The valididty of the LoA

[joelr]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I keep refering to that model as 'mainstream science'. It's a shorthand, and science is full of theories, contradictory theories, obviously. But what I consider a vast number of scientists will tell you that such concepts are very highly unlikely. The best of them wouldn't say "completely out of the question", as that's rather anti-scientific. Good scientists prefer to deal in probabilities. It's a little irritating, but what can you do, if you're dedicated to being true to the observations you make.

Well I asked you some specifics about the mainstream science view of reality (quantum physics) and you said it's not your area.
Right now physicists are debating over questions like "is local-realism false" and "why is retrocausality possible in the double slit experiment":

[1001.5057] New Slant on the EPR-Bell Experiment
[quant-ph/9903047] A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

And if vitalism or consciousness creating reality could be worked out with math then it would be explored. That connection cannot be made yet. So scientists HAVE to stay away from metaphysics. If you read "Faster than the Speed Of Light" by J. M. you can see how he almost destroyed his physics career by working on a paper about how gravity may have been slower in the past. He went against science dogma.

Still, because there IS a seeming connection to consciousness, many physics have spoken positively about the idea. My favorite author Paul Davies, a highly decorated physicist and mathematician agrees there is something to the speculation. So did Fred Alan Wolf until he decided to get back into mainstream research.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

But sending out waves of thought into the ether, or beling the limitless consciousness that you are, all these phrases are purely religious, items of faith, like bread turning into flesh or human beings walking on water.

For now it's just metaphysics. Physicist William Tiller has done some excellent experiments with intention or waves of thought as you say. He actually achieved startling results and he has worked out a mathematical model to account for his findings.

He measured actual changes in the gauge symmetry of the vaccum, something that cannot be done. I feel more experiments need to be done to say there is "proof" in that sense but his work is huge. I have his book on the findings.
Obviously the energies involved are not anything we currently know so they are dubbed "subtle energies".

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Crucially, though, the mainstream scientific view is a seriously staggering array of observations, almost all of which point to materialism as the simplest and most explanatory theory of the universe. Not dualism of spirit embodied in matter, or spirit that forms into matter.

I know. Most science does not deal with such matters. That is not crucial though. I have to say, consciousness aside, quantum physics has the final say and reality has turned out to be, well, it's not what we think.

In one version of Hawkings No-Boundary Condition, a theory of the Universe at it's beginning, all observers "create" their past by observing wave functions that correspond to the past and in this case "create" their past history from an infinite amount of many-worlds.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Also crucially, although there are ways to admit these ideas into our thinking without disturbing the other theories (behind all the material stuff, there could be a great Mind...), science also usually works from the idea of having to have a phenomenon to explain first, rather than just making stuff up that could fit with current knowledge.

Well you decided not to study up on the double-slit experiment and it's 80 years of evidence for the observer effect. Including the modern quantum delayed erasure where the act of observation changes the past.

It's out there to learn from. Well, according to Bohr, nothing is "out there" until observed.
If you understand the results of these experiments then you would have the phenomenon that needs explaining.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Plus this: the vast array of evidence I've mentioned forms a very closely binding network, all of it supporting the rest - sorry, most of it, there are always anomalies. And one

Right but coming from a science perspective the macroscopic world has become something of a big illusion. Physics can't say exactly what's going on but it doesn't look good for materialism. It does NOT even support local-realism.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

because it's important and exremely hard to grokk. There is JUST matter. What? You mean, mind arises out of matter?

I know, it's all matter. Then we studied matter. Oops, not what it seemed. In fact, we create it. Those wave functions only collapse when someone collapses it.
You can stay "up" in the material sciences and use them as proof for a material world. Nice little circle of happy. That's fine.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Meanwhile, there are a vast number of things people believe that have (to my mind) no evidence - Jesus son of God, Buddha some kind of divine dude, living beyond death, previous lives, making things move with our minds, fairies, mind-reading, the power of crystals, dream-catchers (that catch dreams), unicorns on uranus....

I consider that mostly mythology, I like mythology for it's deeper meanings but that's a different thing. Mostly it's getting at the idea that there is something bigger than ourself or transcendent of ourselves. Even Emerson thought that.

Being the skeptic that I am, and not always trusting what my senses and other people tell me, I'm having trouble imagining no-existence after death. Consciousness may be non-local anyways. Everything else is (see EPR paradox and Alain Aspects first proof).
Plus time seems to ME to be moving forward, but that's not making sense as a total and absolute condition when I use Special Relativity to make sense of it. No moments in time, including what we think of as "past" can just "not exist". That doesn't make total sense.

In light of that conundrum we should "always exist". That's a different matter anyways.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

The scientific world is full of experiments that don't show those things. They may exist, and you're free to beileve in them.

The experiments that would show an observer created reality are far and few. The experiments that would show an observer created reality, do show an observer created reality.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I read recently that in a vacuum, they regularly observe particles coming into existence and snuffing out again, borrowing energy from the future for a moment and then having to pay it back quickly. Yet I also wonder how they know they've created a vacuum in the first place. It's held up as a quantum mystical miracle, but if you're not sure what a vacuum is, or how to definitively create one, maybe there are some proto-particles in there to begin with.

The math in Quantum Mechanics shows a probabilistic nature of reality which includes the fact that there is a probability that in empty space particles will create themselves out of nothing. The math suggested this possibility first but later these "virtual particles" were shown to exist in a few different ways - the casmir effect is one.

Now virtual particles are the absolute backbone of physics. They are responsible for all known forces and interactions (not sure about gravity yet). Atoms stick together, electron clouds stay in orbit, all due to the exchange of VP. Quantum Chromodynamics and Electrodynamics spell out how quarks stick and electron/photon interactions account for just about everything. Using virtual particles.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

This is also hailed in the more rhapsodic discussions as 'creation' happening right before our eyes, from nothing at all. Yet this universe, the same scientists will tell you (and the physics depends on the same) that creation happened in the big bang.

[QUOTE=John Freestone;627868]

There are different ideas going around. But in the big bang spacetime itself was created (?) along with a huge amount of incredible energy. Energy that when cooled down formed into all the particles, forces, and photons (light) we have today. Spacetime also included the probabilistic nature we all love and gravity which caused star formation and cooked all our fun heavy elements besides hydrogen, deutarium and the other one.

Pretty fancy energy.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Do you have any idea how confused and intricate modern physics is? I don't! LOL. So maybe you should tell me what you think it says.

It's also the most accurate theory ever. Q. Electrodynamics in particular.
There are some missing links for sure. But "it" doesn't say any one thing, it's too vague of a question. It right now says reality is completely not like reality at all.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Yes, but I don't think it's particularly strange really. I think it would be natural in a fair number of cases to feel better just knowing you're climbing a list towards treatment

This would be part of the theory of the LoA. Some people start feeling better just knowing they're climbing a list towards treatment. Some people may even have a remission while they're on that list. I would love to see a lot more research done on spontaneous remissions. There is likely some incredibly important information there.

[John Freestone]

joelr, you may post as many links to rigorous science regarding QM as you like, and mention in the same breath as many pseudoscientists as you like; it doesn't bridge the gap between QM and BS. I'll keep it brief, because I understand we're off topic.

moonrambler, placebo isn't "part of LoA", it's all of LoA. Make yourself feel happy, by jingo how miraculous, you feel happier. Believe that you're in control of how happy you are because you've discovered the secret to life, which is backed up by rigorous science (see above), and it starts to just TAKE OFF! Choose to believe that Aquamantra is better than ordinary water, or a Q-Link pendant is going to smoothe out your subtle energy (you can get a gold one for $1200), and you will probably feel better. The only price you pay is increasing susceptibility to irrational thinking, poor decision-making and general self-delusion about the nature of reality. I'll keep it brief, because we're off topic.

Anyone seen Godot?

[John Freestone]

Aquamantra. I love the tag line for that: "Our water is a tool to remind you of what you truly are". Really, there's no need for that kind of thing. They're taking the piss, surely.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

joelr, you may post as many links to rigorous science regarding QM as you like, and mention in the same breath as many pseudoscientists as you like; it doesn't bridge the gap between QM and BS. I'll keep it brief, because I understand we're off topic.

It's not off topic. In fact it's right on.

Nothing bridges the gap between QM and BS. We are seeing some interesting links to physics and consciousness however.
I guess you can ignore that all you like.

Even Einstein ignored science when it stopped agreeing with his personal metaphysics. Hence his famous quote "God does not play dice!".

Hmm, I don't recall even mentioning one single pseudoscientist?
I could have sworn you were using science yourself as a large part of your ideas.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

And trying to find experiments that back up their theories. String theory is falsifiable. At least it will be if it ever becomes the string law.

That's what the scientific method is all about. A scientist will come up with a hypotheses as explanations of some phenomena, and then create experiments studies to test the hypotheses. The experiment must be repeatable and future results must (within reason) match up with the original results. Put enough hypotheses together and they will support a theory, such as the LoA.
Got any examples?
Until someone can reason out some hypotheses and design some good experiments it will always be colloquial.

In fact, science isn't about proving something you believe in. It's about explaining a phenomenon. Why is the sky blue? Why does water get bigger when it freezes? The scientist recognizes there is a lack of understanding about a subject and comes up with an idea. Then he dreams up an experiment to support or not support his hypothesis.

There isn't any lack of understanding about the LoA because it's not a phenomenon. It's a theory. Many of you have done experiments such as "I want to see a yellow feather" then off you go to the zoo, (LOL, no I'm kidding on the zoo thing) or "I want to see a purple marble" then when you go to your new co-worker's house to drop off some paperwork and you see his kid playing with a purple marble you think it validated your experiment. But the experiment isn't by any means conclusive. There are plenty of other explanations to the purple marble. The repeating number thing (Seeing 1:11 2:22 3333 123123123 all the time) and synchronicity are two other experiments that don't prove anything because 1) They aren't designed to support a hypothesis 2) They aren't repeatable 3) There are plenty of other explanations for them, and 4) they are actually phenomenon, not experiments.

The LoA though isn't a response to a phenomenon. It's a response to a wish: "I wish I had more control over my life." There is a phenomenon there and I do admit there might be then some connection to the "Theory of Attraction" but no one is coming up with any valid hypotheses nor valid experiments.

If you want to turn the LoA into a genuine LAW of Attraction then frikkin follow the scientific method.

1. Examine a phenomenon: (when I think red light I get a red light; when I think green light I get a green light)
2. come up with a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon (saying Law of Attraction isn't a hypothesis)
3. design an experiment that is repeatable and conclusive to supporting your hypothesis
4. then run the experiment.
5. Publish the results in a peer reviewed journal and ask other scientists to repeat the experiment.

Until you can do that the word "law" will remain colloquial.
Sigh. That one again. Is that the only example you people can come up with?

The double slit experiment isn't a test... well... it's a test but more accurately it's a phenomenon. It wasn't designed to test string theory. It was designed as an experiment to a hypothesis about the particle/wave nature of light. There is still something there that isn't understood. Scientists have tried to test the test itself but it's difficult because measuring one photon or electron changes the nature of that photon or electron.Right. Well, someone on the LoA side frikkin do it. Don't just say, "the LoA is untestable" then run off to play Harry Potter.Didn't I say "properly following scripture?" A little bit of corruption goes a long way. Imagine those corrupt people with the power of I-M.Clearly they were because there are scriptures like "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "love thy enemy."No it's not. Passages like "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "love thy enemy" say different. Also the Bible EXPLICITLY MANY TIMES tells us not to judge.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:1-2

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 1 Corinthians 5:12-13

And even if Christian scripture is so difficult to reason out, at least there are rules. They are written down for us. If a "Christian" does something evil like mass murder "in the name of God" you can point to a specific line in the Bible and say "nu uh." But the LoA doesn't have a rulebook. And people have supposedly been using it longer than 2000 years. Sure there is writing but as I noted recently, the people who believe in the LoA can't even agree on what the LoA exactly is and what it means to use it. Since LoA / I-M doesn't have a written down set of guidelines, and if I-M effectively gives the user supernatural powers, then what's going to keep evil people from using the LoA to do evil? If Christianity with a rules can't keep the murderers at bay, how on Earth is the LoA going to do it without any rules? Oh, I know some believers in the LoA say that you can't do evil with it, but that statement is just as untestable as any other LoA claim.

Now if you'll excuse me, It's time for church.

I just wanted to see that partially excellent post up there again! ...I missed the first time how well you described the paucity of LoA's attempt to reconcile itself with the scientific method and attempt to become a law, from its current status as conjecture (The Conjecture of Attraction - yes, that's fine), and I think also deserves the psychosocial tag, 'mass hysteria'.

The puzzling bit, and why I think I missed the good bits, is the Christian apologetics, which I find quite a lesson in how irrationality moves in mysterious ways. I see little difference really between the rules you consider valid - Christian ones - and those of the CoA, which you seem to doubt as seriously as I do. "Trust your ability to manifest and you shall duly manifest" is some kind of a rule, and not so different from "Whosoever believes in me shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (pardon my paraphrasing, it's a long time since school). I've said they're both religions, and I mean to convey in that their basic irrationality, their faith-based-ness (which is unfalsifiable). Oh, perhaps I am on topic after all. One can test certain simple hypotheses, like the effectiveness of prayer or micro-psychokinesis, but not such broad conjectures as Attraction or God, methinks. And I think there's as much evidence for either of those.

Anyway, kudos on the other bit about science!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by joelr

For now it's just metaphysics. Physicist William Tiller has done some [COUGH] excellent experiments with intention or waves of thought as you say. He actually achieved startling results and he has worked out a mathematical model to account for his findings.

That pseudoscientist.

ETA - I don't actually need to argue with you. You just said it - at the moment it's just metaphysics!

[themaster]

John.. john.. john.. I have some questions for you..

Have you ever worked on super collider?

Have you ever rammed neutrino's into a piece of lead?

Have you ever written a scientific paper?

No?? No?? Are you sure..??

Well, good I have message for you.. you are a fake! That's right I'm calling you out..

Your another science boy lacky.. who's read a bunch of science.. but never's done 1 IOUTA of the work..

And so you pick up your *science* bible.. and hop on the *science*/skeptic train.. and come out here to fringes.. the "wild, wild west" (frontier land ) to convert the heathens..

You know what's funny about science boy lackey's..?? they'd rather talk about science.. and talk to heathens.. then do the work.. because there not interested in SCIENCE.. there just interested in conversation with heathens..

Yours is the typical case john of.. "I've done it.. and I tried it and it didn't work" so therefore all the explanations and ideas are wrong.. and why are they wrong..?? "cause I've tried it and didn't work"

It's a funny experience when people say "my experience dictates reality" because we all know the opposite is true.. 2 people go to a conference about "farming" 1 person has a horrible time.. the other has a wonderful time.. and the only difference between those 2 is their perspectives.. for they both had the exact same EXPERIENCE.. but ones attitude was negative or lack based.. the other was positive or abundance based..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Explained. That's what's so sad, thenotevenstudentyet. You don't want to learn, so you don't hear the explanations of these phenomena, or if you do, you think they're conspiracies from the evil scientists being paid to shove all the weird things under the carpet. Except things like the fact that we've all died several times. Science can't hide that, and hasn't got any answers to explain it away, so obviously it's true.

What is this statement all about John..?? you say I don't want to hear the explanation.. (is there one?) then you say.. "science hasn't gotten any answers"

You see John.. I'm interested in the questions and answers science hasn't gotten to.. I'm interested in "everything" I don't need sciences specific approach to just some things.. that is it limitation is it not?

Theoretically one day they'll bind it all together.. maybe.. maybe..

(I have never heard a good *whole* explanation for reality.. until I heard "new ages" and I think it fills in all the holes/gaps science can't get too)

But yah, know you could say "f*#@ it" with the skepticism.. step out here to the "leading edge" and explore ideas from a idea of "explaining everything"

But I know you John.. you judge that bad right..?

(was that you or Melchior?)

You don't think you should take information from *weirdo* sources that might make sense.. yet, all the time we hear weird statements (here) from joelr and alg that Seth gave out of information of the universes construction and how it was organized long before we had that information..

Now explain that one?

(ohh wait you're a scientist.. *cough* scientologist (I love giving you a religious label ) go sit in your corner)

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I won't ask how you know the water you loved is different from other water. It's probably off topic. Do the unicorns prefer it?

There is research done on this fact.. and I believe ALG even stated there's more than 1 set of research..

It's just a question of what you validate..?? do you validate you can right now setup a experiment where thoughts effect plants?

That you could do it a 100 times and likely get the same results every time.. but then as you become skeptical and SCIENCY (new word for the day )

And say.. no the sunlight was wrong for this one.. and this one didn't get the same water/compost.. blah.. blah.. a 101 excuses to use your EGO rather than really understand what it means..

Something you also never say.. John.. but I'd like to point out is.. a lot of "new age" information (not all) actually backs itself up.. what I mean is..

There are 1,000's of sources for "new age" information and yet either (there all lies!) or it's ironic that they all kind of say the same thing.. isn't it?

1000's of sources all giving out information that's largely the SAME.. so either it's a massive conspiracy! or maybe there telling the truth.. we'll just go.. maybe for you..

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Melchior

That's fine, I don't understand how your answer applies to the question though. Like I asked Dharma earlier to explain his riddle-like post in more understandable text, of which he did quite nicely, I will ask you to explain what you mean by your riddles. If you feel that I am not deserving of and explanation to understand what you know to be saying, then I will no longer take into consideration what it is that you are trying to say.

Alright.. let me answer again.. since you didn't like it..

Originally Posted by Melchior

Aside from the first being a question and the second a statement, the first is an attempt to get at the mechanism behind LoA, whatever it is, and the second is an attempt to determine if the LoA, as we talk about it, actually makes sense.

1. Mechanism of LOA is us.. "law of attraction" is us.. it's our power as creators as being part of the one/of the one.. (probably not good enough for your skeptical mind.. nor what you want to hear.. but that is so.. )

2. The make sense part is up to the individual.. it's all about denial or truth.. do you deny that we are all one? That our entire reality could be all the same person? And the interesting thing is.. if you use the "emotional guidance system" as designed if you deny you are one.. you feel NEGATIVE.. lol

Let me elaborate too.. that I've talked with quite a few people and they say.. when I point something out like this.. that they don't feel negative.. I think this is true.. but I also think people are very good at suppressing there emotions and being unconscious.. and so I'm not exactly sure even when people report in some cases (they don't feel negative) that they are telling the truth consciously.. because they may not know how they really feel.. (I get to read certain tinges in energy.. the first time I read your post.. 2nd time.. I don't always see it.. and therefore.. I think I know when people feel negative about posts sometimes.. but I admit I could be wrong.. but I think I'm right.. )

That won't convince you though.. will it Melchior?

You who came into a thread of mine.. and tried to insinuate I was some kind fraud and liar with this post..

Originally Posted by Melchior

Is it just me, or does this thread also give you the feeling that themaster started it? :/

It's just you! (well, no it isn't it.. )

When does the skeptic stop in you Melchior..? how far is your reach..? you see you are a skeptic when you post things like this.. you are doubtful of everyone's truth.. definitely mine..

And I am open to everyone's truth.. I deny nothing.. I say everything is true..

You come to me and say you have Aids.. I validate you.. you come to me and say you "don't believe in oneness" I validate you.. see I don't believe in lies.. even when you're lying.. (a little non-sense now and then is relished by the wisest men.. )

Originally Posted by Melchior

I disagree with the whole oneness thing the way you've described it, but carry on, as long as I'm not adversely affected by your beliefs in it.

well, then we don't have much to talk about.. because denial of oneness is denial of yourself..

It's the same thing with skepticism.. disbelief something.. disbelief something in yourself.. same effect

Originally Posted by Melchior

Did you miss it? I said be honest with yourself.

This implies.. that I'm purposefully delusional.. which is true and not..

This also implies judgment.. you are saying "I am wrong" and you are right.. but I believe there's no wrong way to be.. so therefore I am not in your duality.. and your judgment does not seem to true to me..

Or NO Melchior.. I will not adopt your truth of judgment..

Originally Posted by Melchior

Ok, I'll spend them elsewhere if I'd like. Are you really helping here? I can see you beginning to try...

Each time I write.. Melchior.. I'm helping.. I'm helping me and you.. and others

It is my intention and creation when I post.. and sometimes.. sometimes.. people have acknowledged it.. other times they go all quiet and scarred and disappear like smartalx does a lot.. unable to want to talk about it anymore.. unable to find a argument to rationalize their beliefs..

If you have the *stomach* Melchior.. I'd be glad to take this conversation to the limit with you.. which would cover a lot of ground..

Originally Posted by Melchior

Tried, yes. Experimented, no, didn't think it would be worth it to run the tests myself. Permission slips, no, no need. Tried, a few things, some of which relating to career, some of which relating to random things, and some of which relating to this forum. As for results, while inconclusive as they were simply tries, I have received what I've intended.

Well, excellent.. if you tried and succeeded

Why aren't you trying some more..?? why aren't you trying to figure out what *causes* this phenomena?

Because that is what you said.. yes?

"I have tried the law of attraction and found it works" the word you used was "intended"

Originally Posted by Melchior

When did I imply that I refused to learn something?

You've already refused.. "oneness"

It's weird too cause a open scientist would hear the theory of "oneness" and go.. hmmm.. maybe, it's possible? I see it possible? (no way to prove it.. they might say.. but possible, yes)

A skeptical scientist grumpy in life and even unhappy would say.. "oneness" omg! I've never heard such stupidity.. lol

See it's all about your viewpoint and how open or closed you are.. you seem closed.. (sorta) we'll see how closed you say you are..

Originally Posted by Melchior

If that is what you think it's been, do you wish to continue?

I'm game.. I'm back see..?? I don't promise to be here for you always.. but as you can see if I'm here and if I want too.. I'll try to explain these things to you.. and since I'm always around you can probably guess that means in the future that is likely too.. however, I make no promises!

[joelr]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

That pseudoscientist.

Tiller is a physicist? He produces theories, tests them and introduces a mathematical framework when the tests confirm the theories.



If Tiller is a pueudoScientist than so is Hawking, Penrose and the 100's of other graduate students who produce papers with new but very speculative theories on quantum loop gravity, variations in the past speed of light, or any other fringe idea.

For example Tiller proposes a particle called magnon:

"If we choose the electron as our physical particle, then its pilotwave will be defined as the magnetic monopole of "magnon". Because the magnon is traveling so fast, it weaves a pilotwave shape around the electron and, since it is non-observable by our present instruments, it is located in the vacuum reality and can thus have negative energy and negative mass. The detailed shape of the pilotwave envelope (magnon) will be the Fourier Transform of the detailed electron shape. From appendix 2.1 [not present], when one develops the Fourier Transform, one defines the wave number, k = 2 pi n/lambda= 2 pi v/c where lambda is the physical space wavelength. This leads to the conventional view of the Fourier Transform. For our utility in treating magnetic particles traveling at v' > c, we use V'/v' = V/c so that the same topographic map which is the Fourier Transform profile just shifts to a higher frequency band to express the etheric nature of the magnon (V'/V = v'/c). Of course, the basic nature of the magnon wave is not electromagnetic."
Etc, etc.

Why would someone even look for an energy that transcends our current instruments? One might call that pseudoscience without realizing that one of the biggest holes in physics involves "something" that is undetectable and moves much faster than c.

Tiller doesn't become a pseudo-whatever because he dares infringe on certain peoples universal philosophy.

Yes LOA is metaphysics. So? Your idea of matter creates mind is metaphysics.

General Relativity was metaphysics for years after it was put forth as a theory. It solidified when Einstein hired a mathematician skilled in non-Euclidian geometry (Riemanns creation, he's the prime number Riemann hypothesis guy)but until the perehillion of Mercury was measured to the exact variance that GR predicted it was strange metaphysics. Bent spacetime, black holes, expanding universe, ??? Absurd.




For anyone interested - The quote from Niels Bohr can be found in this interview of physicist Anton Zeilinger. As well as reasons to doubt the objective matter-creates-mind model.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by joelr

Tiller doesn't become a pseudo-whatever because he dares infringe on certain peoples universal philosophy.

Hey, it could be worse. Today, they call them pseudo-whatevers in order to discredit them. A few hundred years ago people like Tiller would be burned alive in the Town Square as heretics for daring to suggest there is a God above the one of "Accepted" Science. So that's progress.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by themaster

John.. john.. john.. I have some questions for you..

Have you ever worked on super collider?

Have you ever rammed neutrino's into a piece of lead?

Have you ever written a scientific paper?

No?? No?? Are you sure..??

Well, good I have message for you.. you are a fake! That's right I'm calling you out..

Your another science boy lacky.. who's read a bunch of science.. but never's done 1 IOUTA of the work..

And so you pick up your *science* bible.. and hop on the *science*/skeptic train.. and come out here to fringes.. the "wild, wild west" (frontier land ) to convert the heathens..

You know what's funny about science boy lackey's..?? they'd rather talk about science.. and talk to heathens.. then do the work.. because there not interested in SCIENCE.. there just interested in conversation with heathens..

If you're quite finished ranting, I haven't done direct experiments into the nature of reality, no, but you again show your ignorance by assuming that that means that I'm a fake and a science lackey. You haven't smashed atoms either, so neither of us can say that our direct experience of science has proved the nature of reality. One interesting difference between us, however, is that I have done enough work to learn how to write English fairly well, while you haven't, and I have two science advanced level passes from school, to add to my ten ordinary level passes. I've worked hard at understanding the things I was taught, and always questioned them too. If you passed any remotely comparable exams, there's something seriously wrong with your country's education system.

Furthermore, I am not a science lackey. I'll tell you why. I began meditating and practising yoga in my teens, and kept on the spiritual path for decades after. In the meantime, I went to Brookes University, Oxford, to study a science, Geology, but I dropped out in my second year, partly because I had serious doubts about the whole of science (I thought it was too sciency, if you like = I saw flaws in the logic of classifications used and, in particular, had no confidence in statistics and 'statistical significance') and partly because I was getting seriously stoned and wanted to hang out with my mates playing music and philosophising. I continued being a philosopher and "spiritual person", doing training in personal development, psychotherapy and counselling, and was a Reiki practitioner. It was hard, as I keep saying, waking up, by which I mean recognising the ego desire that kept me attached to the dream of Buddhist enlightenment and general magic of the universe, when vast amounts of evidence were against me and I had no real evidence for it.

Yours is the typical case john of.. "I've done it.. and I tried it and it didn't work" so therefore all the explanations and ideas are wrong.. and why are they wrong..?? "cause I've tried it and didn't work"

You're wrong again. I tried it and it worked very very well. I said earlier that I've had days, weeks, months of paranormal activity - I thought someone would ask what the hell I meant - I meant that that was how I lived, that was how I experienced the world. I felt I was swimming through a sea of prana, love and light was my food and gift to the world. Everything was just super. It was hard waking up but I had an age-old commitment to truth above pleasure and function. In all honesty I had to honour my commitment the truth. And it hurt. The reason I went into meltdown with my insults to you earlier was because you press this button. I ****ing suffered to get back what I strongly believe is my sanity. Now ultimately it's everyone's free choice, and if you want to believe in unicorns, so be it.

It's a funny experience when people say "my experience dictates reality" because we all know the opposite is true.. 2 people go to a conference about "farming" 1 person has a horrible time.. the other has a wonderful time.. and the only difference between those 2 is their perspectives.. for they both had the exact same EXPERIENCE.. but ones attitude was negative or lack based.. the other was positive or abundance based..

Yes, it's a funny thing. I'd use the word 'experience' in a different way, but I understand what you mean. I'd say that they experienced very different things (where you say they experienced the same thing, but felt differently about it) - that's fine, they're just words. The question is whether you believe that the conference was actually different. Did they, due to their different attitudes and preferences, actually create different physical reality? Everybody is aware of the difference in people's experience of things, but MOST OF HUMANITY understands that as subjective (i.e. just in your head). The Conjecture of Attraction says something very different, that the world physically changes, and those people were actually in different realities, parallel universes, or whatever. AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT AT ALL. So you are the believer, the lackey, with your LoA Bible - while I am choosing not to believe the Conjecture. To say that I do that because I "believe in science" as if it's a religion, is stupid. Science is just a structured, formalised example of being rational, and without being rational we are susceptible to believe whatever we are exposed to and feel good about - once again, the fact that paranormal stuff makes you feel good is evidence that it should at least be taken on board after careful scrutiy. Heroin - do you just take it because it feels good? No, you think about it and learn about its consequences.

