Robert Lea on ghosts and the laws of physics

Sorry - I was being a bit mischievous, because I had looked up the answer to that question.

But - assuming that gravity is indeed mediated by gravitons as you say - doesn't the answer make an enormous hole in Brian Cox's argument? If the LHC hasn't been able to detect the particles that mediate gravity, how can the absence of evidence from the LHC be used to rule out an unknown interaction between consciousness and matter?

It can't be ruled out. But it makes it harder to rule in that there is some particle that composes a ghost.

I don't subscribe to the belief consciousness exists separately from the brain. This should not be confused with the question of post mortem consciousness.

It can't be ruled out. But it makes it harder to rule in.

But that is Cox's argument, as quoted in that article - that it's "almost inconceivable" that an unknown mechanism of interaction would have escaped detection by the Large Hadron Collider.

But that is Cox's argument, as quoted in that article - that it's "almost inconceivable" that an unknown mechanism of interaction would have escaped detection by the Large Hadron Collider.

He's says that because The Standard Model of physics does a really good job of explaining the four fundamental forces and classifying predicting particles. Here's the rub. Ghosts are historically commonplace in every culture and not some rare phenomenon. That should make them conspicuous and easily detectable. From a physics point of view there are so many how and why questions. From a spiritual perspective ghosts exist done deal.

He's says that because The Standard Model of physics does a really good job of explaining the four fundamental forces and classifying predicting particles. 

But you just said an unknown interaction between consciousness and matter can't be ruled out on that basis. So you do think Cox's argument is wrong?

But you just said an unknown interaction between consciousness and matter can't be ruled out on that basis. So you do think Cox's argument is wrong?

I edited post 31.

But that is Cox's argument, as quoted in that article - that it's "almost inconceivable" that an unknown mechanism of interaction would have escaped detection by the Large Hadron Collider.

It's okay for things like gravitons, strings, extra dimensions, super symmetric particles (sparticles), just to name a few, remain out of reach of the LHC.  In fact, it's even okay to use the math to conveniently push them beyond the reach of the LHC in order to keep popular theories alive when non-detections do happen. 

But unpopular things like consciousness, ghosts, etc HAVE to be detected NOW, or it's woo-woo.

Perfectly logical, Cox's argument is .... :/

(We'll leave out the fact that it's pretty naive for Cox to assume in the first place that the "everything-is-made-of-particles" idea will hold forever)

It's okay for things like gravitons, strings, extra dimensions, super symmetric particles (sparticles), just to name a few, remain out of reach of the LHC.  In fact, it's even okay to use the math to conveniently push them beyond the reach of the LHC in order to keep popular theories alive when non-detections do happen. 

But unpopular things like consciousness, ghosts, etc HAVE to be detected NOW, or it's woo-woo.

Perfectly logical, Cox's argument is .... :/

(We'll leave out the fact that it's pretty naive for Cox to assume in the first place that the "everything-is-made-of-particles" idea will hold forever)

Suggestions then.

Assuming you haven't made that up, Steve (as proponent bait)  what you've told us there is very common. What do you think about it, you haven't told us ?

The second bit about 'why is it naïve' to ask how a "ghost" can skirt the laws of Physics (Newtons' or spooky quantum action  or both ? ? ).

It isn't naïve [Steve] if you've never had access to any possible "answers."  But you have and yet you keep returning to the simplistic
....tell us what a ghost is made out of or shut the fuck up kind of thing (basically)

What is a dog made of? A fishing pole? A physically materializing spirit?

You create your reality by stringing together static 'frames' from parallel realities billions of times/sec (Planck time). A ghost is no different, it is consciousness existing at a different vibratory level.

What is a dog made of? A fishing pole? A physically materializing spirit?

You create your reality by stringing together static 'frames' from parallel realities billions of times/sec (Planck time). A ghost is no different, it is consciousness existing at a different vibratory level.

What is a dog made of ?

Atoms. But it's (the dog's) consciousness is not and we don't know what consciousness is or how it comes about, so we can't even approach it satisfactorily. Your last statement might have some truth in it but it can only ever be speculation until we invent a machine that can somehow "see" consciousness (see it leaving the body) .... and even then we probably won't know what it is.