🚀 go-pugleaf

I've added talk.religion.misc partly in response to Erik's closing comments.

In <1992Oct28.210817.1177@spectrum.xerox.com> eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720043946@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>|> In <1992Oct22.200110.21065@spectrum.xerox.com> eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <BwJ7nw.90F@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>|> >|> >The Law of Causality has been known a priori and regared as necessarily
>|> >|> >true by philosophers for centuries.
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >Much philosophy has depended on it.
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >Quantum Mechanics denies the Law of Causality.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> Let's be careful here.  It is more accurate to say that some
>|> >|> (philosophically indefensible!) interpretations of QM deny the
>|> >|> Law of Causality.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> --Jimbo
>|> 
>|> >Perhaps it is the _definition_ of causality that is problematic here. What _kind_
>|> >of causality would certain QM interpretations negate? By the way, chaos theory
>|> >is bound by causality! The only thing chaos theory says about causality is that
>|> >everything is subject to the sensitivity of initial conditions. The "butterfly
>|> >effect" within chaos is about causality to the max!
>|> 
>|> That makes no difference.  My point was that quantum-magnitude
>|> perturbations *might* lead, whether by stricly causal methods or otherwise,
>|> to grossly observable changes.  The perturbations themselves, on the
>|> other hand, could at least in theory take the form of "choosing" between
>|> two or more *possible* outcomes of the same physical state of affairs.
>|> The upshot is that a non-physical soul (assuming, for the sake of argument,
>|> that such things exist) could act on a body without this action being
>|> detectable *even in theory*, yet make a big difference on how that body
>|> goes through life.

>Huh? Let me get this straight. This was a thread about QM and causality, and now this 
>notion of "soul" starts to creep in. Whoa! If you want to discuss this topic,
>please create a new thread like "Soul, does it exist?"

Sorry, you are misreading my message.  Perhaps I could start a thread
titled, "Soul, is its existence and action in the world compatible with
the scientific data?"  But that would not fit into the table of contents,
and I would prefer to also add "at least in principle" after "compatible." 

, so people can waste HUGE
>amounts of bandwidth spewing their own pet theories. And please X-post to
>sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, and a host of other worthy recipients of this underdiscussed
>topic.

I have no intention of starting the kind of thread you are suggesting.
If you would like to start one, do it yourself.  I give you permission
to use this post to get started.

>Yours in flames,

They're pointed the wrong way.

>Erik.

Peter Nyikos