where is your answer to my question? we affect experiments, any quantum physician will agree with that,
Presumably the same
quantum physicians who doctor the data of Quantum Physicists in ways severely out of context with the nature of the actual experiments? If you cannot properly label the researchers doing Quantum Mechanics research are we not also to suspect that your interpretation of their data is similarly flawed?
you believe PK is bullshit, how is that possible???
Um, lack of empirical, independently reproducible, peer-reviewed evidence? Point me to a published, peer-reviewed Journal article, if you can.
reading this report, immediately the authors give the conclusion of their experiments after 12 years that the data retreived are BEYOND chance
And then in the summation they say
SLIGHTLY beyond chance -- 1 part in 10,000, if I correctly recall.
Suppose you possess a revolver with 10,000 chambers -- 9,999 chambers occupied by bullets and 1 chamber empty. And suppose you were to spin the chambered cylinder to randomize the experimental output and then place the revolver to your temple for the purpose of pulling the trigger.
How certain are you of the ultimate results of the impending experiment -- that you have psychokinetically positioned the empty chamber precisely where you need it to be?
Would these people after so many years be PROUD of themselves to conclude to have achieved nothing???
Proud to have advanced Science? Yes. One would hope that's precisely how they would feel. Falsification is a most important part of science. Pride in successfully falsifying something is to be encouraged. But I think that you actually mean to imply that scientists should be like just like everyone else seems to be -- seek out only that evidence that can be construed to support their own
a priori conclusions rather than seek to discover serendipitously actually meaningful
a posteriori conclusions, and to willingly do so at the expense of their own pet notions.
It was all but random stuff, pure chance, sorry for your time.
As I just said, finding out what is not real is more important human pursuit than finding out what appears to be real. In reality (whoa, a pun), they are precisely the very same thing: elimate possibilities and whatever is left is likely to be actually true. Science is more about Falsification and not very much about confirmation.
who will say that Dunne et. al have not at all concluded that interaction with consciousness, ie PK has been prooved.
I do, for one. The data tells me - 1:10,000 variation from
chance probabilities.
THEY SAY IT. GO AND READ SOME INTERVIEWS.
I'm much more likely to consider what they say as being elemental and fundimental after their reviewing peers tell me they provisionally agree with the conclusions drawn from the experimental data.
I don't hear, nor see, any of their peers being interviewed, let alone offering up the same conclusions as the original researchers. Why do you suppose that might be?
also explain why experiments in QF proof micro-PK.
I cannot as I do not know what QF is. May I presume that you mean Fhysics?
Just think about who's being "rational". The paradigma of Mechanics is DEATH.