Question about De Via Properia Feminis
-
Remote viewing and the weight of the soul are both Hokum
As for Bells inequality, I really can not tell you what the fact that those linear algebra equations do not come out to <2 means. Something fishy going on with quantum events, the mathematics of probability seem to apply differently.
However, I happen to know that you can not Change one of the particles in order to effect the other. You have 2 particles that are is an unknown state, a superposition. It's like you have two refrigerators, and you don't know if the light is no or off inside the fridge. You don't know until you open the door. Now all you can do is open the door and see if it is off or on, you can't do anything to the fridge to make the light be on or off.
Ok what we know from QUIP is that if one light is on the other is off and vice versa.
So if we open the door and see the light off, we instantly know the other one is on. However, the people who will open that other fridge still do not know if the light is on of off, until we call them up and tell them.Now, some people like to claim the fact that we know the other light's status the instant we discern our lights status, means that some how "information" about the other light traveled from it to us, faster than light. But that sounds like Hokum to me.
The math seems to state that neither light is always on or always off when we don't see it, but that the act of opening the door make it so and this instantly sends information to the other light fixing it on or off too. I can't argue that the math doesn't say this, because the math clearly does. But I that is an issue with mathematics, and math trying to represent a maybe state that has unusual probability and employs a novel use of tensor operations, and Hermitian operators acting in Hilbert spaces to describe what happens to particles when we can't see them.
Yes QM has some unknown elements and brain function has some unknown elements and mysticism has some unknown elements and paranormal beliefs have some unknown elements.
But you can't assume that two unknowns are the same or related unknowns, just on the fact that they are alike in their unknowness. You can't compare things based on what you don't know about them.
-
You're confusing Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment with Bells Theorem which has been proved via experiment.
Though, there are some who have attempted to refute the findings, leading to various "loopholes" which to me appear to be little more than peoples attempt to reject the seemingly impossible, but that impossibility exists solely in a clockwork Newtonian world.
Einstein rejected Quantum mechanics during his lifetime: "God does not play dice"
Bells theorem was a direct refutation of Einstein's "hidden variable" theory, his attempt to deal with the Uncertainty Principle, and as stated, has been proved in experimentation.
God does play dice, all the time apparently, he may even be in need of some rehab for his addiction.
Bell left us in a non-local Universe.
Leaving us facing a dilemma.
Either reality doesn't exist, or non-locality has to be accepted (as it is in String theory).
Stark choice.(there is a third possible interpretation according to some - causality can also run backwards in time, at which point I have to admit my head explodes
) -
Or something is going on with quantum practicals that we just are not equipped to understand.
Non-locality need not be the case, and the verification by experiment only verifies the results, not the process by which the results come about. The math fails to explain this as well, since math does not always represents the actual events that happen, it only represents a way to get the right answers.
Irrational numbers like pi are not possible in reality, but we have to use them in math to get results. There is no line can be pi inches long. But their are "circles" which have 1 in diameters, which would mean the circumference would be pi inches long, that is impossible. Also Pi is not an irrational number, and yet we use it to accurately discern the area and volume of spheres, and it is used in trig radians, which are also used in Linear algebra.
Also imaginary and complex numbers, those using the sqrt -1 which is i. There is nothing in reality that corresponds to this i. However, thus imaginary number is used in allot of engineering and in electrical systems, like power transfer equations. In linear algebra you may have to use 3 imaginary vectors, j, k and l, all of which do not represent events that actually happen.
When we use a i, in physics it indicates that when certain quantities are multiplied the result is a negative of the vector. Like 3v x 3v = 9 volts. and 3i x 3 = 9i volts. the I does not show up, it does not exist on it's own.
But 3i x 3i = -9 volts. The i is some kind of hidden variable like it could be the phase angle of the amperage.It is true that Bells inequality denies the possibility of a local hidden variable, of any kind we know of. So either a non-local variable or a denial of causality has to be the case. (According to the math we have presently)
It could however be a holistic variable, it could be that the laws of probability act differently on this scale. It could be that a photon moving at the speed of light, from it's reference does not move at and encompasses all space between the emitter and the end, thus allowing it to be a discrete particle and a continuous wave, like an arc of electricity can adjust it's course, even if events change in the future.
