Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

[Magical Realist]

See ya troll...

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Quantum entanglement apparently demonstrates a kind of occurance that defies cause and effect. The spin of the particle doesn't cause the spin of its twin to change. It somehow happens instantaneously. That suggests a phenomena that does not and cannot conform to laws as we know them. It suggests what Jung anticipated as an "acausal connecting principle".

As I mentioned previously, the concept of quantum entanglement would not exist but for the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics. Quantum states evolve according to well-established laws of cause and effect. You are right that the spin of one particle does not cause the other to change. The 2 spins in the case of entanglement are better thought of as a single quantum state. When a measurement is made on that state it "collapses" to an outcome in the usual way that quantum states collapse. The "cause" (if you want one) is the measurement. The correlation of the spin states was there all along - it was built into the way that the state was created in the first place.

You seem worried about the "instantaneous" nature of the collapse of the wavefunction. Maybe if you explain to me why you think that is a problem or inconsistent with known laws, then I can help you understand it.

Suffice it to say that entanglement very much conforms to laws as we know them. In fact, we wouldn't have a name for the effect without those laws-as-we-know-them.

I'm not familiar with Jung's principle, and do not see its relevance at this point in the discussion. But maybe you will explain.

You have wound the clock back to a state of being in no time and no space. Of a singularity existing before there were laws suddenly exploding into our present universe. I see no conformity to laws here. I see rather an anomalous event that defies everything we know about the universe.

What makes you think there were no laws of physics "before" the big bang? Nobody actually knows what was there before the big bang. You don't. I don't. So as far as I can tell, you're in no position to say there's no conformity to "laws" here. At best, you can only mean that you're not aware of any laws that explain the big bang. That's very different to saying you know the laws and you can explain how the big bang doesn't conform to them.

Likewise then, there is no reason to expect that the paranormal won't be completely explained in terms of accepted science too.

Step 1 is to show that anything paranormal exists. Step 2 is to explain it, if it exists. We haven't completed step 1 yet, so step 2 is premature. If there's no paranormal, there's nothing that needs explaining.

I have not heard of any sightings or photos or audio recordings of God and his Son or of witches. Maybe I'm out of the loop on this. Can you direct me to a website with such documented evidence?

I'm sure you're much better at finding that kind of stuff than I am, if you're truly interested.

Right..like 16000 anecdotes of the Holocaust, and of the Civil War, and of 911, etc.

Anecdotes are not the only evidence of the Holocaust, the Civil War, 911, etc.

Unless there is such huge resistance to it for ideological reasons that they just don't research that field. That's my conclusion. That scientists conform to a peer-enforced bias against the paranormal as a pseudoscience that must always be dismissed and never taken seriously.

Any scientist who proved that ghosts exist would get a Nobel prize. What scientist wouldn't want that?

A fuzzy photo of something is still good evidence something was there.

The main problem with "ghost" photos is in identifying the "something". If only the somethings turned out to be ghosts rather than dust particles or lens flare or the moon, eh? Wouldn't that be a nice change?

Would you agree a fuzzy photo of ball lightning was still good evidence of it?

No! That would be terrible evidence for ball lightning. Surely you understand why (!?)

Also, many evps are class A in nature, consisting of clearly enunciated words, laughs, whispers, moans, and screams that indicate something is definitely there. You can also tell immediately by the voice if it is a man, woman, or child. Many other voices are heard directly by human ears and recording on camera.

When it's a clear voice, we can't rule out that it was the voice of an ordinary person who was there (or dubbed on afterwards).
When it's not clear, then we're into the usual realm of interpretation, wherein the ghost hunter hears what he wants to hear.

No..the evidence is compelling and oftentimes jawdropping. It's just that when I present it you think making up possibilities of fakery for it is sufficient to debunk it. It isn't.

I agree! But if the possibility of fakery is there and you can't rule it out, then it remains a possibility. Understand?

