127 replies to this topic

[SpiritWriter]

Professor T, on 10 September 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

If you consider that an Aura of energy is proof of the existence of spirit, then science has already discovered it.
The tip of this leaf was cut off prior to having it's aura photographed, yet the outline of the cut tip of the leaf is still there.

but are there photographs of this aura, for a form that is no longer there? I thought they had ghost detector gadgets out there... But I don't really know about that stuff. I just heard they Ghost hunters use gadgets. I wonder what their gadgets are, what they detect, measure etc...

[SpiritWriter]

I wonder why skeptics don't consider the countless visual testimonies of witnesses as evidence. I mean other scientific measurements, photographs, captures of gas or other emissions would be great, but I feel that the verbal testimony is completely ignored (by some).

[Emma_Acid]

SpiritWriter, on 23 September 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I wonder why skeptics don't consider the countless visual testimonies of witnesses as evidence. I mean other scientific measurements, photographs, captures of gas or other emissions would be great, but I feel that the verbal testimony is completely ignored (by some).

Simple. Personal testimony is not, and has never been accepted as scientific evidence. Even the slightest bit of research into the areas of perception and other such mental processes will show you that we have a solid scientific understanding of just how drastically our brains can fool us. Mixing "personal experience" up with "empirical evidence" is one short cut back to the scientific dark ages.

[Professor T]

Emma_Acid, on 23 September 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

I have been asking for examples of this for several pages now. And yes - I am denying that science is discovering "undenyable truths" to what I call paranormal rubbish.

Prove me wrong.

I've done my limited bit of research into this.
A ten minute google on your part would be better for you. (take a leap of faith.)
To be honest I do not care that people like yourself deny these kind of things, you are welcom to your beliefs, and i enjoy reading the rebuttles and poking my nose in from time to time. Ultimately, like I said earlier, IMO this debate comes down to faith in science versus faith in anient old world beliefs. Your faith is your problem, not mine. & my faith is my problem, not yours..

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 23 September 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Not if you consider various theories such as the string or M-theory. Time and space are made up of "stuff".

Your grasping my friend, strings must have a behavior aswell. If everything is made out of them what allows them to vibrate in 10 dimensions? Oh... Ok they just do.

How do think we can have a theory using maths to describe how strings behavior if they are not following immaterial rules?

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 12:46 AM.

[Arbitran]

Again, on this silly business of laws-universe or universe-laws, I think it's a false dichotomy. Why do M-Theory 'strings' for instance need to have some set of immaterial laws which govern them? Why cannot the object and its behavior, at least in some cases, be one-in-the-same? Why must we presume that the universe has "laws" which govern the behavior of things within it? Is it not equally-valid to presume that the universe simply has intrinsic properties, which govern the behavior of things within it? To me, the question of "which came first, the universe or the laws" is nonsensical; given that one cannot exist without the other, logic dictates that they must be taken as a whole unit. The universe does not exist without the laws, the laws do not exist without the universe; ergo, they are a single object. The universe simply behaves in certain ways. And based on modern cosmological theories, those behaviors might exist in their present state due to having gradually evolved, having be born from ancestor universes with subtly different behaviors. I don't know... But it's an interesting hypothesis. In any case, I just think all this bickering about universe .vs. laws has to stop; it's absurd. The universe and its laws are indistinguishable.

[Seeker79]

Arbitran, on 24 September 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Is it not equally-valid to presume that the universe simply has intrinsic properties, which govern the behavior

The arrival  of "intrinsic properties" would be govern by another set of rules. There obviously is a set of fundamental rules. The question is weather they are material or immaterial in origins. Materialists have to live with a dogma that fundamental reality is based on "things". This is a failed axiom.

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[Seeker79]

Let's consider the speed of light.

What limits the speed of light to C.

Conductivity of space.

supposedly a virtual particle hands the information off to on other, that there is a photon there. So on and so on. Wel, obviously there is certain amount of time it takes to do this. This limit of the ability of virtual particles gives us c.

