Materialism is Debunked

[u/Lugh_Intueri]

Lawrence Anthony, a conservationist, had a close freindship with a herd of elephant at his game reserve in Africa. He had rescued and rehabilitated them and over time, they developed a trust.

Lawrence Anthony died in 2012. Two days after the elephant herd led by the matriarch traveled 12 miles to his home. They stayed there for two days, mourning as they do their dead.

The elephants had no material way of knowing about Lawrence's passing. There were no phone call, no messages, and no visible signs for them.

After this, the elephants returned again exactly one year later.

https://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/saying-goodbye-elephants-hold-apparent-vigil-to-mourn-their-human-friend.ht

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/mind-blowing-power-of-love-20100925-15rl7.html

[u/Lugh_Intueri]

1. Coincidence. They just wandered over and it happened to be close to the day of his death.

Not this. They return annually

1. The people recounting the story misremembered or tolda lie. We often muddle up events close to a death and ascribe meaningful things to the death when there was no meaning.

The event is photographed

1. The elephants smelled his death. They can detect water 12 miles away.

Doesn't explain returning annually

1. Elephants are very intelligent and observant, thy may have noticed changes in his behaviour due to his health declining.

Doesn't explain returning annually

1. Elephants are sensitive to their environment and may have picked up on human behaviour at the reserve - mourning ritual or altered routines.

Doesn't explain returning annually

1. Crying or changes in vocal tones, changes in gatherings picked up by vibrations in the ground could be linked to 5.

Doesn't explain returning annually

1. Elephants transmit information socially between groups; other elephants could have passed on the message that he had died.

Doesn't explain returning annually

1. If there was a routine that Anthony had with the elephants that nobody else knew about, they might have been keeping the routine.

Doesn't explain returning annually

I9. If the elephants feeding schedule was chanhged, again, perhaps others didn't know about this, but the elephants would pick up on a change in feeding schedule.

Doesn't explain returning annually

1. (Just to round it up to 10) people perceive there to be a connection because we think we're the centre of the universe. But we're not.

A quote by Lawrence Krauss

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is (s)imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.

[u/I_Am_Not_A_Number_2 → u/Lugh_Intueri]

Where does it say they returned annually?

If they did return annually this isn't a demonstration of the supernatural either. Its a ritual. Many animals have grieving rituals. Elephants visit the bones of their dead relatives. What do you think this demonstrates?

A quote by Lawrence Krauss

So what? An appeal to authority gets you nowhere. Do you even know what it is you're quoting in context?

Shall we go to the words of the man himself... You can find his article here but I'll quote for your ease.

"The notion that anyone in the 21*^st* century could take seriously the notion that the sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is the center of the universe, is almost unbelievable... the question I had to face after discovering this ***abuse of my words* was what to do about it. The best thing we can all do when faced by nonsense like that, or equivalent silliness promoted by biblical fundamentalists who claim that science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible, is to ignore it in public forums, and not shine any light on the authors of this trash."

So there you have it. Perhaps you will stop spreading trash now? He also suggests this, which I'll leave you with. It seems fitting.

"It is, after all, impossible in the modern world to shield everyone from nonsense and stupidity. What we can do is provide the tools, through our educational system, for people to be able to tell sense from nonsense. These tools include the scientific method, skeptical questioning, empirical evidence, verifying sources, etc."

[u/Lugh_Intueri → u/I_Am_Not_A_Number_2]

So what? An appeal to authority gets you nowhere. Do you even know what it is you're quoting in context?

Shall we go to the words of the man himself... You can find his article here but I'll quote for your ease.

"The notion that anyone in the 21*^st* century could take seriously the notion that the sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is the center of the universe, is almost unbelievable... the question I had to face after discovering this ***abuse of my words* was what to do about it. The best thing we can all do when faced by nonsense like that, or equivalent silliness promoted by biblical fundamentalists who claim that science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible, is to ignore it in public forums, and not shine any light on the authors of this trash."

So there you have it. Perhaps you will stop spreading trash now? He also suggests this, which I'll leave you with. It seems fitting.

"It is, after all, impossible in the modern world to shield everyone from nonsense and stupidity. What we can do is provide the tools, through our educational system, for people to be able to tell sense from nonsense. These tools include the scientific method, skeptical questioning, empirical evidence, verifying sources, etc."

I no exactly what I'm quoting and the context. And it is not an appeal to authority. We know that when you look at the entire observable universe the CMB map corresponds exactly to Earth and it's ecliptic around the sun. The plane of our solar system.

