yes. the amazing randi has had a big $$ challenge going on for sometime now for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers. no one has EVER claimed the prize--- not kreskin, geller or anyone. i suggest reading "flim flam" by james (amazing) randi. its a great read and sheds light on these issues. best, surfer
Is there "hard science" and "soft science"? Karl Popper said if a theory can't be falsified it isn't science (roughly spoken). The only proof is a failed falsification. A theory is just a theory until it is proven. Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize for the relativity theory. Physics uses models do describe the world. There can be several models that don't fit together for the same phenomenon, but both can be valid. Osiander wrote in a preface to Kopernikus' work "it is not necessary that these hypotheses are true, they don't even have to be probable, it's sufficient that the observations and calculations match." Things haven't changed since then. So I don't see a problem in having two theories for one phenomenon. To proof this you have to define what a dream is. That should be feasible by putting test persons into a situations with concurrent feelings. And don't complain if you don't like the result of this test. Freud made the assumption that many things can be explained by childhood memories. Today it is proven that memories are usually biased ("good old times") and sometimes wrong or even made up. So you have to be careful about techniques that dig up old memories because they could be made up in the process of digging up. Do you make money with the basics written in John Murphys book? Today it is even more important not to believe everything that you see, touch, taste, hear or smell. ...as you can see from the link in Ana Maria's original post. In this case I would suggest a reduction of drug abuse. The "proof" was falsified. Where's the problem? People showing off or faking results or bend their perception of reality so that it fits into their believes happens every day. How about a survey that compares use of meditation with the track record of a few hundred traders. If there's a correlation we can talk about proof. Why do you want to prejudge a trading system by its setup?
Bending spoons isn't bs. I did that. But I prefer spoons which keep their shape when I use them to eat ice cream. It's the same with levitation: As long as you don't expect it to last much longer than a second almost everyone can do that.
heavy metal. - :eek: Listening to Puccini, Mayerbeer, Giordano, Ponchielli. The tenor arias are wonderfully relaxing. Not exactly meditation, but very calming. La Gioconda is one of my favourites... Natalie
Well, with all due respect, but you are missing the point in what I have said. Yes, quarks have never been observed and the theory explains why. Can the theory of levitation, if such exists at all, explain why the levitation has never been observed? Physics is a sound discipline that is subject to and, what's even more, welcomes falsification. If quarks are really a bunk we will know this sooner or later. They will be replaced by a better model. Quarks are really a model. Nothing else, that's not reality. They may NOT exist. We do not know the reality, we only try to describe and model it. On the other hand the believers in levitation would tell you that even if someone can do this they would never demonstrate it to the rest of the world. Now, that's the world of difference. In physics things sooner or later can be subjected to falsification and revision and this process continues. We get a better and better picture of the world around us. We may never get a complete picture, but at least we are not fooling ourselves because we are open to falsification. As far as meditation is concerned, I have never said that meditation is useless (in fact I have said that it is useful), all I am saying is that expecting that you start levitating after meditating is a bunk and if you think I am wrong then perhaps you can provide some evidence to the contrary. Subjectivity is not something that physics deals with. The hard sciences deal with things that are open to falsification via repeatable experiments. That's a very narrow field of all human experience, but very successful. Sometimes it's better to do less but well than to do a lot but only so so. You can have your personal pet theories but if they fail experimental tests they do not count. That meditative experiences cannot be proven by physics does not mean that they do not exist. They may but they cannot be treated by physics because physics simply does not deal with such phenomena, perhaps yet, but levitating is a simple physical process and as such it can either be verified or else it makes more sense to assume that it just does not exist. BTW, trading off of Fib retracements makes sense if you do this in the main trend direction and not otherwise. I don't know why you would like to do this in the opposite direction. It's possible, but harder. As far as general relativity is concerned, it has been proved very well by many experiments. There are no experiments that would falsify it. There is more to it than some elegant mathematics. It's a well tested theory and it has been tested for over 80 years by now. It can explain things that Newton's gravity theory cannot. It can be replaced by a better theory in future but the new theory will have to be able to explain all general relativity can and more.
DT, I am very interested in meditation as a means to relax, shed stress, and improve my peace of mind, cognitive skills, health and relationships with myself and others. Levitation and other similar phenomena have been described in old texts such as Patanjali's 2nd century treatise on siddhis, but have not really been explained sufficiently in lay terms for people like us. I am aware of the fact that a couple of meditation groups are trying to shed some scientific light on these things and take them away from the realm of tricksters and magicians. However, imo, much more needs to be done in this field before we can say what exactly is there.
Sure, everyone can jump high enough and claim that he levitated. But try doing it without jumping. It's much harder, to the point that you can do this only 'in private'.
Lohnsklave, Thanks for your detailed response. I don't really think we disagree too much on this. Peace!
Sure, walking on water has also been described in texts from approximately the same time. Same with turning water into wine. Well, to me treatises like that are good enough to start a new religion, but they fail miserably short as a proof of levitation.