Belief vs Knowledge - The Force

Gisteron wrote: Now, point taken, I do not know just what untapped power of the mind you are speaking of. I was assuming some kind of power that we actually didn't have knowledge or mastery of yet. Maybe my assumption was flawed. If that's not what you meant, then by all means, I stand corrected. However, if you are going to argue that there are "great" forces at play outside of our view, then I'll beg to differ. The room left to forces entirely yet unseen is so narrow as to render them effectively irrelevant.

I actually explained the issue with this earlier in the thread. Your point of view of these "marginal forces" is not as objective as you may intend. Subtlety means less direct, not less powerful. The same quantum mechanics you point to, point to the power of subtlety.. there are examples all through life of the power of thought and other subtle forms of power..

What might be the issue is your view of strength in this case. It seems that the greater the direct physical effect. The more power you credit it.. but if those "outside" influences are the source of the laws that govern these more direct phenomena. They would naturally be the superior force. Gravity is a great example. We owe so much to such a weak force..

So, strictly to the title of the thread, I am going to state the difference between knowledge and belief. Though I will say I liked Manu's response pretty spot on.

Knowledge - Information mentally categorized and gained through experience. This experience is everything you do, reading an article to tripping and falling to just sitting around looking randomly at stuff. I have knowledge that the fan running next to me is running because it is physically working. This allows me to deduce that the circuitry is functioning properly which would be also physically observable. That means I know the power plant supplying in power and the infrastructure that supports it is also at this moment functional. And so on through the logical process of what is literally physically acknowledged. Now there is knowledge when it comes to social situations I.E. I can predict my brother's general response to certain thing because it is observable, however, there are simply different underlying variables. Not more or less against a strictly physical sense die to thought process and difference between the 2 of us. That is why sometimes I am surprised at his solutions but not the normal process he goes through to arrive at them. This dictates how I act in those situations. So, there is logic, truth, observable processes and conclusions to this knowledge but that doesn't mean it's right.

Belief - So to me I always liked the word Idea more, ideas are more malleable. Any way, is the rate of trust you are putting in an observable but unproven series of observation, assumptions, predictions of conclusions reached from knowledge but surpassing the level that you do not have. Belief entails faith because of assumptions and predictions, this can lead it down road to a lot of fallacies (not to say faith is bad, I have some of my own! It can be a very useful tool and support).

This is why I like to use idea here, because it remains a malleable to reality and observable models as they come, both in the tangible and intangible.

So, I have ideas about the Force on some of the assumptions and predictions based that everything kind of just is and in that form it is some how interconnected in some way even is minutely or entirely inconsequentially in the majority of situations. That said this idea is entirely personal also, aspects of it may be shared by others as will opposing view points both of which can help eliminate some assumptions and allow the idea to change (as it does quite a bit for me). But, I am still using and underlying assumption in order to consider this idea. So, basically this is just a malleable belief.

Just 2 cents,
Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: ... if you are going to argue that there are "great" forces at play outside of our view, then I'll beg to differ. The room left to forces entirely yet unseen is so narrow as to render them effectively irrelevant.

I actually explained the issue with this earlier in the thread. Your point of view of these "marginal forces" is not as objective as you may intend. Subtlety means less direct, not less powerful. The same quantum mechanics you point to, point to the power of subtlety.. there are examples all through life of the power of thought and other subtle forms of power..

