5 ms·

The most complete definition for our reality that I've seen is that everything is One. Everything in the Universe is connected, part of a whole; Everything is m

The most complete definition for our reality that I've seen is that everything is One. Everything in the Universe is connected, part of a whole; Everything is made of the same basic components, only vibrating, at different frequencies; As we are all made of the same basic components and everything is interconnected, we can affect the Universe , just as the Universe affects us. That for me explains and validates most of these concepts that most people think are fantasy: Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, Mind Reading, Telepathy etc; Once you start seeing the big picture you start to glimpse reality; Science is just starting to grasp these concepts. There will come a time when mysticism and science will be one and the same, and religion won't exist; Because we won't be needing it anymore; We'd have transcended it;

dkersten 7y ago
> Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, Mind Reading, Telepathy etc The problem with these things is that nobody has ever been able to prove they exist when put under scrutiny and anything attributed to them has generally always had alternative explanations that don't require the existence of the paranormal or whatnot. Until you can prove it exists, in a controlled test that eliminates biases, its no better than a fantasy, even if it does exist. I'm a hobbyist (sleight of hand) magician. I can do things that people believe are physically impossible. I know the methods of many more illusions (that I can't perform myself) that many people online claim is real magic/demons/whatever. This is completely laughable when you know the techniques. Its all a mixture of trickery, sleight of hand, misdirection, gimmicks/props, camera tricks and stooges. It often can look truly impossible and therefore magical, until you know how its done. Another concept that is often played on in performance magic is psychology: you can trick people into missremembering a sequence of events in order to make them appear even more impossible, for example, spectators often re-tell the performance saying things like they shuffled the cards, even though they only cut them, or that I didn't touch the cards and it all happened in the spectators hands, even though it actually did happen in mine and I did touch the cards. Just because you don't know the mechanism of something, doesn't mean that anything fantastical, mystical or paranormal actually occurred. I've yet to see any substantial evidence that anything ever has.
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  There's no proof because we don't yet have the framework to prove it; But all of them have been verified in laboratory. They could not be reproduced consistently so those experiments have been mostly ignored by the Community;
  - dkersten 7y ago
    > They could not be reproduced consistently I can perform a series of fair coin flips and have it land on heads 100% of the time (at very low probability). Unless it can be reproduced consistently, it proves nothing. There is always a random chance that something unexpected can occur, but that doesn't mean that there's some supernatural force at work. > But all of them have been verified in laboratory. Show me the peer reviewed papers. I've yet to see anything that holds up under scrutiny. Besides, if its not consistent, then how is it in any way useful? I believe the same thing about string theory: its a fun thought experiment, but until it can be used to make predictions or otherwise tested in the real physical world, its little more than a nice idea.
    - rafaelvasco 7y ago
      It won't hold under scrutiny and not reproduced consistently because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. If you had psychic abilities and was being examined in a lab, trust me, you would not give results 100% of the time. That's the problematic, and that's why Science will keep ignoring this until much later;
      - MauranKilom 7y ago
        There is a concept called "statistical significance". You don't have to give results 100% of the time. But you have to give results better than chance.
      - dkersten 7y ago
        > because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. That's the entire point of the scientific method, to account for this and prove while removing biases. > trust me No, the burden of proof is on you, the person making extraordinary claims. I won't trust you without evidence. So far, you have provided ZERO. You have not provided citations for the lab experiments you claimed verified it and you have not provided any peer reviewed publications or any experiments which I could try at home. You're basically just making shit up and telling me I should believe you. > you would not give results 100% of the time It doesn't have to be 100% of the time, it just has to be statistically significant. You're making lofty claims and saying "well yes it won't work in tests because reasons" and saying I should trust your belief without any proof. That's basically quackery and the kind of bullshit we need to be rid of. There are lots of nice sounding ideas that won't work in tests and won't hold up under scrutiny. None of these things should be treated seriously and certainly not taken as fact. If the quality of evidence required were really that weak, then I have an offer for you: I have a pill that I can sell you for $1000 dollars that will prevent you from ever getting sick. I don't have evidence, it doesn't work 100% of the time in test situations nor does it work consistently when tested, but TRUST ME, it works. If you truly believe what you say, then you should take me up on this offer.
