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

[TechnoGuyRob]

If you clicked on this topic, then I assure you, it is worthwhile to hear me out. Before I say anything else, I would just like to establish myself as a senior physics and mathematics major (oh boy, this silly skeptic is just so ignorant, it's not even worth continuing). If this changes your mind, please at least finish this paragraph. Otherwise, (if you do not feel like reading it), you can go ahead and skip to after the "====". This is not meant as an approach that changes your belief. The title, regardless of my firm conviction in its validity (at least, for now, writing down my ideas and discussing it will help me see how I really feel), is nevertheless, still my opinion (and a fancy way to catch your attention ). However, the following logic might be of some interest. All logical arguments in this post are meant to be grounded in, much like ZFC and propositional calculus, a human understanding of logic, which is to be taken as the fundamentals of argumentation. For example, if the statement "Today is Tuesday" implies "Today is raining", then if today is Tuesday, we also know today is raining. Without such a foundation, all reasoning collapses. Recognize that everything in our universe (including everything you personally do, think, etc.) is held firm by such principles, so we can only discuss it in the context of such reasoning. For example, if one is not willing to accept the proposition "A statement or the (logical) opposite of the statement must be true," (which no one has found a counter argument to in the reality we obey), then there is no possible opportunity for rational explanation, and a belief becomes a mindless conviction and it is not worth anyone's time to discuss it and it must be kept to one's self. I will attempt to stick 100% to fully unbiased, neutral point-of-view, critical thinking, with as few axioms as possible; if you see a reasoning flaw, please do let me know (but only complain about axioms if it's something very few people would disagree with). I believe the only way to discuss or debate a concept that doesn't make it "chit-chat", "flame war", etc. is to rely on reasonably agreeable formal definitions and what those definitions imply. I will be using Wikipedia, and for anyone who does not consider this a credible source, each article I link to will have external consultable references.

====

Oops, my post is over 10,000 characters. I'll continue in the next post, and I'll make one more after that to reserve myself 30,000 characters.