Full disclosure, I have not the slightest clue what you mean by any of this. Without exception, every interaction any human has ever had the pleasure of documenting has so far been physical, as has every consequence. Every influence any thing can have on another in nature is transmitted in these ways. I'm not sure what you think how much I intend my perspective on the forces that have any sort of impact on our lives to be objective, and if you find that considering the energy involved is not quite objective enough to meet what ever that standard is, I do not understand that, because I do not understand what dependency on any subject that carries. One might correctly albeit trivially point out that everything is technically subjective, I just don't find that an interesting objection. To the extent to which everything is, there is nothing we can do about it so we are better off not wasting our time worrying about it and instead focusing on the extent to which it doesn't have to be. And to that extent, I'm proposing the single most objective measure we have ever had and - by the looks of it - ever will.
On the other hand, I don't know what subtleness or directness are in any kind of not-entirely-subjective terms or how to measure them. I don't know what "the power of subtlety" means either, but I have only learned enough quantum mechanics to be giving but my first ever class in it, so my grasp on it may admittedly be shakier than yours still. At any rate, I wouldn't call the power of thought untapped or even subtle by any colloquial usage of the term. We have known that what we think affects what we do for literally millennia now. We have been exploiting that power, "tapping it", one might say, on both individual and social levels for roughly that long, too. Not quite as long have we known about the bio-/electrochemical nature of thoughts and the consequent radiation that produces well outside of what else the rest of our bodies do with them. But before we can rejoice and celebrate our woo being confirmed at last, no, that, too, has been well "tapped" by now. In fact, it has been tapped so well, that literal toys are available at affordable prices with which children and their parents can practice projecting their thoughts for machines to obey without verbal or button command. Any power of the mind left untapped still at this point necessarily has to be weaker than any of that, weaker than what we can detect and tap, else we would have detected and tapped into it by now. I have yet to see a substantive objection to that reasoning, though I don't expect one. Without one, however, I don't understand what there be left to say on the issue.

What might be the issue is your view of strength in this case. It seems that the greater the direct physical effect. The [sic] more power you credit it..

Of course. What else can I use to make that judgement?

but if those "outside" influences are the source of the laws that govern these more direct phenomena. They [sic] would naturally be the superior force.

What do we mean by "source of the laws..." here? That is, how would we go about finding out something like that? And if it be so, what do you mean by these "source" influences being "superior" exactly?

Gravity is a great example. We owe so much to such a weak force..

Example of what? Gravity is not outside nature. Not sure what other kind of "outside" you might have been referring to, or what laws you reckon gravity be a source of... And while we owe it the aggregation of mass and what ever consequences that has - a lot, surely - let's not overstate it. If gravity were to cease tomorrow, chemistry - and biochemistry - would remain pretty much the same they are today. "Pretty much" here means a relative difference on the order of something like 10^-35%.

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: ... if you are going to argue that there are "great" forces at play outside of our view, then I'll beg to differ. The room left to forces entirely yet unseen is so narrow as to render them effectively irrelevant.

I actually explained the issue with this earlier in the thread. Your point of view of these "marginal forces" is not as objective as you may intend. Subtlety means less direct, not less powerful. The same quantum mechanics you point to, point to the power of subtlety.. there are examples all through life of the power of thought and other subtle forms of power..

Full disclosure, I have not the slightest clue what you mean by any of this. Without exception, every interaction any human has ever had the pleasure of documenting has so far been physical, as has every consequence. Every influence any thing can have on another in nature is transmitted in these ways. I'm not sure what you think how much I intend my perspective on the forces that have any sort of impact on our lives to be objective, and if you find that considering the energy involved is not quite objective enough to meet what ever that standard is, I do not understand that, because I do not understand what dependency on any subject that carries. One might correctly albeit trivially point out that everything is technically subjective, I just don't find that an interesting objection. To the extent to which everything is, there is nothing we can do about it so we are better off not wasting our time worrying about it and instead focusing on the extent to which it doesn't have to be. And to that extent, I'm proposing the single most objective measure we have ever had and - by the looks of it - ever will.
On the other hand, I don't know what subtleness or directness are in any kind of not-entirely-subjective terms or how to measure them. I don't know what "the power of subtlety" means either, but I have only learned enough quantum mechanics to be giving but my first ever class in it, so my grasp on it may admittedly be shakier than yours still. At any rate, I wouldn't call the power of thought untapped or even subtle by any colloquial usage of the term. We have known that what we think affects what we do for literally millennia now. We have been exploiting that power, "tapping it", one might say, on both individual and social levels for roughly that long, too. Not quite as long have we known about the bio-/electrochemical nature of thoughts and the consequent radiation that produces well outside of what else the rest of our bodies do with them. But before we can rejoice and celebrate our woo being confirmed at last, no, that, too, has been well "tapped" by now. In fact, it has been tapped so well, that literal toys are available at affordable prices with which children and their parents can practice projecting their thoughts for machines to obey without verbal or button command. Any power of the mind left untapped still at this point necessarily has to be weaker than any of that, weaker than what we can detect and tap, else we would have detected and tapped into it by now. I have yet to see a substantive objection to that reasoning, though I don't expect one. Without one, however, I don't understand what there be left to say on the issue.

