t5aylor wrote:I so hoped for better, despite my experience.

Better than what? Your ass is adequately handed to you.

Gawd you suck

I have no idea what you mean "my ass is handed to me", it certainly wasn't by any debate here. What I meant was I had hoped this was a forum where reasoned discussion might prevail, but I should have known better as that is very rate on the internet. I might add, you have that look of the usual chubby kid that never got the girl, and never eon the chess tournament either. It sucks I hear, but keep at it, you might try csr repair.

Ah, going for the 'suicide by mod' option. Let us know how that works out for you.

t5aylor wrote:I have no idea what you mean "my ass is handed to me", it certainly wasn't by any debate here.

What, you mean you think posting a manifestly false assertion,then having said assertion demonstrated to be false by recourse to the facts, didn't equal you having your arse handed to you?

t5aylor wrote:What I meant was I had hoped this was a forum where reasoned discussion might prevail

Learn this lesson quickly. "Reasoned discussion" does not mean "here are my unsupported assertions, treat them as fact".

t5aylor wrote: but I should have known better as that is very rate [sic] on the internet.

Actually, you'll find that questioning assertions, a central part of proper discourse, is what we do here.

t5aylor wrote: I might add, you have that look of the usual chubby kid that never got the girl, and never eon [sic] the chess tournament either.

Ah, the usual resort of those who have no substance to bring to the table, cheap ad hominem. It's petunias time ...

t5aylor wrote:It sucks I hear, but keep at it, you might try csr repair.

How about you try learning the elementary rules of discourse? This would be a far more constructive use of your time, than finding facile insults to post as an ersatz for substance.

I'll bite.

I'll start by stating I have met Tom Campbell when he was asked to speak at an event I was attending in 2015. I had little to no knowledge of his work prior to that point.

He spoke for 10 hours straight (with a couple of short breaks) in a calm, unassuming and incredibly self confident manner. Now, that means nothing of course, I realise that.

In addition, you know nothing of me. I am a first poster here. That's fine too.

So what can I bring to the table? Well, I find the subject of science and paranormal very interesting. It has always fascinated me that science pretty much ignores that 'weird stuff' happens. We know for certain that phenomena like Remote Viewing exists and the results from PEAR labs are incontestable.

After seeing Tom, I was intrigued, I approached his work with a sceptical eye. I read his trilogy My Big TOE front to back, carefully and with consideration. It has left me a changed man.

You can Huff and Puff about peer reviewed research. You can cite whatever you like about it not being taken seriously in academia. . . but I am afraid that will be your view from the constrained little scientific box you are sitting in. I'm not going to even start to try to explain how I can state that - a platform like this is not the place, I've been around the block too many times with forums.

But what I will say is this. If you have what is truly required for good scientific advancement. . .an open sceptical mind. . .then all the questions in respect of the issues raised in this thread (yes, all of them) Tom has covered off in his work. He admits it flies in the face of 'traditional' scientific theory/belief/religion, and for reasons he clearly puts forward in his theory, is not interested in attacking the current paradigm. Rather, I think he is quietly enjoying science catching up with him and seeing so many physicists increasingly agree with the core of his work. . . that we live in a Virtual Reality.

I will admit, it's not easy having to reconsider some of the fundamental beliefs one has accumulated through life. But as a very left brained chap (or rather as a 1960's cartoon character), I now feel liberated.

I can only suggest you read his work yourself (but remember he wrote it for the general public - not the scientific community). Here is a free link and I know he is happy there are other free pdf's around to read. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RYH ... &q&f=false

OK, that's my my two-penn'orth.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:It has always fascinated me that science pretty much ignores that 'weird stuff' happens.

Uh huh. Quantum mechanics being a prime example. Plenty weird and, for that reason, completely ignored by scientists. Right?

We know for certain that phenomena like Remote Viewing exists and the results from PEAR labs are incontestable.

We do? They are?

