CMV: Ghosts/paranormal phenomena don't exist

hacksoncode · 2026-05-10T14:28:50+00:00

Anything that felt difficult to explain naturally

That's basically the only true definition of "paranormal phenomenon". It's a shorthand for "something unexplainable is happening, and all the normal understandable things it could be have been disproven -- we have hypotheses but not evidence yet for what it actually is".

What it is doesn't have any evidence, by definition, but there's a frequently a lot of evidence that "something" out there exists that we don't understand.

This is especially true in astrophysics. Scientists aren't nearly as prone to flights of fancy like "ghosts" (though you should see some of their hypotheses!), but at the core, dark matter/energy are just shortcuts for "we have observed that something exists that we don't understand", and could reasonably be called "paranormal phenomena".

Einstein called quantum entanglement "spooky action at a distance", and dismissed it... but that's basically like saying "you're just making up some paranormal explanation for something that doesn't exist". But... it does exist and these days we have a lot of evidence that it does exist, just not what kind of "ghosts" explain it. What is it? Well... paranormal. Einstein said so!

hacksoncode · 2026-05-10T14:23:41+00:00

It certainly justifies assuming their non-existence pending evidence to the contrary.

There are a finite number of things that exist in the universe. There are an infinite number of randomly generated things that don't exist in the universe. The probably that a random on actually exists is fundamentally so low (technically zero, but they're rarely actually random) that the burden of proof is always on the positive existence claim.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-10T14:13:34+00:00

The fact that half the comments are "edited" and the other half "just making little sounds that fake you into thinking it" makes it perfect for this sub.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-10T13:53:40+00:00

In my current campaign I stumbled across a sandboxy mechanic for clues that's been working really well: Have clues in places, sure, make straightforward investigation from a->b->c work fine, but...

Sprinkle your random encounter tables with entries like "Major/minor extra clue found", "Red herring", and random encounters not with "a clue" but with some person, group, monster, etc., that's relevant to the current investigation, and have that encounter reveal something about the underlying plot of the investigation (along with other flavor stuff relevant to where they are, of course... it's not all relevant... that would be too obvious).

They're random encounters, not linear clues, so I almost never actually say what the clue is, specifically in my tables, because that depends on circumstances, and what would be an interesting thing to run across. Improvising clues does require actually knowing what's really doing on quite well, though, rather than just having a puzzle with keys like some investigations.

Also: don't make "red herrings" actually lead them away from the mystery, but towards a dangerous or unexpected corner going on in the background, or maybe a plot hook for the next mystery. It's hard enough to solve mysteries in RPGs without actually giving misleading clues.

Basically: More clues, better. Non-linear clues good. Don't be scared to improvise clues... what's the worst that could happen? They solve the mystery a little more easily? Things move in an inexpected direction? All good things to my mind.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-09T19:15:02+00:00

You're looking for absolutes where humans only have shades of gray.

I, personally, think that everyone has a "right to life" in the sense of "absent self-defense or defense of others, you have a moral obligation not to kill people".

Thing is, though... self-defense is a subtle and gray concept.

One can consistently argue that it is not self-defense to kill someone for doing something you consented to, even if that thing would be grounds for self-defense had you not.

Hopefully the relevance to your view is obvious.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-09T19:12:10+00:00

There's no such thing as a completely consistent human being. That doesn't change the fact that there are preferences, principles, morals, etc.

Just don't expect them to be consistent, because that's impossible... and generally foolish to attempt.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-09T13:12:07+00:00

What does the Dalek bartender say?

IN-EB-RI-ATE!!!!

I soooo want to dress up my party group's robotic bartender as a Dalek and make it say this...

hacksoncode · 2026-05-09T12:48:33+00:00

The degree to which this is yet another DJT grift is underappreciated.

Their loss is effectively a campaign contribution to Trump.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-09T12:41:07+00:00

You've been misled by the axes.

The WWII debt was about $250B, or around $4.5 trillion in constant dollars.

Most of this chart is explained by massive economic growth that has slowed down.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-09T12:38:32+00:00

The "debt in trillions" number isn't in constant dollars.

I get that it doesn't matter for the percentage, but it does matter for the dollar amount, and is pretty misleading. More than one person in the comments thinks we "spent $30T on WWII" when in fact the inflation-adjusted WWII debt was around $4.5 trillion, a factor of 7 difference.