Small things and fast things act strangely according to the math we have. Things and locations begin to blur such that a what a thing is and where it is (has been), blend together.
-
@Froclown said
"Remote viewing and the weight of the soul are both Hokum "
Re-tasking a satellite is a pretty big deal. I doubt it would be done based on hokum. Have you actually read anything about it? Ever tried it yourself?
I have a few questions for you;
-
Do you remember your dreams? (say... one per night five or six nights a week?)
-
If yes have you ever had a 'lucid dream'?
-
Have you ever consciously travelled outside your physical body?
I am not convinced by the weight of the soul reports but it is not scientific to simply dismiss out of hand the data presented by a researcher simply because it was measuring the unseen. Three quarters of an ounce average weight loss with a sample size of five.... That is pretty straightforward. Independent research to verify repeatability would be interesting. Though the profit potential is hard to see so I am not holding my breath.
-
-
Funny, but the supposition of the "Astral" fills in the same exact holes as did the "Ether" of Victorian scientists.
And funnier still, this and other forms of "Hokum" were long known to Adepts long before scientific experiment confirmed our ignorance of the basic facets of life. Is this to disparage science? No, only our tendency to see the universe according to our own image.
"There is a factor infinite and unknown."
The student who has travelled outside the body or undergone the psychedlic experience is more apt to think a little differently about "reality" as such--and the "possible" for that matter!
-
You can not actually travel outside your body.
There is a real solid actual world, the brain creates a map of that world and a map of itself as the map maker.
The world that we interact with directly is that map, only we do not realize it as a map, the brain presents the map as if it is the reality.
Now your mind contain the memories of the whole area around you and of places you have been before. So that in some cases, you can create a mental map as if seen from a different perspective location. You are not actually outside your body, you are simply looking at your own inner vision from an artificial perspective.
To prove out of body, you have to be able to show that you can see what is happening say in another room, that you can not see or hear into from your current location and that there is a very low probability that you could intuit correctly what is going on. (No experiment has yet to have met these criteria, there is no evidence that out of body perceptions are anything more than an interesting brain phenomena that creates the simulation of perceiving from a perspective other than the location of your eyes.)
I have experienced this, both with meditation and with psychedelics. But no matter how true and undeniable some thing seems to you as the subject, that is not evidence that it is actually true, in fact a strong personal feeling of certainty is a good indication that your experience has been corrupted by your experiential mechanism, ie your brain. The more certain and undeniable any events seems to be, the less likely it is to be true.
-
Or perhaps your definition of "brain" is a little too stringent?
The "me" that travels and the "me" that remains in Asana are one and the same: two facets of the same organism.
There are, in fact, very specific experiments to be used in such circumstances. I. E.: the student is placed in an enclosed area and is asked to identify a specific symbol set inside another enclosed area.
Just because you haven't seen the records doesn't mean they don't exist, oh mighty Froclown.
-
@Froclown said
"and that there is a very low probability that you could intuit correctly what is going on. (No experiment has yet to have met these criteria,"
A large percentage of the population can't meet these criteria while "fully conscious" in the waking physical form!
(edit; present in the room)
seriously.
-
Well show me these records.
Show me where a controlled experiment has proved statistically significant data to support the hypothesis that it is possible to project one's awareness such as to accurately describe events that are not disclosed to the senses of the body.The Rhine institute has been trying to acquire such data for about 100 years now, and so far they have come up empty, accept some questionable results with "micro-kenisis" which again has to do with Quantum events, which we still don't have a complete model to explain the mathematics, so we really don't know what is going on with Quantum stuff.
