Thread: Sceptics vs. Science ... Like Kindergarten!

Originally Posted by Posquant

Denial is not a reply

Irony, it's always funny.

---------TEGMARK'S THEORETICALLY VALID MULTIVERSES----------
I. “A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe….”

II. “In the chaotic inflation theory, a variant of the cosmic inflation theory…

III. “Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics[/B]…”

IV. “Tegmark writes that "abstract mathematics is so general that any TOE[/B] that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague human terminology) is also a mathematical structure.”
...
"Related to the many-worlds idea are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation."
-------

Thanks for proving the other side's original point.

Take a deep breath. No offense. Someone had to tell you.

Unless you can really compete with the other fifty-odd theories out there you're just another pseudo-scientific that believes in any theory that comes along because it looks good.

The above interpretations are "generic" and "general" and based on "theory" because they do not have experimental proof.

You have to address the theory, not just spout some platitude about possibility equating proof, in order to prove it's postulates possible. Your partial undersanding of proof doesn't get you there. You shouldn't stop there without going into further detail to see if a theory has actually been tested in a real-world environment.

Denial is a reply, is a rebuttal, of what the stuff you believe in says is possible. Without the ability to reject an idea, arguing would be impossible.

Thanks, again, for helping prove everyone else's point.

Congratulations on completely failing to understand any point I made.

A logical argument does not equate to a 'denial'. Don't be so childish.

You're essentially telling everybody who tries to reply with some kind of rational response that they're automatically wrong and a 'denier'.

In conclusion: you are a massive hypocrite.

Nobody in this forum is going to be convinced by your immature ignoring of other people's points, or statements like 'thanks for proving me right'. Try again properly or go away.

Some vague rebuttals to make to your incoherent ramblings:

Firstly, scientists disagree about interpretations of Quantum mechanics. Ironically you bolded this yourself. Even if I did happen to disagree with Feynman's interpretation - not to mention your blatant appeal to authority - there are many equally qualified scientists who have different ideas.

And secondly, an infinite universe would not entail that everything possible exists. Perhaps study some basic statistics and convergence of infinite sums.

Originally Posted by Xei

In conclusion: you are a massive hypocrite.

...

Some vague rebuttals to make to your incoherent ramblings:...

Thank you for the label, and the vague rebuttals.

I crave to know what is what. Sadly: what I know is never enough, or always too much.

But you know so much!

You know better than Eddington, what can be what. Perhaps I should apologize.

But I have no reply. "Dumbfounded", as you might say.

I defer, instead. I leave you ... and everything that it is ... to say what is not AND cannot be.

All good. I pray you don't get it wrong.

Thanks again...

PQ

Hello Posquant.
I don't want to insult you or anything of the sort, I believe and I understand your points, I admit you have smart things to say.
I only believe that YOU havn't studied some general points which are COMPULSARY to you making a thread in a forum where the majority are skeptics.

I'm a skeptic, I believe in a "visionaries future", I understand a GREAT possibility of aliens (I never said they were real), I understand the possibility of ghosts (SO DOES SCIENCE!). I am OPEN-MINDED, Posquant.

From a very smart friend of mine- "Understand peace and art- the two key ingredients to the key of a perfect future."
I think you should understand peace, with a full open-mind, and without the haze of stereotypes. Think REALLY REALLY hard about it, and realise (if you don't already) the power of it.
Then submit your ideas in a new form.

Thanks!
Jim

Originally Posted by Licity

Thanks for proving the other side's original point.

Take a deep breath. No offense. Someone had to tell you.

Unless you can really ....

"I know you are but what am I?"

Like I said ... Like Kindergarten.

Smarty pants!

As a curtesy, could you please draft your own text?

And enlighten us all with the 50 other theories...and prove Eddington wrong.

Thanks,

PQ

Jim,

Many thanks. All noted.

Peace. Peace and ignorance.

Yeah. I picked this fight. Very much on purpose.

I've tried to tell stories, but when I said "and it was maybe real, and all this weird science is why"... they let me know how impossible that was.

So. Sceptics as true believers.

Not my thing, writing for the public. Peace and art. I can see that. Had a dream once, narrator called me [someone, anyway] a "signal artist". Ku.

I try to damp it...patience is not one of my top virtues.

But I've put it out here, anyway... just because the dreams themselves seem so key.

E.g.: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...31#post1119531

Peace and art... OK.

Thanks again,

PQ

Originally Posted by Posquant

"I know you are but what am I?"

Like I said ... Like Kindergarten.

Smarty pants!

As a curtesy, could you please draft your own text?

And enlighten us all with the 50 other theories...and prove Eddington wrong.

Thanks,

PQ

What does Eddington have to do with anything? I don't recall seeing him in connection with your theories... which, by the way, you also have yet to prove.

Originally Posted by Licity

What does Eddington have to do with anything? I don't recall seeing him in connection with your theories... which, by the way, you also have yet to prove.

Right you are... Everett ... he of the many worlds. My bad.

(Are you having as much fun as I am? Easy.)

So... we're even. Neither have YOU proven him WRONG. Go get a job and CERN, maybe?

Anyway, yes. Eddington... famous astrophysicist and mystic: http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/eddington/

No one is perfect - except you maybe. Weird. How did so many famous physicists so imperfectly understand the limits of their science:

http://www.physorg.com/news163670588.html

Don't you ever Google anything?

Oh. Oh. Me too!

Just to recapitulate. I'm a sceptic too. A super sceptic. I can do the easy thing, accept the possibility of the actual (why not?) without necessarily believing in any particular actual.

But I'm sceptical about what you can PROVE is not.

And I'm sceptical about what you can PROVE cannot be, where the best science says ... IT CAN!

See?

Easy.

PQ

Originally Posted by Posquant

Right you are... Everett ... he of the many worlds. My bad.

(Are you having as much fun as I am? Easy.)

So... we're even. Neither have YOU proven him WRONG. Go get a job and CERN, maybe?

Anyway, yes. Eddington... famous astrophysicist and mystic: http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/eddington/

No one is perfect - except you maybe. Weird. How did so many famous physicists so imperfectly understand the limits of their science:

http://www.physorg.com/news163670588.html

Don't you ever Google anything?

Oh. Oh. Me too!

Just to recapitulate. I'm a sceptic too. A super sceptic. I can do the easy thing, accept the possibility of the actual (why not?) without necessarily believing in any particular actual.

But I'm sceptical about what you can PROVE is not.

And I'm sceptical about what you can PROVE cannot be, where the best science says ... IT CAN!

See?

Easy.

PQ

Just because the science says it could be does not mean the science says it is. And, yes, there is a difference. Your link says nowhere that quantum mysticism, as the article calls it, has been proven, only that it is gaining popularity as an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

could be != can be

Neither have YOU proven him WRONG.

Oh God...

Please don't honestly tell me you believe that's a logical way to behave.

Originally Posted by Posquant

lOGIC / SCIENCE. Yes. Logic OVER science.

A point of logic, I said. Not science.

Friend, you're confused. It's not about what is. That simply ... is.

It's about what might be... and what we can say cannot.

So, what can you say is not, or cannot be? Tell me.

And if you can say it in a particular circumstance, can you say it for all? One and all?

You say:
----------
"Look, here's a picture of a UFO."

In stead of going "OK, UFOs exist", sceptics would go "alright, what things do we really have to think UFOs exist. We have a picture. Is it a reliable source? Is it likely that this is a valid picture? What other leads do we have?" etc. etc. etc.

Imagine I say gnomes exist. Why would anyone accept that claim? "Just because it's possible"?
----------
Facts are facts. The more facts the better. Try this.

http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

Ok. Hoax? Read again.

Point is, if they didn't accept that gnomes MIGHT exist, generally, even though scientifically possible... how deny t? Really. How? In theory? Based on what? Science? There's a fine line between crazy mystics and mundane sceptics. Both so devout!

The issue, inchoate, lies at the border between "may be" and "is not"... and "what if"?

Another critical devide is between the specific and the general. Disproof of a particular hoax does not disprove an otherwise plausible possibility... it only proves a particular hoax. See?

"May be" means maybe.

And if you can't say "cannot", you must entertain "what if". See now? No.

You have not yet grasped the essence of the quantum. That is ... probability. For anything of "possibility over zero "0"", you cannot still validly assume "actuality = zero". Then what? If you can't assume "actuality = zero"... Bro... you gotta' somehow conditionally deal with it as real! If not here, then somewhere? See?

If "possibility > 0" then one MUST assume "actuality > 0".

That is ... the broad view. Something about empathy. Imperative. Undeniable.

You wrote...
----------
"But if you claim that they do, then give me some evidence. Why do you believe so? Show me reliable information from reliable sources. Show me that you have a good basis to have based that claim on.
I purposefully linked to constructive/critical comments on the book.
-----------
What the f***?

I gave you the link. Opened the door. What do I need to do to "give you some evidence?".

Why ask me to reproduce that all here?

Hyperlinks scare you? No wonder. Shit internet. Info fakes. Get over it.

Try to be more discerning... to discern discerning posters. ThEre are a few of us.

Anyway... click the bloody link and do your own research.

Peace & Easy. You're on the right track. But I have seen such sceptics, deep in devout denial.

So. I respect ghosts ... just because they might be...even if they might not. See?

PQ

Right...

It's true that when we look at the world only throught the goggles of logic, everything is possible, everything that would be possible could potentially be true. However, that is just not how the world practically works.
-It could be very well possible that that tree that's over there isn't there at all. Should I just ride through it on my bike? After all, it is a possibility.
-Then there's the possibility that the tree actually is true, and it would therefore be very stupid to ride through it.
-It could very well be that we're living in the Matrix, and that nothing is real.
-(insert endless possibilities here)

What should I do? Ride through it? Or not? It's a dilemma. It can't be solved by logic. So which of the two practical possibilities should we assume?
When we look at it only through the goggles of logic, this is impossible to decide. We need a different method.
What about science? We look at the tree, we go up to the tree and touch it, we might even smell the tree, just to get verification on as much sensory channels as we can. We might smash our bike in the tree to figure out what might have happened when we would've rode in it.
If the bike smashes, and all our other senses tell us that the tree, in fact, is "real". We should out of practicality ASSUME that the tree is there.

That's what science does. It doesn't make any claim about 'the truth'. It simply assesses through a methodology and through experimentation, verification, etc., what is very likely to be true, what has a high probability to be true.

That way, we don't have to create logical dilemmas for ourselves. We can now depend on scientific rules and (to a degree) proven suppositions. Science provides us with postulates with which we can practically live our lives. Not with truths, not with definite answers, postulates based on scientific data, which have a high probability of being 'close to the truth', that are highly verisimilar.

So sure, it could be very well true that, when I straighten my arm, fairies pull it out, in stead of my muscle fibres getting electric shocks and contracting. Is it very likely, though? Is it a practical viewpoint? Should we assume that first hypothesis to live our lives? Just imagine how a visit to the doctor would go like...

So: should we assume the first hypothesis over the other? Based solely on logic?

I think not.

It's the same with ghosts or garden gnomes in the andromeda galaxy (or whatever you folks were babbling about ). It might very well be, logically speaking. But practically? Is it practical to assume it? How likely is it?

Which brings up another question: if you insist, how do you practically entertain every logical possibility there is? There are endless possibilities in any situation or on any subject. How can you entertain possibilities when they are very different, or sometimes maybe even contradictory? Don't you need postulates to live your life? Don't you need a general guideline in living your life?

I, myself, think you do. And that's what science is for. Making credible and highly likely postulates. If something cannot be proven to be a highly verisimilar postulate, then why follow it? (and again: how can you follow it with all other possibilities?)


So, on the topics of ghosts, for example. It is possible that there are ghosts. It is possible there aren't ghosts. It is possible that there are demons. It is possible there aren't demons. It is possilbe that there are angels. It's also possible there aren't angels. These may all be applicable to those things we call 'ghosts'.

While it's true that they logically can all be real, it is impossible to practically entertain all those possibilities at once. We have a logical dilemma. Conclusion? We need a postulate for practical conduct.

Are there credible scientific sources, pieces of information and tested hypotheses and theories that somehow prove that angels, demons, ghosts, gods, hallucinations from other universes, whatever you can think of, are real?

No. Should we therefore practically assume that ghosts, angels, demons, hallucinations, etc. are real?

No.



So yeah... You're on the right track. It's just that you've misunderstood the entire point of science and scepticism. Why? Because it. is. not. 'what's logically possible', that matters.

Originally Posted by Xei

Oh God...

Please don't honestly tell me you believe that's a logical way to behave.

tell me why it's wrong to behave this way. better yet, you could tell me how you arrived at the conviction of the thing being wrong. im looking for an explanation, not looking to argue.

what is possible... is.

so far as we know it is possible for you to be a semi literate potatoe-woman. so you ARE a semi literate potatoe-woman?

i just dont get it... you have repeatedly told us off for saying that what you are saying is impossible with no reason to do so, but im pretty sure that not a single person on this thread has said that. what they have said though is that they do not have reason enough to believe it. you are saying that if something is possible, then it is true. it is possible that your multiverse, ghosts, gnomes etc. are all false. by your system of logic, should we automatically assume that they arent?
i just dont think that you are making any sense.

Originally Posted by derb

so far as we know it is possible for you to be a semi literate potatoe-woman. so you ARE a semi literate potatoe-woman?

i just dont get it... you have repeatedly told us off for saying that what you are saying is impossible with no reason to do so, but im pretty sure that not a single person on this thread has said that. what they have said though is that they do not have reason enough to believe it. you are saying that if something is possible, then it is true. it is possible that your multiverse, ghosts, gnomes etc. are all false. by your system of logic, should we automatically assume that they arent?
i just dont think that you are making any sense.

Wow. You don't think so?

That may be because I'm semi-literate, really made no sense.

Or it may be because you can't spell potato, can't be bothered to accurately quote what you pretend to criticize, or just haven't studied as long, hard and deeply as I have in related fields. Ever formally study symbolic logic? Ever read through a popular text on cosmology, complexity, string theory?

Doesn't make you semi-literate if you haven't. Few have.

But all opinions are not equal, and it's not my job to fix your juvenile illogic.

Back to school. Only when you can look more carefully at your own writing, understand its flaws, can you even begin to help me find flaws in mine.

And I need all the help I can get. Who doesn't?

PQ

Originally Posted by Mark75

You wanna talk about wankers? Alright, let's talk about you. I made a thread just like this almost two years ago! Try getting your own material.

PS

In before lock.

Ok.

But you didn't provide any material.

Discuss.

Originally Posted by Posquant

Point of logic and set theory: what is possible... is.
PQ

*Attempts to pulls self up after laughing ass off at rationale, whilst rolling on the floor. However fails to stabilize self and returns to state of uncontrollable laughter.*