Dear Vu B Ho:

You have witnessed something, and you are interpreting what you have experienced as "spiritual possession." It is important to consider alternative explanations and to weigh each of them carefully against the evidence; this is the way of science. I particularly recommend taking into account Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability.

Here are some references that you may find useful, with links when available:

Falsifiability (2016). "Falsifiabilty," in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability, updated: 14 July 2016, access: 16 July 2016).

Lett, James (1990). “A field guide to critical thinking,” in Skeptical Inquirer (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), vol. 14, no. 4 (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/, access: 16 July 2016).

Lett, James (1997). Science, reason, and anthropology, the principles of rational inquiry, Lanham/Nueva York/Boulder/Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Popper, Karl Raimund (2000). Conjectures and refutations, the growth of scientific knowledge, reprint of the 5th ed., London and New York, Routledge.

Sagan, Carl (1995). The demon-haunted world, science as a candle in the dark, New York, Random House.

Sagan, Carl (undated). “The fine art of baloney detection,” in Lehre (Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Institut für Informatik, Studium) (http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Sagan-Baloney.pdf, access: 16 July 2016).

Dear David,

Thanks for your detailed information on spiritual possession. I do aware of some issues that may arise in various areas from this phenomenon. However, as I said, I simply just can't deny this fact because one of those spiritual possessions that had happened happened right in my house when I was a young boy. Why can't we talk about what we do observe than those that we don't, like quarks? As long as we consider spirits as a physical existence, what are the different between spirits and quarks? Is it due to the fact that quarks can be formulated in terms of mathematics? If so, why can't we just find out a way to formulate spirits in terms of mathematics? Too hard, I guess.

Philosophical reasoning without witnessing is very much like walking in the dark, guessing what you can touch with your brain.

As far as I know, dark matter accounts for about 3/4 of all matter, therefore the chances that dark matter can produce some forms of biological existence are much higher than those that can be formed from normal matter, which also exists, according to the current form of quantum physics, no more than a chance in the world of probability. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

VBH: Why can't we talk about what we do observe than those that we don't, like quarks?

We do observe quarks using the right tools. We don't observe spirits, what you observed was a person's behaviour and you then attributed that to spirits with no evidence on the basis of your beliefs.

VBH: As long as we consider spirits as a physical existence ...

For that to be the case, it must have energy and momentum, and if it isn't moving at the speed of light, that means it has mass. If you could set up a repeatable experiment to measure the mass of a spirit, then you would have evidence for its physical existence but not before.

Religious beliefs are not science.

VBH: dark matter can produce some forms of biological existence

Dark matter particles do not interact with EM, only gravity, and it is EM forces that hold molecules together so no, dark matter cannot form any sort of structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#Table_of_properties

Dear Vu B Ho:

The anwers to the questions you ask are in the sources that I provided in my previous post, and they are presented in a concise and clear manner, more so than I could manage to lay out on this question page. The three with web links would be sufficient, so you won't have to bother tracking down the three books. The Wikipedia article gives a good overview of Popper's principle of falsifiability. The article by Lett provides a brief summary of some of the more important ideas in his book. The second source by Sagan is a chapter taken from the first. I highly recommend reading them; this would only take about an hour. Science is about thinking critically, and the most secure way to go about it is to think critically about our own interpretations and beliefs. These sources lay out in plain English the fundamental aspects of critical thinking and the essence of scientific inquiry.

Warm regards,

David

Dear George,

Are you sure physicists have observed quarks? Assuming some one has observed quarks, did they see quarks by their own eyes or just some forms of images and then they confirmed the existence of quarks from the behaviour of their tools?

Physical existence doesn't have to be in the form of normal matter, and that's why physicists insist that some forms of dark matter must exist. How would you know dark matter must follow physical laws of normal matter? Would you please just describe what dark matter is?

