-1

Definition 1: Ghosts are the "creatures" which might be made of particles as we are, but unseen.

Premise 1: We are made of particles or atoms which enable us to think and make us what we are (human creatures).
Premise 2: Their might exist creatures which are made up of particles unseen (might even be dark matter) and might have the ability to do the activities as we can.
Premise 3: Ghosts might exist.

Does Science has any evidence to prove that such unseen-particle-built creature (Ghost) might not exist?

I have no background on Dark matter, I just mentioned about it on the basis of my layman knowledge.

Improve this question
6
  • 3
    You might want to reconsider your definition since unseen creatures such as bacteria and other microscopic organisms would be considered ghosts. In regards to the existence of the conventional ghost, I would say that science has not disproved their existence but that they have never detected them and all claims of ghosts when examined have been suspicious and dubious when analyzed.
    – CognisMantis
    Apr 14, 2015 at 17:02
  • Thank you for the comment. Definition of unseen: Something which can't be seen with the help of photons. I hope this clarifies the problem.
    – Sensebe
    Apr 14, 2015 at 17:08
  • 2
    'Ghosts are the "creatures" which might be made of particles as we are, but unseen.' - this definition of "ghost" strikes me as strange - most definitions say something like ghosts are not made of particles like we are, do not interact with matter in the same way that we do, are "spiritual" (whatever that means in a given context), etc. If the question is: could there exist forms of life that use matter in a way unexpected by scientists, it seems like the only answer is "Sure!" but I wouldn't confuse that notion with the existence of "ghosts."
    – James Kingsbery
    Apr 14, 2015 at 17:20
  • You need to be careful with your premises. From premise 3 it would follow that there is no evidence that ghosts don't exist. Since, if there would be such evidence, premise 3 is false.
    – user2953
    Apr 14, 2015 at 17:38
  • 1
    There is an astounding lack of evidence for ghosts, huge numbers of instances where claimed ghosts turned out to be non-ghostly phenomena, and no physical mechanism consistent with the properties ascribed to ghosts (not that those are exactly consistent between accounts anyway). If you want more detail, you should ask on Skeptics. Asking for "scientific" evidence is a bit of a red herring, since it's not worth studying scientifically for the most part--just like we don't do scientific studies of whether unicorns exist.
    – Rex Kerr
    Apr 14, 2015 at 18:59

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

We have several issues here ...

The first one is with the purported definition of "ghost" :

Ghosts are the "creatures" which might be made of particles as we are, but unseen.

Thus, a "normal" man painted with an invisible painting will be a "ghost" ? According to the traditional lore, I think not : a "ghost" must be a spirit, not a bone-and-flesh "creature" made invisible.

If so, the problem amounts to :

are there immaterial beings (pure spirits) able to interact with material ones ?

This is a big and ancient philosophical problem ...

The second problem is about scientific evidence : it is easy to ask for scientific evidence about the existence of a fact or phenomenon; not so easy about its non-existence.

Trivially, the conjecture about the existence of the "well-known" Yeti is lacking of any conclusive evidence, but we still have no "ultimate" disproof of it.

Someday we can find some Yeti or some "ghost" in a far away African desert, or on the Himalaya or on the Moon...

A valid non-existence evidence can be supplied by science according to some currently agreed scientific theory able to prove that the existence of a "ghost" will contradict some basic law of the theory (e.g.conservation of energy, constancy of the speed of light, etc.).

Improve this answer
1

Your definition of 'unseen' needs elaboration. Do you mean undetectable by any physical test? Then people would never 'see' them. This does not correspond to the ordinary notion of ghosts, who are meant to affect our reality indirectly, if only by being occasionally noticed.

Sure, the universe might be full of undetectable things, but science would not care, because such things cannot interact with us, and so nothing about them is testable. At some point, scientific theories need to be testable, or they will cease to have traction, and go away.

Improve this answer
0

As per your definition of ghost, yes they may exists.

But it is as good as they don't exist because if they are made up of invisible particles(dark matter, air of refractive index 1) they will be very unstable. If they are made up dark matter, their body mass won't be stable and they will be fluctuating between existence and non existence... If they are made up of air of refractive index 1, there are external forces acting upon them all the time making their geometry unstable...

In all these cases they exist but cannot interact with us.

I have always assumed logic to be an inseparable part of the universe which tells things what to do (gravity to be attractive, 2+2 to be 4) and that thing happens. I consider this logic as god. This logic stays as it is for a given universe. So you can think of a parallel universe where the logic allows the ghost creatures to be stable and interact with life....

This is my theory... Hope you are convinced...

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .