Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 237 (530744)
10-14-2009 5:58 PM


Tarot cards. Astrology. Palm reading. Crystal balls. Tea leaves. Sheep's entrails. Alectromancy. Pyromancy. The methods of fortune telling are numerous and in many cases bizarre. However the fortune telling business is thriving and people seem keen to believe in the validity of such practices. But is precognition or divination of any sort consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them to be? Or does causality, arguably the very founding principle upon which all science is based, necessarily preclude such practices?
In his popular science book "The Physics of the Impossible" Michio Kaku classes precognition as a class III impossibility: "Class III impossibilities are feats that clearly violate the known laws of physics. If they do turn out to be possible, they would represent a fundamental shift in our understanding of physics."
This thread is about the physical possibility, or otherwise, of precognition in particular. More widely, and in anticipation of the expected use of quantum theory as a means of justifying claims of paranormal abilities, this thread is also about the use of quantum theory as a catchall justification for various forms of mysticism. I don't see this how this is any different in principle from the god of the gaps position. Take something that is complex and not fully understood and then fill in the gaps we have in our knowledge with whatever unevidenced wishful thinking floats your boat. Throw in some ill understood but technical sounding terminology about "energies", "forces", "fields" or whatever else and let the pseudoscience unravel.
So precognition. A possibility supported by aspects of quantum theory? Or something that requires a complete overturning of the whole of science and which is thus impossible by the laws of physics as we currently know them to be?
If promoted then "Is it science" or maybe the BB cosmology forum as a catchall for physics type stuff might be appropriate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 4:28 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 10-15-2009 8:11 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2009 8:27 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 10-17-2009 4:17 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 228 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2009 8:01 AM Straggler has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 237 (530753)
10-14-2009 6:35 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 3 of 237 (530815)
10-15-2009 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-14-2009 5:58 PM


It depends on how you define precognition. If precognition is simply knowledge of the future, then yes, precognition is possible, and possible without resorting to quantum physics. It is possible to mathematically model the behaviors of a system and use that model to predict outcomes.
Now physical systems are relatively easy to model. Systems that include biological components are more complex due to the competing variables that biological organisms bring to the equations - essentially, there are a greater number of variables to consider when modeling systems with biological components. However, the task, while daunting, can be done if the variables can be listed and defined. We try to do that all the time and we get increasingly better at it as technology and our understanding of humans progresses. As we progress, our ability to predict the future more accurately will increase. Of course we then run into the problem of free will, that is, knowing the outcome, people may choose a different course in opposition to what the prediction states. Thus our precognitive ability is ultimately useless as a tool if the principal actors know the prediction.
Aasimov understood this problem when he wrote the Foundation series and introduced Psychohistory. His solution was to have the principal actors be unaware of the plan ensuring that they would continue upon the course he had set. Keeping in mind that Aasimov's story was Science Fiction, if something similar could be done, then yes, precognition through mathematical models could be a reliable tool to influence the course of human events as long as the principal actors are unaware of the predictions.
On the other hand, if you are arguing for precognition as a supernatural ability, then I couldn't say. At a point in my life, I had dabbled in the Tarot. After learning about it and understanding it, I tried it out on some friends. What they told me was how eerily accurate I was. The thing is, my statements weren't actual specific, but Tarot is based on what cards are turned over, so there is that randomness to it. And every card in the tarot does have a meaning attached to them. The idea behind the Tarot is that a person's "energy" influences the what cards appear. There is a small ritual that involves focusing that energy so that their question is addressed by the cards, typically asking the person to shuffle the deck. Where the card is placed is also important in the Tarot reading. As I was just beginning, I did reference the book a lot to see what the cards that were drawn meant and I was a bit nervous about getting it wrong. But, as I said, my friends were quite amazed at my "precognitive" abilities. Do I believe in the Tarot as a form of precognition? Not really, because I learned to do it as a gag, like how some people learn magic tricks. But perhaps I made believers out of some people out there.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2009 5:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 5:45 AM Izanagi has replied
 Message 5 by caffeine, posted 10-15-2009 6:12 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 4 of 237 (530823)
10-15-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 4:28 AM


