Dewey Larson

[HiThere]

I'been reading the Law of One books, and in them there's several references to the work of one Dewey Larson (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_B._Larson).
Don Elkins seems to be saying (in Law of One I, 1981) that this is the first example of a verifiable theory of everything - Grand Unified Theory.

I just wondered if his theory has been developed or proved to be faulty since? Can't find anything about it on Cass forum or SOTT, and Ark hasn't mentioned anything about it that I have found. Has anyone got anything on this?

 

[rebinator]

Since one of Larson's main proponents on the web seems to be David Wilcock, I would not expect to find too much sympathy for him or his Reciprocal System here.

Also of concern is the potential tie-in to the alleged missing quarternions in the Maxwell equations (on one of Wilcocks on-line papers dealing with stock market patterns as stepped down 3D-to-1D projections of Platonic solids onto a timeline). Given the source, once again, you are on your own. I myself have read Structure of the Physical Universe, and Beyond Space and Time, and enjoyed the latter the most.

I would in all fairness suggest that Larson's quite controversial comparison/conflation of modern subparticle physics with the spiritist superstition of pre-Judeo-Christian poly/pantheism (as in that as opposed to going back to a new set of first principles to construct their universe as he has, the standard-model physicists, have, according to Larson, invented a whole new class of 'gods' complete with purportedly convoluted mathematics in order to maintain a materialist perspective), as stated in the introduction to SOTPU, would place him in the category of what Ark would presumably call 'baked-noodle', or, to the layperson, 'crank'. May the admins forgive me for such presumption. Elkins and Ark have had vastly different backgrounds and occupations, so be aware of that too.

Now, that being said, many cranks throughout history have had a positive effect on the sum of human knowledge. Conversely, many models once held to be definitive, have run into observed phenomena which require a reevaluation of hypotheses, but only after a lot of challenging data (cranks tend to be among the first to discard established theory in the face thereof). Take Newtonian mechanics for instance.

Upon searching, you may find specific examples where Larsonian predictions were falsified (and quite viciously I might add) on particular physics forums. My suggestion is to read the two books above, and study the documented objections just mentioned, and note each position's use (or lack of use) of mathematics, in the process, formulating a judgement that works far better for yourself than what any forum member can tell you.

Happy Learning! http://cassiopaea.org/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif

 

[HiThere]

Thank you! I just saw this post again today while skimming through my earlier posts, and then your answer to my 18 month old post comes in half an hour later. Synchronicities.

But I think I will take your word on Larson's lack of validity - so much to read and so little time! :)

 

[rebinator]

before you start throwing a word like 'validity' (or phrases including 'lack' thereof) around, like so many twenties of cash in a bar during last call, you must remember that the 'scientific method' and the '5cience 1ndu$try' are two almost two completely independent concepts, and have been for several decades now. :D Research both sides of the issue and draw your own conclusions, no matter what someone else might say, no matter what their credentials. Free will uber alles, and learning is fun... I can say no more on this here.

 

[rebinator]

I guess I can at least add for you to, in the spirit of 'scientific method' to not take my word for anything... you must find out for yourself.

 

[mkrnhr]

hello rebinator,
It is interresting how you expect some response, then you argue with, it even if the was no response to begin with. Maybe you can observe how this kind of monologues do happen, and why you put some energy into it, in order to know yourself better :)

 

[Laura]

Since one of Larson's main proponents on the web seems to be David Wilcock, I would not expect to find too much sympathy for him or his Reciprocal System here.<snip> ... would place him in the category of what Ark would presumably call 'baked-noodle', or, to the layperson, 'crank'. May the admins forgive me for such presumption. Elkins and Ark have had vastly different backgrounds and occupations, so be aware of that too.

<snip>
My suggestion is to read the two books above, and study the documented objections just mentioned, and note each position's use (or lack of use) of mathematics, in the process, formulating a judgement that works far better for yourself than what any forum member can tell you.

Research both sides of the issue and draw your own conclusions, no matter what someone else might say, no matter what their credentials. Free will uber alles, and learning is fun... I can say no more on this here.

Rebinator, much of what you have written here is quite in line with our own thoughts on the topic. However, there is a disturbing "taste" to your posts. It appears that you have some rather fixed - and negative - ideas about this forum, its owners and methods that you are attempting to convey in a covert and subversive manner. My question to you is: if you feel this way, why are you here, really?

 

[HiThere]

I reread yout postings this morning, and realized that you are not saying that Larson's theories are false - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Since one of Larson's main proponents on the web seems to be David Wilcock, I would not expect to find too much sympathy for him or his Reciprocal System here.

Also of concern is the potential tie-in to the alleged missing quarternions in the Maxwell equations (on one of Wilcocks on-line papers dealing with stock market patterns as stepped down 3D-to-1D projections of Platonic solids onto a timeline). Given the source, once again, you are on your own.

The discussion regarding Wilcock has no immediate relevance to my eyes here, as I know nothing of Larson and his theories and therefore would need to form an opinion about this first.

I myself have read Structure of the Physical Universe, and Beyond Space and Time, and enjoyed the latter the most.

Thank you for the tip, after rereading this post I will put them on my reading list.

I would in all fairness suggest that Larson's quite controversial comparison/conflation of modern subparticle physics with the spiritist superstition of pre-Judeo-Christian poly/pantheism (as in that as opposed to going back to a new set of first principles to construct their universe as he has, the standard-model physicists, have, according to Larson, invented a whole new class of 'gods' complete with purportedly convoluted mathematics in order to maintain a materialist perspective), as stated in the introduction to SOTPU, would place him in the category of what Ark would presumably call 'baked-noodle', or, to the layperson, 'crank'.

I struggle to understand this sentence, as English is not my first language. Could you elaborate?

May the admins forgive me for such presumption. Elkins and Ark have had vastly different backgrounds and occupations, so be aware of that too.

No need for forgiveness to my eyes - this seems to me to be an assumption that there is no need to be concerned about.

Now, that being said, many cranks throughout history have had a positive effect on the sum of human knowledge. Conversely, many models once held to be definitive, have run into observed phenomena which require a reevaluation of hypotheses, but only after a lot of challenging data (cranks tend to be among the first to discard established theory in the face thereof). Take Newtonian mechanics for instance.

This is the interesting part of it. I today interpret your post as you found Larson's theories to be interesting and maybe with some merit to them.

My suggestion is to read the two books above, and study the documented objections just mentioned, and note each position's use (or lack of use) of mathematics, in the process, formulating a judgement that works far better for yourself than what any forum member can tell you.

I agree with mkrnhr and Laura in that you seem to percieve this forum as more rigid minded than it is to my eyes.

Happy Learning!

Thank you! :)

 

[Laura]

It's interesting that our zero tolerance for pathological behavior is often interpreted as "censorship" or intolerance regarding ideas or topics that may be controversial. One wonders... ?

 

[ark]

It's interesting that our zero tolerance for pathological behavior is often interpreted as "censorship" or intolerance regarding ideas or topics that may be controversial. One wonders... ?

I think it is quite normal. Those who are not tolerant for other views usually want others to be tolerant to their views. Concerning the pathological behavior - it is justified by the fact that the public at large not only approves it, but also seems to be looking for such leaders. So pathological types have good reasons for being disappointed with what they find here.

As for Larson: I think his idea that (discrete) "motion" may be a more primitive concept than space-time is interesting and deserves attention. From what I know Larson was not well educated in modern mathematics, so certainly he may have made mistakes in deriving consequences from his own ideas. Whitehead had similar ideas, though more of a philosophical than of a physical nature (see also Process physics - in a similar direction). I have my own ideas, in that direction, including mathematics that may be needed.

 

[rebinator]

Laura, you are asking an absolutely fair question, and one which I don't mind answering completely, and soon. For now, hopefully this summary will do.

As I attempt to race out the door here (to beat traffic to the mountains), let me just go on record as saying that I have no judgements, and want to disclaim any statements as such, but you have every right to challenge them as part of your observations. I seem to be afforded that same trust, within the constraints of sincerity and respect for the other-self, so I want to apologize if some posts may seem a little crispy. There was at least no conscious effort in that department.

The reason I am here? Without approaching sycophanty (for I have thrown your stuff across the room just as hard as you have Gurdjieffs' at times), because this is one of a rapidly diminishing set of places where people can be called on their BS, perhaps myself included. It is rather refreshing to be asked to identify the true polarity of an action, for once, as opposed to excessive positivity/love/light being the catch-all solution. I also acknowledge that I wouldn't be here but for the research and experiences of some key people, so I am well aware of the lack of gratitude inherent in such negativity, were that the case. I do claim the right to formulate my own judgements and update my own model, and ask (hopefully meaningful) questions in the process. I shouldn't expect any less from the people here.

As for what I understand on the Wilcock stuff and his reputation with the majority of the people following your research, I admittedly was basing that on some recent forum activity, and would probably benefit from a review before I make a generalization like that again. I would love a chance to discuss his extrapolations/conclusions on Larson's 6D universe.

I don't mind being told to go back to school btw... it kind of rankles at first depending on one's mindstate, but then one realizes where one is in a cosmic sense... speculations on my personality are also interesting, because they could be accurate. Maybe I _am_ a narcissist or something. http://cassiopaea.org/forum/Smileys/default/laugh.gif

Ciao for now (I really _am_ typing when I should be packing and driving), and thanks for the Whitehead lead, ark. In the spirit of renewed encouragement, I want to go find my references just to give mkrnhr a better understanding of my dilemma on the RS Theory (one is a 1984 interview with Larson, the other is a veritable six-on-one beatdown of a larsonian prediction by some mainstream physicists/engineers)

 

[obyvatel]

The reason I am here? Without approaching sycophanty (for I have thrown your stuff across the room just as hard as you have Gurdjieffs' at times), because this is one of a rapidly diminishing set of places where people can be called on their BS, perhaps myself included . It is rather refreshing to be asked to identify the true polarity of an action, for once, as opposed to excessive positivity/love/light being the catch-all solution.

From what I have seen, places where people get called on their BS are a dime and dozen. People throw stuff at each other and the one with the most persistence (usually of a pathological variety) "wins", usually with the help of alternate personalities and "bots" in the internet world - and those who remain kowtow to such a "leader". Most (not all) of those who leave nursing their wounded egos try to find pastures which would be more favorable to their brand of "reality".

[quote author=rebinator]
I also acknowledge that I wouldn't be here but for the research and experiences of some key people, so I am well aware of the lack of gratitude inherent in such negativity, were that the case .
[/quote]

I could not get what you are saying here.

 

[HiThere]

As for Larson: I think his idea that (discrete) "motion" may be a more primitive concept than space-time is interesting and deserves attention. From what I know Larson was not well educated in modern mathematics, so certainly he may have made mistakes in deriving consequences from his own ideas. Whitehead had similar ideas, though more of a philosophical than of a physical nature (see also Process physics - in a similar direction). I have my own ideas, in that direction, including mathematics that may be needed.

Thank you for your answer Ark. I am certainly not gifted mathematically but find physics and quantum mechanics fascinating. :)

 

[Buddy]

Has anyone got anything on this?

I have a comment or two I can offer in the context of your replies to rebinator.

Since one of Larson's main proponents on the web seems to be David Wilcock, I would not expect to find too much sympathy for him or his Reciprocal System here.

The discussion regarding Wilcock has no immediate relevance to my eyes here...

Nor to mine. Is this Dewey B. Larson the same Larson that died in 1990? If so, why should anything Wilcock, Elkins or anyone else say about Larson or his work automatically and negatively bias an assessment of the RS theory or the state of Larson's 'noodle'?

Speaking pragmatically, I wonder since when is someone's narrative about someone's elses narrative about their conceptions of their perceptions more important than simply taking the time to understand what is being said and extending the theory into a realm of social relevance to estimate its 'cash value', so to speak?

I myself have read Structure of the Physical Universe, and Beyond Space and Time, and enjoyed the latter the most.

Thank you for the tip, after rereading this post I will put them on my reading list.

FWIW, here is a link to Larson's collective works: _http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/

And for a general overview which I enjoyed the most:

A bird’s eye view of the theory and its ramifications:
_http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/nlst/index.htm

A Philosophical Postlude:
_http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/nlst/nlst17.htm

Now, that being said, many cranks throughout history have had a positive effect on the sum of human knowledge. Conversely, many models once held to be definitive, have run into observed phenomena which require a reevaluation of hypotheses, but only after a lot of challenging data (cranks tend to be among the first to discard established theory in the face thereof). Take Newtonian mechanics for instance.

This is the interesting part of it. I today interpret your post as you found Larson's theories to be interesting and maybe with some merit to them.

I also find Larson's ideas interesting. Not sure about merit yet. I'm a wee bit disappointed in a lack of information on the observer's role and influence in that system. Without knowing his conjectures about observer effects, when he makes a statement like this:

A progression is continuous. There is no change in the motion at any time. A succession of jumps is

discontinuous. Nothing happens for a time, then a jump occurs, and so on.

Source:
Questioner: Frank
_http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/cor/880524franlar.htm
Answerer: Dewey B. Larson
_http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/cor/880603larfran.htm


...I can't tell whether he thinks he is talking about reality or a particular characteristic of mechanistic perception (that inertia of perception that allows noticing of change only when aggregates of physical pattern motions reach our liminal threshold).

If nothing else, there may be another way of seeing value in the theory. As Mae Wan-Ho says: "There is another deeper reason why new theories in general are important for science: they direct us to new observations which may very well not be made otherwise..."

 

[HiThere]

Thank you Buddy! :)