Does chaos magic suggest that Gods/God does not exist, that we created them, or that we are actually

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by yampa
Yet another incident on this forum of someone trying to sell the idea that our mind creates reality. This is a misleading and dangerous idea which should not be encouraged.

If one were to believe in a inifinite multiverse type reality where all possibilities can occur then this has actually happened.

That's great, but we, as humans here on earth right now, are not existing in a universe where that happens. We're living in a hard, physical reality which has deterministic laws - none of which we can perturb without direct physical interaction.

I'm betting you're getting the 'multiverse' thing from the same type of people who try to sell 'consciousness creates external reality' falsehood i.e fakers.

Consciousness creates the reality in your head, it does not create the reality that your body exists in.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by werewolf99

 

I believe in Aliens and Angels and have never seen them. Once upon a time I prayed to see ghosts..... notta.... nothing.

So... if you are asking if a belief manifests into material (not sure if thats what your implying) I would say no, not in my case.

Yeah me too.
But I haven't seen a thing. Ouija boards don't even work for me.
I did see a "shadow person" once... But maybe I was just a little drunk......?

Originally posted by yampa
That's great, but we, as humans here on earth right now, are not existing in a universe where that happens. We're living in a hard, physical reality which has deterministic laws - none of which we can perturb without direct physical interaction.

But who is to say that this version of the multiverse which we inhabit is not the one where this type of activity can occur? By its very definition an infinite multiverse allows for infinite possibilities all of which have occured or are occuring. To take this further, an infinite multiverse also allows for infinite universes where humans can create reality by thought.

I'm betting you're getting the 'multiverse' thing from the same type of people who try to sell 'consciousness creates external reality' falsehood i.e fakers.

Uh, no. I get the multiverse concept from physicists such as Greene, Yau, Tegmark, et al.

Now, I do realize that there are objectors to the principle who equate a cosmological multiverse to a form of theology as it is not a testable hypothesis at this time (and maybe ever) but there are theorems that may be provable (or disproved) with the next geenration of radio-astronomical satellites.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by yampa
That's great, but we, as humans here on earth right now, are not existing in a universe where that happens. We're living in a hard, physical reality which has deterministic laws - none of which we can perturb without direct physical interaction.

But who is to say that this version of the multiverse which we inhabit is not the one where this type of activity can occur? By its very definition an infinite multiverse allows for infinite possibilities all of which have occured or are occuring. To take this further, an infinite multiverse also allows for infinite universes where humans can create reality by thought.

I'm betting you're getting the 'multiverse' thing from the same type of people who try to sell 'consciousness creates external reality' falsehood i.e fakers.

Uh, no. I get the multiverse concept from physicists such as Greene, Yau, Tegmark, et al.

Now, I do realize that there are objectors to the principle who equate a cosmological multiverse to a form of theology as it is not a testable hypothesis at this time (and maybe ever) but there are theorems that may be provable (or disproved) with the next geenration of radio-astronomical satellites.

You don't have a working definition of a multiverse because it isn't a real theory of physics. You are pretending that you have one because some popular science writers told you it was ok to make things up about it.

Multiverses are not part of any real scientific theory. It's a story that has been made up. So yes, you are right in the sense that we are free to make up stories, and free to believe those stories if we want, therefore any story can be theoretically true. But what does this mean for our personal understanding of the boundaries of reality? Absolutely nothing. Theories like this do not inform, explain or enlighten; they only confuse people.

Uh, no. I get the multiverse concept from physicists such as Greene, Yau, Tegmark, et al.

Yes, like I said, fakers. Those guys are very happy to sell you the idea that reality is malleable, uncertain and chaotic. A long look at the integrity of their theories should be undertaken by anyone claiming to have an interest in scientific truth.

Your brain creates your reality for you. Because your brain is a biological computer built to map and create a model of the world. But your brain never actually creates physical reality (through belief or anything else) and reality will prove you wrong over and over if you try to act otherwise.

reply to post by yampa


Too bad neuro-scientists do not agree. No one has come up with proof as to where the consciousness is located. Many theories though.

I like this below....

