PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[Pixel42]

You have accepted my point.

I have never disputed that vested interests have made, and still do make, attempts to pervert science. I do not accept that this fact can be used to dismiss any study, no matter how well conducted, that disagrees with what you have decided to believe, or to accept any study, no matter how questionable, that gives the "right" answer.

 

[abaddon]

Parting shot for now. The Infinite Intelligence made it unfalsifiable - for the time being. If it is true, it has nothing to do with me.

I see you have abandoned the whole emergence discussion. Not a surprised, by now, you must realize you are flat out wrong. Again.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You have accepted my point.

I am reminded of the story of Churchill propositioning a woman sitting next to him. She rejects his attentions but when he asks if she would consider sleeping with him for a million pounds she says she would. He then offers a hundred pounds and she asks what he think she is. He replies that they have already established that and are just haggling about the price.

Must go to work on the machine. Chat later.

That was actually George Bernard Shaw.
Now, going back to the point about how memory is fallible.....

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?

Let me start with the definition of 'theory', in a scientific sense:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Your first "theory" is not a theory at all, because it is not based on a body of facts confirmed by observation and experiment. As it stands, it is simply something you made up out of thin air.
You appear also not to understand the concept of burden of proof. Theory 1 is your claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence (observation and experiment) to support that theory.
You claim that your various anecdotes are evidence of the supernatural (or whatever you want to call it), but that will only take you that far. What you are missing is the part in between anecdote and theory. For your "theory" to be accepted, you would need to show the chain of logic, observation and experiment that leads from your stories to your explanation of how the whole of reality is as you describe it- an illusory universe dreamed by an "Infinite Intelligence", with a spare god in another dimension as back-up.

 

[Mojo]

Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?

How do you tell whether something exists but is undetectable or just doesn’t exist?

 

[PartSkeptic]

That was actually George Bernard Shaw.
Now, going back to the point about how memory is fallible.....

It may have been Shaw but the version I heard/read used Churchill. Just shows how good MY memory is.

Do some homework on memory;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

By contrast, long-term memory can store much larger quantities of information for potentially unlimited duration (sometimes a whole life span). Its capacity is immeasurable.



One thing you also need to acknowledge is that memory on detail can vary but the overall thrust can be retained. For example, I do not remember the numbers offered, and the woman is forgettable, but you recognized the incident right away. And the thrust.

Thanks for proving my point about memory.

 

[PartSkeptic]

How do you tell whether something exists but is undetectable or just doesn’t exist?

I first wanted to establish that both theories (as posited) are equally unprovable and equally unfalsifiable.

Having done that, I now want to add that it has been theorized by scientists that one might be able to tell if one lives in a virtual reality. The test is glitches in reality.

Some people may see or sense a glitch and they immediately tell themselves that it could not have happened. Other dismiss them as strange and unexplainable. A few, like me, see them so strongly that they cannot be dismissed.

Mental telepathy is one phenomenon that is explained by theory 1). If two people are in the Mind of an Infinite Intelligence, they might be able to share some information by permission of the Mind. Seeing the future even for a short time is easy if the Mind allows it because the Mind has planned certain things.

People may inherently sense they are in a virtual reality and they there is an intelligence greater than they are. This explains the inherent bias of people towards the supernatural.

All these things are not explainable by theory 2).

Remember how Einsteins theory of quantum physics was first rejected. It was both weird and overly complex. But how else could some phenomena be explained. So the test to compare the two theories is explainability of observed phenomena.

If you limit yourself to excluding observations of consciousness then you limit yourself to classical physics.

The Mind has set the game up according to the Laws of Physics and only needs to intervene subtly. The game is enhanced because people do not know for certain.

The Mind let me see the Truth, but did not let me video it.

 

[Pixel42]

It's not the capacity of memory that's being questioned, it's the reliability.

It's not like a filing system, where the file stays the same no matter how many times you retrieve it. Every time you retrieve a memory it's a modified version you put back.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Let me start with the definition of 'theory', in a scientific sense:


Your first "theory" is not a theory at all, because it is not based on a body of facts confirmed by observation and experiment. As it stands, it is simply something you made up out of thin air.
You appear also not to understand the concept of burden of proof. Theory 1 is your claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence (observation and experiment) to support that theory.
You claim that your various anecdotes are evidence of the supernatural (or whatever you want to call it), but that will only take you that far. What you are missing is the part in between anecdote and theory. For your "theory" to be accepted, you would need to show the chain of logic, observation and experiment that leads from your stories to your explanation of how the whole of reality is as you describe it- an illusory universe dreamed by an "Infinite Intelligence", with a spare god in another dimension as back-up.

Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.

 

[Pixel42]

All these things are not explainable by theory 2).

They would only need to be explainable if they actually happened. So there's currently no problem for theory (2).

Remember how Einsteins theory of quantum physics was first rejected. It was both weird and overly complex. But how else could some phenomena be explained.

This is nonsense. Einstein never had a theory of quantum physics (though one of his 1905 papers helped lay the foundations for it). His theories of relativity, which had nothing to do with quantum physics, were elegant and beautiful, and were not rejected.

So the test to compare the two theories is explainability of observed phenomena

This, however, is correct. And there are currently no observed phenomena which require the additional entity postulated in theory (1).

If you limit yourself to excluding observations of consciousness then you limit yourself to classical physics.

More nonsense. There is plenty of work going on.

 

[Pixel42]

Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.

You are the one claiming that an entity is needed in addition to that required for theory (2), so the burden of proof to provide evidence for that claim is on you.

 

[Pixel42]

Italian doctors find link between Covid-19 and inflammatory disorder

The latest evidence comes from doctors in Bergamo, the city with the highest rate of coronavirus infections and deaths in Italy. Medical records at the Papa Giovanni XXIII hospital showed that since the outbreak reached Bergamo, cases of Kawasaki-like disease rose to about 10 per month compared with one every three months in the previous five years.
Of 10 children treated for the disorder between mid-February and mid-April, eight tested positive for antibodies to the virus. The two negative cases may be explained by faulty test results, the doctors believe.

“Our study provides the first clear evidence of a link between Sars-CoV-2 infection and this inflammatory condition, and we hope it will help doctors around the world as we try to get to grips with this unknown virus,” said Dr Lorenzo D’Antiga, director of child health at the hospital. “I have no doubt that Kawasaki disease in these patients is caused by Sars-CoV-2.”

So probably not cell towers then.

 

[abaddon]

Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.

That is not how science works. All science is provisional on the evidence. Thus "theory 2" satisfies all the available evidence and is accepted. If new evidence comes to light then the theory will change to accommodate that new evidence.

Your pet "theory 1" has no evidence at all, yet somehow you consider it better. On top of that, there is no evidence which would cause you to alter or amend "theory 1". None at all. Thus your pet theory is not scientific.

Would you leap off a cliff because so called "gravity" is "just a theory"? How about the germ "theory" of disease? Would you ignore that because it is "just a theory"?



So. Any response on the matter of emergence yet? Or shall you continue to run away from the concept? What pattern will the ant create?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It may have been Shaw but the version I heard/read used Churchill. Just shows how good MY memory is.

No, it just shows the ridiculous lengths you will go to, just to avoid having to admit you were wrong.
You are effectively saying "OK, maybe I was wrong, but I was right because my unsupported anecdote shifts the blame onto someone else".

Do some homework on memory;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

By contrast, long-term memory can store much larger quantities of information for potentially unlimited duration (sometimes a whole life span). Its capacity is immeasurable.

OK. Here's my homework, from the same article:

Memory is not a perfect processor, and is affected by many factors. The ways by which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved can all be corrupted. The amount of attention given new stimuli can diminish the amount of information that becomes encoded for storage.[2] Also, the storage process can become corrupted by physical damage to areas of the brain that are associated with memory storage, such as the hippocampus.[16][17] Finally, the retrieval of information from long-term memory can be disrupted because of decay within long-term memory.[2] Normal functioning, decay over time, and brain damage all affect the accuracy and capacity of the memory.
[M]emories degrade with the passing of time. This occurs in the storage stage of memory, after the information has been stored and before it is retrieved. This can happen in sensory, short-term, and long-term storage.

Research has revealed that individuals' performance on memory tasks that rely on frontal regions declines with age. Older adults tend to exhibit deficits on tasks that involve knowing the temporal order in which they learned information;[78] source memory tasks that require them to remember the specific circumstances or context in which they learned information;[79] and prospective memory tasks that involve remembering to perform an act at a future time.

It's funny, because this is exactly what everyone here has been telling you for the longest time, and which you flat out refuse to accept.

One thing you also need to acknowledge is that memory on detail can vary but the overall thrust can be retained. For example, I do not remember the numbers offered, and the woman is forgettable, but you recognized the incident right away. And the thrust.

I do acknowledge that. You, on the other hand, do not. Every single one of your spooky anecdotes relies entirely on those details- what you saw, what you thought, the time sequence etc. You have resolutely refused to accept that your memory of any part of these stories is flawed, even when inconsistencies have been pointed out to you.
You can rest assured that I will remind you of your statement here, the next time you rehash another of your yarns.

Thanks for proving my point about memory.

Slightly premature on the victory dance there, old bean.
Try reading the articles you link to next time: might save the embarrassing pitfalls you have encountered here.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Let me start with the definition of 'theory', in a scientific sense:


Your first "theory" is not a theory at all, because it is not based on a body of facts confirmed by observation and experiment. As it stands, it is simply something you made up out of thin air.
You appear also not to understand the concept of burden of proof. Theory 1 is your claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence (observation and experiment) to support that theory.
You claim that your various anecdotes are evidence of the supernatural (or whatever you want to call it), but that will only take you that far. What you are missing is the part in between anecdote and theory. For your "theory" to be accepted, you would need to show the chain of logic, observation and experiment that leads from your stories to your explanation of how the whole of reality is as you describe it- an illusory universe dreamed by an "Infinite Intelligence", with a spare god in another dimension as back-up.

Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.

Theory 2 is not my claim, so there is no reason at all why I should have to prove it.
Theory 1 is your claim, so the burden of proof rests with you.
In your own time, PS. I'm not going anywhere soon.

 

[Mojo]

Going backward through the posts.

You missed one:

Last night I did some research and reading somewhat randomly. I started off on quantum physics and ended on the immune system. What struck me was the very delicate (yet quite robust in terms of self-correction) balance of cellular signalling. Very small differences in voltages that cause changes. How an organism grows and how the cells communicate with each other so that they differentiate.

I had just seen this article which shows what can happen is something goes wrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-scan-man-back-pain-3-kidneys-case-report

And yet the Telco industry people say that the only effect is heating.

Can you explain why you think that report has anything to do with “the Telco industry”?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Italian doctors find link between Covid-19 and inflammatory disorder



So probably not cell towers then.

Covid plus cell towers? Why not, since electrosmog can cause breakdown in the blood-brain barrier?

There are often two to more co-factors in disease. Often one co-factor is genetic.

You seem to take an all-or-nothing approach. Life does not work that neatly. Life is not a science lab.

You set me up as saying that electrosmog causes Covid when what I am actually saying is that electrosmog is possibly (and likely) a catalyst that speeds up both the original mutation, and also may facilitate the spread and the severity.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You missed one:

Oh, okay. I will reward your persistence.

There is ample reason to believe electrosmog interferes with cellular signalling because it is so sensitive. I call that common sense. An example of cellular signalling going wrong even slightly is the link I gave.

Yet the Telcos tell you it cannot happen because there is no heating. The public feels safe and warm and fuzzy because they believe the Telcos are the experts who would not lie for profit - would they?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Theory 2 is not my claim, so there is no reason at all why I should have to prove it.
Theory 1 is your claim, so the burden of proof rests with you.
In your own time, PS. I'm not going anywhere soon.

Okay then. Give me theory 3) (or hypothesis if you prefer). Your preferred choice of the Prime Cause.

If your theory 3) is provable then my theory is debunked. If your theory is not provable then explain why it is a better fit than either 1) or 2) to events in the Universe.

BTW. I gave theory 2) as what I take as the standard atheists choice in a form that allows for comparison.

If you have no theory, then why are you even in this debate? Of course, I do not believe that anyone can claim not to have a preferred theory (hypothesis).

 

[Mojo]

Oh, okay. I will reward your persistence.

There is ample reason to believe electrosmog interferes with cellular signalling because it is so sensitive. I call that common sense. An example of cellular signalling going wrong even slightly is the link I gave.

Yet the Telcos tell you it cannot happen because there is no heating. The public feels safe and warm and fuzzy because they believe the Telcos are the experts who would not lie for profit - would they?

OK, here’s your link again: https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-scan-man-back-pain-3-kidneys-case-report

Nothing there about “electrosmog”. Your argument seems to be, “something bad happened, therefore it was caused by electrosmog”.