|
U-Know! Forum » Top Scientists Validating the Supernatural Univers |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
morfe 2992 posts |
Jan 02, 2006, 16:50
|
||
|
"Is this what Croley and Cropredy are talking about" No! That would be : 'themselves' ;-) It may be what Goethe was talking about, or indeed anybody in the world who believes that nature is interconnected, and our consciousness vibrates at different levels. "The Field creates a picture of an interconnected universe and a new scientific theory which makes sense of supernatural phenomena. It offers a scientific explanation for many of the most profound human mysteries, from alternative medicine and spiritual healing to extra sensory perception and the collective unconscious. It could even answer some of the big questions: what is human consciousness and what happens when we die." How does one 'prove' the human soul? For instance, I know when my soul is sick, but I don't trust the doctors who tell me how to fix it ;-) 'know thyself' Excellent stuff, Seven!
|
|||
|
Lugia 970 posts |
Jan 02, 2006, 20:41
|
||
|
Hm...it's a bit fringey. However, it does have some things in common with other, similar theories. Rupert Sheldrake's 'morphogenic fields' come to mind, for example. One thing that bothers me about this, though, is that there's no scientific method demonstration of the validity of the theory they're talking about here. Granted, that might be difficult to prove/disprove, but at the same time there's not even a postulate of an experimental method to test this. And if it's as important as the author(s) state, there SHOULD BE something along those lines either performed or in workup to be performed in order to do a proof. Science, after all, means scientific method. If there's no scientific method, then what'cha got there is blue-sky speculative junk. Not that I wouldn't like to see a validation of something like this, mind you...but it's got to be done RIGHT.
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Jan 02, 2006, 23:44
|
||
uh-oh, how long 'til the lizards enter the thread? ;-)
|
|||
|
Ether 104 posts |
Jan 03, 2006, 20:52
|
||
Tom Bearden scared the shit out of me with his talk of superweapons and prediction of an imminent armageddon. But fortunately I found something that debunks him - http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm
|
|||
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 05, 2006, 13:05
|
||
|
I completely concur with you Lugia. The 'top scientist' bit of the thread title is extremely misleading. The use of 'zero point' in the first sentence kind of gives the game away that this is not serious science. Seven missed out the word 'frontier' as in 'top frontier scientists' as in loonies with no scientific background. 'Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.' Sorry, how is this news ? I do understand that there are arguments that the theoretical (<--note, theoretical) particles Tachyons can travel faster than light. Saying/proving that something can travel faster than light would be news, very big news. So.. anyway, I did some research on the book/author this blog discusses. Well, http://www.wddty.co.uk/thefield/noflash/faq.asp?q=9 I don't call those serious experiments, or rational conclusions. REG machines ? What ? Also, the healing experiment. Erm... couldn't we dream up something philosophical around Jungs principa that equally explains that, or moreso, a christian 'it were Jehovah Rothi that done it mate' explanation. Both of those are equally rational to the 'it was the ZPF'. Every other conclusion emerges in many, many theologies and philosophies in one form or another. This does NOT mean it's right, it just shows how some hack can throw disparate axioms together and sound reasonable if they don't have to do any proper science. As Lugia said, science means employing scientfic method, not investigative journalism of what non scientists are doing. Give us a whiter paper, the underlying math that somehow links conciousness to say..ooh.. M-Theory for example and they've got a goer. Don't get me wrong, I am an intensely spiritual person. I believe strongly in some form of all the conclusions they make of their ZPF silliness. I am also however an information theorist/category theory maths head so get uppity when people claim science and don't even seem to know what a dataset is, let alone how to analyse one meaningfully. These kind of books do noone any favours, except the authors of course, I believe there's an interview with her on 'coasttocoast' radio, nuff said, must go grab it. ;)
|
|||
|
shamanic miner 184 posts |
Jan 05, 2006, 13:11
|
||
|
"Cells and DNA communicate through frequencies." That's cleared that up then. Thanks!
