I don't understand ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

I don't understand why there is a vast illusion in the first place.  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2012 1:56 am  

My magickal experiences have revealed to me that the orderly consistent world of physics and even common sense has no bearing on actual reality.

Physical and even social reality can suddenly morph into radical new forms as if diverging into an alternate reality. Tangent worlds, ala Donnie Darko.

Why then are so many of us under the illusion that the world works otherwise?
It really seems as if we are under a massive deception.

What purpose could it serve?

Is this to teach us not to depend on appearances?

I get little hints here and there about what is going on but I don't think its necessarily right to confuse people. This is, after all, just like what they call certain genre of weird movies, a "mindfuck".

Maybe this a political development within an invisible spiritual elite that determined that divesting the masses of the truth is necessary to maintain a stable and orderly cosmos? Could that be possible?

Should I be angry at being deceived? Have we deceived ourselves but not seeing the manifest universe as an extension of our being and freedom? Are we to blame if there is somebody to blame?

I don't know why these truths were revealed to me and in a world that is so inconsistent I can't imagine who I could possibly trust. Certain Oath bound organizations divulge cosmic truths to the masses but not in a philosophical manner which can be understood but in terms of mysterious names, secrets, and peculiar institutional forms. But then who are they? Again I guess that might be part of the whole pedagogical purpose of this- to teach people to rely on their own reason.

I know it is not as if many Evangelical Christians have had an problem with the scientific conception of the world and they make a majority of the U.S. population. It would seem then that my own prejudices are what causes me bother. However I think there is something to the idea that a scientific universe should be consistent with the way the world actually is.


Quote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5186
28/09/2012 2:06 am  

[move:11gh3fry]

The Absurd[/align:11gh3fry][/move:11gh3fry]

"THE NOTION OF THE ABSURD contains the idea that there is no meaning to be found in the world beyond what meaning we give to it.

"This meaninglessness also encompasses the amorality or "unfairness" of the world. This contrasts with "karmic" ways of thinking in which "bad things don't happen to good people"; to the world, metaphorically speaking, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad thing; what happens happens, and it may just as well happen to a "good" person as to a "bad" person.

"Because of the world's absurdity, at any point in time, anything can happen to anyone, and a tragic event could plummet someone into direct confrontation with the Absurd. The notion of the absurd has been prominent in literature throughout history."

- Wikipedia entry on Existentialism


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/09/2012 2:22 am  
"RuleofRandom" wrote:
My magickal experiences have revealed to me

Experience has no explanatory power. Every conclusion that you come to is formed by an application of reason to evidence.

I would suggest that you have ineptly applied reason and come to false conclusions in this case.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2012 3:04 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
[move:28kb1r32]

The Absurd[/align:28kb1r32][/move:28kb1r32]

"THE NOTION OF THE ABSURD contains the idea that there is no meaning to be found in the world beyond what meaning we give to it.

- Wikipedia entry on Existentialism

A scientific existence makes Karma implausible but a magickal universe makes it seem more possible.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2012 11:36 am  
"RuleofRandom" wrote:
A scientific existence makes Karma implausible but a magickal universe makes it seem more possible.

I don't think 'scientific existence' disagrees with cause and effect. 

Concepts of Karma, Destiny or Fate are one of those subjects I really don't wish to even talk about, these are one of those things that every man must sort out himself and find out alone what they mean. I personally prefer the word 'necessity'.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe"
- Carl Sagan

"RuleofRandom" wrote:
Maybe this a political development within an invisible spiritual elite that determined that divesting the masses of the truth is necessary to maintain a stable and orderly cosmos? Could that be possible?

Should I be angry at being deceived? Have we deceived ourselves but not seeing the manifest universe as an extension of our being and freedom? Are we to blame if there is somebody to blame?

Certain Oath bound organizations divulge cosmic truths to the masses but not in a philosophical manner which can be understood but in terms of mysterious names, secrets, and peculiar institutional forms. But then who are they? Again I guess that might be part of the whole pedagogical purpose of this- to teach people to rely on their own reason.