What is this statement all about John..?? you say I don't want to hear the explanation.. (is there one?) then you say.. "science hasn't gotten any answers"

Forget it. Too hard to explain.

You see John.. I'm interested in the questions and answers science hasn't gotten to.. I'm interested in "everything" I don't need sciences specific approach to just some things.. that is it limitation is it not?

I absolutely promise you, you haven't got a freaking clue what science is yet, so you can't assess whether it's limited or not. Plenty of science has been done on the paranormal - what are you talking about?! - I keep trying to get through your thick skull, people have tested this **** and it doesn't show any of the normal life-signs we associate with reality! It also looks more ane more like nonsense and fakery and psychological noise. Humans are programmed to jump to conclusions - that's the psychology behind it. We have to lift ourselves above that automatic animal instinct to just believe something and be led around by our primitive brain stem! Most of it is nothing mroe than placebo and Pavolvian conditioning. It's self-deceit for the sake of the ego. It has powerful evolutionary value. All of this REAL SCIENCE (which you don't read) fits together and shows up such crap as LoA for what it is - except to the likes of you.

I've got a question for you - which of us does the following motto fit most closely with: "Don't think about it, just do it"? Now, if you dare, think about that and reassess your insulting accusation that I'm some kind of lackey. Or just start with which of us can string sentences together before you start chucking the insults about.

Continued...

[John Freestone]

Theoretically one day they'll bind it all together.. maybe.. maybe..

(I have never heard a good *whole* explanation for reality.. until I heard "new ages" and I think it fills in all the holes/gaps science can't get too)

Well if that's what you "think" then fine. I guess humans are probably very unlikely to fill in all the gaps.

But yah, know you could say "f*#@ it" with the skepticism.. step out here to the "leading edge" and explore ideas from a idea of "explaining everything"

But I know you John.. you judge that bad right..?

Well of course. It's based on your desire, and if my several grand's worth of therapy training wasn't a total waste, I'd also say it's based strongly on fear. Why the hell would it make sense to begin your philosophy with the commitment that you're going to begin from the idea of explaining everything? Because it's soothing and it appeals to your innate laziness. Let me put science's point. Everything you use every day that you'd be so lost without - computer, car, mobile, globally-stocked stores - they came from people not starting with everything, but carefully putting bits of a big jigsaw together. It was slow and hard. People sacrificed their whole lives working on one tiny piece - for you! - to piss away your life dreaming.

(was that you or Melchior?)

You don't think you should take information from *weirdo* sources that might make sense.. yet, all the time we hear weird statements (here) from joelr and alg that Seth gave out of information of the universes construction and how it was organized long before we had that information..

Now explain that one?

See I can't explain it and I don't care. Life is ok without having to have an answer to everything. that's your problem. If you got comfortable with saying "I don't know" you'd begin to understand the wonder of science.

(ohh wait you're a scientist.. *cough* scientologist (I love giving you a religious label ) go sit in your corner)

There is research done on this fact.. and I believe ALG even stated there's more than 1 set of research..

Oh ALG has stated...then it must be true. (SARCASM)

It's just a question of what you validate..?? do you validate you can right now setup a experiment where thoughts effect plants?

That you could do it a 100 times and likely get the same results every time.. but then as you become skeptical and SCIENCY (new word for the day )

And say.. no the sunlight was wrong for this one.. and this one didn't get the same water/compost.. blah.. blah.. a 101 excuses to use your EGO rather than really understand what it means..

No - jesus, it's no wonder I got posts deleted before, you're so infuriating. The whole point of science is that you can set up an experiment to test whether an idea you've got is actual or fictional. For some of us, there is a real world out there, and we can therefore test whether our ideas fit with what is real. If you want to pretend that plants do grow better if you talk kindly to them or think nice things about them, and then if you for one minute begin to doubt that, the results all change to fit, that's your tough luck. Furthermore, the idea that every paranormal thing you can think up obviously works until you doubt it has some serious problems - does it mean that's true for literally everything? Are your unicorns ACTUALLY dependent on you just believing in them enough?

And another thing, drop the stupid association you have between doubt and ego. Your ego would love to believe whatever makes you feel good and strong and successful and clever. Doubt is the ego's enemy. You've got it all upside down.

Something you also never say.. John.. but I'd like to point out is.. a lot of "new age" information (not all) actually backs itself up.. what I mean is..

There are 1,000's of sources for "new age" information and yet either (there all lies!) or it's ironic that they all kind of say the same thing.. isn't it?

Except they don't at all. They just seem to say kind of the same thing if you look for the similarities. That also is easily explained by the very same science that explains the phenomenon of myth-making. Obviously there will be similarities between the religions of the world. But they don't say the same thing. See the problem? Once you decide to be susceptible to beliefs of any kind, because you equate doubt with being bad, you add more and more "reasons" to believe into your already illusory theory of reality. Wherever you look, there is more "confirmation". But that confirmation is meaningless without discriminatory thinking.

1000's of sources all giving out information that's largely the SAME.. so either it's a massive conspiracy! or maybe there telling the truth.. we'll just go.. maybe for you..

So Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and you believe in Zeus and Mohamed and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ALL those 1000s of sources are largely the same? The Pythagorus cult and Scientology and Freemasonry?

There are similarities in religions, of course. For one thing, we probably had some religion before we began to move out of Africa. You have heard of evolution, I guess, and know that we're all related? Our genes and the archeology suggest that we descend - all of us - from people living in Africa millions of years ago. Or does that evidence just evaporate if we stop believing it? If we decide we came from aliens landing in Texas, does the history change and make that true as well? Serious question. If not, where do you draw the line? How do you assess what is possible and what isn't without science?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by joelr

Tiller is a physicist? He produces theories, tests them and introduces a mathematical framework when the tests confirm the theories.



If Tiller is a pueudoScientist than so is Hawking, Penrose and the 100's of other graduate students who produce papers with new but very speculative theories on quantum loop gravity, variations in the past speed of light, or any other fringe idea.

For example Tiller proposes a particle called magnon:

"If we choose the electron as our physical particle, then its pilotwave will be defined as the magnetic monopole of "magnon". Because the magnon is traveling so fast, it weaves a pilotwave shape around the electron and, since it is non-observable by our present instruments, it is located in the vacuum reality and can thus have negative energy and negative mass. The detailed shape of the pilotwave envelope (magnon) will be the Fourier Transform of the detailed electron shape. From appendix 2.1 [not present], when one develops the Fourier Transform, one defines the wave number, k = 2 pi n/lambda= 2 pi v/c where lambda is the physical space wavelength. This leads to the conventional view of the Fourier Transform. For our utility in treating magnetic particles traveling at v' > c, we use V'/v' = V/c so that the same topographic map which is the Fourier Transform profile just shifts to a higher frequency band to express the etheric nature of the magnon (V'/V = v'/c). Of course, the basic nature of the magnon wave is not electromagnetic."
Etc, etc.

Why would someone even look for an energy that transcends our current instruments? One might call that pseudoscience without realizing that one of the biggest holes in physics involves "something" that is undetectable and moves much faster than c.

Tiller doesn't become a pseudo-whatever because he dares infringe on certain peoples universal philosophy.

Yes LOA is metaphysics. So? Your idea of matter creates mind is metaphysics.

General Relativity was metaphysics for years after it was put forth as a theory. It solidified when Einstein hired a mathematician skilled in non-Euclidian geometry (Riemanns creation, he's the prime number Riemann hypothesis guy)but until the perehillion of Mercury was measured to the exact variance that GR predicted it was strange metaphysics. Bent spacetime, black holes, expanding universe, ??? Absurd.




For anyone interested - The quote from Niels Bohr can be found in this interview of physicist Anton Zeilinger. As well as reasons to doubt the objective matter-creates-mind model.

OK, let me try to explain that again. Tiller's work is not generally accepted by the scientific community, as far as I know. Now, of course, that could be because his work is right, and others haven't accepted it yet, or wrong, which is why they haven't.

However, the point I was trying to make is that your evidence related to relatively well-accepted quantum mechanics and what-not, things that have been observed at the minute scale (and indeed, maybe some hypothesising beyond the experimental evidence), and Tiller's conjectures are not quite the same, IMO. Why? Because his conjectures are mechanisms for phenomena that have not been demonstrated, and have often been shown to be illusory, frauds, etc. - the paranormal and energy medicine. So I understand and quite agree with the idea that conjecture is part of science, and it sometimes hits the truth and isn't accepted, and apparently our disagreement is to do with one of these: either that I don't believe the phenomena are real, and thus to be making up conjectures to explain them is pseudo-science, while you believe psi has been shown; or you don't agree that it is unscientific to hypothesise mechanisms without a phenomenon to explain.

In short - QM may be real, but if Reiki and all that stuff is nonsense, then looking for "subtle energy" to explain it all is silly. It does seem to spawn a lot of black boxes for sale, which also tends to make me suspicious. The scientific community don't accept his work, but there are gadgets for sale working on that method. It doesn't stack up. Just like Aquamantra pretends to be better water for having been meditated on, with similar QM-type excuses. Then there's BleepSoft's disk and brain cleaner, watch this space.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

However, the point I was trying to make is that your evidence related to relatively well-accepted quantum mechanics and what-not, things that have been observed at the minute scale (and indeed, maybe some hypothesising beyond the experimental evidence), and Tiller's conjectures are not quite the same, IMO. Why? Because his conjectures are mechanisms for phenomena that have not been demonstrated, and have often been shown to be illusory, frauds, etc. - the paranormal and energy medicine. So I understand and quite agree with the idea that conjecture is part of science, and it sometimes hits the truth and isn't accepted, and apparently our disagreement is to do with one of these: either that I don't believe the phenomena are real, and thus to be making up conjectures to explain them is pseudo-science, while you believe psi has been shown; or you don't agree that it is unscientific to hypothesise mechanisms without a phenomenon to explain.

Yes I see. I don't know which specific work you're referring to (the quote was part of a much larger body of work). But Tiller is not hypothesizing phenomena that have not been demonstrated. The first part of his most popular experiments was to demonstrate that intention has a measurable and physical effect and then put forth a model based on that work.
It was done in a traditional double-blind scientific experiment that is documented in one of his recent books.

The specifics will have no impact on this discussion so there is no need to go there. But the fact that Tiller may have actually found a magnetic monopole, and according to his results he did, his work is extremely significant for science. Unfortunately for anti-vitalists it seems to be related to focused consciousness in a meditative state and it's effects on the vaccum energy or what's known as "gauge symmetry".

For now repeat experiments are needed.

You can always see 20 or 50 years into the future of physics from any 1 spot. At least that has been the case. In each case the information looks largely ridiculous and smacks of science fiction and fantasy to the scientists of the time yet ends up being reality. A lot of superstitious mythology will be banished as well. But when Bohr speculated the only thing "real" is consciousness he wasn't just talking out his as*.

Now crystals, I don't see anything there of interest, no interesting studies, just a lattice (I think) formation of atoms. Astrology seems impossible. How could gravity from planets and moons effect anyone? The calculations show buildings and mountains have a stronger gravity pull than distant planets.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by themaster

1. Mechanism of LOA is us.. "law of attraction" is us.. it's our power as creators as being part of the one/of the one.. (probably not good enough for your skeptical mind.. nor what you want to hear.. but that is so.. )

And is this a fundamental belief of yours that is unfalsifiable? If so, then LoA for you is valid as a belief (as in a religion), but not valid as a hypothesis. If that is the case, then I will leave your beliefs on the LoA alone, just as I've left the beliefs SmartAlx has of God alone and we can be done with this point.

2. The make sense part is up to the individual.. it's all about denial or truth.. do you deny that we are all one? That our entire reality could be all the same person? And the interesting thing is.. if you use the "emotional guidance system" as designed if you deny you are one.. you feel NEGATIVE.. lol

I see. I disagree that we are all one in the sense that we are all the same person. However, I do agree that in spite of this, we are all connected. That is, Monism vs. Nondualism. As for the "emotional guidance system", I don't know what that is, or how it's designed.

Let me elaborate too.. that I've talked with quite a few people and they say.. when I point something out like this.. that they don't feel negative.. I think this is true.. but I also think people are very good at suppressing there emotions and being unconscious.. and so I'm not exactly sure even when people report in some cases (they don't feel negative) that they are telling the truth consciously.. because they may not know how they really feel.. (I get to read certain tinges in energy.. the first time I read your post.. 2nd time.. I don't always see it.. and therefore.. I think I know when people feel negative about posts sometimes.. but I admit I could be wrong.. but I think I'm right.. )

I think you may be trying to point out something that isn't there in this case. Of course, you're welcome to try to get at whatever it is that you're trying to get at. I think this will probably make for interesting conversation at the least. And John's got his popcorn in hand too.

That won't convince you though.. will it Melchior?

Convince me of what? Of oneness?

When does the skeptic stop in you Melchior..? how far is your reach..? you see you are a skeptic when you post things like this.. you are doubtful of everyone's truth.. definitely mine..

I'm not sure it ever started. Oh, and, about four feet.

well, then we don't have much to talk about.. because denial of oneness is denial of yourself..

It's the same thing with skepticism.. disbelief something.. disbelief something in yourself.. same effect

And yet you keep talking...

This implies.. that I'm purposefully delusional.. which is true and not..

This also implies judgment.. you are saying "I am wrong" and you are right.. but I believe there's no wrong way to be.. so therefore I am not in your duality.. and your judgment does not seem to true to me..

Or NO Melchior.. I will not adopt your truth of judgment..

It's interesting that you would bring up duality considering I'm a nondualist. About the being honest to yourself part, it was in response to your comment about you wanting me to discern your delusion of which I had told you in the earlier post that only you could discern it for yourself, and that that would be the only answer that would really matter to you, the only answer that would bring about any change.

Each time I write.. Melchior.. I'm helping.. I'm helping me and you.. and others

It is my intention and creation when I post.. and sometimes.. sometimes.. people have acknowledged it.. other times they go all quiet and scarred and disappear like smartalx does a lot.. unable to want to talk about it anymore.. unable to find a argument to rationalize their beliefs..

If you have the *stomach* Melchior.. I'd be glad to take this conversation to the limit with you.. which would cover a lot of ground..

Sure, but I would prefer you start a separate thread for it. If it's going to cover a lot of ground, I'd rather have it fresh than in a lengthy enough thread like this one.

Well, excellent.. if you tried and succeeded

Why aren't you trying some more..?? why aren't you trying to figure out what *causes* this phenomena?

Because that is what you said.. yes?

"I have tried the law of attraction and found it works" the word you used was "intended"

I continue to try more. However, it is probably a different definition of the LoA as has been presented in this thread, different enough that it may not even be correctly named the LoA. It's closer to what I've written about in that linked thread. As for figuring out the cause of the phenomena, it's not high on my list of priorities. For the time being, if something works, and I know to use it, that's all I need to know.

You've already refused.. "oneness"

It's weird too cause a open scientist would hear the theory of "oneness" and go.. hmmm.. maybe, it's possible? I see it possible? (no way to prove it.. they might say.. but possible, yes)

A skeptical scientist grumpy in life and even unhappy would say.. "oneness" omg! I've never heard such stupidity.. lol

See it's all about your viewpoint and how open or closed you are.. you seem closed.. (sorta) we'll see how closed you say you are..

Yes, we shall see.

I'm game.. I'm back see..?? I don't promise to be here for you always.. but as you can see if I'm here and if I want too.. I'll try to explain these things to you.. and since I'm always around you can probably guess that means in the future that is likely too.. however, I make no promises!

I won't make any promises either then.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If you're quite finished ranting

I'm not sure I'm quite finished.. all right.. I'm quite finished now.. wait wait.. nah.. I'm done

Originally Posted by John Freestone

One interesting difference between us, however, is that I have done enough work to learn how to write English fairly well, while you haven't

Ahh.. the old my english spelling/grammar is better than your english grammar argument.. classic! lol

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If you passed any remotely comparable exams, there's something seriously wrong with your country's education system.

I have 2 doctorates.. and 1 phd..

I could have actually.. and you're trying to level the playing field or claim otherwise.. is ridiculous.. anyone can get them.. there just pieces of paper you did a lot of "memorization" / study / math tests to get them..

I prefer to have a life of ease.. and relaxation.. and in that.. I don't see the need to prove myself.. this will probably shock you or not..?? I don't even have a high school diploma.. I'm was too lazy to do the work

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Furthermore, I am not a science lackey. I'll tell you why. I began meditating and practising yoga in my teens, and kept on the spiritual path for decades after. In the meantime, I went to Brookes University, Oxford, to study a science, Geology, but I dropped out in my second year, partly because I had serious doubts about the whole of science (I thought it was too sciency, if you like = I saw flaws in the logic of classifications used and, in particular, had no confidence in statistics and 'statistical significance')

I like that your realized.. science was too strict..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

and partly because I was getting seriously stoned and wanted to hang out with my mates playing music and philosophising.

This is a common college story.. bet you all your stoned friends got there degree's though.. and there boring jobs..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I continued being a philosopher and "spiritual person", doing training in personal development, psychotherapy and counselling, and was a Reiki practitioner. It was hard, as I keep saying, waking up, by which I mean recognising the ego desire that kept me attached to the dream of Buddhist enlightenment and general magic of the universe, when vast amounts of evidence were against me and I had no real evidence for it.

Reiki.. interesting

Originally Posted by John Freestone

You're wrong again.

I've never been glad to be so wrong.. I like hearing your story

And understand my statement was a bit of a provocation.. to get you to talk..

(I'm not honestly sure you'd answer a question well of.. how are you? And tell us about yourself? ) You seem to thrive on piss and vinegar

[themaster]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I tried it and it worked very very well. I said earlier that I've had days, weeks, months of paranormal activity - I thought someone would ask what the hell I meant - I meant that that was how I lived, that was how I experienced the world. I felt I was swimming through a sea of prana, love and light was my food and gift to the world. Everything was just super. It was hard waking up but I had an age-old commitment to truth above pleasure and function. In all honesty I had to honour my commitment the truth. And it hurt. The reason I went into meltdown with my insults to you earlier was because you press this button. I ****ing suffered to get back what I strongly believe is my sanity. Now ultimately it's everyone's free choice, and if you want to believe in unicorns, so be it.

What exactly did you think you were losing your sanity too?

If you care to talk about it..

