A friend and I are arguing over ghosts.

I think it’s akin to astrology, homeopathy and palm reading. He says there’s “convincing “ evidence for its existence. He also took up company time to make a meme to illustrate our relative positions. (See image)

(To be fair, I’m also on the clock right now)

What do you think?

  • EvilBit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    4 days ago

    Science has never in the history of science reliably shown a single interaction between physical entities and any sort of non-physical force. The only way ghosts could be real is if you redefined the term “ghost” to the point of breaking, like saying that the memory of a person is a ghost.

    Plus, it fails the smell test in a million ways. What makes a ghost exist? Why aren’t we positively lousy with ghosts? Are there rules? What would they be and what mechanism is there to both quantify and effect them? Why do ghosts follow the rotation and revolution of the earth but otherwise aren’t physically bound? How can one have any sort of cognition? If a ghost does, how can it perceive anything without intercepting photons or other physical phenomena? If there are ghosts and somehow they have cognition and perception, are we obligated to leave Netflix on when we leave for work?

    • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      4 days ago

      Technically, the moment science would show an interaction between physical entities and something else, that something else would immediately be classified as a physical entity. In a very real sense, the discovery of radioactivity involved physical entities being found to interact with an as-yet unknown, invisible, intangible force.

      If ghosts existed, the same would happen as with radioactivity. They would be researched, hypotheses on their nature would be tested, and a scientific theory would arise, and then they would be a part of the “physical world” too. And then all the mystics would be bored with ghosts because they are just incorporeal noospheric echoes of old people, as boring as neurology or biochemistry or stellar fusion.

      • AmidFuror@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        4 days ago

        If a bunch of people were going around saying I got this weird burn on my skin after holding this rock for a while, scientists would have discovered radioactivity a lot sooner.

        There are a bunch of people going around claiming to have interacted with ghosts, and we’ve got bupkis.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          You keep saying “physical force”…

          That’s not a real term in physics.

          The only possible explanation, is you mean any force that is already explained by physics, is that what you mean?

          Because that would be the same as insisting we know everything, which no one who knows anything about physics would ever try to claim.

          So…

          What exactly do you mean when you keep saying “physical forces”?

          • AmidFuror@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            One of the definitions of “physical” in the American Heritage Dictionary is:

            Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

          • EvilBit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I mean there’s no way to go from immeasurable to measurable except in scale, and anywhere north of quantum scale, physics has been reliably predictable and measurable. Ghosts’ purported impact is on a scale well above that which is unexplained.

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Why do you say ghosts’ purported impact is on a scale above that which is unexplained?

              Quantum fields impact the universe on a scale above their own. It’s entirely possible that the explanation for ghosts is on the quantum scale or smaller, and the observable effects are just that: effects of a much subtler phenomenon.

              • EvilBit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Yes, quantum scale has macro effect, but the macro scale is predictable and rigidly causal, negating any meaningful quantum scale interactional impact. A macro causation effected via quantum interactions is a de facto macro interaction.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 days ago

              None of what you’ve said is n this thread makes any logical sense…

              Which would be fine cuz it’s about ghosts, but you keep acting like physics backs up your wild statements and made up vocabulary…

            • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              4 days ago

              The earth’s magnetic field is fluid and changing, magnetism is affected by electrical current or heat.

              • EvilBit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                4 days ago

                I don’t mean that any given magnetic field is unchanging, I mean that the principles are stable and well-understood. We never see magnetic fields just randomly change with no reason or else navigation and all kinds of other technologies would be fucked forever.

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Saying “science has never reliably shown something” is not the same as “science has definitively proven something false.” Claiming otherwise is anti-scientific and logically fallacious.

      According to the scientific worldview, we don’t know what we don’t know until we know it. Otherwise, we would never discover anything new.

      I’m not saying ghosts are real. I’m just encouraging a healthy skepticism, whether for or against. So I’ll play devil’s advocate and respond in turn to each of your “million ways” it fails the smell test.

      What makes a ghost exist?

      We don’t know, but there’s a lot we don’t know. What makes gravity exist? What made matter and energy exist? What causes the big bang? What is the origin and nature of dark matter?

