Psychics

[Vince Tortelli]

we can show how the multi-verse concepts found in string theory, quantum theory, relativistic physics and cosmology shows that we are probably part of a multi-verse and that our existence is not statistically improbable, and that the concept of god is not necessary for existence to happen..

Wait, what? I for one would really appreciate some exposition on this topic. Being among the layest of lay people, I would also appreciate it if such exposition was not too heavy on the physics jargon, but instead made copious references to Sliders, Crisis on Infinite Earths, and the Mirror, Mirror episode of Star Trek. But I'll take what I can get.

Back to psychics:
If people capable of painting photo realistic scenes from memory or doing quadratic equations in their head exist, who's to say other gifts are so impossible? For instance, someone might think he can "read" emotions and deceptions when the truth is that whatever part of his brain is responible for deciphering body language and nonverbal tells is hyper acute, in the same manner of the math or visual memory areas of the first two.

Presumably this could be tested scientifically somehow....

[battlefields]

Wait, what? I for one would really appreciate some exposition on this topic. Being among the layest of lay people, I would also appreciate it if such exposition was not too heavy on the physics jargon, but instead made copious references to Sliders, Crisis on Infinite Earths, and the Mirror, Mirror episode of Star Trek. But I'll take what I can get.

Back to psychics:
If people capable of painting photo realistic scenes from memory or doing quadratic equations in their head exist, who's to say other gifts are so impossible? For instance, someone might think he can "read" emotions and deceptions when the truth is that whatever part of his brain is responible for deciphering body language and nonverbal tells is hyper acute, in the same manner of the math or visual memory areas of the first two.

Presumably this could be tested scientifically somehow....

"Intuition" in a broad sense of the word.

[Goju - Joe]

Wait, what? I for one would really appreciate some exposition on this topic. Being among the layest of lay people, I would also appreciate it if such exposition was not too heavy on the physics jargon, but instead made copious references to Sliders, Crisis on Infinite Earths, and the Mirror, Mirror episode of Star Trek. But I'll take what I can get.

I am currently reading and almost finished Brian green's Hidden Realities, http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hidden-Real.../dp/0307265633

Which I find so far is his most accessible work to date and i highly recommend it.

I would be full of BS if I pretended to really understand all the concepts, but what I was referring to was going off on a tangent on theism and creative designers.

Basically a certain level of physics and statistical analysis shows that the basic structures that cause stars to from and particles to form is highly improbable, their point is often that this demonstrates some sort of guiding intelligence.

The problem is the science that draws this conclusion also predicts that our universe is one of an infinite multi-verse, and that while the conditions for out existence is statistically very low when multiplied by an infinite amount of universes it becomes irrelevant, the reason we live in this universe that support life as we know it is because we couldn't live in one that doesn't.

Basically intelligent design is not necessary.

The book is really good to examine the different type of multi-verses we might be part of. It's pretty cool.

[Vince Tortelli]

Thanks Goju, I'll have to hunt it up. Although I freely admit that the few times I have tried to educate myself on the post Einstenian physics the references to zombie cats, particles that act differently when no one is watching them, and how nothing can be a wave and a particle but everything is only strengthened my nascent belief that the world might be better off if we burned a few physicists at stake, as was the fate of necromancers and demonologists in the days of old, when man was wiser.

And while I'm on a roll, the notion of infinite universes we have no way of interacting with to explain away a Creator seems...the best example I can come up with is how the writers of the Jaws sequel novelizations rationalized the seeming vendetta of sharks against the Brody family by revealing the whole thing was a voodoo curse. The proffered solution seems to raise more issues than the problem it's supposed to resolve.

[Goju - Joe]

Thanks Goju, I'll have to hunt it up. Although I freely admit that the few times I have tried to educate myself on the post Einstenian physics the references to zombie cats, particles that act differently when no one is watching them, and how nothing can be a wave and a particle but everything is only strengthened my nascent belief that the world might be better off if we burned a few physicists at stake, as was the fate of necromancers and demonologists in the days of old, when man was wiser.

