1010
1011

Ghosts definitely don't exist because otherwise the Large Hadron Collider would have found them, claims Brian Cox (independent.co.uk)

grepnork が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 300
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]cmiller1 180 ポイント181 ポイント  (33子コメント)

I always liked assuming that if all living creatures leave a ghost when they die that we're just swimming in a sea of insect ghosts.

[–]Grumple_Stan 102 ポイント103 ポイント  (7子コメント)

How do you know that those little tickles and itches you get as you're going to sleep aren't insect ghosts?

[–]jamelna 119 ポイント120 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Because they're just real insects.

[–]ICallsEmAsISeesEm 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Check under your mattress for bedbugs.

[–]wjw75 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Check under ghostbugs for your mattress.

[–]Napkin_whore 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are bug that live in your eye lashes and them when you go to sleep they come out and get all on your body. My momma said.

[–]jonpaladin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

they are small lobsters who eat your eyelash gunk

[–]daementia 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hate you.

Edit:have an upvote.

[–]DanBMan 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Please excuse me, I need to go set everything on fire now.

[–]Kiloku 42 ポイント43 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You'll just get more insect ghosts that way

[–]mtarascio 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That poor kid with the sixth sense of seeing dead insects.

Didn't quite work out for him.

[–]brtt3000 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe because seeing is already one of the five regular senses? If you get an extra sense then maybe get something new?

[–]scribbles33 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm grabbing all the hand sanitizer.

[–]Naedlus 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Think of plant ghosts.

The right magics and you can turn your neighbors house into a collection of tree zombies.

[–]Gned11 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Please can you stop the noise I'm trying to get some rest from all the unborn chicken voices in my head

[–]fromkentucky 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So many more bacteria.

[–]FaceDeer 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now we know what the 90% of the universe made of Dark Matter is.

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]devoidz 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    What if ghosts just look like normal people. A guy waiting for a bus, kid running down the street, maybe half the people you see every day but don't interact with aren't real.

    [–]venterol 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Sorta like a half-assed solipsism

    [–]SkankBeard 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Then you are Bruce Willis.

    [–]trautsla 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    meirl

    [–]themanbat 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Nah. Bugs and lots of animals get reincarnated. Otherwise heaven would be overcrowded.

    [–]th30be 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I always imagined that in order to leave a ghost, you have to have self consciousness. That is why you don't see that many ghost animals but do see many human ones.

    [–]Lick_a_Butt 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah, bud. It's not you. That is the standard nonsense that people accept. It fits our perception of ghosts, even though it has no logical bearing whatsoever. Basically, we think we see ghosts of things that matter to us. Funny how that works.

    [–]SlimBackwater 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    The body is an embryo developing an energy being in your brain. The goal of the body is to incubate until it is stable and self sufficient by the time the body dies.

    [–]blasto_blastocyst 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Then it can shamble around and feast on the underdeveloped larvae in other people's brains.

    [–]mrpoops 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That applies to every living thing, or just humans for some reason? Is a star-nosed mole's body an embryo developing an energy being in its brain?

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]WendyLRogers3 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That sounds like something Carlos Castaneda would say.

      [–]judgej2 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      If they are energy then they must at least have mass. Does this explain dark matter.

      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

        [–]dagonn3[🍰] 147 ポイント148 ポイント  (177子コメント)

        Supposing ghosts do exist, wouldn't they need some information on how they work before they could claim they don't exist?

        [–]grepnork[S] 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (173子コメント)

        Not necessarily. If they're not made of matter then they must be made of some kind of energy and have some means of replenishing that energy - the LHC has shown no such energy exists.

        [–]robert812003 120 ポイント121 ポイント  (79子コメント)

        At least not in the form or state that it's testing for.

        We keep routinely discovering more forms and states of matter and energy that we thought did not or simply could not exist, especially ones only present in exotic or quasi-existing quantum states.

        Aren't the chances pretty good that it's testing and looking for the wrong thing to begin with since we don't precisely know what we're looking for?

        [–]grepnork[S] 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (67子コメント)

        I think Cox is saying (IANAP) that the LHC has proved the standard model is valid, that being the case, there is no likely source of spooky energy.

        [–]Jimmni 56 ポイント57 ポイント  (59子コメント)

        I don't believe in ghosts (despite a pretty freaky ghost "experience") but if they do exist, they exist in a form or way that's not necessarily covered by the current understanding of science. Kind of goes with the territory. They fall into the category of "impossible to completely disprove."

        [–]third-eye-brown 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        It's also impossible to completely disprove the existence of god or of unicorns, or of anything really.

