Last week I got to spend time in the NBC studio where they record Meet The Press — re-decorated for this occasion in a cosmic theme, with beautiful images of galaxies and large-scale-structure simulations in the background. The occasion was a special panel discussion to follow a Stephen Hawking special that will air on the Discovery Channel this Sunday, August 7. David Gregory, who usually hosts MTP, was the moderator. I played the role of the hard-boiled atheist; Paul Davies played the physicist who was willing to entertain the possibility of “God” if defined with sufficient abstraction, while John Haught played the Catholic theologian who is sympathetic to science.
The Hawking special is the kick-off episode to a major new Discovery program, called simply Curiosity. I predict it will make something of a splash. The reason is simple: although most of the episode is about science, Hawking clearly goes all-in with “God does not exist.” It’s not a message we often hear on American TV.
The atheistic conclusion is really surprisingly explicit. I had a chance to talk to someone at Discovery, who explained a little about how the program came about. The secret is that it was originally produced by the BBC — British audiences have a different set of expectations than American ones do. My completely fictional reconstruction of the conversation would go something like this. Discovery: Hey, blokes! Do you have any programs we could use to launch our major new series? BBC: Sure, we have a new special narrated by Stephen Hawking. Discovery: Perfect! That’s always box office. What’s it about? BBC: It’s about how there is no God. Discovery: Ah.
[Update: Alas, reality is intruding upon my meant-to-be-funny imaginary dialogue. The episode was actually originally commissioned by Discovery, not by the BBC, although it was produced in the UK. More power to Discovery!]
At first, I will confess to a smidgin of annoyance that an opportunity to talk about fascinating science was being sacrificed to yet another discussion about religion. But quickly, even before anyone else had the joy of pointing it out to me, I realized how spectacularly hypocritical that was. I talk about religion all the time — why shouldn’t Stephen Hawking get the same opportunity?
The more I thought about it, the more appropriate I thought the episode really was. I can’t speak for Hawking, but I presume his interest in the topic stems from similar sources as my own. It’s not just a coincidence that we are theoretical cosmologists who happen to go around arguing that God doesn’t exist. The question of God and the questions of cosmology arise from a common impulse — to understand how the world works at its most fundamental level. These issues naturally go hand-in-hand. Pretending otherwise, I believe, probably stems from a desire on the part of religious believers to insulate their worldview from scientific critique.
Besides, people find it interesting, and rightfully so. Professional scientists are sometimes irritated by the tendency of the public to dwell on what scientists think are the “wrong” questions. Most people are fascinated by questions about God, life after death, life on other worlds, and other issues that touch on what it means to be human. These might not be fruitful research projects for most professional scientists, but part of our job should be to occasionally step back and look at the bigger picture. That’s exactly what Hawking is doing here, and more power to him. (In terms of his actual argument, I’m sympathetic to the general idea, but would take issue with some of the particulars.)
Nevertheless, Discovery was not going to feature an hour of rah-rah atheism without a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Thus, our panel discussion, which will air immediately after the debut of Curiosity (i.e., 9pm Eastern/Pacific). The four of us had fun, and I think the result will be an interesting program — and hopefully I did the side proud, as the only legit atheist participating. Gregory seemed to enjoy himself, and joked that he might have to give up politics to do a weekly show about cosmology. (A guy can dream…) But we all agreed that it was incredibly frustrating to have so little time to talk about such big issues. The show will run for half an hour; subtract commercials, and we’re left with about 21 minutes of substance. Then subtract introduction, questions, some background videos that were shown … we three panelists had about five minutes each of speaking time. Not really enough to spell out convincing answers to the major questions that have troubled thinkers for centuries. Hopefully some of the basic points came across. Let us know what you think.
“So how does the origin of the universe obtain a scientific explanation?”
I would explain, but I’m too lazy. Maybe Hawking will dwell on this on the upcoming program! He certainly explains this in his “A Brief History of Time”. Cheers.
@Mike
You missed it. Some of this “evidence” is veridical… “the experiences he speaks of here is that they are seen by the carer(s) and patient who is dying” is what I said.
And I am afraid you are putting the cart before the horse. You concentrate on the phenomena first. If veridical you do not dismiss because you think they cannot be explained by physics. And just because these phenomena cannot be repeated “on demand” does not invalidate them – if it’s being observed in the universe it’s science.
