The Red Pill

[PirateAndBum]

I just thought I'd give you a little more data on why I call this thread The Red Pill.

The reference is, of course, to the movie The Matrix, where hero Neo is given a choice between the Red Pill and the Blue Pill. Morpheus briefly explains to Neo how the "normal" world (the Matrix) is a world of illusion, and everything is controlled from the "real" world, behind the scenes. He is given the choice of two pills -- the Blue Pill allows him to fall asleep, then wake up thinking the whole thing was a dream, while the Red Pill will pull him out of the Matrix, into the overworld, where he can see what is really going on.

Neo takes the Red Pill. He then arrives in the overworld, and learns that the normal world is just an illusion, created by no-one-quite-knows-who, to be a power source for the same no-one-quite-knows-who.

Now I don't believe our world -- the normal world of planets, bodies, hopes, and dreams is an illusion. It's real enough. But the nature of our world is a bit different than what it seems. What is matter composed of? It's composed of many tiny beings (I call them "phians" in contrast to thetans) whose job it is to create matter and be matter. So if you go down far enough, past molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, and superstrings (or whatever), you eventually get down to beings, who are innately nonphysical in manner, but who work at creating physicality.

But the one thing I did NOT agree with from the movie was that the "normal" world is just a power source (think of Morpheus holding up a battery). I have changed my opinion on this. The normal world (Earth, although there could be others) IS a power source, although through the drama of what we call the Game of Life we create emotional energy which others feed upon.

It is in the interest of those others to keep this world being a difficult place, where people often have to deal with various problems; some small, some big; and where good times are possible, but not too often.

Helena

[video=youtube;WYa54e91hfY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYa54e91hfY[/video]


Not phians, but langoliers dear

 

[Wilbur]

The onus is on you to prove that we are simply 'brains in a vat' or players in somebody's video game, and not for scientists to prove that we are not.

Nonsense.

The chess piece in a computerised chess game doesn't need to know (or prove) the existence of a reality outside of the chess game. The onus is not on the piece to prove what lies outside its domain. It only needs to know the rules that govern what rules [EDIT: moves] it may permissibly make (science/laws of the physical universe). By your logic, the chess piece would have to prove that the laws of chess don't apply outside the game of chess, in order to prove that the idea there is a world outside the chess board might be feasible.

 

[WildKat]

Yes, The Matrix is fiction. But perhaps it is fiction that is based on a deeper hidden reality?

They can't just come out and say this is the way it is. They have to make it a fiction story, which, if my hypothesis is true, that people will someday realize WAS the way it is after all.

I can't think of an example of that in other fiction. Can someone help me out?

Helena

I read, years ago, some New Age books that talk about this. Barbara Marciniak wrote several books and I think it was her theory that the overlord aliens (reptoids of course) feed off negative energy and "farmed" it the same way we farm chickens, etc. The negative energy is food to them, so they cultivate it thru implanted religions, political turmoil, war, evil shit etc. It made sense to me at the time.

What do I think now? It's just another theory, kinda like your "phians" ..... (how the hell did you come up with that name? LOL!)

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I read, years ago, some New Age books that talk about this.snip

What do I think now? It's just another theory, kinda like your "phians" ..... (how the hell did you come up with that name? LOL!)

She was jumping from the Phian pan into the fire with her post.

Mimsey

 

[Wilbur]

Nonsense.

The chess piece in a computerised chess game doesn't need to know (or prove) the existence of a reality outside of the chess game. The onus is not on the piece to prove what lies outside its domain. It only needs to know the rules that govern what rules [EDIT: moves] it may permissibly make (science/laws of the physical universe). By your logic, the chess piece would have to prove that the laws of chess don't apply outside the game of chess, in order to prove that the idea there is a world outside the chess board might be feasible.

I'm really bored with the "the onus is on you" type arguments made against anyone who doesn't take physical science as their model for understanding ultimate reality. It's an argument from authority, ultimately. It's saying, because science has been successful in its own domain, and has gained authority in that domain, it may invade other domains, and claim authority there also. That argument is bogus.

