It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Probability and Intelligence is at the heart of the universe not physics

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The reason that science is all over the place and it seems like you can find circumstantial evidence to support any theory you come up with, is because many Scientist make a huge assumption that's not in evidence.

This assumption is the universe must have a material basis. So when you start out with this assumption and try to fit everything into a materialist paradigm then nothing makes sense. You get things like the axis of evil and the vacuum catastrophe.

A lot of these things can be answered simply and elegantly if you look at the universe as a construct of information or a quantum computer. Paradoxes vanish because things that your seeing that make ZERO sense from a purely materialistic standpoint are just a function of some information being processed through some quantum computation. Here's a recent paper from Professor Seth Lloyd.


The universe as quantum computer

This article reviews the history of digital computation, and investigates just how far the concept of computation can be taken. In particular, I address the question of whether the universe itself is in fact a giant computer, and if so, just what kind of computer it is. I will show that the universe can be regarded as a giant quantum computer. The quantum computational model of the universe explains a variety of observed phenomena not encompassed by the ordinary laws of physics. In particular, the model shows that the the quantum computational universe automatically gives rise to a mix of randomness and order, and to both simple and complex systems.


arxiv.org...

Again, things aren't counterintuitive if they're constructs of information.

Say you look at a sentence on a post on ATS and it's bold. Materialism would say it's bold because somehow the letters of the sentence evolved boldness.

If you look at it from the standpoint of a construct of information, you say the tags b and /b make the sentence bold.

So I believe the universe that's seen is a result of non physical intelligence fine tuning the universe.

LET ME BE CLEAR:

This is the only conclusion provided by the evidence thus far.

To try and explain the fine tuning of the universe, Scientist propose an infinity of parallel universes. Right now when Scientist look for naturalness they don't find it. They find extraordinary fine tuning and observations that don't match their predictions.

Like I said, you can just read about all of the different theories in science and the people proposing these theories can find some circumstantial evidence that lends their theories some support. The universe as a construct of information explains all of this elegantly.

When you look at probability. It seems that the probability that the event can occur proceeds the actual occurrence of the event. So nothing is truly random. Everything occurs because because of the fine tuning of information by intelligence determines which outcomes can occur.

The only things that's random is when these events occur. An example is playing poker.

When you play poker you can randomly get a full house or a straight but the fact that you're getting something called a full house or a straight was predetermined by the intelligence that created the game of Poker. So the probability of getting three of a kind or a flush has to proceed the actual event of getting these hands in Poker.

It's the same with the universe. Evolution didn't occur randomly. First, the probability that evolution could occur had to proceed evolution actually occurring. This is fine tuned information that determines what outcomes can occur.

In a Football game, a team may get a TD through running the ball or the QB may throw a TD. These events occur randomly Sunday to Sunday but the fact that they occur isn't random. It was predetermined by the intelligence that created the game of Football.

So science can see features in the universe and they will say based on these features we observe, they should naturally flow from X. The problem is, when they look at X they see extraordinary fine tuning and not naturalness like in the case of the Vacuum Catastrophe.

So I see the universe as non physical wave function of intelligence that fine tunes information that determines which events can occur. We see the random end results of this fine tuning like in a game of Poker or a Football game.

Some in science have also talked about the wave function being a NON PHYSICAL REALITY that can transmit information.


The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.


arxiv.org...

Like I said, nothing is truly random. What we're seeing and experiencing is the end result of fine tuned information that determines what events can occur. The only thing that's random is when these events occur.

For instance, a car accident on the highway can be seen as a random event. The cause of the accident on the highway is non random and determined by the intelligence that created things like highways and cars.


edit on 11-11-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Interesting. I have myself thought a bit about similar ideas and would like to share my thinking/theory.

I think of it like there is a probability field all around us just like a gravity field that changes in space/time and that the wave function in double slit experiment is a temporary measurement of the field at that location and time/times.

Even when we do not observe the probability field it is there. But I also think that intention/observation can change the field sometimes if you are not care full with your measurement.

Telepathy would in this case be a synchronicity (two places in space time that becomes connected/entangled) changing the probability field on the receiving end making information available to the receiver.




edit on 11-11-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Assuming the Big bang Theory...