|
|||
|
Lugia 970 posts |
Jan 05, 2006, 21:17
|
||
|
No, you need not be any of those things to do those things. That's what being an 'end-user' is about. However, it TAKES those skills in order to COME UP WITH those things you mention...and it takes proper scientific method in order to make proper science. Simple as that. What you're postulating there is something along the lines of what the fundie evangelicals do: the idea that some variant of 'faith' will make everything OK. That's not science. Courts of law have said so, in fact. I agree with Leonard. I would LIKE to see some of this work. But it seems like every time these postulates have to stand up to proper science, using proper math, proper method, proper equipment, and the like, they all fall apart like the ill-conceived concepts they are. And I do think there are breakthroughs in PROPER science that still remain to occur, and some of these may well bring us toward what, right now, is 'fringe' work. But until proper and provable scientific method can be brought to bear on these matters, they're still blue-sky fringe material, and the domain of con-men, crackpots, and stone crazies.
|
|||
|
Lugia 970 posts |
Jan 06, 2006, 01:20
|
||
|
Now, yes, I'll have to agree with Carl Jung and many others and say that there IS something to that. I've had enough synchronistic things happen in my own life to think that these constitute something beyond 'coincidence'. However, as to what makes synchronicity 'tick'...no one can quite be sure as such. Some of it may simply be perceptual, as in the concept that, in quantum mechanics, observation determines eigenstates. This would tend to fit with the Buddhist view of 'reality' as a consequence of 'mind'. But at the same time, most modern Buddhists will be just as quick to point out that there are certainly quantifiable things in 'reality' that go beyond simply being resultant in our own observations. For example, gravity certainly exists, otherwise what would be the point in trying to defy it? Synchronicity probably fits into this, albeit in ways more subtle than something like apparent 'constant forces'. But as for being able to scientifically quantify/qualify it...that may either fit into the 'not as yet' zone, or into a 'not possible' zone, such as being able to observe that quantum phenomena are simultaneously particles and waves at the same time.
|
|||
|
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 06, 2006, 14:02
|
||
|
Yep, I see where you going. Your point is correct, what I'm saying and I'm pretty sure what Lugia is saying is thats fine but don't call it science. It's called philosophy, or theology. Science is something else. True enough, a lot of science remains theoretical as a lot of the current ideas can not be proved through experiments. A good example of this is string theory, for which there will probably never be an experiment that can prove if it's true, for the same reasons you give for alternative research as the variables involved cannot be physically measured. This is also true of some of the theoretical particles such as Tachyons, and Gravitons. The thing is science does say these are THEORIES, not fact. Also, although there are no experiments that can prove these things there are mathematically proofs that show that, for want of a better explanation, these theories work. Still, doenst mean they are correct, mathematics is itself fundamentally philosophy, albeit an extremely quantitive form of philosophy. Well, so, thats what makes it science you see. There is a logical, mathematically described route behind the theory. It still remains, as far as science is concerned, a theory. There are plenty of physicists who don't believe string theory, and a fair few who also have no time for Tachyons, though most except Gravitons exist. Philosophy, is arguably, the root of science and mathematics however. Staying purely in philopsohy, or theology, is perfectly acceptable, and in the case of a lot of ideas this is where they will remain. Speaking for myself, a lot of my own theories fall into the remit of post structuralist philosophy. However, my math, as it relates to information theory, and the complex system modelling solutions I've constructed in the past back up (as far as I'm concerned) my philosopy and my theology. I wouldn't however say I have a scientific proof for my philosophy of how the universe and shit works, cos I have no scientifically acceptable method of linking my theophilosophy to my abstraction model (and, never will have either). All I have is similar axioms in both, in one they are proveable (my abstraction model for modelling complex systems), and in the other they aren't (my theophilosophy and mysticy wibbly stuff). It comforts me that I think I've found a link, but I would never by any stretch of the imagination say I have a scientific proof, because I don't. What I have works, but only in a philosophical sense (arguably just logic bombing to fuck within the confines of a territorialised sophistry). Not science. Not science. Just a nifty piece of linguistic gymnastic, and a bit of maths that solves one problem, that can never be directly argued to scientifically relate to the other. Unfortunately, these fruitloops who are quoted by lynda in 'The field', and also the likes of Graham Hancock, and many others, seem happy to make the leap and say they have the proof. Or that they have something concrete, when in fact, their experiments are wacky or their conclusions from their observations are naieve.
|
|||
|
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 06, 2006, 14:34
|
||
Also 'validating' isnt the right word really is it, it hardly differs from 'proving'. 'Positing' is prolly right. I know this ounds pedantic, but in these kind of matters it is seriously important what language is used.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