And while I'm on a roll, the notion of infinite universes we have no way of interacting with to explain away a Creator seems...the best example I can come up with is how the writers of the Jaws sequel novelizations rationalized the seeming vendetta of sharks against the Brody family by revealing the whole thing was a voodoo curse. The proffered solution seems to raise more issues than the problem it's supposed to resolve.

The idea of infinite universes dosen't explain away a creator it just removes the necessity of one, basically you're left off where we all started before creative design with faith.

A friend of mine posted a video where a Greek orthodox priest summed it up best, if you need proof of god you have religion but not faith.

For me I am left with the only reasonable alternative which is to speculate through science on the nature of reality, consciousness and thought as best I can, which is why I read books liker this.

Other tangent derail,

I think a lot of religious mystical thinking actually explores the same ideas, but people get lost in the metaphors another interesting book (I need to reread) is Fritof Capra's Tao of physics http://www.amazon.com/The-Tao-Physic.../dp/0877735948 which explores the parallels between mystical thinking and modern physics.

My POV is that we are part of this universe and subject to all it's forces and as such deep mystical thinking that transcends the strictures if language is often called religious.

Einstein's state of being contemplating Relativity is akin to a religious mystic's state of mind contemplating the idea of god.

[Petter]

Basically a certain level of physics and statistical analysis shows that the basic structures that cause stars to from and particles to form is highly improbable, their point is often that this demonstrates some sort of guiding intelligence.

A lot of the improbability arguments—not all, but a lot of them—are also bunk, because they deal with arbitrarily defined quantities. For example, such an argument might go “the proton mass is 1.672621777(74)×10−27; now if it varied by just one part in ten billion billion billion, the universe would be all topsy-turvy”—but “one part in ten billion billion billion” is defined in terms of units humans invented, and this argument could equally well be stated “the proton mass is 1.0 p-units; now if it varied by just one part in ten…”, which sounds a lot less impressive. The author to read on this is Victor J. Stenger.

Another problem with all these “If it varied by…” arguments (not all of which are just arbitrary-unit issues) is that they make two assumptions, often unstated and always unsupported. One is that they vary independently (what if the proton mass changed but so did all the other elemental masses?; what if they could only change in tandem?). The other is that, well…

To marvel at precise choices is to implicitly say “At the formation or creation or emergence of our universe, there was a wide range of values possible for physical constants such that the precise position of the real values within that range is remarkable.” But how do we know this? Perhaps the physical parameters were constrained to necessarily fall within a very narrow range. Perhaps they were constrained to their actual values. If the physical parameters have the only values they could possibly have (regardless of what we might imagine they could have had), it’s hardly remarkable that the only possible outcome is in fact what happened.

[tmorterlaing]

I came across this on youtube:
I didn't realise the whole program was on there, which is cool. Im not posting it as a way of arguing that all psychics are fake or anything, I'm posting it because throughout the programme Derren shows some of the more common ways people are taken in. He also makes some interesting observations about the way it is approached- for example there's a bit where everyone is going to a show where the dead will be contacted, but it's seems as though they're all excited and awaiting entertainment, rather than a little sombre at the concept they may talk to their long dead parent etc.
You may well have already seen it, just found it interesting :)

[CNagy]

I highly recommend Derren Brown's books and videos. He's not tackling the heavy question of "does psychic ability exist?" but he does a hell of a job showing how self-proclaimed psychics are fooling others and/or themselves. Plus, he's entertaining.

[Tom .C]

I highly recommend Derren Brown's books and videos. He's not tackling the heavy question of "does psychic ability exist?" but he does a hell of a job showing how self-proclaimed psychics are fooling others and/or themselves. Plus, he's entertaining.

I knew you were going to say that.

[battlefields]

I knew you were going to say that.

You has gifted?