Jump to content






Photo

"Exceptional Claims Demand Exceptional Evidence"

Posted by Landry , 10 March 2012 · 258 views

I am a skeptic, I believe as Christopher Hitchens said, "Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Consider - that for Philosophical Materialism to be true, the supernatural must be false. To be clear, in all of the entire history of mankind upon the face of planet earth, not one single instance of the paranormal among many thousands, whether verbally reported, videoed, audio recorded, or otherwise documented (very often by personages of impeccable reputation and indisputable intellect) can have actually occurred!

If we are to take Materialism / Naturalism seriously, then we must also believe that every single person, no matter how credible who has ever reported a paranormal or spiritual experience is either lying or deceived. That is an exceptional claim! - and I am comfortable in making it on behalf of materialistic pseudo-skeptics.

Given the fact that quantum physics, (*Bell's Theorem) actually provides a firmly established scientific basis for paranormal phenomena - Hitchens admonition is appropriate as it applies to materialistic pseudo-skepticism. Notwithstanding such absurd anecdotal pronouncements as, "It's worth noting that in the entire history of mankind on this planet, no one solid, verifiable, testable, repeatable, paranormal experience has ever been recorded." It's past time for James Randi wannabes to take an honest look at their own true motivations.

Note: Beginning with an a priori agenda to debunk all claims of the paranormal regardless of individual merit is not true skepticism. Moving the goal posts of reasonable evidence (as needed) just beyond the reach of any paranormal claim is not true skepticism either. Exceptional claims (any claims) for the paranormal, demand just a bit more evidence than will ever be acknowledged. That's what Hitchens really meant when he said, "Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence."

*http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html






With all due respect, your Given the fact that quantum physics, (*Bell's Theorem) actually provides a firmly established scientific basis for paranormal phenomena has no support whatsoever, only nonsense peddled by hardcore believers. Sorry, but if, for example, ESP geeks read X's, or triangles, or squares instead of actually O's presented (simplest geometrical figures and macroscopic in nature), its very doubtful they will "read" something more complex, period.
Darn, we can make very simple test right here on UM: I'd put few numbers in one file, and I'd upload this file on any file sharing website (of course, file would be password protected) anyone would be able to download and "read". After, say, two months (or longer, depends on how much time "readers" need) of the "readings", I'd give passwords to unlock actual file. No money, no prizes, but just to "shut up evil skeptics". But I can bet, no one would take that challenge...

Edit: spelling
  • Report
Wikipedia: "In classical physics, non-locality is the direct influence of one object, on another distant object. In quantum mechanics, non-locality refers to the absence of local, realist model in agreement with quantum mechanical predictions." If the evidence (for psi, as one example) meets the actual contextual framework within which science says it exists - then there's no reason to doubt it on that basis. With all due respect - I'm not going to follow you down the rabbit trail of denial.
See Psuedo Skepticism's World View: http://www.unexplain...showentry=24800

Thanks for commenting.
  • Report
You are mising the whole point: what you are talking about (quantum effects) are on the scale of nanometers (interaction accounted). Quantum mechanics doesn't forbid you to "tunnel" through the five inch wall. Its just probobility for you to make such "step" is close to zero. And thats why there are differences between multiple quantum wells and superlattices.
And you misunderstand quantum entanglement as well. First, all particles (your brain, for example) have to be entangled with the pool of particles. Second, those particles (entangled, from the pool) have to be sent away. Only then, changing state of the particles you have (your brain, for example), will affect particles you sent away. And the change will be "confirmed", if you will send message "I'm freaking angry, those duhbunkers ruined my day" ...

You're kidding with this ... right?
  • Report
Quantum mechanics describes material reality at the quantum level. That's a fact. It has been scientifically established that material reality has as one of it's most basic constituents the quality of non-locality as well as the well documented observer effect. That's a fact. Attempting to create a dichotomy between material reality and it's fundamental constituents as proven by science is a waste of time.

http://www.siib.org/...s%20Explore.pdf


  • Report
I don't how half-baked hypothesis and senseless rants of YT guy proves anything.

