James Randi Offers $1M Award for Proof of Expensive Speaker Cables

[Ivan Seeking]

The point is that experimentally provable phenomena (repeatable observations under controlled conditions) need not be considered "supernatural", even if the mechanism behind the phenomena are not currently understood.

Why? We have a definition for supernatural, and spin conservation at a distance in entangled systems meets the definition. For one, spin is conserved instantly; or at least much faster than speed of light communication would allow.

According to the current theory, it is not possible even in principle to measure the mechanism for spin conservation in entangled systems. Its not a matter of being difficult, it is impossible. And according to the defintion, this qualifies precisely as being supernatural. What you want is a completely arbitrary definition that allows us to pick and choose what qualifies based on personal bias. That could be considered the definition of bad science. Now if Randi specified that he was only interested in testing spoon benders, mind readers, and fortune tellers, we wouldn't have this problem.

I don't think you understand the depth of the paradox. QM predicts the correct results every time, but the mechanism - how spin is conserved - might as well be magic. And for all practical purposes, it is. This is why the EPR thought experiment was such a big deal.

Although originally devised as a thought experiment that would demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, actual experimental results refute the principle of locality, invalidating the EPR trio's original purpose.

wiki

The situation is roughly equivalent to this: I have a predictive model, or I have learned by doing experiments that psychics can make correct predictions under specific conditions, and it works every time, but I can offer no explanation as to how they do it. You are saying that because I can say when it works - say for example if it only works when they are standing on one leg and facing South - the psychics no longer qualify for the challenge.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have also argued that so called blind-sight qualifies as being extra-sensory perception. For example, it appears that a completely blind person can recognize emotions on the faces of people standing in front of him. It is believed that this can happen due to an alternate path for visual perception in which the image need not be processed as an image. By definition this is an extra sense in that we get useful information without seeing. Whatver it we might call it, it is not sight in any way that we have imagined.

Of course the basic argument against this qualifying is one of defintions.

Still, this is that we think this actually happens. The evidence is thin, and we don't really KNOW that it happens, but it seems to be true, papers have been published, and since we might be able to explain it, since we can now suddenly imagine an explanation when forced to do so, it doesn't qualify as ESP. I think the logic against this qualifying for Randi's Challenge utterly fails, as it does in the entanglement problem. One can argue that it is still sight, but I don't think the defintion of sight would include this ability to perceive ONLY emotions. So to escape the problem we automatically adjust our definition of sight - we make it more general - and say, that's what we meant all along.

If there is any such thing as mind reading, precognition, or any other ability that we randomly define as being "supernatural" if real, and if we one day prove that it exists and we have an idea how it works, this would no longer qualify for the challenge either.

My position is this: Either nothing real is supernatural, or everything real is supernatural. If something turns out to be a real phenomenon, then it must be a simple fact of existence just like everything else, and for this reason nothing could ever qualify to win the challenge. Either the words "supernatural" and "paranormal" are meaningless, or the entanglement scenario qualifies as such precisely.

Anyone who understand Quantum Mechanics hasn't studied it long enough - RPF.

 

[Curious3141]

Why? We have a definition for supernatural, and spin conservation at a distance in entangled systems meets the definition. For one, spin is conserved instantly; or at least much faster than speed of light communication would allow.

According to the current theory, it is not possible even in principle to measure the mechanism for spin conservation in entangled systems. Its not a matter of being difficult, it is impossible. And according to the defintion, this qualifies precisely as being supernatural. What you want is a completely arbitrary definition that allows us to pick and choose what qualifies based on personal bias. That could be considered the definition of bad science. Now if Randi specified that he was only interested in testing spoon benders, mind readers, and fortune tellers, we wouldn't have this problem.

I don't think you understand the depth of the paradox. QM predicts the correct results every time, but the mechanism - how spin is conserved - might as well be magic. And for all practical purposes, it is. This is why the EPR thought experiment was such a big deal.


wiki

The situation is roughly equivalent to this: I have a predictive model, or I have learned by doing experiments that psychics can make correct predictions under specific conditions, and it works every time, but I can offer no explanation as to how they do it. You are saying that because I can say when it works - say for example if it only works when they are standing on one leg and facing South - the psychics no longer qualify for the challenge.

Those are fairly good points, did you try writing to Randi about it? Or has he ever commented?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I really don't want to make life difficult for Randi, but I do wish to reduce his ability to close people’s minds. I will leave it to Randi fans to tell him that I bet I could take his money if we went to court. There have been times when I listened to him talk that I was sorely tempted to call my lawyer, and the truth be known, the other day I was feeling a bit hot about this and actually did call my lawyer, but luckily he was out of town until tomorrow.

Randi debunks charlatans, and for that he is to be commended, but he is not the end all of truth, and his challenge is not the clear line in the sand between real and not real, as he falsely leads people to believe.

To answer your question specifically, as I said earlier, Randi and I once corresponded by email, and that's where he got black listed in my book in the first place. After that I was inclined to believe that no one could win his challenge under any circumstances, by design - less perhaps a miracle from what appears to be the most obvious hoaxers. And if someone like Uri Geller was really bending spoons with his mind, I would probably be just as surprised as Randi.


.

 

[Moridin]

I really don't want to make life difficult for Randi, but I do wish to reduce his ability to close people’s minds.

There is a difference between having an open mind and being gullible. Having an open mind means accessing each new piece of evidence and trying to see the bigger picture. Sure, it means accepting possibilities, but evaluating probabilities. It does not mean accepting everything. Randi is actually opening people's minds, not the other way around.

 

[Curious3141]

To answer your question specifically, as I said earlier, Randi and I once corresponded by email, and that's where he got black listed in my book in the first place.

So what did Randi reply, specifically?

 

[turbo]

Why? We have a definition for supernatural, and spin conservation at a distance in entangled systems meets the definition. For one, spin is conserved instantly; or at least much faster than speed of light communication would allow.

According to the current theory, it is not possible even in principle to measure the mechanism for spin conservation in entangled systems. Its not a matter of being difficult, it is impossible. And according to the defintion, this qualifies precisely as being supernatural. What you want is a completely arbitrary definition that allows us to pick and choose what qualifies based on personal bias. That could be considered the definition of bad science. Now if Randi specified that he was only interested in testing spoon benders, mind readers, and fortune tellers, we wouldn't have this problem.

I don't think you understand the depth of the paradox. QM predicts the correct results every time, but the mechanism - how spin is conserved - might as well be magic. And for all practical purposes, it is. This is why the EPR thought experiment was such a big deal.

To the contrary, I do understand the depth of the paradox. The fact that we do not know or cannot know the mechanism behind an observable event does not elevate the event to something paranormal, however. Quantum weirdness is something that we have to accept. The quantum world is not constrained by the rules of classical physics and we have to acknowledge that. Much of our world runs on semi-conductors that rely on quantum behaviors like tunneling that seem to violate the laws of classical physics. While we do not fully understand the mechanics behind these behaviors, we can model them, predict them, and can control them. The behaviors are no less weird for this, but they are hardly supernatural.

 

[Mk]

if someone like Uri Geller was really bending spoons with his mind, I would probably be just as surprised as Randi.

If somebody was out there that was bending spoons with his mind and wanted to tell everybody, everybody would know.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To the contrary, I do understand the depth of the paradox. The fact that we do not know or cannot know the mechanism behind an observable event does not elevate the event to something paranormal, however. Quantum weirdness is something that we have to accept. The quantum world is not constrained by the rules of classical physics and we have to acknowledge that. Much of our world runs on semi-conductors that rely on quantum behaviors like tunneling that seem to violate the laws of classical physics. While we do not fully understand the mechanics behind these behaviors, we can model them, predict them, and can control them. The behaviors are no less weird for this, but they are hardly supernatural.

That's because you can define supernatural to mean whatever you want. When exactly is something supernatural? We already were given a definition. I was responding directly to the definition. And the key point is that the mechanism cannot be measured; not even in principle. What better definition could you want?

Incidentally, when the military learned of this they got quite excited as it seemed that one could use this to make a the perfect communication system [undetectable and inviolable], but of course the fact that the spin is undefined on both particles, until measured on one, means that there is no way to use it for secret messaging.

Also, should our speaker wires pass Randi's challenge - whatever their claims may be, and I really don't care what they are - your position is that rather than assuming that we have a fantastic new technology that can be explained by science, we should assume that it's supernatural?
If we find that precognition actually happens due to some deep physics that we don't yet understand, would physics then be the study of the supernatural?