What might be the issue is your view of strength in this case. It seems that the greater the direct physical effect. The [sic] more power you credit it..

Of course. What else can I use to make that judgement?

but if those "outside" influences are the source of the laws that govern these more direct phenomena. They [sic] would naturally be the superior force.

What do we mean by "source of the laws..." here? That is, how would we go about finding out something like that? And if it be so, what do you mean by these "source" influences being "superior" exactly?

Gravity is a great example. We owe so much to such a weak force..

Example of what? Gravity is not outside nature. Not sure what other kind of "outside" you might have been referring to, or what laws you reckon gravity be a source of... And while we owe it the aggregation of mass and what ever consequences that has - a lot, surely - let's not overstate it. If gravity were to cease tomorrow, chemistry - and biochemistry - would remain pretty much the same they are today. "Pretty much" here means a relative difference on the order of something like 10^-35%.

Gravity is a material example of the non-material phenomena I'm referring to.. following the "as above, so below" rule. Not arbitrarily, of course. Gravity is considered a weak force. Yet, without it, and the amalgamation of mass, our world would undoubtedly cease to exist in the way it does now. In the same sense, etheric energy has a small but powerful influence on matter itself. The ways in which matter acts are governed by the nature of their etheric signatures. Down to the string level. The strings act, but the ethereal sets the tone. So to speak..

It's like law, in a way.. The Government writes the laws, and the subjects act on it in agreement. Except in this case, it's more of a total subjection than agreement.

In my experience, if you can influence the ethereal part of matter. The matter itself will follow.. but it's easier said than done.. and there are limits, probably.. messing with dtv signals is infinitely more simple than exploding a sun lol

Uzima Moto wrote: Gravity is a material example of the non-material phenomena I'm referring to..

What does that mean?

Gravity is considered a weak force. Yet, without it, and the amalgamation of mass, our world would undoubtedly cease to exist in the way it does now.

Well, yes, it would be different by roughly the magnitude of Planck's constant, i.e. barely at all.

In the same sense, etheric energy has a small but powerful influence on matter itself.

Well, if it is the same sense, why are the same methods unfit to detect it? Why are we unable to quantify it the same way we can any other real force? Why are we stuck listening to woosters without any credible experiment on their hands, let alone functioning technology? I don't think it is the same sense at all! I think it's a vastly different sense. I think it's the sort of sense that leaves us with charlatans contradicting themselves and each other with no means of telling them apart by merit and gravity is analogous to it in precisely zero ways.

The ways in which matter acts are governed by the nature of their etheric signatures. Down to the string level. The strings act, but the ethereal sets the tone. So to speak..

And what's the rule, exactly? How do we characterize these signatures or behaviours? Where is the prediction this picture makes that I can go out and test to see that it is indeed useful?

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Gravity is a material example of the non-material phenomena I'm referring to..

What does that mean?

Gravity is considered a weak force. Yet, without it, and the amalgamation of mass, our world would undoubtedly cease to exist in the way it does now.

Well, yes, it would be different by roughly the magnitude of Planck's constant, i.e. barely at all.

In the same sense, etheric energy has a small but powerful influence on matter itself.

Well, if it is the same sense, why are the same methods unfit to detect it? Why are we unable to quantify it the same way we can any other real force? Why are we stuck listening to woosters without any credible experiment on their hands, let alone functioning technology? I don't think it is the same sense at all! I think it's a vastly different sense. I think it's the sort of sense that leaves us with charlatans contradicting themselves and each other with no means of telling them apart by merit and gravity is analogous to it in precisely zero ways.

The ways in which matter acts are governed by the nature of their etheric signatures. Down to the string level. The strings act, but the ethereal sets the tone. So to speak..

And what's the rule, exactly? How do we characterize these signatures or behaviours? Where is the prediction this picture makes that I can go out and test to see that it is indeed useful?

Your idea that a world without gravity would hardly be different at all is demonstrably false..

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160212-what-would-happen-to-you-if-gravity-stopped-working

Your understanding of the concept I'm speaking on is limited by your limited understanding of simple sciences..

