Daydreams and Science

You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit

“What if telekinesis is real.”

My friend probably meant, “I believe telekinesis is real. Let’s talk as though it is.” Which falls somewhere between an invitation to daydream and rhetorical cheating.

But I’m a scientist. So I started wondering: What if telekinesis were real? Imagine that world, like you’re creating a fantasy novel. What would you expect to see?

I’d expect to see schools teaching it. I’d expect military research, plus research in medicine (non-invasive surgery) and physics. I’d expect telekinetic pranks showing up on youtube. If focusing really hard let you move objects, I’d expect us to use it every day.

The military research actually happened. The rest, not so much. You can draw your own conclusions.

Of course, there’s nothing special about telekinesis. This works for any claim about magick. Imagine the world. What would you expect to see?

If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at


5 Responses to “Daydreams and Science”

  1. George says:

    It’s a good approach! Although not foolproof I guess. On telekinesis, it could be a mixture of “not here yet” and “too much time/effort required”.

    Physicist philosopher Paul Feyerabend has some great stuff in his book Against Method, the theme of which is the anarchic nature of scientific progress. He uses the example of Galileo’ proposition of a heliocentric cosmology, where it was actually counter to the evidence at hand.

    Relevance: At one time, if we asked the question “Is Planet Earth moving through space?”, the answer would have been “no”, given the evidence. Surely when I drop an object, it would have a measurable drift corresponding to the speed of the planet’s movement? Wouldn’t there be a permanent wind? And so on. Of course, that all seems silly now…

    So just because it’s not around us, doesn’t mean it’s not possible. That assumes “The End of History”. And perhaps the seeds of “movie-style” telekinesis are already with us, because – – –

    In a sense some of your Direct Magick work isn’t so far off telekinesis – affecting and moving cells and so on. It’s the scale that’s different. Perhaps after three decades of dedicated practice, you could be spinning cigarette lighters casually in bed. It’s just that it takes a long time to build the channels to that level.

    And if it does, where’s the motivation to bother? Buddhist texts often refer to the “Siddhis”, but encourage one not to be distracted with them, and this captures the point:

    One day the Buddha met an ascetic who sat by the bank of a river. This ascetic had practised austerities for 25 years. The Buddha asked him what he had received for all his labor. The ascetic proudly replied that, now at last, he could cross the river by walking on the water. The Buddha pointed out that this gain was insignificant for all the years of labor, since he could cross the river using a ferry for one penny!

    Why practice “direct telekinesis” for decades when I can walk over to the fridge and grab my beer straightforwardly. Or I can use magick for “indirect telekinesis” and have my wife suddenly ask, “Hey George, fancy a beer from the fridge?” and have it brought to me that way.

    Where are you on Remote Viewing? There was a lot of military research into that, and I get the impression that there were positive results, just that they weren’t exact enough / appropriate for military use.

    • I think we do ourselves a disservice by trying to make everyone right. Better to give telekinesis a simple yes or no than to create phrases like “indirect telekinesis.” Because you’re right, the point of magick isn’t to levitate a beer from your fridge.

      But imagine that telekinesis was real, in the sense of “Focus really hard and precisely move an object.” What problems could you solve with that? I’m imagining non-invasive surgery, particularly for brain and knee problems, where we do substantial damage just getting the implements in there. I’m imagining updated laws of physics, possibly new cost-effective ways to create meta-materials like super-strong wires for a space elevator or superconductors for dramatically better computers. The end game of magick isn’t to solve an everyday problem, it’s to understand the mechanisms, then harness them to solve big, important problems.

      So, I’d tell the monk that he should collaborate with physicists to advance our understanding of gravity and hydrodynamics, which could lead to improved space travel, water-based meta-materials, and other advances. And I’d tell your wife that, when you mention you’re thirsty, she should grab you a beer :-)

      Remote viewing: As I understand it, remote viewers often get some useful, accurate details, along with some info that’s inaccurate and probably re-created from their memories and expectations. I think it’s a form of psychic intuition, just less symbolic and more literal than most. The psychic source provides a few relevant details, which the viewer’s mind combines with things they already “know” to create a vision.

      • George says:

        Yeah, the “indirect telekinesis” phrase was just for fun, not a suggestion for a new category! :-)

        But it was to point out that standard magick doesn’t work “that way” – because as you imply, magick generally works within the framework of the everyday world we see around us, rather than appearing as some glaring discontinuity. Manifestations tend to take the easiest route: less materialisations and levitations, more helpful wives.

        Except… thinking… your experiments with creating sensations in others, for instance, would fall into the category of “not being part of the world”, until you managed to work it out, and contact/establish the ethereal software, etc. It is not necessarily a “natural ability” you just have just by concentrating; you have to access a route for it to happen. In this particular case, the route seems to already exist, you are just working it out, but at some point that route was created, surely…

        By this reasoning, telekinesis wouldn’t be performed simply by concentrating on an object – currently, this would be like pushing really hard on the gas pedal on your car without having installed an engine. There’s no ‘motor’ by which the movement can occur. But that’s not to say that we couldn’t create an engine, create ethereal software for the purpose, which could then be accessed by people?

        Summary: Telekinesis is not observed in the world. Concentrating hard does not seem to work. However, in other cases we do not consider concentrating hard to be the sole mechanism either: magickal structures are required as an intermediary ‘actor’. It’s simply that for more common acts, we’ve forgotten it’s there. Could we create magickal structures to support telekinesis (or similar)?

        • Yes! That’s how I think about magick: Someone designs a new technique based on the underlying mechanisms of magick, then they can teach ethereal software how to do it, and then anyone who uses software can do that effect simply by thinking about it. Well put!

          • George says:

            In previous discussions, when I talked about “creating new habits in the universe”, and that once a new “habit” was started it would be accessible to others, this is really what I meant. So this thread has tied things up nicely.

            Meanwhile, I can’t wait to get my ethereal-software-driven hoverboard working!

Leave a Reply