        [–][削除されました]  (37子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–]Ajuvix 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (8子コメント)

          So many things in our world of knowledge existed in this state at one time. Radio waves have always existed, yet we weren't aware how or why. If someone told you 300 years ago a little box could send out a signal and far away another received it without any visible proof, you'd say the exact same thing and call it bullshit. This isn't directed at you, but I'll never understand the hubris mixed with a scientific type of arrogance that unproven phenomena is outright dismissed as nonexistent or impossible when we have clearly just begun to open the doors to technologies the human species has even yet to dream of. I will always remain a skeptic, but I'll never deny a claim without that same skepticism towards that maybe we just don't know how, why or what paranormal phenomena actually is.

          [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–]Ajuvix 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            I'm picking up what you're putting down. Yes, there's a propensity for too many to believe based on some very flimsy anecdotal evidence. I keep an open mind to the subject, but remain heavily skeptical. I just don't like the extreme opposite of unfounded beliefs which to me is absolute dismissal.

            [–]manbrasucks 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Minor correction; the "proof" isn't false, but the interpretation of the proof is.

            For instance a blurry image in a photo. The blurry image isn't false, likely caused by over exposure, but the interpretation that it's a ghost is.

            [–]blasto_blastocyst 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

            Ghosts exist or they don't exist..so the probability is 50% amirite?

            [–]jammerjoint 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            That's not how it works. You have a hypothesis "ghosts exist." In that statement, you have to define how ghosts work, and then you can test for their existence. Something like "they are created upon death, and can interact with the physical world (by telekinesis or appearing visually, etc.). You then collect data and experiment to see if that holds up. Since there's no such data to support it, and in fact all data points to such mechanisms being unlikely, then I'd say the chance is close to 0%. If you say "they work in x ways that cannot be tested with current science," then the chance is still 0% until science catches up with your hypothesis. Untestable = doesn't exist (unless part of it is supported by existing science), because if it exists in any kind of practical way then it's testable.

            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–]Jimmni 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (27子コメント)

                A bit like god.

                This is exactly why I don't believe in them, but it's the height of arrogance to claim that something definitely doesn't exist just because we don't understand how it can be possible.

                [–]Huyguy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                The problem with that idea is that they have to interact with actual matter in some meaningful way. People's claims about them related to the senses they "see", "hear" or just "feel" them in some way. How could particles that are so rare and obscure that we can't see any trace of them in our most sensitive detecting equipment also be seen by the naked "corner of your eye"? The plausibility of the concept suffers massively from this.

                [–]Jimmni 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Now you're just narrowing the definition of "ghost" to fit your purposes. And you're trying to imply that all "sightings" of ghosts must be taken as one. I don't think anyone has ever actually seen a ghost. I don't think one has ever been observed in any form by anyone. But that doesn't mean they're impossible, or don't exist. I'm with you in not believing in them until there's demonstrable proof, but that's not what this is about. It's easy to say there's no proof of the existence of ghosts. That's not arrogance. It's the jump to "they don't exist" or "they cannot exist" that is arrogant. A Willem de Vlamingh moment of discovery might come at any time. You're turning this discussion back to the start again. Instead, you need to prove that they are impossible, and to be correct. Otherwise you're just speculating. Speculating with very good reasoning and scientific backing, but you're still just speculating. I'll not argue for one second against "there's no proof for the existence of ghosts." But that's not what you're saying.

                Edit: I may have replied to two people not realising they were two different people.

                [–]whatllmyusernamebe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (14子コメント)

                if they do exist, they exist in a form or way that's not necessarily covered by the current understanding of science. Kind of goes with the territory. They fall into the category of "impossible to completely disprove."

                Repeat after me: The metaphysical does not exist.

                [–]Jimmni 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                Repeat after me: Prove it.

                [–]whatllmyusernamebe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                You can't prove a negative. Plus, "impossible to completely disprove" means it doesn't hold up to the standards of science, and is thus pseudoscience.

                [–]Jimmni 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                I think you're missing the point here.

                [–]whatllmyusernamebe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                Not at all. Anything that can't be proven via the scientific method is as good as false.

                コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                  [–]WalterWhiteRabbit 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Story time.

                  [–]Jimmni 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I don't really want to post the story publicly, but I can PM you it if you want. It's really not that interesting, though.

                  [–]powercow 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  maybe ghosts are dark energy and thats why the universe is accelerating.. due to all the dead people. WE need to stop dying now before we tear our universe apart.

                  [–]transcendent 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  Experiments performed by the LHC, or any experiment, never prove anything -- it only fails to disprove.

