Ghosts/spirits/presences are a myth (Warning: Science included!)

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Radical

Maybe you're right, there are many contradictions in science and certainly the classical model of physics totally collapses when you consider quantum mechanics, that contains phenomena such as quantum entanglement and wave–particle duality - impossible under the classical Newtonian view.

The classical Newtonian view is still correct as well, it's just important to consider scope.

All beliefs, all models, must specify their scope at the same time that they specify the model itself.

For instance, Galilean relativity is CORRECT, but it's scope is generally limited to speeds less than 30 million meters per second. At least, that's how most physicists use it. Even that little guideline is context dependant if you want to maximize utility all the time. It is a fact though that _always_ using the Lorentz transforms to calculate relativity is _incorrect_ because there are times when the Lorentz transform is far more inconvenient than the Galilean transform.

Maximal utility = true
Suboptimal utilty = less true
No utility = false

[Radical]

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just stating that there are many contradicting theories. I personally believe that there has to ultimately be a theory of everything that unites all contradicting theories. However, a theory of everything is a very long way off.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Radical

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just stating that there are many contradicting theories. I personally believe that there has to ultimately be a theory of everything that unites all contradicting theories. However, a theory of everything is a very long way off.

I won't judge your belief in a ToE, but is your belief not the exact same kind of belief that Christians have in God?

It's worth noting that most thoughtful Christians do actually claim an empirical basis for their beliefs. I don't agree with their interpretation, but as humans all of our perceptions are equally worthy of respect. We must be honest and civil with each other.

[Daniel Terhorst]

Originally Posted by november

Why would we assume that "Today is Tuesday" implies "Today is raining"? It's my understanding that in order to have an implication like that, we'd first have to have the supposed logical arguments that verified "Today is Tuesday" and/or "Today is raining".

It's no different from saying (→ means imply): Let A → B. When we happen to observe A, then we know B must also be true.

The example of Tuesday/raining is misleading, because it is easy to confuse our observations of the real world (where it is definitely false that it always rains on Tuesday), with the purely logical structure of the example.

Originally Posted by november

The implication comes into play when we say, "Since it is raining today, it must be Tuesday." or vice versa.

A → B does not necessarily mean that B → A. That is, if we observe A, we know B is true, but if we observe B, we have no idea whether or not A is true. To use the words of the example, knowing that it's true in our environment that "If today is Tuesday, then it is raining" (it is an example, and does not have to reflect the real world), then if we know it is Tuesday, we can also conclude that it is raining. However, if all we know is that it happens to be raining today, we cannot conclude whether or not today is also Tuesday. We simply don't know whether or not it rains on other days.

Originally Posted by november

One or the other must be established as fact before there can be any implications.

And it was when it was stated, "then if today is Tuesday."

This statement says that we are about to consider the situation (and only the situation) where this is true. Therefore, in the environment we have established, it is true by definition. In other environments, it may or may not always be so, and might even never be the case.

Originally Posted by november

What you wrote is like saying, "The apple is red, so the apple is red." True? Maybe. Redundant? Yes. And, redundancy doesn't prove anything.

Not quite. It's more like, "All apples are red; since this is an apple, it must also be red." That is: (Apple → Red), and Apple... therefore Red.

To say, "The apple is red, so the apple is red," one would state, Red Apple → Red Apple, which is, as you said, pretty meaningless.

Originally Posted by Andreas

Back that train up, Conductor. Previously we've been unable to measure the mass of an electron. Does that mean the electron didn't exist previously? You don't even need other realities when talking about this. Just because something cannot currently be measure does not negate it's existence.

I made this same misinterpretation myself at first because of the wording. If one looks closely, it says:

Observable is hereby defined as being capable of affecting the structure of our universe.

(emphasis mine)

Thus, the electron, being demonstrably capable of measurably affecting more than one observer existed, was never imaginary, regardless of our inability to previously witness it. The provided definition, then, still handles this example.

-- Daniel Terhorst

[TechnoGuyRob]

Thank you so much for all your insightful comments! I'm overwhelmed with homework at the moment, but I will attempt to pull an hour or two out of my day tomorrow so I can address all the issues that have come up. I find such discussions truly fascinating.

And, I apologize to november for using the "Today is Tuesday" and "raining" example. I will probably change that so you don't get confused. Of course, as Douglas Hofstadter and many other logicians point out, if we know that " 'A implies B' and 'A' are true, then B is true", then that is the logical equivalent of saying:

((A implies B) and A) implies B

Call this statement C. Then, of course, to show B is indeed true, we need to know that "A implies B", "A", and "C" are true. Thus, we need:

((A implies B) and A and C) implies B

Call this statement D. And the process continues. Which means we can never actually claim B is true!