lm28469 7y ago
> There will come a time when mysticism and science will be one and the same Mysticism stop being mysticism when it becomes science. Magnets were magic until we figured out how they work, &c. > Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, Mind Reading, Telepathy etc; I'm as open as can be but as long as there is literally nothing that back that up I won't buy it. There is no difference between a psychic and a 8 years old kid trying to throw energy balls out of his hands by concentrating very hard after watching one too many dragon balls episode.
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  Absolutely. There will be no Science and no Mysticism. Both will fade away to give light to a new awareness; This time is still far way. It won't be in our current lifetime;
  - dkersten 7y ago
    You do realise that science is just the practice of the scientific method, which is just a framework for acquiring and updating knowledge in ways that eliminate chance and bias? There's no reason that would ever fade away as long as there is anything unknown left in the universe. You should probably read the wikipedia page, at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- egypturnash 7y ago
  Here's a book chock full of the results of numerous studies and meta-analyses that backs it up. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35805860-real-magic https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35805860-real-magic Here's another book with the results of a few studies and first-hand accounts of the experience of how saying "so actually um there seems to be something going on here" is career poison because it's going against the currently-accepted dogma: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8025803-the-energy-cure https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8025803-the-energy-cure
  - dkersten 7y ago
    Where can I find these studies, outside of someone's for-profit book? Preferably in a peer reviewed form.
Dumblydorr 7y ago
Everything in the universe is connected, really? How am I connected to a random hydrogen atom in a nebula far beyond our sight, and moving away faster than light?
- dkersten 7y ago
  Quantum waves of loops made of strings whose interactions can be represented as the E8 lie group. I call it: hybrid theory. (Or maybe "compromise theory")
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  Believe me. We are; It seems ridiculous at first. But it makes sense once you really start looking into it; The thing is that we don't yet understand the nature of the connection, so it doesn't make sense yet; It will in time;
  - ssully 7y ago
    Believe me. We aren't. I really looked into it and came away with the truth, which is that the sum of the universe is actually 0 and that we aren't connected. Believe me, it will be revealed as truth in time. Not in our lifetimes, but it will. (Wow, this is exhausting)
  - dkersten 7y ago
    > Believe me It seems you like to say stuff like this, but you've given us zero reason to believe you. Show me the evidence and I might be more inclined to, but right now, you may as well just be telling us about a dream you once had.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Do you believe the Universe is deterministic, or that all possible Universes are extent in some fashion? If so then you and the H atom were both created as a consequence of the same creative action (there are other possibilities that end with that conclusion too). Whilst the universe looks probablistic, I think it's an open question as to whether it could yet turn out to be deterministic. You could argue based on pattern too, that H atom is made in the same model as your own H atoms, that's a (indirect, non-physical) connection. If gravity is not quantised, maybe you're experiencing one-another's gravity field too?
yahyaheee 7y ago
Here’s the answer I was looking for, in general I think the HN crowd is too reductionist to begin to understand these concepts. Most of them are seeeking intellectual validation or safety. Really open your mind up and these concepts are incredibly evident, I think inherently these realities are on a level that logic simply can’t reach. That doesn’t mean they aren’t real, as the shaman would say you don’t need to believe me, I can show you.
chippy 7y ago
Reading the comment brought this passage from the article to my mind: "I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register."
superqd 7y ago
One of the deep problems in assessing whether or not something like Clairvoyance is real is that there is no way to know the difference between extreme luck and the output of a truly new fundamental ability. It's especially difficult if the Ability is real, but the Practitioner is somewhat flawed in their practice. Suppose we want to test if someone can tell the future, and they really can tell the future, but are not super great at interpreting their inner precognitions. We ask for the predicted outcome of 5 future events, each of which only has two outcomes. The reach within their minds, and "see" the different outcomes, but its a little jumbled, and they only get 4 of the outcomes right. Contrast that with someone who has no real ability, but just guesses at the same event outcomes. There is a 1 in 32 chance that they will get the outcome of all 5 events correct. So if you were testing enough people, or simply knew enough people who thought they could predict the future, but really couldn't, you would find plenty of people who seemingly knew the future, but didn't. The reality of assessing such abilities is very difficult, even more so than I have demonstrated, but ultimately I don't find it meaningful to even speculate on the existence of such abilities without also a meaningful way to measure them.

