Time Travel verses the Paranormal

KerrTexas

KerrTexas

Super Moderator
Where do we draw the line between time traveling and the paranormal ?

It seems to me that any "real" time traveler wouldn't be making any kind of prediction(s) at all, merely reciting events that happened. Certainly there are enough newsworthy events that mentioning prior to they're occurance, wouldn't change anything.

There would be no guessing whether or not any particular event fulfills a prediction or not, but the travelers proof would be 100 percent accurate with enough details to know exactly what event is being offered up AS proof.

If someone claims to be able to see into the future, as did Edgar Cayce, that doesn't qualify them as "time travelers", does it ?
 
This is exactly the reason I have always said I am more of a paranormal person than a time travel person. While I believe in time travel as a concept, I feel there are many more truths in the paranormal. I feel there are just to many questions in science which can not be answered because many scientists are to closed minded to other possibilities. If they can not explain it, then it must not be true, and if somebody else is able to explain it through other methods then it is crazy pseudo-science talk.

Now I know you science guys on here can blast me and that is more than ok as my skin is super thick /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif , But hey...this is my own personal belief and I never try to force those beliefs on anybody. They are personal to me and it is ok if others do not believe the same as I.

I also am not one to say science is wrong. I am very open minded if something is proven to be accurate. I just so happen to believe one can exist with the other, and often one may also explain the other.

But to the question, I do not really think if one can see into the future he would necessarily be considered a time traveler. Technically the person did not travel into the future, his spirit, energy, astral force or what ever you want to label it did.
 
I realize they are your own, personal beliefs, eyecare. But just some tidying up to do.... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I feel there are just to many questions in science which can not be answered because many scientists are to closed minded to other possibilities.
Click to expand...

That is a mischaracterization. For everyone except "AGW Alarmist scientists" (who are really politically-motivated wonks pretending to be scientists), they are NOT closed-minded to other possibilities, if those possibilities can be properly stated (i.e. a proper scientific hypothesis, which can be falsified), and the details of interactions related to something we already know, and can measure. And measure is the important aspect.

If they can not explain it, then it must not be true,
Click to expand...

Again, that is not what science it about, and I am sorry you have been lead to that belief. The reality is they demand evidence, whether it can be explained or not. Once there is evidence, and it is repeatable (another important aspect of the scientific method), then it will become more explainable in due process. However, I am sure you will agree that until there is repeatable evidence for something, it is 100% correct for a REAL scientist to not accept it as truth. To do anything else would be the very definition of pseudo-science.

and if somebody else is able to explain it through other methods then it is crazy pseudo-science talk.
Click to expand...

Again, mischaracterization. It is the quantification of those "other methods" that must pass scientific rigor. That being: Can they explain the relationship of the phenomena to other phenomena via cause and effect? If so, then it is amenable to being stated as an equation. Note that mathematical equations are nothing more than the ability to relate one quantifable phenomenon/state to another quantifable phenomenon/state. This is the fundamental basis of a formal, scientific hypothesis. Words are highly fallible. And I fully understand that people with no scientific or mathematical training THINK they are qualified to "explain paranormal phenomenon". But they must understand that what a scientist is after is the formal quantification of an explanation in the accepted language of science, which is mathematics. Such people should not be upset and make a judgment that the scientist is being closed minded, because it is just not true. It must be likened to you only speaking English and you approach someone who only speaks French, and you call them "closed-minded" because they do not speak English. If you want to convince a scientist that you know how to explain a paranormal phenomenon, then you must be able to speak the accepted language...because it is very precise and will root-out "Pig Latin." :D

I am very open minded if something is proven to be accurate.
Click to expand...

1) Evidence
2) Repeatability
3) Quantification of physical realtionships.

In a nutshell, those are how a scientist verifies accuracy of anything as truth.

RMT
 
Ray,

Agreed.

