General discussion

Where does the uncertainty reside in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? In every definition or description of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I've come across, it is stated explicitly or implied that there is an observer or stand-in proxies measuring device that's part and parcel of the overall Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle picture.

UFOs have been with us as a modern phenomenon for over six decades now. Is that too long an interval to associate the UFO movement (if there is such a thing) as just a passing fad? I suggest that any reasonable person would conclude that UFOs could hardly be called a passing fad after all this time and is therefore unlikely to be a cultural, psychological or sociological phenomenon.

My philosophy tends to be that behind every mountain of mythology lies a molehill of reality. It’s just a matter of trying to figure out what that hidden needle-in-a-haystack reality might be without access to the actual needle. Take the case of angels. I think a better reality would have them as angelic extraterrestrials relative to the mythological ‘winged’ entities that really aren’t represented as such (winged, that is) in the Bible and similar texts.

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed its ‘use by’ date by several decades at least.

The philosophical and neurological dualistic mind-body problem is in one way a problem in that the body (including the brain) appears to be one thing of structure and substance – something that is physical – while the mind is of another thing that’s non-physical or not-material. Yet the two, mind plus body, can interact. Why is this so? How is this possible? Here are a few more of my musings on the subject.

The concept of a Multiverse, that there are lots of universes out there, not just ours, is now taken very seriously by many (though not all) cosmologists. If Mother Nature can create one universe, Mother Nature can create more than one. If universes are constantly being formed, can the concepts central to Darwinian evolution be applied to them? The surprising answer is, 'yes'.

The expansion rate of the cosmos is apparently accelerating which is contrary to not only common sense but what generations of cosmologists would have bet the family farm on; a decelerating cosmos is what any sane astronomer would have predicted. So something is screwy somewhere, but there are so many problems with an accelerating Universe and what drives that acceleration that cosmologists might not have to worry about losing their family farms.

Mythologies around the world have given rise to thousands of gods (polytheism) who have all manner of duties and responsibilities and are credited (or blamed) for a whole host of natural phenomena. That’s understandable to primitive people who don’t quite grasp the science behind natural phenomena as well as the various aspects of the sociological, psychological, legal, political and other related parts of their world. However, humanity has also given substance or credit to creator gods whose obvious function is to create.

The soul, free will, and the afterlife consisting of Heaven or Hell are among the central tenets of the Christian religion. All have philosophical baggage attached. In two cases, the soul and the afterlife, that baggage is a rather excessive amount.

There are two main cosmic coincidences that come to mind, and while coincidences happen, they still raise eyebrows and often beg for some sort of rational explanation. My explanation is that these coincidences were all programmed in by whomever or whatever created our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe.