Math Forum Discussions

vtcapo

Posts: 99
Registered: 7/10/09

Re: Telepathy: the story of a synchronization, explained
Posted: Feb 26, 2012 8:20 AM

Plain Text

On Feb 26, 8:10 am, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:10 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 1:09 am, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 4:20 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 23, 11:01 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 2/23/2012 6:48 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > <somebody wrote>
>
> > > > > > >>> Dear Fabrizio,
> > > > > > >>> Please apply your mathematic to the following events. I have a number
> > > > > > >>> of people who would like an answer other than it being otherworldly.
>
> > > > > > >>> This event was the result of a first encounter with a psychic. He was
> > > > > > >>> lecturing in an upper floor meeting hall ?in and old building in NYC .
> > > > > > >>> The room was filled with rows of fold up ?chairs 75-100 facing a
> > > > > > >>> raised platform with a podium. An effeminate ?man in his mid thirties
> > > > > > >>> dressed impeccable in a suit and tie walked in ?from a side door
> > > > > > >>> accompanied by an assistant.
>
> > > > > > >>> When I arrived he was about to commence with a lecture on ?numerology
> > > > > > >>> and the significance of the number 3. I hurried to take my seat
> > > > > > >>> never saying a word and listened. After the lecture was finished
> > > > > > >>> there was a ?short break and you could feel the anticipation in the
> > > > > > >>> packed house as they ?knew what was to happen next. During the break
> > > > > > >>> idle conversations were heard. I listened and did not speak.
>
> > > > > > >>> When he returned from an adjoining room he walked up to the first row
> > > > > > >>> and in semi-trance began to tell each person seated, one by one what
> > > > > > >>> was coming up next in their lives. This was absolutely meaningless
> > > > > > >>> to ?me but by the expressions on peoples faces, intriguing. Row after
> > > > > > >>> row ?would leave after they got their personal reading with only a
> > > > > > >>> few ?staying on to watch it all.
>
> > > > > > >>> When he finally got to me he pointed at me with closed eyes and said,
> > > > > > >>> I see an older women who is upset with you. She is upset over your
> > > > > > >>> work. You will have a ?to do?, ?words? over your ?. Job. He
> > > > > > >>> turned ?as if to go on to the next person when something drew him back
> > > > > > >>> to me. ?Pointing once again to me, he said, and I see this women upset
> > > > > > >>> over ?another women who is much older than her. He paused as if he
> > > > > > >>> was ?seeing something?..She fell and broke her arm. That was it .
>
> > > > > > >>> Around 10:00 or 11:00 PM. that same evening the phone rings, it is my
> > > > > > >>> mother. She goes off on a rant over the fact that I was quitting my
> > > > > > >>> job. Ira, my boss gave her an ear full saying I was leaving him in a
> > > > > > >>> lurch and my mother of course sided with him and was reprimanding me
> > > > > > >>> about my decision to quit. But that is not what raised the hairs on
> > > > > > >>> the back of my neck. I was about to end the conversation when my
> > > > > > >>> mother blurts out? and give your grandmother a call. She slipped on
> > > > > > >>> the ?ice, and broke her wrist.
>
> > > > > > >>> How would you account for the accuracy of the psychics cold reading
> > > > > > >>> mathematically? This in not a trick question but an actual event. I
> > > > > > >>> must stress that I had not spoken before or during the reading and had
> > > > > > >>> no prior knowledge of my grandmother?s accident.
>
> > > > > > >>> Richard Travisano
>
> > > > > > >> Your absent reply suggests you are of the opinnion it cannot be
> > > > > > >> calculated mathematically and is "other worldly".
>
> > > > > > >> Thank you....
> > > > > > >> RT
>
> > > > > > And your reply implies what? I don't know.
>
> > > > > > > Macro Quantum Entanglement is the mechanism for all paranormal,
> > > > > > > obviously.
>
> > > > > > > Chaos theory, events diverge.
>
> > > > > > > Anti-Chaos theory, events converge (symbolically)
>
> > > > > > > You can't break the laws of physics, but you can break the laws of
> > > > > > > probability.
>
> > > > > > And this reply is even worse! What a meaningless jargon word salad! Just
> > > > > > throw all those bogus terms around and everyone will think how "smart"
> > > > > > you are. What have you really said? Nothing as far as I can see.
>
> > > > > > The story above exemplifies the problem of physics facing a topic on the
> > > > > > "fringe". Difficult subjects are viewed as best studied by ignoring them
> > > > > > and making fun of them and pretending they don't really exist. There is
> > > > > > even a journal (The Journal of Irreproducible Results) created
> > > > > > specifically to make fun of these topics and insure they are not taken
> > > > > > seriously.
>
> > > > > > The point as you can see in the story above, has to do with
> > > > > > reproducibility. Science and physics in particular has taken to
> > > > > > demanding that all "facts" be reproducible on command. Sure it's great
> > > > > > that Maxwells equations tested today will be the same as tested tomorrow
> > > > > > and one can count on similar results each time. But is that all there is
> > > > > > to life? Hardly.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps you've seen me here making this point with satire posts with a
> > > > > > lampooning of Lightening I assert is a hoax because it's not
> > > > > > reproducible at will. Hence just like psychic phenomena it must be
> > > > > > simply a hoax and not exist!
>
> > > > > > Anyone who's seen REAL psychic phenomena in action (like the above
> > > > > > story) knows that trying to explain the results by chance or probability
> > > > > > or fraud or other skeptical arguments is simply scientific nonsense.