                  There are still unproven and unresolved aspects of the standard model. The standard model cannot explain everything we observe.

                  there is no likely source of spooky energy.

                  Yet we still have "dark energy".

                  [–]TallDarkAndBrittish 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  You can predict the kind of energy and matter required for ghosts to exist and the physical properties it would have using the mathematics of the standard model. This is how the higgs particle was discovered, first it was predicted and fairly accurately at that. The standard model is basically proven to work so ghost particles to work with it would need certain properties. Ghost particles with those properties would have been found but they have not.

                  I mean it's just a silly idea but the method is very solid

                  [–]tenebrius 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                  then you could claim anything

                  [–]robert812003 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                  Kinda like the guy in the article is doing..? Everything he's basing this on is complete speculation.

                  I don't know why he stopped at ghosts, he should just shout from the rooftops that he's just proven God doesn't exist because the LHC didn't detect him.

                  [–]avenlanzer 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I can imagine him giving this interview and stating "souls don't exist...er...Ghosts, I mean ghosts don't exists. The Catholics didn't hear that right?"

                  [–]tenebrius 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  well he does argue about a specific description of a ghost. the one that is most common: that ghost are made of energy.

                  [–]pmthosetitties 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  I completely agree with you, god doesn't because we can't detect it. Well said!

                  [–]ProximaC 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Oh yeah? Well I have an old book that proves he does exist, so there.

                  [–]pmthosetitties 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Well if there's proof then problem solved!

                  [–]whatllmyusernamebe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  We did it, Reddit! We proved God exists! Hallelujah!

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]Funkrocker 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                    This is assuming a materialist philosophy.

                    [–]whatllmyusernamebe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                    The metaphysical doesn't exist tho. Nor the paranormal. Those are just words we put for things we don't understand, and a bunch of people fill in the gaps with ghosts or gods.

                    [–]Funkrocker 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                    That's still an opinion man. I understand the notion, I used to have it. The leap of faith goes both ways. Upvoted for your real opinion.

                    [–]ThatsSciencetastic 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    Not only is it an opinion, but it's patently unprovable either way. We can never be sure that there isn't something that exists but cannot be perceived by human senses or tools.

                    This has been more or less settled by philosophers for centuries.

                    Brain in a vat

                    Allegory of the cave

                    Descartes' "evil demon"

                    [–]Funkrocker 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Agreed. Thank you for putting in more effort than I did! To simplify within the human range of knowledge, we're massively lossless as a whole.

                    [–]HelperBot_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

                    HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 36211

                    [–]whatllmyusernamebe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    Thanks for being civil. I'll admit that my comment was pretty low-effort.

                    [–]Funkrocker 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    As I gain more years, more discussions de/evolve to this. The distinction between objective and subjective thought grows more real with time. We all experience it and it is quite confounding. The self seems quite ironic.

                    [–]AimsForNothing 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    Dark energy perhaps?

                    [–]blasto_blastocyst 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    Dark energy doesn't interact with matter, so we couldn't see them.

                    [–]AimsForNothing 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Not that I believe any of this, but we don't know enough to be completely sure it doesn't have any way to do some weird shit.

                    [–]dcb720 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (36子コメント)

                    If they're not made of matter then they must be made of some kind of energy

                    Materalistic begging the question.

                    I don’t believe in ghosts that hang around on earth, but I believe in souls, but they are obviously supernatural and cannot be tested and experimented on.

                    Not everything can be tested by science. You cannot test whether my great grandmother loved my great grandfather; they are both dead. That doesn't mean she didn't love him, just that physical science cannot answer that question. There is still evidence in the form of letters, testimony from eyewitnesses, etc.

                    Science cannot test spirits physical existence since they aren't physical. Duh.

                    It doesn't mean they don't exist. The question is, is there other evidence beyond physical testing that points to their existence?

                    [–]jazz_to_the_bee 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (20子コメント)

                    This is an interesting argument.

                    I believe your concept of the supernatural is inconsistent though. Your example of love between dead people - this is truly not physical. That love can only exist as a concept - there's no substance or information associated with it. And as you say, it could obviously never be tested by science.

                    But then you try to apply that kind of classification to "ghosts" and souls. By your descriptions of "spiritis physical existence" etc. you seem to be speaking of entities which can either interact with the world and our minds, or "exist" within their own right. This is where your analogy breaks down.

                    Whereas memory or concept of love has no attributes of it's own, a ghost or soul must contain some form of information independent of the world around it to continue to exist. There is literally no way for information to be stored without energy or matter.

