• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

A Science Minute

Is Science the Only Standard for Truth?


  • Total voters
    49
  • This poll will close: .

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
I keep a very open mind on the UFO and Alien topic simply because I know enough to know I know nothing at all... I also have issues with absolutes and people who say they have the 100% final answer on it ****Spoiler**** they don't.
I totally agree, but at the same time, having a "100% final answer" depends a lot on the nature and expectations of the question. We touched on this during this week's recording with Morgan Knudsen ( one of my favorite guests ). She investigates hauntings, and when the topic of theoretical explanations came up, we both agreed that there is a hierarchy of reasonableness where some opinions really do carry more weight than others, and if we can eliminate weaker ones, and replace them with stronger ones, then we're headed in the right direction. Makes sense right?

So we did the above in a couple of big steps and landed on an argument many of us have heard before. To paraphrase:

"We can't know whether or not there are afterlives because we don't have enough information, and we can never really know unless we die and have some sort of afterlife experience. Therefore nobody can say for sure that it's not real."

It usually ends there. But then I say something like:

We don't actually need more information because there are two ways to answer the question of whether or not afterlives are real.
  1. Verification.
  2. Elimination.
In the case of option 2, elimination from the set of possible explanations logically results in a situation where afterlives aren't possible, and therefore no amount of additional information can change the situation, including anything that appears to verify that they are real. When that happens, the only possible explanation is that some sort of copy has taken over, and that leads down a whole other rabbit hole.

Then I claim, for all intent and purpose, to have proven that case. You may have already perused it here.

[/QUOTE]
I am staying away from the consciousness thread as circular arguments just irritate me no end and that is just the sort of topic that breeds that sort of thinking.
[/QUOTE]
You're not kidding about that discussion being circular. It's like one big circular whirlpool that sucks everything down into a black hole, but at the same time has a whole bunch of other little tiny whirlpools inside it that also go off into some alternate dimension ( figuratively ). And if you go down any one of them, ultimately you come out of another one someplace else. A couple of the latest posts don't even use words, just icons.

Sometimes that can be cool, but it's a long, dry, slow, ride. Sometimes it's also bumpy, followed by some cool jazz. Hey I've been digging the way we've been taking turns in the What Have You Been Listening To ? thread ????
 
Last edited:

stonehart

Paranormal Adept
I totally agree, but at the same time, having a "100% final answer" depends a lot on the nature and expectations of the question. We touched on this during this week's recording with Morgan Knudsen ( one of my favorite guests ). She investigated hauntings, and when the topic of theoretical explanations came up, we both agreed that there is a hierarchy of reasonableness where some opinions really do carry more weight than others, and if we can eliminate weaker ones, and replace them with stronger ones, then we're headed in the right direction. Makes sense right?

So we did the above in a couple of big steps and landed on an argument many of us have heard before. To paraphrase:

"We can't know whether or not there are afterlives because we don't have enough information, and we can never really know unless we die and have some sort of afterlife experience. Therefore nobody can say for sure that it's not real."

It usually ends there. But then I say something like:

We don't actually need more information because there are two ways to answer the question of whether or not afterlives are real.
  1. Verification.
  2. Elimination.
In the case of option 2, elimination from the set of possible explanations logically results in a situation where afterlives aren't possible, and therefore no amount of additional information can change the situation, including anything that appears to verify that they are real. When that happens, the only possible explanation is that some sort of copy has taken over, and that leads down a whole other rabbit hole.

Then I claim, for all intent and purpose, to have proven that case. You may have already perused it here.
I am staying away from the consciousness thread as circular arguments just irritate me no end and that is just the sort of topic that breeds that sort of thinking.
[/QUOTE]
You're not kidding about that discussion being circular. It's like one big circular whirlpool that sucks everything down into a black hole, but at the same time has a whole bunch of other little tiny whirlpools inside it that also go off into some alternate dimension ( figuratively ). And if you go down any one of them, ultimately you come out of another one someplace else. A couple of the latest posts don't even use words, just icons.

