View single post by R Roffel
 Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 08:57 pm
PMQuoteReplyFull Topic
R Roffel


Joined: Tue Sep 15th, 2009
Posts: 27
Hi everyone

My, what a lot of discussion on my first post!

First, I thank everyone who is contributing, especially those who have either a scientific or mathematical background. They add a lot of input and have what it takes to analyse my ideas, no matter how far off base my ideas are.

On to the discussion.

While I agree that most psychological theories tend to look like belief systems, in the manner of religions, there are degrees of belief and also in how psychologists have researched their ideas.

Those psychologists who used large sample bases and devised double blind experiments were and are those whose theories are most credible in the scientific community. What many people generally see are surface glosses of the science behind psychological theories and pop psychology instead of the "real thing".

Quantum effects are practically always effective only at sub-atomic levels, with exponential degradation as scales of distance and mass increase. Yet, there are tantalising hints that microtubules found within neurons may be affected by "large-scale" quantum events, should those events create a "buttrefly effect" for want of a better term.

The idea that we are comprised of not only atoms, but of quantum events and spaces has fascinated me since I first learned about quantum physics years ago.

I really don't feel that if scientists have not investigated a subject in historical times that it invalidates it as a possible area of research. It wasn't until less than 100 years ago that the brain/mind complex became a scientific discipline through psychology, psychiatry and neurology with all of their "sub-ologies".

Adam made an interesting point about divination systems and how stock markets and lotteries could conceivably use one (if I am reading your post correctly).

My response is that they already do use "divination systems" of sorts through mathematical economics, which has been around for a long time. Its just that the economists don't call their predictive models "divination" for obvious reasons.

Has anyone done a test to see if tarot readings or tea-leaves are any more able to predict economic trends than the high-level calculus economists use?

Close Window