Attention, New Age Freaks and Weirdos.

[Daruko]

 2)All Possibilities MAY exist

this made me laugh for at you then I got to thinking

you think there is a world out there where TGRR is not angry, where Noodles is not awesome, or where Suu is not mired in Geekdom
such a place is too horrible to even imagine

lol   I think there could be, yep. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It seems that there are individuals that eat the menu, then go off and say how absolutely wonderful the menu is and encourage everyone to eat it. This seems true if the menu is religion, philosophy, science or Discordianism (which may or may not fit in any of those categories). Of course, its these idiots that ruin the whole discussion of the restaurant, for the rest of us. If a n00b says FNORD, its easy to assume that they're eating the menu... though they may not be. If someone says Magic, its easy to assume that they try to fly or throw fire from their belly. If someone says QM/QP/Qanything, its easy to assume that they're making the same argument that "What The Bleep Do We Know?" made (OHH, teh MADJICKS IS EXPLAINED BY TEH QUANTUMS!!!) rather than anything else.

Yet, there are plenty of useful ways to reference FNORD, that don't equate to eating the menu. There are discussions of magic that don't say "OHHH IT ARE TEH REALLY REALY SUPERPOWERZ!!!"...

Eating the menu can cut both ways. Some may eat it and say "Yummy", some may eat it and say "Yuchhy", some may look into the resturant and see a few people eating the menu and decide that 'menu' must be the only dish served there...

None of the three seem, to me, to be thinking for themselves.

When I left the JW's, I was under the belief that Magic was Real, because Magic was the demons using their power to mislead people from God. I figured that if I practiced Magic, and the demons showed up, then at least I could prove the supernatural to myself in some manner. Oh, did I try. I invoked Godforms, ones (in fact) that were considered the very worst of the worst in JW symbolic terms, The Beast and the Harlot (well, Sjaantze did the Harlot bit). JW's hold that the Whore of Babylon and the Beast (as discussed in Revelations), are THE enemies of God's People. And I had an experience... probably the most spiritual experience I have ever had. I was somewhere else and something else, during that ritual. IN fact, since that ritual, I have noticed strong changes in my personality.

However, thanks the Goddess, after coming out of that ritual and trance... since I was studying Crowley and Regardie and Wilson etc... I didn't confuse my experience with reality. I had tasted the meal and it was 5 Star, Gourmet, Iron Chef stuff.

Since then I have engaged in Magic whenever I think it would be a useful tool. I don't believe that I really, real for real invoke Eris or Therion or any of the others. However, I do think, that (at least) I am creating a interface, or a egrigore, or something to poke around in my own brain. Maybe when I see visions where Eris speaks to me, it is just my subconscious making clear what I should already know, or helping me adjust my personality to what I want it to be... or I suppose it could be some sort of Intelligence outside of me, aliens, Gods, whatever... I don't KNOW what is happening for sure in ritual, but I can say that I have observed that it does seem to be an effective tool for modifying self (maybe more, but I don't feel qualified to speak to it).

When one has eaten the meal...

Obvious menu eaters are Obvious. 

[Daruko]

TITCM

[LMNO]

Ok, Durk, honestly:

So, you have a handful of equations that only make sense in the EW model.  Great.  This in no way indicates that it has any isomorphism to experiential reality.  Self-contained models are self-contained.

It has a lot more information than saying, "I haven't seen it, therefore it CAN NOT exist."

Um.  No.  The words you're putting in my mouth are demostrably false.  The fact it can be provably false yeilds information.

Saying "maybe _______ ", offering no adequate explanation, is meaningless.

In short, I'm not saying that quantum effects 100% cannot occur in the macro world, I'm saying that our current model posits it cannot, and so far you haven't given any evidence to the contrary, apart from "maybe".



Oh, and what Rat just said seems to run counter to your own statements.  Just saying.

[Thurnez Isa]

Since then I have engaged in Magic whenever I think it would be a useful tool. I don't believe that I really, real for real invoke Eris or Therion or any of the others. However, I do think, that (at least) I am creating a interface, or a egrigore, or something to poke around in my own brain. Maybe when I see visions where Eris speaks to me, it is just my subconscious making clear what I should already know, or helping me adjust my personality to what I want it to be... or I suppose it could be some sort of Intelligence outside of me, aliens, Gods, whatever... I don't KNOW what is happening for sure in ritual, but I can say that I have observed that it does seem to be an effective tool for modifying self (maybe more, but I don't feel qualified to speak to it).

been there
done that
actually have little problem with it, as stated before
but definately not for me
1: no evidence of any sort of outside intelligence
2: I dont know what you use the term magic... kind of like when Einstien used God to describe self examination... your leaving youself open for criticism... and i dont know why you would need ritual to do it...

[Thurnez Isa]

In short, I'm not saying that quantum effects 100% cannot occur in the macro world, I'm saying that our current model posits it cannot, and so far you haven't given any evidence to the contrary, apart from "maybe".

there probably will be a day when peer reviewed experiments can be done.. to a point were results can be preticted and outcomes examined

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Since then I have engaged in Magic whenever I think it would be a useful tool. I don't believe that I really, real for real invoke Eris or Therion or any of the others. However, I do think, that (at least) I am creating a interface, or a egrigore, or something to poke around in my own brain. Maybe when I see visions where Eris speaks to me, it is just my subconscious making clear what I should already know, or helping me adjust my personality to what I want it to be... or I suppose it could be some sort of Intelligence outside of me, aliens, Gods, whatever... I don't KNOW what is happening for sure in ritual, but I can say that I have observed that it does seem to be an effective tool for modifying self (maybe more, but I don't feel qualified to speak to it).

been there
done that
actually have little problem with it, as stated before
but definately not for me
1: no evidence of any sort of outside intelligence
2: I dont know what you use the term magic... kind of like when Einstien used God to describe self examination... your leaving youself open for criticism... and i dont know why you would need ritual to do it...

LEt us say that you are trapped in a Black Iron Prison... perhaps there are guards placed outside your BiP which controls what enters and what leaves. They examine everything closely. Now, let us say that you want to escape your BiP (or modify or whatever)... now you don't NEED a cake to change your BiP... but a Cake may be the most useful way for a file to be smuggled in past the guards.

Magic is the Cake, holding a file that can help you break the bars of your BiP.

Maybe some people live in low security BiP's and don't need the cake... maybe their guards are dead, paid off or never hired in the first place.
Maybe some people think that they can sit inside their BiP and change it simply by thought or digging with a spoon, or their fingers... and maybe they can.

For me, some things appear to require a file and getting a file past the guards, sometimes might require cake.

As for opening myself up to criticism... criticism from whom? The words of the foolish and the words of the wise are not far apart in Discordian eyes.

[Daruko]

Oh, and what Rat just said seems to run counter to your own statements.  Just saying.

I must be having semantic problems then.  I offered you the EW model, because suggests "All possibilities exist"... these equations HAVE yielded experiential results.   See Deutsch's question above.   10⁵⁰⁰ atoms... where are they?

If you refute the EW model, then you have a problem, because there's only room for roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the "observed" universe.  That's an astronomical difference.

Regardless, this is just A MODEL, and there are some issues with it.    If you look at it long enough, you'll notice a Popper-ian flavor to it (critical rationalism), with a few typical reductionist limitations..   I don't know the answers.   I theorize, which is all anyone can do, no matter how certain they are that they have the "facts".

I think I'm pretty on par with Rat on the magick thing, because I have a similar background and a similar take on magick.   RAW talked about it constantly, and it has to do with not being so damn certain of yourself, for starters.  Instead of picking the BEST model, and asserting all other models are false, realizing that many models are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense, allows you to be honest when talking about what you OBSERVED, and what that observible really IS (or rather you inability to KNOW this part).

I'm curious as to whether Ratatosk thinks I'm contradicting his last post.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Oh, and what Rat just said seems to run counter to your own statements.  Just saying.

I must be having semantic problems then.  I offered you the EW model, because suggests "All possibilities exist"... these equations HAVE yielded experiential results.   See Deutsch's question above.   10⁵⁰⁰ atoms... where are they?

If you refute the EW model, then you have a problem, because there's only room for roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the "observed" universe.  That's an astronomical difference.

Regardless, this is just A MODEL, and there are some issues with it.    If you look at it long enough, you'll notice a Popper-ian flavor to it (critical rationalism), with a few typical reductionist limitations..   I don't know the answers.   I theorize, which is all anyone can do, no matter how certain they are that they have the "facts".