Can you say just what the limits of quantum weirdness may be? Ultimately, we live in a quantum world. I know because tunnel diodes work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a difference between having an open mind and being gullible. Having an open mind means accessing each new piece of evidence and trying to see the bigger picture. Sure, it means accepting possibilities, but evaluating probabilities. It does not mean accepting everything. Randi is actually opening people's minds, not the other way around.

It also means that we don't use artificial defintions that can change at a whim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If somebody was out there that was bending spoons with his mind and wanted to tell everybody, everybody would know.

Well, Geller did tell everyone that he could do exactly that and many other maigical things. And not only did many people believe him, so did a fair number of scientists. Apparently he was quite convincing. This is a case where Randi certainly deserves credit. Being a magician himself, Johnny Carson smelled a rat in Geller. He contacted Randi who was a master magician. Randi figured out the scheme and they set-up Geller on national TV. It was one of the all time great debunkings!

 

[Art]

Supernatural (above nature) suggests something outside the known laws of nature and the mechanism behind quantum entanglement certainly seems to fit the bill.

It also appears, as I think Ivan asserts, there is sleight of hand by Randi in that once something is shown to be real it is by definition no longer supernatural and so does not qualify for his prize.

As an example of a fringe phenomena gaining acceptance, at one time acupuncture was right up there with faith healing and mysticism but as investigations showed it worked it became mainstream and is now accepted so whereas faith healing still remains supernatural acupuncture is not.

If Randi's purpose is to expose folk who claim abilities to read the future as a scam to rip people off then he gets my support but I get the impression Ivan believes he goes further than that and would stifle debate on all currently unexplained phenomena some of which such as the acupuncture example I referenced are worthy of serious consideration.

 

[turbo]

That's because you can define supernatural to mean whatever you want. When exactly is something supernatural? We already were given a definition. I was responding directly to the definition. And the key point is that the mechanism cannot be measured; not even in principle. What better definition could you want?

I cannot define every-day occurrences as supernatural, even if we do not understand the mechanisms behind them. This includes all well-established quantum effects, but also extends to the macroscopic world. For instance, we do not have any understanding of how gravitational attraction arises. We have the Newtonian approximation, and we have Einstein's GR, but those are both mathematical models. They are predictive, but they do not explain the mechanism behind gravitation. After developing GR, Einstein tried all the remainder of his life to uncover the mechanism behind gravitation and inertial effects, to no avail. Understanding the mechanism of gravitation is key to a TOE, but despite the best efforts of the LQG folks and the String folks, we seem to be a long way away from that. It would seem that gravitation and inertia are supernatural by your definition. I cannot accept this view. The fact that these effects are universal and fundamental mean that they a real and are not supernatural, even if we do not understand the mechanism through which they arise. This applies equally to quantum effects that we observe, but cannot yet explain. We cannot expect Randi to "debunk" things that have been occupying many of the best minds for decades. That over-broad definition of "supernatural" is not consistent with our reality.

 

[Huckleberry]

natural - 1. existing in or formed by nature
supernatural - 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

The way I see it all of the quantum examples used here are natural phenomena because we commonly attribute them to nature. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything supernatural is unreal. I would say that what we refer to as supernatural are phenomena that occur without what we can reasonably identify as a natural cause.

I think the confusion in this thread stems from the definition of nature, not supernatural. Some people are considering nature to be everything that is real, and others are considering it to be everything that is currently known to be real.

As far as Randi is concerned, he seems to hold the opinion that supernatural phenomena do not, or can not, have natural causes. He seems to be challenging anyone to prove the existence of an unnatural will. He may expose many charlatans, but I'm dubious of his intentions.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yikes! This entire offshoot about quantum entaglement is ridiculous. You can always ask one more "why" question that physics can not answer (eg: why are the 19 free parameters of the standard model what they are?), but that doesn't make any of them supernatural. The things that underlie these questions are simply the building blocks of the present model (just as certain truths are axiomatic to a mathematical theory).

What is supernatural, however, is something that is claimed to occur at a likelihood that far differs from what is got from either controlled experimentation or where applicable, existing theory.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You can always ask one more "why" question that physics can not answer (eg: why are the 19 free parameters of the standard model what they are?), but that doesn't make any of them supernatural.

You just used the word supernatural arbitrarily. What's more, this is a real phenomenon that can be measured and is not just a hypothetical mathematical construct.