Alot of ghost hunters DO know what they are doing and use this equipment properly on hundreds of investigations.

It must be scientific bias and conspiracy that is preventing them collecting their Nobel prizes then.

Like I pointed out already making up possibilities of lying or misremembering experiences isn't providing a plausible explanation at all. Plausibility requires some evidence. Are the eyewitnesses known for fakery? Are they charging people for their investigations? Are they mentally ill? Stuff like that.

No. Plausible is plausible. To get to a final answer - to go beyond possibilities - that requires evidence either way. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The default is the mundane plausible explanation.

You really can't distinguish between someone in the 21st century telling you something they experienced firsthand and a 2500 year old book of myths and fables that has been redacted and edited and retranslated dozens of times over the centuries into its present form?

Not really. I can go down to my local bookshop and purchase plenty of recent myths and fables. I can't see much difference between a myth written 2500 years ago and one written yesterday, other than longevity. One must ask similar questions in either case if one is considering whether the myth might be real. It may well be easier to investigate the recent myth than the older one, but that's a practical consideration.

Has any scientist been able to create gravity in a lab? No..

Remember how I talked about steps 1 and 2, above? Well, step 1 was showing that things fall down when you drop them. I think we can safely agree that we've established the fact that gravity exists. Step 2 is working out what it is, exactly - what causes it, how to create it etc.

I can personally vouch for the fact that I increase the gravity in the lab every time I walk in there, and not just because I'm a serious person.

I wouldn't trust a career-obsessed scientist as far as I could spit.

What about an internet-fame-obsessed, self-promoting, self-labelled paranormal investigator? No doubt you'd trust him without question.

Instead, we rely on the experts who have actually researched this field in hundreds of investigations in hundreds of haunted locations and documented compelling evidence for the paranormal. Nobody reads those boring ass science journals anyway. Have you ever read one? Didn't think so.

What you're telling me is that you have never bothered to read any "boring ass" science. That probably explains why you're so willing to believe any pseudoscientific hogwash that grabs your attention while you're trawling youtube.

Ignorance of science is not a badge of honour I'd be proud to wear on a science forum. You, on the other hand...

 

[paddoboy]

Ignorance of science is not a badge of honour I'd be proud to wear on a science forum. You, on the other hand...

Well said!

 

[DaveC426913]

Even more succinctly:

Ignorance of science is not a badge of honour [ full stop ]

 

[Magical Realist]

What you're telling me is that you have never bothered to read any "boring ass" science. That probably explains why you're so willing to believe any pseudoscientific hogwash that grabs your attention while you're trawling youtube.

Ignorance of science is not a badge of honour I'd be proud to wear on a science forum. You, on the other hand..

Like most laymen, no I don't read boring ass technical papers on a new species of tree snails in Madagascar or statistical properties of brownian motion in gases or any of the bulk of research done in science. And I bet you don't either. Only a very small sliver of science research has enough relevance to my life to interest me, and this is usually read in online science magazines and science news sites that condense the information in non-technical language. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant of science at all. It means that just like 100% of all people on earth I read what has relevance to my life and to mankind in general. So you can apologize for your childish insult now or later. Doesn't matter to me either way.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Recall what you wrote:

I wouldn't trust a career-obsessed scientist as far as I could spit. Instead, we rely on the experts who have actually researched this field in hundreds of investigations in hundreds of haunted locations and documented compelling evidence for the paranormal. Nobody reads those boring ass science journals anyway. Have you ever read one? Didn't think so.

Your claim was that "Nobody reads those boring ass science journals anyway." Now you've backup off somewhat, so that you're saying that laymen don't read the science journals. But the experts in the field certainly do, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Moreover, you defer to the authority of your own preferred experts, namely "the experts who have actually researched [ghosts] in hundreds of haunted locations ...".

How would you react if I were to tell you "I wouldn't trust a so-called ghost hunter as far as I could spit. Nobody reads those boring websites or watches those boring youtube videos from those 'expert' ghost hunters anyway, so why should I pay any attention to anything they have to say?"