“If veridical you do not dismisss because you think they cannot be explained by physics.”
I’m dismissing it because if one puts forward a proposal that overturns a vast amount of what we believe to be true based on our best available theories, which have in fact been subject to testing and verification, then whoever puts forward such a revolutionary proposal has to do better than anecdotal “proof” by way of experiences seen by the carer(s) and patient who is dying.
It boils down to what you mean by “being observed in the universe.” I could trot out scores of people who claim to have seen or experienced almost anything you could imagine — some even you might claim were just not believable. This would never be accepted as proof of any worthwhile theory. I’m sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And, in fact, there is a lot of literature out there where folks have tried to replicate a whole swath of paranormal claims — always unsuccessfully.
The main point is that if phenomena can’t be scientifically tested, or the theories that purport to explain them are not the logical extension of existing theories that we have good reason to believe are true, this does in fact invalidate them “as science” and is a very good reason for Hawking and others not to take them seriously.
I suppose most scientists could be wrong about this conclusion, but there is no meaningful evidence so far that they are, and nothing you have said or pointed to changes any of that.
I really appreciate that the dramatized/fictionalized production meeting between BBC & Discovery is done in the style of Douglas Adams; perfection
@30, Charon,
Fair enough if you think you can’t have furitful discussions with people whose interpretations of scientific evidence differ from your own. One of the things I find difficult about proponents of “Scientism” is how they conflate science with their interpretations of science (because science is just information, and how you choose to interpret that on religious questions is theology), and how they conflate these quite arbitrarily.
You an I probably don’t disagree all that much on epistemology, except that I try to be conscious of ways of understanding outside of scientific discourse. I see far too many people being unconscious about those ways of understanding and just taking them for granted, which I fear you may be doing. You talk about people valuing personal experience above science and about fallible it is and it’s capacity to lead people astray, but it would be a more honest critique if you yourself did not rely on personal experience far more than you do science in your day-to-day life. We must rely on personal experience – as fallible and problematic as it may be – merely to get by. It is how our personal relationships function. It is how we are able to interpret art and literature. If you pay attention at all to the biographies and testimonies of great scientists, you will detect that their motivation tends to be a highly irrational reliance on personal experiences like wonder or a childhood happenstance. Even people’s atheism can originate in fallible personal experiences, like Christopher Hitchens’ “just knowing” it was all bunk when he was nine, or some sentimental ideas about suffering or infinity.
Science is as successful as it is exactly Bbecause it has such a narrow focus and deals with relatively uncomplicated subjects. Calculating the laws of the physical universe is pretty direct compared to the complexities of every other feild of inquiry, from the arts and humanities to economics to interpersonal relationships to history (in large part because our only means of inquiring is fraught with fallibility). Where we seem to differ on this subject most of all is that I don’t automatically assume that because religious experience reflects in someone’s brain chemistry, it is automatically a product of brain chemistry. I think it might actually be reacting to a real stimulus, and it is far easier for me to excuse the minority who do not have such experiences than to call the majority of humanity crazy.
That’s part of why I find the research linking hardcore atheist beliefs with Asperger’s to be intriguing. A connection between strong religion non-belief and a limited capacity to navigate complex interpresonal relationships or interpretive subjects would actually make a great deal of sense. It wouldn’t be true of all atheists, or even most, but it would certainly go a long way to explaining what is essentially the argument that it’s actually most of humanity that is crazy.
This guy with the eyewitness accounts lol. I wonder who witnessed noahs arc. Didn’t everyone on earth die except Noah and his family? Oh and I wonder how Noah managed to get the komodo dragon on his ship, considering they are found nowhere in the world besides the island of komodo which is thousands of miles from where Noah lived. Also what about the innocent people god killed with this supposedly great flood? I find it hard to believe there weren’t any good people in the entire world at the time. But hey which cares the bible can say any crazy story it wants and contradict itself over and over because who are we to question gods word. He didn’t give us brains to think he gave us brains so we can worship him more effectively.
Mike
You probably have not heard of this. Here are multiply witnessed phenomena, seen in the UK, Europe and by NASA scientists in California. I knew some of the researchers 12 years ago and they told me of what they saw. You won’t like it but it’s there, on the record. The research was over 3 years and they wrote a 300 page report. This is so mindblowing it is rejected because some cannot handle it but as I said many scientists witnessed this.