Eighty years ago Duke University began studying parapsychology - eventually even offering Parapsychology as a major. The bottom line is that after 80 years of study they have never been able to produce experimental results that are repeatable or outside of the margin of error. Their results do not significantly differ from the expected values of randomness. This is even after considering that the only people that entered the major were already "believers". Right from the get-go researcher bias was built into the system.
 
I know, I know...and yes I agree that until something is proven and is repeatable a scientist will not except it as truth.

But to say a lot of scientist are not close minded I personally feel is inaccurate. I have spoken to and continue to do so, to many in the science field of medicine. In my experience there are only a few who are open minded to believe in anything other than what they can touch physically.

The thing is, that is ok with me. It is their job to be objective, and scrutinize every little detail. I have never, and never will push my beliefs onto a person, however, neither do I have a problem in voicing my beliefs or stating my opinion on something.

Here's the thing with main stream science and pseudo-science in MY own opinion:

Darby stated the Duke case against spiritualism, and here would be my rebuttal. Often time with a spiritual experience, it is personal to the individual, and is not meant to be repeated. Further more when dealing with matters such as "universal energy" it is something that can not be controlled, and anybody who claims they can actually control this force in order to make a profit or deceive people, I would call a fraud.

Mainstream science says, "oh phony baloney there is no such universal energy out there." They fail to realize they have spent billions and maybe trillions of dollars looking for this very same energy. Right now CERN is spending tons of money in an attempt to find what holds the universe together because they know there is something more there than they can see. They have labeled it dark matter and things of that nature, they also continue to look for a hypothesized particle which although never proven, they continue to believe because another well respected scientist worked out the specifics on how and why it should exist.

History is littered with individuals who claimed to have invent things only to be ridiculed over and over until they were able to prove the doubters wrong, and yes they proved it using the scientific method. However when dealing with something that encompasses the entire universe, that I will never be able to physically touch with my hands and make it conform to only my will, then that will never happen. I will never be able to prove using the scientific method that certain things are real or that they exist.

However, that does not prove that they do not exist...and that is where mainstream science falls. They close the door on even the opportunity.

When it is all said and done, these are questions that one will only be able to answer or not answer in death. I do not feel as long as humans live on this planet or any other planet that science will prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. I do however feel that those who close their minds to the possibility are simply missing out on a great personal experience.

I know these are views that many believe to be ancient or naive or what have you, but as I said...so long as I am human and have free will, I will strive to become closer to my spiritual self. I have never claimed to do great things or make miracles happen or any such thing. That is not to say I do not wish it so, I would love to help mankind in that manner.

I guess I just feel sad for people who choose to close off what I feel is an important aspect of their own self. I feel they do not know what they are missing. But you also have the gift of free will, and who am I to pass judgment on any living creature?
 
However, that does not prove that they do not exist...and that is where mainstream science falls. They close the door on even the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Trying to prove a negative (what your initial statement in this quote implies) is definitely not scientific at all.

However, don't be too down, eyecare. There are most certainly some people of science who are also very spiritual. Myself being one of them. In fact, a good many of my older posts here deal specifically with rational attempts to integrate scientific and spiritual concepts. In fact, the "event" you asked Eliakim about in the other forum? Well, my understanding is that in order for our species to reach the next level of evolution, we have to get beyond the idea that science and spirituality do not mix. Part of that, IMO, is by reconciling the two concepts. IOW, taking a scientific approach to spirituality, while also taking a spiritual approach to science.

For example, one of the longer posts from long ago was one KerrTexas participated in quite a bit as well (he used another username at the time - OvrLrdLegion). The thread is simply titled "God?". In that thread I discussed that many scientific people can be quite happy with indirect, implied evidence that there is a God to keep them thinking and experimenting to one day make that breakthrough that will show repeatability and hard evidence.