I have not yet established a connection with the Secret Chiefs and working with the Ophidian Vibrations is still beyond my capabilities 😀
So maybe it's the best that I don't even speculate on the existence of this so-called "spiritual elite" and their motives, which supposedly are somehow connected "to raising mankind to higher levels, spiritually, and in every other way."
I also can't see a reason why one would feel bitter or deceived.

Lets still assume that someone would gain knowledge of the primal cause of all phenomena and the laws that govern it.
Whoever would gain knowledge of this 'evolution that is bound under certain laws' and the phenomena arising from it, would also be able to judge the consequences just as they are beginning to take place. He would command the knowledge of the future and no force could make his plans obsolete.

Use your karma, do not strive against it.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
28/09/2012 1:05 pm  
"RuleofRandom" wrote:
My magickal experiences have revealed to me that the orderly consistent world of physics and even common sense has no bearing on actual reality.

Reality, as explained by Einstein, is often a matter of personal perspective. Through analogy, he demonstrates that while there may be a definable reality that explains an event, when viewed by multiple individuals from different perspectives, different things can be seen. None of the parties viewing the event experience illusion or delusion, they are simply capable of viewing different realities simultaneously.

I've noticed that in discussions geared toward the dismissal of metaphysics through the use of science, skeptics are always careful to avoid any discussions involving quantum mechanics, a truly cutting edge form of science that in its current state of understanding has shown there are underlying realities that contradict the established laws of physics. One area of research that defies physical laws is what Einstein calls 'spooky action at a distance', wherein particles observed at a distance will behave one way, but when special tests are setup to observe the particles up close, they simply stop doing what they were doing, as if conscious of being scrutinized.

Another area of research is quantum entanglement. Certain subatomic particles appear in pairs, and behave as though they are linked physically, as evidenced by the fact that any change applied to one of the particles is witnessed in the other. Where quantum entanglement takes a turn toward the magical and mysterious is in experiments where one of the particles in a pair is transported miles away using a laser beam, yet the same changes applied to one particle still manifest in the other, despite the distance between the particles and the absence of a physical link between them. The experiments demonstrate what appears to be a metaphysical link between particles of matter.

We know that certain human beings are capable of unique skills, as witnessed by extraordinary physical and mental capabilities. To automatically assume that the unique perceptions an individual are delusions simply limits the potential for mapping and expanding knowledge of the human experience.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/09/2012 2:23 pm  

There's an interesting letter that was published in Physics Today a number of years ago, discussing the appropriation of legitimate science -- and particularly Quantum Mechanics -- in the name of pseudoscience and delusion: http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_59/iss_11/14_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

It argues, essentially, that Quantum Mechanics is taught in such a way that students are unequipped to see the line between legitimate science (often taught through pedagogical exaggeration) and a nutty application of that science. In short, because physicists often don't want to talk about the limits current scientific knowledge, it becomes possible for people to think that unjustified speculation is somehow scientific or has a sound scientific basis.


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
28/09/2012 3:33 pm  
"RuleofRandom" wrote:
My magickal experiences have revealed to me that the orderly consistent world of physics and even common sense has no bearing on actual reality.

Physical and even social reality can suddenly morph into radical new forms as if diverging into an alternate reality. Tangent worlds, ala Donnie Darko.

Why then are so many of us under the illusion that the world works otherwise?
It really seems as if we are under a massive deception.

Well, my experiences tell me that physical reality does not "suddenly morph into radical new forms".  Our perceptions can do that, and since social reality is based on those perceptions, I agree with you that social reality can do that.

Do you really think actual physical reality is mutable?  Or do you think our perceptions of physical reality are?  It's a great big difference.  I think you experienced the latter and mistook it for the former.


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
28/09/2012 4:03 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"RuleofRandom" wrote:
My magickal experiences have revealed to me that the orderly consistent world of physics and even common sense has no bearing on actual reality.