In 1986 associates of PEAR published data collected over the course of seven years from a group of subjects attempting to influence random number generators across millions of trials.[9] In all cases, the observed effects were very small (about one tenth of one percent), but over extensive databases they compounded to statistically significant deviations from chance behavior.[9] The baseline for chance behavior used did not vary as statistically appropriate (baseline bind). Two PEAR researchers attributed this baseline bind to the motivation of the operators to achieve a good baseline and indicates that the random number generator used was not actually random.[13] It has been noted that a single test subject (presumed to be a member of PEAR's staff) participated in 15% of PEAR's trials, and was responsible for half of the total observed effect.[9]

James Alcock in a review mentioned various problems with the PEAR experiments such as poor controls and documentation with the possibility of fraud, data selection and optional stopping not being ruled out. Alcock concluded there was no reason to believe the results were from paranormal origin.[12]

The psychologist C. E. M. Hansel, who evaluated Jahn's early psychokinesis experiments at the PEAR laboratory, wrote that a satisfactory control series had not been employed, that they had not been independently replicated, and that the reports lacked detail. Hansel noted that "very little information is provided about the design of the experiment, the subjects, or the procedure adopted. Details are not given about the subjects, the times they were tested, or the precise conditions under which they were tested."[14] Physicist professor Milton Rothman has noted that Jahn's experiments at PEAR started from an idealistic assumption, ignored the laws of physics and had no basis in reality.[15]

PEAR's results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility.[16] In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR's results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.[13] An attempt by York University's Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR's results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton ... search_Lab

Shrunk. . . Let me join you on the gate.

I have no idea if you have any knowledge of Quantum Mechanics or the 'weird stuff' it throws up. But my point was (for instance with the double slit experiment), that the experiments clearly show results totally at odds with the current views of mainstream science. Thus, the results are mostly ignored, or swept under the carpet.

Tom Campbell has a remarkably simple answer to the issue. But as it flies in the face of the High Priests of Science, and is a significant game changer, it is put to one side.

Before you ask, the simple answer is that (as a good number of physicists are now concluding) is that we live in a digital, probabilistic, virtual reality. Once this is applied to quantum 'weird stuff' then it becomes quite understandable.

As for Pear Labs, if you use wikipedia as your research tool, then I'll just have to leave the conversation here.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Shrunk. . . Let me join you on the gate.

I have no idea if you have any knowledge of Quantum Mechanics or the 'weird stuff' it throws up. But my point was (for instance with the double slit experiment), that the experiments clearly show results totally at odds with the current views of mainstream science. Thus, the results are mostly ignored, or swept under the carpet.

Bzzzt! Manifestly false assertion!

Apparently you're completely unaware of the fact that the two-slit experiment is a cornerstone of mainstream physics. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of scientific papers devoted to that experiment, and those papers constitute the very mainstream science you assert above is purportedly "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" the results. Except that oops, mainstream science is doing nothing of the sort, as you would have known if you had actually read some of the literature on the subject.

For example, I'm aware of the work of Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna, who has demonstrated that the same wave-particle duality effects are observed when using particles as large as Buckminsterfullerene molecules. The paper in which he describes this is the following:

Diffraction Of Complex Molecules By Structures Made Of Light by Olaf Nairz, Björn Brezger, Markus Arndt & Anton Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters, 87: 160401 (2001) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.160401 [Full paper downloadable from here]

Nairz et al, 2001 wrote:ABSTRACT

We demonstrate that structures made of light can be used to coherently control the motion of complex molecules. In particular, we show diffraction of the fullerenes C60 and C70 at a thin grating based on a standing light wave. We prove experimentally that the principles of this effect, well known from atom optics, can be successfully extended to massive and large molecules which are internally in a thermodynamic mixed state and which do not exhibit narrow optical resonances. Our results will be important for the observation of quantum interference with even larger and more complex objects.

Last time I checked, he commented that he was working on reproducing the same results by firing bacteria through his slits. In the paper, he even comments that there may be technological applications for the observed phenomenon.

