Re: virus:Other Reality

Marek Jedlinski (
Sun, 5 May 1996 02:04:10 +0200 (MESZ)

On Sat, 4 May 1996, John A wrote:

> Perhaps I should revise my terminology. I do not mean that there are

<< diagrams snipped >>

> What I am suggesting is that we are not seeing the complete picture. All
> of our perceptiosns involve the small portion of visible light, or
> percievable reality.

Every time I look at my dog I notice he can perceive (smell, hear)
things I have no sensory knowledge of. I can, however, know that
'something' is there - exactly by observing the dog's behavior.

Similarly, though we can only perceive a limited spectrum of
electromagnetic waves, we know the range is much wider - we have
instruments to measure and indicate the presence of energies we
cannot bodily feel. A compass needle will indicate the presence
of a magnetic field. Tasteless chemical compounds may be traced
through experiments (or observation of people to whom they've been
administered). Well, if not for the wind, we wouldn't even know the
*air* is there...

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.

> I would like to discuss possible inhabitants (objects or beings) in
> these other areas of the spectrum and some implications of this idea,
> but I haven't the time at the moment. I would greatly appreciate any
> input on any aspect of this

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?

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?

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?

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?

I am not saying nothing exists we are eternally barred from
knowing about. I think it is possible (and a little scary).
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).

Marek Jedlinski.