As you can see.. I use the forums for my sanity check.. if all of us could have a public journal.. we'd all be better off..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Yes, it's a funny thing. I'd use the word 'experience' in a different way, but I understand what you mean. I'd say that they experienced very different things (where you say they experienced the same thing, but felt differently about it) - that's fine, they're just words. The question is whether you believe that the conference was actually different. Did they, due to their different attitudes and preferences, actually create different physical reality? Everybody is aware of the difference in people's experience of things, but MOST OF HUMANITY understands that as subjective (i.e. just in your head). The Conjecture of Attraction says something very different, that the world physically changes, and those people were actually in different realities, parallel universes, or whatever. AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT AT ALL

Ohh.. but we do have evidence..

Evidence (really to be proved or validated as not lies on a individual basis) since this evidence is outside the ability for science to replicate/repeat or even talk about.. (mostly)

- Law of Attraction
- Plant experiments
- Miracles/weird placebo effect
- Millions of stories of reincarnation
- Millions of stories of ghosts
- Thousands of people that say they see Aura's, talk to ghosts, remember Atlantis, have higher spiritual communication and on and on..
- Millions of people that have seen ufo's (I think it's safe to go a million with the recent china sightings.. and the phoenix lights and such)
- Just on and on with weird phenomena that has "no explanation" yeti, loch ness etc. (this list is endless)

How to bring together all these peoples claims and truths under one umbrella?

I call that umbrella a "theory of everything" again that's my label.. but that is the theory I attempt to construct with "new age" and doing a mostly fine job.. thank you very much

Originally Posted by John Freestone

So you are the believer

Your right.. you have me there I am believer.. just as you are..

I'm a believer I have attracted mostly right and true information.. you're a believer in science experiments you've never done yourself.. I agree..

Ironically we both believe different things.. but they are in a way the same thing.. but I acknowledge that you'd probably be able to build a tv out a of a "tachyon field generator pulse" first before I'd be able to manifest a archangel/alien in the flesh.. (least right now )

Originally Posted by John Freestone

the lackey, with your LoA Bible

That's knowledge.. / scripture for those in the know..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

To say that I do that because I "believe in science" as if it's a religion, is stupid.

Well, sure it's stupid.. but still it's a valid point.. science can be a religion.. and even classified as such.. everyone in science likes to make a pretend deal like there *above* that.. but they're not..

They can be classified as such.. there not above that.. they are EQUAL like everyone else..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Science is just a structured, formalised example of being rational, and without being rational we are susceptible to believe whatever we are exposed to and feel good about - once again, the fact that paranormal stuff makes you feel good is evidence that it should at least be taken on board after careful scrutiy.

Now this is just arguing for your limitations.. plain and simple..

I say we all have a "emotional body" and that body is a built-in guidance.. just like a magnetic compass (pretty sure we got one of those in the brain somewhere too.. not to mention some kind of internal clock/time watcher of some kind)

And that guidance system operates very simply.. when you feel good.. you're in alignment with a truth or belief or yourself.. when you feel bad.. your playing the illusion of the game which is "disconnection"

And that's the problem with "scrutiny" it often doesn't feel good.. sometimes it feels neutral and not uncommonly feels bad.. thinkers spend too much time.. pushing their emotions away.. when they can be used for guidance..

[themaster]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Heroin - do you just take it because it feels good? No, you think about it and learn about its consequences.

Most drugs feel good.. why..?? cause they let go of all the *crap* we hold onto here.. about "hating ourselves" no wonder lots of people drink or abuse prescription medication..

But the problem is drugs are not used properly is my understanding.. which is to use them to attain a shortcut to a state of being.. and then return to that state via meditation.. I can say this all without actually having purposely tried a single drug (besides for one that fights lyme disease) or alcohol on the planet (besides for what's in food)

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Forget it. Too hard to explain.

If you say so..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I absolutely promise you, you haven't got a freaking clue what science is yet, so you can't assess whether it's limited or not. Plenty of science has been done on the paranormal - what are you talking about?!

I know that.. but the work is not continued.. nor acknowledged most times.. it's like there playing a game..

Accredited science = good
*Weirdo* science = bad

There's even sciences study's on reincarnation.. that nobody's heard about..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I've got a question for you - which of us does the following motto fit most closely with: "Don't think about it, just do it"? Now, if you dare, think about that and reassess your insulting accusation that I'm some kind of lackey. Or just start with which of us can string sentences together before you start chucking the insults about

I'd say I'm a "just do it" person.. used to be more a thinking person.. why.. ohh why?? did I change?

Well, if it makes you feel better.. I apologize for calling you a "lackey" as I said.. I wanted a little inflection to get you to talk.. (I'm cold and calculating.. and I have piercing eyes )

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Why the hell would it make sense to begin your philosophy with the commitment that you're going to begin from the idea of explaining everything?

It may not make sense for you.. it makes perfect sense for me.. it's a "permission slip" to be crazy.. to continue.. to explore.. because I don't have a "backup plan".. it's the way forward that is easiest for me.. begins with the idea of "Explaining everything" or validating everything..

And it's bit more than that.. I actually don't care much about knowledge itself.. I tell you things on here like "death isn't that bad of thing" etc.. and at the same time.. I don't give one hop damn if you believe me or if the information's valid.. I share the information in the act of continuing a "check and balance" system for what I'm doing and exploring and discovering.. etc.

You as a peer act to "check and balance" me.. it may be that my colleagues/peers get real annoyed that when they try to challenge my argument.. they can't.. or I don't accept their reasoning.. but the problem is I rarely here a good enough argument against..

I consider myself like a scientist.. studying "new age" soaking up everything and ANYTHING in the knowledge.. and trying to make it all "fit in" a grand model as part of my path.. (but the it fitting part isn't important.. the important part is what you can do)

And so far the abilities I have learned are.. (quieting the mind.. I'm sure doing reiki/prana work you must have some of those abilities.. or maybe you lost it all turning back round?) Law of Attraction.. creating your reality.. sometimes manifestations are just coming in under 1 minute flat.. I had me a creation/psychic information tonight.. that is a bit of a problem for me.. I can't often tell what's the difference.. (psychic information or creation)

And I've learned how to be certain states.. and play around with belief structures and I'll only probably learn more as I go onwards.. to me the way looks bright with possibility.. I'm sure you don't feel that way for you..?? (too bad for you..) I know that's a assumption.. but I based it on your very "sarcastic" and very "stodgy" writing style.. your choice of words/sentences say more about you then anything..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

People sacrificed their whole lives working on one tiny piece - for you! - to piss away your life dreaming.

It's this mentality were trying to change here..

People did not sacrifice their whole lives.. they became so "disconnected" from who they were.. in our experiment.. that they looked for any permission to be themselves.. and the best they could is rudimentary permissions slips for power or pleasure or ease from the earth through material goods.. we are not materials.. we are actually just energy..

We created this material world to play a game.. but some people such as yourself.. became so disconnected and so conceited that you wonder why this has been such a hard game..??

Your story reminds me of some of our anti-christian story's John.. in it you say you worshiped god (new age).. then you realized "god was lie" invalidated all your life's work and switched to validating your new god.. (religion) science

I would never invalidate a part of myself or my experience.. I own up to how I feel and what I believe.. and have believed before and demonstrated by some of this text.. I was a scientologist like you.. but my experiment in "new age" has been paying me great dividends.. (apparently it paid out great for you.. until you couldn't handle the.. this is too crazy! anymore)

That's really "the problem".. invalidation of yourself.. do you really prefer who you are now?

Not breathing the prana, or practicing reiki?

Couldn't you say you were at least happier then?

If you my want my opinion.. my guess based on your story is.. you jumped into "new age" head first.. but you ran into problems with yourself.. that you were unable to resolve.. or perhaps you just did one too many drugs.. found yourself in the movie.. / real life story.. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

[themaster]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

See I can't explain it and I don't care. Life is ok without having to have an answer to everything. that's your problem. If you got comfortable with saying "I don't know" you'd begin to understand the wonder of science.

I used to not know.. now I want to know.. (sorta)

Really, I take on the knowledge so that I can further my goal of the holodeck (that's unicorns to you.. )

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Oh ALG has stated...then it must be true. (SARCASM)

Yes, let us all worship ALG I mean *cough* Stephen Hawking.. lol

Originally Posted by John Freestone

No - jesus, it's no wonder I got posts deleted before, you're so infuriating. The whole point of science is that you can set up an experiment to test whether an idea you've got is actual or fictional. For some of us, there is a real world out there, and we can therefore test whether our ideas fit with what is real. If you want to pretend that plants do grow better if you talk kindly to them or think nice things about them, and then if you for one minute begin to doubt that, the results all change to fit, that's your tough luck. Furthermore, the idea that every paranormal thing you can think up obviously works until you doubt it has some serious problems - does it mean that's true for literally everything? Are your unicorns ACTUALLY dependent on you just believing in them enough?

But people have run this experiment a dozen times.. it's been featured on "mythbusters" of all places.. yah, know cameras? Tv's?

What is it crazy now.. ?

Originally Posted by John Freestone

And another thing, drop the stupid association you have between doubt and ego. Your ego would love to believe whatever makes you feel good and strong and successful and clever. Doubt is the ego's enemy. You've got it all upside down.

No, not really.. the ego seems to know only 2 things in reality.. 1. Make you safe 2. Have you fit in..

Other than that it's not so good at "thinking" (you're a good case in point ) and 2. it loves to rule the roost.. meaning it doesn't let any other body's in..

Let me give you a experiment to try..

"Say, Hello to your emotional body"

See if you can get any feedback?

What didn't get anything? try a few more times.. say "hello" to your emotional self.. acknowledge it from your "mental" self.. see if you get a little response..

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Except they don't at all. They just seem to say kind of the same thing if you look for the similarities. That also is easily explained by the very same science that explains the phenomenon of myth-making. Obviously there will be similarities between the religions of the world. But they don't say the same thing. See the problem? Once you decide to be susceptible to beliefs of any kind, because you equate doubt with being bad, you add more and more "reasons" to believe into your already illusory theory of reality. Wherever you look, there is more "confirmation". But that confirmation is meaningless without discriminatory thinking.

Yah, but isn't there always some truth in myth?

Interesting that our spell checkers know how to spell "Atlantis" or "psychic ability" or "telekinesis" or how about "aliens" or "ufo's" here we have imaginary words and ideas but our spell checkers know them.. (I just realized that's mainly for fiction writers.. but I find it ironic)

Because we carry our myth's over.. and I think every myth has truth behind it.. in fact I think every myth is actually true.. quite a statement from where you're at.. where you doubt everything that doesn't have a great headline like "science proves gravity doesn't exist"

(cause I know you don't read those scientific papers.. you just look for the 2 word news/caption headline like the rest of us)

Originally Posted by John Freestone

So Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and you believe in Zeus and Mohamed and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ALL those 1000s of sources are largely the same? The Pythagorus cult and Scientology and Freemasonry?

Yes, everything is truth.. nothing isn't.. that's my "new age" philosophy of the day.. / religion

Originally Posted by John Freestone

There are similarities in religions, of course. For one thing, we probably had some religion before we began to move out of Africa. You have heard of evolution, I guess, and know that we're all related? Our genes and the archeology suggest that we descend - all of us - from people living in Africa millions of years ago. Or does that evidence just evaporate if we stop believing it? If we decide we came from aliens landing in Texas, does the history change and make that true as well? Serious question. If not, where do you draw the line? How do you assess what is possible and what isn't without science?

Everything's possible! Everything!

Now you say.. prove it!

And I say I'm working on it.. and I really don't care to offer you proof.. I'm actually only interested in my proof.. and permission slips.. not necessarily yours!

Here's a small proof.. 500 years ago.. we thought the world was flat.. today we see a bigger picture cosmic gases, stars, etc.

What was IMPOSSIBLE 500 years ago.. is now possible.. you see we have been advancing.. and the point is we will advance (at least I will.. more than likely) to a state where all things are possible.. within my lifetime (I wouldn't bet on yours.. if you're as angry, stodgy and unhappy as you appear to be) this is not to judge you "bad" John.. it's just to say.. it's my understanding unhappy people are "leaving", can't make it etc.

I know that may sound stupid.. but that's just my understanding.. let me ask you a real question..

When you wake up in the morning do you feel like saying..

"Ahh.. another f#$^#$^# day!"

or

"What a glorious morning.. I wonder what exciting things I'll do today!"

(I know.. I know.. completely simple stupid questions.. but very relevant if you ask me.. )

Originally Posted by John Freestone

How do you assess what is possible and what isn't without science?

Well, it's very simple.. you have a "dream" and you go create it.. and then you can share it with others if you want..

Doesn't matter if that dream is "ford motor company" or "microsoft" you go and create your dream.. you use science as a tool or methodology to create that if you wish.. but see the point is.. there are *new* tools becoming available..

Science is to become passé, stupid and or unnecessary.. I am not exactly calling "science" stupid.. I'm just saying.. we are in the age of Aquarius (don't get all astrology on me.. please ) and we are coming from the age of Pisces (BTW.. I'm pisces just so yah know..)

What does that mean you say?

Simple terms.. we are leaving the age of THINKERS and switching to a age of HEART and emotions.. wonder why I keep talking about emotions so much.. ehh?

Problem with many thinkers is they spent far too long unbalanced listening to their thinking *cough* EGO and lot less time listening to their heart..

Are you happy john?

Do you listen to your heart?

Is every day a fun, joyous experience of love and serenity?

Or do you get into a f@#%@#^ attitude when your kids ate the last of your "wheaties"?

[themaster]

You know John.. I notice a strict weirdness in the disparity of my posts to yours.. I use jokes (light-hearted ones) and you use sarcasms.. as you say..

I wonder which one of us is being more positive in our messages?

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Sure, but I would prefer you start a separate thread for it. If it's going to cover a lot of ground, I'd rather have it fresh than in a lengthy enough thread like this one.

Okay, I will consider starting a different thread.. when I'm ready..

I'm not sure if there's some place to go or take this anyway based on your answers..

But if I do start a new thread.. I'll try and read your URL.. since I did not bother.. lazy..

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by themaster

You know John.. I notice a strict weirdness in the disparity of my posts to yours.. I use jokes (light-hearted ones) and you use sarcasms.. as you say..

I wonder which one of us is being more positive in our messages?

It would get crazy trying to quote the longer posts and reply to every point, so I'll just grab that last one, themaster.

You accused me of believing in science and not having done the work, and thus being a fake and lackey. I tried to explain to you a bit of the work I have done - on your side of things, the mystic side - and about my criticism of science - this was to show that I don't just spew out beliefs I've heard, and change my mind. I'm sorry that did come over as a grammar-fascist attack on your intelligence, but if we're going to be serious you ought to recognise that if, as you say, you didn't do much work at school because you were lazy, and can't be bothered too much with what's actually true now, your accusation has utterly backfired. I have been trying to assess which of the vast number of belief systems in the world make sense, while you lazily follow whatever feels good, or is "stated" by someone you trust, like ALG. Generally, that attitude you have makes your opinion virtually worthless, since you do not think about anything or assess what it true to any degree beyond whether you like it emotionally. Everyone is like that to a certain extent, some more than others. I don't always trace every opinion I hold to its source, because life is too short to do that, but I make attempts to discern objective truth from my fantasies, hopes and dreams, fears, etc.

Simple example - in the midst of trying to make some kind of point, you said that we believed the earth was flat, and then we discovered it was round. Well, I have read things that say otherwise, that in fact there is no evidence that any people anywhere thought the world was flat. And then when I thought about that, I realised that it's hardly likely that people even millions of years ago wouldn't climb mountains and get a very strong sense of the physical, roughly-spherical shape of the ground all around them. At sea, also, it's pretty hard not to notice that objects at a distance get chopped off and you can only see the top parts at a distance, and primitive people's awareness of shapes of things wasn't likely to be so bad that they couldn't work that one out.

So, a myth developed at some point, among roundy-earthers, to cast aspersions on those who came before. It's also understandable that they might think that about earlier people. It's also not necessarily false - there may have been at least one or two tribes who thought it was flat.

Now, there's an example to demonstrate your serious philosophical problem. You pretend to be making a point, presenting reasonable argument, but you're not. And if you can follow this argument of mine (which is doubtful), you'll realise that the reason you're not able to present any argument, ever, is not because you got one bit of history wrong, but because your very philosophy itself is "don't care - I believe such-and-such and that makes it come true". There really is no way out of this problem I can see. You should take some of the advice of the mystics whose ideas you hold so dear, and stop talking about god. Stop trying to tell me why you're right and I'm wrong, stop trying to teach, because whatever you believe is true is already becoming manifest, and whatever you teach is by definition true.

The only way out of this problem in your philosophy is to keep squirming and reaffirming what you already believe. And part of that belief system is to tell yourself that that's what science does. It doesn't matter how many scientists tell you that doubt is essential to science, a good thing, and that we can't assess what's true by just believing whatever we fancy, and that we are therefore the non-believers, the checker-outers, the experimenters, you'll go on telling yourself that we're just backing each other up in our great conspiracy. It doesn't even matter to you that this project has given you all the benefits of the modern world, you'll tell yourself it's "limited" and "doesn't know everything" and that LoA is "useful". And if you tell yourself that, hey presto, it's true. I say it's only true for you, in your head, but you tell yourself that despite not being much of a learner at school or a thinker now, your touchy-feely inner direction-finding mechanism will take your philosophy in the right direction. And having told yourself that your supid lazy system will work, that must be true.

I don't mind ignorant people. Your problem is worse. Ignorance is not having knowledge of something. Your problem is that your philosophy is anti-learning. You'd rather not know. You'd rather make up pleasant fantasies and keep the faith as much as you can. Yeah, it feels great!

You've also made up a lot of nonsense about how unhappy I must be. You say that you "inflected" to get me to open up about myself, and then you deliberately misinterpret everything I've said. I could tell you more about my transition from mystical ignorance to scientific sense, but you'd use that to futher bolster your mystical ignorance. I really think the purpose of any discussion between us was over a long time ago, although I hold some hope that other people less indoctrinated by the LoA bible stories - those just on the edge of your rabbit hole - might think twice (or just once would be a start). It amazes me how you people boast about how you jump down a rabbit hole into Wonderland where everything is possible and anything you believe comes true, and pity those of us walking about in the light of day. To me there is no difference between that and voluntarily going back to the dark ages, back to a time when people believed the world was flat.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by themaster

I used to not know.. now I want to know.. (sorta)

that 'sorta' says it all

But people have run this experiment a dozen times.. it's been featured on "mythbusters" of all places..

Wow, mythbusters. You get your information from a popular TV program.

What is it crazy now.. ?

No, not really.. the ego seems to know only 2 things in reality.. 1. Make you safe 2. Have you fit in..

Other than that it's not so good at "thinking" (you're a good case in point ) and 2. it loves to rule the roost.. meaning it doesn't let any other body's in..

You've just demonstrated my point. Your ego, by believing in the CoA, makes you feel safe (actually, it makes you less safe), and it helps you to fit in. It's not so good at thinking, but it doesn't matter to you, because you're focused on feeling safe and fitting in. You've found your religious order and you all back each other up in your blind faith.

