Tarot: Consequences for philosophy, ethics, and physics

[Willie Lumplump]

Correct predictions of the future, whether by tarot or other means, would have the profoundest consequences for philosophy, ethics, and physics. For the future to be predicted correctly, it would have either to already exist in some sense or to exist as a potential implicit in the positions and momenta of every particle in the universe. In that second case, the universe would be a kind of machine that grinds out the inevitable future according to the immutable, deterministic laws of Isaac Newton. Regarding the first alternative, it's hard to say exactly what an "already existing future" would mean. If it means anything, it certainly would be incompatible with free will since all that will ever exist already exists. The second alternative is equally incompatible with free will since a deterministic universe, by definition, does not allow for alternative possibilities that free will assumes. This picture is complicated by quantum theory (the most precise theory ever developed) which tells us that the universe is not deterministic because particles are continuously popping in and out of existence according to laws of statistical probability, and no particle even has an exact momentum and an exact position until it is measured. Therefore, tarot and other occult arts that claim to predict the future are actually refutations of quantum theory. This is hard to accept since much of the modern world is based on quantum theory--computers, lasers, particle physics, astronomy, etc.

[mykil]

I think, we may need an anti-gratitude button here folks!

[Willie Lumplump]

I think, we may need an anti-gratitude button here folks!

Or you could just offer an opinion on the ideas that I presented--your own opinion or somebody else's (you could quote). Or you could ask a question. Or you could ask somebody else to respond. Or you could just ignore the whole thing. Isn't it nice to have so many options?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Correct predictions of the future, whether by tarot or other means, would have the profoundest consequences for philosophy, ethics, and physics. For the future to be predicted correctly, it would have either to already exist in some sense or to exist as a potential implicit in the positions and momenta of every particle in the universe. In that second case, the universe would be a kind of machine that grinds out the inevitable future according to the immutable, deterministic laws of Isaac Newton. Regarding the first alternative, it's hard to say exactly what an "already existing future" would mean. If it means anything, it certainly would be incompatible with free will since all that will ever exist already exists. The second alternative is equally incompatible with free will since a deterministic universe, by definition, does not allow for alternative possibilities that free will assumes. This picture is complicated by quantum theory (the most precise theory ever developed) which tells us that the universe is not deterministic because particles are continuously popping in and out of existence according to laws of statistical probability, and no particle even has an exact momentum and an exact position until it is measured. Therefore, tarot and other occult arts that claim to predict the future are actually refutations of quantum theory. This is hard to accept since much of the modern world is based on quantum theory--computers, lasers, particle physics, astronomy, etc.



I find this an altogether too broad attack on Tarot.

Certainly not all forms of prediction of the future are incompatible with free will or quantum mechanics: phases of the moon of the moon could be one simple example. Any phenomenon that does not involve the will.

It all depends on what kind of events Tarot is claiming to be able to predict.

In itself freedom of will is a hard one. Any universal physical theory that states general laws, be in Newtonian physics or Quantum Mechanics, seems incompatible with free will.

You cannot sneak in free will in the probabilistic laws in QM thus defying them.

[Willie Lumplump]

I find this an altogether too broad attack on Tarot.

Well, I just mentioned tarot because we've discussed it recently. As I said in my original post, any art or discipline that claims to be able to predict the future would serve equally well as an example.


Certainly not all forms of prediction of the future are incompatible with free will or quantum mechanics: phases of the moon of the moon could be one simple example. Any phenomenon that does not involve the will.

Obviously you're first sentence is right, but I'd call phases of the moon a trivial example because it's basically a two-body system that allows easy calculation. Add just one more body and the system becomes so complex that nobody can calculate positions after a short time (of course, I'm talking about a three-body system in which one body doesn't dominate the movements of the others, as the sun does in the solar system). And it's possible to predict the weather a few days in advance. And, in principle, it's possible to predict the outcome of the next presidental election through proper statistical sampling. But these are all trivial examples that don't bear on the problem at hand, which is predicting events that are dependent on free will or chaotic systems.

Free will aside, most systems are chaotic and therefore unpredictable. Drop two bottles into the ocean side-by-side, and a couple of months later they may well be in different oceans. And you can predict the weather a few days in advance, but if you try to predict the weather a month or two in advance, all of the chaotic influences come into play making the task impossible. It's the "butterfly effect." A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil causing a rainstorm in Africa a month later.


It all depends on what kind of events Tarot is claiming to be able to predict.

I'd refer back to Christine's claims for examples.


In itself freedom of will is a hard one.

Well, there's no doubt about that, and I'd have to say that my single paragraph on the subject is misleading to some extent.


Any universal physical theory that states general laws, be in Newtonian physics or Quantum Mechanics, seems incompatible with free will. You cannot sneak in free will in the probabilistic laws in QM thus defying them.

Well, actually I agree with those statements, but not everybody does. Roger Penrose, for example, has made much of quantum uncertainty as a basis for free will. But my main point still stands. Accurate, nontrivial predictions of the future would be fatal to the notion of free will and have profound consequences for philosophy, ethics, and physics.

[Braggi]

Well, I just mentioned tarot because we've discussed it recently. As I said in my original post, any art or discipline that claims to be able to predict the future would serve equally well as an example.


Willie, you're trolling again. And this time, I have to say, you're really full of it. You're not even very good at this. Look over ThePhiant's posts and try to learn something about trolling.

My wife predicts the future all the time. The future of her patients. It's not done by tarot, it's done by examining the past of the person in question, the attitude of that person, and the general trajectory of their life. She can usually predict quite accurately whether they'll wind up in prison, on the street, or happily married with a good job. She's amazing in these ways. Of course, she's a trained professional and has decades of experience at it. Don't think she's ever studied quantum mechanics or the "science" of "free will."


... And you can predict the weather a few days in advance, but if you try to predict the weather a month or two in advance, all of the chaotic influences come into play making the task impossible. It's the "butterfly effect." A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil causing a rainstorm in Africa a month later.

Well, the "butterfly effect" is bull and you know it so we can dispense with that one. And you are ignorant about long range weather prediction. Check these guys out: https://www.weatheraction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=38
And look here: https://www.worldweather.com.au/HomeFrame.htm

I've actually not been able to locate the service I used to use which predicted weather 18 months in advance and had a several years long record of 85% accuracy. They did not update their predictions based on current weather but kept their 18 month old prediction right up to the present. They weren't perfect, but they were pretty damn good--for a year and a half out they were amazing. I'll see if I can find them again.

Your comments on quantum mechanics seem out of context to this discussion. Computer science isn't based on the notion that particles pop into and out of existence. Quite the opposite. It's based on the predictable behavior of particles. In fact, I know of no applied science based on quantum mechanics. Perhaps you could educate us on that.

Or perhaps this is another thread you should just drop, Willie.

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie, you're trolling again. And this time, I have to say, you're really full of it.

I think we have to be cautious when attempting to read other people's motives. I can see in retrospect that I was incautious during my discussions with Christine. I've publicly apologized for that, and Christine has been gracious enough to publicly accept my apology. In the present discussion I'd have to say that your reading of my motives is mistaken. Of course I may have unconscious motives that, by definition, I'm not aware of, but to the extent that I am aware of my motives now I can assure you that I am being completely honest. When Christine challenged me, it rang a bell and called my unconscious motives into the light. Your challenge here rings no bells with me. Of course, you're welcome to try again.