If you insist, that quantum mechanics somehow "responsible" for paranormal phenomenon, then we can look at simple experiment, i.e. double slit experiment. With given wavelength l1 and slit configuration c1, you will always have diffraction pattern p1. If you change wavelength to l2, you will have pattern p2. And no matter how many times you will repeat these experiments (today, tomorrow, after the year), with l1 and c1 you will have p1, and with l2 and c1 you will have p2, but you will never have p2, while with l1 and c1.
What happens with, for example, ESP? Under the same conditions ESP reader gets p1 (circle), or p2 (cross), or p3 (square), etc, while having the same l1 and c1 (same circle). If thats the "proof" of quantum mechanics involvement in ESP, then I'm the ballet dancer.

Anyway, I don't want to harass you, so I'll leave it as it is. If you prefer hate materialism, thats your choice.

Good luck.
  • Report
I don't hate materialism - that would mean that I have an emotional connection to it. I don't want that. As a philosophy it's a house of cards founded on tautological oxymorons - it also no longer has any reasonable claim to scientific backing. For me - it's done.
If you think the guy in the video is ranting about half baked hypotheses - I strongly suggest that you watch it again - and again - and again, until it starts to make sense.
As for the double slit experiment - it does in fact prove that observational consciousness directly affects the outcome of the experiment, an impossibility if materialism is true. "Anyone who isn't shocked by quantum mechanics hasn't understood it." Phil the materialist *heh heh*.

Ever heard of the quantum eraser experiment? I know that you don't really like this guy so it starts at about 5:30 on the video.



Ever heard of the "delayed choice experiment"? - proposed by John A. Wheeler. More bad news for materialism.

I don't think of a civil discussion as harassment, so no worries there.  

Thanks for the luck - you too.   :)
  • Report
What weirdness of quantum mechanics has to do with paranormal, spirituality and other similar stuff?! And how repeatability of the aforementioned experiments correlates with wildly different non repeatable outcomes of paranormal?

BTW, if I will measure reflectance spectra of the blue car today, I will get the same spectra from the same car tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, i.e. it will not become red, or orange so to speak.
  • Report
"What weirdness of quantum mechanics has to do with paranormal, spirituality and other similar stuff?!'' I think that if it's not transparent at this point then fact alone will never suffice. Briefly ... non-locality, and the observer effect, both of which demonstrate that intelligence / intelligent effects can and do exist non-materially - but I do understand the resistance, it's the funeral dirge of materialism.
"wildly different non-repeatable outcomes of paranormal?" I don't concede that that's essentially true, and even if it were it doesn't mean that something doesn't exist (certainly not if the evidence isn't to be summarily dismissed). If you will remember the context of my original point, "provides a firmly established scientific basis". At a minimum that means that it's not impossible scientifically, but at least possible if not probable - contravening materialistic doctrine.
J.B. Rhine's firmly established and rigorous scientific proof of the existence of ESP is dismissed or ignored as a matter of routine, and Gary Schwartz's proof of spiritual mediumship was rewarded by bitter venomous sarcasm and worse by the materialistic faithful.
It's not doing this topic justice to have to give it short shrift as I'm doing here, so I do think that it deserves it's own blog post at some point. Thanks for being instrumental in highlighting some areas that need to be stressed.

In reading your reference to the "blue car" - I think that you're missing the point (naive realism) they were making in the video. No one was arguing for the car changing color.
Thanks again.


  • Report

Landry, on 13 March 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

I think that if it's not transparent at this point then fact alone will never suffice. Briefly ... non-locality, and the observer effect, both of which demonstrate that intelligence / intelligent effects can and do exist non-materially[...]
For a very obvious reason: you don't realize on what scales it works and what conditions have to be. For example, there was an experiment, where scientists put "macroscopic" (~30 microns) object into quantum state. It was achieved cooling object down to 25 mK and it lasted less than 20 ns (light in such short time-span travels only 6 meters). And how large 30 mikrons are in comparison to the size of human brain?
And you did not show how human brain filters out all the noise in the case of nonlocality, nor did you show how two brains could be entangled, nor did you show how to avoid entanglement of one's brain with another's butt (kinda funny, would that mean that someone's headache will cause another's pain in the bum?)
Still trying to create a dichotomy between a thing and itself. Not falling for it.

