my ignorance

[Laura]

ark, if you are indeed a scientist, then you know exactly the fundamentals you are sidestepping, and if don't understand how and why the questions I press are the beginning first fundamentals to all competing scientific hypothesis in any field, then I fear that you are not much of a scientist after all.

http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/

 

[ark]

... then I fear that you are not much of a scientist after all.

Look for a good psychiatrist. A good one will know how to deal with your fear. There is a chance that you will be helped.

So, what phenomena do I ignore?

Well, you ignore the fact that there is no scientific proof that you have free will. You may well be a machine. I do not want to talk to a machine. Prove me that you are not a machine and we will talk. Otherwise the machine named AaronAgassi will be banned.

 

[John G]

What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

Think of channeling like a particle accelerator experiment; it just supplies data and then you check out the data. One of the things it supplied was that it is information from the future. To check that out you have to see if future effects past causality is possible. That would be one of the things Ark is checking.

The big picture for Ark though is the same one as for string theory or loop quantum gravity; namely merging general relativity with quantum mechanics. Ark is using a Kaluza Klein/conformal spacetime approach. It is related to work from some physicists with Wikipedia pages like Roger Penrose, Burkhard Heim, Irving Segal, David Finkelstein and even a 1938 Einstein paper. In my view it is by far the most promising approach.

If you want you can think of the paranormal stuff as just math that happens to show up while trying to solve the big general relativity/quantum mechanics problem. It's like string theorist Brian Greene being able to talk about time travel in his TV specials because of the wormhole math that shows up in string theory. Time travel and channeling are actually very highly related.

 

[Palinurus]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

You might be interested to have a look here: _http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

 

[David]

Heres hopeing you achieve your dreames Ark.

“The Freewill Detector” :P

 

[Laura]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

You might be interested to have a look here: http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

I like Victor Zammit!

 

[Chopper]

obvetal , Yes "Electric Sky" by Donald Scott most interesting & eloquent and great observational work I have seen all the Vid stuff on the tube haven't read the book yet but I like the theory ! ( so much reading so little time )

Seeking Truth , I believe conscious is a force and explains many research results that couldnt be dupclated because the detractors not believeing in the "research " don't get the same results ( not allways but a good %) ..I think this could explain the double slot experment also ...

Ark , Thank you yes Richard Feynman was a geat mind indeed I missed the chance to see him teach ( due to my ignorance ! ) have seen all his class teachings on vid's on the tube also ( after the fact) I try to follow Michio Kaku work great mind but he is relyed on so much for public TV programs I wonder how sincere , I will get his basic book and add it to my stack ....I am checking into Laura Houghton ATM .

AronAgassi , Seems you came here to discredit any work of Laura & Ark Had you put ANY research into your deed you wouldn't be so transparent to all here lol keep chaseing your tail I guess OP's have no choise ... You will never understand the FreeWill aspect .

Palinurs , good luck my friend you are going to turn blue in the face trying to help AA lol good sole you are .

Yes Laura one's godda love ANY lawer that believes in anything ;) esp "A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife" ! gonna have to add his book to the stack .....gosh I will never stop reading ,down to 1 eye and haven't slowed down lol...

Thank you all for your " time" .

 

[Palinurus]

Hi Chopper,

Since you seem to be stacking up a pile or two, here is another book worthwile of your attention I think:

IN SEARCH OF DIVINE REALITY: SCIENCE AS A SOURCE OF INSPIRATION by Lothar Schäfer
(_http://www.amazon.com/SEARCH-DIVINE-REALITY-SCIENCE-INSPIRATION/dp/1557284687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320876895&sr=8-1).

The author himself reviews his own book as follows (_http://www.amazon.com/SEARCH-DIVINE-REALITY-SCIENCE-INSPIRATION/product-reviews/1557284687/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending):

KEYWORDS: SCIENCE AND RELIGION; QUANTUM MECHANICS AND SPIRITUALITY

In the context of Encounters of Science and Religion, "In Search of Divine Reality" proposes that the traditional conflict between the two disciplines is mainly one involving classical, Newtonian Science and many of its most pressing issues have been solved by the discovery of Quantum Mechanics. In Classical Physics, there is no room for the spiritual and for God. In the World of Quantum Mechanics, the foundations of physical reality have revealed all the aspects of a transcendent reality; with non-material entities at the basis of material things; with components of ordinary things that are not as real as the things that they make; with instantaneous, long-distance (non-local) influences pervading the universe; and with elementary entities that have mind-like properties.
Thus, in the same way in which dead atoms can form living organisms and stupid molecules can form intelligent brains, the metaphysical can engender the physical. Without the employment of advanced mathematics, the book uses the phenomena of Quantum Reality to provide a clear and generally understandable description of the concepts of Quantum Mechanics and its consequences for our views of human nature.

In the words of Prof. Quentin Smith, Department of Philosophy, Western Michigan University, Author (with W. L. Craig) of "Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology": "Schafer's book is an integrative approach to Modern Science and Religion that aims to show how some traditional religious and philosophical notions can be understood or redefined in terms of modern science. The scientific explanations are reliable and the scientific interpretations of religious ideas are interesting and should be taken seriously and respectfully by even the most sober-minded adherents of the scientific world-view. Rather than science being opposed or or subordinated to religion, religious views are refashioned in terms of currently accepted scientific theories. Most of the arguments of the book are based on conclusions drawn from the phenomena of quantum reality and it is one of the clearest introductory explanations of quantum mechanics on the market. Schafer's book is written in a lively and accessible style that will appeal to the general reader. I really enjoyed reading this book."

(minor edits mine).

For what it is worth, there are 7 reviews in total and all of them gave five stars to this book.

 

[Chopper]

Thank you Palinurus , sounds right up my ally I will see if a copy can be found localy ( my local list for the book fair)..

 

[StrangeCaptain]

The experimental testing of an hypothesis, in order to be scientific, requires conditions of refutation, a range of explicit conceivable outcomes inconsistent with prediction from said hypothesis. I have only been asking what is hypothesis of your work together here, and the conditions of refutation. Also whatever experimental controls. I will also need to understand question said hypothesis seeks to answer the explanatory gap left by current understanding. I hope this clears things up.

I guess you missed this:

I imagine we would do a rigorous experiment on superluminal communication (the proposed mode of communication with the C's) if we could, but I think we do not yet know how to do this. Ark has made a mathematical theory on superluminal communication that was published in a peer reviewed journal (not that there aren't problems with peer review but that is a whole other can of worms). I am not skilled enough to follow the math myself, and math does not necessarily describe reality. Assuming that he was rigorous in his work (and knowing Ark, he was; I simply can not check it myself), then a logically coherent, mathematical picture of how superluminal communication could work does exist.

Well, do not worry. My "theory of kairons" is probably wrong. It is too primitive. It is just one step. Then there will be next step, then another .... These steps will either lead somewhere or not. As I wrote in the previous post science is a game. Science is also similar to detective inquiries. A good detective has some "feeling" - he follows his nose, and sometimes he will be able to uncover the crime that other DCIs could not do. I see something in the channeling, I have some "feeling" about it (not about "all channeling", but about "some channeling"), I follow my nose. My own hypothesis about it is not yet fully formulated, it is vague. There are many theories about paranormal, but I am not satisfied with any of them. A new theory is needed, but it does not exist yet. Therefore there are no clear hypotheses that can be tested. We are just at a "Playing with the phenomena" and "playing with alternative theories" stage. I consider it being exciting.

As reasonable as you try to sound, there is something odd about how you ignore the responses that basically tell you that we don't think your model of science is sufficient to answer deep questions about the fundamental nature of reality. And we don't have all the answers... And it is a precarious venture...

There... You are free to consider us not valid scientifically and go on to debunking someone else somewhere else.

I try to be civil on this board, but there is something about your responses that reminds me of a dog gnawing a bone. Have you ever seen a dog chewing on a bone and so intent upon it that it is not aware of anything else, eyes rolled up in the head with the sublime joy of it? And there could be a prime rib with arms and legs dancing around in front of that dog, and he still wouldn't notice. All he would know is to keep gnawing on that bone.

 

[A.K.]

The experimental testing of an hypothesis, in order to be scientific, requires conditions of refutation, a range of explicit conceivable outcomes inconsistent with prediction from said hypothesis. I have only been asking what is hypothesis of your work together here, and the conditions of refutation. Also whatever experimental controls. I will also need to understand question said hypothesis seeks to answer the explanatory gap left by current understanding. I hope this clears things up.

This is a very interesting thread. Thank you AaronAgassi for starting it.

You're a hard person which is not wrong to view this world through your perspective. But one must question the very tools one uses to reach a hypothesis as it is still based on 3rd density concept/protocol. For example a dog can never prove that algebra either exist or not due to the very nature of tools used is based on 2nd density concept. Even i hold a written formula in front of it's face, still the dog will not understand that he's staring at algebra.

Have you ever read an article and have this heart felt resonance that it contain the truth?

 

[AaronAgassi]

ark, if you are indeed a scientist, then you know exactly the fundamentals you are sidestepping, and if don't understand how and why the questions I press are the beginning first fundamentals to all competing scientific hypothesis in any field, then I fear that you are not much of a scientist after all.

http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/

Credentials not withstanding. -Alas.

 

[AaronAgassi]

... then I fear that you are not much of a scientist after all.

Look for a good psychiatrist. A good one will know how to deal with your fear. There is a chance that you will be helped.

So, what phenomena do I ignore?

Well, you ignore the fact that there is no scientific proof that you have free will. You may well be a machine. I do not want to talk to a machine. Prove me that you are not a machine and we will talk. Otherwise the machine named AaronAgassi will be banned.

Threats not withstanding, asked and answered.

 

[AaronAgassi]

What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

Think of channeling like a particle accelerator experiment; it just supplies data and then you check out the data. One of the things it supplied was that it is information from the future. To check that out you have to see if future effects past causality is possible. That would be one of the things Ark is checking.

The big picture for Ark though is the same one as for string theory or loop quantum gravity; namely merging general relativity with quantum mechanics. Ark is using a Kaluza Klein/conformal spacetime approach. It is related to work from some physicists with Wikipedia pages like Roger Penrose, Burkhard Heim, Irving Segal, David Finkelstein and even a 1938 Einstein paper. In my view it is by far the most promising approach.

If you want you can think of the paranormal stuff as just math that happens to show up while trying to solve the big general relativity/quantum mechanics problem. It's like string theorist Brian Greene being able to talk about time travel in his TV specials because of the wormhole math that shows up in string theory. Time travel and channeling are actually very highly related.

Bluelamp, I have no idea what you are talking about. An hypothesis consists of a declarative statement. A scientific hypothesis yields predictions. The conditions of refutation consist of further declarative statement in prediction of what cannot happen given that the hypothesis is true, in other words: about such repeatable observable experimental results that can only happen if the hypothesis is not true. That is what testability, also called: refutability, means. Testability, refutability, repeatavle results are the essence of what makes a theory scientific. Otherwise not. I shouldn’t need to explain this!

 

[AaronAgassi]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

You might be interested to have a look here: _http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

Until my standing questions are answered, nothing else can be pertinent or even intelligible.