BS: Precognition

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 03:31 PM

I absolutely love this from Bill's link:

Proof that God exists … (4/5/2002)
A George Hammond preparing to discuss his workman named George Hammond has published what he claims is a "Scientific Proof of God". He has done the usual mad scientist things like submit a paper for publication and have it rejected and write to Stephen Hawking and get no answer, thereby proving that the establishment is against him and Professor Hawking is probably not smart enough to understand it. If this was all Mr Hammond did he would be of no interest to The Millenium Project (although he has made an appearance in Quintessence of the Loon). Why he gets a mention here is because of the way he reacts to any comments or criticism. The average mad scientist is impervious to criticism as he (almost invariably a "he") knows he is right and does not bother with lesser minds. Mr Hammond, on the other hand, launches into a vituperative and scatological ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to suggest that there might be even the slightest flaw in his "proof" (he rates it higher than just a "theory"). As an example, when I commented on his remarkable observation that horses have four legs and cars have four wheels, his immediate response was to call me a moron. Mr Hammond reminds me of the "alternative medicine" supporters and anti-vaccination liars who have so little faith in what they say that they either run and hide or resort to abuse when challenged.

One or two echoes there of our current exchanges...I won't dwell... ;-)

(Mind you, I wish he could spell "millennium..."). :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 03:21 PM

But I am a Gnome with very little brain! quote
it is not the size of what you have, but what you do with it as the woman in the afghan coat said to the man in the precognitive trousers

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 03:08 PM

That is my understanding too, Bill. But I am a Gnome with very little brain!

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 02:57 PM

Varies relative to mass..but makes no 'relevant' difference except in Einstein and at speeds approaching Tau 0! GPS merely adjusts for tiny variables in near Earth satellite positioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 02:54 PM

The measurement of time as we know it is a human manufactured construct. The passage of time, as in light moving from one point to another, is a constant. OK, it is deflected by strong gravitational fields but not enough for us rather insignificant entities to notice. If you are talking quantum physics, very few people understand to implications. Certainly not you or me. If yoh would just stop trying to be mystic and clever, I'm sure we would all get on better.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 02:41 PM

I'm talking to a prize bullshitter you mean!

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 02:36 PM

Time isn't just time. It is spacetime and it varies relative to mass. Without knowing this there would be no GPS.
How wude you are.
You are talking to a Novel Prize winner.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 02:33 PM

Weighted balls in your solar flares?

Hey, dude. Stop messing with my karma!

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 02:05 PM

My balls were weighted, Dave (Do you think someone will think I'm talking about me privates?)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:59 PM

BTW Steve, how did you manage to predict the bingo numbers so accurately?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:55 PM

Donuel:
"It depends on your view of time."
Well, "views" of time are largely rhetorical. It is a common thing to act as though creating linguistic concepts in various degrees of complexity somehow imparts a separate reality to them.
   Whatever the relationship actually is between the laws of the universe and our ability to comprehend them, we are still just one unusually complex bit of the puzzle.
Cosmologists, theologians, mathematicians, philosophers and a wide array of amateur speculators have proposed 'possible' versions of reality...including multiple dimensions, infinite recurring universes, and metaphysical 'beings'...etc.
   It gains some of them publication of articles and even teaching positions.
Various others become objects of ridicule.

This guy posted for years on USENET and mixed science with religion in jaw-dropping ways. He never faltered, he just enlarged. He has largely dropped out of sight, but he became so infamous that some of his rantings have been preserved. When you are bored, browse that article for awhile...
There are/were many other posters in alt.sci.physics.new-theories..... which can still be accessed on groups.google.com.
   I doubt that many will bother, so here's on of Hammond's last
"HAWKING & THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE   

   Stepen Hawking mentions the Anthropic Principle
14 times in his book _ A Brief History of Time_.
   Since the book has sold 10 million copies in 45
languages we must conclude the Anthropic Principle is
well known to Science.
   Hawking defines the Anthropic Principle
on p 128-129:

"We see the universe the
   way it is because we exist"

and says:

