Weird Experience

[Southwind17]

My wife's explanation is that my dead mother-in-law put the suggestion in our minds to see that particular movie at that particular time and park in that particular spot so that we would notice the plates that were already there.

I holidayed in Rome a few years back. One afternoon we came upon some market stalls, from which I bought a pendant (coin with a hole in it) for my neck band. Only problem was it didn't come with a link to put it on the band. "No problem", I thought: "I'll pick one up from a jeweler when we get back to Oz".

So we return to the hotel and I decide to take a shower. I'm walking to the bathroom across the bare timber floor in the bedroom and something jabs into my foot. I reach down and pick up the offending article and ... well you can guess what it was!

Funny how your wife's 'explanation' exactly fits my experience too, in principle!

My point is that if someone makes a prediction (e.g., channeling a "spirit" to get the winning numbers), and the odds are hundreds of millions to one that they get it right, and they get it right, that would be exceptionally compelling proof that something weird went one.

To be clear, by this do you mean that the prediction here is the channelling of a "spirit", or getting the winning numbers?

As has been pointed out to you, everybody who does the lottery is essentially 'predicting' the winning numbers. Most people do it essentially randomly, some have memorable dates, etc., but either way it's a prediction. Intuitively, electing for a 'quick pick' whereby the machine randomly chooses the numbers for you seems less likely to lead to a win. After all, How can two lotto machines possibly both choose the same set of numbers?!? Thing is, the process of picking numbers and the process of the lotto machine choosing the winning numbers are completely unrelated events. It matters not how they're picked.

Anybody can pick lotto numbers and ascribe a reason for how that particular set of numbers were chosen. Indeed, I sometimes pretend that some 'divine hand' is guiding the movement of the pen across the number card when I pick mine. Of course, that's just playful thinking on my part - I've not won yet, and don't expect to, although I remain hopeful!

The fact that your wife ascribed a reason (which, BTW, cannot be scientifically verified) for seeing NM plates before she actually saw some in no ways adds any credence to such reasoning. Her reasoning could have been absolutely anything she chooses and the result would have been the same.

 

[Fudbucker]

Proof is for maths... what science wants is evidence... The more the merrier.


And there would be 100 events to study, to refine the testing protocol to understand more about what was happening.


No, I'm talking about as large a data set as it is possible to get.


Phew, that's lucky then... because science rarely deals in certainty.


Indeed... so?
When the scales tip the balance of evidence in favour of someone with predictive powers, that's all that's required for it to be taken more seriously than the present. A single event will NEVER do this. What's so difficult to understand about this?


Your standards of what constitutes 'proof' are very low then.
It is a single data point. As has been pointed out to you already, a single data point (someone winning the lottery) happens on a weekly basis.


Like I keep saying: If someone claimed to be able to predict it once and actually did. That is a starting point to study that person to see how consistent they were. It is not 'proof' of anything other than that sometimes people win the lottery.
That is when the real science starts not when it concludes.

You keep getting hung up on "single data point", as if that's relevant. It's not. But let's examine single data points.

Suppose we have a computer RNG that can spit out any number from 1 to 100 decillion (33 zeroes). Someone says, "Hey, I can predict what number is going to come up. It's going to be 5342390457645489734237453." And that's the number that comes up.

They get the million and it's instant confirmation of a paranormal experience. Even if they never predict another thing in their lives, it doesn't matter. That single data point was so improbable, that they either cheated or used some extrasensory power. And if you think they cheated, despite every control you could possibly imagine being put in place, then you would simply never be convinced of anything paranormal, because there's always a non-zero chance the person cheated, which isn't rational.

So single/multiple data points really don't matter. It's probability that matters, and highly improbable event(s) demands explanation. Sometimes chance is the preferred explanation, sometimes cheating, and sometimes you have to say, "well, the odds are so long we better come up with something to explain this...like a multiverse of nearly infinite universes".