Definitions
Inzanagi writes:
It depends on how you define precognition. If precognition is simply knowledge of the future, then yes, precognition is possible, and possible without resorting to quantum physics. It is possible to mathematically model the behaviors of a system and use that model to predict outcomes.
The standard scientific methods of analysing relevant cause to determine effect is not what I meant by precognition. I was referring to the sort of abilities claimed by fortune tellers and other proponents of the paranormal.
Dictionary writes:
Philosophy Dictionary: Precognition: The paranormal ability to foresee events before they happen, and before there is normal evidence that they are going to happen.
Precognition (from the Latin pr-, prior to, + cognitio, acquiring knowledge), also called Future Sight, refers to perception that involves the acquisition of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and normally acquired sense-based information.
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
Inzagi writes:
The idea behind the Tarot is that a person's "energy" influences the what cards appear. There is a small ritual that involves focusing that energy so that their question is addressed by the cards, typically asking the person to shuffle the deck.
What is meant by "energy" in this context? Does this "energy" obey the known laws of physics? Is it conserved? Can it be transformed into other more conventional forms of energy? Does it obey the second law of thermodynamics? What exactly is meant by the term "energy" in such contexts?
Do I believe in the Tarot as a form of precognition? Not really, because I learned to do it as a gag, like how some people learn magic tricks. But perhaps I made believers out of some people out there.
Lots of people do believe in such things. Some people believe that they genuinely have such abilities. The question is do such claims fly in the face of physics as we know it? Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 4:28 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 8:06 AM Straggler has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 5 of 237 (530827)
10-15-2009 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 4:28 AM


Aasimov understood this problem when he wrote the Foundation series and introduced Psychohistory. His solution was to have the principal actors be unaware of the plan ensuring that they would continue upon the course he had set. Keeping in mind that Aasimov's story was Science Fiction, if something similar could be done, then yes, precognition through mathematical models could be a reliable tool to influence the course of human events as long as the principal actors are unaware of the predictions.
This raises an interesting issue. Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument:
1) There is no true randomness, and all physical processes are ultimately predictable assuming sufficient knowledge
2) Human behavior is entirely a product of the physical structure of our bodies (with ‘bodies’ including brains)
If both of these are true, it would mean that, given sufficient knowledge and sufficient computational power (either of which might be impossible in principle), it would be possible to predict people’s behavior even if those people know about the predictions. The effects of them learning about the prediction would be factored in to the original calculation; and it would always predict the behavior that someone would follow through on even if they knew of the prediction.
On the other hand, if you are arguing for precognition as a supernatural ability, then I couldn't say. At a point in my life, I had dabbled in the Tarot. After learning about it and understanding it, I tried it out on some friends. What they told me was how eerily accurate I was. The thing is, my statements weren't actual specific, but Tarot is based on what cards are turned over, so there is that randomness to it.
This is because it’s not difficult to relate something fairly vague directly to your life. We all share the same basic emotions, so it’s easy to make the jump from the tarot reader’s generalised description of an emotionally painful conflict to a specific emotionally painful conflict in your life. Several tests have been done in which participants were given identical descriptions of personality, each having been told it was tailored specifically to them, first (as far as I know) by Bertram Forer in the 40s. This is the paragraph he handed out to his students after getting them to fill in a spurious personality test:
quote:
You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.
The average accuracy rating out of 5 was 4.26, despite this being specifically tailored to nobody. The same basic principle works with predicting the future. Fortune tellers rarely, if ever, tell you that our girlfriend’s cheating on you and is going to break up with you next Friday. Instead, they tell you that there is an important change approaching in your life and/or that they see some conflict with someone very close to you — maybe this is already happening* and about to come to a head or it’s just about to happen.
*at which point a fortune teller who is intentionally scamming can look for some sort of recognition and further information from you to work into their prediction as if that’s what they’d seen all along.
Edited by caffeine, : quote tags

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 4:28 AM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 6:29 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 6 of 237 (530829)
10-15-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by caffeine
10-15-2009 6:12 AM