And also for the record the light phenomena, in their character and range of type, have been seen in other settings over the past century – many times.
http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com/
I would seriously watch this too – from one of the scientists who witnessed these phenomena, Prof. David Fontana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGV8aQxCsCI
Tim Coleman, the producer, wrote this about a previous critique of Scole:
“This skeptical analysis is well intentioned, but so full of inaccuracies it completely discredits itself. I produced and directed the documentary -The Afterlife Investigations – in which I thoroughly examine all the evidence for the Scole Experiment. I spent several years interviewing all the leading participants and I got to know them all well. As unbelievable as the activities at Scole are I found no evidence of fraud. The authors arguments like – I consulted with a colleague who told me its possible to remove a luminous arm, therefore all experiments which used this control at Scole are fraudulent- are childish in their logic. Given the space I could demolish this entire analysis – but its easier if you watch the documentary http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com”
As to an explanation? Physics must try to explain observed phenomena. Doesn’t physics speak of parallel universes and the nature of space being fundamental? Maybe therein lies some explanations.
@ Michael, #31
Did you even look at the video I linked to above? That’s the whole point! New evidence that they were based on eyewitness accounts. It’s not proof, just evidence. I suppose pre-historic cave drawings of saber-tooth tigers are also worthless. Watch the video and prepare to be OVERwhelmed. 🙂 It’s a very interesting talk, I assure you.
@ Sean, #56,
Did you even bother to watch that talk? Or are you too blinded by your anti-religious, closed-minded view of the world? And when I say “closed-minded” I don’t mean closed-minded to religion or the divine, but closed-minded to the possibility that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts told by Jesus’ first followers. At least watch the video before commenting because that lecture has nothing to do with Noah’s Ark. It’s about the Gospels in the Bible. Even the lecturer mentioned that not every story in the Bible is to be taken literally. That is, not every story in the Bible is based on eyewitness accounts, but there is evidence that the Gospels are. Aren’t you curious? Trust me, watch the video, it’s very interesting!
the theological discussions here are interesting but futile. What disturbs me is the blatant degree in which the Discovery Channel promotes its distain for religion by the promotion of this programming. This is consistent with the current administration’s removal of religion from the public arena. Less faith in God, more dependence on government. Its important in the Marxist/Socialist mindset.
@docwillie
But given that the separation of church and state is established in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America – which comfortably predated Marx by a good half-century – couldn’t you argue that it is in keeping with the very founding principles of the United States of America to focus on keeping religion out of the affairs of government, lest it cloud the impartiality of any given administration?
Additionally, the same Amendment guarantees the right of the Discovery Channel to say whatever it likes about religion – and believe me, from where I’m standing (across a very large body of water from the USA), it’s hardly leading the charge when it comes to an assault on the church. There’s certainly plenty of programming providing adequate redress to the balance, for which you merely have to reach for Fox or talk radio. Moreover, challenging people’s ideas is an excellent way to build the population’s thinking skills, as it leads them to ask difficult questions of themselves that they would otherwise never consider. Critical thinking is an important skill in this age and history has taught us that blindly following anything is clearly not a good idea.
I’m not a Christian (probably evidently), but I would hazard that if I were to question a belief in God and find that actually I did still believe, my faith would be stronger. In a sense, the Discovery Channel is doing religion a favour by allowing people the opportunity to decide whether or not what they believe is true. Everyone loves the truth, right?
(As an aside, you’re right about a separation of church and state being important in a Marxist or Socialist mindset – but that’s in part thanks to the United States itself and the enlightenment thinking that founded it. The principles upon which the USA was founded provided, in part, inspiration for the revolutionary mindset that prevailed throughout Europe in the early 19th Century that seeded the ideas of Marx in the first place. It’s probably worth noting that just because something is believed in by an opposing political stance to the one you hold, it doesn’t make it an entirely terrible thing. Nobody disagrees that Stalin’s Russia was an unpleasant sort of place, but his government still made it illegal to kick babies – does this mean that people of opposing political views should support the kicking of babies?).
Pingback: Hawking to Appear on the Discovery Channel « Shroud of Turin Blog
Something simple. And that is the point.
