[MD] Mystics and Brains

[Case]

[Platt]
Isn't there a contradiction between the first and second sentences? First,
ideas can't exist without some to think them. Second, math relationships in
nature would exist whether someone came along to think them or not. Are not
math relationships in nature ideas? I believe Plato thought so.  

[Case]
I see no contradiction at all. Relationships exist in nature whether we see
then or not. Mathematic is a language for describing these relationships
with such precisions that they should ultimately occur to any being
sufficiently advance to see relationships in nature. We have only ourselves
as a test case of course but at least in principle this view is falsifiable.
The fact that we can mathematically create persistent, three dimensional
virtual worlds suggests to me that it has something going for it.

[Platt]
"Impossible to know." The limit of science acknowledged, and an implication
that the only way to know truth is by using scientific methods. Mystics and
artists among others would argue otherwise. I'm no mystic and only a
mediocre artist, but lean in their direction.

Maybe we could settle on the idea that some events are simply a matter of
luck or its opposite, depending how one is affected. If as some experiments
show intentions can influence luck, so much the luckier for us. 

[Case]
The key to the statement is not "impossible to know" it is "in principle" as
in mathematically impossible to specify. This is not a philosophical
speculation it is provable with logical rigor and comports with universal
experience. What mystics and artists seriously believe it is possible to
foretell the future? Most spin tales about the vagaries of fortune fill with
twists of fate and happy circumstance. Many on the Christian right are given
to such speculation about prophesy as are fringe elements of the New Age and
callers to the Psychic Friends Hotline.