The things that underlie these questions are simply the building blocks of the present model (just as certain truths are axiomatic to a mathematical theory).

Is it real or not? Are you saying that spin is not really conserved [what we measure as spin]; or are you dismissing the principle of collapse? I'm sure that you're not. In principle we could make a communication system using this, and the only reason that we haven't tried is that there is no advantage in doing so. Still, that would be a real technology that seemingly works by magic.

What is supernatural, however, is something that is claimed to occur at a likelihood that far differs from what is got from either controlled experimentation or where applicable, existing theory.

So then the increasing rate of expansion of the universe would qualify? Would it qualify until we have a testable hypothesis to explain it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I cannot define every-day occurrences as supernatural, even if we do not understand the mechanisms behind them.

Arbitrary; unless you can happen prove that God doesn't exist. Good luck on that one. But again it comes down to what we mean by supernatural. I was going by the defintion given.

This includes all well-established quantum effects, but also extends to the macroscopic world. For instance, we do not have any understanding of how gravitational attraction arises. We have the Newtonian approximation, and we have Einstein's GR, but those are both mathematical models. They are predictive, but they do not explain the mechanism behind gravitation. After developing GR, Einstein tried all the remainder of his life to uncover the mechanism behind gravitation and inertial effects, to no avail. Understanding the mechanism of gravitation is key to a TOE, but despite the best efforts of the LQG folks and the String folks, we seem to be a long way away from that. It would seem that gravitation and inertia are supernatural by your definition.

So it would seem.

I cannot accept this view. The fact that these effects are universal and fundamental mean that they a real and are not supernatural,

You are using your private definition of supernatural again. So you mean that supernatural is "not real". Therefore Randi's challenge is to prove that the unreal exists?

even if we do not understand the mechanism through which they arise. This applies equally to quantum effects that we observe, but cannot yet explain. We cannot expect Randi to "debunk" things that have been occupying many of the best minds for decades. That over-broad definition of "supernatural" is not consistent with our reality.

I don't consider expanding the definition beyond "only that which is not real" as overly broad. It seems that you want to privately define what is real and not real.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So as nearly as I can tell, what we want to say is that supernatural is anything not currently explained by science and that we find sufficiently surprising, or those claims which we arbitrarily define to not be real because not proven. We can't use "anything that requires new science" because we don't know that answer. Any open questions in physics might qualify and we have no way to know which. Is ball lightning supernatural? Until recently it was was treated as such. Does dark matter qualify? If not, where's the proof? No matter what we find, don't we always assume that there is a natural explanation; even when confronted with the absurdity of quantum weirdness? When is a discovery ever surprising enough to qualify as being supernatural? Does the word even exist in science, or is this exclusive to the domain of Randi?

If we mean a particular class of claims, why not just list them specifically? Otherwise, where do we draw the line between surprising, and supernatural? And even then, supernatural only means, extremely surprising! And just as with spin conservation as discussed above, we quickly learn to accept what we observe as natural; no matter how much it might violate our sensibilities.

Time and time again we have learned that if anything, the universe is extremely surprising.

 

[Curious3141]

If some genius out there happens to discover for-real superluminal information transfer or cold fusion, they should bait Randi into a million dollar test *before* publication/peer review. Then we'll know for sure where Randi draws the line between natural phenomena that go contrary to present science and "supernatural" phenomena.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to QM, there is for-real superluminal communication between pairs [or non-locality, or whatever we want to call it]. Doesn't QM pass Randi's challenge?

 

[Curious3141]

According to QM, there is for-real superluminal communication between pairs [or non-locality, or whatever we want to call it]. Doesn't QM pass Randi's challenge?

No, I don't think so. Based on my extremely limited understanding of QM (I'm much more comfortable with SR), entanglement cannot lead to superluminal transmission of meaningful information (which is what's required to violate SR). Something about the "no-cloning theorem", that's all I know - someone else on here will certainly be able to explain it better.

 

[Gokul43201]

So then the increasing rate of expansion of the universe would qualify? Would it qualify until we have a testable hypothesis to explain it?

No Ivan, of course not! For the last couple of years, every single set of measurements I've made at work has shown something that was not explained by theory. This is true of any fundamental experimental research, and it happens every single day in hundreds of research labs around the world.

But we call this research, not exploration of the supernatural.