Sometimes that can be cool, but it's a long, dry, slow, ride. Sometimes it's also bumpy, followed by some cool jazz. Hey I've been digging the way we've been taking turns in the What Have You Been Listening To ? thread ????
[/QUOTE]

Really nice thought processes going on here and while I was reading the first part I was reminded of and old Asimov short story called "The machine at the end of time" or some title like that, anyway the idea is humanity asking a super computer if entropy in the universe can be stopped or reversed... the machine answers "insufficient information for a meaningful answer". Long story short this keeps happening until the end of the universe and humanities extinction, all this time the super computer has been evolving and has reached a god like singularity at which point it decides that there is now enough information for a meaningful answer and kicks off a second big bang.

I think what I am getting at here is that we can riff on thought experiments until the end of time but as we both know there is insufficient data for a positive view of the afterlife, maybe that is the wrong way to put it, maybe what I am trying to say is that there is literally no way other than passing away oneself that we could get any meaningful data and at that point it is well not useful.

Fully agree with the post you made on the afterlife being impossible, so what about ghost etc? no idea, there seems to be something going on but as to what I have no solid answers only ideas and speculations... imprints on time? emotional residue? there could be a dozen or more possible explanations and if this strange planet we live on has taught me anything it could be any of these, none at all, or all of them.

PS: music thread is great and would be good to get more forum members posting in there as well.


Edit: yes I was right it is that short story... here is a short synopsis on it.

 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Fully agree with the post you made on the afterlife being impossible, so what about ghost etc? no idea, there seems to be something going on but as to what I have no solid answers only ideas and speculations... imprints on time? emotional residue? there could be a dozen or more possible explanations and if this strange planet we live on has taught me anything it could be any of these, none at all, or all of them.
The upshot of realizing that afterlives are impossible, while at the same time accepting that the phenomena is real and not something mundane, is that the phenomena has to be some sort of copy. Therefore there must be something responsible for creating the copy. Again, if we apply the hierarchy of reasonableness to the existing set of possibilities, we come out with three options at the top.
  1. The copies are created by a third as of yet unknown ( alien ) party within this realm ( our particular universe )
  2. The copies are created by a third as of yet unknown ( alien ) party outside this realm ( in the multiverse someplace )
  3. The copies are created by a universe maker or existence itself ( nature ).
Option 1. is discoverable and apprehensible but not necessarily comprehensible.
Option 2. is discoverable ( but with more difficulty ) and apprehensible but not necessarily comprehensible.
Option 3. is apprehensible but not necessarily discoverable or comprehensible.

Applying Ockham's Razor, given that we know our particular universe exists, and that aliens capable of creating such phenomena could also exist within our particular universe, option 1. requires the least amount of wild speculation. So ...

Meme-01.jpg
Edit: yes I was right it is that short story...
That story fits nicely into option 3. ( above )
 
Last edited:

stonehart

Paranormal Adept
The upshot of realizing that afterlives are impossible, while at the same time accepting that the phenomena is real and not something mundane, is that the phenomena has to be some sort of copy. Therefore there must be something responsible for creating the copy. Again, if we apply the hierarchy of reasonableness to the existing set of possibilities, we come out with three options at the top.
  1. The copies are created by a third as of yet unknown ( alien ) party within this realm ( our particular universe )
  2. The copies are created by a third as of yet unknown ( alien ) party outside this realm ( in the multiverse someplace )
  3. The copies are created by a universe maker or existence itself ( nature ).
Option 1. is discoverable and apprehensible but not necessarily comprehensible.
Option 2. is discoverable ( but with more difficulty ) and apprehensible but not necessarily comprehensible.
Option 3. is apprehensible but not necessarily discoverable or comprehensible.

Applying Ockham's Razor, given that we know our particular universe exists, and that aliens capable of creating such phenomena could also exist within our particular universe, option 1. requires the least amount of wild speculation. So ...

View attachment 7707

That story fits nicely into option 3. ( above )
Just throwing another idea in here and that is the phenomenon of time slips or replays could this be an explanation for some ghosts sightings, we know seeing one is not really that common, well yeah no brainier there right ghost hunter shows aside.