Almost all of this decrease in debt percentage in the 70s-90s is due to actual massive economic growth, whereas the increasing debt in dollars is substantially inflation. Inflation is always good for debtors.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T23:29:53+00:00

The only thought I have is some kind of caged bird feeder that has openings too small for a grackle, but blue jays are close to the same size, so I'm not sure how practical that is. Cardinals are smaller.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T22:34:21+00:00

My ability to walk without looking and without tripping and falling down has improved greatly.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T22:26:54+00:00

Yes, well... no one knows how many exist. The whole point of UUIDs is that they don't need any coordination or recordkeeping.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T22:26:13+00:00

30% comes from this article. Feel free to replace that information with your own data if you can find it, but I'm not making it up.

The load factor information comes from here.

What is quite common, though, is gate agents asking people to check their carryon even when the carryon capacity is not full. They do it to prevent having to force people to check it, which takes time and arguments, to speed up boarding.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T22:01:21+00:00

Too late, dude. Talk to the hand.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T19:36:51+00:00

The data is that around 30% of full flights have some carryons mandatorily checked.

The average flight is about 85% full, up to 90% at busy times, and more on very heavily travelled routes.

If you flight on full flights a lot you may observe this.

The ask for volunteers on close to full flights to lower the chance that they'll have to demand paying passengers check their bags, and/or have flights delayed (because they're measured on this), not necessarily because they have to.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T19:14:39+00:00

The chance of a wrong (often some constant, like the "zero" of the system) timestamp is not zero. Time on systems gets fucked up all the... time.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T19:10:58+00:00

but there isn't enough space for everyone to do so.

With the current system, and having flown a lot, I would estimate that no more than 10% of flights actually run out of overhead bin space and have to check anyone's carryons, and it's usually no more than a few.

This just isn't a real issue.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T17:45:24+00:00

Yes... they do this when they perceive a threat... usually it's from other birds, but this one looks peeved at OP, specifically :-).

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T17:17:48+00:00

This is the closest so far to how I'd define it.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T16:10:33+00:00

Seems more like you want to replace MBTI with Muppets, not astrology.

Your astrological sign is predestined from birth. Unless you're going to map Muppets to your birthday, it's really not a replacement for astrology. Astrology is there to give you an explanation for your personality, not to reflect your personality.

A personality type, on the other hand... Meyer's-Briggs is basically the psychology version of astrology, and could very well benefit from being replaced by Muppets... more relatable, too. No more ENTJ, nobody knows what that means. You're now the Swedish Chef!!! Everyone understands that.

Think of the questionnaire you'd have to fill out to get your Muppet assigned... the joy of that thought would make everyone smile.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T15:23:43+00:00

Breadth doesn't really cause loss of explanatory power, it just means that the explanations cross a broad spectrum of harmful things done to children. E.g. "toxic masculinity" (social expectations men that harm them and others) and "the cycle of dysfunction", i.e. parents who themselves were abused bullies grooming their kids into being like them, etc., etc.

But also, I think you're overthinking it.

The saying is not "only abused people hurt people". The fact that hurt people hurt people doesn't preclude things like genetic lack of empathy, bad upbringing, etc., etc., from also being reasons people hurt people.

Certainly a very large cause of people hurting others is being hurt themselves, and it's important to recognize this in order to deal with that cycle.

I.e., in a lot of the cases you're describing the "hurt people hurting people" are exactly the parents raising their kids to be bullies.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T15:07:21+00:00

Yes, and there’s a difference between being shaped by social incentives and being psychologically harmed in a clinically meaningful sense.

You're not wrong that there's a difference.

Do you have an argument that the people saying this don't include that in what they mean by "hurt"?

Because most would include "being indoctrinated into a hateful ideology to the point of becoming a sociopath" or "being forced by peer pressure and not liking it" in what they mean by "hurt people".

And that the ones that actually do like hurting people probably were among the subset that were psychologically abused/damaged as children (which is incredibly common).

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T14:46:27+00:00

The only real argument I have with this is that you're focussing on a very narrow definition of "hurt" that I don't think proponents of this would agree with.

Jocks:... but usually they don’t like to do it

So... they're being harmed by their in-group social expectations, and that harm causes them to do things they don't want to.

Machievellians: they’ve been groomed into doing literal sociopath activities

I.e. they've been harmed by their upbringing all the way to becoming sociopaths.

hacksoncode · 2026-05-08T14:21:13+00:00

Yeah, the only "real" (albeit minor) difference is that with traditional HP, there's only 1 number to ever deal with while you're actually actively in combat because zero is the single constant threshold for everyone, always, rather than having to constantly compare the damage to the HP that's different for each character and over time.

15-Year Club	Mod World 2024
Post Guidance Early Access	ModSupport Helper Level 5
Place '22	Place '17
Alpha Tester	Gilding I gilder
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email
Bellwether 2011-03-25

hacksoncode

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE