Truth Wanted 08.11 with Kelley Laughlin and @planetpeterson2824_RX7

In today’s episode of Truth Wanted, Kelley Laughlin and Planet Peterson sit in grass circles left by saucers and use inductive reasoning to observe the double slit experiment as they quantify infinity. 

Dan in Canada is curious about the Landenberg incident where a farmer had seen five saucer shaped objects in his field that left circles on the grass after they flew into the sky. This just seems too silly to be true. Is it possible this farmer wanted people to remember his name and made it up? It looks like he succeeded because there was a cool glowing coin made after the incident. How do people become experts in crop circles? Is it possible BigFoot had anything to do with this? Afterall, it was Saskatchewan!

Ransom in WY wants to talk about the Double-slit experiment and how that can prove there is life outside of this universe as a conscious observer. Measurements collapse the wave function, not conscious observations. What people say about this and other pop science is not what you think it is. What happens when the majority of physicists have a different explanation and opinion than the one physicist that you want to believe? Understanding the data and how wave patterns are shown on a screen is key to drawing the correct interpretations on this. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, Debunked is a good place to start to know more about this. 

James in NY asks the hosts if infinity could ever be quantified. Even with every fundamental thing in the universe included as a counting device, we would not be able to do this. We know about infinite sets and how they are used in math, but they are not quantified. Zeno's Paradox shows the infinite regression of an arrow never reaching a target because it must first reach an infinite number of half way points. This illustrates how a finite set can represent an infinite series. 

Lee in Canada has some thoughts about how the scientific method uses inductive reasoning to show the hypothesis is false. Science does not deal in absolutes, but it can prove that things are false. When you solve the mathematical proof, there is nothing else left. In the court of law, you are not proven innocent, you are proven not guilty. Religion does not explain anything or contribute to epistemology in any rational way and is almost the opposite of the scientific method to gain knowledge. 

Thank you for joining us for this fascinating show! Scott Dickie, our back-up host joins us to close us out as musician Collin Yours gives us a live beautiful sounding folk show!  Prompt of the week is: Name a religious counterpart for a scientific claim. 

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/truth-wanted--3195473/support.