From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 08 2002 - 01:23:07 GMT
>I don't think that the average person reporting such an experience thinks of
>it as acausal at all. The person thinks that the friend somehow was brought
>to call because the person was thinking about him or the person was thinking
>about the friend because the friend was thinking of calling. This is
>non-local causality but not acausal thinking. Do you think there is a
>difference or is non-local what you mean by acausal?
Well when I first learned about it I thought of
it as indirect causality but I think non-local
would work.
>A feeling of interconnectedness is great to have. My point is that if it is
>authentic it is merely "not just low probability," it is not about
>probability at all. None of its authentic meaning can be derived from
>faulty perception of likelihood.
I never thought about it being about probability
until you brought it up to tell you the truth.
I would be more then happy to drop that aspect of it.
I was just trying to go with your argument about
syncronicities being about probabilities.
I think the 'amazement' of the synchronicities might
be about probabilities but that's probably more
to do with our little understanding of them.
You got me a little confused---You throw this whole
argument about statistics at me and then tell me
its not about statistics.
What is your complaint about acausal relationships?
erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 08 2002 - 01:16:57 GMT