God was once used as an explanation for complexity. It is the magnificent complexity of the modern mature universe that seems to call for the grandeur of a creator god in the theist mind. But the triumph of all science is the demonstration of how the complex emerges from the simple, automatically, through the blind undirecting working of natural laws. And the laws themselves emerge from simpler laws.
There has been a continuing regress of explanation, wherein every level of complexity is explained through emergence from a simpler underlying substrate. And that underlying substrate is explained by emergence from a yet simpler underlying substrate still.
We have not yet reached the end of this regress. We do not know if it is infinite, or if it will ultimately end at some ur-substrate that becomes the ultimate cause of everything. But every subsequent substrate is simpler than the level above it, and we have worked all the way down to the simplicity of a singularity, with the Big Bang theory.
I see no theological comfort is sticking a god into this final infinitesimal gap. The Big Bang could have been set off by something no more complicated than a random quantum fluctuation. A creator entity that need be capable of nothing more than triggering random quantum fluctuations hardly warrants the title of “god”. And the further down in the regress you continue to reach, the less profound, less sophisticated, and less impressive does the creator entity, even if it exists, need to be.
The concept of god the super-designer and all-powerful engineer has been already rendered obsolete a thousand times over. If theists want to cling now to the metaphor of god the mindless bubble-popper of quantum foam, they are, as far as I am concerned, welcome to.
Simply asking the question, ‘what caused the big bang’? doesn’t validate anybody’s religion.
@ amphiox,
The Big Bang could have been set off by something no more complicated than a random quantum fluctuation.
What evidence do you have that that was the case? You have none. Sure, it’s a possibility, but we don’t even know physics well enough at that scale to determine whether or not this possibility is likely. Maybe I’m wrong on that latter point, I’m no expert. But if that’s true, then so is the possibility that a god exists and maybe it was this supernatural entity that created the seed from which the Big Bang, inflation, etc., emerged if there was absolutely nothing pre-existing it (i.e. no multiverse). It’s a possibility, albeit a nonscientific one, and a possibility it will remain, until we have clear evidence for a mechanism that “set off” the Big Bang, resulting in the universe we inhabit.
Phil @ 64,
“What evidence do you have that . . . [a random quantum fluctuation set off the big bang] . . ? You have none. . . . Maybe I’m wrong . . . [b]ut if that’s true, then so is the possibility that a god exists and maybe it was this supernatural entity. . .”
The possibility that the origin of the universe was triggered by a random quantum fluctuation is one conjectured possibility that arises through the extension of other physical theories that we know are accurate to a great extent. As I said earlier, the main point is that if phenomena can’t be scientifically tested, or the theories that purport to explain them are not the logical extension of existing theories that we have good reason to believe are true, this does in fact mean that we shouldn’t take them too seriously.
The same is simply not the case with respect to theist explanations and no one posting here, or writing or speaking anywhere else I’ve ever seen, presents evidence other than anecdotal “proof”. This would never be accepted as proof of any worthwhile theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claims made for God (or anything paranormal) don’t even come close to that.
All scientific conjectures will in time either gain additional supporting evidence (scientific conjectures are never finally “proven”), or may be falsified. Each piece of additional evidence usually helps fill in gaps in our existing body of knowledge. And, if no evidence is forthcoming, even if the conjecture is never falsified, the conjecture will be taken less and less seriously.
So, I think you’re wrong, they are not logical the same thing. Is a theist explanation a “possibility” — well, of course it is, it’s just not a serious one that can be evaluated in any meaningful way. Just as there are any number of other explanations — Greek myths, Roman gods, extraterrestrials at work and other possibilities that can change or be modified at a whim to explain the same set of facts, and which we don’t take seriously.
In the end, I suspect that my reasons for not taking God (however defined) seriously are probably not that different than your reasons for not believing in Zeus or Poseidon.
Mike, @ #65,
” Is a theist explanation a “possibility” — well, of course it is”
Thanks for agreeing with me. Cheers!
Phil @ 66,
Happy to oblige — but keep in mind, using your logic, so is Zeus 😉
Zeus? But we figured out the true source of lightning long ago!
Is that your only reason for not believing in Zeus? Never fear then, we will eventually figure our what caused the big bang as well. In the mean time, however, I think you should drop your theist explanation, just as those who believed in Zeus should dropped their explanation, even before we discovered the true source of lightening. It was, for a variety of reasons, always a bad explanation 🙂
I agree the rationale of God as a First Cause has been increasingly discredited, but what about God as a Final Cause?