The consciously blind can call it whatever they want. Because their thought process nearly guarantees that they won't experience it directly. However, in essence they are similar, the sense being the same. Just as gravity plays a small but powerful role in reality. So does ethereal energy. Since every atom has an ethereal signature that will NEVER be detected by physical means..

READ THIS CLOSELY...

The only thing you will detect is what residual effects of the interaction of ethereal bodies leaves on there respective objects independent of another..

In short.. if my ethereal body moves the ethereal body of a rock. The rock will move with its ethereal body in response to IT not Me..

Uzima Moto wrote: Your idea that a world without gravity would hardly be different at all is demonstrably false..

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160212-what-would-happen-to-you-if-gravity-stopped-working

What's the disagreement here? I said before what I meant by it, and you even quoted me in post #339198:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: And while we owe [gravity] the aggregation of mass and what ever consequences that has - a lot, surely - let's not overstate it. If gravity were to cease tomorrow, chemistry - and biochemistry - would remain pretty much the same they are today. "Pretty much" here means a relative difference on the order of something like 10^-35%.

Nothing in the article you linked contradicts this. In fact, I go out of my way to say that we do indeed owe it a lot, but that in terms of actual properties of how the universe works it means very, very little indeed. What is your criticism, exactly?

Your understanding of the concept I'm speaking on is limited by your limited understanding of simple sciences..

I admit, I only have been published in Nature Communications once, and am co-authoring second publication in total that'll hopefully appear in Physical Review Letters. I'm also giving only my first exercise class in quantum mechanics. My credentials are indeed nothing to brag about, by any means, I do not even have any relevant degrees. Do you feel that this is a substantive objection to the content of what I said, though, or is this an ad-hominem appeal? How do you propose I respond to this most respectfully?

Just as gravity plays a small but powerful role in reality. So [sic] does ethereal energy. Since [sic] every atom has an ethereal signature that will NEVER be detected by physical means..

So you are admitting that this is not a matter of science catching up, but it is explicitly beyond critical inquiry. I'm sorry, but if it is not detectable by physical means, then it has no detectable physical effects, which is what I was saying all along. This doesn't mean it has no effects, just none we can point to or need ever worry about. There is, if what you say is accurate, no way for there to even be a "there!" there, and no reason to waste any more of our time on it.

The only thing you will detect is what residual effects of the interaction of ethereal bodies leaves on there [sic] respective objects independent of another..

I'm looking forward to reading about the experiment that detects those effects and can accurately attribute them to this "ethereal energy" you propose. Until then I have nothing to move me to ignore our entire understanding of physics yet, but mayhaps soon enough the discovery you predict shall occur. It will be an interesting and exciting one, no doubt.

You also said that there would hardly be a difference without gravity.. if I understood what you meant correctly, that's demonstrably false..

The concepts I'm speaking on are not critically examined by material tools in the same way you use them to examine things like radiation. I clearly stated this when I said you would only detect the effects it has on nature using material methods, not the Ethereal itself. That's not a foreign concept if I'm not mistaken.. testing for something that you can't directly detect..

Ethereal phenomena isn't beyond critical inquiry. It takes the most critical inquiry to study it..

They nay-sayers and close minded can call it what they want.. I'm not doing this for their satisfaction because there are bigger fish to fry.. another reason why I wouldn't openly expose too much of this at this time..

Uzima Moto wrote: You also said that there would hardly be a difference without gravity.. if I understood what you meant correctly, that's demonstrably false..

Seeing as I had explained clearly what I meant before and after, I have nothing to add to this. I'm sorry if I unduly caused misunderstanding about the latter instance of the claim being a reiteration of the former. I hope this is cleared up now.

The concepts I'm speaking on are not critically examined by material tools in the same way you use them to examine things like radiation. I clearly stated this when I said you would only detect the effects it has on nature using material methods, not the Ethereal itself. That's not a foreign concept if I'm not mistaken.. testing for something that you can't directly detect..

There is nothing at all of which we can say to be having "direct" access to. Everything we observe is effects, without exception. This caveat does not protect the ethereal energies from scientific inquiry, only the explicit insistance that they are not subject to any can. However, I still do not understand how this is a point interesting enough to be making several times over. Either this "the Ethereal" has an effect on nature, in which case we can study it the way we study all other effects on nature, or it doesn't. If it does, I'll be happy to read what ever studies are either available or will be in future. If it does not, then Occam's razor liberates us from any need to suppose that it is there at all.

