How to prove spiritual orbs in photos?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by wegs, Jul 23, 2013.

  1. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I don't pretend to be a physicist, but Victor Stenger explains that the laws of physics can be derived mathematically from the simple assumption of point-of-view invariance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    I'm skeptical of misty pics in cold air. Could easily be the photographer's smokey breath.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
  8. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,016
    "They [laws] are human inventions" though "must agree with observations". That would seem to sit well with instrumentalists and pragmatists, but probably not with scientific realists as a whole [or any "boot thumping" kind of SR which implies metaphysics / ontological convictions or reification of useful, abstract constructs].

    <Stenger> . . . I should teach the world that the laws of physics were not handed down from above, nor are they somehow built into the logical structure of the universe - they are human inventions, although not arbitrary ones, because they must agree with observations. The laws of physics are not restrictions upon the behaviour of matter, but restrictions upon the way physicists may describe that behaviour. In order to describe an objective reality, these descriptions cannot depend upon the point of view of observers -- they must be point-of-view invariant. When point-of-view invariance is implemented, the universal laws of physics follow, with few additional assumptions.

    All of classical mechanics, and special and general relativity, come from applying point-of-view invariance to the space-time coordinate system that we use to describe particle motion. Quantum mechanics, and the standard model of particles and fields, come from applying point-of-view invariance to the more abstract coordinate systems that we use to represent physical states. This is called gauge symmetry. The complex structure of matter arises from the breaking of these intrinsic symmetries, which may be spontaneous (accidental). [...] It is important for people to be able to distinguish physics from metaphysics. One place to start is to realise that the laws of physics are not metaphysics.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAAAA.htm

    . . . We now have a deep and revolutionary understanding of the true nature of the mathematical quantities and theories of physics. We have realized that they are basically human inventions, including the notions of time and space. The quantities of physics are defined by how we measure them. The laws of physics are not, as usually assumed, restrictions on the behavior of matter -- handed down from above or somehow built into the logical structure of the Universe. Rather, they are restrictions on the way that physicists may formulate their theories. Of course, the theories of physics must agree with observations. But, beyond that, they are formulated in such a way as to assure that they do not depend on any particular point of view. Otherwise they cannot be expected to faithfully describe an objective reality. Stenger calls this principle point-of-view invariance, although it is known technically as gauge invariance. When this requirement is met, the most basic principles of physics, as we know them, appear naturally.

    http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Victor-Stenger/101

    <Stenger> . . . While the standard model is a long way from Noether's original work, it confirms the general idea that what we call the laws of physics are simply logical requirements placed on our theories if we want them to be objective, that is, independent of the point of view of any particular observer. In my 2007 book The Comprehensible Cosmos. I called this principle point-of-view invariance and showed that virtually all of classical and quantum mechanics can be derived from it. The book subtitle is: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? The answer: They didn't come from anything. They are either the necessary requirement of symmetries that preserve point-of-view invariance or accidents that happen when these symmetries are broken.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/happy-birthday-emmy-noeth_b_2924889.html
     
  9. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,295
    Hahaha! You sir, are predictable.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Best. Post. Of. The. Day.
    You rock, magical.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thank you for posting all this; this has been a really fruitful discussion, everyone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,016
    Ah, it becoming ideologically incorrect to offend "para-normans" perhaps lurking just around the next "respect via litigation" corner.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,295
    Lol CC @ "para-Normans"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Sarkus, I'd really rather we get back to the topic at hand--that of what counts as evidence for the paranormal-- and relieve each other of the chore of pedantically straining over tangential issues of whose being lazy or mistaken or disingenious or evasive.

    Since that is the jist of what you are requiring from me, all I can provide is more anecdotal (what I call "eyewitness") accounts and video/audio from reputable sources. You said you would accept a controlled investigation by me that is repeatable and is peer-supported by real scientists. That's not goin to happen for two reasons. One, you're not dealing with an inanimate process that can be perfectly controlled or replicated. Since the beings involved are conscious and intelligent and subject to appear only under certain unknown conditions, you won't get that sort certainty here. Two, no scientists are goin to devote studies to a field which in and of itself would call into question some of the fundamental assumptions of science. Cuz if there IS such a thing as paranormal phenomena and causes, then science is obviously missing one very huge piece of the puzzle in understanding the reality.

    Maybe this means it's not any of science's business to explore this. Afterall science is all about reducing phenomena down to basic laws and nominalisms that apply to nature in general. With A-nomolous phenomena an entirely different approach may be required. A sort of provisional suspension of disbelief at least until enough evidence is gathered. A knack for intuitively seeing patterns in the phenomenon that leads to obtaining better results. Maybe ghost hunting is in this sense more akin to hunting or fishing or catching criminals, utilizing techniques that don't necessarily fit the quantitative reductionism of scientific study. Could a scientist really be better at crime solving than an experienced detective. Can we really catch fish or hunt deer better by strictly adhering to the scientific method? I doubt it. As with any field of investigation, heuristic rules of thumb, on-the-fly experimentation, and a pragmatic sensitivity to whatever works come into play that may not be found in science's own official playbook. The field evolves it's own epistemic methodology that may not BE rigorously scientific. But that doesn't invalidate it either.

    So who DO we turn to for paranormal evidence? The actual people doin the work. The experienced eyewitnesses who know for sure the paranormal exists because they've seen it themselves. But you won't accept this. So the discourse here is effectively ended since no evidence I can give will ever possibly satisfy you. Agreed?
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,685

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I think you know it's not.
    The case revolves around the issue that the seller had to at least inform the potential buyer of the reputation, since it had been in the press. The reputation of the stories, true or otherwise, influence the value of the property, and the omission of that detail, and the fact that it would not have been apparent during any inspection either way (i.e. whether really haunted or not), means that the seller is likely to be legally at fault (or so I understand the case).
     
  14. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,295
    This is such an insightful post.
    I think the main problem is in terms of "time."
    Time is a human principle and it doesn't exist in the "after life."
    Regardless if you are a theist or atheist...however you regard the term, "after life."
    If the paranormal is to be proven, we have to pave the way for innovative theories that don't use time and the laws of physics as their baseline.

    Maybe some day. I will bend and agree with those who are skeptical in that it would be "nice" to have something other than our eyes and ears as the only means of proving the paranormal.

    Cool stuff ladies & gents!

    PS: I don't know if ghosts are conscious, magical? What is being used to define that, do u know?
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    A little OT side note here. This morning my Verizon 4G LTE blacked out. Couldn't get it to work AT all. So I took it to Best Buy Geek Squad and they reset the battery and voila! it works now. So if you ever get this problem on your own hotspot/driver/modem try that. I'm just glad it wasn't fried. Damn things cost 300 bucks!
     
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Did you get ectoplasm on it? That'll do it every time.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That makes sense.
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,685
    Who's straining?
    I thought I've been quite clear and on topic: what you constitute as evidence I find woefully unconvincing, and your latest revelation regarding your willingness to take "Ghost Adventures" at face value just turns this whole debate into a farce.

    Not necessarily from you. I'd actually be impressed if you went out and did it yourself. No, you just need to provide evidence that satisfies those criteria.
    I.e. it is unfalsifiable. It is unscientific. It is Russell's teapot in phantasmagorical form.
    You misunderstand what a "scientist" is. One does not need to be limited to the main scientific branches, or even the more off-centre ones. One merely needs to follow the scientific method. Paranormal investigators themselves can be scientists - if they apply the necessary rigour to their experiments.
    It speaks volumes of them that they do not.
    It can be, if merely to debunk claims of others.
    You mean you don't follow CSI?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Scientists ARE detectives. They solve puzzles of what causes an observation. And they test falsifiable theories to get there.
    And why suspend disbelief, even on a provisional basis? For what need is there? The observations are still the same, only the interpretation is different.
    I will... if they adequately control their experiments, and are able to demonstrate their findings, and show how they have ruled out every other possibility such that they need to invoke the extraordinary claim of paranormal. To do so without extraordinary evidence (read "strong") I consider to be irrational.
    If you feel your evidence is unable to meet the necessary strength, then ask yourself why you are so willing to find such weak evidence convincing?
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Some ghosts probably are conscious based on soliciting from them intelligent responses. Like when asking who you are and getting a name back on the EVP recording. Other phenomena such as scratches and pushings suggest conscious malicious targeting of investigators. Other ghosts are what you call "residuals"--nonconscious images from the past that just replay certain actions with no cognizance of the investigators. So even in this field we are getting subtle distinctions here that come from the knowledge pool created by hundreds of successful investigations.

    RE: time. I'm certainly open to the realm of "beyond spacetime". I think it has an existence and may even impinge on reality given certain ideal conditions. Quantum entanglement would be one of these impingings from beyond spacetime. Consciousness may be another. Synchronicity too. So much to learn from a cosmos exploding with more and more information eh?
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    No it's not that since I myself find the evidence overwhelmingly convincing. It's just that as with all skeptics you continually raise the bar on what counts as evidence each time it is presented, effectively making it impossible to prove anything.

    Example? Earlier in this thread you were objectively studying the orb videos along with everybody else. Then at some point later you suddenly decided YouTube videos are no longer valid evidence. Why were you accepting them earlier then as real?

    So no, I'm not goin to play the game of having evidence continuously redefined so as to exclude all possibility of evidence whatsoever.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Nice spin there. Now spin this statement from the verdict:

    "Whether the source of the spectral apparitions seen by Ackley are parapsychic or psychogenic, having reported their presence in both a national publication (Reader's Digest) and the local press (in 1977 and 1982, respectively), Ackley is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted."

    You DO know what "haunted" means don't you?
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,685
    You are being untruthful: at no point have I ever said that the evidence is no longer valid.
    Evidence is evidence - it can be nothing else.
    Do I deny the existence of the videos? No.
    Do I deny that the videos show pictures? No.
    Do I deny that the investigators may have heard something? No.

    It is the interpretation of that evidence that we are discussing. Not the existence of that evidence. I.e. what is the evidence showing us / telling us? What can it rationally be used to support?

    You claim that it is of the paranormal, and for such a claim the youtube videos are weak evidence at best.

    So you need to understand that the evidence is not continuously being redefined, but that its strength or weakness depends on what one wishes to use it in support of.
    For example, against the claim that a video was made... it is rather strong evidence, it being the video that was made.


    And your first sentence again shows that you don't always understand what people say/write: I suggested you ask yourself why you find the evidence convincing, and you reply that it's not that since you find the evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
    I know you do... my suggestion was to ask yourself why.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    You need to stop with the ad homs about how I am if you wanna continue this conversation. Putting posters down, mocking their attempts to present evidence, and insinuating they're lying or reading comprehension-impaired isn't really constructive towards understanding this issue AT ALL. Just answer the question: do you accept YouTube videos as evidence or not?

    You said I feel the evidence doesn't meet the necessary standards for evidence. I don't. I feel the evidence totally convincing, thus MEETING the necessary standards for evidence. There's thus no contradiction here and nothing to explain since I never felt the evidence DIDN'T meet the necessary standard for evidence. Maybe not meeting your own concocted standards. But certainly meeting the standards I judge evidence by.
     

Share This Page