“Where is the experience of red in your brain?” The question was put to me by Deepak Chopra at his Sages and Scientists Symposium in Carlsbad, Calif., on March 3. A posse of presenters argued that the lack of a complete theory by neuroscientists regarding how neural activity translates into conscious experiences (such as “redness”) means that a physicalist approach is inadequate or wrong. “The idea that subjective experience is a result of electrochemical activity remains a hypothesis,” Chopra elaborated in an e-mail. “It is as much of a speculation as the idea that consciousness is fundamental and that it causes brain activity and creates the properties and objects of the material world.” “Where is Aunt Millie's mind when her brain dies of Alzheimer's?” I countered to Chopra. “Aunt Millie was an impermanent pattern of behavior of the universe and returned to the potential she emerged from,” Chopra rejoined. “In the philosophic framework of Eastern traditions, ego identity is an illusion and the goal of enlightenment is to transcend to a more universal nonlocal, nonmaterial identity.”

www.scientificamerican.com...



He had an "ultra reality" when he had zero brain waves. He was obviously dumb founded being a neurosurgeon. How did this happen? He wrote his entire experience down and has his own theories as to what happened. He believes the experience was more "real" than this reality.

So, without the belief in an afterlife he had the experience. He did not create this reality..... it was drawn to him.

He did not believe in God. He also met a deceased sister he never knew he had.

This video is a great example of how the consciousness seems to not be connected to the brain and if it is, its temporary.

reply to post by yampa


Multiverse is something scientists are indeed entertaining. Its not a new concept and its something many are working to prove. Science is ever evolving. Don't get so attached to old ways of thinking. Keep your mind open.

iopscience.iop.org...

Inflationary cosmology leads to the picture of a 'multiverse', involving an infinite number of (spatially infinite) post-inflationary thermalized regions, called pocket universes. In the context of theories with many vacua, such as the landscape of string theory, the effective constants of Nature are randomized by quantum processes during inflation. We discuss an analytic estimate for the volume distribution of the constants within each pocket universe. This estimate is based on the conjecture that the field distribution is approximately ergodic in the diffusion regime, when the dynamics of the fields is dominated by quantum fluctuations (rather than by the classical drift). We then propose a method for determining the relative abundances of different kinds of pocket universes. Both ingredients are combined into an expression for the distribution of the constants in pocket universes of all types.

Originally posted by MamaJ

Your brain creates your reality for you. Because your brain is a biological computer built to map and create a model of the world. But your brain never actually creates physical reality (through belief or anything else) and reality will prove you wrong over and over if you try to act otherwise.

reply to post by yampa

 

Too bad neuro-scientists do not agree. No one has come up with proof as to where the consciousness is located. Many theories though.

Human style consciousness (really mammalian consciousness) resides in the neocortex. That wrinkly sheet of cells about 5mm thick which surrounds the phylogentically much older sub-cortical regions. All neuroscientists agree this is where there major components of human cognition reside. That is where the majority of the central nervous system's neural hardware resides and it is proven in countless fMRI etc tests that these are the regions which most active when we are conscious.

So, no, you are wrong that neuroscientists do not have a good understanding of the neural correlates of consciousness. And absolutely none of that research has found a connection between the function of neurons and the ability of them to manifest change in physical reality without directly interacting with it.

Originally posted by yampa
You don't have a working definition of a multiverse because it isn't a real theory of physics. You are pretending that you have one because some popular science writers told you it was ok to make things up about it.

While there are several competing possibilities for the multiverse, with one of them incoprating all definitions, they are indeed part of 'a real theory of physcis' as super-symmetry requires mutliple universes for its maths to function.

To attribute this to 'some popular science writers' shows a fundemental lack of understanding as to where modern cosmology has currently progressed. The persons I mentioned, as well as their collaborators, are at the forefront of M-theory exploration and are continuing to tie their findings into the standard model with excellent results.

Is ther much left unknown? Of course, however, up until a few weeks ago the Higgs Boson was just as unknown but was long predicted to exist.

Multiverses are not part of any real scientific theory. It's a story that has been made up. So yes, you are right in the sense that we are free to make up stories, and free to believe those stories if we want, therefore any story can be theoretically true. But what does this mean for our personal understanding of the boundaries of reality? Absolutely nothing. Theories like this do not inform, explain or enlighten; they only confuse people.

I supppose they only confuse people who do not take the time to fully explore and understand them and what their theory advocates or lays out. Again, they are indeed part of 'real scientific theory' and just because you either do not understand or agree with it does not make the mathematical equations or obeservable phenomenom relating to the theory any less accurate or real.

Yes, like I said, fakers. Those guys are very happy to sell you the idea that reality is malleable, uncertain and chaotic. A long look at the integrity of their theories should be undertaken by anyone claiming to have an interest in scientific truth.

Super-symmetry and the multiverse theory predates all of the work mentioned by the persons I listed above, the foundation was already there. They just explanded upon it with new work and maths.

Perhaps, since you seem to feel they are frauds and that you grasp of cosmology and physics is more 'accurate', care to lay out the 'proper' understanding of the universe that we should all espouse?

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by yampa

 

Multiverse is something scientists are indeed entertaining. Its not a new concept and its something many are working to prove. Science is ever evolving. Don't get so attached to old ways of thinking. Keep your mind open.

iopscience.iop.org...

Inflationary cosmology leads to the picture of a 'multiverse', involving an infinite number of (spatially infinite) post-inflationary thermalized regions, called pocket universes. In the context of theories with many vacua, such as the landscape of string theory, the effective constants of Nature are randomized by quantum processes during inflation. We discuss an analytic estimate for the volume distribution of the constants within each pocket universe. This estimate is based on the conjecture that the field distribution is approximately ergodic in the diffusion regime, when the dynamics of the fields is dominated by quantum fluctuations (rather than by the classical drift). We then propose a method for determining the relative abundances of different kinds of pocket universes. Both ingredients are combined into an expression for the distribution of the constants in pocket universes of all types.

I think you should perhaps close your mind to these people for a while and have a think about the kinds of thoughts that they have been sticking in there. Ask yourself if they have helped you understand reality?

The only way of thinking I am attached to is the one that adequately describes the structure of reality. Fantasy physicist role-playing is not my game.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Perhaps, since you seem to feel they are frauds and that you grasp of cosmology and physics is more 'accurate', care to lay out the 'proper' understanding of the universe that we should all espouse?

Why is it you think you have an understanding of current multiverse theory? The mathematics is extremely arcane and is only designed to be consumed by those highly versed in the language. I don't have an understanding of string thory and multiverses either and I have read and seen much of the garbage that has been output by those you quoted (although it took me a long time to realise it was garbage).

Moreover, why is what is a multiverse does or does not do relevant to events in physical reality? The OP is claiming some magic mind-universe connection, but merely suggesting the possibility of a multiverse does nothing to explain or inform us of that connection. Multiverses are irrelevant to the OPs point. CIAGypsy hijacked the term in order to connect it to some not very convincing spiritualism, and AugustusMasonicus introduced it for no reason at all!

The only reason that pseudo-intellectuals constantly introduce the idea of multiverses and infinities is because it allows them the possibility of saying 'anything goes, there are no real rules'. If you are allowed to cut away those ties to the rules imposed by reality, then any theory is valid and people are free to profit from fantasy.

That unanchored mindset will always lead to ruin and confusion.

Originally posted by yampa
Why is it you think you have an understanding of current multiverse theory?

Where did I claim any such thing? I feel it is a viable explanation for our obervable universe based on my layman's study of physics over the past few decades.

The mathematics is extremely arcane and is only designed to be consumed by those highly versed in the language. I don't have an understanding of string thory and multiverses either and I have read and seen much of the garbage that has been output by those you quoted (although it took me a long time to realise it was garbage).

So let me get this right. You do not understand the maths, and you do not understand super-symmetry but it is somehow garbage. Do you understand what an ignoramus you sound like when you make statements like that?

That would be like saying I do not understand Japanese syntax and grammar but the language is garbage.

Moreover, why is what is a multiverse does or does not do relevant to events in physical reality? The OP is claiming some magic mind-universe connection, but merely suggesting the possibility of a multiverse does nothing to explain or inform us of that connection. Multiverses are irrelevant to the OPs point. CIAGypsy hijacked the term in order to connect it to some not very convincing spiritualism, and AugustusMasonicus introduced it for no reason at all!

Because, as I said earlier, an infinite multiverse allows for all possible realites. They have occured, are occuirng and will continue to occur by this very definition. I am not so small minded as to think we are the only possibility in existance. I am open to the possibility that there are versions of our obervable universe that function will different parameters than ours and with different operating realities.

The only reason that pseudo-intellectuals constantly introduce the idea of multiverses and infinities is because it allows them the possibility of saying 'anything goes, there are no real rules'. If you are allowed to cut away those ties to the rules imposed by reality, then any theory is valid and people are free to profit from fantasy.

Again this shows a fundemental lack of understanding on how the multiverse functions. There would be laws and rules governing each permutation of the universe. Some would be nearly identical, some would be recognizable, some would be unknown and others would not permit anything we currently understand or know to exist.

I find it comical when small-minded people who do not understand the broader implications of cosmology write off its theorems as the concotion of 'pseudo-intellectuals' or other such drivel. Your inability or lack of desire to grasp the concept does little to diminish the fact that it is a highly accepted theory in modern physics and cosmology and a good number of the theories require this to be such for them to function and that there are observable phenomenom that are possible indicators of there being more than one universe.

That unanchored mindset will always lead to ruin and confusion.

And the unwilling mind will always remain in darkness and petulant ignorance.

reply to post by yampa


Yampa, I disagree with much of your opinions, but had a question on one of your assertions (which really lies at the base of it all).
I am wondering what is the "dangerous" part of conceptions which suggest an inter play of consciousness and matter? (in creation and events)

In what way do you see such ideas as dangerous or threatening?

Just curious. I didn't get that part.

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by yampa

 

Yampa, I disagree with much of your opinions, but had a question on one of your assertions (which really lies at the base of it all).
I am wondering what is the "dangerous" part of conceptions which suggest an inter play of consciousness and matter?

In what way do you see such ideas as dangerous or threatening?

Just curious. I didn't get that part.

It's dangerous to believe that reality is not full of rules which need to be learnt. It's dangerous for a human being to be walking around in society with the belief they create the world, rather than the world creating them, especially when that person happens to be powerful or driven to live-out their fantasies. It leads to a mindset without proper awareness of the true consequences for the other inhabitants of this world.

If people want to believe that they can control matter with their minds, then fine, that's up to them. The problem is when they go around trying to convince others or engage in mental gymnastics which end up being harmful to themselves and others.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I find it comical when small-minded people who do not understand the broader implications of cosmology write off its theorems as the concotion of 'pseudo-intellectuals' or other such drivel. Your inability or lack of desire to grasp the concept does little to diminish the fact that it is a highly accepted theory in modern physics and cosmology and a good number of the theories require this to be such for them to function and that there are observable phenomenom that are possible indicators of there being more than one

So amongst all the ad-hominem and bluster, we've managed to extract that multiverses are relevant to the OPs point because:

"Because, as I said earlier, an infinite multiverse allows for all possible realites. They have occured, are occuirng and will continue to occur by this very definition."

and

" There would be laws and rules governing each permutation of the universe. Some would be nearly identical, some would be recognizable, some would be unknown and others would not permit anything we currently understand or know to exist. "

what a fantastically fantastic piece of analysis you have provided for us here! I'm glad you brought out the science hammer to smash my objections to pieces!

Like I said, your only point seems to be 'anything goes, therefore I can propose anything'. Unless you can say something scientific about the connection between multiverses and consciousness, I can only assume that you have nothing real to offer.

Originally posted by yampa
So amongst all the ad-hominem and bluster, we've managed to extract that multiverses are relevant to the OPs point because:

"Because, as I said earlier, an infinite multiverse allows for all possible realites. They have occured, are occuirng and will continue to occur by this very definition."

and

" There would be laws and rules governing each permutation of the universe. Some would be nearly identical, some would be recognizable, some would be unknown and others would not permit anything we currently understand or know to exist. "

what a fantastically fantastic piece of analysis you have provided for us here! I'm glad you brought out the science hammer to smash my objections to pieces!

While you find it to be 'fantastical' it it indeed possible in an infinite multiverse reality.

Like I said, your only point seems to be 'anything goes, therefore I can propose anything'. Unless you can say something scientific about the connection between multiverses and consciousness, I can only assume that you have nothing real to offer.

Perhaps we should all advocate your stance, 'I have not taken the time to understand the theory, therefore it is garbage'.

Have fun.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Perhaps we should all advocate your stance, 'I have not taken the time to understand the theory, therefore it is garbage'.

Have fun.

I will take the time if you explain how (other than offering infinite possibilities) multiverses are connected with consciousness. How does Brian Greene help to explain the existence of mind-spells and chaos magic using multiverse theory?

Originally posted by yampa
I will take the time if you explain how (other than offering infinite possibilities) multiverses are connected with consciousness. How does Brian Greene help to explain the existence of mind-spells and chaos magic using multiverse theory?

One possible explanation is the simulated universe theory where each level 'below' is responsible for the creation of the one 'above' it. Whether this is by a computational device or by a conscious entity is left to interpretation.

This theory may be provable in the near future as computing power will eventually make possible the 'creation' of a wholly contained universe which can be run, re-run and manipulated at a higher 'level'. I am open to the possibility that there exists universes where thought can act in the same manner due to the physical laws acting different then our own universe. I do not find this to be 'mind-spells' or other such degratory monikers but a possibility described by the maths involved in the theory.

As I stated, super-symmetry requires multiple univeres. In an infinite multiverse all realities occur. If you are going to discount super-symmetry at least make a passing effort to understand its basic premises and requirements and where it currently resides in modern physics and cosmology. You can then present your logical and fact-based counter arguement as to why it is flawed.

reply to post by yampa


yampa,

I think you are posting in a thread that you, ultimately, know little to nothing about. The OP asked about chaos magick and whether or how it relates to a reality that is controlled by a Divine being. Under your premise, you have a rigidly defined set of beliefs that are only supported by hard facts of what you can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear with your five senses. Your definition only allows for current scientific understanding of physics and not what is still "unknown." This isn't AT ALL what the OP's post was about....

We are talking about the definition of magick being

"the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will", including both "mundane" acts of will as well as ritual magic.

My explanation clearly stated that in order to understand how chaos magick works to change physical reality, then you must ACCEPT THE PREMISE that it involves manipulation of natural laws which are not currently understood by mainstream science.

You have every right to believe magick is complete hogwash.... But if you are just here to bash the ideals that underlie the OP's question, then maybe you shouldn't be posting on this thread at all? The topic isn't about whether God is real or whether magick is real. It's about the mechanics of HOW something occurs given the ASSUMPTION that they are both real.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by yampa
I will take the time if you explain how (other than offering infinite possibilities) multiverses are connected with consciousness. How does Brian Greene help to explain the existence of mind-spells and chaos magic using multiverse theory?

One possible explanation is the simulated universe theory where each level 'below' the present one is responsible for the creation of the one 'above' it. Whether this is by a computational device or by a conscious entity is left to interpretation.

This theory may be provable in the near future as computing power will eventually make possible the 'creation' of a wholly contained universe which can be run, re-run and manipulated at a higher 'level'. I am open to the possibility that there exists universes where thought can act in the same manner due to the physical laws acting different then our own universe. I do not find this to be 'mind-spells' or other such degratory monikers but a possibility described by the maths involved in the theory.

As I stated, super-symmetry requires multiple univeres. In an infinite multiverse all realities occur. If you are going to discount super-symmetry at least make a passing effort to understand its basic premises and requirements and where it currently resides in modern physics and cosmology. You can then present your logical and fact-based counter arguement as to why it is flawed.

You didn't say anything about what the OP was posting about? You didn't address what I asked or what the OP was talking about? You said nothing about which current theories have speculated about the connection between the mind and the multiverse theory?

Why are you so hung-up on multiverses?

Originally posted by CIAGypsy

You have every right to believe magick is complete hogwash.... But if you are just here to bash the ideals that underlie the OP's question, then maybe you shouldn't be posting on this thread at all? The topic isn't about whether God is real or whether magick is real. It's about the mechanics of HOW something occurs given the ASSUMPTION that they are both real.

Ok, so what are the mechanics here? What's your theory about how the mind is able to use spells to change reality? Is that backed up by any neuroscience or physics?

You are the one who used a term from modern physics (multi verse) to describe some sort of metaphysical set of planes of existence. Why did you use the term multiverse?