In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow
affect
the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not
beyond
the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle
in
a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.

Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.



This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible.

And that's the mindset about science, of someone who doesn't have a clue
what science is. Science is about determining which of the 'possibles'
are likely to be *true*. It does this by carefully collecting evidence
and applying reason to determine which explanation best fits the
evidence.

What evidence would you gather to indicate the likely *truth* of the claim
that thinking about a CD changes a 'particle' in a CD player?
It's not enough to simply assert it might happen. It's certainly not
enough to take a very naive understanding of 'quantum entanglement'
and claim it *might* cause audibly physical changes to a CD.
That's not evidence, it's speculation, with several crucial
steps of reasoning missing.

Current explanations for audible difference have a strong line
of evidence and reason backing them up. Your explanation doesn't.
Why should we consider it as being a 'competitor' for the current
explanations, then? WHy shoudl it be considered *anything more than*
fanciful speculation?

For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher
Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other
side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining
electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise
these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic"
or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself.
Try and think just a little outside the box, please.

(thinking outside the box) ‰* (not thinking)

You are 'thinking outside the box' without thinking about what *is*
known.

Scienctific explanations are always open to revision. But acknowledging
that something *could be* wrong isn't the same as saying we should
*assume* it is.



--

-S