Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism

I'm glad you brought up.Do you think Sheldrake's morphic fields have the same kind of support for the above? If so - I'd like to see it.Dark Matter: After observing that galaxies act as if there were more mass than can be detected visually (phenomenon) it was proposed that some matter exists that neither reflects enough light to be detected to us and does not give off sufficient radiation itself. Russell's Teapot classes as dark matter.Guess what? Dark Matter needs to be matter that has mass that causes gravitational effects. All of these things exist.Dark matter is not an exclusive hypothesis, and there are other possibilties. However Dark Matter is also predicted by other models of cosmology - and in the exact proportions that observation would indicate actually must exist.Similar things could be said about the others: They are specific enough to allow for a fully mathematical model that makes predictions that are consistent with observation. String theory requires strings which as of yet are not detected, and as such there is a lot of scepticism about their existence. But if they did exist, then they manage to solve many long standing problems with various cosmological models.So - what can be said of Morphic Fields that gives them the kind of, still rather tentative, status of superstrings or even the more supported Dark Matter?

You said:

quote:

---

String predicted gravity in it's equations; gravity is a pretty well observed thing.

---

And I'm telling you that loop quantum gravity also explains gravity without the extra dimensions. It seems to me that LQG is a better theory than string theory as it parsimonious. From Peter Woit's blog about multiple universes (MWI):

quote:

---

According to a story in the Stanford Daily, the recent arXiv preprint mentioned here and discussed many other places on the web has given us two new scientific celebrities:
Two of Stanford’s physicists, Professor Andrei Linde and postdoctoral researcher Vitaly Vanchurin, have garnered recent celebrity-status in the scientific community for their recent discovery of the maximum number of alternate universes.
Instead of consulting experts in this field and getting quotes about how significant this pseudo-science is, the writer asks Stanford students, who do a much better job than the experts...

---

and about String Theory found here:

quote:

---

The experimental situation is best described with Pauli's phrase "it's not even wrong". No one has managed to extract any sort of experimental prediction out of the theory other than that the cosmological constant should probably be at least 55 orders of magnitude larger than experimental bounds. String theory not only makes no predictions about physical phenomena at experimentally accessible energies, it makes no predictions whatsoever. Even if someone were to gure out tomorrow how to build an accelerator capable
of reaching Planck-scale energies, string theorists would be able to do no better than give qualitative guesses about what such a machine might see. This situation leads one to question whether string theory really is a scientic theory at all. At the moment it's a theory that cannot be falsied by any conceivable experimental result. It's not even clear that there is any possible theoretical development that would falsify the theory.

---

Lee Smolin on multiple universe:

quote:

---

"The scenario of many unobserved universes plays the same logical role as the scenario of an intelligent designer. Each provides an untestable hypothesis that, if true, makes something improbable seem quite probable."

---

and from his book, "The Trouble with Physics: the Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next"

quote:

---

Similarly, the claim that a vast number of string theories exist with a positive cosmological constant (the much-discussed "landscape") is far from secure. Yet some leading string theorists are willing, on the basis of these weak results, to make grand pronouncements about string theory's success and future prospects.

---

Phillip Warren Anderson in his article to the NYT:

quote:

---

Is string theory a futile exercise as physics, as I believe it to be? It is an interesting mathematical specialty and has produced and will produce mathematics useful in other contexts, but it seems no more vital as mathematics than other areas of very abstract or specialized math, and doesn't on that basis justify the incredible amount of effort expended on it.

​

My belief is based on the fact that string theory is the first science in hundreds of years to be pursued in pre-Baconian fashion, without any adequate experimental guidance. It proposes that Nature is the way we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do.

---

Sheldon Glashow and a quote from his interview with NOVA:

quote:

---

The string theorists have a theory that appears to be consistent and is very beautiful, very complex, and I don't understand it. It gives a quantum theory of gravity that appears to be consistent but doesn't make any other predictions. That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?

