caelanb

Leo's Quantum Physics video is wrong (as well as others)

118 posts in this topic

@JuliusCaesar

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

It's funny you say that, because I often employ beyond rational skepticism(that normally arises naturally in the minds of materialists) to my own magical practices. It's a double edged sword, because on the one hand I'm creating excuses for procrastinating on doing certain things(because I want to isolate all the potential variables as much as possible). But on the other hand, it benefits me because it permits me to double blind test occult things and therefore distinguish between magickal workings that were effective independently of my own willpower/personal occult capability, and those that were successful simply because I manifested a certain outcome purely by faith.

I’m not quite sure how you would go about isolating all the possible variables when doing psychic stuff. This is because magical abilities and the like are not as tangible as physically, therefore it makes it more challenging to design a hard nosed objective approach with controls and placebos. I’m not sure what you mean in the last part, willpower/personal occult abilities, and faith.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

I know I've stated this before but it bears repeating. The only way to ascertain the validity of 3rd person accounts is to attempt to directly experience the same phenomena firsthand. When your own findings corroborate 3rd person accounts, you don't know for certain that they're true, but at least you know that it's reasonable to assert that they are or are likely to be.

I see. Makes sense, I guess the problem with what most people do in order to prove or disprove this is that they do not even try to have a direct experience of the 3rd person account that is described partly because you said it is very difficult do it, and also because they may be too close-mind and see it as airy-fairy.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

It is mysterious, but not entirely incomprehensible. In spite of what Leo or anyone might tell you, it's actually humanly possible to logically understand nearly anything, even things that are fully paradoxical and self contradictory(and ironically Leo himself is actually proof of that). Now with that being said, to humans the paranormal does feel more magical and mysterious than natural phenomena. And just a little detail, you do know that atoms aren't actually literally as balls bouncing around right? They're observed as being something much more uncertain and non concrete than that. The more you zoom in on reality the more loosey goosey things become. Meaning an electron is more difficult to nail down than an atom, a quark is more difficult to nail down than an electron etc etc.

When you logically understand, do you mean be conscious of (as Leo says a lot) or just able to create a mental framework about what is being spoken about? Because from my understanding you can logically understand something, however that does not mean you are conscious of it. For example, I can explain what is god according to Leo to some person, because it logically makes sense to me. However, I have not had any awakening as one might say or consciousness of this being the case, I’m just telling someone else what I have heard many times and understanding from Leo. And also, from my understanding, it is impossible to grasp god with language or any mental framework, as Leo (and many other mystics and spiritual teachers) have said many times, which seems contradictory to what you said about grasping anything logically. Yes, I understand that they are not just balls bouncing around in a box, I just oversimplified it a lot. It’s so strange how stuff seems so logical and linear on a macro-scale and is actually quite fuzzy on a quantum scale. However, I used to think that was how atoms worked back in HS/before I heard about quantum physics.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Ha, I appear to be rubbing off on you.

How so?

PS: I don’t respond to all of the responses a lot of the time because it takes me a long time to read, comprehend and then to write up a response, so I split my responses into multiple days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, caelanb said:

I’m not quite sure how you would go about isolating all the possible variables when doing psychic stuff.

Well, to perfectly isolate all possible variables is humanly impossible in any experiment. What I mean is the best possible isolation. For instance, if you wanted to test to see if a certain spell which is purported to do a certain thing, casting the spell is the only thing you'd do differently from what you ordinarily do. And you'd also attempt to achieve the same result by your own power as a control experiment. And by your own power I mean you'd try to think into reality what you want to occur directly. Without invoking any spirits, or doing any rituals(or using whatever thing you're testing). This same sort of logic can be used with any form of testable/falsifiable phenomena.

 

7 hours ago, caelanb said:

This is because magical abilities and the like are not as tangible as physically

This is an assumption which doesn't bear close examination. Yes it's true that to some extent occult phenomena can be more losey gosey than ordinary natural phenomena. But it's certainly possible for magick to be physical and tangible.

 

7 hours ago, caelanb said:

I’m not sure what you mean in the last part, willpower/personal occult abilities, and faith.

We're Omnipotent. That means we have unlimited control of space, time, matter, and consciousness. We can make reality do anything simply by thinking about it. However, when we took human form, we removed most of our power from ourselves, so that we're now creating reality unconsciously. And the thoughts a human has is mostly from the perspective of an observer. Because while they're manifesting at the most subtle levels of reality, they don't on the larger scale. However, if you became more powerful(and they are many things affecting your power level, and therefore many ways of altering it), your thoughts would manifest more faithfully.

 

In order for you to comprehend what I've said here, I'll give you an example of what kind of consequence this has in practice. Let's imagine a man has asthma, and he's tried very hard to cure himself, having taken many remedies suggested by alternative medicine(because mainstream medicine told him he's incurable). But none of them have beared fruit. He reads about the placebo effect in medical literature, and decides to try to heal himself. So he tells himself every day that he has no asthma, nonstop for about 8 hours a day. 6 months or so into that his asthma would disappear.

 

So when I say willpower/personal occult abilities, and faith, I really just mean my own human ability to warp reality to my desires directly(and thus need no magickal technology to assist me). And I compare what I can do by my own power against what a certain spirit/whatever technology I'm testing can do.

 

7 hours ago, caelanb said:

When you logically understand, do you mean be conscious of (as Leo says a lot) or just able to create a mental framework about what is being spoken about?

There's a chasm of difference between logical understanding and direct experience. For example, you can logically understand God, but directly experiencing God is a different thing entirely. The only way you can truly understand God, and the true nature of the universe is to become God yourself.

 

7 hours ago, caelanb said:

which seems contradictory to what you said about grasping anything logically.

If you became Omniscient, you'd be able to understand. Which is in fact possible for humans. Which is why I say that we can understand anything. But yes, from a finite perspective as a limited human it's not really possible.

 

7 hours ago, caelanb said:

How so?

I said I'm rubbing off on you in response to you saying that if you did discover the things Leo says to be true, you'd feel superior to most other humans and academics. I myself have a massive spiritual ego, hence why I said that.


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard

On 2021-11-09 at 10:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

As a matter of fact, I did leave a comment the first time I watched it: "You say QM is shrouded in confusion because you need some experience in the field in order to understand it. What if the same applies to mysticism? How can I know you're not misunderstanding mysticism? Where is your "PhD" in mysticism?" Let's just say he didn't take it seriously at all ("mysticism is garbage" "mystics are hacks").

I couldn't find your comment, even with the 'find on page' function. I don’t think Dave has a phd, he’s only got a Bachelors and possible a masters but I'm not sure. But essentially, what you are saying as I understand it is that based on his logic one needs a phd in mysticism and quantum physics in order to be able to truly make educated judgments about both and also make connections between both? Looking at all the comments, I can kind of tell which ones are Dave fans and which aren’t. I was also thinking you would comment on Dave’s construct-unawareness rather than him not knowing much about mysticism, which would point out based on what you have said could be called his blind spots.

Kind off topic, but what did you think about near the end of the video when he showed comments (off and on the forum) of people getting extremely depressed and nearly suicidal? I myself know that Leo does not advise taking your own life, however, I do remember in one or two of the videos he literally says, “you should just kill yourself”, which can be taken seriously by many people. Leo’s condescending attitude (at times arrogant and negative sounding) can be harmful and Dave shows this in the video. Dave may have shown them to give support for his claim that actualized.org is a cult run by Leo, however, the comments shown still deserve merit in my opinion. Leo’s attitude in my experience and opinion can turn people off of his work, such as my parents. For example my dad said (something along the lines of) ‘he sounds to me like an unhappy person who is frustrated at life due to a bad childhood or something and is giving off his frustration through his video’, note that my parents have only seen a few videos, but they disagree with most of the things they heard from him. My parents are not fundamentalist religious people btw, however they grew up going to church a bit (which they themselves weren’t big fans of) but nothing extreme. This side note was longer than the main response, lol.

On 2021-11-09 at 10:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

In fact, I have used it before I even read about it specifically, because Ken Wilber incorporates it into the cognitive line of his AQAL framework (which is what makes SDi (Spiral Dynamics Integral) an elaboration of SD). I intuited some of the concepts from there, but it made the relationship much more clear when I read about it directly.

