Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 9:54 am**

socratus wrote:1
Google . . . . .Yahoo . . . . . etc . .
2
Post: Psi Parapsychological Reaches .
3
Press: Search . (About 91,500 results (0.23 seconds)
=================.

What point are you trying to make with that information?

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 1:13 pm**

John wrote:
socratus wrote:1
Google . . . . .Yahoo . . . . . etc . .
2
Post: Psi Parapsychological Reaches .
3
Press: Search . (About 91,500 results (0.23 seconds)
=================.
What point are you trying to make with that information?

Maybe Parapsychology exist, maybe it does not exist.
Maybe God exist, maybe he-she-it does not exist.
Maybe ‘big bang’, maybe ‘chaos’, maybe ‘120 dimension’,
maybe . . . . etc
Problem: We have not ‘Philosophy of Physics’ and therefore
our discussions are pure tautology.
===.
P.S.
.I’m normally not a praying man,
but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman.
- Homer Simpson

Is every physicist Newton?
===========.

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 9:23 pm**

socratus wrote:
John wrote:
socratus wrote:1
Google . . . . .Yahoo . . . . . etc . .
2
Post: Psi Parapsychological Reaches .
3
Press: Search . (About 91,500 results (0.23 seconds)
=================.
What point are you trying to make with that information?
Maybe Parapsychology exist, maybe it does not exist.
Maybe God exist, maybe he-she-it does not exist.
Maybe ‘big bang’, maybe ‘chaos’, maybe ‘120 dimension’,
maybe . . . . etc
Problem: We have not ‘Philosophy of Physics’ and therefore
our discussions are pure tautology.
===.
P.S.
.I’m normally not a praying man,
but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman.
- Homer Simpson

Is every physicist Newton?
===========.

Well - that cleared it up!!!

Posted: **Fri May 27, 2011 12:41 am**

chaz wyman wrote: Well - that cleared it up!!!

Ahem...pretty much what I was thinking.

Posted: **Fri May 27, 2011 6:44 am**

What point are you trying to make with that information?[/quote]
Maybe Parapsychology exist, maybe it does not exist.
Maybe God exist, maybe he-she-it does not exist.
Maybe ‘big bang’, maybe ‘chaos’, maybe ‘120 dimension’,
maybe . . . . etc
Problem: We have not ‘Philosophy of Physics’ and therefore
our discussions are pure tautology.
===.
P.S.
.I’m normally not a praying man,
but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman.
- Homer Simpson

Is every physicist Newton?
===========.[/quote]

Well - that cleared it up!!![/quote]
About 90 years ago in the letter to Einstein Sommerfeld wrote
that we have ‘Quantum mechanics’ but we don’t have
‘ Quantum Philosophy.’
This situation doesn’t change.
#
Of course in the ‘Google’ we can read about 19,300,000
results (0.09 seconds) of ( quantum philosophy) but
there is a small problem.
The problem is: nobody explains what electron is.
For example:
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
But . . . but all of these models are problematical.
I ask simple questions:
1
Why does the simplest particle - electron have five (5) formulas ?
(e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c, E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 and E=h*f. )
2
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
==.
Therefore we can read these about 19,300,000 results
(0.09 seconds) of ( quantum philosophy) but how can
we trust them if we don’t know what an Electron is ?
=====================.

Posted: **Fri May 27, 2011 6:48 am**

chaz wyman wrote: Well - that cleared it up!!!

About 90 years ago in the letter to Einstein Sommerfeld wrote
that we have ‘Quantum mechanics’ but we don’t have
‘ Quantum Philosophy.’
This situation doesn’t change.
#
Of course in the ‘Google’ we can read about 19,300,000
results (0.09 seconds) of ( quantum philosophy) but
there is a small problem.
The problem is: nobody explains what electron is.
For example:
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
But . . . but all of these models are problematical.
I ask simple questions:
1
Why does the simplest particle - electron have five (5) formulas ?
(e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c, E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 and E=h*f. )
2
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
==.
Therefore we can read these about 19,300,000 results
(0.09 seconds) of ( quantum philosophy) but how can
we trust them if we don’t know what an Electron is ?
=====================.