                    If a ghost truly existed supernaturally or beyond the physical world somehow - you're correct that there would be no way for us to test it - but there would also be no way for anyone or anything on earth to have any knowledge or experience of it's existence.

                    [–]Unrealparagon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                    That love can only exist as a concept - there's no substance or information associated with it.

                    Love as a concept is nothing but information.

                    [–]jazz_to_the_bee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                    I meant in the mind of the person who holds that thought. The thought/concept doesn't exist by itself.

                    E.g. if everyone who knew of that love suddenly died, and all evidence of their lives was erased, that concept would cease to exist altogether.

                    [–]Unrealparagon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                    That is the point I am trying to make. We can't know that for sure. We don't exactly know what consciousness is.

                    Based on what we currently understand and know about the universe we can make a fairly solid guess, but the chance is still there that it is a wrong guess.

                    That is the crux of the entire argument with this article, he is making an assumption based on our current understanding, which could be wrong.

                    The biggest reason this article pissed me off so bad is the fact that he stated definitively that there are no such things as ghosts.

                    He used only one tool in our quest to understand the universe to make that statement. There is still so much about our reality that we do not understand that to make that statement is an act of supreme arrogance and idiocy.

                    [–]BdaMann 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                    I believe your concept of the supernatural is inconsistent though. Your example of love between dead people - this is truly not physical. That love can only exist as a concept - there's no substance or information associated with it. And as you say, it could obviously never be tested by science.

                    There's no information associated with an abstract concept? Then how does the concept exist?

                    [–]jazz_to_the_bee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                    The concept exists as memory of the people who experienced it - not as an entity in and of itself.

                    [–]BdaMann 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    And that information isn't preserved in the universe?

                    [–]jazz_to_the_bee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    There's no way to disprove that it is, but that doesn't make it any more credible.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                      コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

                        [–]ziper1221 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        Then how the heck do you solve the interaction problem?

                        [–]Unrealparagon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Because they don't necessarily interact with anything except the information that makes up our consciousness.

                        We can't test or interact with that (scientifically; yet), however we know it exists because we can ask the question "Who am I?".

                        [–]ziper1221 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        So the soul acts exactly like the human brain which we can observe, but is somehow separate and deserves the distinction?

                        [–]ThrowayForScience 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                        So, in other words, you believe that magic is real.

                        [–]mrpoops 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        you can't prove that his grandparents were in love = science is dumb

                        [–]Jimmni 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                        That is not a conclusion that can be reached from his post.

                        [–]ThrowayForScience 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        "I don’t believe in ghosts that hang around on earth, but I believe in souls, but they are obviously supernatural and cannot be tested and experimented on."

                        Right.

                        [–]Jimmni 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        And this has what exactly to do with magic?

                        [–]ThrowayForScience 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Not even about to get into a bullshit Reddit pissing match with you. You're trying to bait me, but it ain't happening.

                        [–]Jimmni 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        I'm not trying to bait you. You made an absurd claim putting words in someone else's mouth and I asked for an explanation. If you can't give one, that's fine. I've hashed out this subject pretty thoroughly in other parts of this thread.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                          [–]grepnork[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          You cannot test whether my great grandmother loved my great grandfather; they are both dead.

                          Perhaps not to mathematical standards of proof, but you can make a judgement from the historical records and paperwork that they left behind. Proof that they existed, proof that they were in a relationship and perhaps even written evidence that they were in love.

                          That's exactly his point here - there would be some evidence that something else existed, a hint, just as there was with the Higgs Boson, and that would point to an explanation.

                          [–]dcb720 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          there would be some evidence that something else existed

                          Not if the something else is neither matter nor energy.

                          [–]whatllmyusernamebe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Your grandmother had hormones that made her love your grandfather. Now they are dead, gone, and you will never see them again.

                          Tell me, why do people lose their consciousness slowly as they degrade with dementia? Do their souls slowly float away, or is it still in there when they're in the coma on a breathing machine?

                          [–]avenlanzer 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (19子コメント)

                          These are the same people who say dark energy exists and have yet to find evidence of it except unbalanced equations.

                          [–]florinandrei 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                          same people

                          Also known as actual scientists - as opposed to random Reddit users.

                          [–]avenlanzer 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (13子コメント)

                          "we've found no evidence of ghosts, so ghosts can't exist"

                          "We've found no evidence of dark matter energy, but it has to exist"

                          Dark energy theory was invented to plug the gaps that made general relativity not function on galactic scales. They don't know what it is or how it works, but it balances the equations because it has no set values. Maybe something like it exists, or maybe our idea of the universe is incomplete. General relativity doesn't work on the quantum scale either, so maybe it's not the right solution, just a good enough for now solution.