Landry, on 13 March 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

[...] - but I do understand the resistance, it's the funeral dirge of materialism. [...]
I disagree, quantum mechanics just broadened notion of material (IMHO), while paranormal went down right to the coma just after the birth without any sign of recovery.
Quantum mechanics redefined the essential nature of the reality that we experience. Period.
The paranormal is here to stay. No amount of denial will suffice to convince rational people that they're deluded especially when they have first person experience. There are too many feet on the ground - far too many intelligent rational people are investigating for themselves rather than taking the word of devout materialistic acolytes as the unassailable truth. Maybe it's not fair in some strange sense ... but anyone that's experienced the paranormal has the moral authority to stare down any pseudo-skeptic (someone who is trying to perpetually deny a whole class of undeniable phenomena) rather than assessing individual claims fairly on a case by case basis.


Landry, on 13 March 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

[...]I don't concede that that's essentially true, and even if it were it doesn't mean that something doesn't exist (certainly not if the evidence isn't to be summarily dismissed). If you will remember the context of my original point, "provides a firmly established scientific basis". At a minimum that means that it's not impossible scientifically, but at least possible if not probable - contravening materialistic doctrine.[...]
Well, I agree with that (to some extent).

Landry, on 13 March 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

[...]
J.B. Rhine's firmly established and rigorous scientific proof of the existence of ESP is dismissed or ignored as a matter of routine, and Gary Schwartz's proof of spiritual mediumship was rewarded by bitter venomous sarcasm and worse by the materialistic faithful.
[...]
Thats just unsupported wishful thinking.
You make my point.

Landry, on 13 March 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

[...]
In reading your reference to the "blue car" - I think that you're missing the point (naive realism) they were making in the video. No one was arguing for the car changing color.
Is that that we don't see car per se, but just our eyes "catches" photons "bounced" off the car? Thats not big news.
BTW, all stance of the guys in the video reminded me of old animation when owlet put grandad's glasses on and imagined he will become knowledgeable and smart as his grandad.
The central issue was naive realism.
Edit: spelling
  • Report
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But only you can know if it's an honest opinion or if something else motivates you. Thanks again for providing me with subject matter for a future blog posting. I do believe that we've covered the subject matter extant in this particular instance. There is no loser in a civil discussion ... everyone wins if truth is the ultimate object.
  • Report

Landry, on 14 March 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Still trying to create a dichotomy between a thing and itself. Not falling for it.
[...]
:blink: Is it an admission that connection between quantum mechanics and paranormal is just wild unsupported speculation?
Of course not. I'd hoped that you'd think it through. You're still not conceptualizing what non-locality really means - or possibly not accepting it as a scientifically established fact. Non-locality takes time and distance out of the equation. How close does the experimenter's consciousness have to be to the double slits to create the observer effect? The obvious answer is that the experimenter's consciousness is an intrinsic part of the quantum field and it's certainly not confined to a material object  i.e. the human brain. You're still straitjacketing yourself into materialistic concepts. I don't know how many more ways there are to say it - intelligence and intelligent effects can and do exist non-materially. That is the connection with ESP, psi, and the so-called paranormal.
I guess that I did fall for it after all, but I'm through with this.

Landry, on 14 March 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

[...]
Quantum mechanics redefined the essential nature of the reality that we experience. Period. [...]
Fair enough. But here is the thing: do you consider heat as "material", or not?
Everything that we perceive is a vibration of energy on a certain frequency - temperature included.


Landry, on 14 March 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

[...]
The paranormal is here to stay. No amount of denial will suffice to convince rational people that they're deluded especially when they have first person experience. There are too many feet on the ground - far too many intelligent rational people are investigating for themselves rather than taking the word of devout materialistic acolytes as the unassailable truth. Maybe it's not fair in some strange sense ... but anyone that's experienced the paranormal has the moral authority and certitude to stare down a pseudo-skeptic (someone who is trying to perpetually deny a whole class of undeniable phenomena) rather than assessing individual claims fairly on a case by case basis.
[...]
Intelligent and rational people do believe in weird stuff (and thats real mystery). So what? Was Prosper-René Blondlot unintelligent and irrational? Is physics professor, who presents unsupported pseudoscientific claims (water memory, M.Emoto's water crystal experiments, etc) in his book as scientific facts, unintelligent and irrational?
"unsupported pseudo-scientific claims" ... translation - anything that scientifically deconstructs materialistic ideology.

(*)BTW, if some snake-oil salesman sells stuff that appears to be not working (after series of experiments), then he comes up with the same substance, but only this time he changed cork on his bottle, does it mean we have to do experiments again?
By "weird" I'm guessing that you mean anything that you can't pigeonhole into a comfortable materialistic framework. By all means just go ahead and dismiss everything that disturbs your status quo. If I can spare some time for this, then I have time to think for myself instead of allowing charlatans like James Randi do my thinking for me.

