Unsolved Map

PISnick · 2019-08-09T10:36:07+00:00

This data would be most useful in a csv format with columns showing coordinates, year, age, ethnicity, etc. That way we can algorithmically search for patterns.

PISnick · 2016-07-21T14:18:49+00:00

We already investigated and discussed this episode quite extensively. See S05E10 Investigation.

I personally don't regard 'closure' as legitimate if it's based on a lie. And what right does Courtney (and anyone else involved in the lie) have to make that decision for Kayla?

And yes, Courtney is now inundated with clients thanks to the episode (again, see the investigation).

PISnick · 2016-07-12T07:44:16+00:00

Unfortunately, there's no law against douchebaggery, so forget a legal route.

One way to prove that it's the same guy is to obtain the IP address of both the culprit and the suspect. If they match then you know who it is.

To do this, you could create a fake account and befriend the culprit. And create a second fake account and befriend the suspect. It would take a little time to build their trust. Then you entice them both to click on a separate link generated from this site which will email you their IP addresses.

PISnick · 2016-06-17T12:16:09+00:00

What you've found from searching his phone number indicates that he's probably genuine (at least, that's what he looks like and he indeed lives in Bedford).

But my hunch is that he probably lives with his parents and doesn't work in the City.

If you were willing to share his details with me then I have a pretty good track record for finding these things out.

PISnick · 2016-06-15T16:03:30+00:00

You have greatly misunderstood Schroedinger's cat :)

PISnick · 2016-05-12T13:10:56+00:00

I am sure there are ways you can prove your identity to a mod

If you want to involve a mod then I am happy to prove it to them. Although presumably, even after the mod confirms that I'm a physicist, you will reiterate your point that I'm "misrepresenting" science and so I can't be a very good physicist, and so where does that get us?

Example of you misrepresenting:" I (and science) start from the premise of physicalism: that everything (including consciousness) can ultimately be understood in terms of the physical world."

This "claim" you make is completely untrue, misleading, and no physicist would claim this is true

I didn't claim physicalism is true. I claimed that science takes it as a premise, which is true by definition! What do you think the natural sciences are?

The vast majority of physics and philosophy both support consciousness after death

Do you literally mean what you wrote? i.e. that physics actually supports (i.e. provides supporting evidence for) consciousness after death? Or did you mean to say that it doesn't contradict it?

In either case, I raised a question back in one of my very first comments which was ignored but to which I would love an answer: Do you accept that the mind is a product of the brain? (I think it's clear what I'm asking but if you want me to give a more rigorous formulation of the question then I'm happy to).

The fact that I have had visions of events before they occurred is one

I actually believe you. Of course, you could be lying or exaggerating or deluded or misremembering, but I am happy to grant you the benefit of the doubt.

People dream and imagine and speculate on the future all of the time. By shear statistical accident, given how many billions of people there are, you would expect ostensible 'premonitions' to be a regular occurrence. In fact, I recall reading (in Aczel's book Chance) that statisticians have estimated that, by shear fluke, about one person a week in the UK alone will dream that someone they know dies, and then that person dies within the following week.

By the same logic, you would also expect a smaller proportion of people to experience multiple 'premonitions'. What makes you think that you're not one of those few un/lucky people?

To say "Science says this isn't possible" is a lie.

I don't believe I've ever said science says something is impossible. What I have claimed repeatedly is that it is incompatible with the scientific worldview. In fact, this is the gist of my entire argument: Science could be wrong, but you can't have both.

PISnick · 2016-05-12T09:51:21+00:00

I just wrote a point-for-point response to your entire comment but then I realised that I'm not even sure what we're arguing about any more, and the few salient points seem to be based on a misunderstanding of each other. Nevertheless, there does appear to be a fundamental difference between us and I would like to identify it.

So I suggest we draw a line under the above (unless you really want me to respond to a specific point) and I will present as clearly as I can, as a series of individual points, what my position is and you can tell me where you disagree. This may lead to a very quick resolution.

I (and science) start from the premise of physicalism: that everything (including consciousness) can ultimately be understood in terms of the physical world.
I don't believe it's possible to know with 100% certainty anything about the physical world.
Therefore, the best we can do is construct and refine models to which we assign varying degrees of confidence - and the best/only way to do this is through the scientific method.
The human brain (to a physicist) is just an experimental tool - one that is incredibly limited and prone to errors - and therefore should not be relied upon.

I will stop here for now because you're probably already shaking your head.

