Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

But energy is magical, isn't it? We can't really explain it, just watch it being there, being the cause of all the activity in the world. We can describe and predict how it behaves, when it interacts with natural laws (which we also can describe only, but not really explain either), but what it IS we don't really know. And energy is infinite, unlimited, from an absolute perspective. Science may not be able to prove that, but it can be proven logically, from what we know.

So I don't really see why the presence of energy in one context (e.g. the Steorn device) would be more improbably than in another (the one we already know and "can explain"). In the end they're both equally magical and unexplainable, in that the presence of energy itself is unexplainable in whatever context.

Good point, again, universe is a paradox that we cant get our heads around, we either get energy and mass from nothing, or we always have energy and mass. Something for nothing/eternity are indeed very 'magical' processes that are 'irrational' and unexplainable in our current understanding scientifically.

Academic scientific institutions request us to allow them this one 'miracle' so they can explain everything else. Yet if we consider that our meta environment, universe, is itself irrational and unexplainable, we must consider that the irrational and unexplainable is a statistically repeating phenomenon, both universally and subjectivly.

Even Richard Dawkins suggests 'Our universe may just be too queer to understand."

or who was it that said "Reality is not stranger than you suppose, it is stranger than you can suppose!"

'Unknown' effects our behavior, we are uncomfortable with unknown, and we are quick to fill in the gaps with either gods or gasses, guesses or gaffes to avoid the simplicity and universality of it's truth value. "Unknown" is what the political social mind seeks to avoid when seeking or maintaining status.


BF

 

[jimbob]

Oh give me a break, please, you have been too fooled by Randi. Scientists can distinguish scientific BS just fine.

I don not instantly see how every magic trick is performed, so I know I am not competant at spotting every trick.

I know many scientists who would be easily fooled. Fewer engineers, maybe...

and to think that someone who was smart enough to pull of a hoax would give the device to 12 scientists and engineers and assume that NO one would find the hidden wire and battery, I mean, c'mon dude!



Steorn has stated over and over that they are not seeking nor asking for money until all 12 scientists confirm their device.

It depends who they choose.

It looks like a scam, it violates billions of observations. There was a previous device with similar claims a couple of years earlier.

Guess whether I think it is a scam?

 

[WWHP]

I don not instantly see how every magic trick is performed, so I know I am not competant at spotting every trick.

cops see buglars everywhere. Focus your mind on a quarter, and you will start finding quarters everywhere. Spend your time fooling people with illusions and tricks, and you start finding tricks everywhere. I don't see how magicians could be trusted anymore than scientists to find ANOMALIES.

It looks like a scam, it violates billions of observations. There was a previous device with similar claims a couple of years earlier.

Steorn is unique, they have financed a large publicity campaign to state thier claim, and have said over and over they will not seek or accept money until their device is proven to be over unity by science.

If Steorn can fool 12 scientists and engineers that it works, and fool themselves that it works, then please feel free to fool all of us, because if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck.


It either works, or it doesnt work. It seems like a no brainer if your a scientist or an engineer. If it works, then our laws of the universe need to be corrected. Science should be rushing to disprove or prove Steorn's claim.

Guess whether I think it is a scam?

could have fooled me;-)

 

[Z]

we dont know that, it's mystery. [snip]Each point of view is going to have a unique relationship/experience with that piece of 'shared' information (objective reality, 1), and that is the 2 value in relationship to the 1, just like in ordering and counting numbers.

As I said - OS012 is entirely dependent upon the subjective point of view, and you've just confirmed that here. Thank you.

Objectively, there are no unknowns, no mystery. Every statement is either a true statement or a false statement (or, of course, a misstatement, which you seem to thrive upon). A shared subjective point of view is NOT an objective point of view; it may be in line with an objective point of view, but it is not an objective point of view.

Subjectively, there is only one known truth, one known false, and an infinite number of mysteries.

That's all there is to it.

OS012 is an absolutely subjective system of classifying experiences, not truth values.

 

[Z]

13 things that do not make 'sense'. Mysteries that science cannot fully account for.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

hey zaay, look at the top of the list. it's the placebo effect.

Until we have a comprehensive and scientific understanding of ourselves and the universe, we will find anomalies.

Anomalies are objective unknowns.

BF

Look further down. Homeopathy results! Cold fusion!

Yeah... real critical stuff. Sorry, Rome, but whoever wrote this bit of trash doesn't have a clue.

These aren't anomalies, Rome. These aren't 'objective unknowns'. Try again.

 

[Z]

On Steorn: Hasn't it also been established that the jury are not ALL scientists, but include members of their forum as well?

And you'd be amazed what a person will say after a year of wining and dining. It's an investment for Steorn: put forth a small amount in the form of advertising and buying off a few less-than-scrupulous scientists, and in return, rake in billions from national governments and wealthy investors once you've established your 'honest and true' reputation.

Scam.

 

[immaterial]

All energy that has ever existed in this universe comes from outside of it. The physical universe consists of matter and forces, and neither matter or forces produce energy (otherwise any atom or magnetic field would be a potential source of infinite energy). Matter can store energy, or be converted to energy, but it cannot produce energy. So obviously the source of all energy must be non-physical.

Therefore no problems with adding energy to the universe - it happens all the time. It will always be perfectly equally balanced regarding positive and negative charge, which is what keeps the balance at zero at any time.

My guess is that the Steorn device simple is able to tap directly into this external source, instead of tapping previously infused energy stored in physical sources inside the universe (oil, nucelar power, the sun, etc.), as usually is the case when you extract energy.

Thank you for that summation, immaterial. How did you come to that conclusion? Is that standard scientific assesment, or is that philosophy mixed with some science?

BF

Like Einstein said: "It is the theory that decides what can be observed."

I'm drawing the logical conclusion from what can be observed, when you do not look at things through the limiting pespective of established theories...


--
im

 

[immaterial]

It looks like a scam, it violates billions of observations.

It has also been observed billions of times that metal falls to the ground if you throw it up in the air. But then someone got the idea to give the metal a certain form. And now we have pieces of metal, some weighing hundreds of tons, floating high up in the air everywhere (they're called airplanes).

 

[WWHP]

As I said - OS012 is entirely dependent upon the subjective point of view, and you've just confirmed that here. Thank you.

sorry, zaay, you're not following. OS 012 is dependent upon a POINT OF VIEW, and then deconstructing a point of view into 0, 1, and 2.

Objectively, there are no unknowns, no mystery.

anomalies are objective unknowns.

Every statement is either a true statement or a false statement (or, of course, a misstatement, which you seem to thrive upon).

oh brother......you are still back there again?

She may come, she may not come.

A shared subjective point of view is NOT an objective point of view; it may be in line with an objective point of view, but it is not an objective point of view.

a point of view has something to 'view'. Inside of the view, there will be u nique information, shared information, and unknown information, all the time, in all environments, with all peoples.

Subjectively, there is only one known truth, one known false, and an infinite number of mysteries.

well that's fine for your subjective system, but objectivly, there is one truth, an infinite number of points of view that contain that truth, and one unknown.

OS012 is an absolutely subjective system of classifying experiences, not truth values.

You need to go back to OS 012 101.

 

[WWHP]

Look further down. Homeopathy results! Cold fusion!

Yeah... real critical stuff. Sorry, Rome, but whoever wrote this bit of trash doesn't have a clue.

These aren't anomalies, Rome. These aren't 'objective unknowns'. Try again.

the writer cited verified scientific experiments in all 13 categories that are producing anomalies. He/she is a science writer for NewScientist. I think I trust their objectivity a bit more than a wiccan priest trying to resolve his own inner contradictions on a skeptics forum.

Mystery, zaay, learn to love it. Io Pan!