Ethereal phenomena isn't beyond critical inquiry. It takes the most critical inquiry to study it..

Except the kind of critical inquiry that has ever produced reliable results is the one that you say is unfit for it, whilst what is being proposed instead has time and again shown to be unreliable.

They nay-sayers and close minded can call it what they want.. I'm not doing this for their satisfaction because there are bigger fish to fry.. another reason why I wouldn't openly expose too much of this at this time..

The "closed-minded" are happy to see evidence to convince them, and retort with reason, whilst the "open-minded" keep avoiding giving any and complain that the "closed-minded" don't believe this thing that "takes the most critical inquiry to study" uncritically.

Gisteron wrote: Well, yes, it would be different by roughly the magnitude of Planck's constant, i.e. barely at all.

This is the comment I was referring to as misunderstood. Not the one you cherry picked..

What does Planck's Law have to do with the absence of gravity and how would that absence barely change things??

Look, Gisteron, if you're just going to keep misrepresenting my point and twisting yours to seem superior there's no need for this conversation between us..

Because I never said the Ethereal wasn't observable, nor untestable through the scientific method. However, there's no machine that will detect ethereal energy/matter itself. Only the affects its movement has on the atomic bodies attached to it. I have to constantly reiterate it because you can't seem to understand that point correctly..

You're making seem as if I said "It exists and you can't check to see!!" but I'm saying the exact opposite.. as many have, scientists and not..

The close minded are closed because they cannot see the forest for the trees.. you keep saying that "woosters" have no evidence, but it's only because you reject what evidence is out there as anecdotal. The only reliable source of information for you is what you can physically touch.. though I had to figure out Astral travel before I had even heard of the concept.. with no help using a scientific method.. the physical world is our reference point.. not the whole of reality..

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Well, yes, it would be different by roughly the magnitude of Planck's constant, i.e. barely at all.

This is the comment I was referring to as misunderstood. Not the one you cherry picked..

Yes, I thought it wouldn't be a problem to put succinctly what had been elaborated on before. My apologies.

What does Planck's Law have to do with the absence of gravity and how would that absence barely change things??

I have not referenced Planck's Law.

Look, Gisteron, if you're just going to keep misrepresenting my point and twisting yours to seem superior there's no need for this conversation between us..

Well that's rich. I made my point clear, only to have you ignore it until I phrase it more briefly at which point you get to cry fowl. Meanwhile you ask me about Planck's Law as if I had made any reference to it, and yet you point at me as the one misrepresenting and twisting points? Please, do go on!

Because I never said the Ethereal wasn't observable, nor untestable through the scientific method. However, there's no machine that will detect ethereal energy/matter itself. Only the affects [sic] its movement has on the atomic bodies attached to it. I have to constantly reiterate it because you can't seem to understand that point correctly..

False. I do understand the point, just not its relevancy. There is no machine that will detect gravity "itself" either. Only the "affects" it has on bodies subject to it. If that's what makes science unfit to examine the Ethereal, then science is just as unfit to examine gravity, and indeed anything else about nature also, because that quality of a lack of direct access is something the Ethereal shares shares with pretty much everything.

The close minded are closed because they cannot see the forest for the trees.. you keep saying that "woosters" have no evidence, but it's only because you reject what evidence is out there as anecdotal.

It's not the sceptic's fault or problem that that's the best they present. There is any number of arbitrarily profound and unintuitive claims we can substantiate with strong, repeatable and intersubjectively verifiable data. A claim doesn't start out as woo, it only gets dismissed as such after it or claims very similar to it have consistently kept failing to be supported by anything stronger than hearsay. In light of how outlandish claims have been that still made it through by reasoning and evidence (think forces that act at a distance, granularity of matter and energy, their equivalence, just to name a few), I see no reason why we should lower our standards just because someone's pet magic theory doesn't quite cut it.

The only reliable source of information for you is what you can physically touch..

Tell me more about how I'm misrepresenting your position...

though I had to figure out Astral travel before I had even heard of the concept.. with no help using a scientific method..