[Willie Lumplump]

My wife predicts the future all the time. The future of her patients. It's not done by tarot, it's done by examining the past of the person in question, the attitude of that person, and the general trajectory of their life. She can usually predict quite accurately whether they'll wind up in prison, on the street, or happily married with a good job. She's amazing in these ways. Of course, she's a trained professional and has decades of experience at it.

I can see that this is a very difficult subject to approach in a community bulletin board. In the relatively limited space of a single post, it's impossible to cover a complex topic from enough angles to avoid all possible misunderstandings.

We all are able to predict the future. Our mammalian ancestors going all the way back to the beginning of the Triassic Period survived because they could, to one extent or another, predict the future. "If I go out into the forest in daytime, I probably will encounter a hungry dinosaur." "If I stay in my nest tonight, my supply of stored food will not supply me with the calories I need to get through another night of hunting." (Of course, I'm anthropomorphizing here.) Or, in a modern context, "Based on observed negative interactions between this married couple, I can predict with 95% accuracy that they will be divorced within five years." Or, "Based on my statistical records, I can predict with 95% confidence that between 90 and 110 people will die in California auto accidents within the next week. All of those kinds of predictions are quite reasonable, and no one would argue otherwise. The predictions of concern, the ones I was talking about, are hard to categorize except that they are very specific outcomes of chaotic systems. If you predict that two bottles dropped in the ocean together will end up in two different oceans, it's not news if that comes to pass. However, suppose that you predict that one bottle will end up on a beach near Colombo, Sri Lanka while the other will end up in a water intake vent in Ontario, Canada. If those predictions come to pass, that is news because the chaos inherent in ocean currents simply doesn't allow us to make those kinds of predictions accurately.

It's getting kind of late, so I really can't continue with this now. I'll get back to it soon as I can (if I can).

[Braggi]

I can see that this is a very difficult subject to approach in a community bulletin board. In the relatively limited space of a single post, it's impossible to cover a complex topic from enough angles to avoid all possible misunderstandings. <snip>


Oh, I think I understood you. I'm messing with you a little because I think you're messing with us.


I agree with you that crystal ball gazing isn't likely to help me predict what's coming in your future. But doing it for myself (skrying) can indeed help me find some valuable insights about myself I might otherwise miss.

Again, I think you're attacking the wrong thing here, especially in this community. I think you're fighting something you don't understand, partly because there are so many ways to understand it. Most of those ways I have to agree with you, are so much poppycock. Even that doesn't mean they are a total waste of time. Even watching FOX news isn't a complete waste of time (although it mostly is).

Just think of it as entertainment and maybe it will bother you less. I always smile when I go by a neon hand sign declaring "Past, Present and Future." I wouldn't spend my money there, but a lot of people get something of value out of it. Let's leave it up to them to decide. Oh, that's the "free will" part.

Cheers,

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

Well, the "butterfly effect" is bull -Jeff

Before I turn in for the night, I have to give one cogent example of the "butterfly effect." (For the uninitiated, the butterfly effect refers to the extreme sensitivity of chaotic systems to initial conditions, as in my previous example of two bottles dropped next to each other in the ocean.)

It's been calculated that if a single electron were instantaneously transported from the farthest point in the universe to, say, downtown Santa Rosa, the electron would undergo only about 60 interactions with neighboring particles before the effects of the electron would be visible macroscopically. That's because one thing affects two other things which affect two other things and so on until you soon end up with something that looks nothing at all like what you started with. Think about it. You go out the door to work in the morning, and for no particular reason, this time you decide to check the wall clock before you go. Checking the wall clock takes three seconds. Those three seconds may be all that separate you from a car collision that would end your life. Your life hangs on whether you check the wall clock or not. Every second of every day is like that for all of us. Each minute we make small decisions that alter the course of our lives. That's the "butterfly effect."

[ChristineL]

As I've stated before, I don't have the science background or the understanding of scientific methods that you have Willie. However, I will try to explain what readings are supposed to do and you can talk about how it does, or doesn't, fit your into your "implications".

If I did not believe people could use their free will to change the course of their lives, I would not be doing readings. To tell people a series of upcoming events that they cannot change serves no purpose whatsoever. Sometimes, such as when I have seen people were going to get laid off from their jobs, they could not change the occurrence, but being prepared for it allowed them to mitigate its effect on them. In the case of the woman who called me to ask if she was pregnant, I saw she was not but had something very wrong with her that would result in death if she did not see a doctor within twenty four hours. I told her she needed to see her doctor ASAP and be prepared for a three day hospital stay. She did the next morning, and her doctor told her on the second day she would be fine. He also told her had she waited another twenty four hours to see him, he could not have saved her. It was still her decision to trust my insight and go. The woman I told she could not save her marriage and needed to leave it immediately because he would end up killing or permanently disabling her did admit he had already put her in the hospital several times, but he was her "soul mate" and she could not leave him. Again...she was using her free will. There was also the woman I told to have a glucose tolerance test as I felt her depressions and general moodiness was a result of hypoglycemia. A month or so later, she told me her doctor had confirmed my feeling, but she was doing nothing about it as it would require cutting out alcohol...again...free will at work.

Basically, readings are a guidance system...I explain to people it's about "If you continue to do things the way you're doing them, this is where you end up." If you don't like the destination, let's see how to change the road. I can also tell someone when they're going to meet Ms. or Mr. Right, but if they then decide to stay home and do nothing...chances are it's not the postal carrier, UPS person or meter reader.

The beliefs of myself, my teachers, and many genuine psychics is that there is little that is engraved in stone. Even an Astrolgy chart or numerology chart gives your strong points, weak points, and how to use the first to mitigate the second. They also indicate the best times to pursue various things such as career growth or finding a permanent partner. I think sometimes the way psychics, Astrologers, Numerologists, etc. word things is wrong. Just because I may get a marriage proposal doesn't mean I'll accept and get married. I remember years ago a card reader, who I trusted, told me I was going to get pregnant. A trip to Planned Parenthood to update my birth control method and judiciously using it ever after took care of avoiding that outcome.

I also have a tendency to feel when I should avoid certain roads, take a detour, postpone my departure, etc. The next day's news has often told me why. Again...I could choose to test it.

Again, maybe everything is pre-destined and a reading with me is part of what was pre-written. I'll leave you and like-minded people to ponder these issues. I myself enjoy my free will and if it's a delusion...I'd rather enjoy the dilusion.

[ChristineL]

... I always smile when I go by a neon hand sign declaring "Past, Present and Future." I wouldn't spend my money there, but a lot of people get something of value out of it. Let's leave it up to them to decide. Oh, that's the "free will" part.

I always smile when I go by one of those neon signs. The more sincere you are, and the better you are at Tarot, Palmistry, etc., the less "frou-frou", signage, and special effects you need.

Christine

[Willie Lumplump]

I've actually not been able to locate the service I used to use which predicted weather 18 months in advance and had a several years long record of 85% accuracy. They did not update their predictions based on current weather but kept their 18 month old prediction right up to the present. They weren't perfect, but they were pretty damn good--for a year and a half out they were amazing. I'll see if I can find them again.

Your comments on quantum mechanics seem out of context to this discussion. Computer science isn't based on the notion that particles pop into and out of existence. Quite the opposite. It's based on the predictable behavior of particles. In fact, I know of no applied science based on quantum mechanics. Perhaps you could educate us on that.

Well, I think you're pulling my leg a little here about quantum mechanics and computers, aren't you? You're obviously an educated person, so you must be aware, in at least a general way, of the central role that quantum theory played in the development of semiconducting materials on which computers are based.

