|
|
Post by asdfg on Apr 3, 2009 20:57:43 GMT
But your also relying on psychics knowing what they think psychic ability is. No I'm not. You prove something exists, examine it, try to work out how it works and then hopefully work out the laws behind it. You don't start by trying to develop a law and then see if it explains anything! You really do need to grasp this point. Otherwise you're trying to work backwards. You can obviously prove psychic ability exists before you prove the universe exists, but you need a scientific law (at least one) to work with (not used at present in studies etc). See above. There is also the fact that these things are being investigated but not a single scrap of evidence in testing has proven a law or dis-proved a law or even a very good scientific argument for or against the point of the existence of psychic ability. When testing for psychic abilities the results don't show that it exists. I think I'll resist talking about type I errors, experimenter bias etc. for now..... If you test for psychic ability and don't find it, what do you think the logical conclusion is? The logical conclusion is that it doesn't exist. And if it doesn't exist then you don't need explanations or laws for it - it simply isn't real, |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Apr 3, 2009 21:16:57 GMT
I didn't say you need laws for the ability I said you need laws to prove or dis-prove it.
Also psychic ability when tested in the current time is only tested avoiding my principle's of universal theory as mentioned in oyher converse. The psychic can be wrong and not always right unless they are the minority exceptionj inthe universe as logic when associated to the ability dictates.
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Apr 3, 2009 22:00:07 GMT
I didn't say you need laws for the ability I said you need laws to prove or dis-prove it. Oh right. Then you're just plain wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Apr 3, 2009 22:23:04 GMT
Non-explanitory opinion. What do you relate the point to?
|
|
|
|
Post by bujin on Apr 3, 2009 23:01:16 GMT
Also, just because quantumn physics is not universally accepted ... It isn't?  |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Apr 3, 2009 23:11:57 GMT
It was mentioned in a point that wasdenying my argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Apr 3, 2009 23:32:02 GMT
Come on then, why do you need scientific laws to disprove psychic ability? *I can't believe I'm in this conversation* Perhaps infinite universes do exist and I've ended up in one of them!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Apr 3, 2009 23:49:57 GMT
I said it was a non-explanitory point and you said it isn't, that doesn't explain it.
You have also listed infinite universes not infinte cycle's, which I meant.
Which means infinite cycle's cover all eventual posibilities etc given a given amount of laws or law.
U can create an argument even if an opposition is proven but it doesn't create a fact.
Make as much rubbish un-factual argument as u want but u still haven't proven or dis-proven anything. Or even led to anything. Only complaining I haven't proven anything etc which is a lazy cop out angle.
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Apr 4, 2009 0:38:45 GMT
If ever there was a lost cause, this debate has been one. ;D
I'd get more joy interacting with a random noise generator.
I'd find more meaning in reading a plate of alphabet spaghetti.
|
|
|
|
Post by bujin on Apr 4, 2009 9:32:40 GMT
It was mentioned in a point that wasdenying my argument. Can't find anyone saying that quantum physics isn't universally accepted. If anyone said that, they are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by bujin on Apr 4, 2009 9:34:08 GMT
I said it was a non-explanitory point and you said it isn't, that doesn't explain it. You have also listed infinite universes not infinte cycle's, which I meant. Which means infinite cycle's cover all eventual posibilities etc given a given amount of laws or law. What do you mean by "infinite cycles"? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Apr 4, 2009 13:13:53 GMT
Can i just commend Jigsaw for sticking with it and not blowing his own head off with a gun! lol
And people wonder why I stay out of threads like this. I much prefer arguing with people like Kendra,
|
|
|
|
Post by bujin on Apr 4, 2009 18:49:55 GMT
Can i just commend Jigsaw for sticking with it and not blowing his own head off with a gun! lol And people wonder why I stay out of threads like this. I much prefer arguing with people like Kendra, I had a similar "discussion" with someone on YouTube yesterday - perhaps even worse. This other person was misusing science, so I corrected his mistake of mixing up "galaxy" with "universe". He went on to explain that he doesn't have a science education, he's just read a few science books, but most of his knowledge was passed down genetically from his ancestors... At that point I had to back away slowly. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 4, 2009 21:12:31 GMT
lol, classic. I must admit, sometimes I feel like a seperate species to some of the people I have conversed with. Its actually quite frightening to think that some people's minds are so "damaged". |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Apr 5, 2009 16:05:51 GMT
explanation removed for viewing point protection etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Apr 5, 2009 17:25:05 GMT
Oh my goodness you have got me running around in circles/cycles  the only two cycles I know of are, the one on my washing machine and the one that is shortened from bicycle.  . |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 5, 2009 17:57:54 GMT
Its almost like you ask 10 people to go to a random website and ctrl + C and ctrl + V a block of text, then paste it into that post. It makes no sense at all (at least to me) im afraid  |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Apr 5, 2009 18:11:14 GMT
Sorry I didn't relate the QS bit properly. Someone said about another point that the QS theory of immortal/dimension (when I mentioned all things, can, will, do and have happened)was not universally accepted, not the whole of QS. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Apr 5, 2009 18:50:16 GMT
Also BUJIN junior above asked, what do you mean infinite cycle's? That's why I mentioned it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 5, 2009 20:08:17 GMT
Can i just commend Jigsaw for sticking with it and not blowing his own head off with a gun! lol And people wonder why I stay out of threads like this. I much prefer arguing with people like Kendra, I had a similar "discussion" with someone on YouTube yesterday - perhaps even worse. This other person was misusing science, so I corrected his mistake of mixing up "galaxy" with "universe". He went on to explain that he doesn't have a science education, he's just read a few science books, but most of his knowledge was passed down genetically from his ancestors... At that point I had to back away slowly. HAHAHAHA!!! |
|
the only two cycles I know of are, the one on my washing machine and the one that is shortened from bicycle. 
.