Reality, as explained by Einstein, is often a matter of personal perspective. Through analogy, he demonstrates that while there may be a definable reality that explains an event, when viewed by multiple individuals from different perspectives, different things can be seen. None of the parties viewing the event experience illusion or delusion, they are simply capable of viewing different realities simultaneously.

But Einstein also tells us how and why those differences appear, and what they are.  He even tells us how to calculate exactly what the other person is experiencing.

Time may slow down, but refridgerators don't turn into pumas.  Length contracts, but the speed of light remains the same.  Einstein's theories are not a license to think that anything goes.

I've noticed that in discussions geared toward the dismissal of metaphysics through the use of science, skeptics are always careful to avoid any discussions involving quantum mechanics,

This is utter poppycock.  We are discussing quantum mechanics right now in this thread with out-of-the-closet skeptics, aren't we?

a truly cutting edge form of science that in its current state of understanding has shown there are underlying realities that contradict the established laws of physics.

More crap.  Quantum mechanics are established laws of physics!
That's the whole point of creating quantum mechanics in the first place - so we could have better laws of physics that explain things our old laws couldn't explain.

One area of research that defies physical laws

No, it doesn't.  Stop being silly.

is what Einstein calls 'spooky action at a distance', wherein particles observed at a distance will behave one way, but when special tests are setup to observe the particles up close, they simply stop doing what they were doing, as if conscious of being scrutinized.

I think what you're misrepresenting here is the quantum mechanical idea of observations affecting the observed.

It's actually common sense, when you think about it:

We observe a table by having light shine upon it, and having that light hit our eyes.  The table doesn't appear to care about our observation - that's because light is very light and the table is a very big and heavy thing compared to the light.

Now when we're observing a subatomic particle, things are quite different: the subatomic particle is very tiny, very light, and the light that hits the particle is actually very heavy and powerful compared to the particle.  It's less like shining a light on a table and more like spraying the table with machine-gun fire.  So it's quite obvious that the very act of observation changes the thing that is observed.  It's actually nothing mystical - it's simply common sense when you take into account the scale of things in that realm.

Another area of research is quantum entanglement. Certain subatomic particles appear in pairs, and behave as though they are linked physically, as evidenced by the fact that any change applied to one of the particles is witnessed in the other. Where quantum entanglement takes a turn toward the magical and mysterious is in experiments where one of the particles in a pair is transported miles away using a laser beam, yet the same changes applied to one particle still manifest in the other, despite the distance between the particles and the absence of a physical link between them. The experiments demonstrate what appears to be a metaphysical link between particles of matter.

Now that's actually a real phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

But like the article says:  "Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality."
In other words, we think the world behaves in a certain way, but careful studies have shown that reality does not conform to our prejudices.  It's like finding out that the Earth is round instead of flat, as we used to think.

And once again, that very interesting fact is not a license to think that anything goes.

We know that certain human beings are capable of unique skills, as witnessed by extraordinary physical and mental capabilities. To automatically assume that the unique perceptions an individual are delusions simply limits the potential for mapping and expanding knowledge of the human experience.

As long as you remember that automatically assuming they are not hallucinations is a huge mistake.

I'm all for carefully looking at things and trying to find out what's actually going on.  I'm not into picking the explanation that I think is the coolest one and declaring it to be true.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
28/09/2012 4:09 pm  

or to put it another way

A) There are strange behaviours at the quantum level which science cannot explain
B) There are strange behaviours which i observe which i cannot explain
C) I'm a scientist momma!

A + B ≠ C


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/09/2012 5:01 pm  
"HG" wrote:
More crap.  Quantum mechanics are established laws of physics!
That's the whole point of creating quantum mechanics in the first place - so we could have better laws of physics that explain things our old laws couldn't explain.

