Re: virus:Other Reality

John A (
Sun, 05 May 1996 01:34:19 -0500

Marek Jedlinski wrote:
> What puzzles me about your proposition is whether the above examples
> show the sort of "unperceiveable" world you mean (in which case there
> would be nothing special about it, certainly nothing new) -- OR --
> are you suggesting that forms of energy/matter exist which we have
> not developed methods of detection/measurement so far? Energies
> other than heat, magnetism, electromagnetism, etc? That would
> be something to discuss - or would it? I have a coment on this below.

The analogy that I used, as all analogies tend to be, was imperfect. For
the analogy to be perfect, the spectrum of light would have to much
broader than it is. When we first evolved our sense organs and
intellects, all we were able to detect is what was actually there
(visible light, percievable reality). We looked at the sky the light of
stars. Then after the development of certain insturments, we were able
to percieve what appeared nonexistant (X-rays, etc., unpercievable
reality). There are parts of the "absolute" (I almost hate using this
word) reality which we cannot directly percieve with our five senses,
but we can observe with some extension of our five senses. For instance,
there are stars in the sky that cannot be seen with the unaided eye, but
with the telescope we can easily see what appears to not exist.

The rest of reality is not necesarily "unpercievable", we are merely
unable at this point in our evolution to percieve it all, if this is
even possible.

If this idea were true, it would not really be special about it; after
thorough reasoning it would be as natural as the proposition that rocks

Other energies are very possible; I was flirting with this idea when I
dreamt all of this up.

> I still don't clearly understand if you _only_ mean the invisible ranges
> of electromagnetic spectrum; if so, what is there to discover about it?
> What object could reside there that the instruments don't detect?

I should not have used the term "object". Other objects would have to be
energies. We have evolved an almost flawless way of percieving physical
objects around us; what we cannot detect are the things that are so
minutely small or very far away that our senses are not equipped to
sense them.

These energies would have to be similar to the ones we are familiar
with. There is quite alot of possibility for difference, but certain
aspects of all these energies must be governed by some physical law (or

> However, if you are posing the existence of a "spectrum range" of
> the world which is not only unperceived but unperceiveable (by
> definition? given current state of technology?) then how could
> we possibly discuss it at all? How can one meaningful, let alone
> true, thing be said about something that we can have no slightest
> indication of?

It is very percievable; just not at this point in our evolution.

> I know there are smells I can't smell because I can see my dog
> register them. Without the dog, I wouldn't ever know about them.
> If the smell was that of a lethal gas, I would die - again an
> indication to other people that 'something' was there. If the gas
> was neutral to human body, it could still be detected by a lab
> chemist. But if there is absolutely *no* way to detect something,
> either through our senses or by observing its interaction with
> the environment, then what could we say about 'it'? And why?

As I said earlier (I feel as though I am getting redundant; does anyone
think I am getting redundant?) there was a time when what is commonly known
now was not even dreamt of. At this point, we cannot dream of the
possibilities of what I am rambling about, but at some point in the
distant or not-so-distant future, it would seem perfectly natural. I can
picture now some future human, evolved beyond recognition, with a brain
as big as a bowling ball thinking "It is so simple, how could they have
not gotten it?"

> I think you're talking about God, John.
> At least, the argument would be exactly the same.
> "Maybe something/God exists. We can see light, but we cannot
> see it/God. In fact, we have no way of determining its/God's
> existence. Let's now discuss it/God. What is it/God like?"
> *Were you* talking about God? Belief? Religion?

Before we drag god kicking and screaming into this, I need to recite my
USE OF THE TERM "GOD" DISCLAIMER. First of all, by "god" I DO NOT mean
a.)the christian god, b.)any recognized religious deity, c.)any
spiritual entity, or d.)any supernatural force. By "god" I DO mean a.)a
rational force, b.)an algorithmic process similar to that of nature
itself, c.)a postulate that unifies and (as Hawking said) "breathes fire
into" physical equations and laws and d.)an natural energy which may or
may not be have a conscience.

This definition of god is so unconventional that I do not think it can
really be accepted as what we have come to recognize as "god". In my
proposed system, God is not the creator of the universe, but a part of
it. God is not the overseer of the afterlife; in my system, god and the
afterlife are completely seperate. In my system, god is not good or
evil, it is indifferent to these concepts. Also, the god of my system is
not a moral entity; it is indifferent to this as well.

Construct a polygon with enough sides and it will look exactly like a
circle. The question is, when does the polygon become a circle, or, when
does god become so contorted that it is no longer "god", but has
metamorphosized into something else?

> But I cannot see a point in trying to talk about it, as long
> as we are talking rationally (which is only an arbitrary mode
> of discourse we have implicitly accepted here but by no means
> the only possible one).

Making what appears irrational science fiction conform to rational
science fact is what science has done for centuries.

John Aten