Matter cannot exist in two places at once

All I am saying is that people deserve a fair hearing, and you don't seem to approve of that.
Click to expand...
They get a fair hearing. No one stops them from telling their tale.
The scenario is this: They have a right to tell their story. I have a right to listen but no responsibility to listen. If they want to be believed they have a responsibility to convince me, assuming that they aren't simply barking at the moon or crasting about the tired and boring Titorism, "I don't care if you believe me." (Which begs the question why post or tell the story if you don't care to be believed...but that's another topic.)

Now to put it more in terms of the scientific method:

They are telling a fantastic story. The null hypothesis is their story is not true. Considering that most all the time all such stories are found to be untrue we might set our confidence level at 99% therefore alpha = .01. This means that one out of every hundred times that we "run the numbers" on our experimental design for such fantastic stories we will make a type 1 statistical error . We will in error reject the null hypothesis and accept the story as true (false positive).

Frankly, in these cases alpha should be .001. Doing so means that we will inappropriately reject the null hypothesis 1:1000 times. But there is a trade-off. By setting alpha so low we increase beta - the probability that we will make a type 2 error and accept the null hypothesis when the story is actually true (false negative). Considering the historically low probability of such stories being true I'm willing to accept a type 2 error over a type 1 error. That's a choice that every experimentalist has to make with every experiment run.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They get a fair hearing. No one stops them from telling their tale.The scenario is this: They have a right to tell their story. I have a right to listen but no responsibility to listen. If they want to be believed they have a responsibility to convince me, assuming that they aren't simply barking at the moon or crasting about the tired and boring Titorism, "I don't care if you believe me." (Which begs the question why post or tell the story if you don't care to be believed...but that's another topic.)
Now to put it more in terms of the scientific method:

They are telling a fantastic story. The null hypothesis is their story is not true. Considering that most all the time all such stories are found to be untrue we might set our confidence level at 99% therefore alpha = .01. This means that one out of every hundred times that we "run the numbers" on our experimental design for such fantastic stories we will make a type 1 statistical error . We will in error reject the null hypothesis and accept the story as true (false positive).

Frankly, in these cases alpha should be .001. Doing so means that we will inappropriately reject the null hypothesis 1:1000 times. But there is a trade-off. By setting alpha so low we increase beta - the probability that we will make a type 2 error and accept the null hypothesis when the story is actually true (false negative). Considering the historically low probability of such stories being true I'm willing to accept a type 2 error over a type 1 error. That's a choice that every experimentalist has to make with every experiment run.
Click to expand...
I'm not running

I like the way you put that, though I still have to read it slow and a couple times.:confused:I'm Bayesian myself. :)
Click to expand...
I

They get a fair hearing. No one stops them from telling their tale.The scenario is this: They have a right to tell their story. I have a right to listen but no responsibility to listen. If they want to be believed they have a responsibility to convince me, assuming that they aren't simply barking at the moon or crasting about the tired and boring Titorism, "I don't care if you believe me." (Which begs the question why post or tell the story if you don't care to be believed...but that's another topic.)
Now to put it more in terms of the scientific method:

They are telling a fantastic story. The null hypothesis is their story is not true. Considering that most all the time all such stories are found to be untrue we might set our confidence level at 99% therefore alpha = .01. This means that one out of every hundred times that we "run the numbers" on our experimental design for such fantastic stories we will make a type 1 statistical error . We will in error reject the null hypothesis and accept the story as true (false positive).

Frankly, in these cases alpha should be .001. Doing so means that we will inappropriately reject the null hypothesis 1:1000 times. But there is a trade-off. By setting alpha so low we increase beta - the probability that we will make a type 2 error and accept the null hypothesis when the story is actually true (false negative). Considering the historically low probability of such stories being true I'm willing to accept a type 2 error over a type 1 error. That's a choice that every experimentalist has to make with every experiment run.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure our idea of scientific method coincides either. Your argument might be valid if we were running a controlled experiment in a laboratory, involving some recognised area that has already generated suitable estimates for entering into your statistics, but as we are still at the most basic stage of collecting basic data you are being a bit premature. On what do you base your claim that "most all of the time such stories are found to be untrue"? Having now transcribed over 300 of these cases I haven't come across any that have been "shown to be untrue." There are some where one suspects strongly that the witness is lying, but suspicion isn't proof. I suspect this is just your unfounded assumption. I am not saying that the stories have been proven, either, although some cases come close, merely that at this stage any such estimates are basically a matter of opinion. I could say something like, well, around 50% are true, and it would be meaningless. What sort of evidence would be necessary to get you to change your view of such accounts?

 
Yes, I have come across one claim to have taken and kept such a photo, but the witness has never (to my knowledge) produced it. In any case, modern digital photo technology makes it easy to produce brilliant fakes. There is one video on You Tube purporting to be the Rougham house but it is hopelessly inept -- more of a joke than a serious effort to deceive! I'll have to try and find details of the former case.

 
On what do you base your claim that "most all of the time such stories are found to be untrue"?
Click to expand...
At a minimum, 15+ years on this forum listening to some of the crankiest ideas on Earth. Sorry, but just happens to be the case.
In any case the requirement that "an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof" is valid. These cases, on close analysis, always boil down to an apparent violation of one or more physical laws. But here's the truth. Yes. we do discover new laws of physics over the course of time. In every case of a valid new law it extends what we have already accepted as physical law. Acceptance isn't based on an arbitrary agreement among a conspiracy of scientists. Acceptance of this requirement is based on the fact that we observe what we observe and a new idea cannot change that fact.

In other words a new law of physics always (and I mean always without exception) reduces to the old law within a limiting domain. QED (quantum electrodynamics) reduces to classical electrodynamics, general relativity reduces to special relativity and special relativity reduces to classical Newtonian physics when viewed in low velocity. energy, gravitation domains (limiting domains). Therefore, any new view of reality absolutely must reduce to classical physics - not almost or sort-a but absolutely. The sort of stories that you apparently want to give equal footing with reality involve unphysical requirements. Propose a set of physical laws that reduces to 400 years of prior observations in classical physics and I'll give it a look. Propose a set of physical laws that say Gallileo and Newton were kooks I'll simply suggest that the proposer take a psychotropic med while I come up with a few ideas from the John Baez "Crank Index".

Define the term "time slip", propose the underlying physics, describe how a "time slip" does not violate any physical law, suggest a mechanism that allows a time slip. give me clear and convincing evidence of a statistically significant number of unbiased observations of "time slips" and I might give it a listen. Until that time it remains for me in the realm of fantasy, not even science fiction.

As I said, I have a right to listen but I do not have a responsibility to listen to such stories. If someone for some reason desires that I listen to their otherwise cranky story they have to be prepared to convince me that their story is worthy of being listened to.

 
At a minimum, 15+ years on this forum listening to some of the crankiest ideas on Earth. Sorry, but just happens to be the case.In any case the requirement that "an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof" is valid. These cases, on close analysis, always boil down to an apparent violation of one or more physical laws. But here's the truth. Yes. we do discover new laws of physics over the course of time. In every case of a valid new law it extends what we have already accepted as physical law. Acceptance isn't based on an arbitrary agreement among a conspiracy of scientists. Acceptance of this requirement is based on the fact that we observe what we observe and a new idea cannot change that fact.
In other words a new law of physics always (and I mean always without exception) reduces to the old law within a limiting domain. QED (quantum electrodynamics) reduces to classical electrodynamics, general relativity reduces to special relativity and special relativity reduces to classical Newtonian physics when viewed in low velocity. energy, gravitation domains (limiting domains). Therefore, any new view of reality absolutely must reduce to classical physics - not almost or sort-a but absolutely. The sort of stories that you apparently want to give equal footing with reality involve unphysical requirements. Propose a set of physical laws that reduces to 400 years of prior observations in classical physics and I'll give it a look. Propose a set of physical laws that say Gallileo and Newton were kooks I'll simply suggest that the proposer take a psychotropic med while I come up with a few ideas from the John Baez "Crank Index".

Define the term "time slip", propose the underlying physics, describe how a "time slip" does not violate any physical law, suggest a mechanism that allows a time slip. give me clear and convincing evidence of a statistically significant number of unbiased observations of "time slips" and I might give it a listen. Until that time it remains for me in the realm of fantasy, not even science fiction.

As I said, I have a right to listen but I do not have a responsibility to listen to such stories. If someone for some reason desires that I listen to their otherwise cranky story they have to be prepared to convince me that their story is worthy of being listened to.
Click to expand...
So you are not interested in any evidence that someone who has such an experience might put forward, and you demand a description of the process that does not violate classical physics -- before the basic research has been done, never mind experimental confirmation of a complete theory. And I thought you would be unreasonable. By all means insulate yourself from any data that might conflict with your view of reality if that is your preference.

 
that does not violate classical physics
Click to expand...
No. The demand is that whatever new physics that might be proposed reduces to classical physics within a limited domain. That's not my requirement it is the requirement. It isn't possible to propose a valid new theory of physics that doesn't reduce to classical physics in the low energy, field strength, velocity limit(s). Why? Because we can observe the universe within those limits and that's the world that is presented to us.
Why do we use classical Newtonian physics to figure 99.9% of real world problems instead of using General Relativity? It isn't because GR isn't applicable. It is. But it is infinitely easier to use classical theory and within the low energy, field strength, velocity limits classical theory is so accurate that it isn't necessary to use a more complex theory. GR reduces to classical Newtonian theory within those limits.

