Hello from a non-skeptic

[Charles Boden]

I am not expert in this, but my understanding is that no matter how subtle the measurement instrument attempts to be, no matter how delicate the probe, you will always cause some information (phase, intensity, wavelength, etc) to be lost, and the consequence is that the interference pattern is lost. The real reason is that the photon is really going through both slits, but you cannot confirm this because it is only true if no measurement is made. It is the act of detection that kills the effect of the interference pattern.

Well I tried my best.

That is what I am trying to do too...

 

[Lothian]

The questions are being posted at such a rate that I am honestly finding it difficult to keep up, so I apologise if I am not managing to reply to all of them.

The fourth Lord of Appin, Duncan Stewart (1515-1547), married Janet Gordon, daughter of Lord John Gordon (1477-1517) and Lady Margaret Jane Stewart (1493-1517), eldest but "illegitimate" daughter of King James IV and Lady Margaret Drummond (1476-1501). I am descended from the 2nd son of Duncan Stewart 6th of Appin (b. abt 1570), John Stewart.

So you are also related to the Spanish Royal family and Greek and Danish and Swedish, Belgium, Bulgaria and Portuguese Royal families. Congratulations but Diana still didn't die in the specified week.

 

[vszero]

"As long as will, freedom and consciousness are done away as mentalistic and pre-scientific there can be no reconciling or integration of a larger conception." - Changing Images Of Man (not a paper i entirely agree with, but then again, I don't entirely agree with just about anything... but this quote is pretty good hint at what science is LACKING)

 

[vszero]

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley


Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"As long as will, freedom and consciousness are done away as mentalistic and pre-scientific there can be no reconciling or integration of a larger conception." - Changing Images Of Man (not a paper i entirely agree with, but then again, I don't entirely agree with just about anything... but this quote is pretty good hint at what science is LACKING)

Aside from being a non sequitur, this doesn't appear to make a scrap of sense. So, well done for not entirely agreeing with it.

 

[catsmate]

I cannot understand what it is that causes the paranormal believer to persist, to the degree we all have witnessed, in untenable beliefs in the face of real world logical thought showing the absurdity of such claims. Life is so much more fun when we don't have to worry that our dreams have predicted our fate.

It appears to me that some people have a need to believe, in something. Sometimes it fills a vacancy in their psyche, a fear of death or uncertainty in the face of an uncaring and chaotic universe. Othertimes it appears to be a simple ego thing; the need to feel superior to others by having "special" knowledge that is unknown to the majority.

 

[fuelair]

Hi all, and thanks for your promt replies...

Yes, I agree that certain terminology should be used more accurately here, but in the case of what was said concerning my wife's pregnancy I could not refer to the "personal experience" as anything else but "personal evidence", for when she got pregnant of my daughter my youngest son (I am the father of four) was just three months old, and I even asked if there was not a confusion being made betwen the two. There wasn't, as we later found out...

A lucky guess? Maybe. Maybe not.

I didn't go into any further details concerning the case of Jacqueline Pool because I saw that the topic was amply debated previously in the thread that has been shared above.

But still my questions remains: there is still an obvious interconnection between the act of observation influencing the result, so how could this interconnection occur?

Keep in mind that applies only in the quantum level - that is particles far less in size than a single atom. They have no application proved or suggested by science in the gross level world.

 

[Madalch]

(1) How do you know your predictions couldn't have happened by chance only?
The sheer volume of them would make it difficult for this to be so...

But you do remember the ones that come to pass.

The hits are remembered, the misses fade into oblivion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley


Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

What does the term "integral evolution" mean?

What makes you think science does not consider "how" things happen? Or indeed, "where else" that thing may happen. As for the "why", I suppose it depends on what you mean. If you are referring to what one might wistfully describe as Divine Purpose, then no, science is not the appropriate tool for that job.

 

[fuelair]

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley


Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

More precisely, science addresses what can be observed and described with a level of precision. Which is what it's purpose is. Complaining that science ignores your/anyone's assumptions that cannot be observed and measured/manipulated or beliefs which cannot be observed (etc.) is pointless, that isn't what science does or is supposed to do.

 

[catsmate]

"As long as will, freedom and consciousness are done away as mentalistic and pre-scientific there can be no reconciling or integration of a larger conception." - Changing Images Of Man

Is this supposed to be relevent to this discussion in some way?
Can you provide some evidence that "will, freedom and consciousness" (whatever is meant by those terms) exist?
Frankly your quote appears to be nonsensical.

 

[catsmate]

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley

What is this "spiritual essence of man's being"? Does it exist at all? (If so please provide some evidence).
Or is it merely a grandoise sounding term tossed around by people who want to believe that science cannot explain everything?

Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

Science changes in light of new evidence. This generally held to be a Good Thing as the alternative is ignoring evidence and relying on dogma.

 

[Garrette]

So you are also related to the Spanish Royal family and Greek and Danish and Swedish, Belgium, Bulgaria and Portuguese Royal families. Congratulations but Diana still didn't die in the specified week.