Maybe what people are experiencing is not the so called "soul" of an individual but some sort of imprint on the area..... Look I have no idea how this could happen, maybe imprint of the local time, maybe time is curved who knows, could be something like magnetic tape and all we are seeing is a playback of sorts... well the planet is a big magnetic dynamo of sorts.

This is very much along the "copy" line of thinking you have and I would agree it makes sense it has to be a copy of some kind.

Anyway one could think that there would be no outside influence needed at all and the situation is a natural one.... All of this is a fun thought experiment and nothing more as we both know, however people have experiences with ghost etc there are enough stories and reports out there to note that something is going on for sure..... the question eternal is what?

The above makes me wonder if this has more to do with the psychology of the people experiencing these sightings etc and nothing to do with any external force at all, this is an area that I really need to do more thinking on as the human mind and will to do/see things is very powerful.

Look having said all that I do like your thought process here:

  1. The copies are created by a third as of yet unknown ( alien ) party within this realm ( our particular universe )
  2. The copies are created by a third as of yet unknown ( alien ) party outside this realm ( in the multiverse someplace )
  3. The copies are created by a universe maker or existence itself ( nature ).
Option 1. is discoverable and apprehensible but not necessarily comprehensible.
Option 2. is discoverable ( but with more difficulty ) and apprehensible but not necessarily comprehensible.
Option 3. is apprehensible but not necessarily discoverable or comprehensible.

Applying Ockham's Razor, given that we know our particular universe exists, and that aliens capable of creating such phenomena could also exist within our particular universe, option 1. requires the least amount of wild speculation. So ...


If I had to play Ockham's Razorr here option one is the best choice for sure but the religious around us would maybe have to play Pascal's wager and go for number three, but then again with what I was saying before it would have to fit with choice three as well if one were to push the natural based phenomenon.

Not sure if any of this made sense but I do think looking at people who experience slips in time could be a good way of getting a handle on the ghost phenomenon as well.

PS: Fun thread lets keep going.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Freeman Dyson died on the 28th
I've heard that narrator a number of times. He sounds like a real person, but with a speech impediment of a sort ( e.g. often uses an "or" sound when it should be an "er" sound ) I wasn't able to track it down in a quick search. Any idea on what that is called or if it's related to any other handicap?
 

stonehart

Paranormal Adept
I've heard that narrator a number of times. He sounds like a real person, but with a speech impediment of a sort ( e.g. often uses an "or" sound when it should be an "er" sound ) I wasn't able to track it down in a quick search. Any idea on what that is called or if it's related to any other handicap?
not sure I have been subbed to him on Youtube for ages now, yeah he has a speech problem but not sure which one.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
The Growing List of Solutions to the Fermi Paradox with Stephen Webb
A really good interview, except that the interviewer has conflated the meaning of the word "ufo" with the literal definitions of the words that form the acronym, resulting in the misinterpretation that "ufo" simply means any sort of unidentified flying object, when nothing could be further from the truth. We also have the unjustified position that, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." We even have a guest who is a firsthand ufo witness who has talked himself into believing he had some kind of hallucination, rather than admit the reality of what he saw with his own eyes. This is how far some people will go to deny the reality of alien visitation. Or perhaps it's to protect their reputations against the bias of their peers.
 
Last edited:

stonehart

Paranormal Adept
"Or perhaps it's to protect their reputations against the bias of their peers." Well working in the academic world I can say that this is very much a reason for this that is for sure.
 

blowfish

Whittingham
The latest images of the Moon and its underground caves system matches Col Ingo Swan book . The Chinese announced this week from its landing. E.T. who ever they are and dimensional capability does give them a edge. Also put odds on religious element as well Missing 411.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
The latest images of the Moon and its underground caves system matches Col Ingo Swan book . The Chinese announced this week from its landing. E.T. who ever they are and dimensional capability does give them a edge. Also put odds on religious element as well Missing 411.
Interesting. Can you post a couple of links so we can check this out further.
 

Peacekeeper

Skilled Investigator
Science can only be as good as the people allow it as I once said. Science means seeker for knowledge/truth. So yeah, it is the only way I can tell.
But I also said that you only know if you tested it yourself, only your trust in science doesn't make you smarter! And it also doesn't support science!
 


Top