Nonsense Branch from Why are Placebos getting better?

[Dave Moore]

Strange,

 

If pain has physiological causes, then it is telekinesis. If one atom has moved, a physical thing has occurred. I am saying this to describe the process to you according to what I think you believe, which is all pain must involve an organic process.

I am willing to use another word, of course. But I think some might turn the thing around and insist an organic outcome must be called telekinesis.

 

John,

 

I did say so, later. The timing was bad when first asked. However, I later said a lot about what I thought it was. Check #66, middle of page.

 

 

 

swansont,

 

Exercise is a common procedure, something often recommended by doctors. A placebo would replace that but yield same results.

So a doctor might say you should take this pill (illegal now in many countries if not labelled so) and the placebo would cause the patient to feel as if he had exercised.

Again, I see the placebo as a form of hypnosis, and the question is (to you), would you consider the possibility that hypnosis, coupled with telekinesis would cause a researcher to "create reality" (quotes for you, not me) by means of observer effect?

There would then be an explanation of wave collapse through belief, or belief creating reality.

 

This would also imply that all experience could be the result of hypnosis if subjective reality were true. Quantum wave behavior doesn't automatically do away with determinism. In a subjective reality where beliefs manifest, each new percept is only a belief manifested. Wave behavior would always appear as it does.

 

Next question, if the first things I said were true, then why don't paradoxes arise all the time?

Answer: Because of predestination, manifestation is efficiently "knitted" into the past from future "choices" (notice the quotes?).

The prime requirement is that belief unconsciously draws from the future and seeds the past.

This explains meaningful coincidences and precognition, for example.

 

I have avoided these ideas so far because I have been warned by the mod that I belong in the woo-woo forum, trash cani think it's called, but this topic is gaining interest. I assume democracy is in play here?

 

If accepting posit of subjective reality, future observation + present observation x energy (subjective level of belief) = reality. So, Belief x Energy = Observation

Edited March 16, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Velocity_Boy]

Telekinesis?

 

Really?

 

Talk of it should not be allowed on a science forum, as it is decidedly fake. Bogus. As real as crystal healing and astrology. Not even psuedo science. James Randi for decades offered a cool one million bucks to anybody who could do it. Even if they could move a human hair one centimeter from five feet away! Let alone, bending a spoon or making a lamp got off a desk top.

 

Nobody ever came remotely close to claiming he money.

 

Gee...What a surprise! LOL

[Dave Moore]

If you really read my last post, you would see that your knee jerk reaction (you should have seen yourself, hahaha!). the word caused you to jump out of your skin!

"Why that word is Heresy! Heresy I say! Just the use of the word on a science forum? Burn the witch, I say!"

hahahahahaha! Oh come now. I'm being more scientific than you.

I can see, low velocity boy, that you are not reading what I'm saying--- sorry, that was so precious, I have to stop laughing before I continue...

Okay. Sorry.

You are proving my very point.

IF you paid attention, AND you saw what I wrote, you would have seen that The amusing Randi is perfectly safe in keeping his money.

IF the Observer Effect is real, then one theory about why has been presented to you in English at the bottom of the comment. It explains in a simple formula that anyone who could show Randi anything beyond hard science would always fail due to energetic limitations to observe success. This happened to Luc Montagnier when his experiment failed to produce results for what was supposed to be a team of honest researchers, who actually brought along the Amazing Randi. Nobel Prize winner, too. I would have kicked him out on principle alone. Montagnier identifies the AIDS virus. Then one day he went "mad" and began research on structured water. Hell, Randi was probably saved from AIDs by Montagnier.

 

Telekinesis is what I used to describe something in a way it could be understood. If I said Observer effect, that would be okay because it wouldn't cause you to go home and get your pitch fork. But you have (hopefully) heard of the Observer Effect and you know it's real. So that word is okay.

I'm sorry. I am laughing again. it was just like a scene from Frankenstein when the village folk gathered to hunt down and kill the monster.

I don't believe in telekinesis. It's just a word that I thought would help you a little bit.

I believe in the Observer Effect, son.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Dave Moore

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

David Moore, you need to stop with the intellectual dishonesty. Stop abusing the other members here and engage in actual discussion. Have you provided any links yet to support your claims? I don't see them. Start with that and please careful outline your position so we can better understand where you're coming from. You don't get to use, 'I can't figure it out,' as an excuse. Copy-pasting links is really not a difficult ask.

