Science Vs Paranormality

Lucas10101

Well, if anyone here believes that there is No God surely cannot believe in the Paranormal which I would actually call Supernatural. Paranormal sort of means it's in line with normality which it obviously isn't.

I say that because you need *evidence* for supernatural claims. Ghosts for example are non-biological entities, that seem to have a *consciousness* or maybe some would call it a *soul* or whatever. Nevertheless, whatever it may be called, it's not biological which means it's outside the realms of science, without the realms of science, it cannot be analysed, and can only be treated with the same respect as the Toothfairy. These Ghosts seem to be outside the *Laws of Physics* because they contradict the normality that exist in normal living beings. You see what your eyes want you to see.

Regardless, the Laws of Physics cannot be spared under any given circumstance, it's just not happening. Based on this assumption, Ghopsts therefore do not exist as their existence or their means of supposed existence contradict the Laws of Physics. And anyone that says the come from an alternate Universe are just stupid, as Universe means "Everything", therefore inaccessible from other Universes in the proposed Multi-Verse theory.

People then start talking about Orbs, I hate that word. People see a moving flash of light on a tape or a certain projection of light creates the illusion of a face, and the funny thing is, a lot (not all) of the cases found are from people searching for the supernatural, in other words, there so acutely in tune with the image, any given shape of a face will satisfy their paranormal idiocy.

Again, before anyone says creaking doors and that type of thing is realistic is true, is just delusional. My argument rests with the Biological Laws of Physics which have to satisfy that a non-physical being can have strength to open a door or move a rocking chair or whatever, it's just not happening, you can't really believe this bull****. This non-entity would have to be so strong as their body is non-existent to somehow close a door or even walk, it would require a force unknown to physics and biological or chemical laws, as remember the famous phrase:

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one source to another"

So energy MUST be transferred from the non-entity to the door, however the energy must have come from somewhere, not biologically anyhow, where could it have came from? It just didn't happen, the energy could have been recoil from pressure on a door, a breeze or a loosely hung door. There are many reasons all DEPENDING on the given door in question, I'd need to analyse each individual case in particular to see what explanation I could give. But the burden of proof does not rest with me, it depends on the paranormal believer who has to answer my question as to where that energy came from that was transferred from the non-physical entity to the door?

iamhunted

i so disagree with your first line. paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

I dont see how anyone can come to the conclusion that the paranormal is in some way religious based and therefore not something those who dont believe in god would be interested in.

iamhunted

plus - to answer your question we'd need to completely understand the world and how it works - which we dont. If we did then by all means we could say things like "Regardless, the Laws of Physics cannot be spared under any given circumstance" - but since we dont, then frankly we cant. we understand what we currently understand but science evolves and Im sure we havent just discovered everything yet.


""Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one source to another"
.... you could build and argument for the existance of the soul if you keep going that direction. life force, or whatever the hell it is that keeps people alive is an energy so where does it go when people die? (please dont try and answer that as Im just pointing out the rocky road that lies ahead)

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

plus - to answer your question we'd need to completely understand the world and how it works - which we dont. If we did then by all means we could say things like "Regardless, the Laws of Physics cannot be spared under any given circumstance" - but since we dont, then frankly we cant. we understand what we currently understand but science evolves and Im sure we havent just discovered everything yet.
Well I wouldn't entirely agree here, because I'm talking about the current Laws with which we do know about, and that is more than enough to debunk the idea that a ghost or whatever it may be can exist. Science will only provide more Laws in the future which will back up what's already known and is enough to be known to make the claims that I do.

""Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one source to another"
.... you could build and argument for the existance of the soul if you keep going that direction. life force, or whatever the hell it is that keeps people alive is an energy so where does it go when people die? (please dont try and answer that as Im just pointing out the rocky road that lies ahead)

Your second paragraph is the interior of tripe. Cells are dying in our bodies constantly, and in a constant way. Where does that energy go? It's transferred to some source whatever that may be, but to say it MOVES to another form of existence is completely ludicrous to suggest. For example, twhen we are in the ocffin dead, worms come and eat up cells in our body and so energy moves to them, there's thousands of different ways we could suggest that all build up the cycle of energy in nature, whether it be Carbon, Nitrogen or Oxygen. There is no "Rocky Road" as you suggest, this is fact and should be accepted. Your claims are wrong. The idea of a Soul is a metaphorical and poetic expression for our existence, and that's all it will ever remain. So rather than attack Videos and Images whikch some will do, I'll attack the base fundamental ideas of what these things are, and based on my science, it cannot be disputed.

The classic retaliation to this will be the Non-Argument expression(s),
"But what is these things are outside of the Laws of Physics?"
This would be similar to religious claims about God as some claim that God is outside the Laws of Physics. This was created as a cop-out excuse as more knowledge was founded over the previous centuries. It even moved to the idea of deism, where God created the Universe but doesn't meddle with it, how much of a cop-out can you get, asnd this always results when a question cannot be disputed when science blocks the path of non-reasonable and illogical bull****.

SkepticOne

iamhunted wrote: »

i so disagree with your first line. paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

What I find interesting is the almost total lack of interest from paranormal believers in ways of disginguising what is purely subjective imagination and what has an objective component. I would go so far as to suggest that this lack of interest is their defining characteristic.

ChocolateSauce

You can't imagine where the energy to move doors comes from probably because you don't understand energy (the scientific kind).

iamhunted

SkepticOne wrote: »

What I find interesting is the almost total lack of interest from paranormal believers in ways of disginguising what is purely subjective imagination and what has an objective component. I would go so far as to suggest that this lack of interest is their defining characteristic.

do me a favour and explain that as I really dont see what your point is. first up, just what is a 'paranormal believer'? (considering the paranormal is such a catchall word). secondly, what are you talking about? An objective component of what and are you saying those with paranormal beliefs cant tell the difference between real life and imagination? Surely that would be an extremely simplistic view?

Lucas10101 - you still seem to be claiming you can disprove whats classed as the paranormal. that itself is a feat considering nobody can actually prove the paranormal in the first place.

I'll attack the base fundamental ideas of what these things are, and based on my science, it cannot be disputed.

what are the base fundimentals and how exactly are you going to disprove them considering theres nothing having being proved in the first place?

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

Lucas10101 - you still seem to be claiming you can disprove whats classed as the paranormal. that itself is a feat considering nobody can actually prove the paranormal in the first place.



what are the base fundimentals and how exactly are you going to disprove them considering theres nothing having being proved in the first place?

I can't disprove fairies, or the flying teapot either, but that doesn't make them true, does it ( But what I can do, is use logic, reason and scientific fact to show they wouldn't exist or would seem ludicrous to exist because of this )? Nobody can prove the existence of paranormal activity, but you can make factual realistic scientific claims that can disprove any such idea that people may have that they might exist. Regardless of whether it can be proven or not, you need a backup there to show that it can't be proven, therefore disproving anything people may wish to believe.

Here's a real example of what I mean: Nobody can really know what happened before the Big Bang when there was apparently Nothingness. However, we can use our laws today to disprove any idea other people may have even though we'll never know. Thus without ever knowing, we can disprove something that never existed. Rather than use the word Disprove, maybe eradicate the idea would be better.

Second Comment you made --> Virtually the same as the first.

iamhunted

lets be honest here, we dont *actually* know if the big bang theory is correct - we'll have to wait and see if the LHC can shed more light on it first.

Im amazed at how many just believe everything they're told about science and take it as irifutable . as far as this planet, its surroundings and how we got here - we know very little.

iamhunted

please do though explain to me just what the paranormal is that you can disprove? what is it and what does it entail and how do you disprove it? (I want an detailed answer now, not a glib one liner)

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

lets be honest here, we dont *actually* know if the big bang theory is correct - we'll have to wait and see if the LHC can shed more light on it first.

Im amazed at how many just believe everything they're told about science and take it as irifutable . as far as this planet, its surroundings and how we got here - we know very little.
please do though explain to me just what the paranormal is that you can disprove? what is it and what does it entail and how do you disprove it? (I want an detailed answer now, not a glib one liner)

Well, I would disagree just slightly with that first comment. Yes, we don't know the Big Bang happened, just the same as we don't know that it came from the bottom of a greater ocean either, but from the evidence gained today, for example the ever expanding Universe, this implies at one point, it was infinitely dense at some point. At this point called the Singularity, there was an expansion of space, unknown how it triggered or how it may have happened. However the Theory stands up to scrutiny and hopefully the LHC will shed light as you suggest. So yes, we don't know, but we are pretty much certain about the singularity...before that or why it happened is really what we don't know. Anyhow, I might get accused of going off topic

"We know very little" - You claim. However considering how "Little" we knew when starting civilisation began, we've come a long way and thus compared to our starting ancestors, we know "A Lot". And I don't know, nor do you how much there is to know, so we can't count up how much we know and get it as a % of how little or much we don't know, get me? But as far as Science is concerned, things such as Electricity, Magnetism, and from 16th Century onwards, I'd be pretty certain, the vast majority of what we take it acceptable, however the advantage of science is that we can go back and correct, modify and improve any current theories we currently hold. So the question of irrefutability is meaningless, we just accept the current theory as it stands and comply with whatever modifications and improvements that science can provide. But it's not a question of irrefutability, but general acceptance based on the evidence we can manage and take definitive conclusions from.

Like I previously said, I cant disprove anything paranormal for exactly the same reason as I can't disprove fairies. But we can certainly say fairies don't exist and yet we don't disprove their existence? Get my point?
But what I can do instead, is provide scientific reason and logic to prevent any theories that somehow a paranormal being can exist which would otherwise contradict the scientific laws as my first post suggests. Thus as I'll repeat, I can't disprove anything, but I can supply a list of Laws which *must* be complied with in the natural world (or supernatural world), and use them as a guide for thinking out what could possibly exist or what may not exist. This logic and reason amalgamated with fact from science can deliver for you, a disturbing conclusion and in the most probable case, paranormal activity of any kind does not exist. However the probability cannot be nor 0 or 1, but you know what I'm saying, it's closer to null than anything at all.

Hope that clarifies any issues you have.

iamhunted

ah now, youve went and confused me. You say you'll disprove the paranormal, then you say you wont disprove the paranormal then you say you'll disprove it if something paranormal decides it isnt scientific. I'm missing just what it is you are actually saying .....

You cant say that ifisomething doesnt fit your understanding of science then it just cant be .. that isnt very scientific. PLus the points you;re proving about learning are just proving the point im making - we're STILL learning.

Lucas10101

If you look at my previous quotes I've never actually said that I would "Disprove" the paranormal...you implied that from my original post, so no, I'm not going to defend a point I didn't make. Plus, I've already dealt with that argument assuming I did hold that stance. My position is as follows, from what I know about science and the laws of nature as they stand currently, I can give many assumptions. Based on these assumptions (which are assumed to be true because of scientific rigour and methodology that was used to collect them), any assumption that goes against these i.e Paranormal, can automatically be assumed to be untrue because of the factual information which today, we hold to be true. The argument against this is "Paranormal activity require a new form of science and thus cannot be explained", that is contradictory to my point a few lines ago for the following reason:

Any new form of science will not contradict todays science or make it wrong, only support it and provide more understanding. So you won't have a science that shows that paranormal activity is untrue, and another that says it's true. That is a cop-out excuse that people will use when backed against a wall like a rat. It's the last ditch excuse. Hopefully this is enough to clarify any possible misunderstandings you have.

In relation to your second comment, It isn't very scientific to say something exists without proof either. That's the entire point of science. Yes, we're still learning, and from what we've learned, we can disregard any notion of paranormal activity. Case closed as far as I see.

oeb

I don't think the skeptics are in a position to disprove anything. If I lie to you, and you tell me you do not believe me. Is the onus on me to prove it to you? Or would you expect the response 'I'm not lying, if you can not prove I am lying then I must not be lying'.

People have been claiming the supernatural for as long as humans have been around, but if something can not be proved, then it is a hypothesis, a guess. This 'faith' based approach is the same as the religious take, and it's just as much bunk.

The study of the paranormal is just a way of personifying your fears, people personify things all the time.

For the record, if energy can not be lost .... what is enthropy?

i so disagree with your first line. paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

Because of course religion and belief in a divine being has been proved? Personally I rank religion right up there with ghosts and psychics.

iamhunted

nope - i dont think i said anywhere that religion has been proved. i was saying that you cant just assume that because someone has an interest in the paranormal that they're religious.

iamhunted

oeb wrote: »

For the record, if energy can not be lost .... what is

Is entropy the degree of un-orderliness of a chemical or physical system? Chaos? whats that got to do with losing energy?

Personally I rank religion right up there with ghosts and psychics.

i wish I could look at the word 'ghost' in such a small way. the term 'ghost' can mean a million things to a million different people.

oeb

iamhunted wrote: »

Is entropy the degree of un-orderliness of a chemical or physical system? Chaos? whats that got to do with losing energy?

Enthropy is the unavailability of the energy in a system to preform further useful work.

iamhunted wrote: »

i wish I could look at the word 'ghost' in such a small way. the term 'ghost' can mean a million things to a million different people.

So can the word 'green'. That does not say much though. I was using ghost in the commonly used form, to indicate a 'spirit from beyond the grave' some visable remain of our consciousness that can be experienced through one of our senses.

Sorry about the religion thing, I misunderstood your context. I was mearly stating that belief in religion is much the same as belief in the paranormal, I was not suggesting that just because you think that some cold reader can actually see your future that you say your prayers at night. (Although it seems strange to reject one while accecpting the other)

iamhunted

to be honest i dont really go for the 'spirit from beyond the grave' stuff myself

Lucas10101

Any more believers willing to argue against my point, I'm yet to defend it to a genuine excuse thus far?

towel401

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Your second paragraph is the interior of tripe. Cells are dying in our bodies constantly, and in a constant way. Where does that energy go? It's transferred to some source whatever that may be, but to say it MOVES to another form of existence is completely ludicrous to suggest. For example, twhen we are in the ocffin dead, worms come and eat up cells in our body and so energy moves to them, there's thousands of different ways we could suggest that all build up the cycle of energy in nature, whether it be Carbon, Nitrogen or Oxygen. There is no "Rocky Road" as you suggest, this is fact and should be accepted. Your claims are wrong. The idea of a Soul is a metaphorical and poetic expression for our existence, and that's all it will ever remain. So rather than attack Videos and Images whikch some will do, I'll attack the base fundamental ideas of what these things are, and based on my science, it cannot be disputed.

The classic retaliation to this will be the Non-Argument expression(s),
"But what is these things are outside of the Laws of Physics?"
This would be similar to religious claims about God as some claim that God is outside the Laws of Physics. This was created as a cop-out excuse as more knowledge was founded over the previous centuries. It even moved to the idea of deism, where God created the Universe but doesn't meddle with it, how much of a cop-out can you get, asnd this always results when a question cannot be disputed when science blocks the path of non-reasonable and illogical bull****.

So you like writing in bold?

stevenmu

Towel401 if the best you have to offer is to drag up a thread to complain about a 3 month old post being in bold, please find somewhere else to post.

fokker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

You see what your eyes want you to see.

That is simply not true.
The eye is not a neutral camera.
The eye and human vision as a whole is a complex system of pattern recognition. It makes it possible to see trees in clouds and such.
The older you get, that is, the more developped you get, the more you loose the ability to see things which arent part of a previously defined pattern.
Gestalt Pyschology is based on this.

So, 'you see what you have learned to see' is much more true than 'you see what your eyes want you to see'.

Lucas10101

I see what you mean.

I suppose the best way to describe what I said would be this: If you were in a dark room, and because our vision is not superb at night...we see things not as good as they should. We would only go into these haunted places with the hypersensitivity of -really wanting- to see something, or just vigilant to what were expected to find.

This means when we see something, it can obviously take a few seconds for our eyes to adjust and we'll make out ghost shapes in our head or whatever. If we want to see the shape of a person, we will find it. So yes, we will see what we want to see, especially when we're searching for it.

I'd love to know also, why these events always take place in the dark. (Or nearly always)

fokker

The human perception is capable of seeing trees in clouds. The shape of these particular clouds at that particular moment matches a pattern, known to our brain as 'tree'.
This matching takes place automatically.
Tests like Rorschach see in this a gate to the subconscious. By offering patterns with no particular shape it is believed that the way these meaningless shapes are interpreted says something about the subconsious of that person: a random pattern has no meaning, so when an interpretation is given, it is completely generated by subconsious processes in that person, not by the shape itself.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets assume that there is some kind of spiritual information, whatever that may be. It is not material, in that case it would obey the laws of physics, and would be measurable. And as such be at best a not yet understood physical phenomenon. (Freuds easy way out: het said that dreams, the subconsious and all that, were just signs of a not yet onderstood physiology of the brain. That way anybody can 'explain' everything of course...).
So, we assume some kind of spiritual information, maybe from ghosts, maybe from dead ppl, whatever, give it a name.

Now how would this non-material information ever be seen by our senses, which all are physical devices, 'seeing' variations and changes in physical reality?
It cant be seen directly. Therefore i also diont believge in pictures of ghosts and such.

But, maybe it can influence the way our brain sunconsciously interprets random shapes, which are so much random they cant be simply seen as trees, chairs, whatever?
Maybe that could explain the fact that trhough the centuries clairvoynts, witches, shamans etc could see all kinds of thinsg in smoke, in ashes, in clouds, in the numerous lights and shadows in a crystal bowl?

Of course we simpkly dont know anything about subconsious processes. And we absolutely also dont have any proof that any kind of strange external information coud influence this process of subconscious pattern-recognition and pattern-interpretation.

But, it could be a model to explain things. Science itself absolutely has no jurisdiction here. Since scientific knowledges is knowledge, built on the reduced reality of ONLY reporducable events, ONLY events that are witnessed by more than one person, double blind procedures, etc.
That is a reduced reality.
Science can claim that there is no truth outside their own procedures and paradigmas, but that would be a religious statement rather than a scientific statement.

So a lot can be said and theorized about strange visions of strange things in the night.

Daylight can make things clear, but it also can make thinghs invisble. Do you see the stars during the day? They really are there though. Daylight forces our interpretation to known pattersn and structures and processes. It is interpretation, based on recognition, rather than a real and objective perception.

Lucas10101

I've replied through bold below.

fokker wrote: »

This matching takes place automatically.
A random pattern has no meaning, so when an interpretation is given, it is completely generated by subconsious processes in that person, not by the shape itself.

Yes, thanks for re-enforcing my point. When we see something disorganized or random, we seek patterns from what out subconscious already recognizes. This is precisely my point, we look for the evidence...and then claim it to be true, when there was no evidence to begin with.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets assume that there is some kind of spiritual information, whatever that may be. It is not material, in that case it would obey the laws of physics, and would be measurable.

Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist. To assume something that does, is meaningless. We can assume many things...doesn't make any of them true. There is not a shred of evidence for Paranormal Activity.

Now how would this non-material information ever be seen by our senses, which all are physical devices, 'seeing' variations and changes in physical reality?
It cant be seen directly. Therefore i also diont believge in pictures of ghosts and such.

We only have a materialistic world. Nothing can exist outside of this, partly because the Laws of Physics cannot be contradicted, or else they couldn't exist. (Read my posts above to get an idea of what I mean)

But, maybe it can influence the way our brain sunconsciously interprets random shapes, which are so much random they cant be simply seen as trees, chairs, whatever?
Maybe that could explain the fact that trhough the centuries clairvoynts, witches, shamans etc could see all kinds of thinsg in smoke, in ashes, in clouds, in the numerous lights and shadows in a crystal bowl?

Again, we search so hard for these patterns. People who claim a profession in this area search even more, and claim many things...and they make money out of it. Assuming there's one who genuinely believes his cause, he's simply fooled himself. We seek patterns subconsciously and we find them. You're using the word "Maybe". I could give an infinite amount of "Maybe's" to describe paranormal, and none of them would be true, yours is simply an addition, and falsified by the veracity of the Laws of Physics which cannot be violated as they wouldn't exist if they could be. Simple.

Of course we simpkly dont know anything about subconsious processes. And we absolutely also dont have any proof that any kind of strange external information coud influence this process of subconscious pattern-recognition and pattern-interpretation.

We know that they can't violate the Laws of Physics and are simply a biological problem. There is no extra-sensory development going on, we are a product of our senses and the evolution of them over the millions of years. I don't see your problem. We look for the patterns, they are not provided for us by anything.

But, it could be a model to explain things. Science itself absolutely has no jurisdiction here. Since scientific knowledges is knowledge, built on the reduced reality of ONLY reporducable events, ONLY events that are witnessed by more than one person, double blind procedures, etc.
That is a reduced reality.
Science can claim that there is no truth outside their own procedures and paradigmas, but that would be a religious statement rather than a scientific statement.

Scientific Knowledge is the only truth here, there is no other forms of truth. If you knew enough about science, you would understand that these Laws just cannot be violated, do your research please. I can claim exactly the same truth that there is no truth outside science in the same way I can claim that an elephant doesn't eat Bananas on Uranus. Both are equally as stupid and equally as disprovable, but because the latter can't be proven right now, you would still claim it to be ridiculous.

Assume no-one ever saw paranormal activity. If one person claimed it, they would be seen as a lunatic. However if a large amount of people suddenly through hearsay and an insightful mind do, it's seen as possibly normal eg. Paranormal and Religion.
So a lot can be said and theorized about strange visions of strange things in the night.

Daylight can make things clear, but it also can make thinghs invisble. Do you see the stars during the day? They really are there though. Daylight forces our interpretation to known pattersn and structures and processes. It is interpretation, based on recognition, rather than a real and objective perception.

You just said above that these things are "Immaterial", now you're saying that light can affect it...you've just contradicted yourself.

Stars are material, again...view your pathetic argument above and you'll realize how contradicted you've just been.

Dark & Light shouldn't affect "Immaterial" as you claim, because you assume that The Laws of Physics are one layer of truth...when you stop contradicting yourself, please come back with an alternative answer, some definitive proof for paranormal activities, and physiological evidence for your "Maybe" claims above.

Thanks.

fokker

I know some things of science, i went to gymnasium, after that university, so the scientific procedures are clear to me.
And they are very useful, and necesary.
But, i say that again, they are build on a reduced reality. The reality of objectivity, of empirical science, with its procedures and methodology.
Of course from the viewpoint of science there is nothing else. There cant be anything else. Because everything that would be different wouldnt be included.

Mind you, i dont say, and never said, that spirits etc really exist. But i do say that it is impossible to deduce from science that things outside science cant exist.

Unless you would define the word 'exist' as 'everything on which the rules of scientific truth apply'. Many ppl think like that indeed. But then science becomse a religion, with blind followers, who are getting very emotional during confrontations with ppl who dont agree with the absolute supremacy of science.

Seen from the angle of evolution this science-worshipping is even more bizarre. Humans evolved from lower life forms. Life became more and more complex, and with the complexity of the organism the need for a notion of unity of that organism also increases. This notion is called 'consciousness'.

Then these humans are getting smarter en smarter, they learn about causality, and they expand this causality to a methodoly and a science. Still this whole science is a product of man. I suppose you dont assume external intelligence from mars or sth like that flew on, and rational hardliner as you seem to be, any divine influcences also can be ruled out. Right? So, we have a brain, which learsn some tricks, recognizes patterns. Visual patterns, as well as patterns in processes.

And then, all of sudden, this tool, this part of life, suddenly starts to think they can say what reality is and what not?
The history of science is full of 'now we know everything' moments. Newton for instance: everything was supposed to be ruled by the laws of mechanics and gravity. If enough details are knowns, everything can be calculated.
At the end of the 19th century it was stated by many scientific societies that there would not be any major discoveries anymore - the basic laws were knowwn, and from these everything could be deduced.
Then relativity came in, and creepy things like uncertainty as a principal property of matter in certain situations.
And now again many ppl say we know it all - cuz only science is the truth, we only need to explore that path a bit further to know more, but there are no paths other than that.

Yeah. Orf course. Science says: nothing is true, before it is proven. And you cab prove it only by using scientific methodology.
Sad things is that this mission-statement cant be proven itself

Childish despair-leaps like elephants on uranus have nothing to do with this discussion, i dont know you but that seems beneath you.

Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist.

This is simply not true. Your proof goes like 'laws exist, because if there are situations or moments when they dont exist, they are no laws anymore. and because they excist, there cant be anything outside them'.

People who are cheating, earning money with it - ofcourse thats not good. And besides, again, i never said ghosts and paranormality etc exist - i only say that it is fundamentally impossible to say based on science that it does not exist.

You just said above that these things are "Immaterial", now you're saying that light can affect it...you've just contradicted yourself.

In this one you completely misunderstood me, or i expressed myself wrongly. Doesnt matter, forget it, it has no besring on this discussion anyway.

One more thing: ppl who believe in such things are often automatically discarded as dumb, uneducated, primitive, etc.
Is that so? Everybody who does not agree with rationality to the extreme, is stupid?
And why do you write 'scientific knowledge' with capitals? does it need that extra accent?

Lucas10101

I've just responded there below, enjoy.

fokker wrote: »

1. But i do say that it is impossible to deduce from science that things outside science cant exist.

No, that's actually not true from my perspective. Our Universe is governed from the very small...particle physics. It's a complex area. But Physicists have managed to comprehend them and use them to our advantage with medical care etc. So they are of value and are true. These laws are so fundamental that they govern every action, and where energy goes. There is and can be nothing beyond this. The total amount of energy remains the same and any form of existence MUST use some form of particle with some form of energy or else it wouldn't "exist" in the material sense, which is the only sense you can have. Therefore if I were to claim a ghost appeared, I have a few questions to ask myself...along the lines of "Where did the energy originally come from?", "What allows for movement and existence?". Using my knowledge of Laws, I can deduce what cannot exist. I cannot deduce something that does not exist if I don't have the Law, however with my current laws, I can disprove paranormality which is what we're debating now. I can't speak for Laws that haven't been discovered but I know enough to disprove claims today.

2. But then science becomse a religion, with blind followers.

Believers of Paranormality are the blind followers. I have Laws. Laws = Evidence and a method for evidence. Paranormal "believers" take the leap of faith saying that there is something beyond rationality and don't require proof, therefore trying to make my job impossible. But using my laws as mentioned above, I can rationally think it through logically, and without superstition. It's too easy to say "There's something beyond..."...when you don't require proof, that's why it's so attractive to believe in. But it doesn't make it true and it doesn't hold true.

3. Seen from the angle of evolution this science-worshipping is even more bizarre. Humans evolved from lower life forms. Life became more and more complex, and with the complexity of the organism the need for a notion of unity of that organism also increases. This notion is called 'consciousness'.

I wouldn't call it "worshiping", it's accepting the truth and trying to provide it to the public to allow them to make a conscious decision with all ideas in mind, logical and illogical ones. Yes- Darwins Theory of Evolution is chance advantage based growth, and is indisputable. Marvelous piece of work from Charles...

4. And then, all of sudden, this tool, this part of life, suddenly starts to think they can say what reality is and what not?
The history of science is full of 'now we know everything' moments.

Scientists don't claim to "know it all". We are humble and say there's a lot left to explain, but by simply saying "There's something else..." doesn't do a thing.

It doesn't "suddenly" start to think. Evolution by natural selection occurs over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. These timescales are very difficult for our minds to comprehend, but that doesn't make them false just because we cannot imagine it.

5. Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist.

This is simply not true. Your proof goes like 'laws exist, because if there are situations or moments when they dont exist, they are no laws anymore. and because they excist, there cant be anything outside them'.

As explained above, and through my initial postings, I won't reiterate what I said previously. I stated it clearly in my previous postings. If you have any more specific questions regarding this quote, I'll gladly refute your point.

6. One more thing: ppl who believe in such things are often automatically discarded as dumb, uneducated, primitive, etc.
Is that so?

Who's statistics or proof are you going along? Are you assuming this yourself or from a biased reporter or believer?

However I regard Creationists as dumb, uneducated and primitive. This description fits the bill for a Miss Sarah Palin.

fokker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I've just responded there below, enjoy.
Originally Posted by fokker
These laws are so fundamental that they govern every action, and where energy goes. There is and can be nothing beyond this.

Hmm, laws govern..?
Laws are conclusions of experiments and theoretical analysis, formulated in the language of mathematics.
Laws are abstracts from the reality. Sometimes laws prove to be wrong, then they are adapted.
Laws are valid, until proven wrong. Every physicist will agree with this.
So these laws dont rule out the possibility that there are situations or phenomena which are not 'governed' by these laws.
Laws are abstract, laws dont exist anywhere but in our heads.

The total amount of energy remains the same and any form of existence MUST use some form of particle with some form of energy or else it wouldn't "exist" in the material sense, which is the only sense you can have. Therefore if I were to claim a ghost appeared, I have a few questions to ask myself...along the lines of "Where did the energy originally come from?", "What allows for movement and existence?". Using my knowledge of Laws, I can deduce what cannot exist. I cannot deduce something that does not exist if I don't have the Law, however with my current laws, I can disprove paranormality which is what we're debating now. I can't speak for Laws that haven't been discovered but I know enough to disprove claims today.

According to your laws, that is. And as stated, i dont agree with the axioma that the laws as we know them now are all there is.

Believers of Paranormality are the blind followers. I have Laws. Laws = Evidence and a method for evidence. Paranormal "believers" take the leap of faith saying that there is something beyond rationality and don't require proof, therefore trying to make my job impossible. But using my laws as mentioned above, I can rationally think it through logically, and without superstition. It's too easy to say "There's something beyond..."...when you don't require proof, that's why it's so attractive to believe in. But it doesn't make it true and it doesn't hold true.

I must admit i dont believe much of most ghosts etc. But i cant say it must be nonsense. I simply dont know it, I cant know it. But i do know that there is no scientific basis to say 'it can not exist'. Other than a chosen axioma.
What you call 'proof' is a technique of verification inside a defined formal system. And therefore only valid inside this system or paradigma.
Which means that when a system which is unfit to explain paranormal phenomena, or which even excludes them from reality can not proof these things, or can disprove tyhem, i am not impressed at all. In fact, that is so by definition of that system.

I wouldn't call it "worshiping", it's accepting the truth and trying to provide it to the public to allow them to make a conscious decision with all ideas in mind, logical and illogical ones. Yes- Darwins Theory of Evolution is chance advantage based growth, and is indisputable. Marvelous piece of work from Charles...

'the truth' - many philosophers are not so sure about the possibility to know the truth at all. They see physics as a model, to describe reality in a objective way.

Scientists don't claim to "know it all". We are humble and say there's a lot left to explain, but by simply saying "There's something else..." doesn't do a thing.

Humble? 'There is no truth outside me'. I wouldnt regard that as humble.

It doesn't "suddenly" start to think. Evolution by natural selection occurs over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. These timescales are very difficult for our minds to comprehend, but that doesn't make them false just because we cannot imagine it.

With 'suddenly' i mean that on a certain moment in human cultural history mankind decided to have the way to the truth. That is not so special, all religions say the same and religions are quite old. But at a certain moment religion was replaced by ratio, and then mankind told itself that the way to truth is ratyionality.

5. Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist.

This is simply not true. Your proof goes like 'laws exist, because if there are situations or moments when they dont exist, they are no laws anymore. and because they excist, there cant be anything outside them'.

As explained above, and through my initial postings, I won't reiterate what I said previously. I stated it clearly in my previous postings. If you have any more specific questions regarding this quote, I'll gladly refute your point.

For me goes the same: i gave my arguments above why i dont agree with this. Tell me where you think i am wrong.

However I regard Creationists as dumb, uneducated and primitive. This description fits the bill for a Miss Sarah Palin.

Ha, we agree on this one
Once i had a discussion with a creationist. I asked him how he dealt with fossils of many million years old. His final trick: '14.000 years ago (or whatever number, i keep forgetting that) Gofd created all, and also time, and also the million years of the past'. Why dont we say that the universe was formed 3 seconds ago, including all memories, years, events etc before these 3 seconds? He told me i was only trying to sabotage his believe and therefore wouldnt talk with me on that subject anymore. He was an American guy.

Lucas10101

Replies in bold below...

fokker wrote: »

[/I][/I]
laws dont exist anywhere but in our heads. [/I]

That is a little narrow minded. We, through evolution have enough cognitive ability to comprehend complex phenomena in reality. In a sense, you are correct in that a Law is simply "Words"...which describe a meaning of reality in a general sense. Nonetheless these words hold true. Just because we concluded the meaning from our head, doesn't mean there's anything beyond this. We are intelligent enough beings to know in the 21st Century what holds true and what doesn't. These "Laws" are simply a precise description of nature, and by the way, Laws are always mathematical models (Thus the Theory of Evolution can never become a Law), therefore regardless of experiments, the maths adds up, and complex maths as well. Computers can now generate such calculations at phenomenal speeds using these laws. So yes, the laws are what we generated from our intellect through natural selection, but that doesn't demean them in the slightest, what they stand for holds true.


According to your laws, that is. And as stated, i dont agree with the axioma that the laws as we know them now are all there is.

There not my laws, their the knowledge of intense investigation and thorough mathematical models. There may be new laws or variations of our laws outside our Universe as postulated by some cosmologists, but I can't speak for them. All I can conclude is that if these "New Laws" or something "Beyond Science" existed, then it would simply contradict everything we learned in Science which makes absolutely no logical sense, believe me. You saying "I don't believe it", is the same conclusion for me and "I don't believe in God", we are simply just stating something, which probably means nothing, but at least on my side I can't be contradictory.


I must admit i dont believe much of most ghosts etc. But i cant say it must be nonsense. I simply dont know it, I cant know it. But i do know that there is no scientific basis to say 'it can not exist'. Other than a chosen axioma.

You're correct. I can't say indefinitely that "Ghosts don't exist" for the same reason I can't say "Toothfairies don't exist"...but I can assure there is a very high probability (close to 0) that they don't through the Laws I have knowledge of today.


'the truth' - many philosophers are not so sure about the possibility to know the truth at all. They see physics as a model, to describe reality in a objective way.

Philosophers make a big deal out of every question. I don't take them seriously. The only truth in reality is Science based. The truths outside of this are what you could call "Moral Truths".

[/B]
Humble? 'There is no truth outside me'. I wouldnt regard that as humble.

I mean that I'm humble in relation to reality and what we know about it, not paranormal idiocy.


He was an American
guy. Such a simple sentence, yet so much meaning.

iamhunted

I must admit i dont believe much of most ghosts etc. But i cant say it must be nonsense. I simply dont know it, I cant know it. But i do know that there is no scientific basis to say 'it can not exist'. Other than a chosen axioma.

thats probably the most open minded and true skeptic statement Ive read so far in the Skeptics Corner. And I agree with you totally.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

.but I can assure there is a very high probability (close to 0) that they don't through the Laws I have knowledge of today..

two things -

1) do you any of your own research to back up that assurance? as in have you gone looking?

2) We all agree that no-one knows for sure if the 'paranormal' is unknown science or genuinely something otherwise so you;re really just assuring me of something i already know, though you go a bit further and seem certain that the paranormal doesnt exist.

paranormal activity, call it what you will, is at best very very very rare but people have had some experiences (including myself) that are just too complex to put down to seeing something in the dark. doesnt mean those experiences are 'ghosts' (again, insert suitable descriptive word) but they do point to areas of environment v human brain that we dont know much of yet.

persoonally Im trying to find any links between infrasound and evps to see if such things can be caused by infrasound itself. Very clear EVPs of voices that werent heard at the time are the only clues I have to anything paranormal in all the places ive looked.

Are you doing anything to try and find out info to help look deeper into these 'paranormal' claims or is it just something you like to have heated debates about? (And i mean that in the best possible way)

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Any more believers willing to argue against my point, I'm yet to defend it to a genuine excuse thus far?

I cant really make out the difference between what you were suggesting and oen was saying with this:

I was mearly stating that belief in religion is much the same as belief in the paranormal

the same reply should suit both?:

paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

... so i think we're still at square 1. plus also consider many believe in the paranormal due to a personal experience of some kind. the religious equivilant of such a personal experience would be if jebus popped down and threw a few miracles around the place in person. belief in one isnt anything like belief in the other imo

without the realms of science, it cannot be analysed, and can only be treated with the same respect as the Toothfairy

no - it means its currently outside the realms of science - just like certain parts of modern day science were 100 years ago (back to that 'learning' thing that science is so fond of doing). You are making the assumption that it "can only be treated with the same respect as the Toothfairy" and thats all it is - your assumption Im afraid.

fokker

That is a little narrow minded. We, through evolution have enough cognitive ability to comprehend complex phenomena in reality. In a sense, you are correct in that a Law is simply "Words"...which describe a meaning of reality in a general sense. Nonetheless these words hold true. Just because we concluded the meaning from our head, doesn't mean there's anything beyond this. We are intelligent enough beings to know in the 21st Century what holds true and what doesn't. These "Laws" are simply a precise description of nature, and by the way, Laws are always mathematical models (Thus the Theory of Evolution can never become a Law), therefore regardless of experiments, the maths adds up, and complex maths as well. Computers can now generate such calculations at phenomenal speeds using these laws. So yes, the laws are what we generated from our intellect through natural selection, but that doesn't demean them in the slightest, what they stand for holds true.

I am narrowminded because i dont agree with your assumption that everything is ruled by some rules? I think you are the narrowminded here, thinking that all is just a mathematical model. Computers do what they are programmed to do, they cant proof anything at all. Programmed as an extension of certain theories, they ofcourse will produce results within the limits of these theories. And therefore cant be used to say anything outside these limits. Wether they exist or not.

Mathematical models are symbolic descriptions, they are no reality on themselves, and certainly never meant as such.

How can you be sure that the universe obeys laws at all, and if so, that these laws are the only laws and on top of that can be known to us humans? As I said before, mankind repeatedly through history was convinced to have found the truth, to have discovered the laws of the universe. The greeks, the alchemists, Newton, and now the new rationalists. (Still unanswered: how can it be that ppl who so much believe in ratio, get so emotiuonal when you doubt their fundamentalists view on things?)

You always demand proof for everything, where is your proof for this axioma? Because in your rational thinking, the absence of proof cant be put aside as 'sth which will be dealt with later', no, it is just absence of proof.

Speculations on ghosts are therefore just as much speculations as your opinion that there exist things like absolute laws.

Philosophers make a big deal out of every question. I don't take them seriously. The only truth in reality is Science based. The truths outside of this are what you could call "Moral Truths".

Science is a product of philosophy. Philosophy should prevent people to think they already know everything there is to know.

I mean that I'm humble in relation to reality and what we know about it, not paranormal idiocy.

These words themselves deny the necesary objectivity of science. So this is just an emotional and personal statement, nothing more

fokker

iamhunted wrote: »

thats probably the most open minded and true skeptic statement Ive read so far in the Skeptics Corner. And I agree with you totally.

Thank you.
But i am not a skeptic. At least not more towards paranormalities than towards a fundamenlist approach of science.

fokker

Lucas, lets get a little deeper in these scientific laws.
Do you agree with me that au fond these laws all are based on the principle of causality?
Like 'when A happens, it always causes B to happen'.
And that laws therefore define the relation between two happenings, expressed in space and time.

In case you dont agree fully on this, pls tell me how you see it.

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

the religious equivilant of such a personal experience would be if jebus popped down and threw a few miracles around the place in person. belief in one isnt anything like belief in the other imo

The reason I equate religion with paranormal is because both (at this point in time) are absent of evidence and require faith to believe in them. You have faith that paranormal activity exists in exactly the same was as you would with archangels of Jesus. They are not equatable on other levels of course, but on the belief in something with clear absence of evidence, while the "evidence" is based on second hand accounts, I believe puts them in the same category in certain respects.

fokker wrote: »

How can you be sure that the universe obeys laws at all, and if so, that these laws are the only laws and on top of that can be known to us humans? As I said before, mankind repeatedly through history was convinced to have found the truth, to have discovered the laws of the universe. The greeks, the alchemists, Newton, and now the new rationalists.

First of all, the people before the Greeks, like the Mesopotamians and Babylonians gathered through evidence based research some very good science. However the limits they came to were explained by a God or some other supernatural power. Now that we are becoming more and more rational in our approaches and there is less questions that paranormal/religious can hide behind, it's only a matter of time before we answer the ultimate questions. Rationalists today don't claim to find the truth, we claim that there is a rational explanation for everything that doesn't require the supernatural.

Like I said before, Laws are constructs of the human mind and our way of organizing the various principles of the Universe. But that is no way to demean them as untrue or anything of the kind. Through the laws that we have at the moment (bearing in mind what I defined Law as above) we can categorically say that the Universe COULD NOT have come into existence with an energy level greater than it began with. You suggest it can.

You also contradict yourself yet again. If there are "other levels of explanation" that our outside the human comprehension, we wouldn't be able to "tune into" them as you claim they are "outside" our mindset and conscious ability. You can't have it both ways! It's supernatural and unnatural.

(Still unanswered: how can it be that ppl who so much believe in ratio, get so emotiuonal when you doubt their fundamentalists view on things? Maybe you've had bad experiences but when I discuss this matter with people, I certainly don't get excited or emotional. I've yet to meet someone who had. Don't tar everyone with the same brush please.)

Speculations on ghosts are therefore just as much speculations as your opinion that there exist things like absolute laws.

Wrong. Speculations on Ghosts is as equal as a child's speculation in the truth to the Tooth Fairy. The Laws I can state, are true as proven by our advanced civilization that could only have grown if it were for these.

Science is a product of philosophy. Philosophy should prevent people to think they already know everything there is to know.

It may have been a product thousands of years ago. But now we have rational approaches to science which cannot be compared to philosophy. It's similar to the divergence of Pharmacy and Medicine which were considered 1 at one point, but diversified and couldn't possibly be compared at the moment.

fokker wrote: »

Lucas, lets get a little deeper in these scientific laws.
Do you agree with me that au fond these laws all are based on the principle of causality?
Like 'when A happens, it always causes B to happen'.
And that laws therefore define the relation between two happenings, expressed in space and time.

In case you dont agree fully on this, pls tell me how you see it.

I think you are referring to the methods by which certain principles are obtained. Don't forget that Laws are mathematical models and not purely experimental in a laboratory. If you take the Law of Conservation of Mass which I've referenced a myriad of times throughout this thread.

The Mass of a closed system will remain constant regardless of the processes which act inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be re-arranged.

Now I'm not a Physicist, so they would be able to explain this principle and its certainty better than me. However this is not a causality. It's a statement of mathematical proof, and derivations are the only things you cannot disprove, however you claim special knowledge in being able to do such a thing.

I'd like to know; what access to extra-sensory knowledge do you have that for some reason I cannot obtain? If you cannot answer this, on what basis do you claim such statements? Thus, is it a matter of faith i.e Absence of evidence, just a blind-faith attitude that it could exist and cannot be disproved.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

The reason I equate religion with paranormal is because both (at this point in time) are absent of evidence and require faith to believe in them.

belief and faith are needed all the time. to trust someone you have to have belief or faith in them. to think something is going to work you need to have a belief that it will or have faith in the fact it will. plus a lot of science is theoretical and some parts are hotly debated due to the absence of evidence. i agree with fokker in that you vison of what is and what isnt seems to be a tad limited by the technicalities of what science says you can see.

iamhunted

Wrong. Speculations on Ghosts is as equal as a child's speculation in the truth to the Tooth Fairy. The Laws I can state, are true as proven by our advanced civilization that could only have grown if it were for these.

Once more this is pure speculation on your part.

back to the learning thing again. 200 years ago electricity was the work of the devil. Im sure many scientists of the past have made statements like yours above on things that science eventually works out. From what I can gather, you dont seem to think science has the ability to learn - we know everything there is to know now as we are an 'advanced civilization' and therefore theres nothng more to discover. I disagree, as would most of science.

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

belief and faith are needed all the time. to trust someone you have to have belief or faith in them. to think something is going to work you need to have a belief that it will or have faith in the fact it will. plus a lot of science is theoretical and some parts are hotly debated due to the absence of evidence. i agree with fokker in that you vison of what is and what isnt seems to be a tad limited by the technicalities of what science says you can see.

Of course faith and trust are needed all the time -- however the examples you gave are REALITY examples, things we endure everyday on a regular basis. We are discussing the absence of evidence in relation to the unsupported Paranormal unlike the supported reality. Science doesn't have all the answers, but right now, I'm happy with what I know to make assumptions based on reality and not fantasy.

iamhunted wrote: »

back to the learning thing again. 200 years ago electricity was the work of the devil. Im sure many scientists of the past have made statements like yours above on things that science eventually works out. From what I can gather, you dont seem to think science has the ability to learn - we know everything there is to know now as we are an 'advanced civilization' and therefore theres nothng more to discover. I disagree, as would most of science.

Like I said above, we don't have all the answers, and science will show we probably never will - at least not in the foreseeable future. I'm glad we don't have the answers. I want to do a Ph.D and wouldn't be able to if we had all the answers

iamhunted

since we dont have all the answers, how can you be so certain the paranormal isnt going to be one of them?

Lucas10101

I'll ask you the same questions that I asked fokker above:

"I'd like to know; what access to extra-sensory knowledge do you have that for some reason I cannot obtain? If you cannot answer this, on what basis do you claim such statements? Thus, is it a matter of faith i.e Absence of evidence, just a blind-faith attitude that it could exist and cannot be disproved? Where did you get your original idea that the paranormal even exists...a second hand account?"

iamhunted

i have no extra sensory claims, and never have I made any. You seem to believe the parnormal is purely about mediums and psychics when it covers far more ranging issues.

For examples, heres an EVP we captured - listen for the laughter. Since i can say without doubt it wasnt one of the three people in the room at the time, where did the laughter come from? Is it a ghost? I cant say and I wouldnt say that it was, but its certainly something technically 'paranormal' as it couldnt have come from outside (due to its location) and didnt come from inside (plus no-one heard it at the time of recording either).

These are the kind of things we're trying to find answers to - not extra sensory perception.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Where did you get your original idea that the paranormal even exists...a second hand account?"

Youve hit the nail on the head there - if all you have is second hand accounts and no first hand experience then you'll have a hard time having a debate on the paranormal itself. For your information, i got my "original idea that the paranormal even exists" when i bought a house that was haunted and stayed haunted for a few years after until things were resolved. Long story that I wont go into as it was an experience for me but it'll only be a second hand account for anyone else.

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

i have no extra sensory claims, and never have I made any. You seem to believe the parnormal is purely about mediums and psychics when it covers far more ranging issues. I don't just mean psychics and mediums, I mean everything. But for some reason, I don't seem to have access to the wide range of knowledge believers seem to have.

For examples, heres an EVP we captured - listen for the laughter. Since i can say without doubt it wasnt one of the three people in the room at the time, where did the laughter come from? Is it a ghost? I cant say and I wouldnt say that it was, but its certainly something technically 'paranormal' as it couldnt have come from outside (due to its location) and didnt come from inside (plus no-one heard it at the time of recording either).

These are the kind of things we're trying to find answers to - not extra sensory perception.

Regarding your music file, did you only notice this sound during or after the event? If after, then most likely, there is a general explanation. If during, then it's simply because you're tuned in to every single sound...it was probably at night, something I never understood about the paranormal. ALWAYS AT NIGHT! And because you don't and NEVER will find the answer, the common route or escape route is to claim a paranormal cause. Why can't you claim "We can't explain what that noise is." rather than "It's paranormal." It's such a cop out way of explaining something given no proof has been found of paranormal activity.

iamhunted wrote: »

Youve hit the nail on the head there - if all you have is second hand accounts and no first hand experience then you'll have a hard time having a debate on the paranormal itself. For your information, i got my "original idea that the paranormal even exists" when i bought a house that was haunted and stayed haunted for a few years after until things were resolved. Long story that I wont go into as it was an experience for me but it'll only be a second hand account for anyone else.

Millions of people globally claim paranormal activity, yet we have no definitive videos or anything or defining imagery that wasn't forged. Strange.

fokker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I think you are referring to the methods by which certain principles are obtained. Don't forget that Laws are mathematical models and not purely experimental in a laboratory. If you take the Law of Conservation of Mass which I've referenced a myriad of times throughout this thread.

The Mass of a closed system will remain constant regardless of the processes which act inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be re-arranged.

Now I'm not a Physicist, so they would be able to explain this principle and its certainty better than me. However this is not a causality. It's a statement of mathematical proof, and derivations are the only things you cannot disprove, however you claim special knowledge in being able to do such a thing.

This absolutely is a causality. If you break a system in parts, the sum of its parts has the same weight as the total wight of the intact system, BECAUSE of that law, or better because of the notion that matter never gets lost of which that law is a way of putting it.

Btw, your example is not valid anymore since Einstein formulated the relation between energy and mass in E = mc².

And, talking of which, I am sure you know the theories of the multiple universes. Since a universe has a limited amount of particles in it, and therefore also a limited size, there must be many more universes.
Because space is endless, and the dispersion of matter in space is everywhere equal (also one of your laws).
So, given these theoretical facts, there MUST be a parallel universe somehwere, which is completely like ours. More than one even - but an infinite amount of identical universes. Because the amount of particles in our universe or hubble-space is very very big but NOT infinite, which means the number of possbible combinations is also NOT infinite. So sooner or later the same combination reoccurs.
Endless space - endless amounts of universes, with each a limited amount of particles.

Now thats a nice one

I'd like to know; what access to extra-sensory knowledge do you have that for some reason I cannot obtain? If you cannot answer this, on what basis do you claim such statements? Thus, is it a matter of faith i.e Absence of evidence, just a blind-faith attitude that it could exist and cannot be disproved.

Totally irrelevant for the discussion here

You are not prepared to believe ppl who claim to have such experiences. Why is that?
But you are prepared to accept crazy things like parallel worlds, which are so far away that it would take you millions of years traveling by the speed of light to reach the nearest one? Things which by definition never can be seen by mankind?

Now tell me, which of both (the multiple universe-theory or the paranormal claims of an individual) resembles most to a religious system?

Even a worse scenario for you might be the possibility that paranormal experiences might be a form of contact between these parallel realities; some models do in fact predict that parallel universes are around us in different dimensions, rather than millions of lightyears away.

This is what yous said yourself:

Lucas10101 wrote: »

The reason I equate religion with paranormal is because both (at this point in time) are absent of evidence and require faith to believe in them. You have faith that paranormal activity exists in exactly the same was as you would with archangels of Jesus.

You have faith that the laws exist. That is required to believe in systems of multiple universes. Because we totally cant imagine that, and will never be able to see it for real.

I dont mind this. I think this is all very interesting, and i absolutely am willing to accept the possibility that this might be true.
Which is exactly the same attitude as mine towards the paranormal.

Or maybe the paranormal is also based on some particles we dont know yet. The new ideas about the Higgins particle suggest that a lot more could be going on. It is a wonderful world we live in, it is unbelievable. much to beautiful to ridicule some ppl because their experiences dont fit your laws

We dont know it, we simply dont know it.

Read this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825305.800
And this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126905.100-immoral-advances-is-science-out-of-control.html -> do not play god

fokker

Back to earth

The observation is the basis of science. Science explains what we see, recognizes regularities, etc.
The observation stands above science. The observation is the source, science is from these observations deduced knowledge.

You use science to disqualify observations. That is completely the other way around. Just because science has been narrowed down to the reproducable predictable aspects of reality. Ofcourse that science cant say anything about observations different from that. Here the words of Nietzsche apply: 'one should not state on things one does not know anything about'.

fokker

iamhunted wrote: »

Youve hit the nail on the head there - if all you have is second hand accounts and no first hand experience then you'll have a hard time having a debate on the paranormal itself. For your information, i got my "original idea that the paranormal even exists" when i bought a house that was haunted and stayed haunted for a few years after until things were resolved. Long story that I wont go into as it was an experience for me but it'll only be a second hand account for anyone else.

Remarkable thing is, that when it comes to breaking down experiences like yours, the ratio-fundamentalists dont need any proof. They simply 'know' that what you heard or experienced were no ghosts or poltergeists, but whatever sounds or effects created by the house itself.

They must be paranormal themselves, to be able to say such things about ppl they never met, a house they never saw, etc.
Very unscientific

Lucas10101

...

fokker wrote: »

And, talking of which, I am sure you know the theories of the multiple universes. Since a universe has a limited amount of particles in it, and therefore also a limited size, there must be many more universes.
Because space is endless, and the dispersion of matter in space is everywhere equal (also one of your laws).
So, given these theoretical facts, there MUST be a parallel universe somehwere, which is completely like ours. More than one even - but an infinite amount of identical universes. Because the amount of particles in our universe or hubble-space is very very big but NOT infinite, which means the number of possbible combinations is also NOT infinite. So sooner or later the same combination reoccurs.
Endless space - endless amounts of universes, with each a limited amount of particles.

Please don't talk theory with me, and you've made errors in your post above, I won't talk science with a person who doesn't know what their talking about.


Totally irrelevant for the discussion here Relevant question though to Paranormal, you avoided it.

You are not prepared to believe ppl who claim to have such experiences. Why is that?
But you are prepared to accept crazy things like parallel worlds, which are so far away that it would take you millions of years traveling by the speed of light to reach the nearest one? Things which by definition never can be seen by mankind?

I never said I believed in the theory of Parallel Universes. Like I said, I'm not a Physicist, I have limited knowledge and can't base my decision until I discover more about this theory. Yet again, you've made errors in your physics statements there. I won't go into them.

Now tell me, which of both (the multiple universe-theory or the paranormal claims of an individual) resembles most to a religious system?

The multiple Universe theory. Why? Because Science can deduce it amazingly, we are not physicists so it's difficult for us to comprehend this maths and particle physics involved. A religious system is man-made and mad-made, a Parallel Universe is not man-made, you cannot compare the two.

Even a worse scenario for you might be the possibility that paranormal experiences might be a form of contact between these parallel realities; some models do in fact predict that parallel universes are around us in different dimensions, rather than millions of lightyears away.

Get your physics right! You're really digging a bigger hole for yourself...I hope you fall in and maybe the penny will drop at the same time.

This is what yous said yourself:

You have faith that the laws exist. That is required to believe in systems of multiple universes. Because we totally cant imagine that, and will never be able to see it for real.

I don't have faith. Faith is absence of evidence to lead to a belief. I don't have absence of evidence.

I dont mind this. I think this is all very interesting, and i absolutely am willing to accept the possibility that this might be true. Great!


Or maybe the paranormal is also based on some particles we dont know yet.
If it was, just discard the word Paranormal, and study physics instead.
The new ideas about the Higgins particle suggest that a lot more could be going on. It is a wonderful world we live in, it is unbelievable. much to beautiful to ridicule some ppl because their experiences dont fit your laws

Higgs Boson not Higgins...we're not playing Snooker here. Get your physics right or don't post on it. I agree it's a wonderful world...and it would be better if people didn't resort to explaining phenomena with a ridiculous idea of extra-sensory information.

Lucas10101

fokker wrote: »

Back to earth

The observation is the basis of science. Science explains what we see, recognizes regularities, etc.
The observation stands above science. The observation is the source, science is from these observations deduced knowledge.

Disappointingly, it seems you haven't thought about the content in my last 10 posts trying to refute this. I'm not going to reiterate, so please re-read and ask me another.

fokker wrote: »

Remarkable thing is, that when it comes to breaking down experiences like yours, the ratio-fundamentalists dont need any proof. They simply 'know' that what you heard or experienced were no ghosts or poltergeists, but whatever sounds or effects created by the house itself.

They must be paranormal themselves, to be able to say such things about ppl they never met, a house they never saw, etc.
Very unscientific

I don't claim to "know", I claim it's irrational, and even though the only reason MOST people believe is because millions around the world claim an experience. Experiences once passed on are exaggerated to ensure the other person believes, so it becomes a Chinese whisper story far beyond what originally it supposed to have happened.

I'll state it again. If one person believes it, they are mad. When millions believe it, it's part of society. It just so happens that millions will experience something, and because they can't explain it; Where do they turn? Oh...the answer MUST be the Paranormal...it HAS to be the Paranormal. Even though with all these millions of experiences throughout the world, NOT ONE has been shown as definitive proof. Surely with all the millions over the centuries, at least ONE...I'M JUST ASKING FOR ONE!! But no...so that's why Science says it's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. To me, it's nearly as improbable as Noah building an Ark and putting two of every species on it. That is, a probability close to 0...but with people spouting exaggerated stories and answers, the idea of Paranormal will never leave our society.

I predict in 2100, we will be in exactly the same situation we are now. That with more millions of experiences throughout the world, not one will be documented properly so everyone can accept this phenomena. If it does come, I'll happily change my entire belief system and accept it.

So there's your answer.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Regarding your music file, did you only notice this sound during or after the event? If after, then most likely, there is a general explanation. If during, then it's simply because you're tuned in to every single sound...it was probably at night, something I never understood about the paranormal. ALWAYS AT NIGHT! And because you don't and NEVER will find the answer, the common route or escape route is to claim a paranormal cause. Why can't you claim "We can't explain what that noise is." rather than "It's paranormal." It's such a cop out way of explaining something given no proof has been found of paranormal activity.

always at night for a very very simple reason ... its way quieter at 5am than it is at 5pm. give me the general explaination as theres a laugh in that room
that no-one heard at the time, plus the room itself is virtually isolated from the outside with the nearest street about 50 meters and a few rooms away.

Throw a few general explanations my way and I'll tell you if we've covered them or not.

Millions of people globally claim paranormal activity, yet we have no definitive videos or anything or defining imagery that wasn't forged. Strange.

yeah - as strange as like the Coelacanth that we thought were extinct until someone aciddentally caught one, or the many new insects discovered each year. Strange, but strange happens.

Also - theres many videos and audio but thats all it is - something that can be easily faked so even if there is a genuine video out there theres no way to know for sure unless, again, its personal experience.

If no-one ever had these experiences and all there ever was were stories - if we simplified the 'paranormal' to that level, then you'd have a point. Otherwise though, its something you dont subscribe to as youve never experienced, as really thats the only proof. Plus it would have to be an experience you couldnt genuinely explain using logic and common sense.

Because you as yet havent experienced such a thing for yourself, then you are assuming it doesnt happen. Its not that simple.

iamhunted

fokker wrote: »

but whatever sounds or effects created by the house itself.

our house used to talk, walk up and down the hall by itself, switch on tvs and radios and take doors off their hinges. its a pity the skeptics forum didnt exist then as I could have cashed in and converted a few at the same time.