                          But whether dark energy is right or not does not invalidate my statement that he's being hippocritical and suffering confirmation bias.

                          [–]Industrialbonecraft 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          My ignorance is as good as your knowledge.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                            [–]buckX 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                            Any supernatural entity would, by definition, not be natural (matter and energy).

                            [–]whatllmyusernamebe 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                            And that's why, kids, there is no such thing as the supernatural. There is, however, "stuff we don't understand yet", but it doesn't mean fucking ghosts.

                            [–]buckX 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            And that's why, kids, there is no such thing as the supernatural.

                            What? Nothing about what I said suggested that. That would be circular.

                            [–]whatllmyusernamebe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Yeah, what I'm saying is that if it isn't natural, it isn't real (see: souls, gods, etc.)

                            [–]buckX 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Right. Your argument is "Because only natural things exist, the supernatural doesn't exist". That's circular.

                            コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                              [–]winstonsmith7 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              The LHC hasn't produced dark matter either. I'm not saying ghosts are real but saying they do not because the LHC hadn't found them is completely unscientific. There's not even a hypothesis to test based on science at all.

                              Cox says he proved the negative. No he did not. All he can say is that he found no evidence thus far, and the assumption he makes is that ghosts if they exist fall into a category the LHC can detect. How good is it with gravity waves? Completely useless.

                              Bad science is bad.

                              [–]ctesibius 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                              Materialism seems a bit silly in the modern world. Does MS Word exist? It is not made of matter (although instances of it can be represented as a temporary configuration of matter). It is not made of energy. And yet few people would argue that it exists. In other words we know that there are things which only exist as the organisation of mass (or energy) while not being composed of mass (or energy). One can even argue that things like Finnegan's Wake have an existence which is entirely independent of matter: a book does not depend on paper or being stored on a Kindle, but has an existence which is both real and immaterial.

                              [–]whatllmyusernamebe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                              It is made of matter... You see MS Word on a computer, which is constructed with LEDs on your monitor, a hard drive/SSD, RAM, etc. All of these components compounded with certain electrical signals (energy) make up what we call MS Word.

                              But please, go on. I want to hear your theory as to how MS Word proves that the metaphysical exists. Please.

                              [–]ctesibius 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              So how does MS Word get on to your computer if you download it over WiFi? It clearly is not matter at that point. While there is a choice of how to describe it, thinking about it as a pattern rather than a physical thing makes most sense.

                              ut please, go on. I want to hear your theory as to how MS Word proves that the metaphysical exists. Please.

                              Engage brain, read. I never said that, so don't MIS-represent me. And you misunderstand the word "metaphysical" in any case.

                              [–]whatllmyusernamebe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              But it is a physical thing, in the physical universe, bound by the laws of physics.

                              If you could properly simulate the Big Bang, everything would turn out the same (aside from possible random fluctuations due to quantum physics that I am not smart enough to understand). The universe is and will always be deterministic. There is no metaphysical. There is no free will.

                              Metaphysical means outside of the physical world. I understand that. It simply doesn't exist.

                              [–]ctesibius 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              If MS Word runs on a computer, the computer obeys the laws of physics. They are irrelevant to MS Word, which is governed by certain laws of logic.

                              if you could simulate the Big Bang....

                              This is an entirely separate issue, but no, what you say is not know to be the case and often thought to be untrue.

                              Metaphysics: no.

                              [–]MmmCremeEggs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              I thought they were supposed to be made of ectoplasm (whatever that is) not just energy

                              [–]WendyLRogers3 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Has the LHC disproved the existence of tachyons?

                              [–]Nessie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Did they adjust the phase variance and reroute power to the main deflectors? Didn't think so.

                              [–]CeruleanRuin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              That's only disproving one set of hypotheses, though. There are as many hypotheses for how a ghost would work as there are elementary particles in the standard model.

                              I'm not suggesting ghosts exist, but Brian Cox is making a fundamental error here, and it's incredibly frustrating from someone who claims to be a spokesperson for science.

                              Dear Mr. Cox, as you well know, YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. All you can do is confirm or fail to confirm individual hypotheses.

                              What's more, you make your whole field sound smug and obnoxious to laypeople when you try to do so, while gaining nothing. Stick to the facts, sir.

                              [–]FiskFisk33 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              what about dark matter? We know (well, theorize) it exists due to it's gravitational field, but thats pretty much all. Since it doesn't interact electromagnetically we have no other way to measure it right now.