 
I'm not arguing that relativity doesn't reduce to Newtonian equations for most purposes involving moving objects in space. But I doubt that that is relevant to whatever is happening in time slips. In any case, you are actually confirming what I suggested, that you are so wed to the prevailing system that you will only accept evidence that confirms it. What if powerful evidence arises (in any area, not just temporal) that strongly conflicts with it? And what if the evidence points to phenomena outside the boundary conditions of physical theory?

 
Carl

You have to understand that some people have religious based belief systems. They accept what they are taught without question. If you present facts that conflict with beliefs, then the beliefs will take precedent over the facts. That's the world we live in. Einstein and Newton both discarded facts so they could promulgate their fictional versions of reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3pU5BT-lPY

 
I'm not sure I would see Einstein in the same category as the gullible New Agers that you gave the link to. Nor that either Newton or Einstein would promulgate fantasies!

My own position is that belief systems originated at an early stage of human evolution. They had the role of giving a framework to a tribe's thinking and acted as a social cohesive force, so had survival value. Unfortunately, although we have grown technologically more advanced, our psychological mechanisms are still operating in tribal mode, which explains at least partly why people react so strongly when their beliefs are (apparently) challenged. Scientific beliefs are a step up from primitive thinking, but they are still subject to the same atavistic psychological processes. This is why people are so vulnerable to brainwashing, mind control, religious indoctrination,cults and sects, and the like. The great scientists were not immune from such things but on the whole they were in their day challenging the consensus views. It is the followers of the genuine scientists who unknowingly apply religio-tribal reactions to any challenges to their idols' "authority."

 
What if powerful evidence arises (in any area, not just temporal) that strongly conflicts with it? And what if the evidence points to phenomena outside the boundary conditions of physical theory?
Click to expand...
If it reduces to general relativity, special relativity and classical mechanics in the lower domains then we will all listen to it. If it points to boundary conditions outside of physical theory then it won't be science, will be beyond experimental verification and won't be of much use to the physical world that we tend to live in.
Attention K-Mart Shopper...we, that is you and I, won't be having a religious discussion. That's for a religion based forum. Having a religion based discussion on this forum always (without exception and I've been here for 15 years) digresses into a flame war that should be an embarrassment for all involved regardless of what side of the argument they are coming from. OK?

 
If it reduces to general relativity, special relativity and classical mechanics in the lower domains then we will all listen to it. If it points to boundary conditions outside of physical theory then it won't be science, will be beyond experimental verification and won't be of much use to the physical world that we tend to live in.Attention K-Mart Shopper...we, that is you and I, won't be having a religious discussion. That's for a religion based forum. Having a religion based discussion on this forum always (without exception and I've been here for 15 years) digresses into a flame war that should be an embarrassment for all involved regardless of what side of the argument they are coming from. OK?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you man by "boundary conditions outside of physical theory". If you mean, as you've been insisting, classical physics, then there are plenty of accepted sciences outside that boundary (i.e. that of large moving bodies). At the subatomic level, particles don't follow classical physics; are you saying quantum theory isn't scientific? To say nothing of theories in chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology etc. I think the kind of evidence that is now appearing might well be capable of lab testing: if this returned results significant at the 0.001 level, but wasn't consistent with classical physics, would you still reject such findings?

 
I think this is better phrased as, "There are a number of unverifiable cases on record in which adults claim that as a child they experienced..."
Click to expand...
Well here is a question to muse over, why is it that children seem to see these occurrences more so then adults?
Two possibilities come to mind for me.... Children are not afraid to speak about such things, but as adults we are afraid of the rubber rooms. And Children may be more in tune to such events whereas adults choose to (or maybe we are conditioned to) ignore the possibility of the event occurring. So we write it off as a hallucination or a day dream.

 
Well here is a question to muse over, why is it that children seem to see these occurrences more so then adults?Two possibilities come to mind for me.... Children are not afraid to speak about such things, but as adults we are afraid of the rubber rooms. And Children may be more in tune to such events whereas adults choose to (or maybe we are conditioned to) ignore the possibility of the event occurring. So we write it off as a hallucination or a day dream.
Click to expand...
I think you are quite right on both counts. Children haven't yet learned that some things (a) are impossible according to our consensus world view, (b) are very scary to many adults, and © could get you a visit with the psychiatrist. They soon learn these things and conform. Some people liken this to establishing an internal censor that filters out all the weird stuff. Or rather, "stuff that a majority of people think weird." In other cultures, children are free to see things without getting told off. And in some families where the parents themselves are sensitives, the children are brought up to regard these things as natural -- which, of course, they are. If you try to define what these people perceive without using emotive terms such as "weird," "strange," "extraordinary," etc.you find it comes down to individual ability to detect subtle stimuli.

 
Back
Top