Strange

No. I am saying that your interpretation and use of the word is ... well, it just makes the word kinda meaningless and useless. If you use supernatural to mean "things that are not currently understood completely" (which is almost everything there is) then we will need a new word for the things that are currently described as supernatural. Do you have any suggestions?

Can you be more specific? Why would a repeated series of random events not seem random? Do you think that you could win at dice games with this logic? Or is that what you mean: you can't tell what any given role of the dice will produce, but you can say that over the long term, there will be a 6 roughly 1/6th of the time? So is this just a statement of the law of large numbers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers And, if so, what does it have to do with Murphy's Law?

Again, just because we can't currently explain something does not mean it is not explicable. By your definition, pretty much all of science is supernatural. But apparently it is.

Does it? Citation needed. Not being able to explain things does not make them supernatural. It just means we can't (currently) explain them. These are not unexplainable. All of those things are explainable by (or even already explained by) science. None defy the laws of nature. You appear to have a very idiosyncratic definition of "supernatural". You seem to be using it to mean "not fully understood". A great many disagreements on this forum come about because people insist on using their own made up definitions for words. Doing that is very brave. And, of course, when I say "brave" I mean foolish. You are wrong.

There are cases where that can be true. For example, that is how language evolves: when large numbers of people start using a construction that is considered "wrong" it will eventually become the correct form of the language. But if someone regularly slams their fingers in the door and swears in pain, I don't see how that can cease to be a mistake. That doesn't appear to make any sense. I think you need to explain. How does micro and macro level, and determninism, relate to someone making a mistake?

Note that voices in your head are very different from the experience of schizophrenia (and other causes for hearing voices), in the case of the latter, the voices are (or appear to be) real, external voices. As if someone is talking to you or a radio is on. Combined with the psychosis, it is hardly surprising that the sufferers think they are real.

Science is about building testable theories, not just going "wow, majestic". But we have moved on from there to perform objective testing and measurement. Does it? I don't think most members of the scientific community have much to say about the subject (apart from a few annoying tics like Dawkins). And, of course, there are very many religious scientists (not all of whom share your religion, of course). As this is a science forum, how would we test that claim to determine if it is true or not?

If you don't determine what the mechanism is, how are you going to eliminate the claim of "special powers"?

You are not being censored. Stop pretending to be a martyr and answer the questions put to you.

So your 50% is based on "it might be true or it might not". That is not how statics works. After thousands of people claiming to have such powers, and none of them being able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions, you have to insanely gullible to think that the probability is 50%. Possibly EE is the one person in the world who actually has a "power" but I find that far less likely than he is just fooling himself (and, apparently, you).

Why do you consistently reply with non sequiturs, rather than answering questions or sticking to the topic of the thread? (He asks, going off topic ...)

That doesn't make much sense. Who said they are, or want to be, God? And it doesn't answer the questions either.

I don't think it is possible to quantify that. Although the results so far would strongly suggest that "special" powers are not involved (especially as all other attempts to detect such powers have also failed). Remember, we are not trying to decide between a number of causes that are known to exist. The decision is between something for which there is, so far, zero evidence and any number of things for which there is a lot of evidence. Therefore, this requires extraordinary levels of evidence to be convincing. We are nowhere near that yet.

The overwhelming majority of people are religious. Although not all of them believe in your god, of course. Which is part of the problem: what if they are right and you are wrong? A bit of a vague test. But it seems that science wins, as it is an important positive force in the world while most people have never heard of Oahu, never mind the church there.

Hoiw do you know how much more it would move? You don't. How do you know that? When you eliminate breath and air movements with a bowl it stops moving. That suggests you are wrong. That is a completely different source of heat and irrelevant. You could, but you haven't.

You could look up some of these companies, to see where they are based: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_pen

It is not in trash, it is in speculations. And you are not blocked from making new threads (as far as I know).

The ability for (some?) people to change skin colour could be an interesting idea for a story. Interesting how inserting a comma before "like" would change the meaning ...

I can't see any point in keeping this thread open. Formal thought disorder

Because he believes them to be true. I do not think he is being dishonest.

"Fraudulent" implies some kind of deliberate deception. I think that is rather unfair.

I think this is one of the most important criteria. Even without getting rid of external influences, eliminating confirmation bias will make the "effect" disappear. Or because it is particularly sensitive to stray air movements and vibration.

I think you might need to provide a bit more information and context. What entanglement? What computer? And what do you mean by a "pool" in this context?

And yet you are very obviously wrong. As always. Otherwise science would be unable to make new discoveries. How do you persist in these false beliefs despite all the evidence contradicting them. Could it be, ironically, that you can only see what you want to see?

I was not talking about that. I was answering the question about whether things "outside the universe" can be detected. If they have an effect, then obviously they can. The claim is often made that laboratory tests cannot detect these things. If they are not detectable by tests but are only detectable by the person involved (whoever that is) then it is indistinguishable from delusion/hallucination/chance. What I am saying is that if the wheel turns or telepathic communication happens then it must be (objectively) detectable or the claim is meaningless. It is pretty obvious that EE's telekinetic powers are a combination of air movements and confirmation bias. Only objective testing can determine this. However, it sounds like EE will never be convinced, not matter what steps are taken. For example, he says the glass bowl makes it "harder" rather than the more obvious conclusion that it has prevented air movement. If more rigorous experiments stopped the effect completely, I guess he would claim it was because they blocked his "powers" rather than because other effects had been eliminated.