Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

[wogoga]

The predictive power of The Psychon Theory is much stronger than the predictive power of Darwinism. The reason is simple: the number of psychons having evolved on earth is limited. And isn't it obvious that the claim that only around 7 or 7.5 billion human souls have evolved is a falsifiable prediction? If the current demographic projections of UN come true, then my theory is simply wrong.

From where in your psychon hypothesis does the 7-7.5 billion number come from? It sure looks like you simply pulled a number out of the air that was a little bigger than the current world population. As such, that does not qualify as a falsifiable prediction of your psychon hypothesis.

When in 1988 I took for the first time reincarnation seriously as a possible scientific hypothesis, demography seemed to me a strong counteragument. In the meanwhile, the demographic evolution of mankind has become the most obvious evidence in favor of reincarnation.

As a first guess I wrote 1996 in The Psychon Theory:

The number of human souls is in the order of 10 to the power 10. ​

After having dealt intensively with demography I wrote in The Demographic Saturation Theory:

If one knows the respective saturation values for all regions of the world, it is possible to calculate the limit, up to which world population can grow (in the short and medium term). The saturation values can be estimated by considering population pyramids and other demographic data in comparison with the data of yet saturated populations. If the calculations resulted in a saturation value of 77% for the 1997 world population, it would follow a maximum number of 7.5 billion humans.​

Then The 1998 Revision of the United Nations Population Projections was published and I wrote:

The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there must be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the latest demographic data could be even less than 7 billion.​

Now I think that a number of around 7 or 7.5 billion is correct.

Europe, North America, Australia, Japan and most other developed regions of East Asia are essentially saturated, i.e. their population cannot grow further from within. So any relevant increase in North America or Australia will be compensated by a smaller increase (e.g. South America) or a decrease (e.g. Eastern Europe) elsewhere.

Fertility decline has spread all over the world in the meanwhile. Everywhere happens the same, only the ad-hoc-explanations are different. Look at the U.S. Census Bureau population pyramid of Hong Kong. The demographic situation in the more developed regions of China (e.g. Shanghai, Beijing) is quite similar to Hong Kong.

"The lowest TotalFertilityRate recorded anywhere in the world in recorded history is for Xiangyang district of Jiamusi city (Heilongjiang, China) which had a TFR of 0.41." (Wikipedia)​

Such extremely low fertiltiy rates are not the result of an increasing aversion against children, but of low fecundability due to fast population growth in the past. The past increase has led to a situation of demographic saturation where a big number of persons in fertile age is confronted with low mortality. The same will happen to all other fast growing countries or sub-populations.

"At one point in the 1980s estimates showed that Iran's population would reach 108 million by the year 2006. But, in fact, through a variety of measures, Iran has managed to check its population growth with the population projected to only be 70 million in 2006." (Wikipedia)​

In any case, for the big demographic institutions (e.g. CIA, US Census, UN) it would be easily possible to make correct and detailed demographic predictions. But human nature is such that they very probably will continue to make completely wrong predictions instead of accepting a Copernican reversal.

Cheers, Wolfgang

It is simply naive to mock a scientific hypothesis only because it does not agree with one's own prejudices

 

[Complexity]

Ah, a published woo - that changes everything.

 

[zeusbheld]

It is simply naive to mock a scientific hypothesis only because it does not agree with one's own prejudices

and it is simply naive to make extravagant claims, play with a stacked deck full of untestable non-hypotheses, and expect applause.

i like my naive better than yours, sorry.

 

[krelnik]

Fertility decline has spread all over the world in the meanwhile. Everywhere happens the same, only the ad-hoc-explanations are different.

You say "ad-hoc", but these explanations are often based on detailed surveys of the populations in question. How do you explain that people say they don't want to have children, or are choosing not to have children for various external reasons (tax incentives, government regulation, etc)?

Such extremely low fertiltiy rates are not the result of an increasing aversion against children, but of low fecundability due to fast population growth in the past.

On what do you base this conclusion? Can you show evidence that there is low fecundability in saturated populations?

So far all I see is you pointing out that some populations are slowing to zero population growth. You are not backing this up with any evidence that there is large-scale lack of fecundability within these populations, which your theory would predict.

 

[wollery]

Don't even attempt to explain away China's drop in birth rate with your psychon babble. China has had a policy in force for some time now limiting the number of children their citizens are allowed to have. The allowance is one child per family, except in the countryside (two are permitted if the first is a girl) and two or more for minority groups, the exact number depending on the size of the minority group. The penalties for breaking these limits can be quite severe, ranging from substantial fines (or repossession of farmland, which is economic death to a poor farmer) to forcible sterilization. This policy was enacted because of the large and rapid population growth which occurred after WWII and the communist revolution.

 

[Cuddles]

Wow, that leaves about 5.993 billion people without souls, or 99.9% of the world's population.

Now that's what I call a soulless world!

Apparently the world's population is now over 6.65 billion. I suppose this could bring a new meaning to the word "soulmate". Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

 

[six7s]

It is simply naive to mock a scientific hypothesis only because it does not agree with one's own prejudices

It is ridiculous to label woo as a scientific hypothesis simply because it endorses one's own visions

Wolfgang, your visions are at odds with observable, testable reality

You are NOT using the scientific method

Please stop pretending that you are

The Scientific Method
by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D.

A common misperception of science is that science defines "truth." Science does not define truth; rather, it defines a way of thought. It is a process in which experiments are used to answer questions. This process is called the scientific method and involves several steps:

1. Observation:
   The first step of the scientific method takes place when an observation is made regarding some event or characteristic of the world. This observation might lead to a question regarding the event or characteristic.
   <snip/>
   
2. Hypothesis:
   In attempting to answer the question, a scientist will form a hypothesis (or some would say a guess) regarding the question's answer.
   <snip/>
3. Experimentation:
   Of all the steps in the scientific method, the one that truly separates science from other disciplines is the process of experimentation. In order to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis, a scientist will design an experiment to test the hypothesis.
   <snip/>

Please note: there is no mention of 'using long-winded sentences overflowing with big words and self-referencing endorsements for a particular brand of woo' in any step of the scientific method

 

[zeusbheld]

Apparently the world's population is now over 6.65 billion. I suppose this could bring a new meaning to the word "soulmate". Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

sounds more like a soul cluster-***k than a soulmate

 

[six7s]

Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

Homoeopathic spirits?

900 times stronger than meths and without the purple haze... but you'll still lose your sight if you swallow it

 

[wollery]

Homoeopathic spirits?

900 times stronger than meths and without the purple haze... but you'll still lose your sight if you swallow it

Swallowing it makes you go blind? But I thought it was.....

Oh, I see what you mean.

Sorry.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Wog, how do you discern between souled people and folks like SilentKnight and myself who have none?

You wear the special glasses, of course.

I resent that. I mean, come on! George W. Bush??


Anyway, I can't wait for wogoga to notice what I said in the migraines thread and attribute my chronic pain to the lack of a soul. Who needs all those unproven pseudo-scientific explanations, like dilated blood vessels, stress hormones, serotonin imbalance, or possible food triggers? Everyone knows that it all of the world's problems are caused by thetans-- I mean psychons, and the shortage of reborn souls, according to his book that was published in 1996 and is therefore correct.

 

[wogoga]

People still have free will in your world view, do they not? A given couple's decision to reproduce should be unaffected by whether the country they live in is "saturated", correct?

If that is so, then there should be many unexplainable (by so-called "materialist" means) fertility problems in Japan. I.e. there should be a marked increase in couples who want to have children, but cannot for reasons that medical science seemingly cannot explain. Said increase should have occurred during the exact same period that Japan's population growth slowed.

Infertility is a problem in low-fertility countries, and at least a small part is "unexplained infertility". However, there are many properties or parameters involved in reproduction, and if one of these parameters is outside the norm, then such a case can be declared "explained infertility", despite the fact that it is actually caused by the inavailability of a (related) human soul.

Many families are founded because of a pregnancy. So a lower fecundability entails a higher proportion of singles. Also, the correlation between fertility and contraception is rather poor, and in many countries or populations, people would like to have more children than they actually have:

"Personal ideal family size tends to be markedly higher than actual fertility, but it seems to be on the decline in several European countries." (Lutz, Skirbekk & Testa)​

A further quote from my Critical Analysis of Standard Demography:

Increasing demographic saturation leads directly to lower fecundability. At least under not too exceptional circumstances, this lower fecundability entails lower fertility, irrespective of other causes (e.g. at the individual choice-decision level), and actual fertility of a fully saturated population cannot significantly exceed direct-replacement fertility. Thus infertility of some couples is an unavoidable outcome, if more children are desired than direct-replacement fertility allows. A substantial number of couples does not seek infertility treatment, despite wishing for years for a first or a further child.​

From the demographic saturation model we conclude:

• Fertility of e.g. Iran will fall below 1.5, and it is impossible to keep fertility above 1.5 (apart from decreasing life expectancy in Iran or huge mass mortality in the rest of the world).
• The countries the fertility of which never fell (and never will fall) below 1.5 had a rather continuous and long lasting fertility decline.
• The period of below-generation-replacement fertility (i.e. below 2.1) is in general the shorter, the faster fertility declines (and the lower fertility falls).
• From the population pyramid of Hong Kong we can conclude that fertility will again be higher than 2.1 around 20 years in the future.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[Cuddles]

Fertility of e.g. Iran will fall below 1.5, and it is impossible to keep fertility above 1.5 (apart from decreasing life expectancy in Iran or huge mass mortality in the rest of the world).
The countries the fertility of which never fell (and never will fall) below 1.5 had a rather continuous and long lasting fertility decline.
The period of below-generation-replacement fertility (i.e. below 2.1) is in general the shorter, the faster fertility declines (and the lower fertility falls).
From the population pyramid of Hong Kong we can conclude that fertility will again be higher than 2.1 around 20 years in the future.

Wogoga, you have ignored a rather important question I asked you:

Define "species". Are the Japanese now a separate species?

You keep refering to the number of available human souls and keep going on about how souls are specific to species. However, all your "analysis" focuses on individual countries, and appears to consider them all completely separate. Which is it? Are there a certain number of human souls which can be used by any human, no matter where they are? Or are souls limited to a particular geographic location, race, or some other subset of the human species?

 

[quarky]

less apes=more humans.
If souls evolved, this would make (slightly) more sense.

 

[krelnik]

...there are many properties or parameters involved in reproduction, and if one of these parameters is outside the norm, then such a case can be declared "explained infertility", despite the fact that it is actually caused by the inavailability of a (related) human soul.

That's very convenient for you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this to mean that anything evidence at all, as long as it results in lower population growth, supports your theory. I'm sorry, but real science doesn't work that way. You don't get a free ride on unrelated trends.

So for instance, do you claim that China actually instituted its laws regarding number of children per family as a result of the lack of souls? Are you saying that Japanese couples don't want to have children, not because they are making careful choices based on economics and social trends, but because on some level they sense that they can't?

If you're going to take this path, then your theory is fundamentally unfalsifiable. Therefore it is not science. It is a belief system.

Also, the correlation between fertility and contraception is rather poor, and in many countries or populations, people would like to have more children than they actually have...

As I predicted, you are now confusing the issue of "fertility" (as demographers use it to mean the overall population growth rate) and "fecundability" which is the ability of a given couple (should they choose to) to become pregnant.

I asked you a simple question. Where are the numbers to support that fecundability dropped in Japan at the same time that "fertility" dropped? Your theory predicts this. If this did not occur, then your theory doesn't hold much water.

A substantial number of couples does not seek infertility treatment, despite wishing for years for a first or a further child.

First of all, I don't for one minute believe the above. Where did you come up with this? Second, quoting your own writings in a thread on the same topic really doesn't add any weight to what you are saying. Third, in this and other quotes of yourself you are simply restating your hypothesis and conclusions, without actually supplying the underlying data that would support your theory.

I'm going to keep asking. Where is the data on fecundability that your theory predicts?

If this data doesn't reside in existing databases, why aren't you in Japan trying to gather it directly?

 

[wogoga]

...

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this to mean that anything evidence at all, as long as it results in lower population growth, supports your theory."

My theory is only supported by a convergence of the birth numbers to the death numbers. Depending on population pyramid, this can also entail an increasing fertility. Please read the short chapter Direct-replacement versus generation-replacement fertility.

Already in 1994 (Fertility Decline in East Asia, Science, Vol. 266, page 1521) one could read:

"... and there is no obvious reason why families should adjust their behaviour to achieve long-term population replacement. It might be considered remarkable that total fertility in developed countries has remained as close to replacement level as it has."​

"So for instance, do you claim that China actually instituted its laws regarding number of children per family as a result of the lack of souls?"