I should point out it’s a consensus among neo-Darwinists that evolution isn’t teleological. So why did an intelligent species evolve? What explains the evolution of evolvability? And why did advanced human civilizations evolve? That human civilization would appear and progress is hardly inevitable or natural, from either a sociological or psychological standpoint. Is human history teleological?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claims made for God (or anything paranormal) don’t even come close to that.”
The first is the Carl Sagan comment. Also this is interesting.
This is the remote perturbing of a highly shielded (electrically, magnetically, thermally, and deeply buried) magnetometer used in a quark detection experiment. (when it was thought quarks could maybe exist singly).
This was an unannounced “test” on the artist Ingo Swann by Dr. Hal Puthoff at Stanford University in 1972. Some other physicists involved said to the effect that it would be impressive if Swann could disturb this device. Swann did this three times (the results were measured) then drew a pretty good diagram of the (unpublished) details of the device. After this the device functioned normally, nicely cycling to order.
See below for Report + talk.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_puthoff.pdf
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2261890462723894860#
This result led to the beginning of the Stanford Research Institute CIA-funded remote-viewing programme, 1972-1985. Ingo Swann was one of the top RVers recruited.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” – the Carl Sagan comment.
Now Sagan also wrote this in his book “The Demon Haunted World” (1997):
“At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images “projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.”
In the first he was presumably referring to the PEAR experiments, the second is remote viewing and the third is the (vast) reincarnation studies by Professor Ian Stevenson on children from Virginia State Uni. – now being continued by Professor Jim Tucker + team (mostly professors).
Alan,
I have no problem with people continuing to research paranormal claims if that’s what they want to do. I just don’t think there is even “remotely” 😉 enough evidence to overturn what currently are very successful and tested physical laws. And, all this has nothing to do with whether there is a God.
Here is more from wiki regarding the remote viewing tests at Standford. Being as skeptical as I am on this, I particularly like the last paragraph. I would think that someone would want all of that money. Anyway, here it is:
“According to psychologist David Marks in experiments conducted in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday’s two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. Dr. Marks concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment’s high hit rates.
Marks has also suggested that the participants of remote viewing experiments are influenced by subjective validation, a process through which correspondences are perceived between stimuli that are in fact associated purely randomly. Details and transcripts of the SRI remote viewing experiments themselves were found to be edited and even unattainable.
Others have said that the information from remote viewing sessions can be vague and include a lot of erroneous data. A 1995 report for the American Institute for Research contains a section of anonymous reports describing how remote viewing was tentatively used in a number of operational situations. The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers “had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand.”
According to James Randi, controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ’s locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced:
“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (…) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you’d probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don’t have that evidence.” Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28–29
Wiseman also pointed at several problems with one of the early experiments at SAIC, like information leakage. However, he indicated the importance of its process-oriented approach and of its refining of remote viewing methodology, which meant that researchers replicating their work could avoid these problems. Wiseman later insisted there were multiple opportunities for participants on that experiment to be influenced by inadvertent cues and that these cues can influence the results when they appear.
Psychologist Ray Hyman says that, even if the results were reproduced under specified conditions, they would still not be a conclusive demonstration of the existence of psychic functioning. He blames this on the reliance on a negative outcome—the claims on ESP are based on the results of experiments not being explained by normal means. He says that the experiments lack a positive theory that guides as to what to control on them and what to ignore, and that “Parapsychologists have not come close to (having a positive theory) as yet”. Ray Hyman also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are way too low to convince the scientific community to “abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles”, due to its findings still not having been replicated successfully under careful scrutiny.
Science writer Martin Gardner, and others, describe the topic of remote viewing as pseudoscience. Gardner says that founding researcher Harold Puthoff was an active Scientologist prior to his work at Stanford University, and that this influenced his research at SRI. In 1970, the Church of Scientology published a notarized letter that had been written by Puthoff while he was conducting research on remote viewing at Stanford. The letter read, in part: “Although critics viewing the system Scientology from the outside may form the impression that Scientology is just another of many quasi-educational quasi-religious ‘schemes,’ it is in fact a highly sophistical and highly technological system more characteristic of modern corporate planning and applied technology. Among some of the ideas that Puthoff supported regarding remote viewing was the claim in the book Occult Chemistry that two followers of Madame Blavatsky, founder of theosophy, were able to remote-view the inner structure of atoms.
