Parapsychology is incompatible with physics

Oh I understand your point and where you are coming from. I also understand that until you have experienced it yourself, we are talking from totally different planets.

Unfortunately most persons who do experience collective interconnectedness immediately become paranoid about "broadcasting their thoughts" to the world and end up very sick indeed. So maybe it is best that you haven't had the rude awakening that some have had?
=====
Like the fly landing on my shoulder in the earlier example, psi is not an experiment. It is a life, a consciousness, an awareness and an experience.

The "fact" that the fly landed on my shoulder at 10:31 am (as per example) is not in any way diminished by it's inability to conform to experimental requirements. So too, can the same be said for genuine psychic or paranormal experience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am only suggesting that the mechanism that underpins Q. entanglement is the same mechanism that underpins collective interconnectedness.
Mind reading and generally bad predictive abilities are terribly disrupted by issues of fear and fatigue. They happen sometimes but not in a way that science can measure.
Unfortunately it is also a strong target for those seeking to take advantage of others uninformed beliefs, in the form of fraud and deception, which makes the whole field of psychic pheno suffer serious credibility issues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except there is no evidence that "they happen sometimes". If science can't measure it then how can you be sure that they happen sometimes? That's more or less the definition of coincidences and probability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well... to push your point further:
A fly landing on my shoulder happens sometimes to. However it only happened once at 10.31 am.
How does that relate to the scientific method?
Probability is and was 100%

 

I have shown this music video a few times when getting into these discussion that offers a graphic dramatization of psychic connectivity.

hey and it happens quite often... but is it open to the scientific method? Nope!

 

Also if a proper study of "flocking birds" was carried out using the same rigorous methods as quantum entanglement required I think you will find that the interconnectedness of birds flocking is just as credible. (in flight and not just on take-off)

Except that the birds choose when to synchronize and when not to...

Same thing occurs if you study a high quality dance couple under a scientific microscope you will find that the couples synchronize via entanglement which allows them to move as one.
eg. Torvill and Dean Winter Olympic gold medal 1984.

In fact good dance is impossible with out it...IMO

If you have ever danced with a good dancer you would know what I mean... (no rehearsal etc)

 

What is an "event of awareness"? For that matter, what is "awareness"? In my opinion, the 'Copenhagen interpretation's' idea that 'observation' is what 'collapses the wave-function' isn't about minds and consciousness, it's about physical interactions of microscopic quantum events with macroscopic experimental apparatus that produce the physicists' laboratory data. I don't buy the 'quantum idealist' insistence that "minds" are somehow necessary in order for physical reality to exist.

I'm not persuaded that those results reveal anything real. But sure, if the quantum idealist interpretation is right, and if "psi" phenomena really exist, then the former might have some explanatory relevance to the latter. I'm extremely skeptical about both premises though, probably as much so as I am about the existence of God.

 

The event of awareness would be the act of observing an outcome or event. The observation collapses the wavefunction into one outcome or another. There's an example of this called the Quantum Zeno Effect. Zeno you may remember posited that because at any instant of time the arrow is not moving, it can't be moving at all. Well, similarly one can "freeze" time by increasing the frequency of checks one makes on a decaying atom. Not checking the atom results in it decaying quicker. Checking it every second on the other hand slows that decay rate down, or even permanently preventing it. It's like the old adage "a watched pot never boils", the "boiling" in this case being the decay of an atom.

http://io9.com/the-quantum-zeno-effect-actually-does-stop-the-world-977909459

“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one.” ― Erwin Schrödinger

“All matter originates and exists only by a virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of the matter.” Max Planck – the Founder of Quantum Physics.

"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this in a participatory universe.."'===John Archibald Wheeler

 

I'm sure if you thought about it hard enough, you could come up with an experiment capable of repeating the phenomena.

 

I think I already answered how the scientific method works. What is your falsifiable hypothesis? If it is "flies never land on shoulders" then all you have to show is that one landed on a shoulder. Someone else not connected with you has to be able to show the same thing.

That's how it relates to the scientific method.

 

This is silly. Torvill and Dean or anyone else that works together that closely "knows" what the other is going to do, not because of esp, but because of hours and hours of practice and being around the other person.

This demonstrates my point that people who want to find psi do so in the way that people who want to find miracles do so and not because of the facts.

By the way, the video you posted isn't available "in my country".

One could study birds and the way they fly in formation or the way they navigate. It might not be easy but the answer isn't going to be ESP.

How does one look at humans under a "scientific microscope"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Our brain does a good job of facial recognition since we are social creatures and we interact with a lot of people. It's a hard thing to do but it's not a conscious thing for most of us. Cat's don't have the same need for this and they recognize up more by smell and by the way we act.

This is why we see "faces" in everything, clouds or most anything else with a pattern. We are good at pattern recognition and therefore frequently find patterns and "faces" where done exist.

That's OK, it's better to recognize faces when you need to even if you sometimes see faces where they don't exist.

The same is true for agency (I think that would be the correct word). We hear a noise and move away from it because it could signal danger even though it's likely just the wind or some other harmless noise. It's better from a survival standpoint to be safe than sorry.

Because of this we tend to read too much into actions. Initially man read too much into the wind, crop yields, and most everything else...some god was responsible or man did something to upset a god, etc.

Now we mistake coincidence or misapply probability concepts to think either that a miracle occurred or that some extra sensory perception was involved rather than attribute it to coincidence or random chance.

The odds of winning the lottery are quite high but someone wins most every week without the need for a miracle or esp.

The overlooked part of this scenario is that (for the most part) the person who wins the lottery doesn't win it again the next week.

When you are thinking of someone that you rarely think of and the phone rings and it's that person it isn't esp.

 

hmmm... so you believe in "chance"? why? On what scientific premise is chance founded upon?
Years ago I attempted to find out if the notion of "chance" ( as distinct from Randomness ) had any scientific foundation as it appeared to be a buzz word that seemed to get thrown around casually as if it is a proven phenomena.
I failed to find any evidence for chance to be real and proven according to the scientific method.
Assuming that science is primarily founded on causality and determinism the use of the unproven phenomena "Chance" seems to me to be a sort of catch all, much the same as "the Gods" were in ancient times for anything that appears to be unpredictable. ( due to the inability to determine all influences)

To me, all events have causality therefore all events are pre-determined.
Our inability to observe and evidence that causality using the scientific method does not diminish the realty of those events and unknown causality.

This understanding ultimately led to the notion/principle that

"To deny the reality of your experience (events) is to destroy the reality of your existence"

In other words, if it happened then it happened regardless of whether we understand or misinterpret the causality of it or not.

If someone says to me that they are experiencing "a synchronistic awareness" for example, I would take it on board that the person is interpreting their experience in a way that best serves their current understanding. And note that a classic "paranormal synchronistic awareness" could be due to an extreme development of the "pattern seeing capacity" you refer to, that obliges a person to seriously consider the notion of collective interconnectedness as being real and tangible ( to them).

This was demonstrated quite well in the movie "A beautiful mind" (2001) that concerned itself with the journey of Nobel winner, John Nash and his extreme fascination with the interactions of birds and people that eventually led to his revolutionary economic theories.
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

I have also found after 25+ years of research that fear and it's extreme version paranoia seriously effects, the interpretation of what appears obviously as a sort of "Matrix of synchronized events" typically rendering the observer socially dysfunctional. (especially when considering all the other phenomena the observer is experiencing - ie. broadcasting, para normal influences, psychic manipulation and all the other psych-social phenomena that "normal people" take for granted, due to ignorance, and think none to much about.)

 

I use chance and randomness to mean the same thing so if you prefer randomness just replace chance with randomness.

When we roll a a 6 sided die we have a 1 in 6 chance of getting any one number. If you prefer to think of it as a 1 in 6 random roll that's fine as well.

No psi is involved in any event.

 

funny thing.. I observed a young lady in a psych ward I was doing advocacy work in, psychically push a ping pong ball across the ground in the outside court yard....so I wouldn't be too sure about no psi involved... [chuckle]

she even managed to get the ball to climb a single step....

 

Are you sure you were doing "advocacy" work there?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you claiming this as a skill of yours as well?

 

hee hee.. not tellin'....

 

ever heard of "quantum dice"?

 

"The psychokinesis experiments to be discussed developed out of Rhine's experiments with dice (Rhine, 1970; Rhine & Rhine, 1943). Rhine reported that some people could mentally influence the outcome of dice falls even when they had no physical contact with the dice. In this context, it does not matter whether Rhine's experiments were good or bad. What matters is that subsequent work with improved methods and new ideas has confirmed the existence of PK. A great surprise of the early work was that PK affected only rolling dice, but could not be measured as a force acting on a stationary die on a sensitive scale. PK seemed to act only where chance processes were involved. This suggested that PK could not be considered as a force, comparable to electric or magnetic forces..."====http://deanradin.com/evidence/Schmidt1987.pdf

 

I do see how your chose your user name

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!