Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Poly Ranger wrote:
There was a three part documentary on psykers I saw. They all had different powers mind and had even organized into groups. People who knew they were psykers didnt like them though. It wasnt very well made because people kept fighting and there was lots of things that kept getting blown up, but I suppose lots of american documentaries are like that nowadays, cops, fbi files etc. In fact my favourite guy, this one in a wheelchair who claimed he could read and control minds died in the 3rd part. They never dedicated it to him though which I found odd. Well worth a watch!

haha posts like this are why I love this forum.

Back to the OP, psyker, prophet, wizard, miracle worker, they're all the same. Call them what you wish, it just means "person with magic powers"

I believe magic is science without proper explanation.

For example, why does the sun rise and fall (The most inaccurate terms for what's going on btw) throughout the day? It could be the sun god running across the sky in some sort of race with the moon. Or it could be the rotation of the earth in relation to a distant star which produces an illusion of the sun going across the sky. The former is a baseless hypothesis formed by a fantastical interpretation of an observation while the latter is well proven and can be seen. However, at some point believe actually believed there was magical causes for it.

So, if world leaders did have actual psychic abilities (Which I highly doubt) it would just mean an individual who can affect reality in a much more meaningful way. If such individuals exists then one must wonder why they were so incompetent. If, say Jesus Christ, could divine what was going on why couldn't he stop himself from dying and lead humanity into a much better future? Instead all he did was die and leave his followers with teachings that would become outdated with the march of time.

Now, there is a slim, slim, slim chance that Psykers are real and that we are heading towards 40k as a future (There is also equal chance that Mass Effect accurately represents humanity's future). However, if this is so then the God Emperor of Mankind would have figured out what -not- to do in the future by reading the HH series. You know, I wonder if the 40k IP existed on Old Terra in the 40k verse. Now we are getting into recursion again, folks!

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, if world leaders did have actual psychic abilities (Which I highly doubt) it would just mean an individual who can affect reality in a much more meaningful way. If such individuals exists then one must wonder why they were so incompetent. If, say Jesus Christ, could divine what was going on why couldn't he stop himself from dying and lead humanity into a much better future? Instead all he did was die and leave his followers with teachings that would become outdated with the march of time.

The ignorance is painful in this post...

Also, I think there is a distinction between 'magic' and psychic abilities.
Magic powers are supernatural by definition and have a supernatural source, psychic powers originate frome one's mind, and are thus not supernatural. If they exist, which I doubt, they are just not yet understood by science.
Magic on the other hand most certainly does not exist. (too bad, it would be awesome to shoot fireballs XD )

knas ser wrote:

As someone with a bit of background in mathematics I really hate to break this to you, but Propositional Calculus / Logic, which you are using above, is a branch of mathematics.

Pennsylvania State University and the University of Texas (both of which I've attended) disagree with you.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, if world leaders did have actual psychic abilities (Which I highly doubt) it would just mean an individual who can affect reality in a much more meaningful way. If such individuals exists then one must wonder why they were so incompetent. If, say Jesus Christ, could divine what was going on why couldn't he stop himself from dying and lead humanity into a much better future? Instead all he did was die and leave his followers with teachings that would become outdated with the march of time.

The ignorance is painful in this post...

Also, I think there is a distinction between 'magic' and psychic abilities.
Magic powers are supernatural by definition and have a supernatural source, psychic powers originate frome one's mind, and are thus not supernatural. If they exist, which I doubt, they are just not yet understood by science.
Magic on the other hand most certainly does not exist. (too bad, it would be awesome to shoot fireballs XD )

First, explain how I'm ignorant. Because I don't understand how psychics work? Well, from what I know, psychics are supposed to be able to divine what's going to happen in the future. From what your friend is asserting he thinks psychics can change the future so I guess another definition would be they can divine what will happen and can change it to their whims. If the first is true then psychics are useless since they are just telling you what you'd find out anyway. It's like acting the ability to give out spoilers is somehow game changing. If the second is true then they are just as useless since none have improved the world for the better. Only us muggles with our science, logic and sacrifice have.

And you are acting as if magic and science are two different things. Like I said earlier, magic is just a placeholder for scientific theory.

Dude Magic is just a name for stuff that we cannot explain,
And stop saying these heritical stuff before the inquisitors come to take you away,
Quantum physics shows us that thing are more interconnected, but how to use these
things is yet unknown.

There is in no way proof around that there is an increase of people with paranormal powers (psykers)
just more hoaxers.

This is fascinating thread.

Just remember this - one persons myth is another person's religion, and everyone thinks theirs is the correct one.