Science is a body of rules about how the physical universe works, and a set of methods for determining those rules. As such, it is entirely valid (pseudo-science aside). If the physical universe operates according to rules, then it is a system. And science is valid (to the extent that it is practised honestly) within that system. Spirituality, on the other hand, is talking about something outside that system.

It's perfectly tenable to claim that the world that science explains is the ONLY system. But that's just a claim (and a belief). It's equally tenable to claim that there might be other things outside that system. That's not unscientific - it's a-scientific. One might try to argue that it's not LIKELY that there are other systems outside of the physical universe. But arguments of likelihood, when applied on a universal scale like that, are meaningless. Under standard probabilistic models, EVERY outcome is unlikely. When you look at stock price histories and try to predict them, every possible stock path (under standard probabilistic models) is VERY UNLIKELY (in fact, has a probability of zero). But one nevertheless observes A stock path in the end. If you don't have a model of how something works, you can't make meaningful probability statements about it.

So saying that, when speculating on what (if anything) lies outside of a system, the onus is on a person to prove that the laws of this system don't apply there is, in my view, bogus.

One can validly say that one doesn't believe in realities outside of the physical universe. That's fine. But to use the 'onus' argument is, in my opinion, a bandwagon-type argument.

I'm not saying I do or don't think there is a reality outside of the physical universe. But I think that the scientists (as the pro-nominal form of 'scientism' rather than 'science') should be more thoughtful in the claims that they make for science.

There, I've gotten that out of my 'system' (not the one that obeys physical universe laws ). But I know there will be those who vehemently disagree

W.

 

[shanic89]

I'm really bored with the "the onus is on you" type arguments made against anyone who doesn't take physical science as their model for understanding ultimate reality. It's an argument from authority, ultimately. It's saying, because science has been successful in its own domain, and has gained authority in that domain, it may invade other domains, and claim authority there also. That argument is bogus.

Science is a body of rules about how the physical universe works, and a set of methods for determining those rules. As such, it is entirely valid (pseudo-science aside). If the physical universe operates according to rules, then it is a system. And science is valid (to the extent that it is practised honestly) within that system. Spirituality, on the other hand, is talking about something outside that system.

It's perfectly tenable to claim that the world that science explains is the ONLY system. But that's just a claim (and a belief). It's equally tenable to claim that there might be other things outside that system. That's not unscientific - it's a-scientific. One might try to argue that it's not LIKELY that there are other systems outside of the physical universe. But arguments of likelihood, when applied on a universal scale like that, are meaningless. Under standard probabilistic models, EVERY outcome is unlikely. When you look at stock price histories and try to predict them, every possible stock path (under standard probabilistic models) is VERY UNLIKELY (in fact, has a probability of zero). But one nevertheless observes A stock path in the end. If you don't have a model of how something works, you can't make meaningful probability statements about it.

So saying that, when speculating on what (if anything) lies outside of a system, the onus is on a person to prove that the laws of this system don't apply there is, in my view, bogus.

One can validly say that one doesn't believe in realities outside of the physical universe. That's fine. But to use the 'onus' argument is, in my opinion, a bandwagon-type argument.

I'm not saying I do or don't think there is a reality outside of the physical universe. But I think that the scientists (as the pro-nominal form of 'scientism' rather than 'science') should be more thoughtful in the claims that they make for science.

There, I've gotten that out of my 'system' (not the one that obeys physical universe laws ). But I know there will be those who vehemently disagree

W.

Science is a way of not only organizing but presenting the current knowledge we collectively have at this point in time. The scientific method allows us to communicate our discoveries in such a way that it can be verified.

Believing in unverified clusters of entities could lead one to some poor life choices.

Scientists have been postulating about alternative realities for sometime now. The onus is on them to prove what they may believe, they know this and do not wish for you to just start believing in a hypothesis of any sort.

Even more wisely the majority of scientists that do believe in alternative timelines, multiply dimensions, do not go around blaming their current or past actions on there possible existence.