If every particle in the Universe was sent initially into motion by the Big Bang, and each particle interacted with other particles whose motion was initially set by the Big bang, then it follows that every particle is still moving and interacting based on that initial motion provided by the Big Bang.

Every particle in the universe - including every piece of dust in every nebulae, every hydrogen atom in every star, and every brain-function chemical in every living organism in the universe - EVERYTHING is moving and interacting in a manner that was originally caused by the Big Bang...

Therefore, it could be said that everything is random based on that initial motion of every particle. AND it could be said that nothing is random, for the same reason.


edit on 11/11/2014 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


The reason that science is all over the place and it seems like you can find circumstantial evidence to support any theory you come up with, is because many Scientist make a huge assumption that's not in evidence.

This assumption is the universe must have a material basis. So when you start out with this assumption and try to fit everything into a materialist paradigm then nothing makes sense. You get things like the axis of evil and the vacuum catastrophe.


There is no assumption needed to come to the conclusion that the world we live in is a material one. Everything we can see, touch, smell, is made of material and follows a strict course of cause and effect which we study in different fields of science.

It would be odd to assume that there is an immaterial force or substance since it hasn't been shown to exist.


A lot of these things can be answered simply and elegantly if you look at the universe as a construct of information or a quantum computer.


Why would you do that? It's not a quantum computer.


Paradoxes vanish because things that your seeing that make ZERO sense from a purely materialistic standpoint are just a function of some information being processed through some quantum computation.


Quantum computers work on our current model of physics. That is to say that they are based on a materialistic world view. No magic required. No paradox to overcome.


Here's a recent paper from Professor Seth Lloyd.


The universe as quantum computer

This article reviews the history of digital computation, and investigates just how far the concept of computation can be taken. In particular, I address the question of whether the universe itself is in fact a giant computer, and if so, just what kind of computer it is. I will show that the universe can be regarded as a giant quantum computer. The quantum computational model of the universe explains a variety of observed phenomena not encompassed by the ordinary laws of physics. In particular, the model shows that the the quantum computational universe automatically gives rise to a mix of randomness and order, and to both simple and complex systems.


arxiv.org...


He is saying that while working on the problem of explaining how the quantum world works, that they are constantly finding new things to study. Not that quantum mechanics somehow proves the existance of the immaterial.


So I believe the universe that's seen is a result of non physical intelligence fine tuning the universe.[quote]

There is no fine tuning to be found.




LET ME BE CLEAR:

This is the only conclusion provided by the evidence thus far.


Awesome you have some evidence!!!

Lets see it. Cause no one else has ever presented any.


To try and explain the fine tuning of the universe, Scientist propose an infinity of parallel universes.


This is only one line of inquiry into theoretical physics. There are plenty of other competeing views. But most of the math is solid.


Right now when Scientist look for naturalness they don't find it.


Actually, everything they find is natural, and physical. They have never found anything unnaturally existing, non- physical, non-material. Literally everything ever found was material..... Literally.


They find extraordinary fine tuning and observations that don't match their predictions.


Fine tuning??

When scientists find something that does not match their predictions, that means their math / understanding was not sufficient. They learn from their mistakes and try to rework the problem until their predictions get better. Thats called theory building in the world of science and it is strictly based on the scientific method.






edit on 11-11-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Did it ever occur to you that the reason there are so many theories and hypotheses in the scientific community is because we don't have all the information and eventually we are left with guesses? Sure most of those guesses are educated guesses based on the gathered information, but at no point are scientists (or anyone for that matter) aware of ALL the variables and equations that determine our reality.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

You said:


There is no assumption needed to come to the conclusion that the world we live in is a material one. Everything we can see, touch, smell, is made of material and follows a strict course of cause and effect which we study in different fields of science.


Sadly for you, this statement has nothing to do with science.

Show me that everything we see, touch and smell is made of an objective material reality. There's ZERO evidence of this.

Prove to me that the 3rd dimension we experience is an objective reality and not a construct of information or a hologram.

Prove to me how consciousness emerges from the material. How does the material brain recall specific memories? How does the material brain know the difference between these memories?