---

And another:

quote:

---

But in and of itself, it has failed in its primary goal, which is to incorporate what we already know into a consistent theory that explains gravity as well. The new theory must incorporate the old theory and say something more. String theory has not succeeded in this fashion. String theory has said something more, but it does not incorporate the details of the structure that preceded it, that is to say the standard theory of elementary particles. Until it does that, it is not yet physics in a conventional form. It is a perhaps promising corner of physics that may some day say things about the world. But today they're saying things about string theory to one another.

---

Lawrence Krauss about his debate against Brian Greene:

quote:

---

The debate is twofold. A: Does string theory have anything to do with the real world. And B: Is it, as I like to put it, ready for prime time? Is it worth all the hype and has it made any progress? I think the answer is no. It's been incredibly unsuccessful. It's a theory in crisis it hasn't really achieved any of its major goals as espoused 20 years ago. I'm not saying a physicist shouldn't be looking at this stuff. I just think it's not worthy of a lot of attention. Now, there are no really good alternatives, but I can guarantee when there is, everyone is going to drop string theory like a hot potato and go onto something else.

---

And Carlo Rovelli about string theory:

quote:

---

Many string theorists believe that it is impossible to quantize gravity in 3+1 dimensions without creating these artifacts. This is not proven, and it is also unproven that the matter artifacts, predicted by string theory, are exactly the same as observed matter.

---

Astrophysicists saw the Universe was expanding faster than models predicted and hypothesized dark energy to explain it. This is analogous to Straggler's contention that Sheldrake saw a phenomenon and hypothesized telepathy to explain it. Quoted from Michael J Duff's book, "The Theory formerly Known as Strings":

quote:

---

Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton,
N.J., M stands for Magic, Mystery or Membrane, according to taste."

---

Humorous quote aside, the theory, according to wiki, still falls into TWO string theories, the heterotic string theory (which is also the type I string theory) and the type II theory. And apparently it's still incomplete, sort of like the description for telepathy. And there is still the competing theory of LQT, which doesn't require multiple dimensions and membranes. Yet you accept M-Theory despite the fact that it is incomplete. So why can you accept an incomplete M-Theory and not an incomplete concept of telepathy? What's dark matter? What's dark energy? What mechanisms do they use?A hypothesis is formed specifically to be tested. If you want to hypothesized that it is the workd of fairies, then you are welcome to. I still would expect and demand the same rigorous experimentation that other scientists go through to prove their hypotheses. If your experimental methodology passes muster and your results haven't falsified your hypothesis, I don't see why more experimentation wouldn't be warranted. Perhaps a way to capture those faeries. But if you ever argue that those faeries can never be caught no matter how advanced technology gets, then I can't accept your hypothesis simply because I can never directly observe the existence of said faeries.Sorry for going backwards.

I agree that people who only use science to justify their beliefs without adding anything of substance should not be taken seriously. My argument is that when a person is using the scientific method to bring the paranormal into the normal, it shouldn't be summarily dismissed. Even if the actual concept can't be fully explained at the moment, experimentation can still be done to see if there IS a phenomenon to study. If the results reveal nothing of interest, then we leave the explanation behind. But if repeated experimentation does suggest something more, then perhaps more research could be done to explain the resulting data. Perhaps telepathy is just the addition of a new brainwave that allows organisms to sense the brainwaves of others? In which case neuroscience could help in that regard and you wouldn't need to rely on so-called "morphic fields."That's the point - someone using the scientific method to attempt to bring the paranormal into the normal through the scientific method should be commended and his experiments reviewed like any other scientific experiment. His hypothesis should undergo the strict scrutiny that other hypotheses go through everyday through observations and experimentation. I mean even now, evolution, though accepted, is put through its paces with the observations and research that is being conducted.Again, the person who uses science to justify their beliefs does nothing to advance knowledge and much to harm it. That person doesn't subject his beliefs to falsification and shouldn't even be listened to. But the person who is willing to put their hypothesis to scientific scrutiny, is willing to let others perform experiments in order to falsify their hypothesis, and is willing to let others look at their data and subject that data to peer-review shouldn't have their ideas mocked and grouped with those who aren't willing to do those things. Even if their ideas might seem unnatural, for all we know there may be a natural explanation that we will never discover without adequate research.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