Losing touch with reality because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions has nothing to do with the possible existence of something beyond the universe we live in.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

snip

Science is a body of rules about how the physical universe works, and a set of methods for determining those rules. As such, it is entirely valid (pseudo-science aside). If the physical universe operates according to rules, then it is a system. And science is valid (to the extent that it is practiced honestly) within that system.

snip again

It's perfectly tenable to claim that the world that science explains is the ONLY system. But that's just a claim (and a belief). It's equally tenable to claim that there might be other things outside that system. That's not unscientific - it's a-scientific.

more snip

W.

Is it a body of rules or a body of assumptions that appear to be consistent? I don't claim to be a scientist, and as I watch videos or read books on various phenomena that "science" eschews as pseudo or junk science ( why are debunkers so closed minded?) that make a whole lot more sense than the official dogma, I question why these aren't examined.

For instance, the official model of the sun is that it is a vast fission explosion, yet many of the phenomena that the sun exhibits are unexplained by that assumption, that are explained if the sun is viewed as an electronic plasma phenomena. Yet the electronic universe theory is viewed by many as junk science.

Instead of testing it or looking into it, it is dismissed out of hand.

Same thing with much of Rupert Sheldrake's work. All he is saying is tests show this phenomena exists, it warrants looking into, yet he is attacked for suggesting such a thing, and his work has to be invalid or faked despite rigorous work on his part to follow scientific procedure.

Mimsey

 

[strativarius]

Is it a body of rules or a body of assumptions that appear to be consistent? I don't claim to be a scientist, and as I watch videos or read books on various phenomena that "science" eschews as pseudo or junk science ( why are debunkers so closed minded?) that make a whole lot more sense than the official dogma, I question why these aren't examined.

For instance, the official model of the sun is that it is a [highlight]vast fission explosion[/highlight], yet many of the phenomena that the sun exhibits are unexplained by that assumption, that are explained if the sun is viewed as an [highlight]electronic plasma phenomena[/highlight]. Yet the electronic universe theory is viewed by many as junk science.

Instead of testing it or looking into it, it is dismissed out of hand.

Same thing with much of Rupert Sheldrake's work. All he is saying is tests show this phenomena exists, it warrants looking into, yet he is attacked for suggesting such a thing, and his work has to be invalid or faked despite rigorous work on his part to follow scientific procedure.

Mimsey

Hold on a moment there Mimsey! What is this 'vast fission explosion' of which you speak? The 'official model' (as you put it) is that the sun's energy is the result of FUSION (of hydrogen to make helium etc.,) so where this fission explosion of yours is coming from I have no idea, it's certainly not what contemporary scientists are telling us.

And as for what on earth an 'electronic plasma phenomena' is I have not the foggiest idea. Please do tell us.

 

[George Layton]

Nonsense.

The chess piece in a computerised chess game doesn't need to know (or prove) the existence of a reality outside of the chess game. The onus is not on the piece to prove what lies outside its domain. It only needs to know the rules that govern what rules [EDIT: moves] it may permissibly make (science/laws of the physical universe). By your logic, the chess piece would have to prove that the laws of chess don't apply outside the game of chess, in order to prove that the idea there is a world outside the chess board might be feasible.

A chess piece in a computerized chess game doesn't know anything.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Hold on a moment there Mimsey! Where is this 'vast fission explosion' of which you speak. The 'official model' (as you put it) is that the sun's energy is the result of FUSION (of hydrogen to make helium etc.,) so where this fission explosion of yours is coming from I have no idea, it's certainly not what contemporary scientists are telling us.

And as for what on earth an 'electronic plasma phenomena' is I have not the foggiest idea. Please do tell us.

Sure. Fusion Fission Fiction Oy! Me brain is getting addled.

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

 

[Dulloldfart]

(not needed)

 

[strativarius]

Sure. Fusion Fission Fiction Oy! [highlight]Me brain is getting addled[/highlight].

