Magical Realist:
Really? So fields aren't made of energy? What homeskool science course told you that?
Fields aren't made of energy. They do carry energy. But like I said, energy isn't a substance. It's more like an accounting method. In fact, in some ways fields are abstractions, too. They are basically a shorthand way of saying something like "if I put a charged particle
here then it will experience such-and-such a force in this particular direction".
No everything is not at that quantum level. The rules that apply at the quantum level do not apply at the macro level.
Yes they do. Big things are made of little things, so they
must.
There's a little thing called decoherence that interferes with quantum phenomena for anything much larger than an atom.
Explain to me how this "decoherence" changes the rules all of a sudden.
Wow..so quantum entanglement and Bell's incompleteness theorem propose nothing "magical"? You could've fooled me AND Einstein. He called it "spooky action at a distance".
Science and magic are two quite different things. You seem confused about the difference, which is probably one reason you're so credulous about ghosts.
Quantum entanglement is not magic. It is well-understood science. And Bell's incompleteness theorems are mathematical, physical propositions. In other words, once again, science, not magic. As for Einstein, he was raising the issue of the apparent non-locality of quantum entanglement. Einstein, you must remember, remained skeptical about quantum physics to the end of his life - quite the opposite of an attitude that would help your argument about quantum physics supporting ghosts.
No dimensions beyond the usual four we are familiar with (3 space and 1 time) have ever been detected anywhere. So ignore new-age gurus who tell you there are extra dimensions.
You need to update yourself on string theory and Everett's many-worlds hypothesis, both of which are gaining wider acceptance these days. As far as new age gurus go, I don't read them. But I DO recognize that reality is not defined by science but by philosophy, particularly via various metaphysical schools such as physicalism, absolute idealism, dualism, panexperientialism, and panpsychism. These were around before your new guru demons ever deigned to materialize in our modern world. So don't be so paranoid ok?
How is any of this relevant to the statement of mine you quoted? Answer: it isn't. I was correct. No dimensions beyond the usual four we are familiar with have ever been detected anywhere.
You can bluff and bluster about how reality isn't defined by science all you like, but when you use a scientific concept such as "extra dimensions" to justify a fringe belief such as ghosts, then get the science wrong, you really end up looking quite silly.
No..you are directly contradicting what I said. I said SOME are probably hoaxes and camera glitches, but that others look authentic. Is is YOU who summarily dismisses all photographic evidence before even examining it. And all because you just know, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that the phenomenon isn't real. You are thus trapped in a vicious circle: denying the evidence as inauthentic because you believe there is no authentic evidence. How CONVEEENIENT!
Oh no! You have me quite wrong. I haven't dismissed all evidence without examining it, and would never do so.
I'll tell you what. How about you post the most convincing 3 photos (or even just the most convincing one, for a start) of ghosts that you know of. Link me to all the relevant information on those photos that you have, since obviously a bare photograph by itself is going to be of little use to me, so give me all the information you have on the specific cases. I will take a look at your evidence and get back to you with thoughts and comments. We can examine the evidence as a team. Ok?
I believe the people who are eyewitnesses of the phenomena and who are actually out in the field doing the research.
Then you're too credulous. Eyewitness testimony is very very often unreliable. Some of it is outright lies. To simply believe somebody when they tell you "I saw a ghost" is naive in the extreme.
But again, let me not rush to dismiss good evidence without fair examination. Why don't you post the best investigative evidence you have that shows the presence of a ghost? (with links or whatever). I will take a look and together we can work through how strong the evidence is. Ok?
That's why I usually believe scientists too, except when they refuse to do research and instead pontificate on what can and can't be real. Less still do I believe devoted adherents of scientism who on purely dogmatic grounds deny the existence of documented and recorded phenomenon.
Good for you! Now you're getting the idea! You only need to apply the same thinking to your favorite psychic "researchers" now, and you'll be on track.
Thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses of paranormal phenomena down thru the centuries in every culture on earth and suddenly I'm supposed to believe YOU instead because...uh...because...now what was that reason again?
I'm not asking you to accept anything I have to say on authority. I'm asking you to start thinking a little.
Do you believe in witches? Thousands of people were burnt in the past for being witches. There must have been something to that, right? Why aren't there so many witches today, do you think? Or are there as many as ever, but they are just better at hiding? What do you think?
What about leprecauns and other fairies? Do you believe in those? Thousands of people claim to have seen the "little people". There are even photographs of them. If you don't believe in fairies, why don't you believe in them?
