Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
papageorge1

Metaphysics - Science and the Superphysical

208 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish

I don't know why anyone is trying to help him. He probably won't look outside his little box. It's a fools errand.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Mainly that he has way too much time on his hands. It's a pretty dumb idea actually.

He most certainly does not discuss this as a possibility. It's a thought experiment. As I said, a pretty dumb one. He should lose funding just for being stupid.

OMG, look at Kastrup's education, CERN scientist position, notoriety and etcetera and I should believe psche101 calling him 'stupid'? 

I may not be an expert in every field but I am not stupid meaning I know my limitations but can judge what and who is worth listening to. From psych101 I hear overexuberant foolishness to be honest (sorry, but you brought that comment on yourself).

I for years have seen very high class minds in many of the subjects we discuss on this forum all get called 'stupid' and overexuberantly ridiculed by people with an attachment to their set worldview. I understand what the game is.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

OMG, look at Kastrup's education, CERN scientist position, notoriety and etcetera and I should believe psche101 calling him 'stupid'? 

That strikes me as hypocritical.

Kastrup was hardly a CERN scientist associated with QM. He worked on the computer trigger systems on the ATLAS project

 As far as I can tell he was there for a matter of months behind the scenes.

Yet you dismiss the leaders of these projects such as Krauss, who do the real work and equations. They laugh at such ideas and consider them rather stupid too.

You have latched on to a person who has spent part time behind the scenes whilst dismissing their superiors. Kastrups philosophical ideas are not supported by, nor do they come from CERN. 

Why do you dismiss the leaders of the project and their findings for the musings of their philosophical subordinates?

Quote

I may not be an expert in every field but I am not stupid meaning I know my limitations

No, you don't know your limitations. That becomes extremely obvious everytime you post, especially regarding QM and dimensions. You are not even an expert in the credulous nonsense you post, the 40 year old Californian Chakra traditions you have already posted have illustrated just how out of your depth you really are here.

Quote

but can judge what and who is worth listening to. From psych101 I hear overexuberant foolishness to be honest (sorry, but you brought that comment on yourself).

Don't be sorry. Prove it. You had best support your baseless claim. Thing is, you have zero credibility right now. As such, your opinion means nothing at all. So let's see more than wild ideas based on science fiction versions of Quantum mechanics and philosophy attempting to borrow credibility from science and real knowledge. Your argument from authority has failed.

Quote

I for years have seen very high class minds in many of the subjects we discuss on this forum all get called 'stupid' and overexuberantly ridiculed by people with an attachment to their set worldview. I understand what the game is.

I don't think so. What you call a high class mind is not what the actual definition refers to.

For instance, you have tried to paint Kastrup as a high level, well respected CERN scientist. He is really a computer programmer who spent a short time there behind the scenes expressing a philosophical opinion. You tried to paint his philosophy as science because his name can be linked with CERN. 

That's a dishonest, or extremely ignorant leap right there. I'll let your conscience decide which applies there.

Kastrop doesn't confer with the top level physicists at CERN on his philosophies does he. 

Who does he confer and exchange with?

The laughing stock of the scientific world. That idiot, Deepak Chopra. He even makes the footnotes in one of Chopra's novels. 

You have exaggerated his position, knowledge and basis of his philosophical idea. 

And you wonder why the paranormal has a bad name? Because of poor misleading ideas exaggerated just as you have done here.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
19 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I don't know why anyone is trying to help him. He probably won't look outside his little box. It's a fools errand.

PG is beyond help.

That nonsense information deserves to be challenged is all.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That strikes me as hypocritical.

Kastrup was hardly a CERN scientist associated with QM. He worked on the computer trigger systems on the ATLAS project

 As far as I can tell he was there for a matter of months behind the scenes.

Yet you dismiss the leaders of these projects such as Krauss, who do the real work and equations. They laugh at such ideas and consider them rather stupid too.