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

I'm not surprised, given the amount of off-the-wall bonkers stuff you keep reading!

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I'm not surprised, given the amount of off-the-wall bonkers stuff you keep reading!

There's plenty of crap I won't touch, like that Ickes Reptilians stuff. I used to like Hancocks fingerprints of the gods but now I find it hard to read his stuff.

I read a great book about the construction of the great pyramid by an engineer that doesn't need aliens and tractor beams, for example.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Great-Pyramid-Obsession-Solution/dp/0061655538

 

[strativarius]

There's plenty of crap I won't touch, like that Ickes Reptilians stuff. I used to like Hancocks fingerprints of the gods but now I find it hard to read his stuff.

I read a great book about the construction of the great pyramid by an engineer that doesn't need aliens and tractor beams, for example.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Great-Pyramid-Obsession-Solution/dp/0061655538

What! You don't believe her Royal Highness QE II is a shape-shifting reptilian? Of course she is. :wink2:

Seriously though, what could be weirder and more off-the-wall than quantum physics? Black holes, electrons being in two different places at the same time, Bell's inequality. Who needs all this new-age bollocks?

In fact, what could be weirder than the physical universe period? All these particles, protons for example, trillions of trillions of trillions of them, and all identical to one another. What's all that about? Why?

 

[JustSheila]

What a weird title for a thread.

Is the title supposed to be some sort of strange Freezone joke poking fun at Billy Denham El?

The Red Pill Diary

is a book by Billy Denham El who infiltrated the cult of Scientology and exposes its relationship to the NOL.

Red Pill Diary: Exposing Subversive Mind Control Tactics Used by Louis Farrakhan and Other Cult Leaders
Available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Diary-Subversive-Farrakhan/dp/1481061674

Thread on ESMB: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...coming-out-on-Scientology-and-Nation-of-Islam

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

What! You don't believe her Royal Highness QE II is a shape-shifting reptilian? Of course she is. :wink2:

Seriously though, what could be weirder and more off-the-wall than quantum physics? Black holes, electrons being in two different places at the same time, Bell's inequality. Who needs all this new-age bollocks?

In fact, what could be weirder than the physical universe period? All these particles, protons for example, trillions of trillions of trillions of them, and all identical to one another. What's all that about? Why?

Oh I know - they are fudge factors to explain away things that don't fit their theories.

I read that electronic attraction is many times stronger that gravity's. If you posit the galaxy's are held together by gravity, then you need a black hole to have a gravitic force strong enough to hold the galaxy together. In the electric universe theory, the electronic field is sufficient.

Also, gravity doesn't explain the rotation of the galaxys. The Faraday induction motor provides a simple explanation for that.

Anyway. We shall see if the electric universe theory gains acceptance. It is much simpler and doesn't need dark matter or dark energy or black holes to explain the nature of the universe.

Mimsey

Faraday’s Law of Induction describes how an electric current produces a magnetic field and, conversely, how a changing magnetic field generates an electric current in a conductor. English physicist Michael Faraday gets the credit for discovering magnetic induction in 1830; however, an American physicist, Joseph Henry, independently made the same discovery about the same time, according to the University of Texas.

It is impossible to overstate the significance of Faraday’s discovery. Magnetic induction makes possible the electric motors, generators and transformers that form the foundation of modern technology

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

What a weird title for a thread.

Is the title supposed to be some sort of strange Freezone joke poking fun at Billy Denham El?

snip

Perhaps you never saw the Matrix?

[video=youtube;zE7PKRjrid4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4[/video]

 

[strativarius]

Oh I know - they are fudge factors to explain away things that don't fit their theories.

I read that electronic attraction is many times stronger that gravity's. If you posit the galaxy's are held together by gravity, then you need a black hole to have a gravitic force strong enough to hold the galaxy together. In the electric universe theory, the electronic field is sufficient.

Anyway. We shall see if the electric universe theory gains acceptance. It is much simpler and doesn't need dark matter or dark energy or black holes to explain the nature of the universe.