How do you know the Wave Function isn't a non physical reality, when they're are Scientist who are saying this? Do you have a magic crystal ball that says everything must fit within your materialist belief?

So no, it's an ASSUMPTION BASED ON BELIEF. It has nothing to do with science. Saying the universe has an immaterial basis of fine tuned information is backed by the evidence. Saying that the material universe which can't even be shown to be an objective reality, somehow gives rise to everything is just your belief.

You can't even show that particles are particles. We call them subatomic "particles" but people tend to hear particle and they think of grains of sand. The fact is, a particle is a mathematical construct.

You have no evidence that an electron has an objective reality outside of the information that describes it. The electron can simply be a "physical" representation of fined tuned information just like this website if a physical representation of the code that built it.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

edit on 11-11-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic

Did it ever occur to you that the reason there are so many theories and hypotheses in the scientific community is because we don't have all the information and eventually we are left with guesses? Sure most of those guesses are educated guesses based on the gathered information, but at no point are scientists (or anyone for that matter) aware of ALL the variables and equations that determine our reality.


Of course you don't have all of the information when you start off with the glass half full.

It's basic common sense. If you start by saying we want to explore the truth but the truth can't be outside of our materialist beliefs, then you're just swimming up a creek without a paddle.

There will always be chaos and more questions because you're not exploring for the truth with an open mind but a closed one.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

This makes no sense. Science starts with no givens, builds evidence, then determines things from that evidence. There is no "glass half full" with science. The glass is always empty and it gets filled up with evidence. Then that evidence is used to determine how our universe behaves and functions.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic

This makes no sense. Science starts with no givens, builds evidence, then determines things from that evidence. There is no "glass half full" with science. The glass is always empty and it gets filled up with evidence. Then that evidence is used to determine how our universe behaves and functions.


LOL, this is either naivety or ignorance.

You said SCIENCE STARTS WITH NO GIVENS!!!

That's just kooky talk.

Science has always started with givens. Newton faced them, Einstein faced them, people like Bohr and Heisenberg faced them.

There's people who treat science like a religion and once they come to believe a certain paradigm perpetuated by some Scientist, then they can be more rigid than a follower of Bin Laden.

It's a GIVEN that science isn't open minded when it comes to exploring areas that they deem must be pseudoscience.
edit on 11-11-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
LOL, this is either naivety or ignorance.

You said SCIENCE STARTS WITH NO GIVENS!!!

That's just kooky talk.

Science has always started with givens. Newton faced them, Einstein faced them, people like Bohr and Heisenberg faced them.


Right, I said "Science starts with no givens" not "Scientists start with no givens". Science can't help it if a scientist goes into an experiment with an unsubstantiated assumption (like say, God exists) then builds evidence around that assumption. But that is why the peer review process exists, to weed out those faulty scientists. Or to refine faulty experiments to see if they still hold true without the assumptions.


There's people who treat science like a religion and what's they come to believe a certain paradigm perpetuated by some Scientist, then they can be more rigid than a follower of Bin Laden.


Blind belief is always bad, but at least they have evidence to back up their dogma.


It's a GIVEN that science isn't open minded when it comes to exploring areas that they deem must be pseudoscience.


You say this because you don't know how science determines if a certain field is pseudoscience or not. It all originates back to unsubstantiated assumptions. Ghosts, aliens, spirituality, NDE's, bigfoot, are ALL assumptions without evidence. To start by saying that they exist then look for evidence to support that assumption, ISN'T science.

It's funny you said that last line while at the same time tried to call me out for scientists making assumptions. You clearly don't know what you are talking about here.

By the way, science isn't saying that pseudoscience topics don't exist, just that the methods that are pursued to prove them rely on unsubstantiated assumptions. If the people in pseudoscience would become more skeptical and work that way, I'm sure those fields could eventually migrate into real scientific inquiry. Stop blaming science because your pet fringe topic is considered fringe. Look to the people researching it for the problem.
edit on 11-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The blindness of your beliefs are evident. You said:

It all originates back to unsubstantiated assumptions. Ghosts, aliens, spirituality, NDE's, bigfoot, are ALL assumptions without evidence.

ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE??

This shows exactly what I'm talking about. Some people are so blind that they can't even admit evidence exists in these areas.

People are not coming to the conclusions that these things may exist based on an assumption withoutout evidence.

When people are blind pseudoskeptics like yourself, you can't accept that other people who are intelligent looked at the EVIDENCE and came to a different conclusion that you have.

So you have to make it seem that people are reaching these conclusions without any evidence. That's just silly talk.

For instance, I'm skeptical about Bigfoot. I would never say that a person who thinks Bigfoot exists is doing so based on an assumption without evidence.

I can accept the fact that he/she may have looked at the evidence and they reached a different conclusion than I have. I'm not threatened when others choose to think for themselves.

You on the other hand act like anyone that doesn't agree with your silly, unsubstantiated notions about materialism is doing so based on an assumption without evidence.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

E in Latin means ' out of ' and Volution means to turn about a center. Evolution is then out of the volution, or spin (vortex). Involution is what Spirit does in this quantum framework called a universe. The Earth spins. The central sun of the Earth's core spins. The earth spins around the sun, the sun around the galaxy and so on it goes. All things arise (emerge from / evolve by) the spin of volution.



In Phoenician, the letters Aleph Bet (meaning strong house) make the word Father, or creator of the Word (letters in a sequence). DNA is the sequence of letters rendering form, but form must have a catalyst. Water is the catalyst. Mother/ Mater/ Matrix in Phoenician is Aleph (Strong) Mem (Water). Letters are given to the water.

In Phoenician, the word Son is Bet (house) Nun (Seed). The House of seed enters the volution of the material world. This is involution. From out of the volution emerges the evolution of material forms. Consciousness, as you are outlining, is third aspect of light. Light is said to be both particle and wave, but this is only the material aspect in the spatial dimensions of 1D, 2D and 3D. Once you transcend the spatial dimensions, you are in the temporal dimension of 4D, or movement in an Orthogonal Linear Matrix. Orthogonal means at right angles. There are always 2 right angles not seen by the light of each dimension. A 2D creature cannot see up and down. A 3D creature cannot see past and future. 5D is a probability space when indeterminate wave function (of light) is collapsed to determine the changing states of matter.

Where in this orthogonal matrix do you locate consciousness? Spatial? No, only a materialistic mind of ignorance could say this. How about the temporal dimensions of 4D? No. 5D probabilities? No, consciousness creates the collapse of 5D to created the shadow of 4D. Time creates the shadow of our 3D moving body. 2D is the shadow of the 3D object. 1D is the shadow of 2D. A dot is the shadow of 1D. The shadow reveals where consciousness resides. It resides above the probability space of choice. Volution is a process of all dimensions governed by law. Law resides between consciousness and probability. It can be no other way.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Another fantastic neoholographic thread! I gotta make one point though, top physicists like Seth Loyd and Leonard Susskind use that exact language, talking about the universe as information, so don't dismiss physics, dismiss faith based materialism...That which believes that we have the right to talk about material without acknowledging that we only relate to it through information.

As far as probability being an innate thing, absolutely. That blew my mind when I saw it, and I saw it through this:
www.americanscientist.org...
Which is about quantum gates. For non-computer-nerd ATSers, computers are based on binary gates, which are equivalent in math terms to boolean (True/false) functions. So for instance the gate AND(x, y) returns true if x AND y are both true,false otherwise. The gate NOT(x) returns true of x is false, and false if x is true, with true/false 0/1 representing electric current in the computer chip.

So these quantum gates, which will make quantum computers can do things old gates can't. One example we'll call HALFNOT, with the quality HALFNOT(HALFNOT(x)) = NOT(x) (as defined above) . In other words, two HALFNOT gates in a row are equivalent to a classic NOT gate. But what does one quantum HALFNOT gate do? it outputs complete randomness, so there is no correlation whatsoever with its input. But when that randomness is fed into a second HALFNOT gate as its input, that randomness is eradicated, and the output is perfectly negatively correlated with the original input to the first gate...A NOT gate. So basically a HALFNOT gate converts order/known data to random/unknown data, and random/unknown data to known!

