Belief vs Knowledge - The Force

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.