Interesting, I think I meant is this model well studied and understood in the scientific literature to the point where it can be taught in schools? Because if it is so useful, there would be great benefit to making it more mainstream (however it may already be to a certain point, which I am not aware of). I have issues seeing how MHC can apply to SD because there are only 8 stages in SD, and 15 stages or so in MHC, but if it is applied, would it help one understand how cognitive development evolved through the stages? Makes that one's needs to be more developed in order to make connections between different fields. Which number level did you place Dave at? I’m not sure what level sub-meta systematic cognition; low construct context awareness is.

On 2021-11-09 at 10:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Greasy foods, fried foods, processed foods, red meat, sugary drinks (diabetes). Let's not forget heart disease as well.

Yeah, I would agree with that, those are obvious even with nearly zero nutritional education.

On 2021-11-09 at 10:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Alcohol is metabolized to acetaldehyde in the body. Whatever you've read about the supposed health benefits of alcoholic drinks, it's never the alcohol. It's going around that some chemicals in red wine are good for the heart, and somehow that is interpreted as it's the alcohol that is good for you. Not at all. Then the article would be about vodka and not wine.

There is one study I remember hearing about 2 weeks ago that showed that consuming a glass of red wine per day is actually healthier for you than not drinking any. This is due to the antioxidants in red wine. There are probably many more that have come to the same conclusion but I have not found them yet. And also, they don’t put chemicals in alcohol beverages from my knowledge, unless you get some sketchy one which most people don’t drink, but if there are, could you provide an example? But I will not deny that alcohol itself is toxic to the body, however, a little bit of it, such as the quantity that is in red wine, is not bad for you.

On 2021-11-09 at 10:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Seeing the relationship between QM and mysticism is a matter of comparing frameworks, not a matter of verifying hypotheses. Again, MHC is useful for understanding the difference:

The hypothetico-deductive method (the scientific method) happens at the formal operational level (level 10). It deals with simple one-dimensional, monofactorial logical propositions. Comparing mysticism and QM happens at the level of cross-paradigmatic complexity (level 15-16). It deals with large, multivariate collections of systems and how they interrelate.

I see, that makes sense. I’m pretty sure many scientists have been able to make connections between quantum physics and mysticism at level 15-16, or at least it seems very likely and I'd hope so.

On 2021-11-09 at 10:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Trying to validate the relationship between QM and mysticism using scientific verification is like trying to do science by grammar correction.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

@Carl-Richard

I couldn't find your comment, even with the 'find on page' function. I don’t think Dave has a phd, he’s only got a Bachelors and possible a masters but I'm not sure. But essentially, what you are saying as I understand it is that based on his logic one needs a phd in mysticism and quantum physics in order to be able to truly make educated judgments about both and also make connections between both? Looking at all the comments, I can kind of tell which ones are Dave fans and which aren’t.

The comment is 7 months old. That might be why you can't find it. The comment was originally "Where is your PhD in mysticism?", but I edited after he responded with the first comment.

pic.png

 

On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

I was also thinking you would comment on Dave’s construct-unawareness rather than him not knowing much about mysticism, which would point out based on what you have said could be called his blind spots.

Dave has no idea what construct awareness is. It makes no sense to mention it. You can only probe for it in conversation (which I tried to do).

 

On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

Kind off topic, but what did you think about near the end of the video when he showed comments (off and on the forum) of people getting extremely depressed and nearly suicidal? I myself know that Leo does not advise taking your own life, however, I do remember in one or two of the videos he literally says, “you should just kill yourself”, which can be taken seriously by many people. Leo’s condescending attitude (at times arrogant and negative sounding) can be harmful and Dave shows this in the video. Dave may have shown them to give support for his claim that actualized.org is a cult run by Leo, however, the comments shown still deserve merit in my opinion. Leo’s attitude in my experience and opinion can turn people off of his work, such as my parents. For example my dad said (something along the lines of) ‘he sounds to me like an unhappy person who is frustrated at life due to a bad childhood or something and is giving off his frustration through his video’, note that my parents have only seen a few videos, but they disagree with most of the things they heard from him. My parents are not fundamentalist religious people btw, however they grew up going to church a bit (which they themselves weren’t big fans of) but nothing extreme. This side note was longer than the main response, lol.

People already get depressed and suicidal without discovering self-help or spirituality. People who pursue self-help or spirituality are more predisposed towards such problems. It would be surprising if we never saw any depressed people on the forum.

