Belief of Magic, Magik, Majic, Majik?
Fnord wrote:
The Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment was developed to illustrate this point, not to kill cats.
If it were designed to kill the cat, it would probably then be called "Judith's Stepfather's Cat Thought Experiment." And he would think about them a lot, along with something lethal... (Unfortunately, because I have always been a cat person. Drat the man.)
Fnord wrote:
Sorta like saying that there must be a bigger, more complex being than humans (e.g, "God") because humans are so much bigger and more complex than a single-celled aomeba. It just does not follow.
Would that then mean that there would then have to be something similarly bigger and more complex than the theoretical "god" in this hypothesis? How many exponents are we going to carry this out to?
Judith wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Sorta like saying that there must be a bigger, more complex being than humans (e.g, "God") because humans are so much bigger and more complex than a single-celled aomeba. It just does not follow.
Would that then mean that there would then have to be something similarly bigger and more complex than the theoretical "god" in this hypothesis? How many exponents are we going to carry this out to?
A countably infinite number of exponents Judith. But what about the argument that only thing bigger and more complex than God is God himself?
Fnord wrote:
TimT wrote:
There is one major exception. At the end of the qualifications for the challenge Randi excludes Christianity because we depend upon someone outside of ourselves -- the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it would be an easy million.
Wrong! To quote directly from James Randi's website:
Quote:
"2.5 Why can’t I submit a religious or spiritual claim?
Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons."
Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons."
This sentence links to the page where the above quote appears.
Randi is less sarcastic than you. Notice his judicious use of the word "most?" That means his statement and example may be irrelevant. You have translated them to certainty due to your worldview.
Randi wrote that most religious people believe it's impossible to test God. But that's not true of Christians. God said we shouldn't put Him to "the test", meaning that we shouldn't command Him to do something or else we throw a tantrum. The gifts are meant to be proof to unbelievers. We can always ask and it is up to Him to answer according to His promises. As we learn more wisdom of how to appeal to Him, our probability of answers goes up.
It sounds like Randi will require a double-blind test. That greatly reduces the chance of convincing evidence because most Christians directly pray for someone, either up close or at a distance. You can't pray over someone and not be praying! It would have to be blessed placebos or hankies vs unblessed placebos or hankies.
I have seen lots of people take blessed chemo for cancer and not get sick or lose their hair. I have seen people get healed simply by their applying blessed oil as a topical.
One "fog factor" that would make it more difficult is the number of Christians and witches in the world exercising supernatural powers all over the place. I recall an arthritis study that was done by a ministry in my town. They advertised to everyone, "Don't pray for us or the people in the Clearwater arthritis clinic!" The experiment came out positive but it was not double-blind.
by the way, that arthritis study was done by Christians from Christian Healing Ministries (christianhealingmin.org).
See: http://www.christianhealingmin.org/newsletter/2001/wecelebrate.htm for the study at the time.
Fnord wrote:
The wave nature of quantum particles is heavily dependent upon probability, thus the apparent simultaneity of location. What applies at the quantum level does not apply at the ordinary level (except in lasers and other photoelectric effects).
What the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle supposes is that a quantum particle will inhabit all possible states of its existance until it is observed, and the act of observation is what determines which state of existance the particle will take.
The Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment was developed to illustrate this point, not to kill cats.
What we have here is the wilful conflation of the magnitudes of scale. To say that the properties of a single electron could be applied to a human, is to imply that the properties of a single human could be applied to the observable universe. The scale of an electron to a human is about the same as a single human to the volume of the observable universe.
Sorta like saying that there must be a bigger, more complex being than humans (e.g, "God") because humans are so much bigger and more complex than a single-celled aomeba. It just does not follow.
What the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle supposes is that a quantum particle will inhabit all possible states of its existance until it is observed, and the act of observation is what determines which state of existance the particle will take.
The Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment was developed to illustrate this point, not to kill cats.
What we have here is the wilful conflation of the magnitudes of scale. To say that the properties of a single electron could be applied to a human, is to imply that the properties of a single human could be applied to the observable universe. The scale of an electron to a human is about the same as a single human to the volume of the observable universe.
Sorta like saying that there must be a bigger, more complex being than humans (e.g, "God") because humans are so much bigger and more complex than a single-celled aomeba. It just does not follow.
I assure you that as I type this message I am affecting the whole universe instantaneously. Every action and thought effects the whole universe.
Psimulus wrote:
I assure you that as I type this message I am affecting the whole universe instantaneously. Every action and thought effects the whole universe.
What affect does your post have on the universe?
What affect does a localized action or abstract though have on the universe?
How rapidly do these alleged effects propagate through the universe?
Evidence, Please?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
TimT wrote:
It sounds like Randi will require a double-blind test. That greatly reduces the chance of convincing evidence because most Christians directly pray for someone, either up close or at a distance. It would have to be blessed placebos or hankies vs unblessed placebos or hankies.