It seems to me that you are claiming that I know very little about ghost hunting, while I am claiming that you know very little about the scientific method and how to conduct a scientific investigation. You apparently find my claim to be insulting, but at the same time you're happy to regularly disparage all scientists as egotistical elitists who are only out for money and career security.

I suggest that if you want respect for your "experts" you should show similar respect for other kinds of expertise.

 

[Magical Realist]

How would you react if I were to tell you "I wouldn't trust a so-called ghost hunter as far as I could spit. Nobody reads those boring websites or watches those boring youtube videos from those 'expert' ghost hunters anyway, so why should I pay any attention to anything they have to say?"

LOL! You already said as much. You claim all ghost investigators are either faking evidence or bungling readings and making mistakes left and right. What if I said the same about your holy scientists? I didn't even go that far. I just said I don't trust a person just because they're a scientist. There's so many motives there to fudge results for peer approval and funding and competing against collegues that we'd be fools to take their word for everything.

It seems to me that you are claiming that I know very little about ghost hunting, while I am claiming that you know very little about the scientific method and how to conduct a scientific investigation. You apparently find my claim to be insulting, but at the same time you're happy to regularly disparage all scientists as egotistical elitists who are only out for money and career security.

Hey you're the one flaming me as scientifically ignorant here and believing in whatever pseudoscientific hogwash I find on Youtube. Where have I come even close to flaming you that way?

I suggest that if you want respect for your "experts" you should show similar respect for other kinds of expertise.

I already know what you think of my experts. Excuse me if I find yours somewhat lacking in virtue and
honesty and objectivity as well.

 

[DaveC426913]

I already know what you think of my experts. Excuse me if I find yours somewhat lacking in virtue and
honesty and objectivity as well.

It's not really a pissing contest, but if it were...

My experts have given us longer lives, cancer treatments, space travel, cell phones and the information age. What have your experts done to make a better world?

 

[Magical Realist]

It's not really a pissing contest, but if it were...

My experts have given us longer lives, cancer treatments, space travel, cell phones and the information age. What have your experts done to make a better world?

Yeah..and nuclear bombs, nuclear waste, pollution, genetically modified produce and grains, cancer causing EMF fields, etc.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yeah..and nuclear bombs, nuclear waste, pollution, genetically modified produce and grains, cancer causing EMF fields, etc.

Nuclear bombs resulted in a massive life-savings in ending WWII without the need to invade Japan (which has been shown time and again would have been far more costly in terms of lives).
Nuclear Waste - far less dangerous than burning coal or oil in the long run.
Pollution - would you rather we go back to being a hunter/gatherer society living in stick and mud houses?
Genetically Modified Produce/Grains - we've been "genetically modifying" crops since the introduction of agriculture via selective breeding, cross-pollination, etc. GMO foods aren't the "absolute evil" some people try to make them out to be... yes, there is the potential for abuse, but that is true of anything.
Cancer causing EMF fields - This is utter bunk. Non-ionizing ElectroMagnetic Fields CANNOT cause cancer. For evidence, I submit:

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abo...ions/does-electromagnetic-energy-cause-cancer

Electromagnetic fields and risk of leukaemia
A report in 2001 from the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB) said that there may be a very slight increased risk for leukaemia in children. The electromagnetic radiation talked about in this report was mostly from domestic use of electricity. Some homes had a high level of magnetic fields produced by electricity. 20 out of every 100 homes (20%) with high level magnetic fields were close to pylons or overhead power cables. The high levels in the other 80 out of every 100 homes (80%) were the result of the electricity supply in the home. The researchers said that out of 500 cases of childhood leukaemia, the risk from electromagnetic fields might add another 2 cases a year. Over two years, 1 of the 4 extra cases would be related to overhead power lines.