                              [–]specialpatrol 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              what if they were something more like a shared hallucination caused by quantum entanglement within the neurons of our brains?

                              [–]twodogsfighting 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              the LHC has shown no such energy exists so far.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                [–]cesclaveria 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                The things is that for the ghost to exists as a sort of imprint of a human being, it needs to at some point interact with the human body and needs to continue existing in some way in the relatively narrow band of energy 'levels' the human body interacts with. The LHC has combed very thoroughly in that scale without finding anything resembling a medium for ghost to exist and for us to be able to detect them.

                                The way I understand it, they haven't detect anything that could even suggest helping in ghost formation and ok, lets say that the ghost do form at a much lower energy level... then there should be no ghost encounters since they wouldn't be able to interact with us. The ghost 'energy' simply can't exist at a level where we can see them but world's most advanced and sensitive detector miss them.

                                [–]Industrialbonecraft 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Well, we're sort of bootstrapping together a conceivable idea of how they'd work based on what we know of the laws of the universe. In that sense we do have some information: we understand that they'd have to exist as energy in a sustainable fashion, and they'd have some similar 'readability' so to speak to the humans from whence they came. So going on that 'model', we can make that claim.

                                [–]cmdrhlm 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Well in that case explain humans.

                                [–]gbimmer 184 ポイント185 ポイント  (28子コメント)

                                The clitoris definitely does not exist because otherwise the Large Haddon Collider would have found it.

                                [–]norsurfit 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                clitorus

                                That's true, because it's actually spelled clitoris

                                [–]st112570 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                Clit Or' Us

                                Toys R' Us is branching off in an interesting direction.

                                [–]myotheralt 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                Still a toy store, but their target audience is a little older.

                                [–]WiretapStudios 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                There is quite a buzz about their vibrating toys selection.

                                [–]whatllmyusernamebe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                And Hadron.

                                [–]Antinode_ 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                Plenty of Large Hardon Coliders have found them. But SHCs have not, or so Ive heard

                                [–]skydivingdutch 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                If it did, it could be renamed the Large Hardon Collider.

                                [–]totallynaked-thought 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Chef told me how to find the clitoris, never needed to waste the energy the LHC uses. http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/The_Clitoris

                                コメントをもっと表示する (18 返事)

                                  [–]mallardtheduck 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                  The LHC hasn't found any evidence of (quantum) gravity either, but we're pretty sure that exists.

                                  I don't believe in ghosts, but not because of this argument.

                                  [–]avenlanzer 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Nor has it found evidence of dark energy, yet this same guy spouts it's a certainty (rather than just unbalanced math, and the idea of dark energy balances it with no further evidence). He's got a bit of confirmation bias I think.

                                  [–]grepnork[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Let us clear up some frameworks here. General Relativity is a classical theory, not quantized, and its application is important where there are large gravitational masses , deforming the flat four dimensional space of special relativity, or where great accuracy is needed. It has been validated in astrophysical observations many times, and is even necessary for the GPS system to run accurately.

                                  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235019/evidence-for-quantum-gravity-from-gravitational-waves

                                  [–]PatAunces 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  General Relativity is a classical theory, but that doesn't mean there isn't a Quantum Theory of gravity that will be developed in the future.

                                  Classical Mechanics itself is a classical description of things that are happening on the quantum level, scaled up to the macroscopic size. Classical Mechanics has also been verified by experiments many, many times. It's still not the 100% correct model though.

                                  You can create working models that are not 100% accurate to reality. The Ptolemaic Model of planetary orbits for example. Or Valence Bond Theory which is still used to teach chemistry. Models can recreate experimental results and still not be the real story behind what's happening.

                                  [–]DarkGamer 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Quantum physics: "spooky action at a distance"

                                  Spooky. Ghosts. QED Ghosts exist. It's science.

                                  /s

                                  [–]SweetNatureHikes 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Ghosts may not exist but horrendous website layouts sure do

                                  [–]feelbetternow 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Yeah, that website is a shitshow. Seems specifically designed to fuck with anyone using any kind of blocker whatsoever, even ones that don't block ads.

                                  [–]usrname42 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  He expands on this a bit later:

                                  Well, I would say that if there's some kind of substance or thing that's driving our bodies, making my arms move and legs move, then it must interact with the particles out of which our bodies are made. And seeing as we've made high-precision measurements of the way that particles interact, then my assertion is that there can be no such thing as an energy source that's driving our bodies.

                                  [–]BdaMann 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  "Consciousness doesn't exist!" says the conscious being.

                                  [–]Grumple_Stan 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                  Brian Cox is not a very good person to go to for information that lies outside of his purview.

                                  I don't know why modern scientists feel the need to 'twitterify' themselves though it definitely started with Michio Kaku's relentless self-promotion in the late 90s early 00s...

                                  And NDT has taken up the gauntlet it seems. Why do people go to astrophysicists for dieting advice?

                                  [–]Zaph0d_B33bl3br0x 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  Anyone have a link to the full talk that clip was pulled from? That was Neil deGrasse Tyson asking the question at the end. I'm thinking that could be an interesting listen.

                                  [–]usrname42 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  That's The Infinite Monkey Cage Christmas special, it's a radio show/podcast that Brian Cox does with Robin Ince, a comedian. They had Neil deGrasse Tyson as one of the guests on that episode, as well as Mark Gatiss and the Bishop of Leeds. The clip is about 6 minutes in.

                                  [–]Zaph0d_B33bl3br0x 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Awesome, thanks for the hookup!

                                  [–]igottashare 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  Do narwhals exist, because I'm sure the collider hasn't found them either.

                                  [–]loudtoys 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Does Brian Cox want to be haunted? Because this is how you get haunted.

                                  [–]Cladari 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Some people report leaving their body and watching themselves from above during near death experiences. A lot of surgery patients report this. I remember reading of a surgeon who wrote a 4 digit number on top of his light in the OR, large enough so that it couldn't be missed. Not a single patient who told him of hovering above his body could identify the number or even report on seeing anything written. When the engine stops you end.

                                  [–]Squidot47 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  I listened to a podcast recently that had examples of the opposite of what you're saying, people saying that there was a coin on top of the XXXXX machine that was 7 feet high, or reciting a number over and over again that ended up being the serial number on the top of the machine, stuff like that. Also seems, like with a dream, not all details are recalled, so why would they recall the number when they're much more focused on their own bodies and the action happening. Anyway, just seems that maybe that one surgeon you're talking about should have put a picture of a monkey fucking a chicken on top of the light, something like that might be more memorable than a number.

                                  [–]SGT3386 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  As a future ghost, I don't want to find myself within this thing's operating zone.

                                  [–]fargmania 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  What if we are just three dimensional extensions of extra dimensional beings... and when we "die" in 3 dimensions, it is just us exiting this slice of our total existence, and ghosts are nothing more than our extra dimensional parts sensing the movement of other beings near our protrusion into space/time, and that sense is getting confused and rationalized by that part of us that exists here?

                                  Or some other crazy shit like that, which the Hadron Collider doesn't have a gnat's chance at a frog convention of measuring because it is a 3 dimensional device in a 52 dimensional universe?

                                  I'm not even suggesting I believe in ghosts... I'm just tired of people painting science to be black or white. When I was a kid, Brontosauruses absolutely existed, Pluto was the farthest planet in our solar system, electrons orbited the atom like a moon, and the universe was ending in an entropic heat death. Now just 30+ years later... NONE of that is true. Meanwhile eggs, chocolate, coffee, wine, carbs, and fat have oscillated so many times as to whether they are good for me or bad for me... I don't even know which is which anymore.

                                  We can't even figure out a proper diet for ourselves or figure out why we are conscious... but we're pulling the trigger on "ghosts can't exist"? Ok. This is why I'm agnostic. Belief is a helluva drug... on both sides. Call me when the confirmation bias wears off.

                                  [–]Latyon 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                  Man, I love going to "haunted" places with people who actually believe in ghosts. They're so funny to watch and listen to. "Put the recorder over there so we can get EVP." "Do you smell sulfur?"

                                  Lovable idiots.

                                  [–]DarkGamer 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Or the "ghost boxes"; i.e., random radio tuners.

                                  Is that voice a ghost? No, it's probably someone talking on the radio ya friggin idjit.

                                  [–]catglass 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  This ghost sure sounds a lot like "Caribbean Queen" by Billy Ocean.

                                  [–]HiddenKrypt 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  I've always wanted to go to a place in advance of one of those ghost hunting shows and rig it with some electromagnets.

                                  [–]RegentYeti 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                  I read a theory somewhere that haunted houses are caused by buildings with resonant frequencies in the ~8Hz ~18Hz range. Infrasound in that area can physically induce feelings of awe or dread, and induce sympathetic vibrations in the eyeball causing visual hallucinations.

                                  [–]Latyon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                  I don't know about the eyeball thing (sounds like bullshit) but the infrasound thing is very valid.