The brain is an organ, changes in the brain are all that you know. Color is merely a brain event, semantic meaning is a brain state, including the name and identity of objects. It is the brain that pulls one object out of the continuous flow of potential data and allows you to experience the relation between this object and that, rather than one continuous sea of "noise". Every Emotion is just brain changes, every size, shape, color, smell, taste, sound, idea, is nothing but brain changes, your notion of what a brain is, is just brain changes. ALL you are and all you know is the map impressed into your brain matter.
But however, ALL THAT IS, is not what is known to you and YOU are not all that exists. Your brain is but one brain in the company of brains, in a universe full of other things, of things that exist totally independent to YOU and your awareness of them, things which bump you and induce changes in your brain (those changes are your whole micro-cosm, they are the Macro-cosm which you are aware of.)
Malkuth is merely the vibrations in the unity of Kether, but in the wast sea of Ayn-Soph there are inumerious Kethers, each with it's own internal malkuth, each Kether is Hadit. A star in the sea of Nuit, and each Hadit the seed of an entire Cosmos of illusion, a mere imperfect map of other stars and other non-star aspects of Nuit, which can only map the interaction the relations between itself and the other things which bump into it. Likewise it can only know itself by purposely interacting with other aspects of Nuit and collecting experiences that can be scientifically choses and used to build a model of it self. (This is the process of attaining the HGA)
There is however no force by which one can see events other than by use of the Eyes which are limited by location in space time, like wise to hear a tone one must be spatially located where the sound vibrations can touch the ear drum. If I am in Illinois, I can not hear the whispers of men in China, no matter where I have deluded my mind to thing it is astrally projected to.
-
"But however, ALL THAT IS, is not what is known to you and YOU are not all that exists. Your brain is but one brain in the company of brains, in a universe full of other things, of things that exist totally independent to YOU and your awareness of them, things which bump you and induce changes in your brain (those changes are your whole micro-cosm, they are the Macro-cosm which you are aware of.)"
Perhaps Froclown forgets that the entire purpose of Magick is to unite the Macrocosm with the Microcosm.
Thereby does man overcome limitations of the sort you (eloquently) describe.
"Well show me these records."
Simply put, it is not in my authority to reveal them to the profane. And even if it were, I have little desire to show such things around for the sake of winning menial arguments.
I can, however, attest to a number of circumstances wherein I obtained certain knowledge independent of my five senses.
Unfortunately, the only proof I have is the success of the endeavors involved--and this is the only proof I myself will really require.You show a profound theoretical knowledge of Thelema, Sir Froclown--yet this is only the Masculine side of Magick, and we are dealing here with the Feminine.
This isn't to denigrate the Scientific Method, but there are problems that call for a little Mother-wit as well.
-
There is the micro-cosm of the emotions and the imagination, the working of the mind on memories.
Then there is the Macro-cosm which is the phenomena of the micro-cosm devising a map or projection of sensory data, which naive realism considers the REAL world or the real Macro-cosm.Magic unites the projection of the inner with the projection of the outer. But the REAL Macro-cosm the actual objective reality is not known or knowable or experienced directly in any way, it can only be approximated by the asymptote of reason applied to scientific data, and gleaned or intuited by abduction. More data gets one closer and closer, but it can never be attained.
The thing in itself is not ever known, it is both self and other, but it is not either of these. It is beyond duality, it is not Chaos nor Cosmos 0=2.
It is what is in and of itself, devoid of all human knowledge. We only know pictures in our brains. We are as artists we can only see the paint and never the object that is painted. We have 3 colors of paint and their combinations, our three paints can not capture the infinite base colors that exist.
We have 3 primary colors Red, yellow and Blue. Be cause we have 3 types of color sensing nerves in our eyes. Dogs only have 2 colors they can see, thus they can see less total combined colors. Birds have 4 types of color detection cells in their eyes, birds can see vastly more colors than we can. But the thing itself exists as it is, irregardless of who or what is looking at it. even if nothing sees the apple at all, it still exists in the same way. Thus because it look grayish to a dog, Red to a man and something we have no words for to a bird does not change the fact of the apple, Those 3 apples are all nothing but events, electrical pluses in the brains of the animals than observe the apple. The APPLE is not in their brains, and though each of them is effected by the apple, the man the dog and the bird see different paintings of the apple, each painted with it's own set of paints available in it's nervous system. And not one of the 3 sees the apple itself as it is, in the real world made of not of the nervous system's paints, but out of the stuff of apples.
