VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234[5]6789 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:41
Author: Eponymous-24May02
Subject: Re: Eponymous, please comment on this
In reply to: Anonymous - 24 May 2002 's message, "Re: Eponymous, please comment on this" on 07:40

"In fact, it has been demonstrated since 1989, that faster than light speed is possible and has even been demonstrated in the laboratory."

Really? Where?

"Seemingly instantaneous communication between quanta of energy separated by distance has also been demonstrated...."

Really? Where?

Both of these remarks about superluminal motion and "instantaneous" informational exchange misstate the current scientific view, which is just as Stenger characterizes it: All that we know suggests that c is an effective cosmic "speed limit."

To be sure, there is no certain answer, because the question itself turns on the actual structure of space, which we don't really know. Nonetheless, you almost certainly mischaracterize the current mainstream scientific consensus when you say superluminal motion and instantaneous information transfer have been "proved."

I could be wrong, but you'll have to cite your source before I can really evaluate it.

"So far, no explanation that I have heard, other than an underlying consciousness, appears to cover all the bases."

I don't see how the postulation of an underlying consciousness "explains" anything, much less "covers all the bases." This use of consciousness looks like a panpsychist variation of the old "God of the Gaps," where a vague concept of God is invoked as an explanatory principle in all and only those cases where the current theoretical resources of science run short; meanwhile, the precise epistemic relevance of God is left conveniently unarticulated.

So I'll put it to you: Even assuming that superluminal motion and instantaneous information exchange were proven phenomena (and quite the opposite is true), what is the logical epistemic relevance of the "underlying consciousness" hypothesis to such phenomena?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:



Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.