Simply put, the "increase" was within the margin of error of the study.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...k/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet

Electric and magnetic fields together are referred to as electromagnetic fields, or EMFs. The electric and magnetic forces in EMFs are caused by electromagnetic radiation. There are two main categories of EMFs:

• Higher-frequency EMFs, which include x-rays and gamma rays. These EMFs are in the ionizing radiationpart of the electromagnetic spectrum and can damage DNA or cells directly.
• Low- to mid-frequency EMFs, which include static fields (electric or magnetic fields that do not vary with time), magnetic fields from electric power lines and appliances, radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, and visible light. These EMFs are in the non-ionizing radiation part of the electromagnetic spectrum and are not known to damage DNA or cells directly. Low- to mid-frequency EMFs include extremely low frequency EMFs (ELF-EMFs) and radiofrequency EMFs. ELF-EMFs have frequencies of up to 300 cycles per second, or hertz (Hz), and radiofrequency EMFs range from 3 kilohertz (3 kHz, or 3,000 Hz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz, or 300 billion Hz). Radiofrequency radiation is measured in watts per meter squared (W/m2).

Why are non-ionizing EMFs studied in relation to cancer?

Power lines and electrical appliances that emit non-ionizing EMFs are present everywhere in homes and workplaces. For example, wireless local networks are nearly always “on” and are increasingly commonplace in homes, schools, and many public places.

No mechanism by which ELF-EMFs or radiofrequency radiation could cause cancer has been identified. Unlike high-energy (ionizing) radiation, EMFs in the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot damage DNA or cells directly. Some scientists have speculated that ELF-EMFs could cause cancer through other mechanisms, such as by reducing levels of the hormone melatonin. There is some evidence that melatonin may suppress the development of certain tumors.

http://www.biology-pages.info/M/MagneticFields.html

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Study
On July 3, 1997, The New England Journal of Medicine published the largest and best study of the question (Martha S. Linet, et al, "Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children").

Their conclusion: "Our results provide little support for the hypothesis that living in homes with high time-weighted average magnetic fields or in homes close to electrical transmission or distribution lines is related to the risk of childhood ALL."

How the NCI study differed from earlier studies
The NCI study differed from the earlier studies in 4 important ways:

• It involved a much larger sample size (624 children with ALL and 615 children chosen at random to compare their homes with those of the patients.
• The strength of the magnetic fields in the homes were actually measured (including continuous measurement for 24 hours under the child's bed). They also evaluated the nearby power lines as the earlier studies had done.
• The collection of data was "blinded"; that is, the people doing the measurements did not know whether they were in the house of an ALL patient or in the house of a control.
• The investigators had no axe to grind. None had any connection to the power industry or to grieving parents seeking to find an explanation for the tragedy that had struck their family.

Simply put, our experts have done a LOT to improve the overall quality of life for everyone... where as your "ghost hunters" have been nothing more than a minor source of entertainment.

 

[birch]

You do? How often do you imagine ghosts in period clothes standing right in front of you?

good point. you wouldn't be imagining people in clothes especially not from your own time.

 

[birch]

Right..so because Hollywood makes movies about a certain subject, then it must not be real. Wow..All those crime dramas about murderers? Not real. All those war pictures? Not real. All those period pieces about historical figures? Not real. You really do live in a paranoid fantasy world don't you? The big Hollywood conspiracy out to deceive all the science nerds because...well...just because.

the stupidity of the naysayers is when they ask for 'scientific' evidence in a ghost, bigfoot, etc thread. it's actually stupendously hilarious. it's like they are pretending they are that naive.

but on the other hand, they don't realize that video footage and anecdotes can be true and real.

 

[Write4U]

Tulpas can be of any character. Of course the scary ones are the most fascinating, because they are usually associated with something gruesome.

 

[Daecon]

the stupidity of the naysayers is when they ask for 'scientific' evidence in a ghost, bigfoot, etc thread. it's actually stupendously hilarious. it's like they are pretending they are that naive.

but on the other hand, they don't realize that video footage and anecdotes can be true and real.

