source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:29:17 -0800 Subject: Prime limit, metaphysics From: John Chalmers RE Limits: I agree with Paul Erlich about limit terminology. As generally used on this List, "N-Prime limit" implicitly means that powers of N and multiples of N with smaller primes are included in the tuning. Partch's usage of the term N Limit means that N is the largest ODD number appearing in either the numerator or denominator of the ratios defining the tuning. Thus 33/32 would be said to be at the 11-prime limit by conventional usage, but at the 33-limit in Partch's terms. I think these nomenclatures are clear enough, but one could add 'odd' to be unambiguous. Statements such as at the "33 odd-number limit" or "33(odd) limit" should be clear. Now to metaphysics: I apologize for replying late to Neil's post in TD# 1018, but I've been attending a biotech conference on Natural Products in San Diego the last couple of days. It is certainly possible to believe in a metaphysical, paranormal, super- or preternatural aspect of reality and not be a theist or deist. As I understand Buddhism, neither a Supreme Being nor a Creator god, nor even unchanging eternal souls exist. Powerful god-like beings do exist, but they are unimportant and not worshipped by most sects. There was a philosopher in England in the last century who managed to be a member of the Church of England, a believer in personal immortality, and an atheist. He was parodied as "Codger" by H.G. Wells, but I forget his name. Atheism is not a modern European concept. The ancient Romans persecuted Christians on the ground of atheism because they rejected the gods of Rome. Professing atheism in a Muslim country might well prove fatal these days. A skeptic once said that the difference between a monotheist and and an atheist is that an atheist disbelieves in just one more god than the monotheist. I might add that the arch-skeptic Martin Gardner is a theist and has published a book on his beliefs (The Why's of a Philosophical Scrivener). I certainly do not dispute the emotional power of belief and its embodiment in music. My reaction to some religious music is not dissimilar to Gary's response to the Brahms' Requiem. I share Neil's concern for integrity, honesty, and civility, but I don't think that one has to believe in the paranormal to have these virtues. One can find examples of religious scoundrels and virtuous agnostics, atheists, philosophers, etc. Channelling Sagan is certainly an ironic thought! And Asimov as well; a common quip on the internet these days is that "If life after death really existed, Isaac Asimov would have written a book on it by now." Perhaps the SETI program can contact Carl and let us know if there really are "billions and billions" of inhabited worlds. Perhaps the two of them can sit down with Velikovsky and set him right. Or with Tesla... Granted death comes to us all, but over the past century, advances in hygiene, sanitation, diet, lifestyle, and scientific medicine have doubled the life expectancy for people in the industrialised and much of the developing world. We're not completely helpless in face of it. As James Kukula pointed out, there could be other, mundane explanations for the correlations between rising signs and personality. However, the main argument against Astrology is the lack of convincing data that it works. I don't dispute that some professional astrologers are very good at telling their customers what they want to hear. This is called "cold reading" in the trade, though in some cases the astrologers may have acquired considerable knowledge of the client in advance. As for subtle forces, the only natural forces whose existence has been demonstrated are the emf, gravitational, strong nuclear (color) and weak nuclear. Of these only the emf and gravitational work over long distances. The attempts to find "5th" and "6th" gravitation-like forces have failed. There simply do not appear to be any other forces that operate over long distances, subtly or not. Electromagnetic effects are certainly important in the solar system, but NASA has not found it necessary to take them into consideration when computing planetary, satellite and space probe orbits. Compared to gravity force, they are too weak to matter. As for magnetic storms, auroras, trapped radiation belts, etc., these are caused by streams of charged particles ejected from the sun. They have very little effect on the earth's surface because of the shielding effect of the magnetic field and atmosphere. While they could conceivably affect matters on the earth, humans would be extremely poor "antennae" for the associated elf (extra-low frequency) waves. I should think the steel frames of most hospitals would shield adequately against them, though they will penetrate hundreds of meters of conductive seawater.Is there a EE in the house? In any case, the field strengths would be measured and the putative effects studied, if they were sufficiently defined. Gauquelin's "astrobiology" has not been unambiguously replicated outside of France and there are still questions of data selection, statistics, etc. However, G rejected all of traditional astrology and developed his own discipline. I wouldn't consider his work as definitive. In any case, it has no predictive value, being merely a set of correlations between outstanding individuals (criteria not exactly clear), their birth dates (caesarians or induced births omitted I believe), and the position of certain planets over a rather broad range. I view it as a last-ditch effort to save an obsolete tradition. As for Full Moon efects, these are basically urban legends. Studies in Houston by the Coroner's office and Baylor College of Medicine showed no correlation with murder rates and lunar phase. Similarly, there is no correlation with births in delivery rooms and the moon, though such is commonly believed by nursing personnel. However, at least in the first case, there is a plausible mechanism why such correlations might exist. During period of full or near full moons, there is more light at night, so both criminals and victims might be more active and about. It is true that in some animals (i.e., sheep) the fetus sends a biochemical signal to the mother to initiate the birth process. I don't know if this has been shown in humans, but I seriously doubt that the human fetus can sense which planet is on the horizon, if only because its nervous system is still unformed and "unwired" to a large degree at birth. As for the inheritance of planetary positions at birth, I have not seen any data. I think we are getting rather far from the interests of most of the subscribers to this List. Perhaps we should continue this thread off-list. --John Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:31 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06552; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:31:57 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06555 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id QAA22935; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:30:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:30:01 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu