Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Arbitran

Scientific evidence of "spirits"

128 posts in this topic

You see, I'm not talking about non-physical spirits, but what physical object or process might explain the phenomenon of "spirits". Of course, by definition, non-physical equates to non-existent. (I'll of course probably be met with opposition on that point, but that's my stance.)

But what phenomenon is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, I'm not talking about non-physical spirits, but what physical object or process might explain the phenomenon of "spirits". Of course, by definition, non-physical equates to non-existent. (I'll of course probably be met with opposition on that point, but that's my stance.)

What about the laws of physics? Are they physical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what phenomenon is that?

I don't know. I was making suggestions however. Having recently been studying morphic field hypothesis and dark plasma, they sound like reasonably-viable candidates; among others things, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bibliography would be much appreciated here so this scientific evidence can be looked over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the laws of physics? Are they physical?

Since they are properties of the physical universe, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the same effect. It has nothing to do with the fact that its a plant. It could be a wet drinks coaster. What the image is picking up is the outline of the water the plant has left behind. It has nothing to do with the fact that its a plant, and everything to do with the fact that the electricity is picking up the shape the plant left behind.

Of course you build on previous knowledge. That's what science is. But your assertion earlier in the thread that modern science essentially steals everything from "ancient knowledge" and that the "ancients" knew about things like advanced physics is demonstrably wrong.

I will answer you just like you take things out of context LOL

Of course you build on previous knowledge. That's what science is.

NOW you are admiting it is science!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you've found something in science that is *similar* to a superstitious belief you hold, therefore they are the same phenomena.

The person that posted the photo of the leaf was showing an effect that is repeatable and had been speculated about but never shown before Kirlian. No belief involved just a comment to the observation of the photo. Look at how many years it took for mainstream to show there is an effect that is invisable to the naked eye. There are many fields of light and magnetism that we do not see just like they developed the military's night vision.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you've found something in science that is *similar* to a superstitious belief you hold, therefore they are the same phenomena.

Within quantumn physics science is discovering these energies. One could argue that science is catching up to anient world's beliefs, or in the very least discovering these so called "superstitious beliefs" have a quantifyable ring of truth to them. The anomylous behavior of particals at a quantumn level do not always conform to the known laws of physics, yet all known matter is made of these quirky particals, including us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they are properties of the physical universe, yes.

So do the Laws lead to the physical universe or does the universe lead to the laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do the Laws lead to the physical universe or does the universe lead to the laws?

Does it have to be one or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've Read Michael Talbot's "Holographyc Universe" .. He Bases His Ideas On David Bohm's Theories, So I See What You're Talking About .. Very Interesting ..

I Suggest The Book To Everyone Who's Interested In These Kind Of Things ..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it have to be one or the other?

Something should be more fundamental. Either there is stuff and the interaction of stuff are the laws, or their are rules and those rules give rise to stuff. If they give rise to each other then we have a tangled hierarchy. Logically that dosnt make a lot of sense. Ultimately, there must be a set of rules before there can be stuff, so that that stuff has parameters for existence. Rules are not physical things. ( you can thank sheldrake for that one ;) )

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, there must be a set of rules before there can be stuff, so that that stuff has parameters for existence.

Except that makes no sense. For instance motion and it's respective laws applies to bodies, objects, particles, etc.

Take away the object(s), and the laws become nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that makes no sense. For instance motion and it's respective laws applies to bodies, objects, particles, etc.

Take away the object(s), and the laws become nonsense.

nope. The laws still exist. Just because there is nothing there to follow them is independent of the fact that if there were it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is thought that virtual particles carry/conduct information/energy through space.

If this is true, then stuff is really just information being handed of by virtual particles to other virtual particles.

All of it travels in waves with all of the properties of waves. ( frequency, amplitude, interference, harmonics etc etc..)

There is PPPPLLLLEEEEENNTTTYYYY of room for all sorts things including other sorts of life that we might call spirits.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will answer you just like you take things out of context LOL

Of course you build on previous knowledge. That's what science is.

NOW you are admiting it is science!!!!