Did you ever ask yourself why that is, though? How come religious self-deception is the only way to find this, but studying nature not only reveals none of it, but makes it almost as unplausible as a contradiction would?

the physical world is our reference point.. not the whole of reality..

Yes. I propose not to abandon everything we know about it based on a gut feeling, how about it?

For you to say that I said that it couldn't be critically examined by a scientific method was false and a misrepresentation of my point.. Why you keep saying that, idk..

I didn't twist your point. I uses one term in place of another. Seeing as I'm unaware of the difference. It still doesn't excuse you from answer the question in more clear terms.. since you represent yourself as currently a student of science, that shouldn't be hard..

Also, I used a scientific method to understand my experience of Astral Projection. I forgot the comma there.. Religious self-deception isn't how it's studied. That's the worse way to study it.. I already told you that I used a sort of simple experiment to see if I was experiencing what I thought I was. Could there have been flaws? Sure, I was only 14 or 15.. Was my telekinetic experiment better? By miles.. Because of my experience, and studying the experiences of others on this subject. I'm more than convinced that the information is very reliable and supported by more than just hearsay..

People have done experiments with these concepts. Some more successful than others. Some with technical machines, others not. There are simple experiments done with playing cards that can verify the existence of the self being able to separate from the body. I've been looking into this stuff officially for over ten years now. There are books, articles, and techniques that explain these concepts in greater detail, and ways to test them. There are things known due to repetitive testing. There are many unknowns still, however.. which need further study.. why only understand one aspect of reality when we interact with them all in a way?.. Because what's no longer debatable is that the world cannot be seen as deterministic. There are deeper sources and layers beyond our physical reality.. and the esoteric community doesn't need the validation of the scientific community to understand that..

Let them worry about the affects this magnetic pole shift is having on our planet. They don't have a working knowledge of the dynamics of the Ethereal to propose any sort of antithesis to it. The more they talk about it according to the understanding of their field. The more they unknowingly describe certain aspects of it..

Experiments trying to find a change in weight at the instant a person dies are destined to fail. Ethereal is massless until it takes material form. It's also unquantifiable by units. You couldn't break it into segments to measure how much exists within a given space. It exists like another spacial field, interwoven in the fabric of reality.. It is Space and Energy.. not a separate force.. just a more subtle one..

Uzima Moto wrote: For you to say that I said that it couldn't be critically examined by a scientific method was false and a misrepresentation of my point.. Why you keep saying that, idk..

I had you confused with Adder, my apologies. However, it's not like your position is substantially different, as seen in a later passage of the post I'm quoting here:

Experiments trying to find a change in weight at the instant a person dies are destined to fail. Ethereal is massless until it takes material form. It's also unquantifiable by units. You couldn't break it into segments to measure how much exists within a given space.

See, either the same can be said of everything natural, or it cannot. If the thing you refer to has an impact on reality, then methods by which we study reality must suffice to study it also. If generally you agree with that, fair enough.

I didn't twist your point. I uses one term in place of another. Seeing as I'm unaware of the difference. It still doesn't excuse you from answer the question in more clear terms.. since you represent yourself as currently a student of science, that shouldn't be hard..

it isn't hard at all, I just figured I had a very poor understanding of the basic sciences so it wouldn't be my place. At any rate, I referenced the magnitude of Planck's constant, because in units intuitive to us (feet and meters, seconds, kilograms and pounds), Planck's constant is on the order of 10^-34. The change to the workings of the universe between having gravity as we know it and having none is on the order of 10^-35%, as I had stated earlier and if I am correct with my raw estimate (i.e. give or take one or two orders of magnitude, really doesn't affect the overall point), so some 10^-37. So as tiny as Planck's constant would seem to be, the ratio of 1h to 1Js is in fact still noticeably greater than the difference gravity makes to the really interesting functions of the universe, like chemistry and - by extension - life. By no means would things be as they are without it, but the basics would be the same and the basics are so called because, well... everything is sort of based on them.
Planck's Law, for the record, is a model of black body radiation that accounts for both the exponential falloff of higher energy modes (Wien approximation) as well as the quadratic growth on the lower end (Rayleigh-Jeans Law). It is one of the earlier formulas where the constant was used, though it's actual significance for discoveries to come was probably only partly anticipated at the time. And boy, were those consequences profound!...

Gisteron wrote: See, either the same can be said of everything natural, or it cannot. If the thing you refer to has an impact on reality, then methods by which we study reality must suffice to study it also. If generally you agree with that, fair enough.

The methods, yes. It, or its effects, should be observable, predictable, and repeatable..

The approach, no.. and this is the difference I'm sure Adder is trying to express as well..

Ethereal has different phases. Matter being one of many. The approach you use to study one phase isn't the same for the next. Mainly because they don't really crossover. It's the same reason you couldn't physically travel to a "separate dimension". Each is an expansion of the one before it. Picture different layers existing in the same space at the same time. They're not separate at all. Aside from their level of energy. That's a common misconception...

A key feature of this current phase is mass. "Mass" takes on more magnetic like properties in other phases as far as I've seen. As immanent consciousness increases with every phase. It takes precedence over other properties.. example: When testing astral projection. It's important to have a clear mind and good focus. Otherwise, it will affect the results. If you set up an observation test. What you think influences what you see. Your ethereal energy sees differently. When it's quiet and awake. It picks up on the bodies around it. When it's sleeping or chaotic, you only perceive the impressions it makes. Mainly on your own mind.. likewise, the state of your energy attracts energy of similar status.. energies of the opposite will be repelled.. like attracts like, instead of the opposite.. since it has more of a mind of its own..

..So as tiny as Planck's constant would seem to be, the ratio of 1h to 1Js is in fact still noticeably greater than the difference gravity makes to the really interesting functions of the universe, like chemistry and - by extension - life. By no means would things be as they are without it, but the basics would be the same and the basics are so called because, well... everything is sort of based on them..

So, after all that, my point still stands? You actually support my over all premise. Because besides Planck, I used gravity as an example of subtlety in the universe. How something small, or weak, can have a meaningful influence on things greater than itself. In that way, weakness is a matter of your point of view.. In all reality, gravity is only one part of the machinery, yes. It's a highly important gear.. but remove any of the gears and the whole machine will breakdown, eventually..

Now I know your just making stuff up!

Uzima Moto wrote: A key feature of this current phase is mass. "Mass" takes on more magnetic like properties in other phases as far as I've seen. As immanent consciousness increases with every phase. It takes precedence over other properties.. example: When testing astral projection. It's important to have a clear mind and good focus. Otherwise, it will affect the results. If you set up an observation test. What you think influences what you see. Your ethereal energy sees differently. When it's quiet and awake. It picks up on the bodies around it. When it's sleeping or chaotic, you only perceive the impressions it makes. Mainly on your own mind.. likewise, the state of your energy attracts energy of similar status.. energies of the opposite will be repelled.. like attracts like, instead of the opposite.. since it has more of a mind of its own..

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Now I know your just making stuff up!

Uzima Moto wrote: A key feature of this current phase is mass. "Mass" takes on more magnetic like properties in other phases as far as I've seen. As immanent consciousness increases with every phase. It takes precedence over other properties.. example: When testing astral projection. It's important to have a clear mind and good focus. Otherwise, it will affect the results. If you set up an observation test. What you think influences what you see. Your ethereal energy sees differently. When it's quiet and awake. It picks up on the bodies around it. When it's sleeping or chaotic, you only perceive the impressions it makes. Mainly on your own mind.. likewise, the state of your energy attracts energy of similar status.. energies of the opposite will be repelled.. like attracts like, instead of the opposite.. since it has more of a mind of its own..

Attachment How-Magnets-Work.jpg not found

But are non-magnetic materials attracted to magnetic materials?? No.. but you missed magnetic "like", not purely magnetic.. if you're going to deconstruct something. Make sure you completely understand what's being said..

Uzima Moto wrote:
But are non-magnetic materials attracted to magnetic materials?? No.. but you missed magnetic "like", not purely magnetic.. if you're going to deconstruct something. Make sure you completely understand what's being said..

Oh I see, so using fuzzy terms allows you to get around hard counter points. Got it. If this is not the case then please inform us as to exactly what you mean by "magnetic like."

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:
But are non-magnetic materials attracted to magnetic materials?? No.. but you missed magnetic "like", not purely magnetic.. if you're going to deconstruct something. Make sure you completely understand what's being said..