Landry, on 14 March 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

[...]
You make my point.
[...]
Being skeptical about pseudoscience is bad?
Being perpetually pseudo-skeptical of real science just because you can't accept it on ideological grounds ... could be.


Landry, on 14 March 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

[...]
The central issue was naive realism.
[...]
Wait a sec! From their video:

Quote

...you see car and you walk off. Is the car still there, even you are not perceiving it?... (from first part)
...
... So this is how it works... and every time they get interference, every time... (from second part)
How do they now it works every time, huh? So, basically,  guys are arguing against naive realism using arguments of the naive realism. Bummer...
Okay ... so they were having some fun with naive realists. I laughed.


Landry, on 14 March 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

[...]
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But only you can know if it's an honest opinion or if something else motivates you. Thanks again for providing me with subject matter for a future blog posting. I do believe that we've covered the subject matter extant in this particular instance. There is no loser in a civil discussion ... everyone wins if truth is the ultimate object.
I'm paid by the government(s) to keep people away from enlightenment :devil:
As for future blog posting... If you will put philosophical rants about "evil skeptics" only, you'll be wasting your time (other's as well).

Wasting my time? Not so ...  If even one person with the capacity to understand takes heed then I'm well compensated for my efforts.  Failing that ... logic and truth are insidiously seductive, even a brief exposure could result in independent thought. *gasp*  At the end of the day the truth will stand on it's own merits.      Posted Image

Edit: to add sentence (*)
  • Report

Quote

Of course not. I'd hoped that you'd think it through. You're still not conceptualizing what non-locality really means - or possibly not accepting it as a scientifically established fact. Non-locality takes time and distance out of the equation. How close does the experimenter's consciousness have to be to the double slits to create the observer effect? The obvious answer is that the experimenter's consciousness is an intrinsic part of the quantum field and it's certainly not confined to a material object  i.e. the human brain. You're still straitjacketing yourself into materialistic concepts. I don't know how many more ways there are to say it - intelligence and intelligent effects can and do exist non-materially. That is the connection with ESP, psi, and the so-called paranormal.
I guess that I did fall for it after all, but I'm through with this.
Enough with this jibber-jabber, cause, apparently, you are mixing apples with cockroaches. Show me (us) where did non-locality or observer effect comes into play, say, in ESP. Or will you continue to throw any term that fits your fantasies, and, by doing that, just to lure more gullibles into the realm of fancy, huh?

Being deliberately obtuse won't help here. Posted Image


Quote

Everything that we perceive is a vibration of energy on a certain frequency - temperature included.
So, again, is heat "material" or not?

Nothing is material. There is no matter.  Posted Image

Quote

By "weird" I'm guessing that you mean anything that you can't pigeonhole into a comfortable materialistic framework. By all means just go ahead and dismiss everything that disturbs your status quo. If I can spare some time for this, then I have time to think for myself instead of allowing charlatans like James Randi do my thinking for me.
I think you wrong here: Randi tries to sort out facts from fables, in other words - charlatans from real deal. To this day he have seen charlatans only. But, I think, he stepped somewhat hardly on your fantasies/beliefs, isn't it?

Randi was and is a magician his craft was and is to create an illusion that the gullible and willing generally cannot or will not penetrate. Posted Image


Quote

Being perpetually pseudo-skeptical of real science just because you can't accept it on ideological grounds ... could be.
All paranormal nonsense you are spilling here is not a real science, but fantasies only.

And thus all non-materialistic phenomena are relegated to oblivion regardless of individual merit or scientific proof. I expected nothing less. Posted Image


Quote

Okay ... so they were having some fun with naive realists. I laughed.
I laughed too of their flawed argumentation.

Posted Image Okay.


Quote

Wasting my time? Not so ...  If even one person with the capacity to understand takes heed then I'm well compensated for my efforts.  Failing that ... logic and truth are insidiously seductive, even a brief exposure could result in independent thought. *gasp*  At the end of the day the truth will stand on it's own merits.
And the truth is quite simple: not a single fantesy you are bringing here has been proved (and I doubt it will). Period.

It's confirming to have my deliberations questioned, tested and then ... objectified. Thanks again for visiting and commenting. Posted Image
  • Report

0 user(s) viewing

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Tags

    Categories