If you think a bit more then you would realise that religions are in fact primitive sciences. Even though many of religious beliefs are unfounded, but so are a lot of beliefs in science. For example, the idea that the universe was originated from the Big Bang is simply a belief or not? If it was not then that would be the end of science, wouldn't it? 

I think that your belief that spiritual possession is purely religious is a pure belief. Such belief contains in it a form of religion that people have never realised. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear David,

Thanks for your kind considerations of my question. Do the books that you have referred to contain in them mathematical formulations that can be used to describe the physical behaviour of spirits? These are the only topics that I am interested in. A plain philosophy is for a plain philosopher.

Did they formulate the quark model from a scientific critical thinking or simply just a guess? It is no more than a colorful description of Rutherford's old model. The model also appears to have in it the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism as well. In fact they arrived at it from an observation that protons seemed to contain point-like particles. If you know topology then you would know that particles that seem to contain point-like objects could be seen as spheres with pointed handles. And protons can be described topologically in this form. 

I think I should repeat what I have said: Philosophical reasoning without witnessing is very much like walking in the dark, guessing what you can touch with your brain (not with your hands).

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu B Ho:

I reiterate: skip the books, dedicate an hour to the two articles and the chapter, following the web links I have provided, and you shall have answers to your initial question and the questions you asked yesterday. I'm trying to assist you with your inquiries; from what I have read so far, the problem you pose is essentially of an epistemological nature. If you would like something more focused on the topic of spiritual possession, I can recommend reading this article, following up on the links it contains:

"Spirit possession," in RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spirit_possession, updated; 4 July 2016, access: 19 July 2016).

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to our coming to an understanding is summed up in a phrase from the question you posted three days ago, initiating this thread: "it doesn’t matter what you may think." If your mind is already set, there isn't much point in discussing this subject here.

Best wishes,

David

VBH: Are you sure physicists have observed quarks?

Of course, science has gone on a long way since those days and the model has held up at ever-increasing levels.

VBH: Assuming some one has observed quarks, did they see quarks by their own eyes or just some forms of images and then they confirmed the existence of quarks from the behaviour of their tools?

All scientific results and measured by instruments with traceable calibration back to the international standards. Eyes can not be trusted, "optical illusions" are far too common and repeatable numerical results can only be obtained from instruments.

VBH: Physical existence doesn't have to be in the form of normal matter, and that's why physicists insist that some forms of dark matter must exist. How would you know dark matter must follow physical laws of normal matter?

We know it interacts through gravity because of gravitational lensing, the potential of galaxies and clusters measured though x-ray emissions from interstellar gas and a host of other methods. They all tell us the same result.

VBH: Would you please just describe what dark matter is?

Almost normal matter which doesn't interact with photons. If it is a particle, it behaves almost exactly the same as neutrinos but needs to have a slightly higher mass.

VBH: If you think a bit more then you would realise that religions are in fact primitive sciences.

Not really, to me religion is thinks you believe in the absence of physical evidence.

VBH: Even though many of religious beliefs are unfounded, ..

Not to the people who follow them ;-)

VBH: but so are a lot of beliefs in science.

There are two levels, what is derived from existing, repeatable measurements and speculation, ideas about what future work may reveal that is consistent with what we know already. Science is the process of extending what we know, and sometimes it isn't what we expected. The method ensures our incorrect speculations are exposed and discarded, eventually.

VBH: For example, the idea that the universe was originated from the Big Bang is simply a belief or not?

Not in the slightest. Take a simple example, suppose you look down a road and see three cars going away from you. The first is 1 mile away and moving at 10mph, the second is 2 miles away and driving at 20mph while the third is 3 miles away travelling at 30mph. It is a simple logical conclusion that all three passed you 6 minutes ago. The same applies to the Hubble Law. It is confirmed by the cosmic background radiation, measurements of temperatures in the remote universe, the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the earliest material, the absence of heavier elements in old stars, and I could go on and list a dozen more independent checks, all carefully measured with calibrated instruments. The age of the universe is known to a few percent or better for example.