I can't tell if you're pulling my leg about weather forecasting or not. In case not, I assure you that I've heard of improving weather forecasts. Important meteorological and oceanographic discoveries such as the discovery of the Southern Oscillation (responsible for el Nino) have helped. More powerful supercomputers have made possible the development of more powerful mathematical models which depend largely on computing the behavior of millions of individual atmospheric cells. And, of course, short-range forecasting has also been extended by several days. But, paradoxically, the butterfly effect continues to make mid-range weather forecasting extremely problematic.

[Willie Lumplump]

As I've stated before, I don't have the science background or the understanding of scientific methods that you have Willie. However, I will try to explain what readings are supposed to do and you can talk about how it does, or doesn't, fit your into your "implications".

...

Yes, I understand that you want to help people and to do that you have to believe in the existence of free will. You've educated me to the point where I can completely accept your sincerity. But your sincerity isn't at issue here. As I've already explained (a little), the ability to predict the future accurately would have tremendous consequences for philosophy, ethics, and physics. For you to predict the future, the future must already exist in some sense, at least in the latent form that was familiar to physicists after Newton. And that is the core of the problem. If the future already exists in some form, it is predetermined, and that is the end, not of your sincerity, but of free will.

[Willie Lumplump]

you should just drop, Willie.-Jeff

Did you mean "You should just drop, Willie," or did you mean, "You should just drop Willie." The second possibility makes me nervous.

[alanora]

We are always at choice, hence "free will". All possibilities exist simultaneously. We are quite conditioned re our choices, hence no "free will". A limitless number of possible outcomes all existing simultaneously, some more probable due to previous conditioning, history, and an incalculable number other factors, including, just possibly the magnetics of planetary positions, and our soul choices prior to incarnation. If thoughts are things and are creative, this makes anything ever thought of a possibility. Seems like there is an inextricable, ever changing multiply faceted relationship between the universe and everything in it, which when we attempt to apply scientific methods classifies things out of existence rather than clearing things up for me. I hope I was clear. mindy


Yes, I understand that you want to help people and to do that you have to believe in the existence of free will. You've educated me to the point where I can completely accept your sincerity. But your sincerity isn't at issue here. As I've already explained (a little), the ability to predict the future accurately would have tremendous consequences for philosophy, ethics, and physics. For you to predict the future, the future must already exist in some sense, at least in the latent form that was familiar to physicists after Newton. And that is the core of the problem. If the future already exists in some form, it is predetermined, and that is the end, not of your sincerity, but of free will.

[Willie Lumplump]

We are always at choice, hence "free will". All possibilities exist simultaneously. We are quite conditioned re our choices, hence no "free will". A limitless number of possible outcomes all existing simultaneously, some more probable due to previous conditioning, history, and an incalculable number other factors, including, just possibly the magnetics of planetary positions, and our soul choices prior to incarnation. If thoughts are things and are creative, this makes anything ever thought of a possibility. Seems like there is an inextricable, ever changing multiply faceted relationship between the universe and everything in it, which when we attempt to apply scientific methods classifies things out of existence rather than clearing things up for me. I hope I was clear. mindy

"Magnetics of planetary positions?" This is just an arbitrary combination of words. How about the positions of magnetic planets? Or the planets of magnetic positions? Or the magnetics of positional planets? But anyway, if there are, as you say, a "limitless number of possible outcomes," free will remains untoppled. It's prediction that implies determinism that topples free will.

[alanora]

What if prediction is not future telling but an ability to read all these factors and piece them coherently together, perhaps with a portion of our previously unused grey matter that makes paranormal merely normal. I am referring to the planets as magnetic forces however scientifically weak or distant that may alter human embryos growth and tendencies and hence futures, which we remember are concurrent with here and now, and thus possible cause I have thought of them?!!!!!Therefore your future evolves with you. Do I make any sense at all to the educated ones? mindy


"Magnetics of planetary positions?" This is just an arbitrary combination of words. How about the positions of magnetic planets? Or the planets of magnetic positions? Or the magnetics of positional planets? But anyway, if there are, as you say, a "limitless number of possible outcomes," free will remains untoppled. It's prediction that implies determinism that topples free will.

[Braggi]

Let's imagine there is a spice you can eat (as in Frank Herbert's Dune), or a drug you can take that allows you to see visions from the future. Or visions of a possible future, or visions of possible futures. Let's imagine that under the influence of this drug, your mind, or your being becomes sensitive to very strong feelings that may happen to you, given certain sets of circumstances.

Now, imagine the feeling that comes to you in this altered state of consciousness is one of dread and grief. Perhaps this feeling involves the loss of a loved one. Imagine the feeling involves the death of a certain person.

When you return to ordinary consciousness you realize that you must warn that person to be extra careful because the feelings are still so strong and the "target" has been made clear to you so you make a phone call and give that person the warning.

You'll never know if your intervention just saved that person's life. It could never be proven.

Would you make that call?

-Jeff

[ChristineL]

Yes, I understand that you want to help people and to do that you have to believe in the existence of free will. You've educated me to the point where I can completely accept your sincerity. But your sincerity isn't at issue here. As I've already explained (a little), the ability to predict the future accurately would have tremendous consequences for philosophy, ethics, and physics. For you to predict the future, the future must already exist in some sense, at least in the latent form that was familiar to physicists after Newton. And that is the core of the problem. If the future already exists in some form, it is predetermined, and that is the end, not of your sincerity, but of free will.

Willie, I'm taking this thread seriously. I really wasn't talking about my sincerity. Take off from the premise that there are people like me and that we can really do what we say we do. As I've also often dreamed things before they happened, I have wondered if time is perhaps not linear and the information I get already exists. I still tend to think that there are multiple outcomes existing at the same time. Sorry, not scientific...I'm leaving that to you. I also apologize if, from your point of view, I'm not clear.

[Willie Lumplump]

What if prediction is not future telling but an ability to read all these factors and piece them coherently together, perhaps with a portion of our previously unused grey matter that makes paranormal merely normal. I am referring to the planets as magnetic forces however scientifically weak or distant that may alter human embryos growth and tendencies and hence futures, which we remember are concurrent with here and now, and thus possible cause I have thought of them?!!!!!Therefore your future evolves with you. Do I make any sense at all to the educated ones? mindy

Everytime a cell phone goes off, or a regular phone, or everytime the doorbell rings, or everytime lightning strikes, or everytime a car drives by, you are subjected to magnetic fields that are billions . . . make that trillions . . . of times stronger than the fields from other planets are on earth. Also, unused gray matter would be an evolutionary burden that humans could not afford. It is extremely expensive energetically to build and maintain gray matter. If it isn't used, it's selected against and soon disappears.

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie, I'm taking this thread seriously. I really wasn't talking about my sincerity. Take off from the premise that there are people like me and that we can really do what we say we do.

That's like asking me to take off from the premise that pigs wear suspenders or that hedgehogs wear flowered shirts. But my point was that if we do accept your premise, what are the consequences? One consequence is that free will is precluded. The future must have causes which must have earlier causes which must have still earlier causes all the way back to the present. The present therefore, in a sense, contains the future. If you're able to predict the future, it means that the chain of cause-and-effect extends from the present to the future. That's determinism. If the future is determined, you have something to read, but free will is dead.

I could make this discussion a whole lot more complicated by explaining my own opinion, but it exhausts me just thinking about doing that.

[Willie Lumplump]

Let's imagine there is a spice you can eat (as in Frank Herbert's Dune), or a drug you can take that allows you to see visions from the future. Or visions of a possible future, or visions of possible futures. Let's imagine that under the influence of this drug, your mind, or your being becomes sensitive to very strong feelings that may happen to you, given certain sets of circumstances.