I simply do not believe that fertility rates far below one child per woman are the result of China's one-child policy. Look at Table 4 (Policy Fertility and Recorded Fertility of China's Provinces):

The provinces Jilin, Shandong and Jangxi all had (circa 2000) an policy fertility of around 1.45. Nevertheless actual fertility ranged from 1.0 in Jilin to 2.0 in Jiangxi.

"Are you saying that Japanese couples don't want to have children, not because they are making careful choices based on economics and social trends, but because on some level they sense that they can't?"

For me it's not necessary to explain the hypothesis "that Japanese couples don't want to have children". You start with the premise the every child is the result of a conscious decision. I do not. I'm sure that the majority of people do not exactly plan each child and that they do not choose to undergo infertility diagnosis if they would like to get a first, second or a third child but don't succeed.

"If you're going to take this path, then your theory is fundamentally unfalsifiable. Therefore it is not science. It is a belief system."

Demographic saturation predicts direct-replacement fertility, and actual fertility is converging to direct-replacement all over the world. A fertility of 1.3 in Japan or of around 0.7 in Shanghai and Beijing already is the prediction of my theory. So the problem is only on the side of standard demography which must explain such low and extremely low fertilities by "careful choices" or by infertility.

"As I predicted, you are now confusing the issue of 'fertility' (as demographers use it to mean the overall population growth rate) and 'fecundability' which is the ability of a given couple (should they choose to) to become pregnant."

I'm rather careful in distinguishing between 'fertility' and 'fecundability' (often called fecundity or even fertility).

"I asked you a simple question. Where are the numbers to support that fecundability dropped in Japan at the same time that 'fertility' dropped?"

I explain the current fertility in Japan by the obvious fact that the number of births is equal to the number of deaths. No other explanation is needed.

Have you any evidence showing that extremely low fertility is caused by individual choices or by 'materialist' infertility?

And how do you explain the fact that fertility has started to rise again in many European Countries, in the U.S. and in Japan?

Whereas substantial population decline (not caused by emigration) as predicted several times by standard demography woulrd refute the demographic saturation theory, a scenario being able to refute standard demography simply does not exist.

"I'm going to keep asking. Where is the data on fecundability that your theory predicts? If this data doesn't reside in existing databases, why aren't you in Japan trying to gather it directly?"

Let us find a sponsor. But a region in China where fertility is substantially below 1.0 would be more promising for that kind of research. In the meanwhile you can try an internet search with e.g. "infertility China", "unexplainded infertility" or similar.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[krelnik]

I explain the current fertility in Japan by the obvious fact that the number of births is equal to the number of deaths. No other explanation is needed.

You continue to use the terms "fertility" and "fecundability" interchangably with no distinction between them. You are not answering my question, and indeed you cannot answer my question if you are not going to be precise about your terminology.

Have you any evidence showing that extremely low fertility is caused by individual choices or by 'materialist' infertility?

Yes, sociologists study the family planning decisions made by populations as a whole all the time. The actual causes can very from population to population depending on social mores, government regulation and so on, of course. It is a very common pattern that as a society becomes more developed and wealthy, population growth (or "fertility" in the demographic sense) will slow. There are no magical "psychons" needed to explain this, it is simply people making choices.

If you wish to discredit this as the actual underlying cause of zero population growth, you need to show your work. You can't just wave your hands and say its not the real cause. You need to prove it. That's how science works.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Homoeopathic spirits?

900 times stronger than meths and without the purple haze... but you'll still lose your sight if you swallow it

I wonder how the $cientologists' body thetans play into all this? Are the body thetans trippin' on psychons?

 

[MattusMaximus]

less apes=more humans.
If souls evolved, this would make (slightly) more sense.

Of course, this assume that such a thing as a "soul" even exists. To date, I have never seen any evidence for a soul. In fact, I recall that experiments designed specifically to detect a human soul came up with a null result...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_%28doctor%29

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Apparently the world's population is now over 6.65 billion. I suppose this could bring a new meaning to the word "soulmate". Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

But each one is sucked on by 10,000 Thetans (unless you have the revelation of OT VII -- where it gets even worse).

Edited to add: Sorry MattusMaximus, I did not read to the end of the thread before posting and you beat me to the Thetans. Although, obviously you have not reach OT VII as yet -- where the EVEN GREATER TRVTH
about Thetans is revealed.