Large Hadron Collider disproves Ghosts?

#1
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resea...ge-hadron-collider-disproves-existence-ghosts

I actually saw this on Yahoo and linked to it. The article does not mention Consciousness per se and the scientist quoted never even makes an attempt to deal with the Aware Study or anything of the like. Also makes no attempt at dealing with the apparent need in quantum mechanics for someone to observe the measurement. I wanted to post this here to get your guys thoughts because many here know much more about this than I do. To me he cites no evidence, relies upon one model being true which has proven, by his own admission, to have holes in it, and then draws grand conclusions from it. What do you guys think?
 
#4
I liked the experience of one of the commenters below the article....




Greg Allen
9 hours ago


Actually ghosts do exist because I've seen one, once. I don't suffer hallucinations waking or sleeping, and if I did have one I don't think it would take the form of an old man who woke me up one night (although it could have been my roommate making noise in the kitchen getting ready for his 4am delivery job,) and stood about 7 or 8 feet away, dressed in a buttoned shirt with a collar and suspenders, holding a cane which he would pick up and point with for a few seconds before putting it down for a few seconds, then repeating the process. Oh yeah, he was also transparent and white.

I watched him watching me for what seemed an eternity, but was possibly two minutes. At that point I said to myself this isn't real and I crawled across my king-size mattress to touch him and see if he was real. Living in a warehouse in Oakland, California, I had an interior room with no windows, and of course no ambient light. Crawling on all fours when I got up to him I reached out to touch his leg and my hand hit the wall. Not ready for that I was startled and scuttled backwards to my starting point, where propped up on my elbows I watched him for a couple more minutes.

The entire time I'm processing thoughts, yes I am awake, and yes, there is an old white guy standing in my wall. I pinched myself, rubbed my eyes, and yep, he's there. Then I thought okay, okay, this is all part of nature, everything is cool just stay calm, like when a bee is flying around you. Don't want to panic the thing...

Screw this I'm outta here, and fleeing into the kitchen turning on every light on the way, I'm greeted by my roommate. I didn't say anything to him and waited half an hour before reentering my room.

My dad was an atomic physicist and I inherited his logical and linear way of thinking. I know what I saw and experienced, and no one can take it away from me. The large Hadron Collider couldn't find ghosts? I've got an idea they're barking up the wrong tree over there, after all, SETI hasn't found evidence of extraterrestrials and tens of thousands of people see what appear to be extraterrestrial vehicles every year, including pilots, test pilots, and astronauts, you know, what are characterized as trained aerial observers. I myself have seen probably fifteen events since moving to Nevada, and I don't suffer aerial hallucinations that take the form of lights making 90 degree turns without deceleration, either.

By the way, in the early '70s my dad had "HADRON" on his license plate in California. Every so often he'd see people laughing hysterically at him when he was driving. He finally realized they thought his plate said HARDON.
 
#5
Thanks for adding your replies. This is what I like about this group. Now I have a couple of problems with this article, the first of which was that the hadron collider was not designed to test for ghosts or anything of the sort. So this conclusion comes from no where. Second, for a scientist, he cites no actual evidence. He makes the claim we found nothing, but see above, the collider was not designed to look for this. Second if there was evidence he would cite, we did this test, on this day, and if X were true the result should have been Y. The result was inconclusive, or not Y or had properties inconsistent with Y. None of this is in this article. So we take a machine not designed to test something, look at no results, and then conclude what they magically reaffirm my beliefs before I go in. I call bullshit. So sad today that people and journalists are so desperate for interviews and stories that they have no critical thinking skills at all. They don't ask tough questions, or hold people accountable for the things they say. Yet the article on NDE's is full 4,000,000 questions and some ideology that demands some extra proof? Proof is proof, extra proof is a fancy way of saying I don't have any way to combat your arguments.
 
#7
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resea...ge-hadron-collider-disproves-existence-ghosts

I actually saw this on Yahoo and linked to it. The article does not mention Consciousness per se and the scientist quoted never even makes an attempt to deal with the Aware Study or anything of the like. Also makes no attempt at dealing with the apparent need in quantum mechanics for someone to observe the measurement. I wanted to post this here to get your guys thoughts because many here know much more about this than I do. To me he cites no evidence, relies upon one model being true which has proven, by his own admission, to have holes in it, and then draws grand conclusions from it. What do you guys think?
If he can tell us what the composition of consciousness is, it's particular structure (particle wise) then he might have a point. But we don't know that and probably never will. We do know it exists because we all experience it (except Dan Dennett). Furthermore there is enough persuasive evidence now from consciousness research (NDE's, DBV'S, Reincarnation, etc) to allow for "ghosts."

I liked the picture of the person in the white sheet, quite obviously a ghost. At least they didn't utilise the classic spook carrying his head under his arm.
 
Last edited:
#8
This is very useful. I will keep this name in mind in the future.
Of course I over-simplify - I could have worded things in more detail, but I've seen / heard enough of his tv and radio programmes to summarise thus. Of course he's popular with the BBC since their policy is to ridicule anything considered paranormal, rather than give the subject proper coverage and legitimate scientific scrutiny. (Occasionally such topics are slid into the 'religion' category).
 
#12
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resea...ge-hadron-collider-disproves-existence-ghosts

I actually saw this on Yahoo and linked to it. The article does not mention Consciousness per se and the scientist quoted never even makes an attempt to deal with the Aware Study or anything of the like. Also makes no attempt at dealing with the apparent need in quantum mechanics for someone to observe the measurement. I wanted to post this here to get your guys thoughts because many here know much more about this than I do. To me he cites no evidence, relies upon one model being true which has proven, by his own admission, to have holes in it, and then draws grand conclusions from it. What do you guys think?
The assumption from cocks is that he knows what 'ghosts' are... and so can say why results from the LHC rules them out.

But he doesn't know what ghosts are, his comments address such a narrow view of what a ghost is... it's as silly as saying the LHC has ruled out hallucinations.
 
#13
His argument is not new. Sean Carroll used the same argument years ago, even before the LHC made any prediction.
In fact, this argument has been used against interactionist (cartesian) dualism for centuries (if mind body is separate, how do they interact?)
The reality is that since the foundation of the SPR in the 19th century, nobody is trying to find a "soul fermion" interacting with the brain via "spirit bosons", so Brian Cox is refuting a straw man (that has been already 'refuted' at least centuries ago).
Oddly enough, some physicists that know as much (and are not self-promoting showmen like Brian Cox) defend dualism. The classical example is Henry Stapp [1], but there are many more like Avshalom Elitzur [2] (which is both a excelent physicist and a philosopher of the mind) and Bernard Carr [3] (which is both a ver influential cosmologist and a parapsychologist). Also, there are still a lot of religious physicists ou there and they often are able to rationalize the apparently completness of physics and the fact that some things doesn't obey physics very well [4].

Also, I know at least one physicist that is an atheist and doesn't believe in soul or psi, but still was able to see that there was some merit with a argument for the soul: Lubos Motl [5] (he was a physicist at harvard).

Of course, apart from dualism, there is some other -isms that are ok with the idea of disembodied consciousness.

tl;dr: There's nothing new with Brian Cox arguments, he doesn't know what he is talking about and just want some publicity.


[1]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2005/00000012/00000011/art00003
[2]http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf (This paper is very interesting. It's simple, but it explains the problems involving physics and consciousness very well)
[3]https://www.slideshare.net/alexpituba/matter-mind-and-higher-dimensions-bernard-carr-esalen2010 (a lenghty version of this slideshow can be read in the book Beyond Physicalism)
[4]http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/sean-carroll-and-the-afterlife/ (a young but very bright princeton post-doc Aron Wall talking about Carroll's refutation of the afterlife)
[5]http://motls.blogspot.com.br/2015/08/can-christians-be-better-at-quantum.html
 
#14
The assumption from cocks is that he knows what 'ghosts' are... and so can say why results from the LHC rules them out.
I'd like to ask cocks what hypothetical results from the LHC would have made him come to the opposite conclusion!

My reply to how it is that mind and body are separate but still interact, is that ultimately we live in an Idealist reality (where mind is everything), but to a good approximation dualism works. This is closely analogous to many other scientific ideas - for example QM and GR are both in use, even though they are known to be incompatible.

Science uses concepts that are obviously ultimately inexact/wrong all the time - the first time I cam across this was in school - I learned that PV=nRT (the gas laws). this is an amazing relationship that relates the pressure, temperature, and pressure, and molecular weight of a gas together. For a while I thought it was exact, and was rather shocked to learn that it isn't, and that more exact versions contain coefficients that vary from gas to gas and are still not precise! Nevertheless, in many situations PV=nRT is good enough.

In other words, when scientists like Cox dismiss dualism because it can't be exact, they are demanding a far higher standard from 'us' than they practice themselves.

David
 
Last edited:
Top