Color, smell, flavor, texture, size, shape, semantic shades, etc are all just the paints that exist innately in the human brain, and all that we ever can experience is merely different combinations of those paints. We can never see the colors that a bird can see and we can never see 4 or 5 dimensions of space. We can never hear a tone beyond our range of hearing nor taste a flavor that is not one of the 5 we are born with.
But the real world, is not painted it colors, meanings, flavors and sounds. The apple it self has no shape, size, color, texture, scent, flavor, name, or meaning. Which is not to say that it does not exist, it exists and is painted with paints that our brain can never know, as we can only know the changes in our brain chemistry, which is to say we only know our own pallet of paints and can not even IMAGINE anything beyond those limits.
-
"can not even IMAGINE anything beyond those limits"
you were mostly correct, except for this point.
You might want to look up accounts of people, born blind due to physiological reasons, who report visual OBE during near-death experiences.
Besides, your argument is to use empirical reasoning to establish that empirical evidence is the only way of knowing anything. Do you see the tautology?
-
""It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion... You really can't take it seriously because it seems so mythological; it seems so arbitrary.... But, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and, by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. So... I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch."
ā Steve Martin"
-
@Froclown said
"Atoms are the basic building blocks of EVERYTHING, in fact atoms are the only things than exist because EVERYTHING is made of atoms, there is nothing else out from which to build anything.
YOU and all humans are THINGS that exist in the universe, THUS You are Atoms and nothing else.
There is no need to postulate that anything that is not included in EVERYTHING that exists in the universe, is necessary to human life. Thus a human is a thing in the universe made out of Atoms, ie physical matter, ie the ONLY ontological substance which exists ANYWHERE.
QED"
I can show you atoms, too. A few kilos of carbon, about 8 pints of water, iron, calcium, sulphur, sodium chloride, zinc, complex hydrocarbons, and smaller piles of other stuff too.
Is it a human being?
-
To be fair, I agree with Froclown, everything he has said makes perfect sense, and does not require the bending of modern science to suit personal theories about the world. It is also a healthy position, if we were to believe others without scrutinizing and weighing evidence, and checking on methods we would easily be mislead. A god of the gaps argument, like the ones made from the complexity of quantum mechanics, and loss of body weight, are essentially saying look- here is something that we currently do not understand, therefore it proves my world view. I can only imagine how many such arguments were made for rainbows before we understood refraction.
To be more fair yet again, this skeptical position, is the perfect starting point for exploring the occult, personally once I get projection down to a controllable ability, I intend to do experiments on it, to verify one way or another where it is a construct of the brain, or something more objective than that. So I respect the opinions of many people here who may have verified from experiment such things for themselves, but your personal verifications cannot ever be proof to another person.
(Ninja edit: I love this forums stance on sexism in general and in the occult, its nice to see such a healthy stance given Crowley views)
-
@Andrey said
"To be fair, I agree with Froclown, everything he has said makes perfect sense, and does not require the bending of modern science to suit personal theories about the world. It is also a healthy position, if we were to believe others without scrutinizing and weighing evidence, and checking on methods we would easily be mislead. A god of the gaps argument, like the ones made from the complexity of quantum mechanics, and loss of body weight, are essentially saying look- here is something that we currently do not understand, therefore it proves my world view. I can only imagine how many such arguments were made for rainbows before we understood refraction.
To be more fair yet again, this skeptical position, is the perfect starting point for exploring the occult, personally once I get projection down to a controllable ability, I intend to do experiments on it, to verify one way or another where it is a construct of the brain, or something more objective than that. So I respect the opinions of many people here who may have verified from experiment such things for themselves, but your personal verifications cannot ever be proof to another person.