For me, all the implied evidence I need for a higher power is the nature of how systems embed. All around us in the universe we see that smaller systems combine to make larger systems, and those larger systems exhibit features and traits that are greater than the sum of its parts. It would be silly to NOT think that this same "embedding approach" does not apply to our noumenal selves. Indeed, we often talk (scientifically) about the Subconscious Mind vs. the Conscious Mind, right? If we agree there is scientific evidence that there is a "hidden" part of the mind beyond the conscious that we have quantified and tested, then why should we not believe there is something "further hidden" beyond that? That is how, in my research and vernacular, I distinguish between "soul" and "spirit".

In my view, it is the people who follow scientific principles, but ARE open to investigating things beyond which we currently have the means to quantify who will be the very people who will usher in the scientific tools to finally achieve that quantification. And that is precisely how science is extended and grown. Before we had tools like microscopes, we had no means to scientifically explain the construction of so many things that are real, like molecules and atoms. We only need to help develop those new tools that will bring us evidence and repeatability for those things that we now just conjecture about. And that is precisely how what today is "paranormal" will someday become "normal", and be part of scientific truth when it does. :D

RMT
 
you have to admit that he does have a point.

i believe he has spotted a serious flaw in scientific method. as always though, that is just my opinion.

once you have explored all options, and still have not put the jigsaw puzzle together, what does science do? ignore the facts?
 
However, don't be too down, eyecare. There are most certainly some people of science who are also very spiritual
Click to expand...

Oh gosh no, I am definitely not too down, and I know there are plenty of individuals in the scientific field who believe in a higher power. But mainstream science as in mainstream media are very careful not to embrace any form of spirituality. I can understand this from their perspective because they fear they will become labeled and not taken seriously. Society and the scientific "brotherhood" if you will are the ones responsible for this fear though.

Spirituality has been given a bad name by man, and man alone. It is one of our human flaws, that we must prove "our" version is the right one. So in doing so, man has waged wars throughout the history of time and continues to do so in the name of "their god". When in reality all men are striving to reach the same place. They just fail to realize one of the greatest gifts given to man is the ability to reason, and have free will. That there is no "their god" is what we fail to understand. "God" or what ever you want to label this force, belongs to no man. For me to tell a little African child he or she is going to hell unless they share my same beliefs is wrong. For their ancestors understand their is a higher power, this is clear.

This is why I have always said I will never force my beliefs onto another man. I am in no position to pass judgment, I only know what feels correct for me, and if another man asks I will freely tell them my view.

we have to get beyond the idea that science and spirituality do not mix. Part of that, IMO, is by reconciling the two concepts. IOW, taking a scientific approach to spirituality, while also taking a spiritual approach to science.
Click to expand...

My friend, this is exactly what I was meaning when I stated a few posts up:
I just so happen to believe one can exist with the other, and often one may also explain the other.
Click to expand...

For me, all the implied evidence I need for a higher power is the nature of how systems embed. All around us in the universe we see that smaller systems combine to make larger systems, and those larger systems exhibit features and traits that are greater than the sum of its parts
Click to expand...

This is the exact same reasoning and rational that persuaded me after all was said and done in my childhood living at home in a ministers house. For me it was not growing up in a "Christian" home, this actually drove me further from my family's belief and pushed me to find my own answers. From a young age it was clear I rebelled against my upbringing because it was forced on me. I wanted to say there was no "god" because every religion has "gods" and much of their history's are filled with like stories. That they are all myths is what I felt for a long time. There is no proof is what I would always say. It was then after years of reading and research I came to the understanding that, as you said, all things in the universe work together to create something greater than I can explain. I then realized "god" is nothing more than a label man has placed upon this universal power, and tried to claim it as their own.

So what does this have to do with time travel? It is there we see the mainstream religious flaw. These very same people who believe their god can perform miracles, and do anything else, can not see they have placed restrictions on this force in their own mind. Their very faith they preach to people is limited to what they read in a book. They are short sighted, they fail to realize a force so strong as to raise dead people, or set motions into affect to create an entire planet, or reincarnate a soul to live another life has NO restrictions. If this force can do those things, then surely he can allow a man to travel to another time, because I believe to this force, "god" if you will, that there is no time.

Until man evolves again however, much will remain the same. Our current mind and tools we have to understand things is to limited to grasp many concepts. But in the mean time, I will continue on my own journey to enlightenment, learning what I can, and taking in as much information as my mind can grasp. Believe me, I learn something new every day and appreciate new perspectives of thought whether it be science based or spirituality based.
 
Hiya ruthless,

i believe he has spotted a serious flaw in scientific method. as always though, that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can expound a little? Because if you are referring to what I think you are referring to, it is my belief that this is the feature that makes science stronger, not fallible.

once you have explored all options, and still have not put the jigsaw puzzle together, what does science do? ignore the facts?
Click to expand...

There is a hidden fallacy here: That of believing one can ever explore all the options. Relativity is approaching 100 years old and people are still exploring its options. The beauty of science (and especially mathematics) is that once you think we "know it all" and that there is nothing else to discover, someone comes up with a new concept, like calculus, or quantum mechanics.

And of course science does not ignore the facts. However, some people will say that because they believe they experienced something paranormal, that this means the paranormal thing itself is a fact. Rather, the only thing that is a fact is that you experienced something, and you wish to believe your interpretation of what you experienced is a fact. That is a fine line that many people do not understand, but scientists know all too well. It could be that what you believe you experienced was wholly created in your mind, and not a physical, extant fact. Understand?

What I refer to above as being that which makes stronger could be related to your belief that "when science can't fit the jigsaw puzzle together they ignore the facts." Science does not jump to irrational conclusions, which many people will often do. In other words, just because science cannot explain some alleged paranormal event via a cause-effect relationship does not mean it is correct to simply assume that what the person is reporting is factual. The prudent aspect is to continue to remain skeptical, but with an eye towards trying to quantify what the person has reported. This is what inspires up-and-coming scientists to devise new explanations, such as calculus and quantum mechanics, which can then be vetted by their peers.

A true scientist does not get frustrated that they cannot explain something and then accept a wild and unsupportable conclusion. Rather, they redouble their efforts and begin using their creative side of their brain to posit new theories, new devices, new math, and then attempt to falsify them as a means to collect data.

RMT
 
For a time traveler to merely be citing events that happened and for that to be 100% proof is a rather assuming judgement. Because if someone can time travel they have the power to change the events that will happen so that something else happens. So, the proof that a time traveler might recite would be a non-reality rather than reality. People then might say "He is off his rocker" because the time traveler has no proof other than what he can remember of the events that changed. So it would not always be true that a time traveler can recite 100% accuracy events that happend(past or future) because it may be the events he recits was one possible event that did not occure due to the time changing because the events were looked at.
Click to expand...

You are correct that for a time traveler to merely be reciting events that happened and be 100 % accurate is an assumption on my part. That any time traveler actually has the ability to change events is also an assumption.

I wasn't necessarily thinking of any time traveler proclaiming anything on a large scale, such as approaching the Cable News Network, or the National Braodcasting Network, but more within the scope of a site like TTI. IF the time traveler said that on April 15th, at 3:30 P.M. in some small town ( ands/he names it ), that an accident would occur, with critical details, I would assume that no one here would 1) Believe it ( "He is off his rocker" ) 2) Will wait until the story breaks on April 16th. After the fact, all details are met, too late to change anything.

Just as you said, even if you believed the time traveler from the start, and called the Police of the particular city where the accident was said to take place, do you think the Police would respond to your information ? Or even the Fire Department ( EMS )? What do you say when they ask you ; " How do you know this ? "

IF the time traveler said that the Polish airplane was going to crash, as it did, with details, same situation as the above accident event ; 1) No one would believe it 2) Would there be time enough to do anything about it ? 3) Who "here" would ( could ) actually contact the proper authorities to alert them that said plane is "going to" crash ? More than likely, no one. So, the crash happens just as the time traveler said it would.