Oh I see, so using fuzzy terms allows you to get around hard counter points. Got it. If this is not the case then please inform us as to exactly what you mean by "magnetic like."

mag·net·ism
/ˈmaɡnəˌtizəm/

noun
1.
a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, resulting in attractive and repulsive forces between objects.
2.
the ability to attract and charm people.
"his personal magnetism attracted men to the brotherhood"

It wasn't fuzzy at all. You just assumed I meant it in purely scientific terms.. although, both definitions here apply to what I'm speaking on..

You didn't have a hard counterpoint.. that was another strawman..

Uzima Moto wrote:

..So as tiny as Planck's constant would seem to be, the ratio of 1h to 1Js is in fact still noticeably greater than the difference gravity makes to the really interesting functions of the universe, like chemistry and - by extension - life. By no means would things be as they are without it, but the basics would be the same and the basics are so called because, well... everything is sort of based on them..

So, after all that, my point still stands? You actually support my over all premise. Because besides Planck, I used gravity as an example of subtlety in the universe. How something small, or weak, can have a meaningful influence on things greater than itself.

Of course it can. I never said we couldn't measure gravity.

In that way, weakness is a matter of your point of view.. In all reality, gravity is only one part of the machinery, yes. It's a highly important gear.. but remove any of the gears and the whole machine will breakdown, eventually..

No, weakness is not a matter of my point of view. I can compare it to other forces we can measure and tell with some precision just how weak it is. It's not a matter of intuition, or perspective, we can measure this, we can quantify it! And no, its effects are extremely superficial. It is not a highly important gear, it is barely a gear at all. Imagine how far away the sun is from us compared to an inch. Then imagine a miniature solar system where the sun be on one end of the inch and the earth on the other, and picture the size of a miniature inch on that miniature earth. Now go the other way, suppose the distance between the earth and the sun is equivalent to a huge super-inch on a giant super-earth that is itself in a super-solar system proportionally as far away from its sun as we are from our own. If the distance from super-earth to its super-sun is what makes life happen, then the miniature inch on the miniature earth is roughly gravity's contribution to that.
If the miniature inch were removed from that total distance, in my opinion that would shorten is by rather little. So little, that it would be unreasonable to keep that change in mind at all, really, for all the difference it makes to the distance-made life. Maybe your opinion on this is different. That's fair enough. If our intuitions about what is a significant portion of a distance are this vastly different, I don't think there is any further argument either of us can raise to sway the other. It is perhaps one of the rare instances where we'll just have to be content with carrying on in disagreement, for now...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

TheDude wrote: It is important to note that knowledge is a subset of belief and whatever it is we "know" may also be described as a justified belief.

No this is wrong. Knowledge is not a subset of belief. Knowledge is a subset of truth. You can still have a belief and have it justified and yet still be wrong about that belief.

The eyes are not adapted well enough to recognize all photon-based stimuli. Anything you read or see has the potential for some level of epistemic vagueness resulting from missing information, as in the story of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. You can see this for yourself; put a painting you like in an image editor and remove a few colors, it may not resemble the painting you like at all. The ears are the same, we are incapable of perfect perception of sound. If you do not believe me, blow a dog whistle as loud as possible.

Knowledge is a purely mental condition, appearing only in the minds of beings which legitimize its existence. That is to say that gravity may be a fact of the physical universe, but that knowledge of gravity is a mental condition rather than an ontic one. However, we do not have the physiological means to interpret reality as-it-is. If I am to accept knowledge as a subset of truth, then I can only conclude that nobody has knowledge of anything; some factors which deeply impact any given truth-based statement will always be unknown, so the possibility of any true-or-false-valued statement being false is always present. Now, given that knowledge is an epistemic state and only possible in thinking beings -- beings with an epistemology such as you or I, as opposed to rocks -- and that absolute knowledge regarding anything subject to the senses is of questionable truth-value, defining knowledge as a subset of truth results in an unfortunate circumstance. Namely, no one has any knowledge whatsoever; the attainment of knowledge is physiologically impossible no matter how much experimentation one does; no being actually holds knowledge. But if no being holds knowledge, and knowledge is an epistemic state, then knowledge does not exist.

I find that a much less appealing definition than holding knowledge as a subset of belief. As a subset of belief, it does not depend on such ontic claims which would render knowledge functionally meaningless.