. It is you who has jumped to a conclusion Donald...an unbending, not debatable conclusion.

These words you spoke to Tristan .."I would like to see you open up your mind just a crack and consider all possibilities with a critical eye before simply taking a negative stand about "a boat sinking." could very well be aimed at you. "CONSIDER ALL THE POSSIBILITIES".

Donald, Tristan,WM H, Jerry, Carla, Mary, poetrandy....I'm not wimping out of this debate...but my wife and are off to our little slice of paradise for a long weekend. We will have no phone and no computer and so I will not be able to participate in this discussion. I hope you all have a great Fourth of July holiday!

Michael H aka ac slim: Thanks for another superb response. And I hope you have a wonderful time "away."

Your thoughts just above about possibilities are excellent as usual. I agree with you that this is by no means a one sided open and shut case for me and my view. I still hold, however, that my position is quite realistic and rather than finding "possibilities" to explain it away as a coincidence, I have cited specific examples of statistically improbable coincidences (taken as a whole). There are other things I haven't noted because I don't have my material in front of me and don't have that kind of a memory any more (if ever I did). I also don't see what the value is to your position of the fact that the book was republished with some changes. The changes were not made to suit the actual ship, the Titanic. Of course the story, as you point out, diverts from the actual sinking of the Titanic story when the ship strikes the ice berg and the seaman thrown onto the ice berg. But that has nothing to do with my contention, either. I am not contending that the story line follows some actual story of a person on board the Titanic. It is the ship, the timing, the type of passengers on it, and a host of other "similarities" that seem to me to be inexplicable as mere coincidence. But at this point, from both of our points of view, it is a matter of considered choice to go with one or the other of two options. I certainly respect you and your view... but I just can't go along with what I consider calculated destructive and defeatist skepticism. There are people (in Iran and elsewhere) who prove that the Holocaust never happened. Personally, I think it did, odd as that may seem.

When I'm shown things from the future, I get a sense of what I'm to do with the information. Sometimes there's no way to change a negative future picture, so I shift my outlook (for example: I was shown the basics of the 8 yrs of GWBush's presidency, before the vote re-count was finished in the first election. There was only one part of it I could work to change, and that work has been ongoing - the event that is in potential has been delayed, and may yet be stopped. I won't speak of it here.)

There are always those who "see" beyond or before the current paradigm.

Donald: "I am at a moment's notice ready to change my mind about any of these things but I have not so far seen any arguments or presentations that are sufficiently convincing to make me change my mind."

I am too. And yet, showing me a book that contains certain similarities with a particular event is not sufficiently convincing. That book is the equivalent to your "millionth arrow". It's simply not enough. How is this one thing so convincing to you? How is one "anomaly" enough to base a hypothesis on without any further evidence? (By the way, yes I'm aware of my mistake and as I said before, I'm sorry.)

And while we're on the subject...you have not "proven" that an arrow shot will always fall back to earth. Proofs are a mathematical concept. You have strong assumption based on reasonable evidence: all the other arrows that fall back to the ground. And not just the one's you shot, but all arrows anyone has ever shot, all throughout history. Please see this video for a better explanation.

Tristan Russell: Good points and well stated. I also have strong reservations about our reliance on mathematics as some kind of absolute. Math is actually only a purely "number significant" thing. Numbers themselves are expressions of discreteness. What happens when through microscopic reduction we reach some level where this discrete identity becomes not only fuzzy but disappears into what we might call a "field of pure abstraction"? This is why, at least partly, the major epistemological paradigm of science has only recently (in the last 100 years or less) readjusted itself from naive realism into what we can call "radical empiricism." The Newtonian approach was perfectly valid when we were dealing only with gross, immediate and "observable" reality. But that reality is only a "special case" of overall reality, as science now accepts and realizes.

I can fully appreciate your reluctance to accept the TITANIC/TITAN episode as anything other than "coincidence." To me, however, it is quite obvious that it is no accident, based not only on the point by point "too coincidental" to be "coincidental" aspect of it but on my personal experience with regard to "the nature of things from a holistic point of view." To me, the entire idea of "coincidence" as a reality is merely an intellectual escape route from the tedious and insecure adventure of seeking the truth through opening one's mind to a whole gamut of "other possibilities." As they used to say in the Air Force, "No guts, no glory."