Now, imagine the feeling that comes to you in this altered state of consciousness is one of dread and grief. Perhaps this feeling involves the loss of a loved one. Imagine the feeling involves the death of a certain person.

When you return to ordinary consciousness you realize that you must warn that person to be extra careful because the feelings are still so strong and the "target" has been made clear to you so you make a phone call and give that person the warning.

You'll never know if your intervention just saved that person's life. It could never be proven.

Would you make that call?

-Jeff

Actually, I have seen visions, I have experienced an altered state of consciousness (without chemical aids, yet), and I know when I'm high. I can imagine that visions might enhance a person's powers of introspection. I don't imagine that they give clues about other people's future.

[scorpiomoon]

Actually, I have seen visions, I have experienced an altered state of consciousness (without chemical aids, yet), and I know when I'm high. I can imagine that visions might enhance a person's powers of introspection. I don't imagine that they give clues about other people's future.

Is this thread for real or is it something that already existed somewhere else and is the loop endlessly returning us to the same questions and are you observing this from a moving position or are you standing perfectly still :idea:

[ChristineL]

That's like asking me to take off from the premise that pigs wear suspenders or that hedgehogs wear flowered shirts. But my point was that if we do accept your premise, what are the consequences? One consequence is that free will is precluded. The future must have causes which must have earlier causes which must have still earlier causes all the way back to the present. The present therefore, in a sense, contains the future. If you're able to predict the future, it means that the chain of cause-and-effect extends from the present to the future. That's determinism. If the future is determined, you have something to read, but free will is dead.

I could make this discussion a whole lot more complicated by explaining my own opinion, but it exhausts me just thinking about doing that.

You started this thread...why not explain your opinion? I promise just to read...

The repercussions and consequences are what interested. I'll leave this thread to you scientists. I'll just read. It might be more fun if you took off from the premise that pigs wear suspenders. (yes, I'm kidding).

[Zeno Swijtink]

Is this thread for real or is it something that already existed somewhere else and is the loop endlessly returning us to the same questions and are you observing this from a moving position or are you standing perfectly still :idea:

I wonder whether people here use Tarot or other forms of clairvoyance in making up their mind about important questions they face.

For instance relationship questions ("I've been with this great guy for 10 months now an we really love each other. Should I marry him?") or whether to move to another part of the country to take on a new job.

[Willie Lumplump]

Is this thread for real or is it something that already existed somewhere else and is the loop endlessly returning us to the same questions and are you observing this from a moving position or are you standing perfectly still :idea:

What a great question! This idea isn't as looney as it sounds. John Archibald Wheeler, who died not long ago and who was, I believe, the last living student of Niels Bohr, once proposed that there is only one electron in the universe, and . . . well, my memory fails me here . . . but a part of the idea was that somehow we are sweeping over a stationary picture that represents all there is, all there ever was, and all there will ever be. Wheeler's idea didn't catch on, but I wish more physicists would at least discuss it. And then Brian Greene in his most recent book explained something that sounded to me like it was a similar idea, but Greene often isn't very good about explaining in enough detail so you can know what he's talking about.

[Willie Lumplump]

You started this thread...why not explain your opinion?

I've never tried to explain it to anyone before, so I don't know how I'll do, but here goes: We know that the quantum world is ruled by laws of probability, and most physicists who think about the more philosophical side of physics (there aren't many) probably agree with the standard Copenhagen interpretation that there is no more fundamental level of reality hiding under the probabilistic laws. In the language of physics, there are no "hidden variables." That means that at the quantum level, that is, at the level of very small things, the universe is nondeterministic. Many quantum events don't happen for a reason. They just happen. Particles just suddenly pop out of the vacuum and then disappear back into the vacuum without reason (unless you consider statistical probabilities a reason). Furthermore, these popping, virtual particles can become real particles in some circumstances. Events happening without a reason closes the door on a deterministic universe, and so it seems to open a door on free will and close the door to tarot-like predictions of the future. However, if free will is subject to laws of probability, how is that free will? To exist at all, free will would have to be independent of both determinism and the random fluctuations of quantum mechanics. But if it were independent, it wouldn't be able to affect us, and that makes nonsense of the whole idea of free will. Therefore, my conclusion is that free will doesn't exist. It seems real only because . . . oh good grief . . . I'm already many words into this paragraph and I see that I've only just begun. Anyway, the rest of my ideas I take from E. O. Wilson who addressed the problem of consciousness in his book "Consilience." Maybe I can finish this later, if anybody is interested (which I doubt).

[Braggi]

... That means that at the quantum level, that is, at the level of very small things, the universe is nondeterministic. Many quantum events don't happen for a reason. They just happen. ...

Oh, I get it. What we don't understand we label "magic." <Heh heh heh.>
That seems to be the lesson of human history.



... Furthermore, these popping, virtual particles can become real particles in some circumstances. ...

Real, unreal. Real, unreal. Sure. More magic. I'm following along.




... Events happening without a reason closes the door on a deterministic universe, and so it seems to open a door on free will and close the door to tarot-like predictions of the future. ...

So, tarot and other divination methods are "magical thinking" and therefore untrue. Hmmmmm.




... To exist at all, free will would have to be independent of both determinism and the random fluctuations of quantum mechanics. But if it were independent, it wouldn't be able to affect us, and that makes nonsense of the whole idea of free will. ...

Gee teacher. I'm confused. (As usual.)

I have to make some lunch. Hopefully comprised of particles that are real and will stay that way for at least a few hours.

This is fun.

-Jeff

PS. Quantum mechanics is important to tarot readings like calculus is important to making change at a cash register. One couldn't exist without the other, but it's not something that is necessary to think about or understand in the moment.

[Willie Lumplump]

Oh, I get it. What we don't understand we label "magic."
<HEH heh. heh>
I'm afraid that you've missed the point, which is much more troubling than you suppose. The point is that at the quantum level, there is nothing more to understand. There is no deeper layer of reality underlying the random appearance and disappearance of quantum particles. Understanding stops at probabilities. To even pose the question of what is behind the probabilities (like magic) is meaningless.


PS. Quantum mechanics is important to tarot readings like calculus is important to making change at a cash register. One couldn't exist without the other, but it's not something that is necessary to think about or understand in the moment.

Again, I think you've missed the point. Tarot implies certain consequences. If any of those consequences can be shown to be inconsistent with empirical reality or with basic logical assumptions, such as the universality of cause and effect, tarot is invalid.

[Braggi]

<heh heh.="" heh="">
... The point is that at the quantum level, there is nothing more to understand. There is no deeper layer of reality underlying the random appearance and disappearance of quantum particles. Understanding stops at probabilities. To even pose the question of what is behind the probabilities (like magic) is meaningless.
</heh>
<heh heh.="" heh="">
Ah ... but you don't even understand magic. I'm teasing you by even using the term, but there is a logic to my usage. What you can't explain you call reality. What someone else can't explain you call false. In days of old either might have been called magic.

As far as there being no underlying reality and to even question that is "meaningless," well, of course that's nonsense. That has always been proposed as we've understood smaller and smaller particles and it has always been proven wrong. It may not be a reality we can explain in today's terms, but more will be understood in the future, we can pretty well be sure of that. I'm not saying we'll discover smaller particles or anything like that, but understanding will most likely increase and more detailed explanations will become possible. Unless we all die, which is also possible, but I hate it when that happens, so I'll hope for a different possible future.
</heh>

<heh heh.="" heh=""> Again, I think you've missed the point. Tarot implies certain consequences. If any of those consequences can be shown to be inconsistent with empirical reality or with basic logical assumptions, such as the universality of cause and effect, tarot is invalid.