VBH: If it was not then that would be the end of science, wouldn't it?

Certainly not, there is a great deal we still don't know.

VBH: I think that your belief that spiritual possession is purely religious is a pure belief.

No, it is in two parts. First, there is a logical argument. If the "spirit" is not physical then it cannot interact with the physical (because most physical quantities are conserved) and if it cannot interact then there cannot be any measurable consequences. Any supposed evidence must therefore have an alternative explanation. If on the other hand spirit is physical (which is entirely possible) then it must be testable by physical means because it interacts and we should be able to measure that interaction.

The second part is a heuristic called Ockham's Razor, in the absence of evidence, we don't presume that which we cannot prove exists by physical means. The philosophical equivalent is called Russell's Teapot.

The bottom line is that if you can publish the details of an experiment that others can perform following your instructions, and if that experiment always produces a positive result, then you have your proof, but not before. That's how the discipline works.

Dear David,

Thanks again for your assistance of my inquiry. However, I am more interested in the scientific aspect of it, in the form of mathematical formulations, than philosophical arguments. As a matter of fact, I can formulate spirits as a physical dynamics in terms of my temporal dynamics. As expected, their existence may be very short-lived. You can refer to my work A TEMPORAL DYNAMICS: A GENERALISED NEWTONIAN AND WAVE MECHANICS for more details.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear George,

Why did they invent the so-called color confinement? Believe me, the quark model consists of patched up ideas that just keep building up and require more patched up ideas.

The rest are just philosophical arguments, so just let it be. However, as I have said I can formulate a biological structure in terms of dark matter using my temporal dynamics, and there is no reason why spirits can not be in that form.

Kind regards,

Vu. 

VBH: Why did they invent the so-called color confinement?

Because when they discovered the rules that govern the way the particles can combine, it happens to be anlogous to the way colours can mix to make something colourless. Using familiar concepts makes understanding and teaching simpler.

VBH: The rest are just philosophical arguments,

The rest of what I said is hard science based on repeatable measurements but I doubt there is any more to be gained by further discussion as you say.

best regards

George

Dear Vu:

You say: "However, I am more interested in the scientific aspect of it, in the form of mathematical formulations, than philosophical arguments."

Science is more than mathematics. Before you can approach a problem scientifically, you have to understand how science works. From what I can gather from your statements, your attempt to justify your beliefs in spirits and "spiritual possession" through analogies with physical phenomena seems to fall within the category of pseudoscience. Following is a reference to a web article with a clear definition and a discussion, albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheek; RationalWiki uses a humerous style to get across its very serious points.

"Pseudoscience," in RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience, updated: 26 June 2016, access: 20 July 2016).

I hope this helps answer your question.

Sincerely,

David

Dear George,

I think they invented color confinement in order to save their model because quarks could not be observed. Based on what you have said I think you are more of a philosopher than a physicist, and philosophers nowadays need to adopt some forms of knowledge to keep them moving on. However, the Big Bang is the dead end of epistemological intelligence, therefore I am not sure if it is a good idea for a philosopher to adopt it.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear David,

Did I say " in the form of mathematical formulations"? What I am trying to do is to formulate a physical dynamics of spiritual possession in terms of mathematical laws in the same way as the dynamics of normal matter can be described using Newton's laws. 

You should know that the nature of beliefs can be different for different categories of beliefs. A belief of a physicist is simply a mathematical model of physical existence and a belief of a philosopher is no more than a pure thought. Spiritual possession may be seen as a pseudoscience, or whatsoever you name it, to you, as long as you are dealing with it only with your philosophical arguments, but to me it is a physical possibility, no less than the quark model, that I want to deal with.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Good luck with your study, Vu. If you are succesful, you will revolutionize our understanding of the human species, initiating the most profound paradigm shift in the history of science.

Dear David,

Thanks for your encouragement.

Kind regards,

Vu.