[Strange]

Strange,

 

If pain has physiological causes, then it is telekinesis. If one atom has moved, a physical thing has occurred. I am saying this to describe the process to you according to what I think you believe, which is all pain must involve an organic process.

 

 

1. I don't think all pain has an "organic cause" (if by that you mean some sort of physical damage) which is why I think pain relief can be different from medications such as vaccinations, chemotherapy, where there can be no placebo effect.

 

(Of course, even psychological reasons for pain are ultimately "organic" causes.)

 

2. That is a very odd definition of telekinesis, but ...

 

3. There is zero evidence that telekinesis is possible. So using it as an explanatory mechanism is not very helpful.

 

 

 

There would then be an explanation of wave collapse through belief, or belief creating reality.

 

In terms of physics, that doesn't really make any sense. There is no evidence that belief has any role in quantum physics.

 

 

 

Telekinesis is what I used to describe something in a way it could be understood. If I said Observer effect, that would be okay because it wouldn't cause you to go home and get your pitch fork.

 

You seem to be confused about what the observer effect is. It certainly has nothing to do with telekinesis.

 

I think it is stretching the definition of the observer effect to say the placebos are an example.

 

 

 

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[Dave Moore]

I understand why virtually everyone here can't understand what I've been saying. I can't discuss this any more.

Everybody wants links. Links and links and more links.

None of you ever consider there are some things that can be figured out alone in a cave on a mountain.

I provided my own formula, but nobody said a damn thing about it.

Attack it! Fairly, mind you. Use common sense. Use your own brain! Are you all just recording devises?

Make me look stupid. Not by aggravating me but by taking that formula apart, piece by piece.

At the bottom of comment #92, read the formula.

I say things but the subject gets changed and later, I am blamed for not making any solid claim. Bullshit.

My claim is at the bottom of comment #92.

Read it or quit asking for something to get your teeth into.

It is axiomatic. Look up what that means. AXIOMATIC is the spelling.

I am amazed nobody here can understand the claim and work it out without supporting links.

I don't mind being eviscerated and having my work destroyed if it's done fairly. Don't attack me, but attack my work.

Attack the formula BOTTOM OF COMMENT #92.

I doubt anyone here can do it. That's why nobody will try.

Mod, I suggest you try it yourself instead of accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

Strange,

 

I can explain the observer's effect. I mean the act of observation of detector information by a human being which causes actual physical changes in the past.

I don't care what telekinesis means, of if you have no proof of it.

How can you argue that pain both isn't and is organic in origin?

Anyway, my explanation is at the bottom of #92. From now on, I will simply refer everyone to that formula. An intelligent person who knows what axiomatic means will use their God given (no I'm not religious) brain to make that claim, that formula, look stupid.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

I provided my own formula, but nobody said a damn thing about it.

Attack it! Fairly, mind you. Use common sense. Use your own brain! Are you all just recording devises?

Make me look stupid. Not by aggravating me but by taking that formula apart, piece by piece.

At the bottom of comment #92, read the formula.

I say things but the subject gets changed and later, I am blamed for not making any solid claim. Bullshit.

My claim is at the bottom of comment #92.

Read it or quit asking for something to get your teeth into.

It is axiomatic.

 

 

Belief x Energy = Observation

 

1. It is not axiomatic. An axiom is something that is taken to be self evidently true.

 

2. How are you defining "belief"?

 

3. What are the units of, and how do you measure, "belief"? (You do realise that these need to be quantified if they are to be used in an equation?)

 

4. Do you mean "energy" in the physics sense (as measured in joules)? If not, what do you mean?

 

5. What is this the energy of?

 

6. How is this energy measured?

 

7. How are you defining "observation"?

 

8. What are the units of, and how do you measure, "observation"?

 

Is that piece by piece enough for you?

[swansont]

Attack the formula BOTTOM OF COMMENT #92.

Belief x Energy = Observation

 

What are the units of belief, and of observation?

