Preternatural vs Dark Matter

[nPeace]

His peer reviewed papers and research still exist and referred to in later research as a primary source for the support of the multiverse.. This documents the fact that the multiverse is by far the dominant view of physicists and cosmologists in recent history'

The view of the scientists is not that the universe had an absolute beginning, but a temporal beginning from a singularity in a greater timeless quantum world of a multiverse.

Why do you keep harping on the the scientists supporting a beginning, since their view does not support your agenda.

Just by pointing out that you have a dead man in your list, I am harping on the scientists supporting a beginning?

It seems to me I am not the one harping here. Just look at your comments below.
Anyway, you said the man supports it. The man is dead so he can't support anything, and you don't know he does, and I don;t know why you think it matters to me. So why not just cross the man's name out and admit you made an error. It's just one name less. Does that affect you?

Pretty much documents that the present consensus of physicists and cosmologists is independent of religious belief nor non-belief.

Why harp, when you can listen to the beautiful sound of harps already playing beautiful music?

As I mentioned before, let me repeat it.
I agree too with what was said - some scientists are "pig headed".
Like for example, when they insist their views about something is right, despite the fact that they cannot test and observe these concepts.
Yet, they are happy to dismiss logical argument that can't be tested and observed.

Let me also add, that I find some scientists have this view about science that is so wrong.
They seem to carry this air that because they are scientists, that makes their knowledge superior to other knowledge.
To me that's ugly, and I am sure they are even some scientists that are appalled by it.

I think some scientists need to take their head out of the cloud and get off that myth, and admit that the evidence they are interpreting is not sure knowledge about anything... and stop puffing themselves up.
It's like using a myth as an opium to feel one is on cloud nine.
What is your view on that? Would you agree?

 

[shunyadragon]

Just by pointing out that you have a dead man in your list, I am harping on the scientists supporting a beginning?

It seems to me I am not the one harping here. Just look at your comments below.
Anyway, you said the man supports it. The man is dead so he can't support anything, and you don't know he does, and I don;t know why you think it matters to me. So why not just cross the man's name out and admit you made an error. It's just one name less. Does that affect you?

The claim that scientists consider the universe has a beginning is incomplete as to what scientists believe and not meaningful, because that is not the only thing they believe concerning the beginnings of all possible universes including our own,

The deceased scientist published volumes supporting the origins of our universe, Quantum Mechanics, and the multiverse.

You said the their was controversy among scientists concerning the multiverse. My list clearly demonstrated that by far the majority scientist support the concept of a multiverse and an Quantum World existence before the beginning of any universe. They do not support that the beginning of our universe is any sort of absolute beginning, and there is evidence for this..

As I mentioned before, let me repeat it.
I agree too with what was said - some scientists are "pig headed".
Like for example, when they insist their views about something is right, despite the fact that they cannot test and observe these concepts.
Yet, they are happy to dismiss logical argument that can't be tested and observed.

This is not meaningful, and I cannot agree with any of the above. The existence of Quantum Mechanics and the existence of a Quantum World is where our universe and all possible universes come from is supported by evidence. .

Let me also add, that I find some scientists have this view about science that is so wrong.
They seem to carry this air that because they are scientists, that makes their knowledge superior to other knowledge.
To me that's ugly, and I am sure they are even some scientists that are appalled by it.

I think some scientists need to take their head out of the cloud and get off that myth, and admit that the evidence they are interpreting is not sure knowledge about anything... and stop puffing themselves up.
It's like using a myth as an opium to feel one is on cloud nine.
What is your view on that? Would you agree?

This is not meaningful nor coherent that I could respond to.

 

[gnostic]

What? Dark Matter?
God and the concept of God was around before the word science was coined, so God can't fill any Gaps.
The argument for God precedes any argument. So it's not a filler.

I am guessing you find that argument useful. Do you have any idea of how many arguments people put forth that predates current knowledge and therefore whatever they thought first THUS it must be true? (Because you know they thought it first)

Yeah, it is called “arrogant ignorance”.

Such arguments only win points for creationists who can’t think for themselves, hence the “God did it!” or the “Holy Bible has all the answer”.

I can substitute “God” with the “village idiot”, and that would amount to the same thing.

I am quite certain the village idiot also preceded any argument. If anyone has read “God’s answers” in Job 38 to 41, then the author was not only the village idiot, but also “superstitious idiot”, because the author made God sounds like superstitious idiot too. I have not read so many verses that demonstrated how stupid the author is.

Did God precedes the idiot author?

I am guessing that’s a tie.

 

[gnostic]

I am restructuring remember.
In the video, two scientists put forth an argument against telepathy, saying that dark matter is different. I can understand the argument where test may have been done for telepathy, although I think it can be argued that those tests are not complete, but then the argument put forth by Tara, I found was no different for any phenomenon.

No, nPeace.

The US and former Soviet governments have run extensive tests on telepathy and other paranormal activities throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, and found such abilities to be unfounded. It is “complete”, and in more ways than one - like the tests “a complete waste of money”, “a complete waste of time” and it is “a complete phony”.

The only people that find telepathy to be useful are con-artists, fiction writers, comic book industry and Hollywood.

The governments that financed their respective “parapsychology” departments, parapsychology is now deemed to be “pseudoscience” or “junk science”.

 

[gnostic]

I find it funny how the frequent “researchers” that have reported “positive results” with telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis or remote viewing, during testings. But when a more tighter controlled experiments that were performed later, demonstrated that the “positive results” were faulty or flawed.

It is clear to me, that the “researchers” were either incompetent with the experiments or they have been fudging or manipulating the results.

 

[gnostic]

There is a dead man on your list.

Just by pointing out that you have a dead man in your list, I am harping on the scientists supporting a beginning?

It seems to me I am not the one harping here. Just look at your comments below.
Anyway, you said the man supports it. The man is dead so he can't support anything, and you don't know he does, and I don;t know why you think it matters to me. So why not just cross the man's name out and admit you made an error. It's just one name less. Does that affect you?

Dead or alive.

What is your point?

Being dead or alive is not the point of any work that have been peer reviewed.

As long as the hypothesis is there, the papers, the report along with the data is available, being dead is a non-issue.

Either the papers have been validated or debunked, is what actually mattered; if the author being dead or alive, is not important.

As long as the hypotheses have proper instructions and procedures in place, that any independent scientist can perform the independent experiments, it will either verify the hypothesis to be true, or it will refute it. So as long as you have original results that can be compared with more recent test results, I don’t think it matter much about the guy being dead.

Having said that, I am still not convinced about multiverse model. It is still highly theoretical, and so far the testings haven’t been conclusive or definitive enough to satisfy the model meeting the requirements of Scientific Method.

To me, Multiverse model is not a scientific theory; it is still a hypothesis because it hasn’t met the scientific method requirements.

 

[nPeace]

The claim that scientists consider the universe has a beginning is incomplete as to what scientists believe and not meaningful, because that is not the only thing they believe concerning the beginnings of all possible universes including our own,

The deceased scientist published volumes supporting the origins of our universe, Quantum Mechanics, and the multiverse.

You said the their was controversy among scientists concerning the multiverse. My list clearly demonstrated that by far the majority scientist support the concept of a multiverse and an Quantum World existence before the beginning of any universe. They do not support that the beginning of our universe is any sort of absolute beginning, and there is evidence for this..

I didn't say it. The Wikipedia article said it.
So the majority of scientist support the concept. So?

This is not meaningful, and I cannot agree with any of the above. The existence of Quantum Mechanics and the existence of a Quantum World is where our universe and all possible universes come from is supported by evidence. .

Why call something you don't understand, evidence for a theory one proposes?
So, I saw blood dropping from the sky. It cannot be explained by anything physically visible in the sky. Therefore it's an invisible man. The evidence supporting this theory - blood dropping from the sky. Seems like a pretty good explanation, since blood can only come from... End of story. My theory is supported by evidence, and it has the backing of scientists.

This is not meaningful nor coherent that I could respond to.

I can understand why,

Yeah, it is called “arrogant ignorance”.

Such arguments only win points for creationists who can’t think for themselves, hence the “God did it!” or the “Holy Bible has all the answer”.

I can substitute “God” with the “village idiot”, and that would amount to the same thing.

I am quite certain the village idiot also preceded any argument. If anyone has read “God’s answers” in Job 38 to 41, then the author was not only the village idiot, but also “superstitious idiot”, because the author made God sounds like superstitious idiot too. I have not read so many verses that demonstrated how stupid the author is.

Did God precedes the idiot author?

I am guessing that’s a tie.

Um... What can I say... Thanks... for sharing your opinion.

No, nPeace.

The US and former Soviet governments have run extensive tests on telepathy and other paranormal activities throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, and found such abilities to be unfounded. It is “complete”, and in more ways than one - like the tests “a complete waste of money”, “a complete waste of time” and it is “a complete phony”.

The only people that find telepathy to be useful are con-artists, fiction writers, comic book industry and Hollywood.

The governments that financed their respective “parapsychology” departments, parapsychology is now deemed to be “pseudoscience” or “junk science”.