Oh dear. Are you seriously telling me that you can't tell the difference between these two sentences:

"Science is built on previous knowledge"

"Science is built on ancient knowledge"

The person that posted the photo of the leaf was showing an effect that is repeatable and had been speculated about but never shown before Kirlian. No belief involved just a comment to the observation of the photo. Look at how many years it took for mainstream to show there is an effect that is invisable to the naked eye. There are many fields of light and magnetism that we do not see just like they developed the military's night vision.

But the effect of the leaf is not what you're saying it is. It has nothing to do with previous speculation about auras. It is a by-product of the technique itself.

Within quantumn physics science is discovering these energies. One could argue that science is catching up to anient world's beliefs, or in the very least discovering these so called "superstitious beliefs" have a quantifyable ring of truth to them. The anomylous behavior of particals at a quantumn level do not always conform to the known laws of physics, yet all known matter is made of these quirky particals, including us.

I'm going to assume you're not a physicist. Science is not catching up with "ancient world's beliefs". You can pull and twist it as much as you want, but modern science, especially physics, would have been utterly mystifying to people in the ancient world.

I don't know. I was making suggestions however. Having recently been studying morphic field hypothesis and dark plasma, they sound like reasonably-viable candidates; among others things, of course.

How can it be a viable candidate if you don't know what it is you're actually trying to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never any scientific evidence of anything until there was.

Do the unexplained paranormal experiences that my family has had amount to scientific evidence? "Genuine scientific evidence" doesn't belong in the realm of personal opinion with a question like "Do you think you have genuine scientific evidence?". I would ask a room full of scientists such a question. Here it's just a stumbling block to trip over for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope. The laws still exist. Just because there is nothing there to follow them is independent of the fact that if there were it would.

Go on then, demonstrate motion exists on it's own and not a property of a body.

You've simply repeated yourself after a flaw in your reasoning has exposed.

I think you're confusing the concept of laws with the actual phenomena.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope. The laws still exist. Just because there is nothing there to follow them is independent of the fact that if there were it would.

This is logical

If there are no trees or plants in an area it doesn't mean that photo synthesis doesn't still exist. It just exists in another time or place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within quantumn physics science is discovering these energies. One could argue that science is catching up to anient world's beliefs, or in the very least discovering these so called "superstitious beliefs" have a quantifyable ring of truth to them. The anomylous behavior of particals at a quantumn level do not always conform to the known laws of physics, yet all known matter is made of these quirky particals, including us.

You said that very well :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it have to be one or the other?

I think it works both ways depending on which universe is observed within the concept of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Are you seriously telling me that you can't tell the difference between these two sentences:

"Science is built on previous knowledge"

"Science is built on ancient knowledge"

But the effect of the leaf is not what you're saying it is. It has nothing to do with previous speculation about auras. It is a by-product of the technique itself.

I'm going to assume you're not a physicist. Science is not catching up with "ancient world's beliefs". You can pull and twist it as much as you want, but modern science, especially physics, would have been utterly mystifying to people in the ancient world.

How can it be a viable candidate if you don't know what it is you're actually trying to explain?

Oh dear. Are you seriously telling me that you can't tell the difference between these two sentences:

"Science is built on previous knowledge"

"Science is built on ancient knowledge"

Simple the knowledge of fire and its manipulation and uses is ancient. There was truth in the knowledge of the effects and uses even if they didn't understand the chemistry of it. They still understood the effects and uses even it they attributed the characteristic to the speculative gods or powers.

The eel doesn't have to know all about electricity to know how to use it or to have the effect observed by others.

Science is built on ancient knowledge which is included in "previous knowledge" and observations.

But the effect of the leaf is not what you're saying it is. It has nothing to do with previous speculation about auras. It is a by-product of the technique itself.

Just like CERN has nothing to do with the previous speculation of atomic theory in 500 BC or in the Manhattan Project?

What you are implying is the atoms and their effects could not have existed since they are the by product of the CERN technique so the concept of it and the atoms did not exist. They always existed they just weren't seen or studied by the same methods of observation. Their effects were given different names by different observers depending on the era in which they lived.

Science is not catching up with "ancient world's beliefs".

Another thing taken out of context from a Professor T comment.

Science is observing some effects that can explain the concepts of observations perceived by older civilizations in a different way then now. The first goal of the old masters seemed to be control of effect that they observed and they developed their own theory including magical or god concepts to explain what they didn't know.

That doesn't mean some of them didn't gain some form of control over the effects they desired. Point being these scientists or alchemists were considered witches or demons in the middle ages. If they publicly showed an effect they could control even as harmless as say the use of an electric battery to create light or the process of gold plating, they were of the devil to be destroyed along with their research notes. They tried to pass this knowledge down to their apprentices through manuscripts. This was the their method and the manuscripts were given to the trust worthy initiated followers, generally not published until much later.

I was making suggestions however. Having recently been studying morphic field hypothesis and dark plasma, they sound like reasonably-viable candidates; among others things, of course. Arbitran

How can it be a viable candidate if you don't know what it is you're actually trying to explain?

Only a fool keeps a closed mind not to study others hypothesis to get a better understanding of an effect still not fully understood. Unlike you, Arbitron is trying to brainstorm with others to find the answers to unify all the observations. You dismiss every view as superstious mumbo jumbo just because it's not your own.

You are like a fish saying electric eels don't exist just because you have not personally seen the demonstration of its effect. LOL

Edited by White Unicorn
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on then, demonstrate motion exists on it's own and not a property of a body.

You've simply repeated yourself after a flaw in your reasoning has exposed.

I think you're confusing the concept of laws with the actual phenomena.

No im not.

It happens every moment of every day. "empty" space has the propensity to have moving body move through it. It dosnt matter if ever did or not. In fact I could probably make an argument that most space has never seen a moving body larger than photons.

The laws exist independent of the body. The law allows for the body to exist in the first place. If it did not the body could not hold form.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume you're not a physicist. Science is not catching up with "ancient world's beliefs". You can pull and twist it as much as you want, but modern science, especially physics, would have been utterly mystifying to people in the ancient world.

I said "one could argue that.."

Are you then denying that science has been discovering undenyable truths to what sceptics would call paranormal and spritual rubbish?

I can see this discussion is going nowhere and is comming down to a question of faith in science, versus faith in ancient world beliefs.

Either way, faith is involved, and faith should not be mistaken for emotion or thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No im not.

It happens every moment of every day. "empty" space has the propensity to have moving body move through it. It dosnt matter if ever did or not. In fact I could probably make an argument that most space has never seen a moving body larger than photons.

The laws exist independent of the body. The law allows for the body to exist in the first place. If it did not the body could not hold form.

What you said is true.

But the subject of which came first, the matter or the laws is as old as the chicken and the egg debate!

When I read an ancient Egyptian alchemist philosophy, I thought, was it matter that evolved consciousness or consciousness that evolved matter!

I tend to believe they are all really one unity existing outside of the time cycles but people will debate this forever!

We must remember that sometimes two or more opposing views can both be partially true and a third is the whole truth.

Maybe this is why belief systems came into being, so people wouldn't debate the perplexity of science and the spiritual concepts that weren't in harmony because of lack knowledge......

This the old philosophy I came across....

The universe was embedded with an unmanifest potential which contains the laws that are hidden energies in a dormant stage. Ancients referred to this as the mother aspect or spirit waters for lack of a better word. It is that from which everything is born aka the universal "egg".

Thought aka a form of Light causes movement that generates within these laws that already exist. This creates new forms and each form creates new manifestations interacting with one another. The stars and universes of matter are eventually born.

This was known as the father aspect or wisdom of creation touching the mother.

The stars create the universe of planets and life potential with matter and they also experience the effect of cycles and time. It was said that universes, just like man, have birth, life and death cycles because they are within time. When a conscious life becomes one with this the unity of universal creation and understands the laws, he can also become a master of creation aka using the the existing laws. This was also known as the son aspect becoming god.

Life or Being was considered to be in all the universes even if it was just within the potential of becoming something else. Being was more or less that being that exists outside of the time cycles and is more like a place that contains all life potential or that which contains the laws of evolution and destruction. It's only when the conscious Son evolves from the stars that this Being becomes conscious of himself as a whole and has unity with the son. When the universes end their cycles it was thought that universal son's wisdom or spirit was then embedded as laws in the next "egg" for a new creation of the next universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.