Can E.S.P be scientifically proven? Join the challenge and find out!

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact, I'll go one step further. I offer the Big Bang as proof of a supernatural event. Can Randi prove me wrong? Does Randi owe me one-million dollars?

 

[munky99999]

In fact, I'll go one step further. I offer the Big Bang as proof of a supernatural event. Can Randi prove me wrong? Does Randi owe me one million dollars?

i think he's looking more for a demonstration.

Now if you can demonstrate a full blown big bang that results in a new universe. Wowzers that'd be something. Hell you'd probably get $1million in grants if you could demonstrate it. Not to mention nobel prize(those come with a $ award part to i think)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is it Randi's position that the Big Bang didn't happen? In principle I can demonstrate the evidence for it in any Astrophysics lab. Also, the qualifier "I think what he means", is my point exactly.

All of you Randi fans can tell him that I either want my one-million dollars, or an explanation for the Big Bang.

The Big Bang clearly violates the laws of physics as we understand them.

 

[munky99999]

Is it Randi's position that the Big Bang didn't happen? In principle I can demostrate the evidence for it in any Astrophysics lab. Also, "I think what he means" is my point exactly.

ya and id expect a skeptic like Randi would be educated enough to see that the big bang is the most rational position.

and again. you can demonstrate the evidence. Anyone educated enough can demonstrate that. So what makes that supernatural?

Now something that can't be done by scientists. Though I am not sure if they'd ever want to, might have a lot of bad consequences. is actually recreate the actual big bang. Now that i would say would be supernatural because its far outside what current scientists even dream of doing.

But good luck demonstrationg a full blown big bang :rofl:

 

[munky99999]

All of you Randi fans can tell him that I either want my one-million dollars, or an explanation for the Big Bang.

mind expanding on that a little?

are you under the bad impression that the cosmological argument is correcT?

 

[munky99999]

The Big Bang clearly violates the laws of physics as we understand them.

How so? create something from nothing?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To understand the Big Bang is to have a unified theory of physics. They are one in the same. We don't have one. There are even those who think we never can.

It might even be argued that by defintion, the BB was a supernatural event.

 

[Gokul43201]

So, magic, or not recognized, which does he mean? Does any new scientific discovery that we don't understand qualify? That would be "not in accordance with scientific laws". Does entanglement count? How about Dark Energy? how about the Big Bang; something from nothing?

Ivan, you're misinterpreting what counts as a violation and what doesn't.

Current scientific understanding has a regime of relevance. There are things that it can explain/predict (how long it takes a tennis ball to fall through 10 feet), and there are things that it can't (what "caused" the big bang; the value of the Earth's magnetic field; if all the zeros of the Riemann zeta function fall on the same line). Demonstrating something that is in violation of scientific laws, requires the something to belong in the regime of applicability. It has to be something that current science says will turn out a certain way, but in fact, doesn't.

Now, there's a subtlety involved here, arising from the realization that due to quantum mechanics, even outrageous outcomes have tiny probability amplitudes. I think any demonstration showing a success rate that is several standard deviations different from the calculated probability counts as a violation of scientific laws.

PS : What physics is violated by the BB ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, the use of the word "violation" was a bad choice. I would have been back sooner to correct that but got busy.

What was meant was that we don't have the physics needed to account for the phenomenon. And note also that giving something a name is not an explanation. Also, it may well be that the physics that we know cannot account for any pre-BB conditions, which may or may not have been. There could be "other physics" that no longer apply to our universe, by some accounts.

 

[munky99999]

Yes, the use of the word "violation" was a bad choice. I would have been back sooner to correct that but got busy.

What was meant was that we don't have the physics needed to account for the phenomenon.

perhaps no equations or math. But the evidence points towards there being a big bang.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course it does, but we can't explain it all using known physics. This is all part of the search for a unified theory. The physics that we understand no longer works when we get back to within a the first moments of the BB. And if there was anything before that, we don't understand what it was.

As for violations, anything that we don't understand may appear to be a violation of some physical law or principle, but we assume that ultimately everything real is governed by laws that can be described. So again, is Randi simply demanding the impossible, or is he genuinely interested in potentially new frontiers of science?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is another one. If we should prove that humans communicate through pheromones, can I apply for the million retroactively, offering pheromones as proof of ESP, retroactively that is, or does it no longer apply?

 

[munky99999]

Of course it does, but we can't explain it all using known physics.

thats the essence of every theory. the big bang simply is the best fit for the data we have. when we get more data we punch it in. if it doesn't work we revise.

Here is another one. If we should prove that humans communicate through pheromones, can I apply for the million retroactively, offering pheromones as proof of ESP, retroactively that is, or does it no longer apply?

again I am pretty sure he's looking for something that hasnt been explained by science.

 

[Chronos]

Why not test man v machine? Put a random 6 digit number in the black bag and have a guessing contest between humans and computers? Give each participant 100 guesses and see who 'wins' [closest to the hole]. Rinse, repeat and do a chi squared analysis. Assuming computers have no 'psychic' abilities, should there not be a statistically significant result?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why not test man v machine? Put a random 6 digit number in the black bag and have a guessing contest between humans and computers? Give each participant 100 guesses and see who 'wins' [closest to the hole]. Rinse, repeat and do a chi squared analysis. Assuming computers have no 'psychic' abilities, should there not be a statistically significant result?

Why the computer ? Why not just compare the human success rate against the theoretical probabilities ? The probability of correctly guessing n digits in each guess is 10^{-n}.

 

[munky99999]

Why the computer ? Why not just compare the human success rate against the theoretical probabilities ? The probability of correctly guessing n digits in each guess is 10^{-n}.

ya i don't like that. LEts use a # that is in Base 1,000 and not tell them the # is in base 1,000. if they are truly psychic this would make no difference. As a real psychic would be like. oh very nice. Base 1,000. the # is...

 

[Gokul43201]

ya i don't like that. LEts use a # that is in Base 1,000 and not tell them the # is in base 1,000. if they are truly psychic this would make no difference. As a real psychic would be like. oh very nice. Base 1,000. the # is...

:rofl: Ingenious !

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

What is supernatural? It cannot be proven. By the time it is proven, it is not so supernatural anymore. There is no such thing as supernatural. The universe and all that happens and lay within, is natural... yet considered supernatural before it is understood by mankind. Silly humans... :) When it isn't proven, it isn't accepted. By the time it is accepted by all, it is already proven.