And as a theoretical physicist, who spent the first part of his life working on quantum gravity, including string theory and the predecessor of loop, I'm telling you to stop talking bollocks. If you want to learn something about these subjects, then go start a thread and we'll see what can be done. But here you are just embarressing yourself. Your own knowledge of cosmology, dark energy, dark matter, and string theory is worse than not even wrong. Now, try concentrating on the topic.ABE: really? you seem to think we called it "dark energy" because it was mysterious Lot to learn...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

And then tried to explain telepathy by inventing the term "morphic field."There is little evidence to suggest telepathy...there is none to suggest morphic fields, mostly because morphic fields are not defined in any way that can be investigated or falsified.

Message 109 You had the hypothesis, Dark Matter, already and used it to fit in with all the other observations. At least, that's what it seems like to me. The definitive answer to dark matter is the direct observation of such. Has there been such direct observations?Also, we know what matter is like. We can describe it in detail. Can you describe dark matter?Then some dark matter doesn't have mass, the non-baryonic dark matter. Describe non-baryonic dark matter. And are there experiments that we can do to directly observe non-baryonic dark matter? And that's why many physicists that are skeptical of string theory don't ridicule it; rather, they argue that attention could also be focused on competing theories, like LQT. But, and this is important, many of those physicists also argue that string theory should also be looked into. See what they did? Despite the fact that they were skeptical of string theory, they realized that if string theory could be proven falsifiable, then it would make a credible theory. They don't dismiss it even though no one can completely describe the theory or even show what a string is. All the string theorists have is speculation and mathematics. And yet the skeptical physicists are willing to give it due consideration, which is more than some people give for someone who attempts to use science to bring the paranormal into the normal.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

I would agree with you that his idea of morphic fields is a little out there. But at the very least he tried to describe the phenomenon of telepathy rather than just saying faeries were responsible. Perhaps with some additional research, more can be known about these mysterious "morphic fields." If such things were to exist, they could be rooted in naturalistic explanations. Which is why I would disagree with the concept of morphic fields as they currently stand. Mystical mumbo-jumbo that aren't falsifiable don't count as science in my book. I like Jung's Collective Consciousness, but I wouldn't necessarily classify it as science. But the phenomenon of telepathy, if properly experimented for and explained in naturalistic terms might very well be worth looking into.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

really? that would be rather difficult...

Uh... no. From NASA's website:

quote:

---

The discovery in 1998 that the Universe is actually speeding up its expansion was a total shock to astronomers. It just seems so counter-intuitive, so against common sense. But the evidence has become convincing.

---

From the same website:

quote:

---

In addition, measurements of the cosmic microwave background indicate that the universe has a flat geometry on large scales. Because there is not enough matter in the universe - either ordinary or dark matter - to produce this flatness, the difference must be attributed to a "dark energy". This same dark energy causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. In addition, the effect of dark energy seems to vary, with the expansion of the Universe slowing down and speeding up over different times.

---

NASA again:

quote:

---

By contrast, dark energy remains a complete mystery. The name "dark energy" refers to the fact that some kind of "stuff" must fill the vast reaches of mostly empty space in the Universe in order to be able to make space accelerate in its expansion. In this sense, it is a "field" just like an electric field or a magnetic field, both of which are produced by electromagnetic energy. But this analogy can only be taken so far because we can readily observe electromagnetic energy via the particle that carries it, the photon.

---

Altogether, my understanding of dark energy is that astronomers say the Universe was speeding up its expansion (mis-statement by me) and they had to explain why. Astronomers knew that the amount of matter or dark matter to explain the flatness of the Universe, they hypothesized dark energy. But my basic point in introducing dark energy is, according to the NASA website, no one knows exactly what it is. So unless NASA is lying to me, I think my basic point about no one knowing what dark energy exactly is still holds true.More from this part of NASA's webpage on dark matter:

quote:

---

Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole.

