From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:38 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields are you having fun On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rupert Sheldr=ke vrote: Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for the gra=h. Yes, its a fairly general shape, also seen in species frequencies etc. =till not sure how it might apply to morphic resonance. We would probably n=ed to discuss this when we meet in person. I agree there are d=ep problems with, or aspects of probability. I seem to make a=much sharper distinction than you do between coin flipping type probabilities and the probability fields of self-organising systems, like the leaves of oak trees. l=think there's an inherent difference between systems organised by external forces and by internal organising principles. The coin is moved entirely by external forces, whereas the developing leaf shapes itself, as does a so=p bubble, although in the soap bubble case surface tension can probably expla=n the form quite adequately. Simple physical explanations like surface tension fail when it comes to leaves although D'Arcy Thompson tried to extend them into the biological r=alm. We are off for Canada tomorro= and away for 2 months on a remote island in BC. I hope still to be in email contact most of the time. =upert On 12 Jul 2016, at 16:47, jeffrey E. wrote: <Screen Shot 2016-07-12 at 11.46.52=AM.png> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sheldrake wrote: Dear Jeffr=y, They could be probability fields themselves, you4k=80.re right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fie=ds, a very similar concept to your probability fields. The p=oblem is that when you EFTA_R1_01559121 EFTA02456090