Well science can explain everything, so anything exceeding naturalism is obviously fake, right.

Dead or alive.

What is your point?

Being dead or alive is not the point of any work that have been peer reviewed.

As long as the hypothesis is there, the papers, the report along with the data is available, being dead is a non-issue.

Either the papers have been validated or debunked, is what actually mattered; if the author being dead or alive, is not important.

As long as the hypotheses have proper instructions and procedures in place, that any independent scientist can perform the independent experiments, it will either verify the hypothesis to be true, or it will refute it. So as long as you have original results that can be compared with more recent test results, I don’t think it matter much about the guy being dead.

Having said that, I am still not convinced about multiverse model. It is still highly theoretical, and so far the testings haven’t been conclusive or definitive enough to satisfy the model meeting the requirements of Scientific Method.

To me, Multiverse model is not a scientific theory; it is still a hypothesis because it hasn’t met the scientific method requirements.

If you are a scientist, I guess that leaves you out of that 75%.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't say it. The Wikipedia article said it.
So the majority of scientist support the concept. So?

Concerning the fact that Stephan Hawkins is dead? or the list I provide? Every scientist on the list I provided can be referenced concerning their peer reviewed.research

Why call something you don't understand, evidence for a theory one proposes?

Scientists understand the concept of the multiverse very well. What is the problem?

So, I saw blood dropping from the sky. It cannot be explained by anything physically visible in the sky. Therefore it's an invisible man. The evidence supporting this theory - blood dropping from the sky. Seems like a pretty good explanation, since blood can only come from... End of story. My theory is supported by evidence, and it has the backing of scientists.

No, it is nonsense.

Well science can explain everything, so anything exceeding naturalism is obviously fake, right.

Not a claim of science.

If you are a scientist, I guess that leaves you out of that 75%.

???????

 

[gnostic]

Well science can explain everything

I didn't say that.

You are using strawman argument again, putting words in my mouth.

Can science explain everything? No. I had never claimed it did.

And that's not what I was saying in my reply. My reply wasn't about explaining anything, but rather your comment in regarding that testing for telepathy weren't complete.

I said in my reply that it a lot of paranormal activities, including psychic abilities, such as telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, have already been exhaustively tested in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, by both US and former Soviet governments, and no evidences were found to support it.

Some continued to research without the governments, like universities, during the 90s and 2000s, with remote viewing, and like the other the earlier experiments, no evidences.

There have been documented reports that some researchers have found "positive results", but they turned out to incompetent experiments or worse, the researchers cheating by giving cues or fraudulently falsifying the results.

You do understand that experiments have already been done, in regarding to telepathy, but no test results and no evidences ever supported it, don't you?

 

[gnostic]

If you are a scientist, I guess that leaves you out of that 75%.

Never claimed that I am.

But what does that have to do what I had written about your nonsense about being dead or alive?

If you must know, I was a civil engineer, but lately, I have been working computer programmer and network administrator, so my courses did involved some physics and mathematics that are related to either engineering or computer science, but I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A PHYSICIST OR MATHEMATICIAN.

The science that I have studied in my courses are only relevant to what I need to know, to do my jobs as either engineer or a programmer. I always considered myself to be more of engineer than a scientist.

So my physics (the curriculum in my respective courses) didn't cover astrophysics, relativity, quantum physics or nuclear physics. However, I do have interests in these areas, so I have been reading up on them in my free time, in the last 15 years.

As an engineer, I have high regards to evidences and testings, because that's what engineers have to do. So in a way, I am more like experimental scientist than theoretical scientist.

Do you understand the differences between experimental science and theoretical science?

Experimental science are real science, natural science, where scientists must follow the strict guideline of Scientific Method, where hypotheses are required to have empirical evidences or undergo repeated and rigorous testings (or experiments), and the hypotheses must be reviewed by peers (independent scientists, who worked in the same or related fields).

Theoretical science is mostly proof-based models. Proof as in mathematical statements, like mathematical equations, formulas and metric constants. Scientists who work in the theoretical fields, are often seen trying to solve real world problems with mathematical equations, but such solutions are often abstract.

Theoretical science, particularly theoretical physics, can only provide abstract solutions, a proposed theory (like a hypothesis), but unlike hypothesis, some of them are untestable. So if you can't test them, then they are not real science.

Experimental science also used equations and formulas too, but the only ways to verify them to be true, is to test them, find observable and verifiable evidences.

That's why I considered theoretical physicists to be more mathematicians than scientists.

Don't get me wrong. Theoretical science is great for trying to find solution by thinking out of the box, but theoretical fields like String Theory, Superstring Theory, Multiverse model, are great mathematical solutions, but they are not science because they failed to be testable.