"Few people would quarrel with the validity
   or utility of the weak Anthropic Principle."
.....'
Unbeknownst to Stephen Hawking Religion long ago
discovered the Anthropic Principle and identified it as the
explanation of God (Berkeley 1710). "God" according to
religion is in fact MIND. Hence when the mind of man came
into existence, "reality" (sometimes called the world or the
universe) also came into existence. Since we know that Homo
sapiens are about 100,000 year old, the Anthropic Principle
tells us that "reality" must be about 100,000 years old.
Religion calculated this long ago and arrived at the famous
figure of "6,000" years (Usher 1650) for the age of the
universe. This was before modern science discovered Man is
100,000 years old not 6,000 which explains why they are a
few years off. They are NOT 14 billion years off however!
Religion simply points out that past history (including the
Big Bang) is part of "human reality" hence the Anthropic
Principle clearly explains why the Big Bang actually
happened AFTER Biblical Creation even though Creation is
only 100,000 years old!
   Fact is, the Anthropic Principle "explains" both God AND
Creation.
   If Stepehn Hawking is so smart, why hasn't he realized
that the Anthropic Principle explains the "Biblical"
Creation as well as the "Big Bang" creation...? and why
doesn't he realize that the Anthropic Principle is nothing
other than the "Anthropomorphic God" of the Bible?
Are scientists slow or what?"

OK back to the usual...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:35 PM

Oops, off-topic! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:34 PM

You need to get the solar flares back on Steve. They will make all things clear. Man.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:33 PM

"why does Dave the Gnome post about his inabilty shag a girl in an Afghan coat?"

Maybe he was too hot with the coat on and it put him off...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:31 PM

Helen you told a string of fibs about me (don't worry, I don't sue) claiming that I continually rattled on about my, er, private parts (for the record, there wasn't a single instance! All checkable in the thread). Of course we know who Donuel was talking about but he lacks the courage to name names and (more importantly by far) spell out the lies he claims were told. He knows he'd better not, eh?   Now I'm finding this to be a very interesting topic, so why don't we stick with it? Your decision!

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:24 PM

Nothing can be proven either way, Dick, because the advocates of precognition have put the issue beyond the laws of science as we currently understand them. But at least we can be entertained by this piece of utter balderdash:

"Nope, Steve is wrong. Precognition does not defy causation. It depends on your view of time."

If you think that precognition doesn't violate the principle of causality for the reason you've given, then you are putting it into that comfort zone beyond real science into which you think you've placed yourself in order to be beyond challenge. You know as well as I do that there there is no aspect of time that can either tweak itself, or be tweaked by wild human imaginings, in order to reconcile your causality problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Helen
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 01:24 PM

Steve said, "If you want to call someone a liar, tell us who ..."

Donuel, you can't ignore the narcissist in the room. He wants to make sure everyone knows you are talking about him.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 11:59 AM

I dunno. Ask one of those who understands the mysteries of the cosmos

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 11:57 AM

How can inanimate objects[trousers] be precognitive?,

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 11:31 AM

It was my precognitive skills that enabled me to determine the fact. The bloke I bought them off, "Cut my own throat" Higginshaw on Pendlebury market, assured me that I would be fighting the birds off by wearing them and as I could not disprove it, it must have been a fact. 2 days later, I was attacked by a flock of starlings after my chip barmcake from Sykes's chippy on Bolton Road. Funny things precognitive trousers...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 11:22 AM

Nobody has yet proved a convincing argument on either side in this thread. as is usual with internet discussions.
As for whether something exists depends on how one defines that particular thing, if one defines god as a spirit of goodness then that definitely exists as does the spirit of evil.
why does Dave the Gnome post about his inabilty shag a girl in an Afghan coat?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 10:57 AM

I wore my solar flares for a local performance of "The Age Of Aquarius". They made me more receptive to the vibes, man. I came out of that show fully precognitive that I would never shag the girl in the next row with the long blond hair and Afghan coat.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 10:51 AM

> Computers are a notorious exception to the A+B+C=D rule.

Hear, hear [snipissimo], but remember: "At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer."

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 10:50 AM

Nope, Steve is wrong. Precognition does not defy causation. It depends on your view of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 10:45 AM

”I had solar flares in the swinging sixties”

For several years in the early noughties I played an annual gig which was organised by the guy who invented Loon Pants.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 09:29 AM

I had solar flares in the swinging sixties, Dave. Every time the sun came out it made the little bells ring...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 07:40 AM

Computers are a notorious exception to the A+B+C=D rule. Purely electronic and logical devices, they do, with alarming regularity, come up with D and bit, Z or even a fish. It is easy to blame human error, corrupt memory or faulty data but I used to enjoy telling people it was solar flares :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 07:19 AM

"wHEN LIARS start playing the victim card it is beyond tedium.
The games the usual suspect plays are as apparent as the unraveling of George Santos."

Your failure of courage is palpable. If you want to call someone a liar, tell us who and (just as importantly) tell us what the lies are. If you can't or won't, I suppose we can just put it down to the frustration you must be feeling since you regard the argument as lost (it isn't, but you don't help yourself).

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 07:14 AM

Making a prediction predicated on past repeated experiences which have yielded consistent results is called "science," Stanron. In the case of my cookery, replace "consistent" with "hopefully consistentish..."

"I have learnt to clarify not that something is/was unexplainable but that it is/was unexplained."

There's often a degree of mischief (and I said often, not always!) in the way some notions are put beyond explanation, that's to say, unexplainable according to what we know of the laws of nature right now (which is what I think Dave was saying). Things may be different in future, but science tends to work mostly with what we've got now. That doesn't mean a closed box, but pressing forward with new notions has to rely on evidence that jumps a high barrier as well as imagination. The claimed existence of God is deliberately put beyond the bounds of science: he's all-seeing, all-knowing, he made everything and he has no beginning nor end. There's no science that can get a grip on any of that. That means that God can't be disproven and, beyond making the rational case for his non-existence, we can do no more. Alternatively, we can believe in him and happily ignore the difficult questions.

The notion of precognition violates the laws of nature as we currently understand them. It's a notion worthy of honest investigation, for sure, along scientific principles. But when its claimants speak with such certainty about knowing people who have it, or say they have it themselves, or talk about having skills that you can work on that others don't have, or when they shout at people who express perfectly justifiable scepticism and ask for far better evidence than the shaky stuff they put on offer, then that degree of mischief I mentioned comes to the fore. To me, it's not a respectable position and we can either ignore it or confront it. I do enjoy the ride meself... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 06:40 AM

wHEN LIARS start playing the victim card it is beyond tedium.
The games the usual suspect plays are as apparent as the unraveling of George Santos.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/26/politics/george-santos-admits-embellishing-resume/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Stanron
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 06:18 AM

This thread tends towards tedium as a result of repetition. Not from everyone but from most.

How about a diversion? We are all masters of Conditional Precognition.

Like if you have A + B + C then D will happen.

Steve Shaw is an enthusiastic master of this in food preparation.

Others have different areas of expertise.

So what if, in a flash of observational brilliance, an individual can see that at some point in the future that A + B + C will occur. Predicting D might seem like magic, but of course it's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 05:08 AM

Ebbing=Ebbie

I apologise on behalf of my spill chucker

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 05:06 AM

Ebbing- I like that :-) I would perhaps modify it to unexplained as yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 05:02 AM

That's absolutely fine, Dick. My posts are not intended to impress but to put forward my point of view. In this instance my view was that your lack of explanation is not proof of anything supernatural but rather simply something that you did not understand. No shame in that at all as I will always admit that there are many things I don't understand. I do not try to mask the hole in my knowledge by putting it down to the supernatural though. The Clarke quote simply encapsulated that view.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 05:02 AM

I have learnt to clarify not that something is/was unexplainable but that it is/was unexplained.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 04:50 AM

I am not impressed by your post Dave,I am not impressed by anything Arthur C Clarke might have said anymore than i am by Ron Hubbard. or any other mediocre science fiction writer
Neither am i impressed by anything Dave Polshaw has said so far in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 04:10 AM

It's Dave ja vu this time Steve

And Dick, your statement "it happened and there was no explanation for it" is an old catch all for the supernatural. If I don't understand something I simply put it down to my lack of knowledge. Not to god, the afterlife, fairies or any such mysticism.

Arthur C Clarke once made the observation "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I think that is very true.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 03:57 AM

Now Dave's done the same thing! I've just had a déjà vu...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 03:54 AM

That was because Bill posted in between my post and yours and I wanted to be clear that I was responding to you, not him.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 03:48 AM

We know that, Dick, but where in that post did he suggest that you asked for evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Dec 22 - 03:32 AM

you posted a post then immediately below it said that was to me,FFS

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 07:25 PM

The Wiki entry on "Misuse of statistics" is a fun read, especially if you start from the heading "types of misuse." The ninety experiments in the now-infamous "third link" were largely conducted in highly-artificial settings in which all manner of confoundings were all too possible (and it isn't just me saying that, as I've repeatedly said). In addition, in most cases it was next to impossible to execute perfect (or, indeed, anything like perfect) replications, a vital requisite of proper scientific experimental investigation. Sample sizes in controlled circumstances were often inadequate to be able to reach safe conclusions. Forced-choice responses were commonplace. Experimental drift (a gradual change of approach by the experimenter) was occasionally suspected. All this is contained in the comments made by those analysing the experiments. There was clearly a serious issue of patchy quality control, and many of the studies were not peer-reviewed.

The thing is, none of this means that the studies should be ditched or the concept under experimentation should be dismissed. Not a bit of it.   But what they add up to is something that merely piques the interest without getting anything close to reliable science, and there is nowhere near enough rigour for a theory to be constructed, for example.

"Interesting, but more work needed with more rigour and a bit more neutrality."

And only scoundrels try to blind us with statistics predicated on dodgy and inconsistent data...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 05:08 PM

And just how is that asking you for evidence, Dick?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 05:07 PM

Well I didn't. Sorry if you misinterpreted what I said, though it must have been a bit of a stretch so to do...?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 04:49 PM

Steve, two posts which made me think that was the case quote
Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 03:39 PM

Well you're clearly not going to divulge details and I won't ask. I've experienced no evidence for a God or an afterlife but I don't know for sure whether or not they're there. How could I know? Having spent a lifetime revelling in the magic of the real world in all its glory and diversity, I've formed the view that there is no reason at present to suspect that there are natural laws that can counteract the laws we currently know from science. If you think that means a closed mind, then you're misreading me. I would never assert that there's no God, no precognition or no chocolate teapot. It's a shame that the people who do believe in such things are the people who do all the asserting, then shout down the people who simply ask for evidence.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 03:41 PM

That was to Dick!

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 04:29 PM

I didn't say you did, I don't think...?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 04:26 PM

I am not shouting anybody down.and I have not asked you for evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 04:25 PM

You "don't deny anyone's opinion" but you said this on this very day: "The subject is too complex for the reactionary noise from a nay-sayer who has nothing to contribute." Hmm...

"We are all in the land of speculation and theory regarding this subject based on scientific proof, so don't claim anyone has iron clad laws or scientific proof."

No-one here has claimed "iron-clad laws" and we can leave "proof" to mathematicians I think. "Speculation" is about right but "theory regarding this subject" is pushing it...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 04:15 PM

Ah yes! I remember it well. I do occasionally revisit an old thread and read the whole thing. There are one or two that I feel seriously embarrassed about now (bingo balls, Dave...). Sometimes, as with this one, Bill, I simply enjoy the ride! As it happens, because covid has badly restricted our Christmas (though it hasn't struck our house as yet), I've probably had too much time on my hands lately...   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Dec 22 - 04:11 PM

Yes I respond to your rudeness based on my mood but I do not deny anyone's opinion nor do I claim to know what your feelings and beliefs are. My experiences shape my opinions and evidence reinforces my beliefs. You can not possibly have my experience.

Academics have yet to scratch the surface of consciousness so we are all short on scientific proofs. We are all in the land of speculation and theory regarding this subject based on scientific proof, so don't claim anyone has iron clad laws or scientific proof.

Most people consider the source. With UFO's the military is now the source when it used to be average joes who claimed sightings and the military denied it. Things and paradigms change.