That's the fun of Lawrence krause's comment. He put himself out there. He tied his hands. He took a firm position that either the numbers we were getting back were wrong, our models were wrong, or the universe is telling us Earth is actually at the center. And the time since we've sent an entire another mission to space with the playing satellite and confirmed these numbers and the existence of this relationship between the CMB map and Earth and it's ecliptic.

Two different people with two different equipments and two different approaches together in the information have gotten the exact same results after spending billions of dollars to confirm this. So we are now down to two options because Mr Krause did indeed tie his hands which I very much appreciate.

He thought it would be very exciting to find out our models were wrong. This is quite a long time ago now. And he is backed off that idea. But also trying to back off the idea that Earth is at the center of the universe. But offering no new explanation. Just wishing he had never said it at all. Because he's come to enjoy our models the way they are and not want to accept her that the center. That's just too bad. Because he gave himself three options. And now he doesn't want to choose any of them as His most likely answer. If you would at least present some new alternative option that he had missed that would be a little more acceptable. But he certainly is unable to do that either.

That's the fun when somebody ties their hands like that. He understood the ramification of the data but was pretty sure science would offer an out in the future. But it didn't. And now he wants to back out of it. Too bad

[u/Nordenfeldt → u/Lugh_Intueri]

That's the fun of Lawrence krause's comment. He put himself out there. He tied his hands.

Quote his next paragraph. 

I dare you.

[u/ethornber → u/Nordenfeldt]

He won't, he never does, and yet he always comes back to it.

[u/Lugh_Intueri → u/ethornber]

There isn't another paragraph. Did you know that?

This is the last

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.

[u/Lugh_Intueri → u/Nordenfeldt]

There isn't another. This is the full last paragraph

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.

[u/Nordenfeldt → u/Lugh_Intueri]

No, they’re not telling that at all, nor is Lawrence Kraus telling us that, literally just asked the question in Wikipedia or type it into ChatGPT because lying about it here just makes you look foolish in public.

[u/Lugh_Intueri → u/Nordenfeldt]

You are clearly unqualified to have this conversation. I was responding to someone who told me to post the paragraph after from the quote I provided of Lawrence krauss. What you just responded to was the last paragraph written by Lawrence Krauss where the quote comes from. Those were Lawrence krause's exact words. And your responses that's not what Lawrence Krause is telling us. This is one of the most ridiculous and uneducated responses I have ever seen in this subreddit. Slow down. Take your time

[u/Nordenfeldt → u/Lugh_Intueri]

No, you are just a liar, deliberately misrepresenting a frontier of science to serve your mythological ends. Pretty much everyone is more qualified to have this conversation than you.

[u/Lugh_Intueri → u/Nordenfeldt]

You respond

nor is Lawrence Kraus telling us that

To a Lawrence Kraus quote. There is no getting out of it. That's what happened. There is no lying taking place on my end. That is exactly what happened.

Pretty much everyone is more qualified to have this conversation than you.

You are making giant errors and then not owning it and instead calling others liars. The behavior of a sloppy uneducated person who just needs to share their two cents on topics they know nothing about.

[u/Nordenfeldt → u/Lugh_Intueri]

There is a special kind of stupid when you take a specific 2/3 of a quote from a text you have never read, and try to not only impose upon the author something he never intended, but then try to claim he is ‘handcuffed’ by it even if his other comments clearly oppose your terrible interpretation.

All to defend your rather stupid theory about undefined magic elephants. How deeply embarrassing for you.

If you actually care to learn what Krauss genuinely meant, feel free to read the full article you parsed from. You haven’t, and you won’t: after all, genuine facts and evidence are anathema to a theist apologist.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

[u/Lugh_Intueri → u/Nordenfeldt]

This is too hilarious. I read that article numerous times and you never have. There is not one single point made that changes how he ends that article which is with the quote here. You're the one who hilariously asked me to provide the next paragraph. Which does not exist. You are so far out of your league here it's not even funny. But I challenge you to provide that next paragraph you referenced. Oh that's right you can't. Perhaps you could provide a quote from the article that provide some context that would change the meaning of those final paragraphs. But because I have read the article and you haven't I know that no such quote exists Within it.

You just keep saying things and none of it works out for you because you don't know what you're talking about and you're out of your league

[u/Nordenfeldt → u/Lugh_Intueri]

No, I’m just watching you backpedal and squirm here, even faced with the entire text which I quite assure you, you had never read.

Look, I’m more than happy to let what I have said and the actual text of Krauss’s comments stand on their own merit. Anyone reading all this will know you are laughably wrong, and bloviating to try and salve your fractured ego.

All because you got high and decided to post a laughably stupid brain fart about magic elephants.

So let’s let them decide for yourself, if anyone actually reads down this far. I have no interest in hearing you continue to whine and lie and squirm to avoid just admitting you are wrong.