100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think I see the underlying issue here regarding the term 'evidence' being described with the term 'unfound', and I am necessarily a part of it. Knowing that, let's see if it can be cleared up. PeterPan wrote: Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from. I would agree with you if the evidence were to be used in a court of law, but I thought we were speaking scientificaly. It would have been more clear to me had you used the terms "stuff" or "possible evidence" instead of calling what you were searching for "evidence". What difference does it possibly make? The argument presented has not been made clearly, all that has been done is attempt to judge my character with the use of the term hypocritical and other ad hominem grounds. Just because one looks for evidence, it does not necessarily follow that evidence actually exists. That is my point. 'Unfound' evidence does not necessarily exist. All evidence, if it is to warrant the label of evidence, requires the ability to show it. Evidence is an outward sign or indication of proof. It was not an attack on you, it was a statement based on the evidence which were your posts. If I insulted you, please forgive me. Anything that can be perceived is evindence. Every object perceived is evidence of it's existence at the least. Just because one does not perceive it does not mean it does not exist. One is not the center of reality. I think one(though not the only) problem with the communication here lies in the use(perhaps my use as well) of the term 'unfound'. I am referring to the actual existence of known evidence, and it has also been used to wrongly refer to evidence which has not yet been proven to exist. The first sentence of your reply is an opinion. So is this? Who cares about that? It is the grounds which any opinion rests upon that interests me. The fact is that I am using a Merriam Webster's definition of evidence that is well-accepted. Evidence, by the very meaning of the word, must exist and be able to be shown in order to be evidence at all. Unfound evidence is often used as a misnomer, it does not necessarily exist, except in a past tense reference as I explained earlier, and one other situation which I have just thought of. I care about that. You state that it's your opinion, then use your own opinion to verify your objectivity. Then you apply additional meaning to the term "evidence" to fit your opinion. "Evidence is an outward sign or indication of proof." then add: "Evidence, by the very meaning of the word, must exist and be able to be shown in order to be evidence at all." If this was a court of law, I'd agree. As this is the Science & Philosophy forum, I don't. If a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, does it make a sound? Your answer to that question will determine if I continue this discussion. This is where I can take *some* responsibility for not thinking this through very carefully earlier... I can also imagine a situation in which there necessarily is a particular piece of missing evidence whose actual existence has already been logically proven by other evidence, but has not yet been found. In that case, the 'unfound' evidence is known to exist. So the term 'unfound' refers to the lack of physical possession, and not known existence. That is the underlying confusion here, I think. I think it has been had in whether or not one is talking about 'unfound' evidence - which is already known to exist, but is missing; or if one is talking about 'unfound' evidence which is not already known to exist. The term 'unfound' is inapplicable in the latter case, for the logical aforementioned reasons. Any applied adjective does not change the subject it only describes it. "unfound evidence" is evidence. Evidence not in your possesion is still evidence. "Unfound" is applicable if the evidence is not found the same way "known" or "found" is applicable if and when evidence is found. My whole objection was that creative placed himself as the sole judge of the validity of not only the evidence, but what could even be considered as evidence. Ad hominem. Fail. I am simply offering my own opinion, along with what grounds it rests upon. I am interested in reading your grounds, but most of it thus far has just been your personal opinion of me. A very weak argumentative form. A logical conclusion from your posts. Past as well as the post directly above. You are offering your opinion and then providing your own "objectivity" and "logic" as grounds. It's not an attack on you, it's an observation of your posts. It's not a weak agument, I've shown you various examples of proof using your words. All evidence has to be approved by you, so by your rules, I cannot give an example. Non sequitur. Fail. Not 'my' definition. Not 'my' rules of logic. A logical conclusion from the evidence shown. He then supported that decision by claiming that he used "objective means" to verify it with no evidence to prove his "objectivity" only his opinion. You're referring to an earlier conversation with Abra regarding a specific claim of his which I researched and had obtained independently verified evidence which refuted his claim. Using that in an attempt to describe this particular side discussion is a little misleading, because my words about that particular set of circumstances cannot be forced to apply here. There are different conditions and different things are being focused upon, therefore different claims are being made. Opinions can be shown in an objective manner. See above. "Objective Opinion" is an oxymoron. I know this because it's my objective opinion that because it's listed on dictionary(dot).com, it's true. I know my opinion is objective because I assesed the information objectively and it's my opinion that it IS objective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PeterPan: But, if you are willing to "consider" my proposal of evidence, I'll try to give a few examples... 1st: evidence which is known, but not what it supported or proved. a) Light... Light was evidence of protons before protons were discovered. b) Sound... Sound was evidence of sound waves before the sound waves were discovered. c) Gravity... Weight and the fact that things fall were evidence of gravity before gravity was discovered. There are other major issues with these claims which I am avoiding. Things exist, but until they are used as evidence for the things proven - in order to do so - they were not evidence of anything, they were just things. Evidence is more than just a thing. The way that you are using the term, all things are evidence of *something* even before it is known. That connection is what constitutes *something* being evidence, therefore before that connection is made it is just a thing. 2nd: evidence which is not known, but we know what we're trying to prove. a) An oasis in the desert... We know there's a source of the water, now we need to find the evidence of it. It could be a spring, rainfall, villagers carrying buckets, you name it. (the known evidence is the water source) b) Oil or coal... We know it's out there somewhere, so we drill and take core samples looking for the evidence of the deposit or vein. c) Inteligent life on earth... We assume it's out there, so we give IQ tests to people and keep hoping. (that's a joke, not directed at anyone) What evidence here is not known? Now my whole point is that scientists, lawyers, investigators and even us here in the forums all search for "evidence", not "stuff", "possible evidence" or "probable evidence". To me, it's only NOT evidence if it doesn't support my theory. (everyone's welcome to give their opinion on this statement)  It is common to say that we are looking for evidence. According to this, if 'it is only NOT evidence if it doesn't' support your theory, what do you call that which does?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A logical conclusion from your posts. Past as well as the post directly above. You are offering your opinion and then providing your own "objectivity" and "logic" as grounds. It's not an attack on you, it's an observation of your posts. It's not a weak agument, I've shown you various examples of proof using your words. Look up ad hominem. What do you think have you proven???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, does it make a sound?
Your answer to that question will determine if I continue this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once went to the Exploratorium in San Francisco where they had demonstrations of holography. The blind man could determine that other people had senses he did not with a few simple tests. if he was to take some flat cards of paper and punch various numbers of holes into them (being careful to keep them from overlapping so that they could still be counted,) and then tie the other person to a chair in a locked room and hang the cards up on the wall he would be set to begin. Sitting on a pedestal there appeared to be a wine glass. When I reached out to touch it, I could not. My hand passed right through it. In other words, my sense of touch could not detect the wine glass. But my sense of sight could detect it. Now consider this from the perspective of a blind man... As far as he’s concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of the wine glass. He simply cannot detect it by any means. So where does that put the notion of “objective evidence”? In this hypothetical situation, the “objective evidence” is entirely dependent on the abilities of the observer. In other words, unless the blind man agrees with some explanation put forth by the sighted person, there is no basis or reason for accepting the existence of the wineglass. (Note that accepting the sighted man’s explanations, must be done on pure faith alone.) So in this situation, what would constitute “objectivity” on the part of the blind man? Would denial of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (There is, after all, no evidence.) Would acceptance of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (This would have to be done on pure faith alone, since there is no evidence.) Would assuming that the existence of the wineglass was unknowable be considered an “objective” position? (This would mean that “knowability” would have to be entirely subjective – i.e. based on the capabilities of the observer.) Or is it even possible for the blind man to be objective about the wineglass at all? Of course we could just fall back on the reliability of the perception of the sighted person and say that the wineglass exists regardless of whether or not the blind man can perceive it. But note that that position really has no more intrinsic merit than falling back on the reliability of the blind man and saying that the wineglass doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not the sighted man can perceive it. As he wouldn't have thought to turn the lights on he could also check for that by making sure that the switch was in the correct position and physically touching the bulb to check that it was getting hot. Then if the still tied up man could indicate the order of the cards left to right or in whatever direction there should be considerable reason to think that he had some kind of non-touch based sense that allowed him to recognize the cards. Other possible tests could include rigging a system to place a solid object in between a person and the location of the (supposed) hologram and then gauging their reactions when their line of sight was cleared. The image would have to be something you would expect most people to react to, such as pornography. There are a variety of cues you could expect from either gender, depending on how willing he was to violate their privacy. And of course to be very sure he would have to check several times with setups that could rule out other methods of determining what was there, such as duct taping oven mitts to the person's hands and installing ear plugs in their ears (you could reasonably rule out their removing the earplugs due to the mits and their removing the mitts silently due to the duct tape. If you were particularly thorough you could place bells all over them to be sure they did not move at all.) And proper tests would include control groups so that you could be sure that, say, the ear plugs, did not somehow convey the order of cards to them. Really it would be quite elementary. But that doesn’t offer any objective evidence of the existence of the image of the wineglass. Yes, he has objective evidence of a “fifth sense” in others. But he does not have objective evidence of the existence of the holographic image. We're all blind to infrared, ultraviolet, and the further wavelengths away from the visible spectrum yet we've got tools that sense those things for us. Hardly any of those images from hubble or any other telescope are of the spectrum of light we can see. We've taken something invisible to us but visible to at least one of the items in our toolbox for evidence gathering and then used it to produce something that is within the boundaries of our senses. It's so basic I shouldn't have to explain it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra: Actually no. I've shown you how to test if that's the case. If you were to strip those molecules out of a rose but people could still smell the rose you would have shot the idea down. If you think that "smelling the roses" can be reduced to the simple chemistry of pheromones then you're not even playing the same game as I am, much less being in a position to be claiming "Checkmate". All you've done here is demonstrate your extreme FAITH that all of life can be explained in terms of objective billiard balls, chemistry and biology. Though I'm interested in how you would describe what else produces the smell for us. Do our spirits cast a magic spell? As far as I can see, all you're doing is proclaiming that your basically a Newtonian hold-out and just don't realize it, is all. Quantum mechanics is a step forward but it doesn't make any sense to say that it's holding you back from so many things. I fully understand that line of thinking. I just no longer feel restricted by it. I feel that it has been surpassed by far better thinkers, most of whom were the major scientists of the 20th century. Yet we still use Newton's formulas to calculate how long it will take an object the reach the ground if tossed from a building top. Can you, in your own words, explain why? *I predict I am going to have to explain it whether you try or not. So from my point of view, you're holding views that I myself held back when I was in my 20's before I started to realized the true insights gained by the new physics. However, even then I was wise enough to realize that those views do not imply non-spirituality. So unlike you, I never accepted On Faith the non-spirituality of the world. When did I ever say that any part of science says there can't be a spirit? I think it's becoming obvious what you're really opposing here and it's not anything I've said. So I can fully understand where you're coming from. To me it's just "old news" that has been surpassed is all. Also, to have faith that everything can be reduced to the mere equations of interactions is indeed a "faith-based" belief in its own right. I don't have any faith. Show me evidence that these things don't work and I'll drop an explanation in an instant, so long as you've got a more complete one for me to replace it with. Now go back and read that one more time. I have been asking you to explain what questions are unanswered for two posts now and that is why. This is almost a get of of jail free card offer, you just have to take it. "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking Yup. I'm getting pretty tired of you doing that. I'm in agreement with Stephen Hawking. The equations of science are merely a description of how the miracles unfold. To confuse those descriptions with the miracle itself is utterly silly. This is why I used the term "Smell the Roses". Because this saying implies far more than merely smelling the scent of the rose. Tell me what you actually mean then. Protip: If you can't write your thoughts clearly they aren't really clear. But clearly the deeper meaning went right over your head because you come back with the simply chemistry explanation again thus revealing that you've completely missed the deeper essence of life. Life operates on a chemical level. That's the main use of chemistry on our planet. But I'm fully aware that the chemicals come together in ways that reach into other scales, bother larger and smaller. What I'm asking is for you to say something about how life reaches into the quantum scale, though please keep the context of our prior exchanges in mind if you stop dodging that question. Based on your previous stance, I'm not at all surprised by your view. I could have foretold it and I wouldn't have even needed to use a crystal ball. You're entirely too eager to make me into someone else making different arguments. Who are you really fighting here?  So we just have totally different views. Apparently I'm fully aware of the vantage point that you're coming from. It appears that you are the one who is not aware of the vantage point that I'm coming from. Maybe try re-reading the words of Stephen Hawking above and see if that helps.  Apparently I'm fully aware of the vantage point that you're coming from. It appears that you are the one who is not aware of the vantage point that I'm coming from. And here are a few questions you still haven't answered: Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models. If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please. What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons? You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics. If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that? Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not? What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground? I would appreciate it if you would avoid cutting them out of the quote next time. Navigating back a few pages to copy and paste them isn't hard but it does get a bit tedious when you make me do it over and over like this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once went to the Exploratorium in San Francisco where they had demonstrations of holography. The blind man could determine that other people had senses he did not with a few simple tests. if he was to take some flat cards of paper and punch various numbers of holes into them (being careful to keep them from overlapping so that they could still be counted,) and then tie the other person to a chair in a locked room and hang the cards up on the wall he would be set to begin. Sitting on a pedestal there appeared to be a wine glass. When I reached out to touch it, I could not. My hand passed right through it. In other words, my sense of touch could not detect the wine glass. But my sense of sight could detect it. Now consider this from the perspective of a blind man... As far as he’s concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of the wine glass. He simply cannot detect it by any means. So where does that put the notion of “objective evidence”? In this hypothetical situation, the “objective evidence” is entirely dependent on the abilities of the observer. In other words, unless the blind man agrees with some explanation put forth by the sighted person, there is no basis or reason for accepting the existence of the wineglass. (Note that accepting the sighted man’s explanations, must be done on pure faith alone.) So in this situation, what would constitute “objectivity” on the part of the blind man? Would denial of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (There is, after all, no evidence.) Would acceptance of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (This would have to be done on pure faith alone, since there is no evidence.) Would assuming that the existence of the wineglass was unknowable be considered an “objective” position? (This would mean that “knowability” would have to be entirely subjective – i.e. based on the capabilities of the observer.) Or is it even possible for the blind man to be objective about the wineglass at all? Of course we could just fall back on the reliability of the perception of the sighted person and say that the wineglass exists regardless of whether or not the blind man can perceive it. But note that that position really has no more intrinsic merit than falling back on the reliability of the blind man and saying that the wineglass doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not the sighted man can perceive it. As he wouldn't have thought to turn the lights on he could also check for that by making sure that the switch was in the correct position and physically touching the bulb to check that it was getting hot. Then if the still tied up man could indicate the order of the cards left to right or in whatever direction there should be considerable reason to think that he had some kind of non-touch based sense that allowed him to recognize the cards. Other possible tests could include rigging a system to place a solid object in between a person and the location of the (supposed) hologram and then gauging their reactions when their line of sight was cleared. The image would have to be something you would expect most people to react to, such as pornography. There are a variety of cues you could expect from either gender, depending on how willing he was to violate their privacy. And of course to be very sure he would have to check several times with setups that could rule out other methods of determining what was there, such as duct taping oven mitts to the person's hands and installing ear plugs in their ears (you could reasonably rule out their removing the earplugs due to the mits and their removing the mitts silently due to the duct tape. If you were particularly thorough you could place bells all over them to be sure they did not move at all.) And proper tests would include control groups so that you could be sure that, say, the ear plugs, did not somehow convey the order of cards to them. Really it would be quite elementary. But that doesn’t offer any objective evidence of the existence of the image of the wineglass. Yes, he has objective evidence of a “fifth sense” in others. But he does not have objective evidence of the existence of the holographic image. We're all blind to infrared, ultraviolet, and the further wavelengths away from the visible spectrum yet we've got tools that sense those things for us. Hardly any of those images from hubble or any other telescope are of the spectrum of light we can see. We've taken something invisible to us but visible to at least one of the items in our toolbox for evidence gathering and then used it to produce something that is within the boundaries of our senses. It's so basic I shouldn't have to explain it... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, does it make a sound? Your answer to that question will determine if I continue this discussion. Yes and no, depending upon exactly how one defines 'sound'. If 'sound' requires reception, then no. If 'sound' does not require reception, then yes. What do you think, and more importantly what is that based upon? I am confidently assuming that the answer given will be provided with evidence which can be assessed for it's accuracy, relevancy, and sufficiency. This is about evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Tue 12/15/09 09:21 PM
|
|
Following JB's lead, Sky wrote the following:
Jeannie makes a good point. I was thinking along the same lines. And to make it even simpler... I'm walking through the forest and I find a gun. Is that gun evidence? I'm walking through the forest and I find a dead body. Is that body evidence? This is a great opportunity to make a few distinctions regarding the concept of evidence. The two examples above are very appropriate starter questions. The gun... is it evidence? The body... is it evidence? Yes, if one so chooses to use them for such a purpose. Both can used as evidence to prove *something*. This is true because both are known to exist and are showable. Is that evidence sufficient enough to necessarily conclude something? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di wrote:
If you can PRESENT your "UNREVEALED" evidence it would be a step in the right direction. Yup.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Tue 12/15/09 10:02 PM
|
|
If a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, does it make a sound? Your answer to that question will determine if I continue this discussion. Yes and no, depending upon exactly how one defines 'sound'. If 'sound' requires reception, then no. If 'sound' does not require reception, then yes. What do you think, and more importantly what is that based upon? Of course it makes a sound. I base that on the fact that I'm not the center of the universe and reality exists outside of and in spite of my perception or lack thereof. I am confidently assuming that the answer given will be provided with evidence which can be assessed for it's accuracy, relevancy, and sufficiency. This is about evidence. I am confidently assuming that no matter what evidence I provide, you will reject it based solely on your opinion. That assumption is based on the evidence posted by you. You can't make up your mind on a simple yes/no question. I will however, give you my evidence regardless... (verbaly though) And yes, I know what "patronizing" means... So, do you accept my evidence? Did I even make a sound? Here's a few thoughts... Is an airplane an airplane if it hasn't flown yet? Is the people mover at the airport a people mover if it's not in motion? If an alien visits you an gives you a tissue sample to prove to the world that it exists and you loose it, is it still evidence? If you go searching for a new species of frogs and you find it, did it exist before you found it? This isn't about "evidence" it's about your perception of what "evidence" should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Tue 12/15/09 10:10 PM
|
|
Following JB's lead, Sky wrote the following: Jeannie makes a good point. I was thinking along the same lines. And to make it even simpler... I'm walking through the forest and I find a gun. Is that gun evidence? I'm walking through the forest and I find a dead body. Is that body evidence? This is a great opportunity to make a few distinctions regarding the concept of evidence. The two examples above are very appropriate starter questions. The gun... is it evidence? The body... is it evidence? Yes, if one so chooses to use them for such a purpose. Both can used as evidence to prove *something*. This is true because both are known to exist and are showable. Is that evidence sufficient enough to necessarily conclude something? Prime example of my objection. You are calling the items evidence BEFORE they are being used to prove something. creative wrote: Things exist, but until they are used as evidence for the things proven - in order to do so - they were not evidence of anything, they were just things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di wrote: If you can PRESENT your "UNREVEALED" evidence it would be a step in the right direction. Yup.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoku wrote: When did I ever say that any part of science says there can't be a spirit? I think it's becoming obvious what you're really opposing here and it's not anything I've said. Well if this is true then I think we just got off on the wrong foot because you just happened to join this site at the very same time that a couple of posters were attempting to discredit my knowledge of science merely because I’ve been stating that I see no conflict between science and spirituality. They were attempting to claim that it is a ‘distortion of science’ and/or ‘illogical’ to hold that view. Clearly you are not in agreement with that radical view, so we just got off on the wrong foot due to cross-talk with other posters. We’re probably in agreement on most of the scientific issues.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an objective analysis offering the grounds upon which the conclusion is being made.
Pan wrote: Anything that can be perceived is evindence. If this is true, then all things perceived are necessarily evidence. That is false. Perception of something alone does not make that thing evidence. Using the definition that evidence is a sign or indication of proof, I will show that just the perception of a thing is insufficient grounds for calling that thing evidence. 1.) All evidence is necessarily assessed. 2.) That requires(in some form or another) a relative association between the perceived thing which is being used as evidence and that which it is providing the proof of. 3.) In order to do that, there must first be something to prove. 4.) That requires unanswered questions. Therefore, evidence necessarily requires more than just perception. Every object perceived is evidence of it's existence at the least. The perception of an object can be used as evidence to prove it's own existence. Just because one does not perceive it does not mean it does not exist. That all depends upon what 'it' is referring to. If 'it' is referring to an object, in and of itself, that exists independently of the mind, such as a tree or another planet, then that perception alone is the only thing that allows us to logically conclude that the object necessarily has physical existence. However, if 'it' is referring to a concept that is contingent upon a logical inference of the mind, such as evidence, then without perception there is nothing from which the mind can infer. Therefore, without perception evidence does not exist. One is not the center of reality. No argument here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, does it make a sound? Your answer to that question will determine if I continue this discussion. Vibrations in the air: yes the tree does that. The mental construction or those vibrations into a characteristic sensation: obviously not. Surprisingly few people ever think to handle multiple meanings of words... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After having established that the other person functions as a "light detector" you have all you need to use it as a tool for gathering evidence of light based phenomena. We're all blind to infrared, ultraviolet, and the further wavelengths away from the visible spectrum yet we've got tools that sense those things for us. Hardly any of those images from hubble or any other telescope are of the spectrum of light we can see. We've taken something invisible to us but visible to at least one of the items in our toolbox for evidence gathering and then used it to produce something that is within the boundaries of our senses. It's so basic I shouldn't have to explain it... So you are posing questions that you recognize have obvious answers? Do I really need to be put to the test at this point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoku wrote: When did I ever say that any part of science says there can't be a spirit? I think it's becoming obvious what you're really opposing here and it's not anything I've said. Well if this is true then I think we just got off on the wrong foot because you just happened to join this site at the very same time that a couple of posters were attempting to discredit my knowledge of science merely because I’ve been stating that I see no conflict between science and spirituality. They were attempting to claim that it is a ‘distortion of science’ and/or ‘illogical’ to hold that view. Clearly you are not in agreement with that radical view, so we just got off on the wrong foot due to cross-talk with other posters. We’re probably in agreement on most of the scientific issues. Nonetheless I've still got a list of questions you seem unable to answer or even acknowledge: Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models. If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please. What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons? You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics. If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that? Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not? What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 12/16/09 12:21 AM
|
|
After having established that the other person functions as a "light detector" you have all you need to use it as a tool for gathering evidence of light based phenomena. You didn't "have to explain it". We're all blind to infrared, ultraviolet, and the further wavelengths away from the visible spectrum yet we've got tools that sense those things for us. Hardly any of those images from hubble or any other telescope are of the spectrum of light we can see. We've taken something invisible to us but visible to at least one of the items in our toolbox for evidence gathering and then used it to produce something that is within the boundaries of our senses. It's so basic I shouldn't have to explain it... So you are posing questions that you recognize have obvious answers? Do I really need to be put to the test at this point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoku wrote: If you say so. Just to make sure it's clear though: your spiritual interpretations of these things are not science and are not eligible as standard explanations of the universe without evidence, but that does not mean they have been ruled out. I never claimed they were science. All I ever claimed is that I see no conflict with science. Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models. Well, neither does macro Newtonian Mechanics loan any sense to government models. So it's science is irrelevant at that point either way. If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please. It's not necessarily waiting on quantum mechanics. It may be waiting on some whole new discovery altogether. After all, the professional scientists themselves are proposing possible new dimensions of spacetime and possible super-symmetric "particles". I don't know if you recall that I personally view 'particles' as whole new "fields", which most likely have their own bosons (force carriers) as well. In that regard I'm merely pointing out that there may be quite a bit that we still do not know. However, even to refer to what we already do know, I can see plausible explanations for various physic phenomena using scientific principles. First off, we already know that virtual particles pop into and out of existence throughout all of spacetime, and the even includes the space between atoms and within the electron clouds. This quantum foam is not only omnipresent everywhere, but it is known to have observable effects. Without it the calculations do not work out correctly. Therefore it has an observable effect. Well, our brains are made of atoms, plus they operate on the quantum scale, let there be no doubt about that. They operate via electric charges, as well as though the use of ions and ion-receptors, uptakes, and so forth. So the operation of the brain is being performed at the quantum level. In other words, if you were going to describe the behavior of it in precise detail you would need to refer to quantum mechanics because the interaction of quantum "particles" is involved. So the fact that the human brain is "in touch" with the quantum world is a given. Couple that with the fact that on the quantum scale non-locality is also a given. Not only via entanglement as is quite popular, but non-locality also applies to the very "collapse" of any wave function. Now what I'm about to say is indeed pure speculation, however, it's speculation based on what we already know to be true. We already know of specific situations where we can actually created quantum entanglement. However, that merely shows us that quantum entanglement is possible in this universe, it doesn't imply that the few special cases that we've actually been able to produce in the laboratories are the only way to produce quantum entanglement. So based on the mere fact that we have seen that quantum entanglement is possible in this universe, I'm willing to speculate that it might be occurring far more than we realize. There may have been a large number of entangled particles during the big bang for all we know and we could be utterly bathed in them. Like I say, this is speculation, but it's speculation based on properties that we've already observed to exist. Finally, I also consider the observations of the Einstein-Bose condensates and the fact that, in certain situations, quantum behavior can be orchestrated to occur in a way that approaches the macro world. Now you might wonder why this would be of interest to me. Well, again, I just recognize what's been shown. What has been shown is that it is possible to orchestrate quantum behavior on a fairly macro scale in certain situations. In this case it would be the Einstein-Bose condensates. But, from my point of view that's merely one example (i.e. the example that Einstein and Bose discovered). For all we know there may be far more ways to orchestrate quantum behavior on a fairly macro scale. And that might even potentially be taking place in our brains. So where does all this lead? Well, maybe from a solely scientific point of view it's not all that interesting. But from a spiritual point of view I find it quite interesting because it offers a real physical possibility of connecting consciousness with a greater whole. For some people this may not be interesting. For me it is interesting. Can I prove that this is what's actually happening? No. But then I've never claimed to be able to prove it. All I do is suggest plausibility arguments based on what is known about the physical world. It's just food for thought. And if someone decides it's not interesting for them I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when people claim that I'm "distorting science" because I'm not distorting anything. I'm just offering plausibility arguments that are based on what we already know to be true. What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons? Well, first I don't think I've every suggested that. However, I think the answer to that should be crystal clear anyway. Electrons are quantum particles. If you know the position of the electron precisely then you can't say anything at all about its inertia. Nothing, zip, zilch, nada. You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics. Currently I'm in agreement with Neils Bohr. I don't think we can comprehend quantum mechanics any better than we already do. However, what we can do is learn more about how the quantum effects can be orchestrated on a macro scale. I'm sure the scientists are indeed working on that mainly with the Einstein-Bose condensates that I mentioned earlier. But I'm willing to bet that it won't be too long before new ideas emerge and other means of orchestrating quantum behavior on larger scales will be discovered. If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that? I think there's a lot we don't know about electrons. Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not? I have no clue. The example I gave about walks lightening people's moods was an example to show that 'evidence' can often not be had until after action is taken. If the 'evidence' is in an experience, then action must be taken before the 'evidence' can be had. There would be no other way to obtain the 'evidence'. So that didn't even have anything to do with understanding quantum particles. What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground? Well, if history is any example, then often new frontiers totally change our way of thinking dramatically. |
|
|
|
|