 

[Fudbucker]

Pair up these statements and I think you'll hit on my bias. It is fine to say "I don't understand what's going on" and it's fine to say there might be something to explain. What it is not fine to do is say that offering up a bookmark as if it explained something. What exactly is the information content or explanatory power in attributing something to the supernatural?

If we just want to say we don't know how something happened, we should state that. And I think you would be correct in that point of view.



I wouldn't say it meant anything particularly significant, other than my description of how odds works doesn't apply to this challenger. You can't ever get from here to there unless you have a causal chain, an explanation. The prize gets awarded because that's the terms, but I'd still doubt.

I'll happily grant that my bias stems in part from doing magic and being familiar with the way mentalists are able to fool the public. Because I have this insider's view, I know there exists a methodology to imitate the supernatural. And I can tell you that when I see a performance I cannot explain, I absolutely do not believe the person has supernatural powers. But why not? If I cannot expose the method in a particular case, am I not in exactly the same position as you in your anecdote?

Then you're not being skeptical. If someone, in a controlled environment, correctly gets 100 out of 100 Zener cards right, and you're still not convinced some extrasensory power is being displayed, you need to hang up your skeptic's hat. The odds of that happening are so long, there's nothing that would ever convince you. Even if someone telepathically communicated with you, you would probably think you had a schizoid moment that exactly matched the sound of the person's voice and whatever information they claimed to be sending you. There's always a competing "normal" explanation. Hell, you could be in a mental asylum imagining all this. That would explain anything paranormal, I guess.

 

[kerikiwi]

That single data point was so improbable, that they either cheated or used some extrasensory power.

No

 

[Fudbucker]

Don't forget, this sort of thing works both ways. I know you are certain that out-of-state plates are rare in your area, but why not have an open mind, keep a plate journal for a few weeks, and see what the probability actually is, rather than relying on what you think you know?

That's what I've been doing. I've come up empty, as I figured I would.

I'm tired of repeating myself. I don't live in an area that's visited by many out-of-state people. We don't have parking garages, we're not on the beaten track. I've lived here for 38 years. I'm not an idiot who wanders around in a fugue with no idea of my surroundings. Bright yellow plates stick out. It's not like I was looking at plates after my wife said this to me. I thought it was a bunch of BS and I was humoring her. But you can't help notice a bright yellow plate when you're looking for your car, and I couldn't help notice another one that was three cars from mine.

I still -mostly- believe it was coincidence, but the "skeptical" responses here have been absurd. Some of you are so dogmatic in your rejection of anything beyond the limits of what science says, you make the JW's that come to my door seem rational. And some of you have the gall to make fun of me for being open-minded? Are you kidding me? This board (or at least this part of it) has some laughably irrational people posting here.

 

[Fudbucker]

No

Oh, so they just got lucky, and beat odds of 1 in a decillion. You can't possibly be serious.

Oh, and I would recommend a visit to the Science subforum here, and you can talk about the fine-tuning problem, and how it's just coincidence how all the physical constants have the values that they do, and Max Tegmark can laugh at you.

 

[Hokulele]

That's what I've been doing. I've come up empty, as I figured I would.

To be fair, you have to do it for several weeks to see if there is a pattern or not. Comparing the cars you see on the way to work on a Monday to the ones you see in a theater parking lot on a weekday isn't exactly apples to apples.

 

[Southwind17]

Suppose we have a computer RNG that can spit out any number from 1 to 100 decillion (33 zeroes). Someone says, "Hey, I can predict what number is going to come up. It's going to be 5342390457645489734237453." And that's the number that comes up.

The probability of this happening by chance is 100 decillion to one, obviously, meaning that, a single random trial, although mathematically possible, is so unlikely as to be deemed impossible for all intents and purposes.

And there lies the rub: "for all intents and purposes". Please point out one, yes just one, example, of when a single event 100 decillion to one prediction has been correct.

Take your time ...

 

[Southwind17]

I still -mostly- believe it was coincidence ...

Really? You're not making a very compelling case to support this, with respect.