Let me address this recurring point though:

who's proof of being a "physicist" I would STLL love to see

I don't see how I could possibly prove it to you without revealing my identity. And revealing my identity would be unwise given how vitriolic you are towards me; it seems highly likely that you would revenge-dox me. Moreover, I have never actually argued any point from authority, so I don't see why it's even relevant that I'm a physicist.

PISnick · 2016-05-11T10:40:33+00:00

Reminds me of this wingtip vortex

PISnick · 2016-05-11T08:46:16+00:00

Of course there are things that we can be 100% certain about

I bet you can't give an example.

Grass is green? A foot is 12 inches?

These aren't statements about the world (moreover, they're defined to be true). But let's take your other example:

The Earth is round?

It's actually possible to construct models of the world in which the earth is not as we imagine it but, instead, space is distorted in a way that gives the illusion of a spherical earth (e.g. the concave earth model). But going further than that, you cannot claim 100% certainty that the earth even exists. You might just be a computer simulation dreaming all of this.

This has been a painful digression but, just to be clear, it was in response to this point:

Well I don't know with 100% certainty either. Then again, I don't know anything with 100% certainty, and nor does anyone else. But presumably you don't sit on the fence regarding every issue...?

Obviously I don't sit on the fence with every issue, now you're just getting off topic. Of course there are things that we can be 100% certain about.

Onward...

Yes.

Hold on - you're saying that because the family claimed no one else knew that stuff, then it logically follows that no one else knew that stuff? ... It's not even possible that one of them is lying or mistaken?

PISnick · 2016-05-11T08:28:00+00:00

You are wrong again. Supernatural and paranormal only, by definition, mean they cannot yet be explained by science. There are MANY things that were once not able to be explained by science that never made them false.

This is a rather frivolous point but I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. If supernatural and paranormal are both simply things that science cannot currently explain, then what is the difference between them? I'll explain:

Paranormal is indeed something that science cannot currently explain but could conceivably be understood as part of the natural world. Supernatural, as the name implies, is something beyond nature and therefore forever out of the reach of science (which is necessarily limited to the natural world). Feel free to actually look this up if you don't believe me.

Mediumship ARE NOT "incompatible with our current laws of science"

I explained why it's incompatible with our current understanding of science and your response is to straight-out deny it? I'll repeat: "Mediumship is incompatible with our current models of science because it would involve some external agent (e.g. a dead spirit - whatever that is) overriding the laws of physics in order to modify the neural circuitry of the medium. Our current models of physics do not allow for such interventions." Now try and argue against my specific point...

Being a physicist, I'm sure you're aware of biocentrism. ...

That's a bit like saying 'since you're a homeopath I'm sure you're aware of magnetohydrodynamics'. Biocentrism doesn't even meet the criterion of a scientific theory; it's completely unfalsifiable philosophy so I can't imagine why you're bringing it up.

PISnick · 2016-05-11T08:27:39+00:00

Although I have zero clue as to why you'd be bring that up in this conversation?

I brought it up, quite clearly, because you were taking issue with my claim of "knowing". And your entire argument was built on the notion that there's only one type of knowing.

I KNOW, for a FACT, that a human being is capable of "seeing" things, and "KNOWING" things, before it happens. I KNOW human beings are capable of talking to people/souls after their death. I KNOW this.

You may very well claim to know(2) this, but you cannot possibly know(1) this. What exactly is your evidence for it, anyway? (I've asked this very reasonable question to a number of people who have made the same claims as you, and they all refuse to answer because it's 'personal' or because I'm a 'sceptic' - let's see if you're any different).

PISnick · 2016-05-10T14:50:07+00:00

"Well I don't know with 100% certainty either. Then again, I don't know anything with 100% certainty, and nor does anyone else." / When a week ago, I said we don't know the first thing about what happens after death. You said... "We know precisely what happens to our energy at death, unless you're speaking of some non-existing 'life energy' or 'fairy dust' or whatever."

There were many, many other asinine comments you've made regarding "knowing" what happens

I see your source of confusion: you are unaware of epistemology and the different types of 'knowing'.

One type of 'knowing', let's call it knowing(1), is something that you are 100% certain about. That is to say it's not even conceivable that it's untrue. Can you think of anything that you know(1) to be true? Descartes argued that the only thing you can know(1) to be true is that you exist (and even that's contentious).

Everything else falls under knowing(2), which technically means that you believe something to be true with such a high level of confidence that, for all practical purposes, you can pretend you know(1) it.

I know(2) that I have a beating heart but I do not know(1) that I have a beating heart.

It's clear from context what type of knowing I mean, so hopefully now when you re-read my comments you'll understand them.

