- #1
einsteinian77
- 208
- 0
Telekinesis is it possible? Why or why not
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but not telekinetically.Originally posted by einsteinian77
Why not? The body generates plenty of force to move itself.
Telekinesis is not possible.Originally posted by einsteinian77
Telekinesis is it possible? Why or why not
While there is no Unified Field Theory yet, that doesn't make applying the Laws of Physics somehow inadequate.Originally posted by einsteinian77
why do you assume to know the laws of physics when there isn't even a unified field theory yet. I would assume that there is much to be discovered in what life is in relation to the actual universe.
That reasoning almost sounds like an Ad hoc fallacy.The human mind is too incompetent to even think that it knows what the universe actually is.
The first automatically disallows the use of a theoretical proof as an absolute proof. The laws of physics are certainly well tested, but we would be very pompous, stupid, and prideful indeed if we thought that given experiments done on Earth for a few thousand years we could know anything of any relevance about the working, past, and future of the universe. Also,While there is no Unified Field Theory yet, that doesn't make applying the Laws of Physics somehow inadequate.
That 'quote' is good reasoning, though it would be slightly more correct if it said 'a small chance'. If I look for my cat in the three most likly rooms, and cannot find her, I can conclude that there is a small chance that she has gotten outside. I would not conclude that this must be what happened until I have checked the 4th, 5th, and 6th rooms, and then double checked them all, and then tried yelling 'kitty, kitty, kitty, eat!' to get her to come out from hiding. If those fail, then the most likly thing is that she has gotten away. But given the evidence I had since I started looking for her, that was a possiblility the whole time.Its not good reasoning at all to assume "Well we haven't found evidence against its existence, so there's a chance that it does exist".
http://216.218.248.155/datastore/28/2c/b/282c27771fc5c69322de4ddeddda82ed.jpgOriginally posted by Jonathan
Some of the things you said were just stupid.
From my original post:The first automatically disallows the use of a theoretical proof as an absolute proof. The laws of physics are certainly well tested, but we would be very pompous, stupid, and prideful indeed if we thought that given experiments done on Earth for a few thousand years we could know anything of any relevance about the working, past, and future of the universe. Also,
Thermodynamics and the Laws of Motion are some of the most profound and important Laws in Physics. Most would regard those 2 sets of laws as "impossible to violate", there are certainly no other laws I can think of that have been tested so thoroughly and shown to be true.Quite a few Laws of Physics (i.e. Thermodynamics and Laws of Motion) will be violated
Neither "Possibilites", nor "Percent Chances", nor "Statistical Likelyhoods" are absolute formulas which govern the world we live in.That 'quote' is good reasoning, though it would be slightly more correct if it said 'a small chance'. If I look for my cat in the three most likly rooms, and cannot find her, I can conclude that there is a small chance that she has gotten outside. I would not conclude that this must be what happened until I have checked the 4th, 5th, and 6th rooms, and then double checked them all, and then tried yelling 'kitty, kitty, kitty, eat!' to get her to come out from hiding. If those fail, then the most likly thing is that she has gotten away. But given the evidence I had since I started looking for her, that was a possiblility the whole time.
By technicality, it is quite impossible to find empirical evidence against the occurence or existence of anything. This is one of the areas where Science and Philosophy begin to intermingle with one another, its known as "universal doubt" in laymens terms (or Pyrrhoism in Philosophical Terms).Originally posted by Bunting
Just my 2 cents! I don't reckon things are done until totally disproved :P
do we not live in a world made of particles? If we have only part of the info necessary to make a sound conclusion, can't we only come to statistical possiblities for conclusions?Neither "Possibilites", nor "Percent Chances", nor "Statistical Likelyhoods" are absolute formulas which govern the world we live in.
But I was referring to this:By reading your analogy a few times, I see you don't have much a semantics based (in the significance of the word "possibility") overliteralized analogy, make sure to always exercise common sense (unknown to how that may be defined) when making judgements.
not this:Its not good reasoning at all to assume "Well we haven't found evidence against its existence, so there's a chance that it does exist".
Which I completely agree with. I don't even entirly understand our arguemnet here, because we both agree that telekinesis probably isn't real, what we disagree on is why.The Laws of Thermodynamics and Motion - and other Laws - nullify any expectation of Telekinesis.
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
- Albert. A. Michelson, speech given in 1894 at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, Univ. of Chicago
"In real life, every field of science is incomplete, and most of them - whatever the record of accomplisment during the last 200 years - are still in their very earliest stages."
- Lewis Thomas
"Wisest is she who knows she does not know."
- Anonymous
I can say that I honestly don't know what Emergent Phenomena and Chaos Theory are.Originally posted by Jonathan
2)About you comments on the second law, I'd guess you don't know about emergent phenomena and chaos theory.
4)This sounds contradictory to QM: do we not live in a world made of particles? If we have only part of the info necessary to make a sound conclusion, can't we only come to statistical possiblities for conclusions?
I often have a problem with stating that things cannot be disproven because they have a possibility of existing or occurring. Its just a pet peeve of mine. *twitch*But given the evidence I had since I started looking for her, that was a possiblility the whole time.
I wrote the post at 3:21 AM. Right now, its about 7:15 AM. I have an usual sleeping cycle, sometimes I decide not to go to bed. When I do that, I usually have more than one thought occurring inside my head at once... I have no idea what I was trying to say either.5)I don't know what you are saying in this part: But I was referring to this: not this: Which I completely agree with. I don't even entirly understand our arguemnet here, because we both agree that telekinesis probably isn't real, what we disagree on is why.
:)6)You are right, that was mean, I'm sorry.
I find these quotes to be wise/funny:
Originally posted by einsteinian77
There are already things in that scientist have found that do violate the current laws of physics such as dark matter and energy. They only violate laws of physics because the laws of physics, as we know it, aren't correct yet. That alone is proof that without a successful unified theory, we may be seeing the universe in a backwards view. To insist that what we call an absolute today will also be tomorrow is just dumb and goes against the natural progress of science in every way.
The voltage generated by brain cells and picked up by EEG is extremely small – between 20 and 100 microvolts after amplification on the order of ten thousand times. The signal is so small that electrical interference, called artifacts, from outside sources – for example, motors, overhead lights, even an eye blink – is often as strong as the signal that the EEG is trying to detect. When reading EEG charts, physicians need skill and experience to distinguish artifacts from brain activity and to decode the brain's electrical rhythms into diagnostic information.
The skull is a poor conductor of electricity that interferes with the transmission of electrical charges to the scalp. Although the brain and the scalp are separated by only a few millimetres, the distance is an enormous chasm in EEG terms.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
One major flaw in the information your reasoning is based upon is the notion that humans generate alot of electricity. Humans generate a tiny, tiny amount of electricity:
Neuromontréal EEG
Address:http://www.mni.mcgill.ca/nm/1998s/en/EEG.html
Hmmmm. I'm only aware of what "electricity" is generated in the brain and nerves. (This is an extremely different thing than the way it is generated in a battery or a generator, incidently. In nerves it's all a matter of positive ions moving from outside the neurons into the neurons and back out again. The "flow" is actually more like a wave of ions going from outside to inside the cell, rather than free electrons traveling along it.)Originally posted by einsteinian77
But isn't that electricity that was tested used for only telling the body what to do and was not a full potential.