And some of you have the gall to make fun of me for being open-minded? Are you kidding me? This board (or at least this part of it) has some laughably irrational people posting here.

Open-mindedness and irrationality can be strange bed fellows sometimes!

 

[Fudbucker]

The probability of this happening by chance is 100 decillion to one, obviously, meaning that, a single random trial, although mathematically possible, is so unlikely as to be deemed impossible for all intents and purposes.

And there lies the rub: "for all intents and purposes". Please point out one, yes just one, example, of when a single event 100 decillion to one prediction has been correct.

Take your time ...

I never claimed to have evidence that it's happened. I was responding to someone who claimed single data points aren't sufficient. It's my contention that a single data point, of sufficient improbability, is enough to completely confirm/disconfirm a theory. Do you dispute this?

Another example would be a single message that SETI picks up that explains how to build a warp drive (ala Contact), or explains a new branch of mathematical theory. That SINGLE message would instantly confirm that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.

ETA: My favorite example is when a living Coelacanth was found, after everyone was convinced they were extinct.

 

[abaddon]

But one could counter argue and say the Lord is only sending us little hints, to be mindful of his existance. Because the Earth is our testing ground.

Sure, because the lord is so useless that the best he can do is send inneffectual hints

Otherwise we would have been as angels, already in his realm.

Because he chose not to make use perfect angels, or was unable to do so? Either way, he/she/it is apparently useless.

If say he wrote things magically in the sky, or spoke, or revealed himself, there would go the test.

Wrong. He already supposedly knows how the "test" will turn out. That makes him a sadist.

He wants people to become part of his team, someday, never to be revealed to the living, who naturally want to do good, be honest, treat others as you would be treated, etc., without feeling we are only doing so because Big Brother is watching.

Omnipotence obviates free will, so wrong again.

So, perhaps there IS some significance to these little incomplete signs that many or all of us seem to get.

Sure, let the starving children starve, because that is the godly thing to do, right? Are you really going down the rabbit hole of "suffer little children"? for real? Even though the meaning at the time was "allow" not "suffer you bastages because I hate you"? Have you not examined the "suffering" meme that religion intentionally imposes on the gullible believers? Wow.

 

[wardenclyffe]

You keep getting hung up on "single data point", as if that's relevant. It's not. But let's examine single data points.

Suppose we have a computer RNG that can spit out any number from 1 to 100 decillion (33 zeroes). Someone says, "Hey, I can predict what number is going to come up. It's going to be 5342390457645489734237453." And that's the number that comes up.

They get the million and it's instant confirmation of a paranormal experience. Even if they never predict another thing in their lives, it doesn't matter. That single data point was so improbable, that they either cheated or used some extrasensory power. And if you think they cheated, despite every control you could possibly imagine being put in place, then you would simply never be convinced of anything paranormal, because there's always a non-zero chance the person cheated, which isn't rational.

So single/multiple data points really don't matter. It's probability that matters, and highly improbable event(s) demands explanation. Sometimes chance is the preferred explanation, sometimes cheating, and sometimes you have to say, "well, the odds are so long we better come up with something to explain this...like a multiverse of nearly infinite universes".

No, they do not get the million. They pass the preliminary test and then they need to do it again to win the million.

The test is set up that way to prevent a simple lucky one-time guess.

Ward

 

[Southwind17]

I never claimed to have evidence that it's happened. I was responding to someone who claimed single data points aren't sufficient. It's my contention that a single data point, of sufficient improbability, is enough to completely confirm/disconfirm a theory. Do you dispute this?

Yes I do. Why? Well, do you dispute this:

The probability of this happening by chance is 100 decillion to one, obviously, meaning that, a single random trial, although mathematically possible ...

The problem is that every example you quote to make your point is hypothetical, and has never happened. What does that tell you about the point you're trying to make?

If you think that examples help your case then please cite some real ones.

 

[Stray Cat]

You keep getting hung up on "single data point", as if that's relevant. It's not. But let's examine single data points.

Suppose we have a computer RNG that can spit out any number from 1 to 100 decillion (33 zeroes). Someone says, "Hey, I can predict what number is going to come up. It's going to be 5342390457645489734237453." And that's the number that comes up.

You see this is the problem with engaging in someone else's fantasy... How absurd does their example have to be in order for their point to gather any credence?

Shall we wait for that scenario to happen and then cross that bridge?
Meanwhile we can discuss the lottery example you introduced, or even discuss your continued claim about the rarity of out of state plates, which you can not back up with any objective evidence until you actually do a thorough study. Let us know what you did to find the owners of those plates to find out why they might be in town etc.

They get the million and it's instant confirmation of a paranormal experience.

No it's not, it is the beginning of a study.

Even if they never predict another thing in their lives, it doesn't matter. That single data point was so improbable, that they either cheated or used some extrasensory power.

Do you know what the odds are that our planet would be sat in the right place at the right time with right stuff on it for life to develop?
Man, its only happened once. But hey there may be different planets in different places with different stuff making different life, with the same odds.

And if you think they cheated, despite every control you could possibly imagine being put in place, then you would simply never be convinced of anything paranormal,

So just because I can't "imagine" how someone cheated, it means they didn't cheat? If I put every control in place to counter only the things I can imagine and the cheat has a better imagination than me, it doesn't make them paranormal. This is why you seem to think that winning the MDC is some sort of end of process. It's not, it's only the start of a much bigger process.

because there's always a non-zero chance the person cheated, which isn't rational.

There is almost always a non zero chance of something in every aspect of life and science. Science doesn't deal in certainty, it deals in the best evidence to support a theory. At the moment, the best evidence clearly points to nothing supernatural. It will take more than one event to tip those scales. What I personally believe has no relevance in anything I'm saying.

So single/multiple data points really don't matter.

Yes they do... If you want to collect enough evidence to tip those scales.
OK, if an angel appeared at the Whitehouse and agreed to be scientifically tested and verified as being not of this world... That single event would tell science lots. But there would be plenty of objective evidence attached to the single event. If an angel appeared in front of one person said "I'm an angel", it would tell science nothing. If one person guesses some numbers correctly once, as impressive as it may be or seem to be, it tells us nothing except that they guessed some numbers. That moves us no further forward as we already know people can guess numbers correctly.

It's probability that matters, and highly improbable event(s) demands explanation.

They can demand as much as they want. If there is not enough data to reach a conclusion, they will not get an explanation.

Sometimes chance is the preferred explanation, sometimes cheating, and sometimes you have to say, "well, the odds are so long we better come up with something to explain this...like a multiverse of nearly infinite universes".

No one has ever seriously had to develop a complex theory to explain a single data point, let alone a hypothetical data point. Why are you hypothetically demanding a theoretical explanation for something that has never happened?

 

[Stray Cat]

ETA: My favorite example is when a living Coelacanth was found, after everyone was convinced they were extinct.

Cool, your favourite example of something that has never been proven to exist (the paranormal) is something that was widely known to have existed and wrongly thought to have been extinct.

OK, now all we need is for the paranormal to be widely known to exist and then wrongly thought to be extinct and it's a great example.

Again what you appear to fail to see is that a living example of something physical is not really a single data point, it is something which can be verified and studied objectively. It can be compared to all the other data points we have about this creature, cross referenced with other data we have on closely related creatures etc.

As with plucking some numbers out of the air once in a lifetime. We can compare it to all the other hundreds of thousands of people across the world who have plucked numbers out of the air and won the lottery once in their lifetime. What each individual ascribes it to is irrelevant, the maths shows that someone will do it so it's no surprise when someone does it.

 

[marplots]

Then you're not being skeptical. If someone, in a controlled environment, correctly gets 100 out of 100 Zener cards right, and you're still not convinced some extrasensory power is being displayed, you need to hang up your skeptic's hat. The odds of that happening are so long, there's nothing that would ever convince you. Even if someone telepathically communicated with you, you would probably think you had a schizoid moment that exactly matched the sound of the person's voice and whatever information they claimed to be sending you. There's always a competing "normal" explanation. Hell, you could be in a mental asylum imagining all this. That would explain anything paranormal, I guess.

That's all true. In your zener cards example, the cards could be marked - 100 correct? No problem.

And yes, I admitted it's a bias. Will you admit the opposite bias is in play as well? That someone may default to a supernatural explanation when they can't readily come up with a normal one?

The really troubling bit is that a secular explanation really attempts to explain - in terms and ideas we are quite familiar with. What does a supernatural explanation do other than say, "I don't have a better idea?"

Is a supernatural explanation an explanation at all? To make it one, you'd have to then describe how the supernatural worked, and in some detail. If you managed that, wouldn't it simply become a natural explanation after all?

Why is it that no one seems to be saying the effects of what we call 'dark matter' are supernatural forces? I mean, you have all the correct conditions: no obvious answer or explanation, mysterious and unexpected observations, no possibility (or none we can identify) of cheating...

So why isn't dark matter the A-number-one example of supernatural forces?

 

[Elizabeth I]

You keep getting hung up on "single data point", as if that's relevant. It's not. But let's examine single data points.

Suppose we have a computer RNG that can spit out any number from 1 to 100 decillion (33 zeroes). Someone says, "Hey, I can predict what number is going to come up. It's going to be 5342390457645489734237453." And that's the number that comes up.

They get the million and it's instant confirmation of a paranormal experience. Even if they never predict another thing in their lives, it doesn't matter. That single data point was so improbable, that they either cheated or used some extrasensory power. And if you think they cheated, despite every control you could possibly imagine being put in place, then you would simply never be convinced of anything paranormal, because there's always a non-zero chance the person cheated, which isn't rational.

So single/multiple data points really don't matter. It's probability that matters, and highly improbable event(s) demands explanation. Sometimes chance is the preferred explanation, sometimes cheating, and sometimes you have to say, "well, the odds are so long we better come up with something to explain this...like a multiverse of nearly infinite universes".

Isn't that actually multiple data points - a series of numbers called out one at a time? I know you said it was "a" number, but it really isn't. And if it's multiple data points, doesn't that change the hypothetical?

Or I could be wrong. I'm not good at numbers or probabilities.

Another example would be a single message that SETI picks up that explains how to build a warp drive...

Or it could be somebody on earth who figured it out and chose an unnecessarily attention-getting way to announce their discovery. (I say "unnecessarily" because anybody who could demonstrate he or she could design a working warp drive would get all the attention he or she could ever want.)

 

[Fudbucker]

No, they do not get the million. They pass the preliminary test and then they need to do it again to win the million.

The test is set up that way to prevent a simple lucky one-time guess.

Ward

This is a joke, right? If someone correctly predicted a number out of 100 decillion possible numbers, you would conclude it's a fluke? That is your position, that it's a one-time lucky guess?

This is starting to get embarrassing. Nobody here can possibly believe that. Is there anyone who supports this? Is this what passes for "skepticism" around here? What on Earth did I stumble into in this subforum?

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes I do. Why? Well, do you dispute this:


The problem is that every example you quote to make your point is hypothetical, and has never happened. What does that tell you about the point you're trying to make?

If you think that examples help your case then please cite some real ones.

What, that single events have totally disconfirmed theories? How many living coelacanths do you think needed to be found before the belief "Coelacanths are extinct" was completely discomfirmed? I'll tell you how many: one was sufficient.

 

[Southwind17]

This is a joke, right? If someone correctly predicted a number out of 100 decillion possible numbers, you would conclude it's a fluke? That is your position, that it's a one-time lucky guess?

This is starting to get embarrassing. Nobody here can possibly believe that. Is there anyone who supports this? Is this what passes for "skepticism" around here? What on Earth did I stumble into in this subforum?

The obvious conclusion is that it's not a prediction at all, but a trick. We see it all of the time on magic shows, albeit in variant forms.

Would you agree?