Jump to content

Matter cannot exist in two places at once


kimberlyd
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure I would see Einstein in the same category as the gullible New Agers that you gave the link to. Nor that either Newton or Einstein would promulgate fantasies!

 

My own position is that belief systems originated at an early stage of human evolution. They had the role of giving a framework to a tribe's thinking and acted as a social cohesive force, so had survival value. Unfortunately, although we have grown technologically more advanced, our psychological mechanisms are still operating in tribal mode, which explains at least partly why people react so strongly when their beliefs are (apparently) challenged. Scientific beliefs are a step up from primitive thinking, but they are still subject to the same atavistic psychological processes. This is why people are so vulnerable to brainwashing, mind control, religious indoctrination,cults and sects, and the like. The great scientists were not immune from such things but on the whole they were in their day challenging the consensus views. It is the followers of the genuine scientists who unknowingly apply religio-tribal reactions to any challenges to their idols' "authority."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What if powerful evidence arises (in any area, not just temporal) that strongly conflicts with it? And what if the evidence points to phenomena outside the boundary conditions of physical theory?

If it reduces to general relativity, special relativity and classical mechanics in the lower domains then we will all listen to it. If it points to boundary conditions outside of physical theory then it won't be science, will be beyond experimental verification and won't be of much use to the physical world that we tend to live in.

 

Attention K-Mart Shopper...we, that is you and I, won't be having a religious discussion. That's for a religion based forum. Having a religion based discussion on this forum always (without exception and I've been here for 15 years) digresses into a flame war that should be an embarrassment for all involved regardless of what side of the argument they are coming from. OK?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it reduces to general relativity, special relativity and classical mechanics in the lower domains then we will all listen to it. If it points to boundary conditions outside of physical theory then it won't be science, will be beyond experimental verification and won't be of much use to the physical world that we tend to live in.

Attention K-Mart Shopper...we, that is you and I, won't be having a religious discussion. That's for a religion based forum. Having a religion based discussion on this forum always (without exception and I've been here for 15 years) digresses into a flame war that should be an embarrassment for all involved regardless of what side of the argument they are coming from. OK?

I'm not sure what you man by "boundary conditions outside of physical theory". If you mean, as you've been insisting, classical physics, then there are plenty of accepted sciences outside that boundary (i.e. that of large moving bodies). At the subatomic level, particles don't follow classical physics; are you saying quantum theory isn't scientific? To say nothing of theories in chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology etc. I think the kind of evidence that is now appearing might well be capable of lab testing: if this returned results significant at the 0.001 level, but wasn't consistent with classical physics, would you still reject such findings?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is better phrased as, "There are a number of unverifiable cases on record in which adults claim that as a child they experienced..."

Well here is a question to muse over, why is it that children seem to see these occurrences more so then adults?

 

Two possibilities come to mind for me.... Children are not afraid to speak about such things, but as adults we are afraid of the rubber rooms. And Children may be more in tune to such events whereas adults choose to (or maybe we are conditioned to) ignore the possibility of the event occurring. So we write it off as a hallucination or a day dream.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is a question to muse over, why is it that children seem to see these occurrences more so then adults?

Two possibilities come to mind for me.... Children are not afraid to speak about such things, but as adults we are afraid of the rubber rooms. And Children may be more in tune to such events whereas adults choose to (or maybe we are conditioned to) ignore the possibility of the event occurring. So we write it off as a hallucination or a day dream.

I think you are quite right on both counts. Children haven't yet learned that some things (a) are impossible according to our consensus world view, (b) are very scary to many adults, and © could get you a visit with the psychiatrist. They soon learn these things and conform. Some people liken this to establishing an internal censor that filters out all the weird stuff. Or rather, "stuff that a majority of people think weird." In other cultures, children are free to see things without getting told off. And in some families where the parents themselves are sensitives, the children are brought up to regard these things as natural -- which, of course, they are. If you try to define what these people perceive without using emotive terms such as "weird," "strange," "extraordinary," etc.you find it comes down to individual ability to detect subtle stimuli.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...