You have latched on to a person who has spent part time behind the scenes whilst dismissing their superiors. Kastrups philosophical ideas are not supported by, nor do they come from CERN. 

Why do you dismiss the leaders of the project and their findings for the musings of their philosophical subordinates?

No, you don't know your limitations. That becomes extremely obvious everytime you post, especially regarding QM and dimensions. You are not even an expert in the credulous nonsense you post, the 40 year old Californian Chakra traditions you have already posted have illustrated just how out of your depth you really are here.

Don't be sorry. Prove it. You had best support your baseless claim. Thing is, you have zero credibility right now. As such, your opinion means nothing at all. So let's see more than wild ideas based on science fiction versions of Quantum mechanics and philosophy attempting to borrow credibility from science and real knowledge. Your argument from authority has failed.

I don't think so. What you call a high class mind is not what the actual definition refers to.

For instance, you have tried to paint Kastrup as a high level, well respected CERN scientist. He is really a computer programmer who spent a short time there behind the scenes expressing a philosophical opinion. You tried to paint his philosophy as science because his name can be linked with CERN. 

That's a dishonest, or extremely ignorant leap right there. I'll let your conscience decide which applies there.

Kastrop doesn't confer with the top level physicists at CERN on his philosophies does he. 

Who does he confer and exchange with?

The laughing stock of the scientific world. That idiot, Deepak Chopra. He even makes the footnotes in one of Chopra's novels. 

You have exaggerated his position, knowledge and basis of his philosophical idea. 

And you wonder why the paranormal has a bad name? Because of poor misleading ideas exaggerated just as you have done here.

I like Deepak Chopra. I of course bring this up because I know he is a poster boy for attackers of your type. I am not claiming him to be infallible or a god or anything but I believe his thinking and ideas are in the right direction.

This universe is full of mysteries to science; the paranormal, the psychic, quantum behavior, etc.. I notice those that dislike Deepak Chopra are typically also those that seem to resist to abnormal levels the mysteriousness of the things I mentioned. I believe they have an aversion to revolutionary thought (particularly after publicly vehemently siding against anyone claiming insight into the mysteries who present kind of a paranormal/psychic/mystical front).  These so-called skeptics (really pseudo-skeptics) have a blind internal hatred to these types that will stand stiffer the more the evidence accumulates for the revolutionary new thinking.

The two sides move on without each other.

And the twain I'm sure will not meet in this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

 

:whistle:

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I like Deepak Chopra. I of course bring this up because I know he is a poster boy for attackers of your type.

Of course you do. I've noted many times how you emulate his nonsense. He is his own worst enemy, people "correct" the moronic musings he spouts.

Quote

I am not claiming him to be infallible or a god or anything but I believe his thinking and ideas are in the right direction.

Your beliefs don't matter. Not to me, not to those questioning your word salads. I have examined your beliefs on Chakras, you proved to be very ignorant with regards to the subject. 

Quote

This universe is full of mysteries to science; the paranormal, the psychic, quantum behavior, etc..

What, 2 outta 3 ain't bad?

One of those things is not like the other ones.

The paranormal and psychic are not mysteries to science at all. That is a bunch of superstitious anecdotes. Sure there are real mysteries yet to uncover, imagining a few more is just a waste of time. And quite silly at that 

Quote

I notice those that dislike Deepak Chopra are typically also those that seem to resist to abnormal levels the mysteriousness of the things I mentioned.

People who can and do use their brain dislike Deepak Chopra. Because he is a new age idiot spouting total garbage.

Quote

I believe they have an aversion to revolutionary thought (particularly after publicly vehemently siding against anyone claiming insight into the mysteries who present kind of a paranormal/psychic/mystical front). 

Again, your beliefs don't matter. I don't give two hoots what you believe. You have no credibility at all.

As I said above, what you can prove counts. All you have proven so far is that you are taken in by new age shams plagiarizing old superstitions.

Quote

These so-called skeptics (really pseudo-skeptics) have a blind internal hatred to these types that will stand stiffer the more the evidence accumulates for the revolutionary new thinking.

These so called skeptic provide links and verifiable information. Something you are incapable of. All you have illustrated in this thread is that you champion kooks and don't understand the difference between science and science fiction.

I suggest you watch the video Xenofish left. Is that hatred?? I don't think so. It's a bunch of idiots looking like a bunch of idiots in front of people with working brains.

Quote

The two sides move on without each other.

A minority persists despite knowledge being freely available is more like it

 Kastrup, Chopra, and the people such as yourself who support them all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote

And the twain I'm sure will not meet in this thread.

No. You are a lost cause.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On 12/10/2019 at 3:02 PM, Wes83 said:

I disagree with your conclusions on the aether, one could make the argument atomism is nonsense, and while we’re at it relativity as well.

there is nothing to converse with you about, you already have all the answers it seems.

Would the technology today be possible if the inventors operated off the idea that atoms and subatomic particles don't exist?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Poor old Papa copping a "pizzling" from the team ! Turns out, in my opinion, that his belief of the "paranormal" is justified, although he does appear to attribute a wide variety of phenomena to it, a little too liberally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes83
7 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Would the technology today be possible if the inventors operated off the idea that atoms and subatomic particles don't exist?

I’m not sure honestly. Going back to photons that can behave as particles or waves kinda makes one wonder. Or the fact they behave with characteristics of both.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 hours ago, Wes83 said:

I’m not sure honestly. Going back to photons that can behave as particles or waves kinda makes one wonder. Or the fact they behave with characteristics of both.. 

Does this help?

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-wave-particle-duality-7414

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
14 hours ago, Wes83 said:

I’m not sure honestly. Going back to photons that can behave as particles or waves kinda makes one wonder. Or the fact they behave with characteristics of both.. 

Therefore they don't exist, nor do atoms.  Is that what you're saying?

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes83
21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Indeed, that was a good read. It really broke down concepts I am familiar with in a very digestible way! Thanks for sharing.

 

16 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Therefore they don't exist, nor do atoms.  Is that what you're saying?

“In order to explain the observed phenomena, atomic structures have been imagined, none of which can possibly exist.

Nikola Tesla

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes83

In the traditional definitions and descriptions of these tiny things, I think we observe what we can and make theories as what is actually happening. The more we observe any phenomenon, the better we can predict the outcome. It doesn’t mean we have the right knowledge of what’s actually taking place, doesn’t insure we are even aware of all the variables. 
 

im not sold on the current definitions and descriptions of these things, how many attributes can we add to a thing before it becomes a new thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
34 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

In the traditional definitions and descriptions of these tiny things, I think we observe what we can and make theories as what is actually happening. The more we observe any phenomenon, the better we can predict the outcome. It doesn’t mean we have the right knowledge of what’s actually taking place, doesn’t insure we are even aware of all the variables. 

What we do have is the best possible answers according to observation and predictions. What I would ask you is what reason do you really have to doubt today's conclusions? The old ideas like aether have been scrutinised and have failed to better theories. Those old ideas aren't just tossed aside due to age, they fail, maintain or evolve into better theories. Today's science is standing on the shoulders of giants. It's not a new look, it's refinement of the theories that were proven fact over many years. 

Just to check. You know Tesla wasn't a scientist right? It's a common misconception today.

34 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

im not sold on the current definitions and descriptions of these things, how many attributes can we add to a thing before it becomes a new thing?

If a thing is wrong, it's rewritten. I'm not sure if you are aware of the history of Phlogiston? It was considered correct science untill better information came along. Science is very flexible where proof is concerned.

I think you might benefit from reading this link if you wish to learn more about that side of science.

The logic of phlogiston

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes83

In what way have you determined that Tesla was not a scientist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
7 hours ago, Wes83 said:

“In order to explain the observed phenomena, atomic structures have been imagined, none of which can possibly exist.

Nikola Tesla

Wow.. you're just going to parrot someone who was proven wrong?  How scientific.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, Wes83 said:

In what way have you determined that Tesla was not a scientist?

In that it wasn't his field, he was an engineer (Electrical and mechanical), not a scientist.

I suggest you check for yourself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
7 hours ago, Wes83 said:

In the traditional definitions and descriptions of these tiny things, I think we observe what we can and make theories as what is actually happening. The more we observe any phenomenon, the better we can predict the outcome. It doesn’t mean we have the right knowledge of what’s actually taking place, doesn’t insure we are even aware of all the variables. 

Think about what you just said.

 

7 hours ago, Wes83 said:

im not sold on the current definitions and descriptions of these things, how many attributes can we add to a thing before it becomes a new thing?

How long can you ignore the evidence and parrot someone who died over 70 years ago?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes83
4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Think about what you just said.

 

How long can you ignore the evidence and parrot someone who died over 70 years ago?

I did think about what I said, we can use observations we make about phenomena to “engineer”/develop tech. Our theories of these observations can still be wrong, do you disagree with that statement?

Im not really ignoring the evidence, I prefer not buy any theory but rather leave possibilities open. Maybe the latest atomic model has nailed the situation of reality, maybe not. 
 

I’ll leave Tesla out of our conversation, but I have to ask-considering the time period we are, how could an engineer develop new technologies without being a scientist? Maybe it’s just miscommunication between us, you mean he didn’t posit theories of unknowns? He certainly experimented and made discoveries.

It’s fascinating stuffs

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes83
4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Wow.. you're just going to parrot someone who was proven wrong?  How scientific.

That’s fair, I deserved a little scat for that I reckon.. but unless you are considering new ideas, we are all parrots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
17 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

I did think about what I said, we can use observations we make about phenomena to “engineer”/develop tech. Our theories of these observations can still be wrong, do you disagree with that statement?

Sure but if the observations are accurate they should not be abandoned.

 

17 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

Im not really ignoring the evidence, I prefer not buy any theory but rather leave possibilities open. Maybe the latest atomic model has nailed the situation of reality, maybe not. 

Atoms are nonsense.  That doesn't sound like open possibilities to me.

The atomic model may be wrong but to completely disregard it with all the discoveries and technologies, that is denialism.

 

17 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

I’ll leave Tesla out of our conversation, but I have to ask-considering the time period we are, how could an engineer develop new technologies without being a scientist? Maybe it’s just miscommunication between us, you mean he didn’t posit theories of unknowns? He certainly experimented and made discoveries.

It’s fascinating stuffs

Sometimes he didn't and jumped to conclusions (Signals from Martians).  Other times he dismissed theories because he didn't like the idea (General and Special Relativity).  But I think you're talking to psyche101 here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
13 hours ago, Wes83 said:

I did think about what I said, we can use observations we make about phenomena to “engineer”/develop tech. Our theories of these observations can still be wrong, do you disagree with that statement?

Im not really ignoring the evidence, I prefer not buy any theory but rather leave possibilities open. Maybe the latest atomic model has nailed the situation of reality, maybe not. 
 

I’ll leave Tesla out of our conversation, but I have to ask-considering the time period we are, how could an engineer develop new technologies without being a scientist? Maybe it’s just miscommunication between us, you mean he didn’t posit theories of unknowns? He certainly experimented and made discoveries.

It’s fascinating stuffs

 

 

Tesla took other ideas and improved them (re-engineered) He was exceptionally good at that, but woo websites have blown his work way out of proportion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
13 hours ago, Wes83 said:

That’s fair, I deserved a little scat for that I reckon.. but unless you are considering new ideas, we are all parrots.

The leading edge of science is constantly considering new ideas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
24 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Tesla took other ideas and improved them (re-engineered) He was exceptionally good at that, but woo websites have blown his work way out of proportion. 

Ah, so Tesla re-engineered Alien Space Craft that crashed in the desert!  Thanks!  That explains everything...Now we know...finally....

  • Haha 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.