      There’s a lot we don’t understand about the universe, so the answer could be as simple as a cloud of electrons or even photons, or as complex as a field of quantum fluctuations, dark matter, a previously undiscovered type of boson, a state of matter beyond plasma where the particles vibrate so rapidly that they’re mostly unobservable, a range of electromagnetic frequencies with wavelengths so fine that our instruments can’t detect them, or even an entity in a higher dimension that ephemerally crosses the plane of our familiar third dimension.

      Why aren’t we positively lousy with ghosts?

      The answer depends on the above, but it could be that we are and just can’t observe them under ordinary circumstances. Or perhaps there’s a different place where they go, or possibly a different dimension, and we only notice the ones who get stuck here somehow. Or perhaps there’s some sort of ethereal ecosystem which keeps the ghost population in check like birds do for insects.

      Are there rules?

      Probably, but there are plenty of rules in the universe we don’t understand. What rule is responsible for gravity? Why does dark matter behave the way it does? Why do quantum fluctuations behave the way they do? Why does spacetime behave the way it does? And why do quantum mechanics and general relativity seem to describe contradictory sets of rules for the same universe, albeit at different scales relative to the one at which newtonian physics are accurate?

      Until we figure out unified field theory, dark matter, and that higher dimension thing, we can’t pretend we’ve described every rule in the universe.

      What would they be and what mechanism is there to both quantify and effect them?

      This has already been addressed under “what makes them exist?”

      Why do ghosts follow the rotation and revolution of the earth but otherwise aren’t physically bound?

      It could be that their physically-boundedness is just subtler than most things we’ve observed. They could maintain their relative position gravitationally or by friction, or possibly through electromagnetism, quantum entanglement, exertion of conscious effort, or simply some higher-dimensionality which allows them to be present anywhere they want at a given moment.

      How can one have any sort of cognition?

      How can any living human have any sort of cognition? There’s a lot we don’t understand there either. It could be that consciousness is a property of electromagnetic fields, in which case it would explain it if the ghosts were made of electron clouds. Or perhaps consciousness is a property of quantum fields, or something else we don’t understand such as a higher-dimensional entity with more complex states of matter and energy, that simply can only perceive and interact with the world in three dimensions because those are the limitations of the physical organism it has developed to inhabit and maintain itself.

      So the answer to ghost cognition depends on the answer to human consciousness, which is still one of the major mysteries of the universe.

      Alternatively, perhaps ghosts aren’t conscious at all and only appear to be, but they’re really more like a complex sort of jellyfish, mindlessly following patterns that were set by the mind of the conscious entity prior to the death of the physical organism.

      If a ghost does, how can it perceive anything without intercepting photons or other physical phenomena?

      Perhaps it directly perceives electromagnetic waves that enter its field of existence, or perhaps there’s some higher-dimensional perspective that allows them to observe the 3-dimensional world from the outside.

      We don’t intercept photons when we dream, yet our brains construct images. So physical sensation is not a necessary precondition to mental perception.

      If there are ghosts and somehow they have cognition and perception, are we obligated to leave Netflix on when we leave for work?

      No, that’s when they’re busy conspiring with your cats. And I’m sure they would have plenty of entertainment observing the antics of the living without requiring mortal means of diversion.

    • Iunnrais@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think you could rationally explore ghosts in the “radically redefining” them arena. Ghosts could rationally exist as an artifact of your mind, and saying that is not the same thing as saying they don’t exist. Hallucinations exist. They aren’t real, but they exist. Ghosts could rationally exist in the exactly same way, as processes in our own heads. It’s when you start saying they interact with the world in a way outside people’s heads that you can’t really reconcile.

      • adb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Except that’s not what we mean when we talk about ghosts. Ghosts are meant to be actual beings with an actual existence, if very different from living beings.

        The concept of ghosts exist (as does for all things for which we have words). Some people do believe ghosts exists, and some might have seen ghosts (just like someone actually sees a hallucination). All this doesn’t mean ghosts exist, or else the actual concept of non-existence doesn’t exist - which makes the fallacy evident: if we are to consider that all concepts actually exist (further than just an idea), non-existence has to exist.