Once I saw that, and saw it at a computer level - a physical microsystem interacting with other physical microsystems/quibits according to this law, then I saw that ideas like information and probability are deep, fundamental traits of the universe, not some emergent BS we use to model our ignorance of material physical systems.

That change in perspective takes us from a dumb material universe which we, as external conscious entities are observing yet separate from, to a universe which we are an integral part of, which is involved in knowing itself in various ways!

edit: One thing to stick on for people reading from the outside who this may not make sense to - if you KNOW, for (instance) what the positions of the planets in the solar system will be because you have a good theory, you can make a model of the solar system, and it will be perfectly CORRELATED with what actually happens. If you have a bad theory, it will be uncorrelated with what actually happens, what happens will seem random in comparison. So when I use the word KNOW here, that's how it relates to randomness and correlation.
edit on 11-11-2014 by tridentblue because: clarity



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I like to think of mathematics as the force or something similar. It's mental hence not physical, it functions unconsciously, it's uncreated, grows in complexity(evolution). It's encompasses everything but you can not see it happening. It's the cause. What would empiricist science be without mathematics? They are looking at the effect exclusively. If the cause is mathematical/mental how would you be able to sense it? You can only understand it mentally.

The human mind(Mathematical points) is just a projection of these functions in space time domain. Which the information is received from a frequency domain. This two domain universe interactions is defined by Fourier Transform mathematics, which is the basis of QM, Uncertainty Principle and Holography . Our eyes and ears even do this. All just sinusoidal waves of information represented in two domains.

Science is evidence based so what does the whole of all the evidence tell us? The universe is mathematical which is completely mental it was never physical in the first place.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


I'm not threatened when others choose to think for themselves.

WHAT??????? That's just kooky talk.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

No that isn't true at all. I want VERY much for any of those things to be true. I've been researching UFO's and conspiracies since I was a kid and was watching the X-Files. If I'm telling you that there is no evidence it's true. The problem with pseudo-science is that it starts with a confirmation bias then makes the evidence fit the bias. This evidence you claim exists, STARTS with the idea that the entity exists.

For example. EVP's are what ghost hunters use to supposedly record ghostly voices. A ghost hunter will go into an alleged ghost haunt and record one of these things then say, "See this is evidence the place is haunted." NO, that is evidence that you got a spooky sound on your digital recording equipment while at an alleged haunted location. That hunter has no idea if that voice is a ghost or not, because digital recording equipment wasn't made to record ghosts. It was made to record sounds, so if you want to definitively say that you recorded a ghost you need to rule out ALL other possible explanations, but ghost hunters don't do that. They just say it's a ghost and move on.

That is confirmation bias. If you cannot see that, then you are blinded by your beliefs. It took me a LONG time to see that myself, so I can understand the difficulty. But also keep in mind, at no point am I ruling out that it is a ghost voice, we just don't have enough evidence to say that it was.
edit on 12-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
great OP, lots to think about.

I have often pointed out that life cannot be a miraculous or random event. In our universe, chemicals tend to join together in certain ways. This is predetermined by thetypesof bonds that various molecules tend to form. Things like amino acids would seem to be just the way that molecules tend to organize.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your post gives the perfect example of the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic.

A pseudoskeptic can't accept the fact that there's evidence out there that intelligent people look at and they reach a conclusion that's different than your beliefs. You have to say there's no evidence.

So at the end of the day, everyone that disagrees with your blind beliefs is coming to these conclusions without any evidence. That's just your blind belief talking.

Of course there's evidence for a lot of these things and the most a skeptic can say is there isn't enough evidence for me to reach the conclusion that ghosts or U.F.O.'s exists. That's your personal belief.

Another intelligent person may look at the EVIDENCE and reach a different conclusion.

You can't accept that. You have to make it seem like there's NO EVIDENCE.

Prove to me every picture, video and eyewitness account of a ghost sighting is fake. You must know this because you said there's no evidence.

There's more evidence for things like ghosts, psychic ability and U.F.O.'s than there is for black holes, inflation or parallel universes.

The only distinction lies in ones own belief.