And some theoretical models can become scientific theory, like Relativity started out being "theoretical", but from the 1920s and onward, scientists (like Edwin Hubble) were able to test Einstein's General Relativity.

 

[gnostic]

I didn't say it. The Wikipedia article said it.
So the majority of scientist support the concept. So?

The Wikipedia article can only provide so much information, for general readers.

If you want to learn more, and if you want more data, then you need to find them in peer reviewed journals.

The good things about wiki, particularly with science articles, is that many of these pages provide abundance of sources in the footnotes and in the bibliography. Any good researcher will investigate and use the bibliography to find more materials and more data.

The bad things about wiki, is that there are also a lot of junks at wiki, and many of these are just pseudoscience rubbish, written and edited by creationists and New Age mystics.

In the days of no internet, I had to rely on books and journals from the libraries. General information in Britannica were great back then, but don't get edited and updated as frequently as wiki articles do now. Some articles in Britannica haven't been updated since they were written in the 19th century or early 20th century.

 

[nPeace]

Concerning the fact that Stephan Hawkins is dead? or the list I provide? Every scientist on the list I provided can be referenced concerning their peer reviewed.research


Scientists understand the concept of the multiverse very well. What is the problem?


No, it is nonsense.

Yes, exactly. It is nonsense. Multiverse nonsense; Big Bang nonsense; Inflation nonsense; etc. etc. and all the other nonsense, I won't mention on this thread.

 

[nPeace]

I didn't say that.

You are using strawman argument again, putting words in my mouth.

Can science explain everything? No. I had never claimed it did.

And that's not what I was saying in my reply. My reply wasn't about explaining anything, but rather your comment in regarding that testing for telepathy weren't complete.

I said in my reply that it a lot of paranormal activities, including psychic abilities, such as telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, have already been exhaustively tested in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, by both US and former Soviet governments, and no evidences were found to support it.

Some continued to research without the governments, like universities, during the 90s and 2000s, with remote viewing, and like the other the earlier experiments, no evidences.

There have been documented reports that some researchers have found "positive results", but they turned out to incompetent experiments or worse, the researchers cheating by giving cues or fraudulently falsifying the results.

You do understand that experiments have already been done, in regarding to telepathy, but no test results and no evidences ever supported it, don't you?

Sorry if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth. I was only seeking clarity.
I believe the government is made up of people. Many of them lie, and hide the truth. I don't trust most of them. Do you?

@gnostic Thanks for the info. I'm aware of the things you said.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, exactly. It is nonsense. Multiverse nonsense; Big Bang nonsense; Inflation nonsense; etc. etc. and all the other nonsense, I won't mention on this thread.

This was all in the topic of the thread, and the original video and Dark Matter. All these concepts including Quantum Mechanics are integrated with the concept of Dark Matter, and the question of how scientist consider beginnings of our universe, and all possible universes.

How can discuss Methodological Naturalism, Dark Matter without discussing them all?

 

[nPeace]

This was all in the topic of the thread, and the original video and Dark Matter. All these concepts including Quantum Mechanics are integrated with the concept of Dark Matter, and the question of how scientist consider beginnings of our universe, and all possible universes.

How can discuss Methodological Naturalism, Dark Matter without discussing them all?

Not following you. What are you saying?

 

[shunyadragon]

Not following you. What are you saying?

This was all in the topic of the thread, and the original video and Dark Matter. All these concepts including Quantum Mechanics are integrated with the concept of Dark Matter, and the question of how scientist consider beginnings of our universe, and all possible universes.

How can discuss Methodological Naturalism, Dark Matter without discussing them all?

 

[nPeace]

This was all in the topic of the thread, and the original video and Dark Matter. All these concepts including Quantum Mechanics are integrated with the concept of Dark Matter, and the question of how scientist consider beginnings of our universe, and all possible universes.

How can discuss Methodological Naturalism, Dark Matter without discussing them all?

Wow. What am I discussing again?

 

[nPeace]

As I promised...
Spirituality is observed.

Can science test spirit? Is there evidence of spirit?
Can thought, intention, and emotion influence the physical world?

Thinking as a quantum phenomenon
In this study, a model is constructed in which the formation of new synaptic contacts and the tuning of synaptic weights are mediated by quantum nonlocal interactions. The interaction between biologically important molecules in the brain can be the basis of the quantum metalanguage, which controls the behavior of humans and animals. The dynamics of biologically important molecules must include their topological properties. Thus the work of the brain can only be consistently described using quantum mechanics.

How much does science know about communication, and is there communication that is spiritual or not natural?