BF

 

[WWHP]

For Zaay,

I just found some interesting quotes about Godel that I believe address your true/false logical knowledge universe and steorn

Godel's Theorem does provide that any axiomatic system rich enough to contain arithmetic must be either incomplete or inconsistent. To play a little more loosely with the description for those not familiar with it, roughly that means that either math is logically inconsistent (which would be indescribably awful) or that there must be mathematical truths that we can never know if they are true or not (very awful, but not as awful as inconsitency.)

Since we sure don't want to think that math is inconsistent (and have no reason for thinking that it is), we are stuck with the acceptance that there must be undecidable propositions in math. AS I understand the history of it all, the mathematical community first dealt with this by assuming Godel was wrong. Once they realized he wasn't, most folks dealt with this by accepting that there might be undecidable propositions, but assuming that none of them were propositions anyone would be very interested in deciding anyway. However, we now know that there are at least some interesting undecidables, such as the Continuum Hypothesis.

I think it is, though, an open question as to whether any undecidable mathematical propositions are important to any current or future scientific theory. Godel does, however, leave open the possibility at least of physical phenomena which are not describable with any math-based theory.

If we regard a scientific theory itself as a formal system of axioms and results logically deduced from those axioms, then in all likelihood that system would face the same inconsistent/incomplete issue. But no one seriously believes that a theory of everything would be able to contain every true proposition in the physical world; that I had eggs for breakfast this morning is a true statement about the universe, but not one likely to be derived from any Theory of Everything. So incompleteness is only a problem if your scientific theory is unable to support the derivation of less trivial facts.

If the "steorn effect" is real (still a very big if in my opinion) I think it is probably more likely that explaining it would require expansion or modification of current theories than that it would be completely mathematically unexplainable. But you never know.

Relatedly you might want to check out Eugene Wigner's writing on the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics. While we are thinking bizarre thoughts, it's worth wondering why math works so darn well at describing the world at all! I don't think anyone has ever really given a satisfactory answer to that question. (I'm working on it ... don't rush me!)

 

[RayG]

And now we have pieces of metal, some weighing hundreds of tons, floating high up in the air everywhere (they're called airplanes).

Didn't take physics in high school huh?

RayG

 

[WWHP]

On Steorn: Hasn't it also been established that the jury are not ALL scientists, but include members of their forum as well?

hardly. nice mysticism though. It must be those full moon rituals;-)

And you'd be amazed what a person will say after a year of wining and dining. It's an investment for Steorn: put forth a small amount in the form of advertising and buying off a few less-than-scrupulous scientists, and in return, rake in billions from national governments and wealthy investors once you've established your 'honest and true' reputation.

Scam.

another fine example of unknown=false bivalent mysticism, stuck in the illusion of duality. For zaay to be right, all the scientists must be crooked. Yes, that must be what it is then. If you say it 25 times before during the waning of the moon, then for certain, it shall be true.

Io Pan!

BF

 

[WWHP]

And now we have pieces of metal, some weighing hundreds of tons, floating high up in the air everywhere (they're called airplanes).

And also space shuttles and sattelites, indeed, floating metal, who woulda thunk?

Also Virgin Galatic is launching I believe this year. 20 years ago, if you mentioned 'space tourism', you were considered a quack or a nut too.

I remember reading a story about the first few computers that were scaled down to size, I think in the 60's. No one at the time could see the significance commercially to a home computer, and one computer scientist said the only need he could see was something novel for housewives to store recipes on!

In the 1860's, the head of the patent office suggested that we close down the office, as 'everything that could ever be invented has already been'

unknown=false logic, the preferred logic of the false skeptic. call them what you will, good intentioned people out to harm no one, but visionaries, they aint!

BF

 

[Mojo]

hardly. nice mysticism though. It must be those full moon rituals;-)

What's that got to do with mysticism?

Oh, I get it: You can't be bothered to respond to the point, so you're resorting to ad homs.

 

[sinnikal]

What's that got to do with mysticism?

Oh, I get it: You can't be bothered to respond to the point, so you're resorting to ad homs.

I dunno Mojo, the ad homs made a refreshing change from the ad verecundiams

 

[Z]

sorry, zaay, you're not following. OS 012 is dependent upon a POINT OF VIEW,

and is therefore subjective.

anomalies are objective unknowns.