Donald: I understand your position. I prefer to believe in as many true things as possible. I also make sure that my beliefs are based on sound reason, and the only way to be sure of that is through the methods of science. I'd really like to see how you can claim that most of science is now under this "radical empiricism". (If you're not claiming "most" then disregard this.) Radical empiricism is self-defeating and simply fails to answer the epistemological questions that are really most basic. (I'm also assuming you're talking about the pragmatist doctrine of William James -- the claim that the only things that justify propositions are observations. This claim itself is thus unjustifiable, according to the radical empiricist, because it is unobservable.)

I define "existence" as something that directly manifests. As for things that science claims exist that do not directly manifest, there are different models to use:
1) A mathematical model that is being used to explain an observation. In this case, the observation exists, but the mathematical model is only a model that may/may not be accurate, and needs to directly manifest before we can call it confirmed/known/existent.

2) It's shorthand for "this thing that causes that". Like the math model, this is a way that science plugs in X for whatever causes an observed reaction. The idea is X causes Y -- where Y is observed. While science puts forward a model for X, X is subject to modification as new data is discovered. It's a placeholder for something that is either totally or partially an unknown cause. To say it "exists" as a known item (and not as a thing that is badly defined and unknown to some degree) is a misuse of "exists."


This will be my last post until the weekend's over. Have fun everyone, and be safe. Even you, Jerry.

Tristan Russell: Thanks again for your astute observations and comments. As I think I understand your explanatory view of this approach (radical empiricism) by "directly manifest" means that some subject dubbed by whatever name and however "real" or "unreal" as a "material entity" causes an effect or observable result in the domain of what we might call "material reality." Thus we are not restricted or "tied down" to the idea that to be "real" necessarily means to have "materially qualities" of domain or substance or position in dimensions including "time." Which would seem to fit in with the proposals of "things" like "dark matter" and "dark energy."

If this is so, then I suggest that what I (and others too, apparently) am proposing is that there are indeed non-"things" that fit this description just as well and just as efficaciously as "dark matter" or "dark energy", "branes," etc. These non-"things" are what we call "God", an "intelligence field", "purposeful direction", a "purposeful directive Source" and other such "soft subjects (to you)" and that these non-"things" directly manifest themselves in a host of complementary and cross justifying manifestations of our minds over the whole of human history.

I am not claiming to have proved anything. Just as astrophysicists do on a regular basis, I am proposing a theory to explain how this very wide complimentary spectrum of manifestations occurs and describing the "dark energy" phenomenon (i.e. God in this case) that causes it to manifest itself in the real world arena. It is no more fanciful than what many serious and astute astrophysicists are proposing. As they base some of their proposals on these quite fanciful notions called by different names (specified out of linguistic necessity by descriptions such as "spin", "color" etc.) having no true relationship to the words chosen for convenience of discussion, so can we consider the terms I use, such as "God" etc. That is, we don't have to be able to visualize the "spin" of a quark to accept that it has some mathematically descriptive characteristic we have arbitrarily dubbed by the rationally inappropriate word, "spin," to accept from a technical perspective that it has that odd, unrealistic characteristic that is some kind of abstraction. Follow me?

So consider this: What if what I am saying is closer to the truth than what we have been able to so far get to from a purely "scientific approach" (including that of radical empiricism)? What if this is not a "first step" so to speak in crossing that invisible line between science and religion? What if we are on the edge of a break through in our epistemological paradigm for allowing science to "cross the line" that separates the "P" plane of reality (as Dr. Morganau proposed some 40 years ago) and the "C" field of abstract constructs? Wouldn't that be something, even for you?

Wow. Interesting article. Read part of the book in the 60's. Interesting discussion.

Lyn O.: I am in the process of posting an article regarding the symposiums I attended in 1964 and 1965 by eminent scientists who were also "religious." My problem is that I can't yet find out how to implement the posting, which is to copy from MS Word to the "article".

Tristan Russell: As I told Lyn O. above, I am in the process of posting an article -- a shortened version from a book I am working on -- about this matter of the change of the scientific epistemological paradigm. I think you would find it quite interesting. And if you don't agree with it then, you are not only disagreeing with me but with some of the most erudite and profound scientists in the world.

great article