But we shall ignore such onthological reality questioning.

[escapee]

I'm always interested in subject of spirit due to this(NDE) and that(astra projection) . I wish to explore and research some of the most haunted houses in the world when i have done a lion heart transplant. Perhaps, Mrs Erin would be able to organize a trip like that for the members to prove the validity of the hypothesis or theory .

[julien]

I am a mathematics major as well, and I think the most important thing to remember is that an axiomatic system like ZFC relies first upon its axioms ...

[escapee]

I believe borley rectory and tower of london are some of the best places for all the aspired spirit/ghost debunkers to prove their theory right . Because the place is so haunted, well known and scary, once it's proven as merely "subjective" delusion , all the ghost stories that we heard around the world would be rendered as merely a delusion.

The Borley Rectory Fire

So, at Borley Priory, there have been numberless occurrences of "Poltergeist," the violent moving of heavy furniture, the flinging of bottles and stones, the ransacking of locked cupboards, the ringing of bells. Footsteps, at times, are heard in the empty passages. A sad wailing voce rises from the cellar-well (the treacherous well over which I fastened a heavy cover, only to find that cover flung off, the next day, and lying at the further side of the cellar).

Already, the fate of my two spaniels has been published and broadcast far and wide. How, first, wise old "Peter" (a five-year-old black Cocker) and afterwards "Joe" (six-month-old Cocker) showed their dread of the gloomy Courtyard; how, even during daylight, they could scarcely be persuaded to enter it, and how each in turn went mad with terror at something which they sensed beyond the threshold of the Courtyard, and died mad.

To end - I can only repeat that I am not superstitious, that I have neither belief (nor much interest) in "Ghosts." But I am obliged to believe the evidence of my own eyes and ears, and I should be foolish indeed to condemn the evidence of the hundred or more living witnesses who bear circumstantial evidence to the strange happenings such as those to which I have referred.

[Richful]

How many people who've posted have seen a ghost? Did you have company? I never have.

Erin, have you ever seen (through sight or clairvoyance) an entity and verified it with someone else (intuitive/medium or normal person), be it ghost, guide or goblin?

For those who subscribe to the Subjective reality model a Challenge:

Have you tried believing in ghosts?
I recall in one of Steve's early blogs about changing beliefs he suggested starting small, like not starting with a belief in aliens and then a statement about them not existing. I've wondered for a while if that was meant to be a warning. So give this one a try if you feel up to the challenge.

[escapee]

I have plenty of real life ghost stories experienced by my friends and relatives and how much they wished that had not seen it, felt it or listened to it. ( they were all so scared )

The building where my sister works, is well known for all these sort of paranomal activities. One day, a whole group of office workers saw a bunch of dolls that were situated on table for decorative purpose moved by itself violently !! . Everybody in the office who saw it was like rushing down the building as if there was a fire alarm .. .. .. .


If you want more , i will post it here , but i would like to go to rest room first before i do so .

[Erin Pavlina]

Richful, my best ghost story with witnesses is posted here:

The Ghost in the Hall

[Jill]

Originally Posted by escapee

If you want more , i will post it here , but i would like to go to rest room first before i do so .

We've got a spot for you to post those right here: Anyone have a ghost story?

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by yossarian

However if we observe something that is counter to logic enough times, then we have to admit that that logic does not apply in that situation.

No, that's the beauty of logic. It is always correct. We are the ones that are wrong. If one presents a statement that invalidates another (presumably true) statement, then the original statement was false; it probably got there because of some wrong initial assumption.

Alright, now I'm off to fix the axioms.

EDIT:

Mathematical systems are always incomplete.

Either incomplete or inconsistent. ;-) And, of course, that doesn't imply they're wrong (well, for the former).

EDIT2:

You (the original poster) are doing the same thing when you use the rules of logic and mathematics to disprove the "supernatural" which is, honestly, just the "natural" that is not yet explored.

True, but it's good exercise to try! But I find it ironic that you include that last phrase.

EDIT3:

I do know that the way to find it out is to have an unwavering respect for empirical data. We must keep that in mind at all times.

Human experience and claims are not empirical data. Steve sees something purple as gray, but a computer can tell you gray and purple are different wavelengths of light wave emissions. Most often, supernatural phenomena are reported by humans. That's why I'm resorting to the only thing I can use (I have never experienced a situation where I felt, or someone I knew claimed to be feeling a supernatural entity; I also don't have the equipment, money, or willpower necessary to investigate such phenomena in a physical environment).

EDIT4: I know, I know, I need to work on those axioms. But...

Originally Posted by yossarian

An easy one is the geocentric vs. heliocentric debate. Both models are certainly correct because they recover the same empirical results.

Like the fact you can get to the other side of the Earth by digging straight down?

[yossarian]

Yeah I agree on those points (edit: not about subjective reality.. i'll make a complete response in a bit)

The funny thing about logic is that while it's purpose is to help us create infallible statements, it's still just as prone to error as anything (well, within reason) because we as humans can screw up the statements

Even the best calculations need reality checks. It's funny how in the end we have to verify the validity of our beautiful logical systems through our imprecise senses of sight and touch and sound.

[TechnoGuyRob]

I have revised my axioms. They are still incomplete (particularly the rationalization for the 3rd one), but please point out holes!

[Lotus]

I don't think you can escape the problem of subjectivity. Our current model of physics is subjective to the human condition. We can only construct a model to describe what we can observe or experience, directly or indirectly (which takes some faith on our part, how very unscientific.). We build up theories, then design experiments to prove or disprove the theories, but all in all, building a theory on something as intangible and non-directly-observable as quantum phenomena is like taking multiple, educated shots in the dark... hoping that we'll confirm, through multiple, repeated, valid experiments, that our educated guess was correct. Even the top minds in the field concede that our current model of physics is incomplete and possibly flawed.

At the moment, we have a vast number of anecdotes describing the presence of "ghosts" or whatnot. While anecdotes are not scientific, they tend to be the pre-cursor that prompts development of a new technology for investigation.

Just because I can't see it... doesn't mean it's not there.
::bats at radiation from the computer screen::


You may orchestrate the most beautiful logical analysis of ghosts ever written, but you will never convince me that I've never been in the presence of the paranormal... because in my reality, I have, and it was as "real" to me as the screen you're reading is to you at this moment.

I cannot, with current tech, prove scientifically that paranormal phenomena exists in an objective reality. You already know this, so (um, no offense) why are you wasting your time smacking "science" and "logic" against a subject which is inherantly non-scientific and non-logical?

And (again, I don't mean to sound nasty here) you are in-validating and/or denying a lot of people's subjective realities when you tell us that we're either purposefully lying or that we're deluded/crazy.

And, unfortunately, you're in the company of a lot of people who strive to keep an open mind about subjective realities... so you probably won't convince them either.

I'm not saying "give up" ... I'm just saying, "don't be disappointed if no one who has experienced the paranomal comes over to your side of the fence." I'm pretty sure that everyone here who has had a paranormal experience will continue to insist on its validity in their own subjective reality.

[RandomJohn]

You know, though, it may take some head-banging against the inadequacies of objective reality to start to see the value in a subjective reality. I know of at least one system -- Huna -- that embraces both. I know of more than one person (myself included) who have started considering reality as subjective only after wrestling with objective reality for some time, and becoming frustrated. Don't forget - objective reality models have produced some wonderful things (and some terrible things as well). It's a very powerful way of thinking, and very tempting. It simply doesn't tell the whole story, however, and gets some parts of the story wrong.

[Nelson]

Wow this is amazing stuff, I think the in-depth attempt to show ghosts as a myth is defintely awesome. TechnoGuyRob you have definitely got me much more interested in physics

As has been said here before, Objective/Subjective reality makes all the difference. If you believe that certain set of laws are the control of the universe, then these laws shall control the universe for you. Science can prove anything to itself, and people who follow the law of attraction can prove the existence of their laws as well.

Two things I want to point out,

1) Results are the measure of all things. Since there is potentially billions of people who have been in contact with spirits at some point in their physical lives - these results prove their own existence - in the observer's reality, not in yours or in the scientific community's or anyone else's.

2) Physics has a few holes in it too. There is a lack of some "particles" in physics. While I definitely will not say that physics is one of the most advanced fields of all science, it still has much to discover. Especially when it comes to conciousness (see Logical proof that consciousness is eternal « The Search for Magic).

So all in all, hats off to you for such extensive work and keep on going, I know we all want to see advancement in these areas and the only way to make that happen is through debate.

[skipjack]

Natsu mentioned "the force of gravity is totally and absolutely ignored by wooden furniture".

That is, of course, true.

Also true is that casual observation of an opaque item of furniture won't necessarily discover what is supporting it.

I find it a lot more interesting not to know how the furniture was supported.

I have on several occasions seen an object silently "hover" near me in apparent defiance of gravity.

So did I witness the paranormal? Did Natsu? What evidence is needed?