Aha again. I think you've missed the point. Again.

If two people who think a tarot is something worth doing together, than perhaps it is. Just because you think it's "invalid" doesn't mean someone else thinks it is. We've tried to open your eyes to the possibilities.

There was a time before psychiatrists, psychologists, MFCCs, social workers, etc.. At that time people still sought out help with issues they found too daunting to deal with themselves. Some of them went to "readers" who were skilled at reading PEOPLE. Not necessarily the future!!!

My wife and I have often pondered the possibilities of her losing her license. It happens all too often, sometimes even for good reasons. The fact is, if she was unshackled from the limits of her profession, she could become a tarot reader and do nearly the same work. She just couldn't call it therapy. She would become famous as a reader who really knew her stuff and came up with amazing readings that really helped people in their lives. Tarot Willie. It's not necessarily bunk. Try to understand. I know it's tough. <sound effects of prying open a resistant package and having it repeatedly snap shut>

Perhaps tomorrow I'll define magic for you. You'll like it.

-Jeff


</heh>

[ChristineL]

<HEH heh.="" heh="">
Ah ... but you don't even understand magic. I'm teasing you by even using the term, but there is a logic to my usage. What you can't explain you call reality. What someone else can't explain you call false. In days of old either might have been called magic.

As far as there being no underlying reality and to even question that is "meaningless," well, of course that's nonsense. That has always been proposed as we've understood smaller and smaller particles and it has always been proven wrong. It may not be a reality we can explain in today's terms, but more will be understood in the future, we can pretty well be sure of that. I'm not saying we'll discover smaller particles or anything like that, but understanding will most likely increase and more detailed explanations will become possible. Unless we all die, which is also possible, but I hate it when that happens, so I'll hope for a different possible future.
</HEH>


Aha again. I think you've missed the point. Again.

If two people who think a tarot is something worth doing together, than perhaps it is. Just because you think it's "invalid" doesn't mean someone else thinks it is. We've tried to open your eyes to the possibilities.

There was a time before psychiatrists, psychologists, MFCCs, social workers, etc.. At that time people still sought out help with issues they found too daunting to deal with themselves. Some of them went to "readers" who were skilled at reading PEOPLE. Not necessarily the future!!!

My wife and I have often pondered the possibilities of her losing her license. It happens all too often, sometimes even for good reasons. The fact is, if she was unshackled from the limits of her profession, she could become a tarot reader and do nearly the same work. She just couldn't call it therapy. She would become famous as a reader who really knew her stuff and came up with amazing readings that really helped people in their lives. Tarot Willie. It's not necessarily bunk. Try to understand. I know it's tough. <SOUND shut snap repeatedly it having and package resistant a open prying of effects>

Perhaps tomorrow I'll define magic for you. You'll like it.

-Jeff


</HEH>


I agree, a good therapist combines their training, knowledge and intuition in treating their patients. I have known many that would be excellent Tarot readers. Had I the education and training, I probably would have been an excellent therapist.

I enjoy reading your posts. I do have just one question: "Aren't you afraid your open mind could cause your brains to fall out?" LOL

[mykil]

i am semi interested in what you might consider scientific formats in this day and age Willie. Let me start with something simple and if you wish you may state yes or no and how you think it appl1es in our society today and what theories you have to support its existence!

Water dowsing true or no way! Why on earth do so many people that don't believe in anything believe in this?

[Willie Lumplump]

<HEH heh="" heh.="">As far as there being no underlying reality and to even question that is "meaningless," well, of course that's nonsense. . . . understanding will most likely increase and more detailed explanations will become possible.

All of us were brought up with classical ideas and live out our whole lives in what seems to be a classical universe where everything has a cause and where every cause produces an effect. It's extremely hard for anyone to accept that reality might stop at laws of statistical probabilities where there is no cause and effect. Nevertheless, that appears to be the case. That is the position of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and most physicists who think about such questions (most don't) accept the Copenhagen interpretation. A discussion of "quantum weirdness," as it is called, doesn't really fit to well into this thread. But if there's enough interest, I could explain what I know. The central problem is expressed in what is called the "Thomas Young experiment," although it's really modifications of Young's experiment that reveal the full weirdness of quantum reality.


If two people who think a tarot is something worth doing together, than perhaps it is. Just because you think it's "invalid" doesn't mean someone else thinks it is. We've tried to open your eyes to the possibilities. . . . Some of them went to "readers" who were skilled at reading PEOPLE. Not necessarily the future!!!

I have to admit that your argument is at least rational. As long as a tarot reader claims to be reading people rather than the future, one can discuss rationally what kinds of conclusions are possible from a reading. What is not rational is the claim that cards, or the person reading them, can predict the future. And by "predict the future" I'm talking about predictions of specific outcomes of chaotic systems, which I've already tried to explain in some detail.

[Clancy]

...A discussion of "quantum weirdness," as it is called, doesn't really fit to well into this thread. But if there's enough interest, I could explain what I know...

I think a clear and simple explanation of the mysterious and seemingly magical double slit experiments might be enjoyed by some waccos, and I bet you could do a fascinating job of it. Perhaps a new thread?

[Willie Lumplump]

i am semi interested in what you might consider scientific formats in this day and age Willie. Let me start with something simple and if you wish you may state yes or no and how you think it appl1es in our society today and what theories you have to support its existence!

Water doucing true or no way! Why on earth do so many people that don't believe in anything believe in this?

I dunno, but I have a funny story about it. I was living in an old research facility abandoned by the Belgians when they left the Congo, and there was no dependable water supply. To find water, the director of the station, an Indian Ph.D., called in an "expert." The "expert" was a water douser. So the douser took out his forked stick and walked up and down, up and down, waiting for his stick to tell him where the water was. And after a while he and his forked stick got back into the car and drove away. I thought it was the most hilarious thing I had ever seen. Later I told this story to a co-worker (another Ph.D.), laughing my head off all the while. Before long I noticed that he wasn't laughing. It turned out that he thought that hiring a douser was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

So now I had an even better story. I had not one but two Ph.D.'s approving of this idiot running around with a wooden stick looking for water. Of course the story was too good to keep to myself, so the next time I was in the nearest large town, M'Banza Ngungu, I stopped in to visit a French hydrologist who worked there. So I leaned back in his office chair and laughed my head off while I told him the story of two Ph.D.'s giving the nod to an idiot with a wooden stick walking around looking for water. After a while I look up and I notice that the French hydrologist isn't laughing. And he says to me, "Oui, ca marche quand meme parfois. On sait pas pourquoi." Meaning, "Yes, that really does work sometimes, nobody knows why." By that time I was laughing so hard I was starting to cry. This story is one of the best things that happened to me the whole eight years I was in Africal.

[ChristineL]

All of us were brought up with classical ideas and live out our whole lives in what seems to be a classical universe where everything has a cause and where every cause produces an effect. It's extremely hard for anyone to accept that reality might stop at laws of statistical probabilities where there is no cause and effect. Nevertheless, that appears to be the case. That is the position of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and most physicists who think about such questions (most don't) accept the Copenhagen interpretation. A discussion of "quantum weirdness," as it is called, doesn't really fit to well into this thread. But if there's enough interest, I could explain what I know. The central problem is expressed in what is called the "Thomas Young experiment," although it's really modifications of Young's experiment that reveal the full weirdness of quantum reality.