The Clockwork Universe Vs Inherent Uncertainty
This raises an interesting issue. Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument:
1) There is no true randomness, and all physical processes are ultimately predictable assuming sufficient knowledge
2) Human behavior is entirely a product of the physical structure of our bodies (with ‘bodies’ including brains)
If both of these are true, it would mean that, given sufficient knowledge and sufficient computational power........
Except that Heisenbergs uncertainty principle precludes us from ever having all of the knowledge required. Even in principle.
Wiki writes:
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics. According to the uncertainty principle, it is, for instance, impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.
Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia
The sort of clockwork universe, the sort of universe where everything is in principle predictable given enough data, is denied even as a possibility by QM.
This leads to the double edged sword of being far a more interesting proposition whilst also leaving the door ajar for all sorts of pseudoscientific claptrap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by caffeine, posted 10-15-2009 6:12 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 4:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 7 of 237 (530836)
10-15-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
10-15-2009 5:45 AM


Re: Definitions
What is meant by "energy" in this context? Does this "energy" obey the known laws of physics? Is it conserved? Can it be transformed into other more conventional forms of energy? Does it obey the second law of thermodynamics? What exactly is meant by the term "energy" in such contexts?
You'd probably have to ask a Wiccan on this point. I don't know enough on this subject to give you any adequate answers. What I infer from what I have been told is that this "energy" is a supernatural energy akin to a person's "life-force."
Lots of people do believe in such things. Some people believe that they genuinely have such abilities. The question is do such claims fly in the face of physics as we know it? Or not?
Setting aside the supernatural aspect for a minute, I would have to say no. Perhaps you could explain in what way would precognition violate the known laws of physics?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 5:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 8:51 AM Izanagi has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 8 of 237 (530837)
10-15-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-14-2009 5:58 PM


Stile's Boring Negative Answer
Straggler writes:
But is precognition or divination of any sort consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them to be?
As far as my understanding of this universe goes, precognition or divination is utterly impossible in any and all ways.
Even things like this:
Straggler in the Your First Ever EvC Post thread writes:
I had to look (synesthesia) up. How truly fascinating. I was at college with a guy (pure maths student) who said he saw equations in colours and that he could manipulate them on the basis of eliminating "green" or whatever. I never had the foggiest what he was talking about but he was bloody clever.
Message 42
I no doubt believe your story about your friend. However, I do not think that the "green" involved was some sort of inherent physical property of the pencil-and-paper written equation. I think that the "green" involved is more of a property of his intuition. That is, his intuition of an equation being incomplete was being visualized by the colour green. Of course, more testing would have to be done in order to say one way or the other, but that's what I think without further evidence. (And my guess would be that you agree).
Straggler writes:
Or does causality, arguably the very founding principle upon which all science is based, necessarily preclude such practices?
In a word: Yes.
So precognition. A possibility supported by aspects of quantum theory?
No.
Or something that requires a complete overturning of the whole of science and which is thus impossible by the laws of physics as we currently know them to be?
Yes.
Basically, I use a form of a lemon test. That is, if there was anything to it's validity, then it would be used as much as possible. Yes, I'm sure you can find a few minor police forces who have a "psychic" they talk with to get leads from when they are absolutely out of all other possibilities. But if there was any validity behind such methods, then all police forces would have an on-payroll psychic to which they always consult. In the same way that since science does work... all police forces consult science to determine the validity of their evidence. They all do it, simply because it works. If it worked, they'd all do it.
Using this simple lemon test, it's easy for a new method of psychic abilities to be ignored... for a while. But once it proved itself to actually work, it would then get picked up rather quickly. Also, most psychic "methods" have been around for a long time, so the fact that they are not widely used is... telling.
Just 'cause it isn't labelled "snakeoil" doesn't mean it's legit.
Edited by Stile, : I don't grammar good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2009 5:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 8:39 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 237 (530839)
10-15-2009 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-14-2009 5:58 PM


The LHC goes back in time and kills its grandmother
So we take a wormhole and accelerate one end of it. This creates a time dilation effect at one end. Now we have a wormhole where the entrance is in 2009 and the exit is 2010 (we the experimenters would be in 2010). We read a newspaper for April 25th 2010, step through the wormhole and then go on live television and tell the world what happens on April 25th 2010.
Voila - we've 'predicted' the future.
Not an easy experiment - and if Hawking is right about the chronology protection conjecture - then it wouldn't work and the thread is basically over. But I suppose, one could hypothesis naturally forming wormholes with time differentials that some people can discern information coming out of. Or something?
Oh - and incidentally - in the news today is a story about physicists postulating that the LHC is sabotaging itself from the future. It contains some interesting quotes like this one from Neils Bohr:
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.
Or Einstein:
For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion.
You can read one of the crazy LHC papers here
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2009 5:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 8:35 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 7:22 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 68 by Larni, posted 10-20-2009 7:41 AM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 237 (530841)
10-15-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
10-15-2009 8:27 AM


Time Travel and Precognition
In Kaku's book he makes a distinction between time travel (which he classes as a type II impossibility - Essentially way way beyond us technologically but not actually in contravention of the laws of physics as we understand them to be) and precognition.
I will look up the distinction he makes at some point later as it is over a year since I read the book in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2009 8:27 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 11 of 237 (530843)
10-15-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
10-15-2009 8:11 AM


Re: Stile's Boring Negative Answer
I no doubt believe your story about your friend. However, I do not think that the "green" involved was some sort of inherent physical property of the pencil-and-paper written equation. I think that the "green" involved is more of a property of his intuition.
Oh absolutely. That is all I meant. I wasn't claiming anything other than that he seemed to have an innately intuitive way of thinking that was pretty alien to most of us. Nothing paranormal.
As for the rest of your "negative boring" answer - Well I pretty much agree.
Stragggler writes:
Or does causality, arguably the very founding principle upon which all science is based, necessarily preclude such practices?
In a word: Yes.
That is Kaku's conclusion. And as much as I claim to understand these things I would agree with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 10-15-2009 8:11 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 12 of 237 (530845)
10-15-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Definitions
Setting aside the supernatural aspect for a minute, I would have to say no. Perhaps you could explain in what way would precognition violate the known laws of physics?
Making predictions based on cause and effect is what science is all about. Bypassing the causal relationship and somehow knowing the future by some other unrelated means very probably before there is any cause (positions of tea leaves in a cup, visions in a crystal ball, cards dealt from a deck etc. etc.) is violating causality. And causality is pretty fundamental to science and indeed knowledge more generally.
You'd probably have to ask a Wiccan on this point. I don't know enough on this subject to give you any adequate answers. What I infer from what I have been told is that this "energy" is a supernatural energy akin to a person's "life-force."
I realise you are not personally advocating anything here. But there is the use of another pseudo term again. In this case "force". What force? Does this force act in a way that is consistent with Newtons laws of motion? Can we measure the effects of this force?
Terms like "energy" and "force" are bandied around by people as though they were actually using them to mean something but I am never sure what it is they are talking about in this sort of context. More to the point I am not convinced that they do either.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 8:06 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 9:18 AM Straggler has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 13 of 237 (530850)
10-15-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
10-15-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Definitions
Ok. Let me make a scenario.
Let's say some being, like Q, who is not inhibited by the our linear perception of time, tells some Joe about something that will happen in the future. Joe goes out to try and prevent that thing from happening but ends up causing the very thing he was trying to prevent. Q, wanting that particular thing to happen, knew that by telling Joe, Joe would perform actions consistent with his personality which would eventually lead him to be the reason the thing happened, but Q was the cause, or first domino. In essence, what if precognition causes the future to occur exactly the way it was seen, would this satisfy causality?
Terms like "energy" and "force" are bandied around by people as though they were actually using them to mean something but I am never sure what it is they are talking about in this sort of context. More to the point I am not convinced that they do either.
I think it has more to do with the imprecise nature of the English language. People either invent new words or old words take on additional meanings as people try to find a way to describe a new concept. It might make you feel better if we called it "vurtax" and "life-grumac," but I think you would still have disagreements with the basic belief regardless of what it was called. The name for the concept, I believe, is a rather small point to be addressing in light of the bigger argument.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 8:51 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 11:20 AM Izanagi has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 14 of 237 (530874)
10-15-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Definitions
Let's say some being, like Q, who is not inhibited by the our linear perception of time, tells some Joe about something that will happen in the future.
I think we are getting into timeline scenarios here. Does Q have a timeline himself? If he was in what we would call the future at some point in his personal past is that our future or his past? Or both?
In essence, what if precognition causes the future to occur exactly the way it was seen, would this satisfy causality?
Seen by who? I think we need to differentiate between precognition and time travel scenarios here. Precognition under laboratory conditions would involve someone using some means of paranormal divination to "know" a future event that then came to pass.
Q style time time travel scenarios still innately assume causality for Q himself. He presumably had to visit the "future" before he could tell Joe anything about that "future" back in the "past". If we start talking persoanl timelines then I think causality remains intact but there is no guarantee that what Q tells Joe will actually come to pass in Joe's timeline.
I think it has more to do with the imprecise nature of the English language.
I think it has to do with the inability for people to agree on what it is they are talking about. The ambiguity is borne of the fact that such terms when used in the context of pseudoscience mean whatever people subjectively feel that they should mean. Actually using a unique word with it's own meaning would require that somebody actually define what it is they mean. And I don't think they can.
People either invent new words or old words take on additional meanings as people try to find a way to describe a new concept. It might make you feel better if we called it "vurtax" and "life-grumac," but I think you would still have disagreements with the basic belief regardless of what it was called. The name for the concept, I believe, is a rather small point to be addressing in light of the bigger argument.
Well I think the commandeering of genuine scientific terms by pseudoscience is done in a, quite possibly unconscious, attempt to garner some sort of unwarranted respectability. People talk about "energy", "force" etc. etc. as if they know what these things mean in the paranormal context in which they use them but they don't seem to really have any definition at all. Certainly the scientific definitions are not at all relevant. It is a smokescreen to window dress undefined nonsense as scientifically meaningful and to unjustifiably bask in some of the authority that science has earned through hard won success.
Having had that little rant I do appreciate the irony of me seriously considering Q style time travel scenarios in one part of this post whilst railing against pseudoscience and undefined terms in the next
The difference is that I am not claiming to be able to whizz around in time whilst there are people out there claiming that they, or those that they know, can tell the future by various means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 9:18 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 12:18 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 16 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 12:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 15 of 237 (530886)
10-15-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
10-15-2009 11:20 AM


Re: Definitions
Well I think the commandeering of genuine scientific terms by pseudoscience is done in a, quite possibly unconscious, attempt to garner some sort of unwarranted respectability.
I don't agree with that statement because many of the terms science uses have been around much longer than scientific thought has. Take the word, force. Force is derived from the Latin word, fortis, meaning strong. "Strong" is certainly a far cry from how we use force in science.
What people often do is use words that have a meaning similar to what they want to say and imbue it with an additional meaning. That is the evolution of a language. To say science has claim over any word that was already in everyday language is saying that science can usurp words for its own use and once usurped can never be made to mean anything else, even its original meaning.
I would agree that there needs to be a differentiation between the scientific use and everyday use, but to be honest, I don't think there are many Wiccans that would argue that their brand of belief is scientific in any way. All that they are trying to do, as with any person, is make sense of the Universe around them. And Wiccans are generally nice, reasonable people - at least the ones I've met.
Well I think the commandeering of genuine scientific terms by pseudoscience is done in a, quite possibly unconscious, attempt to garner some sort of unwarranted respectability.
Just keep in mind that many of those terms weren't scientific terms to begin with. When people talk about "life-force," they aren't trying to gain respectability by using the scientific meaning. They are using the common definition to explain the world around them. It's like the word, "work." Work is a scientific term, but its usage began long before it was used in science. Would you argue that the way people use work nowadays is an affront to the scientific definition to work?
Give people a little credit. Most aren't trying to create a science out of beliefs. I don't hear of Shaolin monks going around trying to make "qi" a part of biology. I haven't heard of Wiccans trying to make "magic," scientific. Most people are quite capable of separating reality from the supernatural. Don't let the small, albeit vocal, minority sour you to people who have beliefs.
Just remember, like everything else, language evolves (except French from France). It's not surprising that scientists would use familiar words to describe the things they see, giving those words added meanings. That's the way things are, but that's no reason to go off on people for something the scientists have done.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 11:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 2:07 PM Izanagi has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024