Another paper of his is this one:

Quantum Interference Experiments With Large Molecules by Olaf Nairz, Markus Arndt & Anton Zeilinger, American Journal of Physics, 71(4): 319-325 (April 2003) DOI: 10.1119/1.1531580 [Full paper downloadable from here]

Nairz et al, 2003 wrote:Wave–particle duality is frequently the first topic students encounter in elementary quantum physics. Although this phenomenon has been demonstrated with photons, electrons, neutrons, and atoms, the dual quantum character of the famous double-slit experiment can be best explained with the largest and most classical objects, which are currently the fullerene molecules. The soccer-ball-shaped carbon cages C60 are large, massive, and appealing objects for which it is clear that they must behave like particles under ordinary circumstances. We present the results of a multislit diffraction experiment with such objects to demonstrate their wave nature. The experiment serves as the basis for a discussion of several quantum concepts such as coherence, randomness, complementarity, and wave–particle duality. In particular, the effect of longitudinal (spectral) coherence can be demonstrated by a direct comparison of interferograms obtained with a thermal beam and a velocity selected beam in close analogy to the usual two-slit experiments using light.

Exactly how does "here are our experiments demonstrating that we can reproduce the same results using Buckminsterfullerene molecules" equal "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" the requisite results?

Then we have this paper from other authors:

Complementarity In The Double Slit Experiment: Quantum Nonseparability And A Quantitative Statement Of Bohr's Principle by William K. Wooters & Wojciech H. Zurek, Physical Review D, 19(2): 473-484 (15th January 1979) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Wooters & Zurek, 1979 wrote:A detailed analysis of Einstein's version of the double-slit experiment, in which one tries to observe both wave and particle properties of light, is performed. Quantum nonseparability appears in the derivation of the interference pattern, which proves to be surprisingly sharp even when the trajectories of the photons have been determined with fairly high accuracy. An information-theoretic approach to this problem leads to a quantitative formulation of Bohr's complementarity principle for the case of the double-slit experiment. A practically realisable version of this experiment, to which the above analysis applies, is proposed.

What was that about "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" again?

Even better, we have this paper:

Matter-Wave Interference With Particles Selected From A Molecular Library With Masses Exceeding 10,000 amu by Sandra Eibenberger, Stefan Gerlich, Markus Arndt, Marcel Mayor and Jens Tüxen, Physical Chemistry: Chemical Physics, 15: 14696-14700 (2013) DOI: 10.1039/C3CP51500A [Full paper downloadable from here]

Eibenberger et al, 2013 wrote:Abstract

The quantum superposition principle, a key distinction between quantum physics and classical mechanics, is often perceived as a philosophical challenge to our concepts of reality, locality or space-time since it contrasts with our intuitive expectations with experimental observations on isolated quantum systems. While we are used to associating the notion of localization with massive bodies, quantum physics teaches us that every individual object is associated with a wave function that may eventually delocalize by far more than the body's own extension. Numerous experiments have verified this concept at the microscopic scale but intuition wavers when it comes to delocalization experiments with complex objects. While quantum science is the uncontested ideal of a physical theory, one may ask if the superposition principle can persist on all complexity scales. This motivates matter–wave diffraction and interference studies with large compounds in a three-grating interferometer configuration which also necessitates the preparation of high-mass nanoparticle beams at low velocities. Here we demonstrate how synthetic chemistry allows us to prepare libraries of fluorous porphyrins which can be tailored to exhibit high mass, good thermal stability and relatively low polarizability, which allows us to form slow thermal beams of these high-mass compounds, which can be detected using electron ionization mass spectrometry. We present successful superposition experiments with selected species from these molecular libraries in a quantum interferometer, which utilizes the diffraction of matter–waves at an optical phase grating. We observe high-contrast quantum fringe patterns of molecules exceeding a mass of 10 000 amu and having 810 atoms in a single particle.

What was that about "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" again?

Right let's move on to the rest of your assertions ...

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Tom Campbell has a remarkably simple answer to the issue. But as it flies in the face of the High Priests of Science, and is a significant game changer, it is put to one side.

Let's see how long this assertion stands up to scrutiny, shall we?

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Before you ask, the simple answer is that (as a good number of physicists are now concluding) is that we live in a digital, probabilistic, virtual reality.

Actually, Zeilinger was proposing a "digital physics" as far back as 1999, motivated by his earlier 1996 experiment, in which he demonstrated that it was possible to possible to encode more than one classical bit of information into one qubit. The relevant paper covering his achievement of hyper-dense coding is this one:

Dense Coding In Experimental Quantum Communication by Klaus Mattle, Harald Weinfurter, Paul G. Kwiat and Anton Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters, 76: 4656 (June 1996) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4656 [Full paper downloadable from here]

Mattle et al, 1996 wrote:Classically, sending more than one bit of information requires manipulation of more than one two-state particle. We demonstrate experimentally that one can transmit one of three messages, i.e., 1 “trit” ≈ 1.58 bit, by manipulating only one of two entangled particles. The increased channel capacity is proven by transmitting ASCII characters in five trits instead of the usual 8 bits.

Looks like you're running up quite a track record of failed assertions here, doesn't it?

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Once this is applied to quantum 'weird stuff' then it becomes quite understandable.

Zeilinger got there back in 1999, and moreover, did so in a rigorous manner, backed by numerous peer reviewed publications. This document is a detailed list of his peer reviewed publications to date. Note how many of them are on that list - 504 of them (including one scheduled for publication in early 2017).

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:As for Pear Labs, if you use wikipedia as your research tool, then I'll just have to leave the conversation here.

Here's a scholarly review of the field. Enjoy reading it.

From that scholarly review, the following paragraph is apposite:

Falsifiability is an important concept in science, especially when highly unusual claims are made. Science did not ignore Roentgen’s rays just because they did not fit in with what was known at the time. On the other hand, science did not ignore Blondlot’s rays (N-rays) either. The former turned out to be a highly replicable phenomenon that demanded changes in physical theory to account for it. The latter, despite numerous independent ‘replications’ initially, turned out to be a figment of the imagination. This is why falsifiability is so important.

Hmm, beginning to look like Game Over here for your assertions, isn't it?

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:As for Pear Labs, if you use wikipedia as your research tool, then I'll just have to leave the conversation here.

So you suggest I should, instead, just take the word of some anonymous newbie that the results of PEAR labs are "incontestable"? I have no interest in investigating the work of incompetent crackpots. My goal was simply to refute your claim and demonstrate empirically that their results are not only highly contestable, but have been actively contested.

Anyway, any scrap of credibility you might have had was blown away when you claimed the double slit experiment is ignored by mainstream science.

BTW, as far as I can tell, the idea that we might be living in a simulated reality is a hypothesis that is worthy of serious consideration. That part of your claim I don't dispute. You're just overselling it, and saying a lot of really stupid shit besides.

Gentlemen, or should I say anonymous old gits (from an anonymous newbie. . . although at least I have a name).

I have enjoyed looking through your posts, although I have learned nothing new to add to my current knowledge base.

However, please note I did say 'Thus, the results are mostly ignored, or swept under the carpet' not that the double slit experiment was ignored. Please try to keep up.

In relation to the linked article by James Alcock, he is of course a phi sceptic and it shows. I am afraid with such a closed mind even if you dangle a live fairy under his nose he will probably deny its existence (although in the article he did suggest he had a hypothesis that Zeus exists, so there may be hope).

But it appears you have an issue with Psi generally. Well, I can see that could be a problem if you are clinging tight to the religion of science to such an extent that you will refuse to even look at it with an open and sceptical mind. I'll hold my hand up and say that for many decades I'd be inclined to prefer to sit firmly in the Materialistic Camp. In many ways that time honed my skills for research.

Anyway, I'm not here to pick a fight, rather, to discourse with real hard nosed sceptics I may learn something. On the other hand, so may you. That's the challenge. If you just continue to have a pop at me, fine, I'll still treat you fairly, but just with added sarcasm.