Let me give you a experiment to try..

"Say, Hello to your emotional body"

See if you can get any feedback?

What didn't get anything? try a few more times.. say "hello" to your emotional self.. acknowledge it from your "mental" self.. see if you get a little response..

So if you sense that you can feel your emotional body, that means that you can definitely say "I've got a emotional body", rather than consider any of the well-documented psychological functions that lead to incorrect beliefs?

I remember hearing about a tour guide taking people round ancient ruins in an area he wasn't too familiar with. One place he said was the site of terrible attrocities. Everyone reported how dreadful it felt. Another place he said was the site of an ancient temple, and everyone said how uplifting it was.

Later, he was going through his notes and announced that he'd made a mistake and got the two sites mixed up. Tell me, does that mean that history changed? Do stones not only absorb vibes from historical events, but then switch if people think they're different vibes?

Yah, but isn't there always some truth in myth?

No.

Interesting that our spell checkers know how to spell "Atlantis" or "psychic ability" or "telekinesis" or how about "aliens" or "ufo's" here we have imaginary words and ideas but our spell checkers know them.. (I just realized that's mainly for fiction writers.. but I find it ironic)

You're showing signs that at some point later you might begin to move towards starting to edge towards making very slight - perhaps an "IOUTA" of, progress. Fiction. Wow - you actually said the word 'fiction' before fleeing into irony (whatever you mean by that)!

So what was your "thought" as you began that paragraph - that if our spellcheckers know the word "telekinesis", it has to exist?...and then you had a moment - perhaps your first ever moment - of scepticism.

Because we carry our myth's over.. and I think every myth has truth behind it.. in fact I think every myth is actually true.. quite a statement from where you're at.. where you doubt everything that doesn't have a great headline like "science proves gravity doesn't exist"

"In fact I think every myth is actually true."
Then you're hardly a great philosopher. What is a myth? Why not just call it a truth? Why does your spellchecker know how to spell 'myth' if it's not true that some things aren't true. You actually don't think anything at all is untrue! Godel would be laughing his head off. What about the statement "LoA isn't true" - is that true as well?

(cause I know you don't read those scientific papers.. you just look for the 2 word news/caption headline like the rest of us)

Yes, everything is truth.. nothing isn't.. that's my "new age" philosophy of the day.. / religion

Everything's possible! Everything!

Well at least you now accept that your belief in everything is a religion. As I said, the "lackey" comment backfired. It's what's known in psychology as projection.

Now you say.. prove it!

No. I don't say prove it, because it's not philosophical in the first place.

And I say I'm working on it.. and I really don't care to offer you proof.. I'm actually only interested in my proof.. and permission slips.. not necessarily yours!

I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. I'm challenging your religious faith.

Here's a small proof.. 500 years ago.. we thought the world was flat.. today we see a bigger picture cosmic gases, stars, etc.

There's another small not-proof.

What was IMPOSSIBLE 500 years ago.. is now possible.. you see we have been advancing.. and the point is we will advance (at least I will.. more than likely) to a state where all things are possible.. within my lifetime (I wouldn't bet on yours..

So human progress is about increasing the number of things that were possible? When the world was "flat" we fell off the edge, now it's possible to go round the globe! When we didn't know about gases nothing burned, now it's possible to burn things in oxygen!

if you're as angry, stodgy and unhappy as you appear to be) this is not to judge you "bad" John.. it's just to say.. it's my understanding unhappy people are "leaving", can't make it etc.

And since all your myths are true, sure, I'm just what you say, angry stodgy unhappy and "leaving".

I know that may sound stupid.. but that's just my understanding..

= that may sound stupid, but I don't care about being stupid.

let me ask you a real question..

When you wake up in the morning do you feel like saying..

"Ahh.. another f#$^#$^# day!"

or

"What a glorious morning.. I wonder what exciting things I'll do today!"

(I know.. I know.. completely simple stupid questions.. but very relevant if you ask me.. )

It depends.

Well, it's very simple.. you have a "dream" and you go create it.. and then you can share it with others if you want..

Ahhh. How super dooper lovely. You must be very popular.

Doesn't matter if that dream is "ford motor company" or "microsoft" you go and create your dream.. you use science as a tool or methodology to create that if you wish.. but see the point is.. there are *new* tools becoming available..

No there aren't. In your head, it seems like you're getting somewhere because you tell yourself "I'm getting somewhere".

Science is to become passé, stupid and or unnecessary.. I am not exactly calling "science" stupid.. I'm just saying.. we are in the age of Aquarius (don't get all astrology on me.. please ) and we are coming from the age of Pisces (BTW.. I'm pisces just so yah know..)

What does that mean you say?

No. I know full well what that means. I was writing a book about it before I woke up. It was going to be called The Aquarian Paradigm.

We're only moving from Pices to Aquarius in the same way as I am now moving from the fourth hour of the afternoon into the fifth. Think about it! People, having evolved from apes, looked up and tried to make sense of the stars. They noticed patterns there, the constellations. Those patterns aren't real. The human brain makes patterns out of randomness. See apophenia and pareidolia. Shortcut to reading those: there are NO BUTTERFLIES in Rorschach ink blots! Hence, "Pices" is a purely accidental pattern, as is "Aquarius", as is "Three o'clock" or "The fourth of July".

Simple terms.. we are leaving the age of THINKERS and switching to a age of HEART and emotions.. wonder why I keep talking about emotions so much.. ehh?

Because you can't think.

Problem with many thinkers is they spent far too long unbalanced listening to their thinking *cough* EGO and lot less time listening to their heart..

Bu-bum, bu-bum... That's what your heart says, until it stops, whereupon you're dead and all your feeling and "thinking" is over.

Are you happy john?

Stupid pointless question. When? Sometimes I feel happy, sometimes I don't.

Do you listen to your heart?

Do you mean the physical blood-pump, or something like my psychic essence? Don't do much of either.

Is every day a fun, joyous experience of love and serenity?

No.

Or do you get into a f@#%@#^ attitude when your kids ate the last of your "wheaties"?

I suppose you don't ever feel anger or sadness, then? And that is no doubt a sign that your world view must be correct. There are people - LOTS OF PEOPLE - in homes for the mentally ill, and many people with dementia - who are happy just about every goddam minute of their stupid ignorant lives. Try having a bit of a life where you exercise your brain before you join them. You were born an imbecile and you'll die one. Try to wake up for a couple of seconds in the middle!

[joelr]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

"In fact I think every myth is actually true."
Then you're hardly a great philosopher. What is a myth? Why not just call it a truth? Why does your spellchecker know how to spell 'myth' if it's not true that some things aren't true. You actually don't think anything at all is untrue! Godel would be laughing his head off. What about the statement "LoA isn't true" - is that true as well?

Ha. What would Godel say about LOA?

Let LOA be a finitely given theory about some infinitely complex part of the physical or mental universe. We will assume in addition that LOA is consistent. We let G/loa be the formula in the language of LOA such that G/loa (double arrow) ~ (there exists, m) [Prov loa[m, G/tloa]].

G/loa states that no natural numbers m of a certain kind exist, so it seems legitamite to ask whether G/loa is a true or a false statement about natural numbers. Note that G/loa is true if it is not proveable from LOA, so it seems that either G/loa is true and not proveable by LOA or G/loa is false and proveable by LOA. Now if we assume our theory LOA does not prove falsehoods, then we can already rule out the 2nd option and conclude that it must be that G/loa is a true sentence that is not proveable by LOA.
Anyway there is no finite description of LOA or LOA is incomplete.
But so is math. And all formal systems.

[John Freestone]

One more thing, themaster, would you kindly stop suggesting that I'm a scientologist, even in jest, pretty please with a cherry on top? I would appreciate it, so as to avoid any association between me and what is probably the most insane religious cult ever, (but which, being an idea, you consider true). My dislike of scientology is so great that should you desist, I may be forced to track you down with my remote sensing techniques and inflict severe engrams on you.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by joelr

Ha. What would Godel say about LOA?

Let LOA be a finitely given theory about some infinitely complex part of the physical or mental universe. We will assume in addition that LOA is consistent. We let G/loa be the formula in the language of LOA such that G/loa (double arrow) ~ (there exists m) [Prov loa[m, G/tloa]].

G/loa states that no natural numbers m of a certain kind exist, so it seems legitamite to ask whether G/loa is a true or a false statement about natural numbers. Note that G/loa is true if it is not proveable from LOA, so it seems that either G/loa is true and not proveable by LOA or G/loa is false and proveable by LOA. Now if we assume our theory LOA does not prove falsehoods, then we can already rule out the 2nd option and conclude that it must be that G/loa is a true sentence that is not proveable by LOA.
Anyway there is no finite description of LOA or LOA is incomplete.
But so is math. And all formal systems.

Oh absolutely, I couldn't agree more.

[John Freestone]

Maybe you missed the point. The philosophy "Every statement is true" is untenable. Why? Because the statement "The philosophy that every statement is true is false" must, according to the philosophy, be true, yet the statement says that the philosophy is false. Hence the philosophy is self-contradictory.

[John Freestone]

There I was, wishing someone with even half a brain would arrive to have a conversation. The LoA must be true, you turned up. If you team up with Godot...

[joelr]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Maybe you missed the point. The philosophy "Every statement is true" is untenable. Why? Because the statement "The philosophy that every statement is true is false" must, according to the philosophy, be true, yet the statement says that the philosophy is false. Hence the philosophy is self-contradictory.

It's the liar or Epimenides paradox. Same logic Godel used for the 1st and 2nd incompleteness theorems.