Posted: **Fri May 27, 2011 10:50 am**

socratus wrote:I ask simple questions:
1
Why does the simplest particle - electron have five (5) formulas ?
(e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c, E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 and E=h*f. )
2
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics

We perhaps should find the electron as a (complex) phenomenon, not as a (simple) object, we perhaps should find its reason...

Posted: **Fri May 27, 2011 12:22 pm**

socratus wrote:What point are you trying to make with that information?

Maybe Parapsychology exist, maybe it does not exist.

You mean the object of parapsychology. Parapsychologists keep looking but find nothing.

Maybe God exist, maybe he-she-it does not exist.

And we've been looking for this one for thousands of years. The jury is still out.

Maybe ‘big bang’, maybe ‘chaos’, maybe ‘120 dimension’,
maybe . . . . etc

Maybe Shmaybe, Baby

Problem: We have not ‘Philosophy of Physics’ and therefore
our discussions are pure tautology.
===.
P.S.
.I’m normally not a praying man,
but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman.
- Homer Simpson

Is every physicist Newton?
===========.[/quote]

Well - that cleared it up!!![/quote]
About 90 years ago in the letter to Einstein Sommerfeld wrote
that we have ‘Quantum mechanics’ but we don’t have
‘ Quantum Philosophy.’
This situation doesn’t change.
#
Of course in the ‘Google’ we can read about 19,300,000
results (0.09 seconds) of ( quantum philosophy) but
there is a small problem.
The problem is: nobody explains what electron is.
For example:
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
But . . . but all of these models are problematical.
I ask simple questions:
1
Why does the simplest particle - electron have five (5) formulas ?
(e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c, E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 and E=h*f. )
2
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
==.
Therefore we can read these about 19,300,000 results
(0.09 seconds) of ( quantum philosophy) but how can
we trust them if we don’t know what an Electron is ?
=====================.[/quote]

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:57 am**

chaz wyman wrote:I believe telepathy is a fantasy.

Were it to have any truth is would be easy enough to verify it.
Such studies have continued since the dawn of time in one way or another and no serious scientific study has produced the slightest positive result..

Old thread, I get that. But this is an interest of mine, and this statement is not true.

There is a well-known public sceptic called Richard Wiseman. He has acknowledged publicly that remote viewing has been established with a higher degree of certainty than is required in many other areas of the empirical research. However, he insists that, even though this is the case, he is entitled to disbelieve the results, because 'telepathy is extraordinary', and 'extraordinary results require extraordinary evidence'.

Richard Wiseman wrote: I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

(Philosophically-educated readers will also note that this is a misuse of the term 'begging the question'. The source is here.)

However, nowhere does Wiseman actually show that 'telepathy is extraordinary'. In actual fact, it might be something that happens all the time, even amongst non-human species. Perhaps it has simply been declared 'extraordinary' by those whose worldview cannot accomodate it.

In any case, telepathy can be accomodated by 'biological field theory'. We all know now that there are 'electromagnetic fields', and even things like the Higgs field. At the time that these were originally suggested, they were strongly resisted. But it is all accepted science now. If there are such things as 'electromagnetic fields', then I see no *logical* reason why there might not be biological fields. They do provide a mechanism for the explanation of such things as telepathy.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:15 pm**

Jonathan.s wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:I believe telepathy is a fantasy.

Were it to have any truth is would be easy enough to verify it.
Such studies have continued since the dawn of time in one way or another and no serious scientific study has produced the slightest positive result..
Old thread, I get that. But this is an interest of mine, and this statement is not true.

Contradiction: That is not an argument. You have not one shred of positive evidence to offer.

Philosophy Now Forum

A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"