dkersten 7y ago

> Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, Mind Reading, Telepathy etc The problem with these things is that nobody has ever been able to prove they exist when put under scrutiny and anything attributed to them has generally always had alternative explanations that don't require the existence of the paranormal or whatnot. Until you can prove it exists, in a controlled test that eliminates biases, its no better than a fantasy, even if it does exist. I'm a hobbyist (sleight of hand) magician. I can do things that people believe are physically impossible. I know the methods of many more illusions (that I can't perform myself) that many people online claim is real magic/demons/whatever. This is completely laughable when you know the techniques. Its all a mixture of trickery, sleight of hand, misdirection, gimmicks/props, camera tricks and stooges. It often can look truly impossible and therefore magical, until you know how its done. Another concept that is often played on in performance magic is psychology: you can trick people into missremembering a sequence of events in order to make them appear even more impossible, for example, spectators often re-tell the performance saying things like they shuffled the cards, even though they only cut them, or that I didn't touch the cards and it all happened in the spectators hands, even though it actually did happen in mine and I did touch the cards. Just because you don't know the mechanism of something, doesn't mean that anything fantastical, mystical or paranormal actually occurred. I've yet to see any substantial evidence that anything ever has.

rafaelvasco 7y ago
There's no proof because we don't yet have the framework to prove it; But all of them have been verified in laboratory. They could not be reproduced consistently so those experiments have been mostly ignored by the Community;
- dkersten 7y ago
  > They could not be reproduced consistently I can perform a series of fair coin flips and have it land on heads 100% of the time (at very low probability). Unless it can be reproduced consistently, it proves nothing. There is always a random chance that something unexpected can occur, but that doesn't mean that there's some supernatural force at work. > But all of them have been verified in laboratory. Show me the peer reviewed papers. I've yet to see anything that holds up under scrutiny. Besides, if its not consistent, then how is it in any way useful? I believe the same thing about string theory: its a fun thought experiment, but until it can be used to make predictions or otherwise tested in the real physical world, its little more than a nice idea.
  - rafaelvasco 7y ago
    It won't hold under scrutiny and not reproduced consistently because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. If you had psychic abilities and was being examined in a lab, trust me, you would not give results 100% of the time. That's the problematic, and that's why Science will keep ignoring this until much later;
    - MauranKilom 7y ago
      There is a concept called "statistical significance". You don't have to give results 100% of the time. But you have to give results better than chance.
    - dkersten 7y ago
      > because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. That's the entire point of the scientific method, to account for this and prove while removing biases. > trust me No, the burden of proof is on you, the person making extraordinary claims. I won't trust you without evidence. So far, you have provided ZERO. You have not provided citations for the lab experiments you claimed verified it and you have not provided any peer reviewed publications or any experiments which I could try at home. You're basically just making shit up and telling me I should believe you. > you would not give results 100% of the time It doesn't have to be 100% of the time, it just has to be statistically significant. You're making lofty claims and saying "well yes it won't work in tests because reasons" and saying I should trust your belief without any proof. That's basically quackery and the kind of bullshit we need to be rid of. There are lots of nice sounding ideas that won't work in tests and won't hold up under scrutiny. None of these things should be treated seriously and certainly not taken as fact. If the quality of evidence required were really that weak, then I have an offer for you: I have a pill that I can sell you for $1000 dollars that will prevent you from ever getting sick. I don't have evidence, it doesn't work 100% of the time in test situations nor does it work consistently when tested, but TRUST ME, it works. If you truly believe what you say, then you should take me up on this offer.

lm28469 7y ago

> There will come a time when mysticism and science will be one and the same Mysticism stop being mysticism when it becomes science. Magnets were magic until we figured out how they work, &c. > Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, Mind Reading, Telepathy etc; I'm as open as can be but as long as there is literally nothing that back that up I won't buy it. There is no difference between a psychic and a 8 years old kid trying to throw energy balls out of his hands by concentrating very hard after watching one too many dragon balls episode.

rafaelvasco 7y ago
Absolutely. There will be no Science and no Mysticism. Both will fade away to give light to a new awareness; This time is still far way. It won't be in our current lifetime;
- dkersten 7y ago
  You do realise that science is just the practice of the scientific method, which is just a framework for acquiring and updating knowledge in ways that eliminate chance and bias? There's no reason that would ever fade away as long as there is anything unknown left in the universe. You should probably read the wikipedia page, at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
egypturnash 7y ago
Here's a book chock full of the results of numerous studies and meta-analyses that backs it up. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35805860-real-magic https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35805860-real-magic Here's another book with the results of a few studies and first-hand accounts of the experience of how saying "so actually um there seems to be something going on here" is career poison because it's going against the currently-accepted dogma: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8025803-the-energy-cure https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8025803-the-energy-cure
- dkersten 7y ago
  Where can I find these studies, outside of someone's for-profit book? Preferably in a peer reviewed form.

Dumblydorr 7y ago

Everything in the universe is connected, really? How am I connected to a random hydrogen atom in a nebula far beyond our sight, and moving away faster than light?

dkersten 7y ago
Quantum waves of loops made of strings whose interactions can be represented as the E8 lie group. I call it: hybrid theory. (Or maybe "compromise theory")
rafaelvasco 7y ago
Believe me. We are; It seems ridiculous at first. But it makes sense once you really start looking into it; The thing is that we don't yet understand the nature of the connection, so it doesn't make sense yet; It will in time;
- ssully 7y ago
  Believe me. We aren't. I really looked into it and came away with the truth, which is that the sum of the universe is actually 0 and that we aren't connected. Believe me, it will be revealed as truth in time. Not in our lifetimes, but it will. (Wow, this is exhausting)
- dkersten 7y ago
  > Believe me It seems you like to say stuff like this, but you've given us zero reason to believe you. Show me the evidence and I might be more inclined to, but right now, you may as well just be telling us about a dream you once had.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Do you believe the Universe is deterministic, or that all possible Universes are extent in some fashion? If so then you and the H atom were both created as a consequence of the same creative action (there are other possibilities that end with that conclusion too). Whilst the universe looks probablistic, I think it's an open question as to whether it could yet turn out to be deterministic. You could argue based on pattern too, that H atom is made in the same model as your own H atoms, that's a (indirect, non-physical) connection. If gravity is not quantised, maybe you're experiencing one-another's gravity field too?

yahyaheee 7y ago

Here’s the answer I was looking for, in general I think the HN crowd is too reductionist to begin to understand these concepts. Most of them are seeeking intellectual validation or safety. Really open your mind up and these concepts are incredibly evident, I think inherently these realities are on a level that logic simply can’t reach. That doesn’t mean they aren’t real, as the shaman would say you don’t need to believe me, I can show you.

chippy 7y ago

Reading the comment brought this passage from the article to my mind: "I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register."

superqd 7y ago

One of the deep problems in assessing whether or not something like Clairvoyance is real is that there is no way to know the difference between extreme luck and the output of a truly new fundamental ability. It's especially difficult if the Ability is real, but the Practitioner is somewhat flawed in their practice. Suppose we want to test if someone can tell the future, and they really can tell the future, but are not super great at interpreting their inner precognitions. We ask for the predicted outcome of 5 future events, each of which only has two outcomes. The reach within their minds, and "see" the different outcomes, but its a little jumbled, and they only get 4 of the outcomes right. Contrast that with someone who has no real ability, but just guesses at the same event outcomes. There is a 1 in 32 chance that they will get the outcome of all 5 events correct. So if you were testing enough people, or simply knew enough people who thought they could predict the future, but really couldn't, you would find plenty of people who seemingly knew the future, but didn't. The reality of assessing such abilities is very difficult, even more so than I have demonstrated, but ultimately I don't find it meaningful to even speculate on the existence of such abilities without also a meaningful way to measure them.