(Ninja edit: I love this forums stance on sexism in general and in the occult, its nice to see such a healthy stance given Crowley views)"
Kind of. Ish.
The point I'm making is that something animates us from mere atoms. Something makes us greater in power than an amoeba. Something within nearly all of us says it would be wrong of me to kill or rape someone's mother. All those things remain constant, regardless of our Aeon.
I would point at that thing (I care not what you wish to call it ~ it has many names), utterly undefinable and unexplainable by science, and say "This is a soul. It is important."
-
@Froclown said
"Show me where a controlled experiment has proved statistically significant data to support the hypothesis that it is possible to project one's awareness such as to accurately describe events that are not disclosed to the senses of the body. "
One does not need statistical analysis to verify certain types of outcomes. Three remote viewers can be sent to a target and 2 can fail while the third is successful and as far as the NSA or CIA is concerned that is a positive outcome.
The proof is not an r-squared but the usefulness of the accuracy and detail reported back from a remote target.
If you know nothing about this whole remote viewing business a little reading on the subject might give you some perspective. Here is one site that is not real good but gives cursory notes;
ilvaremoteviewing.com/index.htmThe government's psychics
First, let's talk about Black Ops, a secret department within our Military Intelligence Department of the Army.
In 1973 Stanford Research Institute started doing classified research on Remote Viewing funded by the United States government.
The two primary psychics SRI were researching were lngo Swann and Pat Price. These guys were so good that when they went remote viewing it was as if their ghosts were actually in the building, walking through it, while their physical bodies sat in chairs and delivered a tour guide's monologue. -
Talking about atoms as the ultimate level of reality today is pretty much the same as clinging to the classical view of the Universe composed of solely 4 elements - earth, water, fire and air.
Yes, there is a value in that view in terms of certain psychical approaches to the Universe, but I doubt many scientists these days would back a scrapping of the Table of Elements as a "God of the gaps" model.Next we'll be getting told that the earth is actually flat, and resting on the back of a giant tortoise.
This is the 21st Century folks, we can do better than "atoms".
-
Remote viewing is bullshit and the fact that the CIA believes in it, is no better proof that the fact that the SS believed in the power of mythical relics like the holy grail and the Spear of Odin, Or that the Beatles believed in peace vibes.
There is no such thing as truth by authority.
There is 0 evidence that remote viewing is anything other than vague guesses and intuitions.
"OH I, see I see a big red Barn.
Well there is a fire truck here, so that's close enough."
NO, That is Bullshit.
-
The question here is the difference between the definition of the word "transmittance" and "transmittal."
I'll give you a minute to look those up. I'm being precise here...
Self and Object. Object and Self. I and Thou. I and It. All criss-crossed down through the planes of harmonic vibration.
In my current understanding, it is the Current itself which is Alive, the Child, and through various transformations, Self-Consciousness. Heruraha!
And through its Larger and more fully developed Nexi, the Spirit Moves and stirs as it Will, according to the laws of Equilibration and Karma, based upon the Initial Equation.
Ultimately, All is Maya, painted with the interwoven Stories of the Lives of the All-Father and his Bride. The many-colored Marriage Garment.
But there are Currents, and there are currents, and there are currents, and there are currents...
I don't know if my metaphors help you any, but they help me bridge the gap between the pattern I know myself to be, and the patterns I see below and above, both in size and in function, as well as in the patterns of change.
I think of humans as trees grown in the garden of the Union between the most High and the most Low. Trees draw air and fire from their branches and water and earth from their roots. So, I imagine, flows the Current of the Lord of the Light and of the Darkness.
Trees do not need to touch the Sun in order to draw nourishment from it. There are such higher, subtler orders of transmittance, and lower subtler orders of transmittance, that one might need instead to switch terms in one's mind to transmittal and begin thinking in terms of information instead of energy.