So, let's work with one theme that may have common ground between us. A Simulated Reality. It is indeed gaining ground as a realistic theory and I for one wholeheartedly subscribe to it as a concept. So there. . . I have stuck an imaginary flag in the digital ground. What say you? Are you open to the concept?

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:However, please note I did say 'Thus, the results are mostly ignored, or swept under the carpet' not that the double slit experiment was ignored. Please try to keep up.

Oh. Well, you're still wrong, so who gives a fuck?

In relation to the linked article by James Alcock, he is of course a phi sceptic and it shows. I am afraid with such a closed mind even if you dangle a live fairy under his nose he will probably deny its existence (although in the article he did suggest he had a hypothesis that Zeus exists, so there may be hope).

But it appears you have an issue with Psi generally. Well, I can see that could be a problem if you are clinging tight to the religion of science to such an extent that you will refuse to even look at it with an open and sceptical mind. I'll hold my hand up and say that for many decades I'd be inclined to prefer to sit firmly in the Materialistic Camp. In many ways that time honed my skills for research.

Alcock made a number of interesting points. Among them:

As a result, parapsychologists and sceptical scientists most often speak to each
other in a dialogue aux sourds, a dialogue of the deaf. Yet, it is always a good
thing to try to build bridges in the hope of bringing intellectual protagonists
together, and this special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, which
includes articles by some of the leading proponents and critics of parapsychology,
may help build such a bridge. As much as they may differ in terms of their
views on the paranormal, it is important to note that the contributors are ‘all on
the same side’ in at least one important way: all share a deep respect for science
and are committed to the scientific method as the appropriate approach to exploring
reality. They are all seeking truth, not delusion; fact, not fiction. Arguably,
the only significant differences that distinguish the proponents from the sceptics
in this collection of articles are in terms of their a priori subjective weighings of
the likelihood that psychic phenomena exist, which in turn may influence their
evaluations of the adequacy of the research protocols that have been employed in
parapsychological research and the quality of the data thus obtained.
Those in the scientific community who have little familiarity with parapsychology
are often unaware of the wide spectrum of opinion, expertise and
degree of respect for science, that exists amongst those who call themselves
parapsychologists. At one end are those described in the last paragraph, of whom
some have contributed to this volume. At the other are numerous writers and
researchers who view science as an inadequate tool for grappling with the mysteries
of the paranormal, and who base their beliefs in the paranormal solely on
the kinds of experiences served up by trance mediums, putative apparitions, and
so forth. Their writings are not to be found in this Special Issue, nor are the writings
of those who believe that the verdict is already in, that parapsychology has
long since established a sound scientific footing for paranormal phenomena and
no controversy remains.

So into which category would you place yourself? I have my suspicions.

Anyway, I'm not here to pick a fight, rather, to discourse with real hard nosed sceptics I may learn something. On the other hand, so may you. That's the challenge. If you just continue to have a pop at me, fine, I'll still treat you fairly, but just with added sarcasm.

I'm quite happy to engage in a rational discussion. But until you demonstrate you are capable of one, you'll just have to remain a bystander, I'm afraid.

Funny. . . I was going to quote 'dialogue aux sourds' but decided not to as it implied I thought you were deaf.

Shame. If you ever decide to wind down your ego enough to speak to people in a reasonable manner, let me know.

Toodle Pip

It's always amusing to watch someone who believes he has solved the greatest mysteries of the universe, and that he understands things that have eluded the world's leading scientists, accuse others of having a large ego. So it goes.

delete

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Funny. . . I was going to quote 'dialogue aux sourds' but decided not to as it implied I thought you were deaf.

Shame. If you ever decide to wind down your ego enough to speak to people in a reasonable manner, let me know.

Toodle Pip

Oh, you were serious.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Gentlemen, or should I say anonymous old gits (from an anonymous newbie. . . although at least I have a name).

I have enjoyed looking through your posts, although I have learned nothing new to add to my current knowledge base.

However, please note I did say 'Thus, the results are mostly ignored, or swept under the carpet' not that the double slit experiment was ignored. Please try to keep up.

The peer reviewed scientific papers I provided in full previously, refute this assertion of yours.

Got something better than this?

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:In relation to the linked article by James Alcock, he is of course a phi sceptic and it shows.

Translation: "he doesn't treat my made up shit as fact, therefore I'll summarily dismiss him".

Again, got something better than this?

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:I am afraid with such a closed mind even if you dangle a live fairy under his nose he will probably deny its existence

Poppycock. Oh wait, if someone actually produced a real live fairy, complete with appropriate photographic & video evidence made available for public scrutiny, that passed all the relevant authenticity tests, or better still, exhibited said organism at a scientific conference, the public sensation would push Trump and the Kardashians off the front pages for weeks. If you're trying to suggest that Alcock would summarily dismiss this, in the same manner as you summarily dismissed his pertinent article, then this speaks much more about your prejudices than his.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:(although in the article he did suggest he had a hypothesis that Zeus exists, so there may be hope).

Apparently you didn't wake up to the fact that he presented this, not as an actual hypothesis, but as a means of satirising the failings of so-called "psi researchers". Here's the relevant text, so that everyone else here can enjoy the spectacle of you missing the point by several light years:

James Alcock wrote:Any such statistically significant departure is viewed as an ‘anomaly’ relating to psi, and thus is viewed as support for the Psi hypothesis. However, statistical significance tells us nothing about causality. If a person tries to guess or ‘intuit’ what number will come next in a randomly generated sequence, and succeeds better than one would expect by chance, that tells us absolutely nothing at all with regard to why such results were obtained. The departure from chance expectation could be due to any number of influences — a non-random ‘random generator’, various methodological flaws, or . . . Zeus. (I could posit that Zeus exists and likes to torment parapsychologists, and thereby gives them significant outcomes from time to time, but does not allow replication outside parapsychology. The significant outcome would provide as much support for my hypothesis that Zeus exists as it does for the Psi hypothesis that the human subject’s volition caused the results.)

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:But it appears you have an issue with Psi generally.

Correction, we have an issue with people peddling made up shit as fact. Do try to keep up.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Well, I can see that could be a problem if you are clinging tight to the religion of science

Yawn ... here we go again with the fake comparison of science to a "religion" ... except that, oops, religions don't toss assertions into the bin when the data says this is required, whilst science has been doing this repeatedly throughout its 300 year history in its modern incarnation. Once again, got something better than this?

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:to such an extent that you will refuse to even look at it with an open and sceptical mind.

There's a difference between having an open mind and being a gullible swallower of bullshit. Again, do try to keep up.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:I'll hold my hand up and say that for many decades I'd be inclined to prefer to sit firmly in the Materialistic Camp.

Well that's part of your problem, treating ideas as doctrines. The aetiology is all too familiar to many here.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:In many ways that time honed my skills for research.

Oh this is going to be good ...

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Anyway, I'm not here to pick a fight, rather, to discourse with real hard nosed sceptics I may learn something.

You failed in this regard, the moment you summarily dismissed those peer reviewed papers I presented earlier.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:On the other hand, so may you.

Thus far, the evidence that you're in a position to teach us anything amounts to precisely zero.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:That's the challenge. If you just continue to have a pop at me, fine, I'll still treat you fairly, but just with added sarcasm.

Ah, hubristic posturing. Another aspect of the aetiology of evangelism for bullshit.

SquiddlyDiddly wrote:So, let's work with one theme that may have common ground between us. A Simulated Reality. It is indeed gaining ground as a realistic theory and I for one wholeheartedly subscribe to it as a concept. So there. . . I have stuck an imaginary flag in the digital ground. What say you? Are you open to the concept?

Stanislaw Lem had much to say on this subject in Non Serviam. You might benefit from reading it.