Yes, I think Randi would require such proof. But it would be fairly easy to double-blind such a study. Get 400 patients, have each create a folder or envelope with their picture, first name, diagnosis, life story, a lock of their hair, a 2 inch square from their clothing, or whatever. Have the researchers randomly choose 200 of the envelopes and mail them off to the people who will do the praying. Neither the doctor nor the patient knows if someone is praying for a person or not ... until the end of the study when it is possible to compare the outcomes of the 2 groups and see if intercessionary prayer in and of itself helps people.
The 'blessed hankies' could also be tested against ordinary, unblessed hankies ... buy 400 hankies, have some one claiming spiritual power bless half of them, make sure that all 400 are given to patients in the same condition (not sure if the blessing would ruffle the hankies or if it can be done through the plastic wrap of the packages). If the patient and doctor are unaware of who has which type of hanky, then it would be possible to statistically analyze whether there is any effect from them.
Last edited by monty on 26 Aug 2008, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
VesicaPisces wrote:
Any thoughts, stories, opinions, conjectures, on the subject? Wikipedia article on Magic and Sorcery
Sure
I'm on an arduous eight-year journey into a most esoteric and black art
The coven of wizards I seek to enter has one nefarious goal: to imbue the elements of earth with the secret of life, giving them powers of reason far beyond the feeble comprehension of mortals
Many call this field 'artificial intelligence'
_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"
Fnord wrote:
Psimulus wrote:
I assure you that as I type this message I am affecting the whole universe instantaneously. Every action and thought effects the whole universe.
What affect does your post have on the universe?
What affect does a localized action or abstract though have on the universe?
How rapidly do these alleged effects propagate through the universe?
Evidence, Please?
You have provided a portion of the proof by replying. This message will also propagate outward into the future and perhaps also into the past at some point. A simple proof though is the butterfly effect, or newtons observations. Everything "is" connected. It is impossible not to have an effect on the universe. What we do today will affect the universe 200 yrs from now. If I say up instead of down or down instead of up, this dictates the course or direction ultimately influencing the result. Similar to how your day will be different if you choose to navigate a different route to work. Rate of propagation is instantaneous if one also considers relativism in the sense of time dilation or compression. Im not neccesarily referencing light either. Consider also as an example how we are now able to use quantum entanglement to communicate over any distance. Space is also time inversely related. This indicates that not only are we able to communicate spatialy, we can also communicate temporaly. Communicating with the near future is easy. Communicating with the distant future tangibly is more difficult considering that the information will transform over time. Similar to how a rumor will change or a meme will alter itself over time. Even by leaving earth we effect the mass distribution through out the universe. Douglas Adams was very aware of this notion.
Psimulus wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Psimulus wrote:
I assure you that as I type this message I am affecting the whole universe instantaneously. Every action and thought effects the whole universe.
What affect does your post have on the universe?
What affect does a localized action or abstract though have on the universe?
How rapidly do these alleged effects propagate through the universe?
Evidence, Please?
You have provided a portion of the proof by replying. This message will also propagate outward into the future and perhaps also into the past at some point. A simple proof though is the butterfly effect, or newtons observations. Everything "is" connected. It is impossible not to have an effect on the universe. What we do today will affect the universe 200 yrs from now. If I say up instead of down or down instead of up, this dictates the course or direction ultimately influencing the result. Similar to how your day will be different if you choose to navigate a different route to work. Rate of propagation is instantaneous if one also considers relativism in the sense of time dilation or compression. Im not neccesarily referencing light either. Consider also as an example how we are now able to use quantum entanglement to communicate over any distance. Space is also time inversely related. This indicates that not only are we able to communicate spatialy, we can also communicate temporaly. Communicating with the near future is easy. Communicating with the distant future tangibly is more difficult considering that the information will transform over time. Similar to how a rumor will change or a meme will alter itself over time. Even by leaving earth we effect the mass distribution through out the universe. Douglas Adams was very aware of this notion.
quantum entanglement ftw!!
monty wrote:
TimT wrote:
It sounds like Randi will require a double-blind test. That greatly reduces the chance of convincing evidence because most Christians directly pray for someone, either up close or at a distance. It would have to be blessed placebos or hankies vs unblessed placebos or hankies.
Yes, I think Randi would require such proof. But it would be fairly easy to double-blind such a study. Get 400 patients, have each create a folder or envelope with their picture, first name, diagnosis, life story, a lock of their hair, a 2 inch square from their clothing, or whatever. Have the researchers randomly choose 200 of the envelopes and mail them off to the people who will do the praying. Neither the doctor nor the patient knows if someone is praying for a person or not ... until the end of the study when it is possible to compare the outcomes of the 2 groups and see if intercessionary prayer in and of itself helps people.
The hard part of it is with the people calling in for healing. 95% of the people who ask for healing prayer are Christians. They aren't interested in proof that prayer heals; they just want to be well. They pray for themselves. They contact other ministries and their families for prayer. The results get all fogged up.
If James Randi advertised that someone was trying for the prize, the fog would drastically increase from both the witches and the Christians!
I pray for non-Christians who don't even know someone is praying for them. Often they are improved or healed. Unfortunately, the doctor's favorite excuse for that is "faulty diagnosis." I had a doctor who became a Christian admit this was common.