Or to put it another way, the "laws of physics" are descriptions of the way matter behaves. The way that matter behaves on the quantum level isn't the same as the way it behaves on the level of our unaided perceptions.

But that doesn't change anything practically. Whatever's going on at the quantum level -- and it may be very interesting to study that, I agree -- doesn't change the fact that when I drop an apple, it still falls to the ground at the rate of 32 feet per second per second.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
28/09/2012 5:12 pm  
"HG" wrote:
We observe a table by having light shine upon it, and having that light hit our eyes.  The table doesn't appear to care about our observation - that's because light is very light and the table is a very big and heavy thing compared to the light.

93!

Though everybody probably understands what you want to say, your example has nothing to do with *common sense*. Funnily enough you are comparing the observation of a table with that of a particle, which is not in any way related to RuleofRandom's "particles observed at a distance will behave one way, but when special tests are setup to observe the particles up close, they simply stop doing what they were doing" (where the same particle is observed at different distances) - which on the other hand has (if I am not wrong here) nothing to do with "Spooky Action at a Distance", which is about Einstein's amazement about instantaneous action at a distance where correlated particles seem to react to each other at great distances faster than the speed of light would have transported the information of action to the correlated particle. This was impossible according to his Special Relativity Theory and so he came up with the General Relativity Theory, in which space-time became Non-Euklidean and space could be warped.

So, no *common sense* involved here at all...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/09/2012 5:35 pm  

[flash=200,200:1exjz69s] http://www.youtube.com/v/KjKgT-DgHOQ&feature=related[/flash:1exjz69s]


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
28/09/2012 6:07 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"HG" wrote:
We observe a table by having light shine upon it, and having that light hit our eyes.  The table doesn't appear to care about our observation - that's because light is very light and the table is a very big and heavy thing compared to the light.

93!

Though everybody probably understands what you want to say, your example has nothing to do with *common sense*. Funnily enough you are comparing the observation of a table with that of a particle, which is not in any way related to RuleofRandom's

You mean Herupakraath's

"particles observed at a distance will behave one way, but when special tests are setup to observe the particles up close, they simply stop doing what they were doing" (where the same particle is observed at different distances)

That made absolutely no sense to me, so I tried an informed guess about what real physical phenomenon s/he was really talking about.

which on the other hand has (if I am not wrong here) nothing to do with "Spooky Action at a Distance", which is about Einstein's amazement about instantaneous action at a distance where correlated particles seem to react to each other at great distances faster than the speed of light would have transported the information of action to the correlated particle.

Nope.  No information can be transmitted that way.  From the Wikipedia article:

"It turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions violate the principle of locality without violating causality. Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob"

By the way, this was one of the times where Einstein wanted the universe to behave like he wanted it to behave, and not like it actually behaved.  Neils Bohr pwned Einstein by saying: "stop telling God what to do!"

It's funny that a man who proved that so many concepts like time and length and space were not what we thought they were, himself couldn't stomach it when the quantum physicists demonstrated that we were also wrong about some other concepts.

This was impossible according to his Special Relativity Theory and so he came up with the General Relativity Theory, in which space-time became Non-Euklidean and space could be warped.

No.  That's just not true.

Einstein created General Relativity because Special Relativity couldn't explain gravity or acceleration.  It has nothing to do with quantum entanglement.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/09/2012 7:45 pm  

There's another huge problem here, which is the fact that we're physics laymen trying to have a discussion about one of the most complicated and poorly-understood concepts in physics (I'm making the likely assumption that none of the people involved in this discussion has a PhD in physics and that none of us professionally researches/writes in this field; if I'm mistaken, please correct me).

Feynman famously said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." While experts may have learned more about the subject since he said that, there is still a lot of mystery. And that's experts who have this limited knowledge. Yet this subject -- that even people who study it professionally don't really fully understand -- is seized upon by Joe Wand Waver to justify some kooky idea he wants desperately to be true.

Yes, Joe Wand Waver seems to think that where professionals lack knowledge, he -- in his barely-literate, intuitive "Understanding" -- grasps the subject well enough to use it to justify conclusions that no self-respecting professional physicist would endorse.

It's utterly and completely laughable.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2012 8:11 pm  

What is laughable is that this thread has (d)evolved from a discussion of Maya and Existentialism into quantum mechanic sillyness....


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/09/2012 9:03 pm  

Short, concise explanation of quantum physics by David Bohm

J. Krishnamurti and quantum physicist David Bohm had quite an extensive series of communications with one another. The Ending of Time is one such series of interviews. If you click "Next document", you can read other conversations the two had together. You can find them on YouTube videos, but JK is a very slow and methodical speaker, so the videos are very long and sometimes hard to hear.

U.G. Krishnamurti and David Bohm also had some rather interesting interviews. An analysis of them can be found here: SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY: Any Points of Contact?
An extensive conversation between U.G. and Bohm can be read in the book, The Biology of Enlightenment: Unpublished Conversations of U. G. Krishnamurti After He Came Into The Natural State (1967-71).

A full, nearly 3 hour audio of an interview between U.G. and David Bohm can be found here: Conversation between U.G. & David Bohm (August 17, 1968). There is a section called "audio files". The file "ug_bohm.ra" [where .ra stands for Real Audio] has a three columns, VBR MP3 Ogg Vorbis Real Audio. If you are unsure, you can download the Real Audio one, 20.4MB, and it will play in Real Player. You may have to turn your sound up for it a bit.


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 351
29/09/2012 10:36 am  

Just IMAGINE that we lived in a world where we had nothing to go by but our own previous experience of it; we would be going down to the shop to get some bread for toast for breakfast (not really understanding what toast was, anyway), and would be so busy watching that funny stuff called traffic, that we did not notice that fellow jogging along towards us (listening to himself on head phones, apparently), before he knocked us down on the pavement.

Profusely apologising, he explained that his name was Los, and that in any case such incidents were a proven paradigm of the scientific reality of something called 'experience'.  Well, we said 'Fair enough, mate" and then spent the next twenty minutes listening to his argument that the True Will (what on earth can that be?) was really "The Selfish Gene", a theme that had some resonance with me, being vaguely aware that as a result of something called 'experience', I had some sort of sense that I was a biologicalical organism.  But then, he started extolling some magnificent theme of benign paternalism called "The God Delusion" and it was then that I began to suspect that he was really a doppelganger of some malign demiurge named Richard Dawkins, and began to become suspiscious of his otherwise friendly intentions.

Just IMAGINE that only the other week I had been watching a BBC2 'Horizon' documentary on "How Small is the Universe" (or otherwise meaningless words, due to my lack of any previous sense of valid experience); it set out to explore the essence of our physical existence as little lumps of something called atoms that were really conglomerations of nothingness, apart from other tinier bits of something called electrons and protons, and that these wonderful people called scientists were attempting to split these little things into something even smaller in a big tunnel in Geneva (I couldn't help thinking about something I'd heard of called 'The Tunnels of Set') but that their methodology was something akin to dropping a cuckoo clock off of a very high tower and attempting to put it back together again in an attempt to understand the workings of the Universe, and just IMAGINE, I had never understood scientific methodolgy before !  Well, I was a very good boy and watched the programme through until its end, but I did find it very hard to believe that the creation process of galaxies is not always succesful and that there may have been such things as 'failed universes' which I had some idea that may have been mentioned in some funny fabulous thing called the  Qabbalah.

It was then that I woke up and had a silly thought that "Love is the law, love under will".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/09/2012 2:55 pm  

S.A.,
That was a very good, and rather hilarious post!  HAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh, Brother!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
29/09/2012 4:20 pm  

It was an enjoyable read, SA. Thanks.

[flash=250,250:z3mx8wte] http://www.youtube.com/v/xWeQLO6_T6U[/flash:z3mx8wte]


ReplyQuote
Share: