Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by just me, Dec 20, 2019.
how does retro causation work and does it even exist to do so?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
analogous narrative causality
events of pre determined causality occur by subconscious design
mostly a subconscious language of narrative cause and effect
subjects assume pre defined actions that have consequential effects.
these consequential effects occur to render a pre defined cause which is manifested in the later time frame and attached to a previous action
upon which subjects had assumed a narrative sub frame to causality
i have observed this on occasion
psychology defines this as behavior sets
behavior sets interacting consciously with subconscious cause & effect principals of ethics
separating this from quantum theory is a primary concern to define the stark difference between the 2 different type of things
No, it does not exist.
How do you imagine it working?
What sort of event or action in the present would affect what sort of event in the past?
How would you go about finding out whether some act or event in the future were causing the event that that's going on around you right now?
Is time folded in on itself in such a way that events, acts and situations connect from one time frame to another, interfacing and interacting? If so, does any particular moment interact with only one other, or do the points of contact penetrate several/all time frames, so that a given moment influences and is influenced by more than one other moment, both before and after it happens?
If any of those scenarios are possible, how can we be able to experience events as if they happened in an intelligible succession, in linear time? Why, for instance, do I still have the watch I bought two years ago, even though I have several times since then wished that I had bought a different one?
well I don't know, I'm just a dumb 16 year old, that is why I am asking others.
but if you look up some of deen radins experiments backwards in time effects do seem to occur.
perhaps you are able to experience things in linear time because you don't really experience snapshots in time themselves but the way they change, i.e. from the future to the past.
the steak in the steak sandwich
"seeming to occur"
where do we draw a line between reality, and perception ?
can reality exist outside my ability to perceive it ?
can my perception exist outside the events of reality ?
you are quantifying some complex concepts which have previously been deemed potential competing concepts
however, some theorists(senior global scientists) like
have discussed variant forms of potential interlinking of theory's to form more over arching concepts.
only around 1 in 2000 16 year olds would ever think of this subject and ask questions about it
even fewer would seek out answers and attempt to discuss it.
maybe closer to 1 in 5000 16 year olds in a 1st world
statistically that blows out the total figure to be considerably more unique.
living in a non abusive life/environment/society/technology level/nation/country(culture) etc ...
TIL: There is a such thing as QuackWatch. (And Radins is on it.)
of course he is, the concrete heads dislike him thoroughly.
I will read it thought.
Sorry, your message got cut off:
...because he uses unsound science practices, including, but not limited to
- ignoring the known hoaxes in the field,
- making statistical errors
- ignoring plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.
Fixed it for you.
well of course he makes errors, he is human. but where do you propose we get information from if not humans?
and most people are a bit bias toward their own research.
sounds like a evangelical christian pretending to be a scientist to promote propaganda for the evangelical christian community.
leveraging paranormal activity as the soft entry point to self validate.
very similar to the pray the gay away crowd
perhaps, but that doesn't make his studies wrong.
and besides, paranormal is just a word used to describe things not yet understood, the paranormal is only paranormal to people with a limited understanding of it.
if my intent is to mold and create your opinion around a certain concept to become my fan and follower.
is that science ?
human science sales and marketing yes
but not scientific principals
it is social engineering and propaganda
it is a cancer of democracy & civilized society.
if you want facts, you should not be pre-determining them as good or evil
themes and soundings of good and likable are irrelevant
you only want raw data and facts
pre defined meanings ...
"para-normal" outside normal
assumed common usage super natural pertaining to living energy beings of deceased humans expressing some corporeal metaphysical reality into the perceptive field of living humans
i am not jumping on the band wagon of who is right or wrong
that is a false debate set to capture teenage emotional attachment
you want science
try and stick to the science
Agree. What makes his studies wrong is the shoddy science needed to validate his pet assertions.
OK, do you understand retro-causation?
No bias there.
yes true, indeed
when the air of assumed law of physics is asserted as a pre defined absolute to the discovery process, you are left with only being allowed to deliver answers that have already been agreed to that do not compromise the ideology being promoted.
this makes the process to be un-truthful and thus a deceit...
(my point about looking for followers instead of doing the science)
which is the process many seek to materialize by seeking people to follow them
promoting their own ego in place of god at the expense of science
no and nor do I claim to.
but I refuse to call it paranormal, I dislike that term.
and it isn't my fault I am limited so don't criticize my limitations for the sake of doing so.
if you do not like Radin there is also the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
no one is right or wrong about this yet, at least not in this thread, no one can be because no conclusion has been reached yet.
and attachment to what?
I don't even believe in objective good and evil, so I am not predetermining anything as good or evil.
and what is likeable is not irrelevant to me, but I will not let it influence my opinion.
if retro causation is non existent, and therefore I can not have free will because I can not alter initial conditions, that would be horrible.
but I would rather know.
and if you already know the answer to your own question there is not much point in asking it, except of course to be arrogant.
i.e. the question, "is that science?."
Separate names with a comma.