Can be, sure. But because that kind of thing is so easy to fake, either unintentionally or completely deliberately, it simply can not be the "extraordinary" evidence required to support extraordinary claims.

 

[birch]

Can be, sure. But because that kind of thing is so easy to fake, either unintentionally or completely deliberately, it simply can not be the "extraordinary" evidence required to support extraordinary claims.

and my point is are people supposed to deny their experiences and ignore them just because the establishment cannot verify it as scientific or yet? many people have these experiences and they are supposed to play cognitive dissonance with themselves? is that fair?

 

[Seattle]

and my point is are people supposed to deny their experiences and ignore them just because the establishment cannot verify it as scientific or yet? many people have these experiences and they are supposed to play cognitive dissonance with themselves? is that fair?

In general, the less you know the more you have to rely on your imagination. When you know more about how the world works you tend not to see magic, voodoo, and gods as the cause of everything that you don't understand.

When you know a little more about probability you don't see coincidence as something more.

 

[Michael 345]

Ignorance of science is not a badge

Earlier full stop

 

[birch]

In general, the less you know the more you have to rely on your imagination. When you know more about how the world works you tend not to see magic, voodoo, and gods as the cause of everything that you don't understand.

When you know a little more about probability you don't see coincidence as something more.

and you and others still don't know what i am talking about. we didn't see any gods or magic, numbskull. isn't that what you called others?

we just had unusual experiences that cannot be explained. try again. it's insulting for people who believe they know what they are talking about to tell someone about something they know absolutely nothing about. you are actually, like many here, making points though ignorance and don't even know it.

i wasn't seeing god or magic when i saw an dark apparition draped in a kneeling position where my mother prayed obsessively at 3am in the morning in the exact spot the very next night.

consider yourself fortunate that you haven't had such dark experiences.

people like you really need to stop underestimating other's experiences. and i don't appreciate your assumption i believe in magic, voodoo or gods. i am lucid enough to just not readily dismiss what i know i experienced and saw and that is unexplained. i can explain it philosophically as i pretty much know the reason why it happened but i dont' know the mechanism behind it.

why don't people like you actually try to learn something in these fringe subjects instead of coming in here assuming you know what the fuk you are talking about? eh?

don't feign you are schooling me or anyone because magic, gods and voodoo is a cop-out but so is dismissing just the same. i can be as literal about reality as the next person. that's easy.

i don't defend the fringe section just to do so. there is a reason why i have been.

fact:

the truth is people on the other side of the issue like you are pulling explanations or dismissals out of your ass are as oblivious as those who have no paranormal experience and make up hoaxes.

 

[birch]

i've realized now that this forum being a science forum really does need the fringe section deleted. final and done. it's because members do not deserve to be privy to these experiences that are not understood and the discussion will go nowhere. it will just end up in either ridicule or dismissal because there is simply no way to understand these occurrences as of now and whatever explanations may be in circulation can't account for all of them.

if people want to believe that the only reality is what is the physical as they know it, then by all mean we can play that game as well partition out what doesn't fit. water off a duck's back. even those who have had paranormal experiences can go along with conventional reality just the same.

trying to discuss these subjects with people this close-minded and believe they know all of reality is really starting to piss me off as much as those who are annoyed at the fringe section for their own reasons.

 

[birch]

i know one thing i figured out. there was a definite correlation between the unbelievably intense amount of negative energy she was giving off so much so that i winced and taken aback as if it was a literal force and that dark apparition that jarred me and shook me to my core.

if people don't want to believe or recognize there are positive and negative forces in the world, so be it. i hope you stay lucky enough not to have to admit it or face it.

hell, i realized now that even if it all could be figured out literally, it doesn't change a thing now so maybe it's best to just leave it alone and not explore it anymore. just like most fuked up and evil things in this world, nothing really stops them from happening anyways.

yeah, delete the fringe. so be it.