[Dave Moore]

If accepting posit of subjective reality------------- future observation + present observation x energy = reality

 

Belief x Energy = Observation. Belief x 75% resistive energy = 25% observation. Much like 75 units of resistance allows only 25 lbs to be lifted some height while 25 units of resistance allows 75 lbs to be lifted the same height. I am a crummy mathematician. I have never used numbers like this.

 

1) That which can be subjectively understood. I said that.

 

2) Belief is a certainty spread.

 

3) Levels of belief can only be subjectively felt, like pain or happiness. Can you quantize wave positions? Yet you can deal with probabilities. Between disbelief (diffraction pattern) and absolute belief (position, but zero diffraction) lie the levels of belief.

 

4) Energy can only be measured by subjective means. Insisting on quantization is not allowed, but read answer to #8. Energy to resist disbelief or to manifest belief in another or group. Bigfoot is seen. But the witness hasn't the energy to prove it. He has video information but it suddenly goes missing. He can't cause the public to manifest his proof. He is unable to come up with enough energy to overcome the level of energy resisting his claim. the missing video is no accident.

 

5) Energy to manifest one's beliefs. To cause agreement. To cause an outcome to manifest in physics

 

6) It is measured subjectively. It is entirely personal. Absolute belief is measurable as 0% energy. Absolute denial is 100%.

There is a probability spread between 0% and 100%.

 

7) Belief x energy = Observation, as shown.

 

8) Measurements are subjective but close approximations can be made using larger groups of people. This is done with placebo group trials, which are conducted by science all the time.

 

Yes, that is a great beginning. Thanks, Strange. I appreciate it.

Thus placebo trials would be influenced by disbelief of researchers. Or, conversely, believing strongly (as an average of all witnesses from now and the future), the placeboes would do better against real drugs.

That is why placeboes are getting better. Researchers believe more (less resistance to their energy to manifest) so the placeboes are observed to a higher level of manifestation of efficacy.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Dave Moore

[swansont]

What are the units of belief, and of observation?

[Dave Moore]

This can only be measured in groups of many observers. You have a similar problem of measurement asking which slit in a double slit test. If only three photons are detected, and two slits are involved, does that mean you know with certainty which slit most go through?

But using a large number of test subjects, like a trillion photons passing through a pair of slits, some of which are observed as particles and some not (belief spread) you get more accurate results.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Dave Moore

[StringJunky]

Now that this is in the realms of speculation, it belongs there. This is a conventional science section.

[Strange]

This can only be measured in groups of many observers. You have a similar problem of measurement asking which slit in a double slit test. If only three photons are detected, and two slits are involved, does that mean you know with certainty which slit most go through?

But using a large number of test subjects, like a trillion photons passing through a pair of slits, some of which are observed as particles and some not (belief spread) you get more accurate results.

 

 

That doesn't answer the question: "What are the units of belief, and of observation?"

 

And you comments about double-slit experiments don't seem to make much sense.

[Dave Moore]

That's a good cop out. Then don't try. It's as real and as useful as placebo study, which is usually done in a scientific setting.

[StringJunky]

Edited: Deleted give that the necessary mod action has been taken.

Edited March 17, 2017 by StringJunky

[swansont]

What are the units of belief, and of observation?

[Strange]

That's a good cop out. Then don't try. It's as real and as useful as placebo study, which is usually done in a scientific setting.

 

 

If you could hit the Quote button (the big one, bottom right) it would make it easier to follow.

 

Asking what the units are is not a cop-out; it is fundamental to science. If you look at a drug trial (whether it uses placebos or not) you will see that the results are quantified in some units of measurement.

[Dave Moore]

What are the units of measurement of pain in a placebo study?

I can't get the quote thing to work. Hard to see. I guess I should just forget about the forum altogether.

You can measure belief by various means just like pain. A questionnaire would suffice, asking what a person beliees about placebo efficacy on a scale of 1-100.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Dave Moore

 

this is a science forum and whilst some sciences might not be so amenable to empirical research as others due to the human subject factor that does not mean wild assertions can go unchallenged.

 

Either backup your contentions with argument and evidence - or at the very least a logical path from the known to the new - or the thread will be locked.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. report if you feel it is unjust

 

 

 

[Dave Moore]

 

 

I'll talk to anyone, but not here.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Then this is done.