The workings of woo

[watchamadoodle]

There are times that I have witnessed the wonderful ways of woo. Of course there are some explanations like confirmation bias, coincidence, hallucinations, hoaxes, etc.

What would be the definition of woo if it existed?
How can woo exist and elude scientific investigation?
...

I don't understand physics, but sometimes I think about those questions. Does anybody have any ideas?

[Foxaèr]

[Alex K]

There are times that I have witnessed the wonderful ways of woo. Of course there are some explanations like confirmation bias, coincidence, hallucinations, hoaxes, etc.

What would be the definition of woo if it existed?
How can woo exist and elude scientific investigation?
...

I don't understand physics, but sometimes I think about those questions. Does anybody have any ideas?

Difficult... Usually I'd say woo is by definition something which does not really exist, but is merely an artefact of our partial ignorance,imperfect perception and lack of critical thinking.

The supernatural is a related problem: I'd say if there is something supernatural consistently going on, it is basically just a newly discovered part of nature, and thus not supernatural any more. If such a thing is however so complex that it seems to elude rational analysis from our side, it could have the same effect as woo even though one would formally - as with any actual phenomenon affecting our world - include it in the definition of the natural world after it is discovered.

An example of what I roughly mean is given in the novel SOLARIS, where the sentient ocean is a perfectly natural materialistic object, but in its intellect and complexity so unfathomable that mankind fails in grasping it, possibly forever.

An opposite example is radio waves: they fulfill the criteria of a supernatural phenomenon as seen by mankind a few hundred years ago, yet it was both included into our understanding of nature after the discovery and proved to be simple enough to be described and understood by us.

[robvalue]

Couldn't have put it better.

I'd also say it's projecting what you want to be true.

[ManMachine]

Couldn't have put it better.

I'd also say it's projecting what you want to be true.

I'd say it's half a euphemism for a vagina... of which there appear to be many.

Woo-woo, Froo-froo (fru-fru), Hoo-hoo, Front-bum (UK), Apricot, Mini, Penny, mapatazi, muff, growler, down-beard, velvet (as in tipping), Jack 'n' Danny (Rhyming slang)... and so on.


MM

[robvalue]

So...

If you are involved in woo, you're a bit of a twat?

[ManMachine]

So...

If you are involved in woo, you're a bit of a twat?

See how the Universe naturally comes together...


MM

[robvalue]

I think that was the best one-two punch joke I've ever been a part of Nice follow up too. A real alley oop dunkatron.

[watchamadoodle]

Difficult... Usually I'd say woo is by definition something which does not really exist, but is merely an artefact of our partial ignorance,imperfect perception and lack of critical thinking.

The supernatural is a related problem: I'd say if there is something supernatural consistently going on, it is basically just a newly discovered part of nature, and thus not supernatural any more. If such a thing is however so complex that it seems to elude rational analysis from our side, it could have the same effect as woo even though one would formally - as with any actual phenomenon affecting our world - include it in the definition of the natural world after it is discovered.

An example of what I roughly mean is given in the novel SOLARIS, where the sentient ocean is a perfectly natural materialistic object, but in its intellect and complexity so unfathomable that mankind fails in grasping it, possibly forever.

An opposite example is radio waves: they fulfill the criteria of a supernatural phenomenon as seen by mankind a few hundred years ago, yet it was both included into our understanding of nature after the discovery and proved to be simple enough to be described and understood by us.

Imagine if the universe is a computer simulation that can receive input from the computer operators. Could you say the computer simulation is the natural world and the computer operators are the supernatural world? What would that look like from the perspective of an artificial scientist inside the computer simulation? Would these inputs look like observations collapsing probability waves in QM or something? (Like I mentioned I don't understand QM. Don't be too hard on me. )

Maybe a different form of the same question: in Cartesian dualism, some speculated that the pineal gland was the interface that allowed a soul to pilot the body. I guess my definition of woo is based on the dualism of religions like Christianity. Does physics have anything that could provide the inferface between supernatural and natural?

There are also issues like free will, determinism, causality, etc. Maybe some of those concepts would help define woo?

The examples you mentioned like the sentient ocean is only woo from the perspective of humans. Another sentient ocean would not consider it woo. I'm trying to imagine the true woo.

[Alex K]

The best thing I could think of in known physics that could provide an interface to some deeper controlling level of reality, if you will, would be the randomness of quantum measurements. They look uncorrelated and truly random in all experiments, but a god-like being could use them to subtly influence the way of the world without violating the physical laws themselves. I think this was the favourite hypothesis of people like ken miller, who is a catholic evolutionary biologist who played an important role fighting ID in Kitzmiller vs. Dover