---

Once again, NASA is telling me that galaxies are more massive than they should be. So atronomers hypo0thesize dark matter, which is matter that is, apparently, invisible. And once again NASA is telling me that scientists are researching what dark matter is, how much there is, and what it will do. Is NASA lying to me?

quote:

---

So far, it looks like there are both baryonic and non-baryonic types of dark matter. Some dark matter may be composed of regular matter (ie., baryonic), but simply not give off much light. Things like brown dwarf stars would be in this catagory. Other non-baryonic dark matter may be tiny, sub-atomic particles which aren't a part of "normal" matter at all. If these tiny particles have mass and are numerous, they could make up a large part of the dark matter we think exists. If true, then it's possible most of the matter in the Universe is of some mysterious form that we cannot yet even identify!

---

From NASA, explaining to me what dark matter is. I know that some dark matter may be baryonic dark matter, like neutrinos (hot dark matter). But apparently, the most numerous form of dark matter is a mysterious form that NASA hasn't identified yet.I understand you are an expert in your field and I'm always happy to receive additional information on interesting subjects, especially from experts. I like learning. But if you have issues with what I'm saying, take it up with your colleagues that are misinforming me. Because I'm sure I could find more websites with the same information from the NASA website.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

My mistake. I must have misread somewhere. Thanks for catching that.ABE: I made a stupid mistake. I read "no atoms" and thought "no mass."Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

Science has looked at telepathy and has come to the conclusion that there is no phenomenon in need of explanation. In other words, there is no there there.They could be wrong, but it would take some dedicated guy with some serious scientific experiments, rigorously carried out with as much bias eliminated as possible. Sheldrake has not done so, and thus he is not convincing. I agree, and that's pretty much the point of the thread. This type of mystical mumbo-jumbo, prettied up wqith sciency words does a disservice to science, and if there is anything to any of these claims, only obscures that fact and makes people even less likely to take it seriously.The charlatans who do this are hurting science, hurting any chance of sacience taking a long hard look at their claims...but they're making money hand over fist selling books and merch. It looks to me like the motive is clear, and science it ain't.

So I repeat my question: do you think that Sheldrake's "Morphic Field" hypothesis has the same degree of support as string theory? Does it make any successful predictions (even if they are non-unique)?If Sheldrake's Morphic Field's had the kind of credibility of the examples of other 'bleeding edge' physics hypotheses then I'll happily move on to discuss another subject. But I fail to see that, it still sounds like impressive sounding technobabble without any meat to back it up to me.

---

I might once have felt it prudent to keep silence, for I perceive that the race of men, while sheep in credulity, are wolves for conformity; but just now, happily, in this breathing-spell of toleration, there are so many varieties of belief that even an unbeliever may speak out.
--Carl Van Doren, 1926

Yeah that is fine. Quantum bullshit is definitely ultimately the topic here. Particularly with regard to paranormal claims. But exploration of the experimental basis of any given paranormal claim under question is both fine and to be expected as far as I am concerned.Basically I am sick of those who relentlessly use "off-topic" as a debating tactic rather than a means of focussing legitimate debate. Short of administrative interference I have seen no need for any claims of off-topicness in this thread no matter how much some may wish to use that excuse to evade legitimate lines of questioning.

See Message 142 for my response to Perdition.I am actually not arguing for Sheldrake's idea. Notice I have repeatedly avoided calling it a theory throughout the discussion (I hope I was successful). But the concept of telepathy might bear some weight even if Sheldrake's explanation does not. I couldn't tell you and I'm not sure if you could either.I'm not arguing for immediate acceptance of some idea just because of one experiment. I am arguing that skepticism shouldn't mean you dismiss an idea simply because it doesn't fit into your worldview. If a person follows the scientific method and is willing to put his hypothesis to the test, no matter how out there, then science should give that person a little leeway. Be skeptical all you want, but at least concede the possibility of finding a natural explanation for a supposed paranormal phenomenon. Of course, this is only when the person is willing to submit their experiments to peer-review, repeated and rigorous and unbiased experimentation, etc, etc.But if the person is not willing to submit his hypothesis for falsification, then by all means, don't believe him, and I won't fault you for it.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

I understand, it gets quite annoying when someone accuses you of being off topic, but since I did it to myself, I'm ok with it.