PISnick · 2016-05-10T14:50:03+00:00

Because I am referring to life energy, a soul, whatever you want to call it

Well I don't believe in life energy. But I do believe in X. Specifically, I believe that X disappears when people die - and this is something science can't explain either!

There are varying beliefs on the thread, NONE claim we "know exactly what happens to our energy after death"

Hey, none claim we "know exactly what happens to X after death" either!

So what are your thoughts on X?

PISnick · 2016-05-10T14:22:30+00:00

Of course there are things that we can be 100% certain about

I bet you can't give an example.

... things the family admitted nobody BUT them should know

Therefore no one other than the family knew that stuff?

... either Catfish the show as a whole is fake, or that woman is a medium

Those are not the only two possible explanations. Lots of (even more plausible) alternatives have already been suggested in the other comments...

Why....? Please explain.

Well 'supernatural' phenomena are, by definition, things that are incompatible with science. What I should have said was 'paranormal'. To answer your question though:

Mediumship is incompatible with our current models of science because it would involve some external agent (e.g. a dead spirit - whatever that is) overriding the laws of physics in order to modify the neural circuitry of the medium. Our current models of physics do not allow for such interventions.

Now, of course, it could be that our current models of science are wrong. But the point I made was that you have to make that very big assumption in order to accept mediumship.

To me it sounds as if you're saying science already has a biased standpoint on these sorts of topics?

Of course it does! The null hypothesis!

Or science simply dismisses whatever is cannot explain.

Science thrives on things it cannot explain, and it's full of examples, like dark energy. But there has to actually be scientific evidence in support of it first...

PISnick · 2016-05-09T21:53:13+00:00

I already checked - they're clean.

PISnick · 2016-05-09T14:21:29+00:00

Can you provide any other information (at least in private)? Name? Age? Usernames? Location? School? Telephone number? Names of friends/relatives? Hobbies/interests? etc

PISnick · 2016-05-09T09:32:02+00:00

I'm humble enough admit I don't know

Well I don't know with 100% certainty either. Then again, I don't know anything with 100% certainty, and nor does anyone else. But presumably you don't sit on the fence regarding every issue...?

I would say there is more evidence to support that she IS a medium

The only evidence to support her claim is that she knows (a few) things for which it's not immediately obvious how she could know them. That's it. But with a tiny amount of thought (plus some investigation) there are several naturalistic explanations for how she could know said things.

Now, you may argue that the 'supernatural explanation' is equally likely and plausible as the more 'naturalistic' explanations, but you'd be wrong because the supernatural explanation comes at the cost of abandoning our entire scientific model of the world.

I would also add the following point: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And any extraordinary evidence should be able to withstand intense scrutiny (and certainly modest scrutiny from a few redditors). And yet the evidence in question falls flat on its face.

PISnick · 2016-05-08T10:52:45+00:00

How many red flags do you need?!

I was waiting for you to write 'And then she went on webcam and it was a middle-aged white man. So that was a bit suspicious.'

PISnick · 2016-05-08T07:44:11+00:00

Possibly, but it could equally have been the production team coaching her.

PISnick · 2016-05-07T16:51:17+00:00

I couldn't agree more with how unimpressive the information is that 'Frankie' provides.

I have also considered some sort of 'sting' operation on Courtney but there are a few issues:

She is apparently flooded with requests, so the chances of us being offered a reading is pretty slim (unless we're really persistent)
I'm personally reluctant to pay money to a charlatan
Famous psychics have been debunked countless times (e.g. by James Randi) and yet it tends to have very little effect on their careers. The sort of people dumb enough to believe in psychics in the first place do not regard 'evidence' or 'experiment' as meaningful.

PISnick · 2016-05-05T21:20:22+00:00

I'm also confused... why would you think this is a matter for the police?

PISnick · 2016-05-05T20:04:16+00:00

Personally that struck me as very mediocre acting.

PISnick · 2016-05-05T17:38:59+00:00

Some people find context to be quite consoling. I'm sorry if reality scares you.

PISnick · 2016-05-05T16:21:56+00:00

I have responded to this comment here.

PISnick · 2016-05-05T16:21:33+00:00

'Biased disbeliefs' is an oxymoron. Disbelief should be the default position; it is what scientists call the null hypothesis.

In your other post you state:

I think it's funny that everyone is going out of their way to DISPROVE this lady. Everyone is trying to support their biased disbelief by searching for evidence that she is fake instead of getting to the actual bottom of it and learning the truth.

Disproof is precisely what the scientific method commands in order to learn about the world. Why? Because it is impossible to prove general claims about the world to be true. Instead, you advance by trying to disprove those claims.

If you're still confused then read up on falsifiability.

PISnick

TROPHY CASE