I have to admit that your argument is at least rational. As long as a tarot reader claims to be reading people rather than the future, one can discuss rationally what kinds of conclusions are possible from a reading. What is not rational is the claim that cards, or the person reading them, can predict the future. And by "predict the future" I'm talking about predictions of specific outcomes of chaotic systems, which I've already tried to explain in some detail.


If accurately reading the person, it should be possible to see their future; at the least where they're headed if they continue doing things the same way they're doing them at the present time.

[ChristineL]

I dunno, but I have a funny story about it. I was living in an old research facility abandoned by the Belgians when they left the Congo, and there was no dependable water supply. To find water, the director of the station, an Indian Ph.D., called in an "expert." The "expert" was a water douser. So the douser took out his forked stick and walked up and down, up and down, waiting for his stick to tell him where the water was. And after a while he and his forked stick got back into the car and drove away. I thought it was the most hilarious thing I had ever seen. Later I told this story to a co-worker (another Ph.D.), laughing my head off all the while. Before long I noticed that he wasn't laughing. It turned out that he thought that hiring a douser was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

So now I had an even better story. I had not one but two Ph.D.'s approving of this idiot running around with a wooden stick looking for water. Of course the story was too good to keep to myself, so the next time I was in the nearest large town, M'Banza Ngungu, I stopped in to visit a French hydrologist who worked there. So I leaned back in his office chair and laughed my head off while I told him the story of two Ph.D.'s giving the nod to an idiot with a wooden stick walking around looking for water. After a while I look up and I notice that the French hydrologist isn't laughing. And he says to me, "Oui, ca marche quand meme parfois. On sait pas pourquoi." Meaning, "Yes, that really does work sometimes, nobody knows why." By that time I was laughing so hard I was starting to cry. This story is one of the best things that happened to me the whole eight years I was in Africal.


Was water ever found by other methods? Two PHDs, one a hydrologist, would make this statement out of "superstition"? Being open to dousing automatically makes them less intelligent and credible than you?

[Willie Lumplump]

If accurately reading the person, it should be possible to see their future; at the least where they're headed if they continue doing things the same way they're doing them at the present time.

Your whole case hangs on what kinds of predictions you make and the extent to which the facts of the case support such predictions. If you're making predictions of specific outcomes of chaotic systems, you're doing something irrational and invalid. If you're drawing reasonable conclusions from the facts available to you, as all qualified mental health practitioners do, you're doing something rational and valid.

[Willie Lumplump]

Was water ever found by other methods?

You mean by methods other than dousing? Of course. I hope you don't think that the world is full of men with sticks going around looking for water.


Two PHDs, one a hydrologist, would make this statement out of "superstition"? Being open to dousing automatically makes them less intelligent and credible than you?

It depends on what you mean by "automatically." If there were some scientific evidence supporting the validity of dousing, scientists could reasonably argue over how to weigh the evidence. But there is no scientific evidence supporting dousing. Empirically, there is nothing to show that dousing works better than random guesses. Theoretically, it's impossible to imagine the mode of action. There are only a few fundamental forces in the universe--gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. What plausible explanation can be given for how one or more of these forces attracts an inert chunk of wood to the oxide of hydrogen? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you claim that dousing works, it's up to you to show empirical or theoretical evidence to back up your claim.

[Braggi]

Oh, wow. I have a dousing story. We were aiming to purchase a piece of property out St. Helena road a while back. We needed to make a well happen, so we called out two drilling companies. One guy hopped out of his truck and pointed to a flat spot that had been bulldozed on top of a small hill that had a dirt road leading up to it. He announced he'd be able to pull his big drilling rig right into that spot and drill there. That would be the place that made the most sense. Then he drove away.

The second guy pulled up, got out, reached in the back of his truck and picked up two pieces of stainless steel. They were rods, about 3/8" in diameter. They were bent at right angles to make a handle about eight inches long and then there were about two feet of straight rod, and then they were bent down again and had about four inches of length that had been ground into a taper and a rounded point. So they were the shape of an upside down "U" with the bottom flattened and stretched out about two feet.

This fellow explained all the reasons he used stainless steel instead of wood or copper, both of which would work, but the SS gave a better "indication." That was a word we'd hear many times over the next couple of hours. So we followed him all over that 40 acre parcel with him holding out the rods to the left and the right, one in each hand, and he'd close his eyes and hope for an "indication." If he felt an indication, the tips of the rods would move (because he tilted his hands) toward the center and, if the indication was very strong, they'd come all the way together and meet in front of him.

Well, there were a great many places where he did get an indication, but none where it was "really strong." So the tips of the rods wouldn't meet reliably at any place we tried. Then he looked up and saw that hill with the flat spot bulldozed on it. We walked up and tried there. Lo and behold! He got the strongest indication of the day!!!! Those rods nearly clanked together as they swung toward the middle that indication was so powerful. So he told us it was very fortunate that there was a flat spot bulldozed there and that there was a road cut to that spot because, curiously, that was also the easiest spot to put his drilling rig. We were just amazed. When my brother in law asked him if he didn't pick that spot just because that was the easiest place to put the truck, he admitted that made a big difference. "... and the indication." Right. We sent him on his way.

Postscript: After everyone else left, I noticed there was a small pond on the neighbor's property next door. That pond was fed by a spring seeping from the bottom of that same hill. I hadn't noticed that spring or that pond before. Then I walked up and over the hill to the other side. At the bottom of the hill I found another small spring seeping out at the base. The thing is, either of those guys could have drilled us a well for about ten thousand dollars to find that water. Or, I could had opened up one of those springs with a shovel and had all the water we could have used.

Moral: we didn't need a dowser or a well driller. We needed to look at the land and learn where the water was. I could have seen had I looked before calling those guys out that we didn't need their help after all.

If you learn to read the landscape, look for green areas while nearby areas are dry, and most importantly, look for a good spot to park your drilling rig, you will be a dowser! Whether or not you use a forked stick.

-Jeff

[mykil]

Cute Jeff, any indications for finding water over a hunderd feet deep?



Oh, wow. I have a dousing story. ...

[Braggi]

Cute Jeff, any indications for finding water over a hunderd feet deep?


I didn't measure, of course, but that hill was probably in the neighborhood of a hundred feet high.

I prefer spring water, myself, so I look for "indications" that indicate springs, if you get my drift.

There are a lot of other indicators that help people find water. It helps to know the local terrain, geology, and whether or not any of the neighbors have wells and at what depth. It's harder, of course, on a small property since you have little choice about where to look.

There is little mystery to dowsing if you look into it.

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

Moral: we didn't need a dowser or a well driller. We needed to look at the land and learn where the water was. I could have seen had I looked before calling those guys out that we didn't need their help after all.

If you learn to read the landscape, look for green areas while nearby areas are dry, and most importantly, look for a good spot to park your drilling rig, you will be a dowser! Whether or not you use a forked stick.

-Jeff

Yeah, if a guy shows up with tubes in his hands, you know you've called the wrong person. The lie of the land, the slope and its direction, the proximity and direction of other slopes, the depth of bedrock, the distribution of vegetation, the types of vegetation, the depth and placement of other nearby functioning wells, their productivity, the presence of streams or ponds--a real hydrologist reads all these indications. A yokel with a stick in his hands is not a real hydrologist.

[mykil]

Well I hate to be a bother and disagree with you once again, but dowsing goes way beyond just finding a little water. I was just curious to what ole will would say about the mater.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I would like to find out what you think about how a bat sends out it radar signals. I know you know how this one works, may you explain in to me?




Yeah, if a guy shows up with tubes in his hands, you know you've called the wrong person. The lie of the land, the slope and its direction, the proximity and direction of other slopes, the depth of bedrock, the distribution of vegetation, the types of vegetation, the depth and placement of other nearby functioning wells, their productivity, the presence of streams or ponds--a real hydrologist reads all these indications. A yokel with a stick in his hands is not a real hydrologist.

[Willie Lumplump]

I would like to find out what you think about how a bat sends out it radar signals. I know you know how this one works, may you explain in to me?

The bat makes sounds with its vocal cords just like we do, but the sounds are mainly ultrasonic, that is, higher frequencies than the human ear can hear. If I recall, the frequencies can be as high as 70,000 Herz, while human hearing usually stops around 16,000. The bat can aim the sounds by turning its head, which is important because the higher frequencies of bat calls are quite directional, they don't spread out much to the side. The lower frequencies can travel quite a distance to locate prey, but they don't give precise information about location. Higher frequencies do give precise information, but they travel a relatively short distance. The bat handles this problem by emitting chirps that rise, or fall, rapidly in pitch so that the each chirp has the potential of detecting distant prey and giving precise information on location of nearby prey. Of course, most everyone knows that the signals bounce off the prey and are picked up by the bat's ears. Some moths have their own hearing equipment to detect bat signals. When they do, they go into an erratic dive in an attempt to evade the bat. A few moths in the family Noctuide are even able to make their own sounds at bat frequencies to jam the bat's sonar system.

Not all bats have good echo-location equipment. Some feed on fruits and don't need good equipment. Some even feed on fish which they detect by directing their sonar signals at the water's surface. The slightest wave motion is detectable by fishing bats. Some bats on islands where they have no natural enemies have given up echo-location; they just walk around on the ground picking up insects as they happen across them.

[Clancy]

Amazing, thanks.



The bat makes sounds with its vocal cords just like we do, but the sounds are mainly ultrasonic, that is, higher frequencies than the human ear can hear. If I recall, the frequencies can be as high as 70,000 Herz, while human hearing usually stops around 16,000. The bat can aim the sounds by turning its head, which is important because the higher frequencies of bat calls are quite directional, they don't spread out much to the side. The lower frequencies can travel quite a distance to locate prey, but they don't give precise information about location. Higher frequencies do give precise information, but they travel a relatively short distance. The bat handles this problem by emitting chirps that rise, or fall, rapidly in pitch so that the each chirp has the potential of detecting distant prey and giving precise information on location of nearby prey. Of course, most everyone knows that the signals bounce off the prey and are picked up by the bat's ears. Some moths have their own hearing equipment to detect bat signals. When they do, they go into an erratic dive in an attempt to evade the bat. A few moths in the family Noctuide are even able to make their own sounds at bat frequencies to jam the bat's sonar system.

Not all bats have good echo-location equipment. Some feed on fruits and don't need good equipment. Some even feed on fish which they detect by directing their sonar signals at the water's surface. The slightest wave motion is detectable by fishing bats. Some bats on islands where they have no natural enemies have given up echo-location; they just walk around on the ground picking up insects as they happen across them.

[Braggi]

Indeed, thanks. We love our bats around here. They come and they go, but when they're here, we have very few mosquitos. Sadly, one of our cats catches one on occasion. I wish he would leave them alone.

There is a local lady named Patricia Winters (which is my wife's name, strangely enough) who is a bat expert. She occasionally does presentations for local grade schools. Very cool. The kids love it.

-Jeff

[mykil]

ROTFLMFAO and you don't think I can find water with a stick!!!!!




The bat makes sounds with its vocal cords just like we do, but the sounds are mainly ultrasonic, that is, higher frequencies than the human ear can hear. If I recall, the frequencies can be as high as 70,000 Herz, while human hearing usually stops around 16,000. The bat can aim the sounds by turning its head, which is important because the higher frequencies of bat calls are quite directional, they don't spread out much to the side. The lower frequencies can travel quite a distance to locate prey, but they don't give precise information about location. Higher frequencies do give precise information, but they travel a relatively short distance. The bat handles this problem by emitting chirps that rise, or fall, rapidly in pitch so that the each chirp has the potential of detecting distant prey and giving precise information on location of nearby prey. Of course, most everyone knows that the signals bounce off the prey and are picked up by the bat's ears. Some moths have their own hearing equipment to detect bat signals. When they do, they go into an erratic dive in an attempt to evade the bat. A few moths in the family Noctuide are even able to make their own sounds at bat frequencies to jam the bat's sonar system.

Not all bats have good echo-location equipment. Some feed on fruits and don't need good equipment. Some even feed on fish which they detect by directing their sonar signals at the water's surface. The slightest wave motion is detectable by fishing bats. Some bats on islands where they have no natural enemies have given up echo-location; they just walk around on the ground picking up insects as they happen across them.

[Clancy]

ROTFLMFAO and you don't think I can find water with a stick!!!!!


Great! Collect your million dollar reward here
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27813

[mykil]

Ok now we know how a bat finds it’s direction and pray. Even with a brain so small you have to use a microscope to examine it! Wonderful how they can evolve and make sense of this world using the tools they have. Evolution might be used as a tool for the basic creatures in our world. Yet you don’t think we will ever evolve past what we are today. You don’t think that in our time we are evolving enough to be able to communicate without talking. This is just plain shallow. You are set in your wayz and that is your opinion for sure. AS for me, I will give evolution a chance. I will give into the intuition and the great insight I have grown accustom to. I will alwayz be a open to communication. Weather it is in a normal talking conversation using my voice with someone standing right next to me, or if it might be through thought pasterns, brain waves, or even bouncing a high frequency signal off a tree to make sure I may find my way. Hell if a bat can do it with that little brain evolving through time, why can’t WE? Why can’t we communicate with out moving our lips, why would you even conceder the possibility that we cannot evolve past using our voice? Why on earth would you want to continue having conversations with people to begin with? Talking is so over rated; I for one cannot wait to evolve past using my ears and having to have a conversation with other people. To mock someone for their abilities in evolution itself is like burning witches at the stake. Doesn’t even mater it they are right or wrong, For you to say all psychics are just out to make a profit from people that are just wanting to believe in something is kinda like saying all baseball players take steroids and that is the only way they can play ball!!!!







The bat makes sounds with its vocal cords just like we do, but the sounds are mainly ultrasonic, that is, higher frequencies than the human ear can hear. If I recall, the frequencies can be as high as 70,000 Herz, while human hearing usually stops around 16,000. The bat can aim the sounds by turning its head, which is important because the higher frequencies of bat calls are quite directional, they don't spread out much to the side. The lower frequencies can travel quite a distance to locate prey, but they don't give precise information about location. Higher frequencies do give precise information, but they travel a relatively short distance. The bat handles this problem by emitting chirps that rise, or fall, rapidly in pitch so that the each chirp has the potential of detecting distant prey and giving precise information on location of nearby prey. Of course, most everyone knows that the signals bounce off the prey and are picked up by the bat's ears. Some moths have their own hearing equipment to detect bat signals. When they do, they go into an erratic dive in an attempt to evade the bat. A few moths in the family Noctuide are even able to make their own sounds at bat frequencies to jam the bat's sonar system.