C has nothing to do with light. The law of C has nothing to do with Light. Light simply must obey.

Now, why is there this limit of virtual particles, why can't they hand off any faster?

I don't know ( not sure anyone one does).

Isn't it funny that virtual particles act in the same capacity as nurons do? Passing of information. Just saying.

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[Arbitran]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

The arrival  of "intrinsic properties" would be govern by another set of rules. There obviously is a set of fundamental rules. The question is weather they are material or immaterial in origins. Materialists have to live with a dogma that fundamental reality is based on "things". This is a failed axiom.

Why would intrinsic properties be required to "arrive" in the first place? Given they would be, by definition, intrinsic properties, the suggestion of an "arrival" is just ridiculous. The laws of the universe are simply principles which govern the objects within the universe; the suggestion of some "force" or "immaterial" law which acts above these very simple properties simply isn't necessary.

[Seeker79]

Arbitran, on 24 September 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

The laws of the universe are simply principles which govern the objects within the universe.

See there, you said it. They are just principals they are just there. they govern matter but are not matter. That is immaterial my friend.

[Arbitran]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

Let's consider the speed of light.

What limits the speed of light to C.

Conductivity of space.

supposedly a virtual particle hands the information off to on other, that there is a photon there. So on and so on. Wel, obviously there is certain amount of time it takes to do this. This limit of the ability of virtual particles gives us c.

C has nothing to do with light. The law of C has nothing to do with Light. Light simply must obey.

Now, why is there this limit of virtual particles, why can't they hand off any faster?

I don't know ( not sure anyone one does).

Isn't it funny that virtual particles act in the same capacity as nurons do? Passing of information. Just saying.

Well, I'm no physicist, but I believe what you're referring to is Planck's time. An instant of time so infinitesimal that any duration smaller ceases to correspond to the definition of "time". I don't know... it all gets rather difficult to say after one reaches a certain depth to all this. But in any case, I've already said, that I am particularly intrigued by the theory that c is c due to having "mutated" and "evolved", as it were, from the physical laws of ancestor universes.

[Arbitran]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

See there, you said it. They are just principals they are just there. they govern matter but are not matter. That is immaterial my friend.

Who said that we need to speaking strictly of matter? Why not energy? Why not space-time manifolds? Well, when one brings space-time manifolds in the discussion, then we find the probable object of the physical laws. Tell me, is the universe itself non-physical?

[Seeker79]

Arbitran, on 24 September 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

Who said that we need to speaking strictly of matter? Why not energy? Why not space-time manifolds? Well, when one brings space-time manifolds in the discussion, then we find the probable object of the physical laws. Tell me, is the universe itself non-physical?

Matter/energy.... Same thing.

I believe "physical" is merely a representation of deeper realities. If these realities could be illuminated, determinists will simply insist on changing the definition of "physical" when in fact the term should have been dropped a long time ago. " Materialism" should have been dropped a long time ago aswell, as we are discovering more fundamental reality acts more like a symphony rather than a pool table.




I love Kaku, but here he also shows a troubleing habit of scientists to invent things to make the math in their theories work.

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 02:30 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

The arrival  of "intrinsic properties" would be govern by another set of rules. There obviously is a set of fundamental rules. The question is weather they are material or immaterial in origins. Materialists have to live with a dogma that fundamental reality is based on "things". This is a failed axiom.

And immaterialists have to rely on faulty logic, as you have demonstrated. Materialists can at least support their view without invoking magical thinking and pseudo science.

Edited by Rlyeh, 24 September 2012 - 05:31 AM.

[Rlyeh]

SpiritWriter, on 23 September 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I wonder why skeptics don't consider the countless visual testimonies of witnesses as evidence. I mean other scientific measurements, photographs, captures of gas or other emissions would be great, but I feel that the verbal testimony is completely ignored (by some).

Exactly, just look at the amount of witnesses who saw a leprechaun in a tree.