S/he would be 2 for 2. And I am certain that there are enough events that take place around the globe, that the said time traveler could do this for multiple events, without causing any changes, simply because of human nature.

To open the door and state that a time traveler registers here on TTI and provides a list of events that are to take place, but when they don't, throws down the multiple time-line excuse, anybody can proclaim themselves to be a time traveler.

As soon as they say "prediction", then their credibility of being as they themselves claim to be; a "time traveler from such and such a year " ; becomes subject to scrutiny. They made the choice to register here at TTI, and as I have mentioned previously, know what they would be in for...to have a time travel claimant run off in a huff, offended because they were treated badly, seems a bit non-time-travelerish.

There is a difference, at least the way I see it, between Edgar Cayce, using " clairvoyance ", then having Edgar Cayce knocking at my door on April 23rd, 2010.

As an example, someone make's the claim that they are tapping into an old communications pipeline to send messages back into the past. Now, you tell me where the alternative time-line variation percentage equation comes into play with this scenario ? S/he is tapping into a pipeline and using it to transmit information...so this information is not only traveling in the pipeline back to whenever s/he first posted, but is jumping across different time-lines, as well ?

As some have pointed out again and agian, there has to be some method of establishing one's self AS a time traveler that can be proven. Otherwise, all we have are Science Fiction "stories". As interesting as these stories may ( or not )be -- does not satisfy the criteria some of us have in wanting to know if indeed there are time travelers.

The dynamics of " clairvoyance " and whether science can prove that anyone actually is capable of being clairvoyant, seems to be a different subject all-together.
 
Good convo... lots of good back and forth, as well as solid agreement. I am sure (if I know Kerr fairly well) that we might lure Kerr into some of this. :D

But mainstream science as in mainstream media are very careful not to embrace any form of spirituality.
Click to expand...
Not always. Look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd, and how the mainstream media supports their claims, and you will see something akin to religious fervor. There are a huge number of examples of "scientists" who believe these claims totally ignoring hard evidence that falsify their claims. In a great many ways, this takes on the guise of a new religion...where you simply are asked to "believe" because a handful of people (many of who get $ from the government) have formed a "consensus" that it is true. Science does not work by consensus, but by repeatable facts in evidence. The politicization of science, as demonstated in the AGW fiasco, is something we should all worry about quite a bit. Because politics is about controlling people, bottom line.

Spirituality has been given a bad name by man, and man alone. It is one of our human flaws, that we must prove "our" version is the right one. So in doing so, man has waged wars throughout the history of time and continues to do so in the name of "their god".
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

When in reality all men are striving to reach the same place.
Click to expand...
Agreeing to common objectives (INTENTION) is the first step in creating anything in the future. This is an established fact of systems engineering. Moreover, if more people would focus on all of those things we, as humans, share in common (despite different religious beliefs) and less on how our beliefs differ, progress would be more forthcoming. Here is an example I have used before: Is it possible for every single human being (regadless of religion) to look at the following "overlay map" of the human body and agree that our bodies are, indeed, architected in this manner?
tree3.gif


And the nodal diagram overlaid on the human body in this image speaks to something else you said:
For their ancestors understand their is a higher power, this is clear.
snip
That they are all myths is what I felt for a long time.
snip
It was then after years of reading and research I came to the understanding that, as you said, all things in the universe work together to create something greater than I can explain.
Click to expand...
There is a great deal of (scientific?) knowledge embedded in ancient information that some believe to be only myth. (This is where I know we will entice KerrTexas into the fray!) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you understand the social aspects of those ancient times, you will understand why people may have "encoded" what may amount to scientific information in this manner. The Tree Of Life is but one example of this that some of us have personally researched since as far back as 1982!


They are short sighted, they fail to realize a force so strong as to raise dead people, or set motions into affect to create an entire planet, or reincarnate a soul to live another life has NO restrictions. If this force can do those things, then surely he can allow a man to travel to another time,
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. This is what I referred to before as "taking a more spiritual approach to science." But now, IMO, we must be careful to also "take a scientific approach to spirituality." That means (in my case, and possibly that of KerrTexas, among others) is to sift though the "mythical" information from societies-past, applying a highly scientific filter to it. See if we can derive scientific theories that can be tested. Apply those tools of science that have worked so damn well to take us out of the dark ages to where we are now!

But here is an interesting thing to ponder: Do you think it is possible for God (whatever you believe him/her/it to be) can violate the laws of Nature that he/she/it allegedly set into place? If so, then they are not laws... in other words, HOWEVER "god" causes something to happen, it must follow some scientific principles. Otherwise there is no order to the universe, and the universe would be nothing but anarchy...which is clearly NOT what we see everywhere! Rather, we see an "implicate order" (hat tip to Bohm) that forms out of what appears to be chaos.

Another interesting question: Is it possible there is not a "single god" but rather "layers of gods"? Posit that there is a being at a level immediately "above" us in his/her/its capabilities. At a higher level of system integration than us humans. If this is the case, why is it wrong to posit a yet-higher-level god who has more capabilities than our immediate god? It is a question of context. Until we can scientifically explore outside our own context (and I believe the tools to do that are just about within our grasp) then any process executed by our "immediate god" would appear to be nothing short of defying the laws of Nature (at least the ones we are aware of).

because I believe to this force, "god" if you will, that there is no time.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, and have a scientific theory that explains it. What I call Massive SpaceTime. if we consider that the separate concepts we know of as Mass, Space, and Time are merely approximations, and that the REALITY of them is an "integrated mish-mash" of all three, at that "God" has the ability to manipulate the entire matrix of Massive SpaceTime, then it would be true that "where God is there is no such thing as Time".

BTW: The formal, scientific definition of energy is, indeed, a compound mixture of Mass, Space, and Time. And as far as we know, it is also inviolate!
(i.e. we cannot create it or destroy it, only change its form)

Until man evolves again however, much will remain the same.
Click to expand...
And do you have any INTENTION to help out in that evolution?
I do!

Our current mind and tools we have to understand things is to limited to grasp many concepts.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but there are some interesting "tools" out there which have been masquerading as "myth" for an awful long time. Some of us have an INTENTION to resurrect them for all to use again!

But in the mean time, I will continue on my own journey to enlightenment, learning what I can, and taking in as much information as my mind can grasp. Believe me, I learn something new every day and appreciate new perspectives of thought whether it be science based or spirituality based.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and AMEN! :D
RMT
 
That means (in my case, and possibly that of KerrTexas, among others) is to sift though the "mythical" information from societies-past, applying a highly scientific filter to it.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was done in several threads relative to the legends and mythology, especially regarding Thoth and/or Hermes. Trying to apply a scientific filter to the accounts of this historical figure.

And as you mentioned, was also done in the God ? Thread, as well.

You do know me quite well, Rainman, and know that my belief system parallels yours. Although at times we may be using different terminology, we pretty much agree on the same issues.

Lately I've noticed that with regards to God sometimes the term " consume " is used as opposed to " destroy ". Whether there has been a problem with the translation of the orignal manuscripts where the individual doing the work makes a mistake, and applies a word that is in error, and thus changes the context of the material ???

What occurs to me, and I don't know if this is where we have a difference of perspective, is in situations as seen on Ghosthunters. Shortly after arriving at any particular location that is said to be haunted, the team of TAPS is shown "where" paranormal activities have taken place, and are given descriptions as to "what" type of paranormal activites have been experienced.

Based on the information provided, the scientific equipment is set-up to record the events, if they occur. When nothing happens, the comment I have often heard is ; " Ghosts don't respond on que ! "

I agree that scientific methods are very important, but doesn't "always" have the capability to record experiences if and when they occur.

I believe that as technology advances, that there will be scientific devices that might tip the scales relative to paranormal activities.

