News0 min ago
Why Are Twins Linked?
Or rather HOW are twins linked? Where one hurts a leg, and the other at a distance feels it, for example.
Is there in fact some sort of spiritual connection? How can this be explained in a godless world?
Is there in fact some sort of spiritual connection? How can this be explained in a godless world?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bainbrig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It’s tempting to quote Shakespeare (There are more thing in heaven and hell ... than are dreamt of in your philosophy).
To deny the existence of some form of telepathic communication denies the experience of many of us. Many animals seem to have this ability, while their human superiors (joke) have lost it in their rise up the greasy pole.
To deny the existence of some form of telepathic communication denies the experience of many of us. Many animals seem to have this ability, while their human superiors (joke) have lost it in their rise up the greasy pole.
No apart from looking alike they are all very different, but me and my eldest brother are super close and we sense things about one another. If I'm miserable I can almost guarantee he'll call just when I'm thinking about him and calling him, and when I'm happy I rarely hear from him, and so it goes on.x
Rowanwitch 16.15: there are some eerie facts to reinforce what you say.
Particle experiments with split or twin photons show that even when separated by vast distance they react to one another instantly, faster than the speed of light...
https:/
Another particle, the electron, can apparently be in two places at the same time. As we are made from particles and are also constantly reacting to other particles it would seem that any of this telepathy stuff is not that unlikely.
Particle experiments with split or twin photons show that even when separated by vast distance they react to one another instantly, faster than the speed of light...
https:/
Another particle, the electron, can apparently be in two places at the same time. As we are made from particles and are also constantly reacting to other particles it would seem that any of this telepathy stuff is not that unlikely.
// To deny the existence of some form of telepathic communication denies the experience of many of us.//
the palaces of denial are .... the experimental labs. Not one case of telepathy has been shown. CIA and KGB spent a lot on this in the fifties and sixties.
Results - zilch - if you want to know what is in trumps mind .....
hmm asking him may NOT be the way forward .....
Try reading Synchronicity by C G jung ( mentioned in another thread this morning) for another take on this
the palaces of denial are .... the experimental labs. Not one case of telepathy has been shown. CIA and KGB spent a lot on this in the fifties and sixties.
Results - zilch - if you want to know what is in trumps mind .....
hmm asking him may NOT be the way forward .....
Try reading Synchronicity by C G jung ( mentioned in another thread this morning) for another take on this
// Another particle, the electron, can apparently be in two places at the same time. //
rob this is nothing to do with telepathy but the models used to er model electrons
if the electron is a barl - it is difficult to go thro two apertures at the same time
if you model the electron as a wave - then it can - Think of a sea wave approaching two holes in a sea wall - no difficulty in going thro both at the same time and indeed it would be odd if they didnt
rob this is nothing to do with telepathy but the models used to er model electrons
if the electron is a barl - it is difficult to go thro two apertures at the same time
if you model the electron as a wave - then it can - Think of a sea wave approaching two holes in a sea wall - no difficulty in going thro both at the same time and indeed it would be odd if they didnt
While RobNorth has described properties of electrons that are real, it is worth stressing that the electrons, or any other quantum phenomena, never transfer information faster than light. The connection to telepathy is therefore tenuous at best, and would be more accurately described as non-existent.
The "twin phenomenon" is probably better attributed to some form of selection bias, ie only remembering when vague thoughts happen to be correct and ignoring all the times they were wrong. No doubt worthy of further study, but there is no meaningful reason why twins should be any closer than, say, ordinary siblings.
The "twin phenomenon" is probably better attributed to some form of selection bias, ie only remembering when vague thoughts happen to be correct and ignoring all the times they were wrong. No doubt worthy of further study, but there is no meaningful reason why twins should be any closer than, say, ordinary siblings.
Well, Jim, can't (wouldn't dream of) arguing against science. All we do, all advances we have made, are eventually science-based.
But not, I venture, those first 'science-fiction' leaps of imagination... the 'what ifs?', the 'why don't we?', and so on.
I'm saying this.
Anecdotal evidence is of course only that, but to dismiss 100 per cent of it as selection bias or self-fulfilling prophecy is too easy.
A scientific mind is open to all things. To exclude all unproven 'facts' because they aren't yet in the text-books strikes me as less than truly scientific.
BB
But not, I venture, those first 'science-fiction' leaps of imagination... the 'what ifs?', the 'why don't we?', and so on.
I'm saying this.
Anecdotal evidence is of course only that, but to dismiss 100 per cent of it as selection bias or self-fulfilling prophecy is too easy.
A scientific mind is open to all things. To exclude all unproven 'facts' because they aren't yet in the text-books strikes me as less than truly scientific.
BB
True, it's possible that I'm mistaken, and I'm certainly not advocating never investigating the possibility. But what I am saying is that the mundane explanation -- that twins are simply "imagining" the connection, based on cherry-picking examples when they happened to be right -- is, currently, the most likely explanation.
A scientific mind is, indeed, open to all possibilities, but also listens to evidence and takes it seriously. The evidence suggests, firstly, that RobNorth has provided a wholly misleading link to quantum mechanics, and secondly that anecdotal evidence is intriguing but should never be more than that.
A scientific mind is, indeed, open to all possibilities, but also listens to evidence and takes it seriously. The evidence suggests, firstly, that RobNorth has provided a wholly misleading link to quantum mechanics, and secondly that anecdotal evidence is intriguing but should never be more than that.
Put a slightly different way, the scientific mind is better off learning to walk before it tries to fly. There is little point in asking why twins are linked, because there is no real evidence to suggest that they are. Go out and find that first -- beyond "mere" anecdote, I mean -- and only then, once such evidence is firmly established, is it worth asking "why".
Indeed, it may even be that gathering such evidence helps to answer the question in ways you couldn't have imagined before actually bothering to check if the question was sensible. It's hard to think of meaningful examples, but perhaps you would find other features of twins that appear to play a role in strengthening or weakening the supposed "link", or perhaps you would find the exact opposite, and that no other factors can possibly be an influence.
Regardless, there is as much scientific sense in the question "why are twins linked?" as there is in the question "why is the Universe shaped like a doughnut?" This last is, in fact, not a stupid question per se, because you can easily model a universe with a doughnut shape. But there's no evidence to show that *our* Universe is like that (and, indeed, plenty of evidence suggesting that it isn't), so there's no reason to ask why it would be so.
Indeed, it may even be that gathering such evidence helps to answer the question in ways you couldn't have imagined before actually bothering to check if the question was sensible. It's hard to think of meaningful examples, but perhaps you would find other features of twins that appear to play a role in strengthening or weakening the supposed "link", or perhaps you would find the exact opposite, and that no other factors can possibly be an influence.
Regardless, there is as much scientific sense in the question "why are twins linked?" as there is in the question "why is the Universe shaped like a doughnut?" This last is, in fact, not a stupid question per se, because you can easily model a universe with a doughnut shape. But there's no evidence to show that *our* Universe is like that (and, indeed, plenty of evidence suggesting that it isn't), so there's no reason to ask why it would be so.
Latest Posts
Business & Finance1 min ago
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Shopping & Style7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.