Various skeptic organizations have conducted experiments for remote viewing and other alleged paranormal abilities, with no positive results under properly controlled conditions. Some of the organizations would provide large monetary rewards to anyone who could demonstrate a supernatural power under fraud-proof and fool-proof conditions. For the largest paranormal research institution, the James Randi Educational Foundation, out of all of the applicants who applied for the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, nobody has even passed the preliminary tests.”
By the way, regarding Richard Wiseman quoted above, his web-site puts it pretty clearly. It says: “Richard Wiseman is clear about one thing: Paranormal phenomena don’t exist. But in the same way space travel yields technology that transforms our everyday lives, so research into telepathy, fortune-telling and out-of-body experiences produces remarkable insights into our brains, behaviour and beliefs.” And the title of his most recent book (I think perhaps he spices up his quotes (like the one quoted in Wiki) to help sell his books) is: “Paranormality: Why we see what isn’t there.” That about sums it up for me.
Anyway, I wish those who want to keep investigating this stuff the very best — it would certainly change much of what we believe to be true. I’m just not going to hold my breath, and in the mean time I’m not going to base my world view on these types of things.
There is more on the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
And here is a wiki link on Ingo Swann whom you mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann
And regarding Peter Tucker, this is how he explains reincarnation (also from Wiki):
“Although critics have argued there is no physical explanation for the survival of personality, Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another. He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, consciousness may not be merely a by-product of the physical brain but rather a separate entity in the universe that impinges on the physical.”
What do the physicists out there say about this?
Not a physicist, but as far as I know, quantum mechanics has no mechanism for consciousness being a separate entity in the universe that impinges on the physical.
Mike
1.
You didn’t address Ingo Swann’s perturbing, three times, of the multiply shielded magnetometer or his accurate drawing of it – both fairly spectacular. Dr. Puthoff stands by this from the video above.
Frankly I also think it is beyond the pale the way you attempt to smear a fine theoretical and experimental physicist. I read his excellent “Quantum Electronics” book as an undergrad. physicist and then went on to study particle phys. You should be ashamed.
2.
As to the assessment of the SRI research, Professor Jessica Utts carried out an overview and concluded – real.
…”Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established… It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.”
See here: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
3.
As to Randi – I believe JREF is not credible.
4.
It’s Professor Jim Tucker BTW not Peter (?) Tucker. ; – )
I certainly credit your mentioning of his attempt at an explanation that you give. This has actually been fleshed out more theoretically by the quantum physicist Professor Henry Stapp. See his site for detailed quantum physics papers re this. Also note this:
Prof. Stapp is the physicist on the AWARE team – an international team of doctors/scientists studying near-death experiences – peer reviewed results out next year. It is uncertain which way this will conclude as yet but Dr. Jeffrey Long, a radiation specialist, has also studied this and concluded an afterlife is real.
I urge you to read this:
http://www.horizonresearch.org/
5.
Richard Wiseman. I went to the “Scole Study Day” with colleagues in 1999 where Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith were there. He stated the evidence was “very impressive”. Wiseman also contributed a “Wiseman Bag” to the Scole studies, used for precluding fraud for the plastic-encased film studies.
In over 3 years and seen internationally, no fraud was EVER discovered. Three professional magicians stated that the phenomena seen could not be reproduced under the conditions.
6.
Scole Experiment. You totally fail to address this massive, important study. There are plenty of links for this but this gives you a flavour:
http://www.afterlife101.com/Light_display.html
and of course:
http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com/
The conclusion, quite frankly, is non-material intelligences making themselves known to scientists/researchers – but the conditions must be correct, “empathic” shall we say, not dismissive.
7.
I will finally give you a link by two professors which argues why some phenomena “cannot” be discussed, especially by many ivory tower scientists – they are taboo.
http://ptx.sagepub.com/content/36/4/607.full.pdf
“Modern sovereignty is anthropocentric, constituted and organized by reference to
human beings alone…” – they begin…
I trust you see my point here. Man cannot handle the idea of other kinds of intelligences, especially superior or at least spectacularly “other” being in our faces. It’s just too much.