Not all bats have good echo-location equipment. Some feed on fruits and don't need good equipment. Some even feed on fish which they detect by directing their sonar signals at the water's surface. The slightest wave motion is detectable by fishing bats. Some bats on islands where they have no natural enemies have given up echo-location; they just walk around on the ground picking up insects as they happen across them.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Well I hate to be a bother and disagree with you once again, but dowsing goes way beyond just finding a little water. I was just curious to what ole will would say about the mater.

Willie started some while ago to define what is "scientific skepticism." I think part of it is to expand the discussion and the information you rely on, beyond what stories you may hear in bed after good sex.

Quotes from a paper on grave dowsing, by William E. Whittaker, Ph.D., RPA Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa.


'It was not until comparatively recently that dowsing was subjected to rigorous scientific testing, and testing has necessarily focused on water dowsing, by far the most common form of dowsing. In all of the controlled experiments, water dowsing was shown to be completely ineffective at predicting either the presence or depth of subsurface water (some of the many experiments and summaries of experiments include Carroll 2003; Enright 1995, 1996; Feder 1998; Foulkes 1971; Gardner 1957; Hyman 1996; Martin 1984; Raloff 1995; Randi 1979, 1982; Smith 1982; Vogt and Hyman 2002; Zusne and Jones 1989). Test have ranged from real-world tests to tightly-controlled experiments with buried pipes or double-blind experiments in artificial settings; all of these tests, involving hundreds of dowsers, reveal that dowsing is no better at finding water than random chance. One interesting study (Foulkes 1971), demonstrated that dowsers were completely unable to find small buried objects in addition to being completely unable to detect water. However, just because dowsing is a complete failure at finding water and small buried objects does not necessarily mean it is a complete failure at finding graves, a method not tested in the published controlled experiments.'


https://www.uiowa.edu/~osa/burials/Dowsing.pdf

For references see the paper. The paper discusses grave dowsing experiments. It's quite amusing:


'Since I could not get the dowsing rods to become attracted to disturbed soil, I then experimented with trying to get them to be attracted to coffins and bodies. I briefly considered testing this by obtaining a pig carcass and burying it six feet deep in a wooden box, but abandoned this effort on account of the time, expense, and damage it would do to our lawn. Furthermore, some dowsers would object to using a pig carcass, since dowsing seems to only find human remains, as discussed above. While I possess neither coffin nor corpse, we do own a nice old wooden chest with metal hardware, and I have a perfectly-alive wife. While I could not get my wife to get in the box to test my theory because of concerns that it would damage the chest, she was willing to lie on the floor while I dowsed over and around her and the box. In both cases, the dowsing rods were not attracted to either my wife or the chest when I held the rods still, and when I walked around them or passed the rods over them they would only cross when I intentionally made them, as discussed above.'

[mykil]

Zeno that has to be one of the funniest things I have read in a long time!!!



Willie started some while ago to define what is "scientific skepticism." I think part of it is to expand the discussion and the information you rely on, beyond what stories you may hear in bed after good sex.

Quotes from a paper on grave dowsing, by William E. Whittaker, Ph.D., RPA Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa.


'It was not until comparatively recently that dowsing was subjected to rigorous scientific testing, and testing has necessarily focused on water dowsing, by far the most common form of dowsing. In all of the controlled experiments, water dowsing was shown to be completely ineffective at predicting either the presence or depth of subsurface water (some of the many experiments and summaries of experiments include Carroll 2003; Enright 1995, 1996; Feder 1998; Foulkes 1971; Gardner 1957; Hyman 1996; Martin 1984; Raloff 1995; Randi 1979, 1982; Smith 1982; Vogt and Hyman 2002; Zusne and Jones 1989). Test have ranged from real-world tests to tightly-controlled experiments with buried pipes or double-blind experiments in artificial settings; all of these tests, involving hundreds of dowsers, reveal that dowsing is no better at finding water than random chance. One interesting study (Foulkes 1971), demonstrated that dowsers were completely unable to find small buried objects in addition to being completely unable to detect water. However, just because dowsing is a complete failure at finding water and small buried objects does not necessarily mean it is a complete failure at finding graves, a method not tested in the published controlled experiments.'

https://www.uiowa.edu/~osa/burials/Dowsing.pdf

For references see the paper. The paper discusses grave dowsing experiments. It's quite amusing:


'Since I could not get the dowsing rods to become attracted to disturbed soil, I then experimented with trying to get them to be attracted to coffins and bodies. I briefly considered testing this by obtaining a pig carcass and burying it six feet deep in a wooden box, but abandoned this effort on account of the time, expense, and damage it would do to our lawn. Furthermore, some dowsers would object to using a pig carcass, since dowsing seems to only find human remains, as discussed above. While I possess neither coffin nor corpse, we do own a nice old wooden chest with metal hardware, and I have a perfectly-alive wife. While I could not get my wife to get in the box to test my theory because of concerns that it would damage the chest, she was willing to lie on the floor while I dowsed over and around her and the box. In both cases, the dowsing rods were not attracted to either my wife or the chest when I held the rods still, and when I walked around them or passed the rods over them they would only cross when I intentionally made them, as discussed above.'

[Willie Lumplump]

Indeed, thanks. We love our bats around here. They come and they go, but when they're here, we have very few mosquitos. Sadly, one of our cats catches one on occasion. I wish he would leave them alone.

There is a local lady named Patricia Winters (which is my wife's name, strangely enough) who is a bat expert. She occasionally does presentations for local grade schools. Very cool. The kids love it.

-Jeff

Thanks very much for this information. I have more than a passing interest in bats and am a regular supporter of Bat Conservation International. I'll see if I can find Patricia Winters. Actually, if you know if a school where she's visited, that might help me find her.

[Willie Lumplump]

Ok now we know how a bat finds it’s direction and pray. Even with a brain so small you have to use a microscope to examine it! Wonderful how they can evolve and make sense of this world using the tools they have. Evolution might be used as a tool for the basic creatures in our world. Yet you don’t think we will ever evolve past what we are today. You don’t think that in our time we are evolving enough to be able to communicate without talking.

Evolution requires two things, heritable variation and natural selection. Man has pretty much put a stop to most natural selection because it's a ruthless process that weeds out many members of a population. I can't imagine people either killing off millions of children because they don't have the right mutations for echo-location or standing by and letting nature do it. And even if people were willing to do that, the exchange of genes between human populations is so high that any step in the direction of echo-location would be swamped out in the global gene pool.


This is just plain shallow.

Well, I try. (sniff)


You are set in your wayz and that is your opinion for sure.

Funny how an education will ruin a person's mind.


I will alwayz be a open to communication. Weather it is in a normal talking conversation using my voice with someone standing right next to me, or if it might be through thought pasterns, brain waves, or even bouncing a high frequency signal off a tree to make sure I may find my way. Hell if a bat can do it with that little brain evolving through time, why can’t WE?

May I suggest that you start talking in a very high, squeaky voice? The same advice would apply to your children, too, of course. Also, the smallness of a bat's brain does show the great potential of brains that size. So don't give up hope, I think you have something to offer.


Why can’t we communicate with out moving our lips

Again, I recommend that you commit yourself to this approach. The world might be a better place.


For you to say all psychics are just out to make a profit from people that are just wanting to believe in something is kinda like saying all baseball players take steroids and that is the only way they can play ball!!!!

Christine has educated me on this point, and I've publicly apologized for my remarks which, I see now, were actually kind of ignorant.

[Willie Lumplump]

ROTFLMFAO and you don't think I can find water with a stick!!!!!

It's not just water that you couldn't find with a stick.:lol2:

(Who said that we don't have fun in this bulletin board?)