Mimsey

Yes, we're told that of the four forces of nature the electromagnetic force is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Gravity can't be reconciled with the quantum theory at the present time, so there's work to do there, and as for 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', they have really got the boffins in a spin for sure, so the scientists don't have all the answers yet and probably never will have. Nevertheless, the beauty and elegance of some of these mathematical models leads one to believe that they are on the right track. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway.

 

[Wilbur]

A chess piece in a computerized chess game doesn't know anything.

You get the prize. I knew someone would reply like this. It's a METAPHOR. As with all METAPHORS, it's not to be taken literally.

But of course, according to the mind-as-epiphenomenon-of-the-brain theory, the chess piece DOES know (providing the computer is complex enough). After all, that's what they say the brain (and hence consciousness) is: a super-complex electro-chemical computer. Fairly standard SCIENCE. So, given that I have managed to quote the magic word (science) the onus is on you to prove me wrong

Let's not continue this argument. I'm willing to admit you (and anyone else) is right, if it can exempt me from further argument. I think these kinds of arguments have been rehearsed in bulletin boards online since the internet began. The argument about science versus supernatural bores me, actually. But sometimes my annoyance at the unwillingness of (some) scientists to see the other's point of view exceeds my boredom with the argument just sufficiently to make me take the bait (sigh).

To the person who is about to tell me it's NOT a metaphor, but a simile (or some other such quibbling distinction): <middlefinger>

W.

 

[Wilbur]

Science is a way of not only organizing but presenting the current knowledge we collectively have at this point in time. The scientific method allows us to communicate our discoveries in such a way that it can be verified.

Believing in unverified clusters of entities could lead one to some poor life choices.

Scientists have been postulating about alternative realities for sometime now. The onus is on them to prove what they may believe, they know this and do not wish for you to just start believing in a hypothesis of any sort.

Even more wisely the majority of scientists that do believe in alternative timelines, multiply dimensions, do not go around blaming their current or past actions on there possible existence.

Losing touch with reality because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions has nothing to do with the possible existence of something beyond the universe we live in.

OK, having said I didn't want to continue arguing about it, I'm going to reply to this post anyway (as I didn't see it until after my last post).

Yeah, I do see your point Shanic. And I agree that it's not sensible to just believe in ANYTHING (father Xmas, leprechauns, etc [EDIT to insert: the Church's Bridge to Total Freedom (R)]). That can be extremely damaging to one's life. But I think that believing in any-old-nonsense is not the same as remaining open to the possibility that there may be spiritual realities (or whatever) outside of the physical universe system. Closing yourself off to THAT possibility is also 'unscientific', in the sense that what I do know to be true is that I am aware, and able to think, even about abstract ideas that I have not encountered in my observation of the physical world. This knowledge is more intimate to me than the force of gravity, or how to use electronic principles to build a TV. And yet, physical science has to squirm and wriggle to explain consciousness. If it squirmed and wriggled in the same way when trying to explain force (F = MA) or Newton's law of gravitational attraction, then we would begin to suspect that it might in fact be pseudoscience. F = MA is useful, because it tells me that I'm gonna need twice the force if I want to accelerate a car that has twice the mass of another car at the same rate. But the neuroscience of consciousness has been less useful. It doesn't answer the questions that I would want a science of consciousness to answer, as far as I know. So if I want to know "what is the purpose of my life? What am I doing here? Do I really need to be kind to other people? Or should I just pretend to be kind, so they will treat me kindly?" etc., then science has nothing.

So a sensible person doesn't look to science to answer these kinds of questions. The kinds of decisions you make in living a good life are hardly ever addressed in physical science. I think that one reason why so many people are lost in the western world, despite having solved the main problems of physical survival, is that science, as the ONLY PERMISSIBLE PARADIGM for knowledge (tm), has NOTHING for them. So I, personally, regard science as useful for making the internet work better, and for getting me from point a to point b by efficient transportations. But for all the more meaningful problems of my existence, I look elsewhere. I don't accept everything that I read or hear. But it's necessary to look.

W.