a reply to:
KilgoreTrout
Good observation / Question.
This earth only appears solid. As you know, matter is nearly entirely empty space.
We can't get anywhere near the Planck distance.. a lot of people in physics wonder
if this means we are in a simulation. The Bell Inequality has been proven, and it means
there is no 'local realism' (reality basically).
Things only LOOK solid and real.
Now, i'm not quibbling that if I bang my head into the wall, it will hurt me.
So nothing changed from ancient times.. the things that puzzled ancient 'mystics'
are still puzzling our new 'mystics' (physicists).
This is why there a lot of closet occultists among physicists. I've only met a few
dozen physicists in my life, but I'd say that only about 40% of them are harcdore
reductionists.
(reductionism is fine, often valid.. but it's possible to throw baby out with the
bathwater).
Yes, 'other realities' are MUCH harder to 'kick'. We are creatures of entropy and
death, largely denizens of 3 unpleasant dimensions and the apparent arrow of
time which flows in one direction, but according to QM, the arrow of time
flows in both directions (proven). We can't even count on time being solid.
What have we learned?
I would hope that we have learned, that wishful thinking alone won't get us
anywhere, that we should be rigorous with both our science and our pseudoscience,
but only some people have learned these things.
I would hope that we have learned that if we are to get anywhere, it has to be by
our sweat and blood, and that no 'metaphysical entities' are going to swoop in
and rescue us (or UFOs/aliens).
But again, so many are in denial about this. It used to be that people wanted angels
to help them, now they want ET to help them.
I have a lot of things to say about 'the game'. I've written dozens of pages on this topic..
even wrote some for TTSA.
JV and others wish to think that they can figure out of the motives for (apparent)
anomalous events, that they can attribute human motivations, motivations that
put humans in the middle of 'creation' as special and worth talking to.
Im not saying that humans are not interesting.. i'm not saying that humans don't
perhaps serve a function, other than just blind evolution.
but it doesn't appear to me to be a flattering function. Not majestic. And of course
I'm certainly at best 80% correct and quite possibly entirely wrong.
Until we master quantum mechanics, if we ever do, we are kind of stuck, in terms
of science providing meaningful answers to anything 'fringe'.
Kev