Scientific evidence of "spirits"

[White Crane Feather]

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.

I'm not sure if that is the right analogy, but yes.... The laws are fundamental, therefore things like photo synthesis must work according to where the laws apply. the laws are not physical, they are above physical and govern physical. This is the little known axiom of the materialists. A true materialists, logically, must conceded that something inmaterial governs the material, therefore materialism is not fundamental reality.

[Rlyeh]

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.

Bad example. The claim is the laws existed before the objects. In your example it would be photosynthesis existing before plant or cellular life.

It happens every moment of every day. "empty" space has the propensity to have moving body move through it.

In fact I could probably make an argument that most space has never seen a moving body larger than photons.

Can you show me "nothing" moving? What about a speeding car before cars existed?

That's the same logic you're arguing for.

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.

You don't seem to understand the laws are derived from the behaviour of the objects.

You're trying to create a dichotomy by splitting the universe from it's laws, from it's properities.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

I'm not sure if that is the right analogy, but yes.... The laws are fundamental, therefore things like photo synthesis must work according to where the laws apply. the laws are not physical, they are above physical and govern physical. This is the little known axiom of the materialists. A true materialists, logically, must conceded that something inmaterial governs the material, therefore materialism is not fundamental reality.

Spoken like a true charlatan. And you still resort to straw men, didn't you learn anything last time you tried to tell materialists what they believe?

[White Crane Feather]

Bad example. The claim is the laws existed before the objects. In your example it would be photosynthesis existing before plant or cellular life.

Can you show me "nothing" moving? What about a speeding car before cars existed?

That's the same logic you're arguing for.

You don't seem to understand the laws are derived from the behaviour of the objects.

You're trying to create a dichotomy by splitting the universe from it's laws, from it's properities.

Our observance of the laws certainly is, but to think that the object creates its own propensity to be able to behave that way is just silly. The law has nothing to do with the object itself. It's probably the same everywhere in the universe regardless if something is there. You are not suggesting that our observance of the law brings it into being are you? That would be an interesting flip flop in your usual rhetoric.

[White Crane Feather]

Spoken like a true charlatan. And you still resort to straw men, didn't you learn anything last time you tried to tell materialists what they believe?

I'm not telling anyone what to believe its rather like a christian not believing in the resurrection. Materialism needs laws for material to exist and behave. The laws must be more fundamental than what they act upon.

[Rlyeh]

Our observance of the laws certainly is

If you want to get trivial, laws didn't exist until humans conceived them, as laws are human descriptions of observed behaviour found in nature (the universe).

http://blogs.scienti...physics-anyway/

The law has nothing to do with the object itself. It's probably the same everywhere in the universe regardless if something is there. You are not suggesting that our observance of the law brings it into being are you? That would be an interesting flip flop in your usual rhetoric.

Nope. I'm suggesting the behaviour is part of the object/body/universe. You can't have one without the other.

I don't believe you can separate them in the way you are doing.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

I'm not telling anyone what to believe its rather like a christian not believing in the resurrection. Materialism needs laws for material to exist and behave. The laws must be more fundamental than what they act upon.

You realise materialism is the idea everything is derived from matter/energy? Laws included (both the concept and the phenomena). Edited September 23, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

You realise materialism is the idea everything is derived from matter/energy? Laws included (both the concept and the phenomena).

Correct, that is why it is wrong. That matter/energy is governed by some set of immaterial rules that must exist in order for matter/energy to do anything. If there were no rules it could not exist.

[Rlyeh]

Correct, that is why it is wrong. That matter/energy is governed by some set of immaterial rules that must exist in order for matter/energy to do anything. If there were no rules it could not exist.

If there were no matter/energy the behaviour wouldn't exist.

[White Crane Feather]

If there were no matter/energy the behaviour wouldn't exist.

But the propensity for it certainly would.

[Rlyeh]

But the propensity for it certainly would.

There is nothing, no universe, no behaviour, nothing, not even empty space. But the tendency does exist?

Propensity requires behaviour, behaviour is derived from properities, interactions. This is nonsensical.

Sounds like you think materialists should accept your illogical thinking.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

There is nothing, no universe, no behaviour, nothing, not even empty space. But the tendency does exist?

Propensity requires behaviour, behaviour is derived from properities, interactions. This is nonsensical.

Sounds like you think materialists should accept your illogical thinking.

Rhly can you think of a point in the history of the universe in which there was no space, no time, no energy as we kniw it , and then poof all of sudden there was? Quit obviously the propensity still exists when "things" do not.

[Rlyeh]

Rhly can you think of a point in the history of the universe in which there was no space, no time, no energy as we kniw it , and then poof all of sudden there was? Quit obviously the propensity still exists when "things" do not.

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

[White Unicorn]

Bad example. The claim is the laws existed before the objects. In your example it would be photosynthesis existing before plant or cellular life.

Can you show me "nothing" moving? What about a speeding car before cars existed?

That's the same logic you're arguing for.

You don't seem to understand the laws are derived from the behaviour of the objects.

You're trying to create a dichotomy by splitting the universe from it's laws, from it's properities.

Photo sythesis would be a unmanifest law that a plant developes with the harmony of an existing law. In order to become a plant that could use photo synthesis, the form has to evolve from what is in the enviroment and the enviroment would include a potential law of nature that is already present even if there are no plants manifesting it yet.

Law of speed always exists with in time. The car would not exist if the law of speed did not exist because the car is an object that uses the law of speed. Speed exists in the expansion of the universe because of the manifestation of the law of time.

It works both ways, so you both are correct. It depends on where the effects are being observed. There is a harmony between opposites that creates physical matter. Matter in turn can influence the effects of the laws by their behavior but they don't actually change the natural laws.

[Emma_Acid]

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

You were right; you don't have an argument.

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

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.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Emma_Acid

[SpiritWriter]

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]

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]

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..

[White Crane Feather]

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 September 24, 2012 by Seeker79

[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.

[White Crane Feather]

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 September 24, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

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 September 24, 2012 by Seeker79

[Arbitran]

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.

[White Crane Feather]

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.