Who knows if that guy is right - in a hundred years, we will know, and those who come after us, will still be debating....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

knas ser wrote:

As someone with a bit of background in mathematics I really hate to break this to you, but Propositional Calculus / Logic, which you are using above, is a branch of mathematics.

Pennsylvania State University and the University of Texas (both of which I've attended) disagree with you.

How so, please cite. Because not only did I study it as mathematics at University, but you can look up Propositional Calculus and confirm for yourself what it is. Are you saying those Universities state: "Propositional Calculus is not Mathematics?" Because I'm going to need to see that for myself. Or are you simply concluding this because perhaps they include it in non-maths degrees such as Philosophy? Because the latter does not make it not mathematics.

davethepak wrote:
This is fascinating thread.

Just remember this - one persons myth is another person's religion, and everyone thinks theirs is the correct one.

Who knows if that guy is right - in a hundred years, we will know, and those who come after us, will still be debating....

This. All of my yes belongs to this man(?)

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:
Here's an interesting story I believe:

I'm at my FLGS. Normal Sunday morning, the gang's all here, the newbies and vets. We take a break about 2 hours into the games, and these two wargamers, one vet and another relative new guy, start chatting and some of us sit to listen.
Wargamer 1 says: I like most of the fluff of 40k. I especially like the historical references they took for inspiration.
Wargamer 2 responds: Yeah, it is pretty cool. History has taught us a lot.
W1: But I do wonder what GW thinks about us as a human species. Will we ever get there? I mean, I think we started thousands of years ago.
We all sit there and say nothing.
W2: what do you mean?
W1: We already became psykers! I mean, c'mon, the evidence is all around us. There's no way certain historical figures did what they did without supernatural abilities.
We don't know what to tell the guy. Most of us don't really know this newbie. We just know he started playing since the days of 3rd edition.
W2: what are you saying, dude?
W1: I'm saying psykers walk among us! Some "religious" dieties were actually psyker!
I'm gonna stop right here, since going further will be dealing with territory that is discouraged on this forum. But you get the idea. This guy is saying JC was a psyker.
Can one person overthink such works of fiction? Or was his reasoning...well, reasonable? It was a little odd to hear the guy talk about these things, since we know it's all sci-fi BASED on facts, but maybe not all the way as to call it our own human evolution.
Sorry this was so long, but it really is something interesting I wanted to share. Any thoughts?

This is actually fairly common in fandoms, and sometimes from the creators of works that inspire such fandoms. A case in point would be White Wolf's World of Darkness or Anne Rice's world of the vampire Lestat. They started out having the vampires be few in number and far-flung. As time went on, though, more and more vampires and supernatural creatures were added to the mix until you realized that the number of mundane humans in the world were the vast minority, and that everyone of any note whatsoever throughout history was a vampire/werewolf/mage/faery/wraith/demon or some other such supernatural mother-fethery that it becomes ridiculous.

And some people were really, really into that idea.

Sounds like your friend was just really keen on an idea (psykers being real) and jumped to a conclusion. Just because a retelling of a historical events sounds a bit supernatural doesn't mean that they were supernatural. One should never discount a rational explanation, and all that.

Relevant to the magic discussion, can you guys explain the following to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wxNLOUzfU&feature=youtu.be&t=7m25s

This was done in front of a scientific crowd and I'm pretty sure it's not magnets. Thanks.

It is magnets. He's just putting on a performance for everyone. There are probably devices under the tables and he is using the metal foil on his wrists to manipulate the field.

...and Occam's Razor strikes again.

knas ser wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

knas ser wrote:

As someone with a bit of background in mathematics I really hate to break this to you, but Propositional Calculus / Logic, which you are using above, is a branch of mathematics.

Pennsylvania State University and the University of Texas (both of which I've attended) disagree with you.

How so, please cite. Because not only did I study it as mathematics at University, but you can look up Propositional Calculus and confirm for yourself what it is. Are you saying those Universities state: "Propositional Calculus is not Mathematics?" Because I'm going to need to see that for myself. Or are you simply concluding this because perhaps they include it in non-maths degrees such as Philosophy? Because the latter does not make it not mathematics.

The course in which I learned logic at Penn State University is in the philosophy department, taught by a man with a Ph.D. in Philosophy, and is course-numbered PHIL 012 (philosophy 12).

The course in which I learned logic at the University of Texas is in the philosophy department, taught by a man with a Ph.D. in Philosophy, and is course-numbered PHL 313K (Philosophy 313K).

Neither one of them has anything to do with the math department, and while admitting similarities to mathematics, would be (and in my experience) have been somewhat offended by the suggestion that mathematics and logic are the same thing.

EDIT: They also have a similar reaction to their association with Computer Science, stressing that their systems of logic are different in a few specific ways, including symbology.

Hi all, OP here

I have read through almost all of the comments on this thread and allow me to congratulate most on keeping it within civilized standards and Dakka ones as well. Seeing how much of a discussion my story of that Sunday afternoon generated, I took the liberty of quote-on-quote interviewing the man whose allegations about psykers sparked this entire conversation.
Though I wish for him and to a certain extend myself to remain annonymous, I will be posting the chat I had with him sometime between tonight and tomorrow afternoon. I feel like maybe some of what he said will help clear up some misconceptions, clarify theories, and so on.
In the meantime, I argue fellow forum members to continue to follow the rules and standards of Dakka Dakka and keep this thread as civilized as possible.
Thanks, Capt. Ironblood

 A sane man wrote:
Relevant to the magic discussion, can you guys explain the following to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wxNLOUzfU&feature=youtu.be&t=7m25s

Sure. That was a nice little combination of deception, misdirection and showmanship.

Hey guys, OP here

It's finally here, my "interview" with our guy. It was an interesting ordeal to say the least, and my thoughts on the guy are generally still the same, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to let you guys know what he feels about psykers and real life.
Here's the link, go read it!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/566537.page#6311541

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

knas ser wrote:

As someone with a bit of background in mathematics I really hate to break this to you, but Propositional Calculus / Logic, which you are using above, is a branch of mathematics.

Pennsylvania State University and the University of Texas (both of which I've attended) disagree with you.

How so, please cite. Because not only did I study it as mathematics at University, but you can look up Propositional Calculus and confirm for yourself what it is. Are you saying those Universities state: "Propositional Calculus is not Mathematics?" Because I'm going to need to see that for myself. Or are you simply concluding this because perhaps they include it in non-maths degrees such as Philosophy? Because the latter does not make it not mathematics.

The course in which I learned logic at Penn State University is in the philosophy department, taught by a man with a Ph.D. in Philosophy, and is course-numbered PHIL 012 (philosophy 12).

The course in which I learned logic at the University of Texas is in the philosophy department, taught by a man with a Ph.D. in Philosophy, and is course-numbered PHL 313K (Philosophy 313K).

Neither one of them has anything to do with the math department, and while admitting similarities to mathematics, would be (and in my experience) have been somewhat offended by the suggestion that mathematics and logic are the same thing.

EDIT: They also have a similar reaction to their association with Computer Science, stressing that their systems of logic are different in a few specific ways, including symbology.

Ah ha. I thought so. You're claiming that these universities say it is not maths because it was included as a component in a philosophy degree. Lots of degrees contain components from other disciplines. It's very common. I've even seen technical writing components in science and engineering degrees. That doesn't mean that writing is a form of engineering, merely that is is useful to that discipline. What you're talking about is called Propositional Calculus or often Propositional Logic. I studied it as maths at University so by your logic, it now is again. But it's maths regardless and widely regarded as such. I've just pulled up the wikipedia page as you're obviously reluctant to have checked and seen if you might be wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus.

As you're basing your argument on what departments teach propositional calculus at Penn State, btw, (fallacious though that argument is), you may be interested to learn that the Penn State maths department has it as part of their core courses: http://www.math.psu.edu/grad/requirements/exams/outlines.php. That took me a minute of searching - I knew it would be aught by their maths department.

Neither one of them has anything to do with the math department, and while admitting similarities to mathematics, would be (and in my experience) have been somewhat offended by the suggestion that mathematics and logic are the same thing.

If they genuinely have nothing to do with the maths department then that's shameful. It's like a grandparent disowning a grandchild. Philosophy is the ancestor of mathematics. If they're offended then double shame on them. They're just trying to big themselves up. I didn't say Logic, btw. Now you're shifting ground. I said Propositional Logic (which is another name for Propositional Calculus). That is formal specification and tools for proving logical statements / arguments. It's maths whether it offends them or not. In fact, their offense is telling in and of itself - such insecurity.

Really, the fact that you're even resorting to offense as part of an argument is also telling. Go and look up Propositional Calculus. Tell me it's not what you were talking about.

EDIT: They also have a similar reaction to their association with Computer Science, stressing that their systems of logic are different in a few specific ways, including symbology.

Different symbols have no bearing. I can say that the new symbol for addition is the @ symbol but it doesn't alter that 2@2=4 is mathematics. And again, shame on them for trying to make differences where there are none for the sake of defending their turf if they're stressing the differences. You never find Computer Scientists trying to pretend something isn't maths.

Honestly, just look up Propositional Calculus. This whole appeal to authority thing can be discarded by you just looking and realizing it's the same as what you've been talking about.