If you're open minded, then you will look into these things with an open mind. Some things may not have enough evidence for you to reach a conclusion but only a blind pseudoskeptic will say there's no evidence.

There's tons of evidence for psi. There's evidence for a quantum mind.

At the end of the day, pseudoscience is what pseudoskeptics call anything that doesn't agree with their blind belief system.

So if you think Parallel Universes exist it's science but if you think U.F.O.'s exist it's pseudoscience even though there's mountains of evidence that support the existence of U.F.O.'s and very little evidence to support Parallel Universes.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your post gives the perfect example of the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic.

A pseudoskeptic can't accept the fact that there's evidence out there that intelligent people look at and they reach a conclusion that's different than your beliefs. You have to say there's no evidence.


Lol pseudoskeptic. That's a new one. No, I'm just a skeptic. A pseudoskeptic would be someone who is impartial in their skepticism by the way. Not someone who dogmatically refuses to believe something.


So at the end of the day, everyone that disagrees with your blind beliefs is coming to these conclusions without any evidence. That's just your blind belief talking.

Of course there's evidence for a lot of these things and the most a skeptic can say is there isn't enough evidence for me to reach the conclusion that ghosts or U.F.O.'s exists. That's your personal belief.


I think the fact that UFOlogy and ghost hunting is in the field of pseudosciences speaks for itself.


Another intelligent person may look at the EVIDENCE and reach a different conclusion.


Sure, it's possible for an intelligent person to believe something despite there being no evidence for it to be true. It's called a confirmation bias. I've met quite a few intelligent and religious people. So I agree with this.


You can't accept that. You have to make it seem like there's NO EVIDENCE.


Because there isn't. Apparently you don't understand my explanation about confirmation biases. You completely dismissed my examples about EVP's.


Prove to me every picture, video and eyewitness account of a ghost sighting is fake. You must know this because you said there's no evidence.


Prove that those pictures, videos, eyewitness accounts or whatever are all real first. Each one of those pieces of evidence needs to be able to rule out ALL other possibilities. If it doesn't do that, it isn't considered valid enough evidence to prove its existence. AGAIN I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm just saying that pseudoscience investigation methods are flawed. They circumvent the scientific method.


There's more evidence for things like ghosts, psychic ability and U.F.O.'s than there is for black holes, inflation or parallel universes.


Inflation? Inflation is real. We can map money's price over time rather easily and even have a hard number for what inflation currently is. Or did you mean universal expansion? Because we have the Cosmic microwave background which is pretty good evidence of that. We also can see black holes from gravitational lensing. We may not know exactly what they are and what they do, but we certainly know they exist. Parallel universes are HIGHLY theoretical and you'd be hard pressed to find any science minded person pushing that idea beyond just the hypothesis stage.


The only distinction lies in ones own belief.


ACTUALLY the distinction is in what you consider valid evidence. YOU play more fast and loose with what is considered evidence. All of YOUR evidence is called subjective evidence. Science (and myself) don't consider subjective evidence definitive enough to prove the veracity of something. Science uses objective evidence to determine something's veracity. You should read up on the difference.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence


Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.



If you're open minded, then you will look into these things with an open mind. Some things may not have enough evidence for you to reach a conclusion but only a blind pseudoskeptic will say there's no evidence.


If you're open minded then you should be willing to say that something you want to be true ISN'T true if the evidence for it doesn't materialize or presents a conclusion that differs from what you want. THAT is being open minded.


There's tons of evidence for psi. There's evidence for a quantum mind.

At the end of the day, pseudoscience is what pseudoskeptics call anything that doesn't agree with their blind belief system.

So if you think Parallel Universes exist it's science but if you think U.F.O.'s exist it's pseudoscience even though there's mountains of evidence that support the existence of U.F.O.'s and very little evidence to support Parallel Universes.


I don't think parallel universes exist. Like I said, the parallel universe idea is a hypothesis. UFO's definitely exist by the way. All a UFO is, is an unidentified object that is defying gravity (flying). That could be anything from an unknown bird, to an experimental aircraft, to an alien. What ISN'T known is that UFO's are alien spacecraft. Blind belief system indeed. The irony in your words is THICK.

Pseudoscience


Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]

edit on 12-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join