> > > > > > Ignorance codified as an argument. The probabilities of results being
> > > > > > "luck" are astronomically small. Faced with that, most "skeptics" simply
> > > > > > withdraw into accusations of lies and hoaxes as if a real scientist were
> > > > > > too dumb to know the difference. And then as icing on the cake there are
> > > > > > personal attacks on the sanity of the witnesses to insure that nobody
> > > > > > has the balls to press the issue further.
>
> > > > > > Obviously all this is the height of anti-science. All of which is made
> > > > > > all them more interesting by the very fact that while traditional
> > > > > > establishment "science" works hard to "debunk" such phenomena, the very
> > > > > > people paying the establishment for their time (government) is also
> > > > > > spending millions (probably much more) to actually investigate practical
> > > > > > applications of the phenomena for spying and other purposes. (remote
> > > > > > viewing) It's obviously all hypocrisy, with politics polluting real
> > > > > > science.
>
> > > > > > So what is the answer? Well, I suggest some real scientists with actual
> > > > > > interests in these phenomena could start by growing a set of balls.
>
> > > > > I have taken this incident and other cold reading incidents to
> > > > > different NG?s and they have reacted just like BJACOBY explains. ??
> > > > > most "skeptics" simply ?withdraw into accusations of lies and hoaxes
> > > > > as if a real scientist were ?too dumb to know the difference. And then
> > > > > as icing on the cake there are ?personal attacks on the sanity of the
> > > > > witnesses to insure that nobody ?has the balls to press the issue
> > > > > further.?
>
> > > > > Frankly speaking I was expecting much of the same coming here and was
> > > > > quite surprised that BJACOBY nailed it on the head. Some things are
> > > > > just beyond our current physics to explain.
>
> > > > > Quantum Theory can account for the random possibility but not for the
> > > > > repeated accuracy concerning this and I would have to presume other
> > > > > psychic?s cold readings. And by cold reading I mean he NEVER asks you
> > > > > a question. It isn?t the con of those who presume the role of psychic
> > > > > and proceed to fish for an answer by asking you question after
> > > > > question before the reading. He would just tell you what was coming up
> > > > > with almost 100% accuracy.
>
> > > > > This in not to suggest that science will never come up with an answer.
> > > > > It just hasn?t caught up to what the Mystics knew and what this
> > > > > psychic explained to me in a private consultation. That being, there
> > > > > is a thin veil that separates this 3D reality from the astral
> > > > > dimension. This thin veil is constantly penetrated and the astral
> > > > > bleeds through so to speak, hence all the reported paranormal events.
>
> > > > > In reference to this psychic and his methodology, he explained that he
> > > > > is able, in trance, to travel out of body to the Akashic Record (a
> > > > > record of time past, present and PROBABLE FUTURES) view them and
> > > > > correlate what is coming up next for you based on your previous causes
> > > > > and effects. He also prefaced this by saying that EVERYTHING is
> > > > > recorded.
> > > > > All your thoughts, words and deeds. I would assume there is some
> > > > > scientific correlation to this.
>
> > > > > Now, who am I to argue with someone who made such an indelible
> > > > > impression by making actuate predicts that extended 40 years into my
> > > > > future. They certainly can be debated and doubted by naysayers but
> > > > > not dismissed as Graham Cooper suggests and explained away with ?Macro
> > > > > Quantum Entanglement is the mechanism for all paranormal,
> > > > > obviously.?
>
> > > > > Is protecting the current scientific paradigm so important to negate
> > > > > the obvious?
>
> > > > > That being, 3D is NOT all that there is?
>
> > > > > RT
>
> > > > BJACOBY is a *motivated* skeptic,
>
> > > > while Vtcapo is a methodologist 'believer'.
>
> > > > A number line analogy.
>
> > > > <--SKEPTICS----BJ-----|----VT---BlindFaith--->
>
> > > > So your direction is the same, from a different approach.
>
> > > > Now to answer BJ's question and stance on REPLICATION..
>
> > > > the answer is: No Skeptic or Astrologer alike will duplicate a
> > > > successful test!
>
> > > > It took me 2 years to get...
>
> > read more »
> >You have very spurious evidence of your own credentials
> >validating numerous FACTS about the cause of the wheel
> >falling off so it ties in the the psychic being right!
> >At any rate, it's not verifiable, or reproducible, or
> >easily observed.
> >A Zenner Test, you pick one of
> >CIRCLE
> >SQUARE
> >STAR
> >WAVY LINES
>
> OK picked one yet? C O N C E N T R A T E...
> Herc
>
> Graham, which synonym would you substitute for the word spurious;
> false, bogus, fake, forged or counterfeit? Calling me a liar would
> have been easier but you were being kind.
>
> I know this will take a leap of faith on your behalf but assuming you
> trust my sincerity, we can both agree that it is not verifiable by any
> standard of science or that the exact event is not reproducible but it
> sure as hell was easily observed.
>
> I think you blinked?
>
> RT
> PS I made my pick. Better than that, how about telling me just like
> the psychic, what will be coming up next for me? Now make sure this is
> something personal not generic and cannot pertain to anyone but me. Do
> this and I will have to rethink my position. Trust that I will give
> you an honest reply.
> PPS No one challenging my Bible Code accusations? Thought so??

I forgot to ask, in the Zenner test you suggest, the probability of
you getting it right is 25%. A 25% success rate would be good for
that test. Using your math skills, what was the probability of the
psychic getting those two incidents 100% correct? Sharpen your pencil
and get back to me.....