With regards to different levels of God, yeah, I also agree with that perspective.

God also seems to hint at this as per the Bible. That God could arrive on earth as God "complete", as the One, would cause everything to come apart. Thus, the reflections from high to low, or perhaps more accurately, through-out the all within God.

God utilizes the archangels or angels, as an example, to move through the different layers, creating a line of comunication, as it were, and/or influence. This too, is seen in the Bible.

God speaking to Abraham before sending the angels down into Sodom, never really says that God is before Abraham AS God IS, but rather is existing ( in part ) within and communicating through the angels.

As you mentioned, Rainman, the "allegory" of the interaction between God and Abraham contains hidden scientific information, and going beyond the print, using science, one can discover those hidden dynamics.

Does God have the capacity to consume all that is within God, and ending what we perceive to be variations, or that which seems to have an independent identity ? I believe this is where the Fear of God comes in : in hopes that God doesn't turn out to be fickle as we, and change His mind regarding "His intentions " relative to us.

Really, to whose benefit are the Laws of Nature ? Ultimately, God's or ours ? That God could violate those Laws of Nature, would doing so affect whom ? God or everything within God ? That God has a reason as to why God is allowing everything to exist and evolve as is it does, is of benefit us...um...I hope.


Science must be applied when it can be thus applied, however, there are instances where Science has not reached a level of answering all the questions relative to all the experiences, so to develop an understanding of the dynamics of those experiences, what to do ?

Ignore the experiences Science can't yet address and pretend they don't happen ?

Relative to time travel claimants, I agree that there are scientific methods in place to either prove those claims as true or not true.

However, my wife swears that she saw a man dressed in black watching her while she was washing some dishes. He was leaning against the entertainment center, and my wife thought it was me. When she turned to face the man directly, in essence, to say something to me, she realized it wasn't me, and the man simply vanished into thin air.

We now have a problem. Is my wife fibbing ? Is she suffering from some sort of mental disability that reuslts with hallucinations, or was that man really there ?

To apply science means taking a lie detector test, or running her through a medical examination to see if there is some sort of anomalie relative to her brain, and others tests, to try to see why she saw this apparition.

We did run medical tests, which came back as normal. So...who was this man ? Science doesn't have the answer to that experience.

IF you yourself experienced a paranormal event such as possibly being pushed from behind, and turning to look, see nothing, what scientific method can you use to answer the question as to who pushed you ?

Relative to religion(s), most of them have the same basic "seed", but that seed is covered over in the muck of personal dogma and personal/political agendas. You know that I have said that most of the "wars" fought in the name of any particular "god", probably would have been fought anyway, but with a different excuse.

The terrorists killing in the name of any particular "version" of God, probably had the "potential" to be murderers to start with, and would have used something else if "any" god was not handy to use for justification of actions.

Something that I "know" we both stress and do agree with are " Intention" - " Potential " - "Responsibility " and " Awareness ", and you know why "we both" agree on those particular terms AND the dynamics surrounding those concepts.

With regards to most of the other material in the post, you know that I don't really have any arguments relative to those points. In no way am I degrading science, and agree with you regarding the value and importance of applying scientific methods to just about everything that can be scrutinized at this time.

And even with those things relative to the paranormal, it will be those men and women OF science that develop the methods and/or equipment to further our understandings.
 
hey ray,

Perhaps you can expound a little?
Click to expand...

i'll give it my best shot.

There is a hidden fallacy here: That of believing one can ever explore all the options.
Click to expand...

god supposedly is infinite, and created the universe. if you believe this, then you probably also believe that man was created in gods image.

now, when i create an image of a cd, it is a replica of that cd, minus the physical disk. when you take a picture, it is a replica of the scene, minus the physical scene. if god knows it all, then should'nt humans have the goal to replicate that?

should humans say, "it is my goal to know everything?" or should humans say, "knowing everything is out of reach?"

well, im going to go ahead and cuy this short. i could write pages and pages about it, but it would not matter. even though these things are facts in my eyes, because i have been through experiences i cannot fully explain,and verify and reproduce, that puts it in the realm of fiction.

my theory will be rejected, because it is not based on science, and is not reproducable. so, if i am correct, how can science ever accept it? but heres the thing, science cannot prove it to be false either, so there it is, just floating in the air, like a ghost to haunt.
 