Wrong. Anomalies are the result of not knowing the truth value of the phenomena in question. Consider: every time an anomaly is discovered in science, the prevalent theory to which the event is considered an anomaly is adjusted to include the anomaly, rendering it non-anomalous. Anomalies are, therefore, an objective truth that proves the subjective truth that scientists thought most likely, was actually objectively false.

But, hey, say it twenty times on Hollywood Boulevard, and then it MUST be true! Right?

oh brother......you are still back there again?

That's what happens when you fail to rebut a basic flaw of your system. You think you've moved on, but in fact, you've ignored a simple fact.

She may come, she may not come.

As I said, you do like those misstatements, don't you?

Besides, I already explained why that one doesn't work. Is it that you have difficulty reading, or is it a lack of memory?

a point of view has something to 'view'. Inside of the view, there will be u nique information, shared information, and unknown information, all the time, in all environments, with all peoples.

Subjective.

well that's fine for your subjective system, but objectivly, there is one truth, an infinite number of points of view that contain that truth, and one unknown.

Mystic gibberish. Objectively, there are only truths, if you really want to get technical about it.

You need to go back to OS 012 101.

Considering it's likely never to appear in any classroom - aside, perhaps, from some of those strange universities that teach you how to open your chakras and expound upon the virtues of inner light - I guess that's out of the question.

 

[Z]

the writer cited verified scientific experiments in all 13 categories that are producing anomalies.

No, the writer didn't. These experiments are by no means verified. In fact, IIRC, the cold fusion ones were completely debunked, and the homeopathic ones have only ever been accepted within the homeopathic community, as their procedures were shoddy and their results suspect.

He/she is a science writer for NewScientist.

And that means what?

I think I trust their objectivity a bit more than a wiccan priest trying to resolve his own inner contradictions on a skeptics forum.

There you go with the ad homs again. What is it with you, Rome? Why can't you just discuss the topic without bringing up utter irrelevancies and outright lies? Heck, for all you know of the writer, he/she could be a Wiccan priest, a Satanist, an avowed atheist, or whatever. He/she could be riddled with inner contradictions. It's pretty clear that he/she is willing and eager to embrace every 'edgy' scientific and pseudo-scientific subject out there.

Heck, for all we know, YOU could be the writer.

As for me, my membership as clergy with the Correllian Nativist Tradition has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, nor does your own incorrect belief that I suffer from 'inner contradictions'. Stick to the topic, and try using the ol' grey matter for something besides absorbing THC.

 

[Z]

hardly. nice mysticism though. It must be those full moon rituals;-)

More empty comments.

I believe it was you yourself who pointed out that members of their forum were selected as part of the twelve.

Anyway, does anyone have a list of who's been invited? It would definitely be enlightening...

another fine example of unknown=false bivalent mysticism, stuck in the illusion of duality. For zaay to be right, all the scientists must be crooked. Yes, that must be what it is then. If you say it 25 times before during the waning of the moon, then for certain, it shall be true.

No, all the members of their jury simply have to be a) gullible; b) crooked; c) desperate for recognition; or d) incompetent. The simple fact that Steorn themselves selected their number is indicative of scam-like behavior. Why not an open invitation to the first dozen scientists in such-and-such fields of study? Why not invite Hawking, for example, aside from the fact he's training for a space mission? Who among the dozen are prominent, well-known and respected physicists?

It's fishy.

On the other hand, if someone has a list of those names, we can quickly make some determination as to Steorn's intent...

 

[jimbob]

That's what happens when you fail to rebut a basic flaw of your system. You think you've moved on, but in fact, you've ignored a simple fact.

To be fair, there are other statements i.e. aesthetic/moral judgements, that are also poorly covered by BS012. Especially when lumped with all other ideas too.

e.g.
Hemmingway's "For Whom The Bell Tolls" is the funniest novel in the English Language.

It is more carp than you are claiming "Z"