                                  [–]RegentYeti 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  Tandy was working late one night alone in a supposedly haunted laboratory at Warwick, when he felt very anxious and could detect a grey blob out of the corner of his eye. When Tandy turned to face the grey blob, there was nothing.

                                  The following day, Tandy was working on his fencing foil, with the handle held in a vice. Although there was nothing touching it, the blade started to vibrate wildly. Further investigation led Tandy to discover that the extractor fan in the lab was emitting a frequency of 18.98 Hz, very close to the resonant frequency of the eye given as 18 Hz by NASA.

                                  From the Wikipedia article on Infrasound

                                  [–]HelperBot_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound?wprov=sfla1

                                  HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 36336

                                  [–]Latyon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Weird, but cool.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                    [–]themanbat 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Hah! You think ghosts are going to hang around the Large Hadron Collider? They have the good sense to stay away from that ghost busting monstrosity.

                                    [–]powercow 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    U cant state for a fact they arent inside a black hole. ;)

                                    [–]willflameboy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Thanks Brian. Anything else I've no cause to believe in that science would like to weigh in on?

                                    [–]reddelicious77 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    should this maybe be in r/nottheonion?

                                    [–]Herenveen_Ho 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                    Not everything can be tested and experimented on.

                                    [–]grepnork[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                    Everything, and every hypothesis, can be tested and experimented on.

                                    [–]min0nim 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Well, hypothetically yes, but in reality we're all fallible humans with our own limitations.

                                    In the last few hundred years of science, there's plenty of examples on scientists not seeing the full answer, and of incorrect conclusions leading to serendipitous discoveries.

                                    It is very vain to say "that's it, absolutely, definitively, there's no way x can exist now", when we don't even know how to define 'x'! We need to ask the right questions to get the right answers.

                                    And to be honest, I don't think that's what Brian is really doing here. He is saying, if ghosts are use energy in this way, then we would have found evidence of it. Which is absolutely fair. I think what parent poster is saying, is that 'if we don't know what questions to ask, how can we look for the right answer?'

                                    Mind you. I don't think that's always correct either - aka the serendipitous discovery. But it's a valuable trait to always be asking questions, and never assuming that anything is 100% done and dusted.

                                    Edit: to be clear - don't believe in 'ghosts'. But I hope that one day there's enough research to explain why they're so common a phenomena across most cultures.

                                    [–]BdaMann 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    How would you test the hypothesis that every hypothesis can be tested?

                                    [–]ghettomerman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Finally, I can sleep at night.

                                    [–]casfacto 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Have you ever thought about what happens to ghosts in a hurricane or tornado?

                                    [–]mycall 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    In alt-Earth, why not? It goes great with alt facts and alt history.

                                    [–]peg_leg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I wonder what Deepak Chopra says about this...

                                    [–]word_up_yo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    LHD: Ghost Hunter

                                    Premiering on A&E this Fall. Check your local listings.

                                    [–]beautifuljeep 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Well if a SCIENTIST says so.

                                    [–]whoitis 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Uh, what about crows?

                                    [–]leftofmarx 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Are they looking for sub 20 hz frequencies though?

                                    [–]mrsbunnyrabbit 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Surely ghosts would exist in a different sort of energy, psychic or emotional energy, instead of the plain old science type.... does that make sense?

                                    [–]TaylorSpokeApe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    So by his reasoning dark matter and energy don't exist either.

                                    [–]grepnork[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    There is no evidence of 'ghostly' energy in the LHC results or the Standard Model, whereas there is a great deal of evidence that dark matter exists and it's existence is indicated in the Standard Model.

                                    [–]inquisitive_mind 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    the body is nothing the mitochondria is everything all hail the mitochondria.

                                    [–]obscure_renegade 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Insufficient evidence one way or another.

                                    Anecdotally? I know he's wrong. I just can't prove it.

                                    [–]Xanthan81 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

                                    [–]vgking96 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    At first I was like, "William Stryker became a physicist?"

                                    I was sadly disappointed.

                                    [–]enphurgen 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I dont know enough about the LHC to refute this.

                                    [–]laquintain 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Speculating with very good reasoning and scientific capabilities - anything and everything you can make a fairly old apartment building a few years ago.

                                    [–]EnIdiot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Unless ghosts are purely self-autonomous hallucinatory psychological constructs that pass virally between people.

                                    [–]Dradunov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Then why do people see them on a near daily, if not daily basis?

                                    [–]Sysiphuslove 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Fuck ghosts, what about vampires? Fire that thing back up, Brian

                                    [–]THEMACGOD 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Not to mention cameras EVERYWHERE. Funny how there hasn't been any good UFO/ghost/religious miracles lately.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)