Tell ya what. While you're out there frantically googling for experiments of cloud-generated lightning performed in lab settings I'll be over here trying to discuss the thread topic at hand so I don't get my ass infracted again by some socially-challenged hypermoderating OCD case. ok?
Never mind. Given that you apparently now accept that there are facilities that can do lightning tests, there's no need for me to provide you with links. Let us move on.
I have watched these programs for years and they consistently make it a point to debunk the reports with possible natural explanations ALL the time.
How many of the programmes conclude a ghost investigation with the investigators saying "Well, that turned out to be a complete hoax" or "We have deteremined that the cameras weren't working correctly in this case" or "We have uncovered no evidence at all of a ghost in this house. It is possible that the family reporting these incidents were all under a kind of mass delusion, as the psychiatrist we interviewed earlier convincingly argued."?
I'm betting that there are a lot of inconclusive endings like "We can't explain the temperature drop we recorded in the bedroom. Our camera crew definitely felt scared and heard noises during the night. We got a fuzzy object on this freeze frame here. We can't say for sure that there was a ghost, but the evidence certainly points that way! Coming up next week...."
Many investigations in fact come away with nothing paranormal at all and show the client that their reports were likely due to outside street noises, emf in the bldg wiring, air currents from a/c units, and old pipes in the basement. Do you even watch these shows? Give'em a try. You might find them more credible than you have already concluded them to be.
Yeah, I've watched fair few. When I was a teenager, I was quite credulous, like you. Then I learned something about the scientific method and I learned a bit about scepticism and how to examine claims properly.
I see..So the ones that are TOO clear can't be ghosts because they're obviously hoaxed and the ones that aren't clear enough can't be ghosts because well afterall who ever heard of a hazy unclear ghost eh? You can't even look at these pics objectively and without preconceptions. That doesn't sound very scientific too me.
Show me your three best, with the surrounding stories/evidence and I promise to look. I'll give you my thoughts. I can't promise no preconceptions, but I can promise you a truthful analysis.
Yeah that sneaky old niece of mine-- part of the vast world conspiracy to create fake ghost photos while taking pictures of her family in her own living room. Guess she hired the guy to stand there just so she could fool me. You must live in a VERY supicious world. I feel sorry for you..I really do.
Sorry that I tend to be suspicious of third-hand stories. "My sister's former room-mate took this photo, and it shows a strange man!" Wow. On that basis, I'm supposed to believe in ghosts? Did you know that my second-cousin has built a perpetual motion machine? He has it in his bedroom. I even have photos of it, so that proves it's real.
Wow..ghost believers are such deceptive and lazy people aren't they?
Generally the hoaxers are not believers, though I guess it is possible that some are.
Who said anything about lazy?
Funny then that even according to paranormal investigators 80% of the cases aren't real paranormal cases.
So all they need is to go the extra 20% and they'll be living in the real world.
SNIP inane and overelaborated tiger tale.
Didn't you understand the point?
Because of the nature of the phenomena! They're ghosts in dark rooms man! Ofcourse they look hazy and indistinct.
Why don't ghost hunters turn on the lights when they do their investigations? Why do ghosts only appear in the dark?
Right..So there's no free thought or decided intent or self-derived willpower going on behind your typed words at this moment. It's all the result of a ham sandwich you had for lunch yesterday. Geez that must've been one helluva of a sandwich!
There's certainly thought, intent and willpower. Whether any of those are "free" or not depends on what you mean by "free". Free of what? Free from what? The energy to type this post certainly comes from the food I've eaten recently. Where else could it come from? Try it yourself - don't eat for a while. You'll find you quickly become tired. After a while, you'll become seriously ill. Continue and you're sure to die. Your food sustains you. There really is no question about that, despite what guru "breatharians" might tell you. Are you a breatharian?
A mind exists in a physical object called a brain. No brain, no mind.
If it exists INSIDE it then it can't exactly be the same as it now can it? Is the water in a glass the same as the glass?
A better analogy is that of a computer program inside a silicon chip. The program is not the same as the chip, but if you take the chip away the program won't run on the computer. See?
Scientists do not study transphysical entities for the simple reason that there's no reliable evidence that such entities exist.
Keep repeating that to yourself enough and you might actually start to believe it!
I already believe it. I'm hoping
you might start to believe it, silly!
I'll wait for your one (or three) best ghost cases. Let's go through them together. It'll be fun. And hopefully enlightening. Who knows? One of us may even change his mind.
Or are you going to find an excuse to chicken out of this challenge?