Loose terminology does not work. It is not "time travel" because anything can be considered that. And then if a physical machine is invented it probably would not be called "time travel" in the first place. The Paranormal is entirely different, because the person is in the reality as it is now, and probably in the end is predicting a future trend as seen as a general trend now, or had a vision (as in Saints) and still the intrepetation is subject then to the general trend.

Edgar Who? It is not Casey.

Now to a more difficult question:

Given that there probably will be a limited N-war (prediction or general trend) based on the way the world is going or some kind of limited - war based on future weapons (if humans can not leave this Planet and hide somewhere else in the Universe), what helmet would you think you would wear?

The top of the dome of the Capitol Building (with the little space communications antenna on top with the blinking light) or the flashing circular rotation colored lights of the antenna points of the Statue of Liberty.

The end is that you through your acts make the prediction into the reality of the future.
weasel works not withstanding.
--------------------------------------------------
Now after the headaches from tax forms and still one to go for the State:

The fast Titor version song perhaps (instead of the slow one already done).
Although I give myself more work than I can handle and get paid nothing for it either.
:eek:
 
Oh, I think the James Randi Foundation is still up on the Net. You know, prove something paranormal collect the big bucks ($1,000,000) if it is still that yet but having them decide if you actually proved something like paranormal or not.

No one has won yet.
 
But to say a lot of scientist are not close minded I personally feel is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

That's a strawman argument response. Not only did I not say that, it didn't even enter into my response by any stretch of the imagination as an implied response. I simply stated the facts as reported: the carefully chosen Duke U investigators had already made up their minds about whether or not paranormal events were real. They were undergrad students, not "a lot of scientists". Undergrads are not scientists. They are impressionable teenagers/close post-teenager students.

They represent the very thing that your last post argued against - closed minds. They expected a certain outcome and fit their experimental results to that case even though a review of the raw data clearly reveals that their results equate to random noise. You can't have it both ways.

Darby stated the Duke case against spiritualism
Click to expand...

Again a strawman argument. I made neither an explicit nor an implicit statement about spiritualism. The thesis concerns paranormal abilities, not spitirualism.

The real argument is whether or not what is classified as paranormal is actually normal. "Para" means "equal to". It may or may not be so but the evidence clearly suggests that it is not only not normal but that it is more likely than not that it doesn't exist when put to the test of repeatability. If it were a part of reality it should be such that given the same set of circumstances, or at least close to the same set of circumstances, similar results can be repeated. But that isn't the case. "Repeatability" or actually the lack thereof, is shielded by ad hoc caveats that are intended to cover the lack of repeatability. "Bad vibes" being present is usually the excuse given, whatever that means. The fact is "bad vibes" is stated such that it can be molded to fit the otherwise failed set of facts. There's no way to falsify the "bad vibes" excuse because it can always be redefined to fit the next argument.

Is there something beyond simple quantum chemistry that defines life as we know it? I'm sure that that is the case. But making lame excuses for failed experiments surely isn't the answer. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't equate to the definition of reality being subject to democracy and public opinion. That a few people believe that this or that might be true doesn't mean that their opinion is to be given equal weight to that which has been put to the test of experiment or that "you can't disprove me" means that that argument has any weight. No one can prove that the interior of Mars isn't composed of a layer of very dense blu cheese. As a rational being I can only hope that no one reads the pervious statement and concludes that the interior of Mars may very well be composed of a layer of dense cream cheese absent clear and convincing evidence supporting the case.
 
Back
Top