This was my thought, too. Frankly, I would think Charles Boden is more closely related to the Swedish Royal Family. King Charles XIV John began the fortification of Sweden in the early 1800s. Boden Fortress was among the last of those fortifications and was mainly finished in 1908, though construction on related facilities around Boden continued for many years.

And this is with a very cursory search into royal families. I wager a more in depth search of Royal Family Charles and Royal Family Boden and related terms would yield a treasure trove.

 

[Olowkow]

It appears to me that some people have a need to believe, in something. Sometimes it fills a vacancy in their psyche, a fear of death or uncertainty in the face of an uncaring and chaotic universe. Othertimes it appears to be a simple ego thing; the need to feel superior to others by having "special" knowledge that is unknown to the majority.

Thanks, well stated indeed. I remember very well when I first joined JREF wondering how those "Psychic Detectives" could get so many cases solved. I did not think much about paranormal stuff, but I merely figured some ladies are just good at it. Well, then I learned from JREF that the show producers just lie! Well, now we have a problem...I have spent the last 3 years pretty much sorting this stuff out.

I did not argue that my previous thinking was the truth, it didn't even occur to me that the psychics were right, and JREF posters were wrong.

Life is so much more fun when you know for sure that psychics are all just folks who lie or are deranged.

 

[Garrette]

"A member of that Royal Family you have associations to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

Ignoring your incredibly tenuous "associations" with the British Royal Family, your medium told you this on a Sunday. Princess Diana died on a different Sunday. It did not occur the same week.

Your medium was wrong.

 

[Charles Boden]

This was my thought, too. Frankly, I would think Charles Boden is more closely related to the Swedish Royal Family.

Wrong. The closest connection I have to any "Royal Family", genealogically speaking, is to James IV.

But you do remember the ones that come to pass.

The hits are remembered, the misses fade into oblivion.

You have repeated this umpteen times, but this argument does not explain away the hits, particularly the two I have mentioned. How can you justify that I should have been correctly told that my wife was pregnant when my youngest son was then just three months old and that this information should have been correct? What I seem to find here is an all too strong urgency to discard rather than seriously analyse, just like children who would rather close their eyes so that they might not see what they do not wish to.

I am very tired right now, and I think I have perhaps put more on your plates than you can handle for a day, so let's take a break and get back to this conversation tomorrow, shall we?

My regards to all...

Charles

 

[Emet]

More precisely, science addresses what can be observed and described with a level of precision. Which is what it's purpose is. Complaining that science ignores your/anyone's assumptions that cannot be observed and measured/manipulated or beliefs which cannot be observed (etc.) is pointless, that isn't what science does or is supposed to do.

Agreed. Matthew F. Bonnan, Ph.D., who wrote a marvelous treatise on evolution, said this:

Q: What is Science?

A: Science is a very narrow discipline that seeks to pose answerable questions about the physical universe. In other words, science is a way of knowing about the physical universe that assumes the physical world can be explained through natural causes and effects.

ASSUMPTIONS IN SCIENCE

We make three major assumptions as practicing scientists:

There is a real physical universe that exists outside our bodies.
This physical world can be observed, tested, and explained using our five senses.
There are natural causes and effects in this physical world.

http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfb100/evolution.php

 

[Garrette]

Wrong. The closest connection I have to any "Royal Family", genealogically speaking, is to James IV.

No. Not wrong.

1: The medium did not say "geneaologically speaking."

2. You have not shown us your geneaological ties to other royal families.

This is a significant point, and if you cannot see it there is no sense in moving on until it is clear.

You have made a vague statement specific so that you can call it a hit. This is the confirmation bias that has been repeatedly mentioned.

 

[vszero]

Aside from being a non sequitur, this doesn't appear to make a scrap of sense. So, well done for not entirely agreeing with it.

Just because you lack the ability and experience to make a scrap of sense of this outstanding articulation of what you refuse to look at in the first place doesn't mean it's not absolutely true and plain to see and easy to make sense of for those in the know from experience (as opposed to those who merely believe or hope based on whatever they got their thought system from. I wonder whose ideas and views you are regurgitating... I am sure it's a mixed bunch)

 

[vszero]

What does the term "integral evolution" mean?

What makes you think science does not consider "how" things happen? Or indeed, "where else" that thing may happen. As for the "why", I suppose it depends on what you mean. If you are referring to what one might wistfully describe as Divine Purpose, then no, science is not the appropriate tool for that job.

If you wish to research integral evolution, by all means... otherwise, I can not do your homework, and that is some serious study to wrap your scientific (and counter intuitive) mind around.

And if you concede that science is not the appropriate tool for "that job", then most of what I enjoy can not be measured by your tools, and so they are short on design.

I can however take your tool and add onto, without taking away from the absolute truth, while sweeping away the intellectual and dogmatic debris that is slowing you down.

Cheers