I think I'm pretty on par with Rat on the magick thing, because I have a similar background and a similar take on magick.   RAW talked about it constantly, and it has to do with not being so damn certain of yourself, for starters.  Instead of picking the BEST model, and asserting all other models are false, realizing that many models are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense, allows you to be honest when talking about what you OBSERVED, and what that observible really IS.

I'm curious as to whether Ratatosk thinks I'm contradicting his last post.

Not necessarily... I think taken in combination with the comments directly above, we seem in line. Your first couple posts did appear to me to put some more weight on QM than I personally do (as a possible explanation, rather than a curious model) but to me, that may just be a degree or two of Maybe off... You think Maybe Yes, I think Maybe No, but its still Maybe and that's how I personally prefer to see it.

[Daruko]

Oh, and what Rat just said seems to run counter to your own statements.  Just saying.

I must be having semantic problems then.  I offered you the EW model, because suggests "All possibilities exist"... these equations HAVE yielded experiential results.   See Deutsch's question above.   10⁵⁰⁰ atoms... where are they?

If you refute the EW model, then you have a problem, because there's only room for roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the "observed" universe.  That's an astronomical difference.

Regardless, this is just A MODEL, and there are some issues with it.    If you look at it long enough, you'll notice a Popper-ian flavor to it (critical rationalism), with a few typical reductionist limitations..   I don't know the answers.   I theorize, which is all anyone can do, no matter how certain they are that they have the "facts".

I think I'm pretty on par with Rat on the magick thing, because I have a similar background and a similar take on magick.   RAW talked about it constantly, and it has to do with not being so damn certain of yourself, for starters.  Instead of picking the BEST model, and asserting all other models are false, realizing that many models are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense, allows you to be honest when talking about what you OBSERVED, and what that observible really IS.

I'm curious as to whether Ratatosk thinks I'm contradicting his last post.

Not necessarily... I think taken in combination with the comments directly above, we seem in line. Your first couple posts did appear to me to put some more weight on QM than I personally do (as a possible explanation, rather than a curious model) but to me, that may just be a degree or two of Maybe off... You think Maybe Yes, I think Maybe No, but its still Maybe and that's how I personally prefer to see it.

Agreed.

[Thurnez Isa]

I think I'm pretty on par with Rat on the magick thing, because I have a similar background and a similar take on magick.   RAW talked about it constantly, and it has to do with not being so damn certain of yourself, for starters.  Instead of picking the BEST model, and asserting all other models are false, realizing that many models are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense, allows you to be honest when talking about what you OBSERVED, and what that observible really IS (or rather you inability to KNOW this part).

I tried reading RAW once, cause i did like his interviews I saw.. but it got too stupid so I stoped

[LMNO]

Rat said that magic is a psychological event, for him.

You seem to be saying that because of EW, magic causes inexplicable things to happen in the macro world.

I'm saying that you haven't adequately conflated the quantum and the macro, you're just saying "maybe".


Well...  Please look over all these statements:

Maybe quantum causes macro effects that seem magical.
Maybe Jesus causes macro effects that seem magical.
Maybe TGRR causes macro effects that seem magical.
Maybe my pet cat causes macro effects that seem magical.
Maybe George W Bush causes macro effects that seem magical.
Maybe Dark Matter causes macro effects that seem magical.

While we're at it:

Maybe quantum physics is wrong, and Newtonian physics explains everything.
Maybe mass doesn't actually cause space-time to warp.
Maybe Intelligent Design is true.
Maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow.
Maybe 104 will eventually not have to pay for sex.
Maybe saying "maybe" still puts things in an either/or state.



What's more, the EW model doesn't mean anything is possible.  It means that all possible things occur.  It does not say that the laws of physics can be broken.  It does not, for example, say that in some universe, my fingertips spontaneously begin spewing molten lava.  It does not mean you can violate the laws of thermodynamics.

[Thurnez Isa]

but my fingertips spontaneously spew molten lava
does that mean theres something wrong with me

[Cain]

but my fingertips spontaneously spew molten lava
does that mean theres something wrong with me

If you're a magma mephit, no.

[Jasper]

It's pretty elementary math that when something has a probability of 1 it happens.