 

On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

Interesting, I think I meant is this model well studied and understood in the scientific literature to the point where it can be taught in schools? Because if it is so useful, there would be great benefit to making it more mainstream (however it may already be to a certain point, which I am not aware of).

If you trace MHC back towards its origins, you'll see that it's actually being taught in school as we speak. MHC is an extension of Jean Piaget's model of cognitive development, which is arguably the most famous developmental model in the world. You can read about Piaget in the undergraduate curriculum for developmental psychology. You could probably learn about MHC in some graduate program.

 

On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

 

I have issues seeing how MHC can apply to SD because there are only 8 stages in SD, and 14 stages or so in MHC, but if it is applied, would it help one understand how cognitive development evolved through the stages? Makes that one's needs to be more developed in order to make connections between different fields. Which number level did you place Dave at? I’m not sure what level sub-meta systematic cognition; low construct context awareness is.

Simple: SD tracks worldviews (value systems), and MHC tracks complexity of cognitive operations. It just happens that MHC describes more types of operations than SD describes worldviews. The operations will still roughly correlate with SD, because worldviews are very much based on cognition. Sub-metasystematic is all levels under 12. However, it's not like you only ever operate from one level. People who reside around the sub-metasystematic area will utilize 1-11 all the time. You see the same thing with SD to some extent: you don't suddenly forget all the lessons of Blue when you turn Orange.

 

On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

There is one study I remember hearing about 2 weeks ago that showed that consuming a glass of red wine per day is actually healthier for you than not drinking any. This is due to the antioxidants in red wine. There are probably many more that have come to the same conclusion but I have not found them yet. But I will not deny that alcohol itself is toxic to the body, however, a little bit of it, such as the quantity that is in red wine, is not bad for you.

Alcohol is bad for you even in small amounts (just less bad). It's just the antioxidants that aren't bad for you. Those studies are only excuses to keep drinking wine. If you want antioxidants, eat a fruit.

 

On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

And also, they don’t put chemicals in alcohol beverages from my knowledge, unless you get some sketchy one which most people don’t drink, but if there are, could you provide an example?

When I say "chemicals in red wine", I mean phytochemicals from the grapes themselves. The word "chemical" has been poisoned by common vernacular.

 

On 19.11.2021 at 7:34 PM, caelanb said:

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

Comparing paradigms happens at cross-paradigmatic cognition (14): connections between frameworks.
Science (verifying or falsifying hypotheses) happens at formal operational cognition (10): connections between variables.
Grammar correction (evaluating sentences) happens at sentential operational cognition (5): connections between words.

Trying to use science (e.g. empirically verifying a statement) to evaluate the comparisons between two paradigms is like trying to use grammar correction to do science. It does not compute.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Dave is the definition of SD Stage Orange. He made quite the entertaining video though when he debunks flat earthers.


I paint abstract art. Check out my website and let me know what you think.

https://www.galleriabstrakt.se/collections/all

(I only ship within Sweden so forgive me if you see a painting you'd like but can't order)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JuliusCaesar

On 2021-11-09 at 5:18 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

It did, this is basically the same logic as Descartes' Evil Demon Doubt. And it's true that on some level you're just taking your experiences on faith. Transcending reality by becoming Omniscient/Omnipresent is the best solution. Because as everything you know everything, and since you know everything you know all there is to know about deception and can therefore objectively determine things to be or not be so. Until then, you'll just have to assume that your experiences are valid.

I see. And by being omnipotent do you mean transcending your own finite consciousness into infinite consciousness? What I hear Leo says to do. What happens to your finite state if you leave it for a while?

On 2021-11-09 at 5:18 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

The problem with that is we're presented with a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. I can state all of the most profound truths about the universe and what it actually is. But if I communicated those things to Dave(or most any human for that matter) the things I'd be describing would be completely out of their direct experience and very alien to them. So they'd either take my statements on blind faith(which obviously isn't ideal), or they have to assume that I've lost my marbles(which is also unfavorable because then they're just rejecting the truth). 

Honestly looking at the comments, Dave seems like a very logical guy, and is willing to dismiss a lot of things that the scientific community regards as nonsense. In this matter I’m more on Dave’s side. With that being said, believing in this stuff (which I know is not helping) makes you seem like a crazy person, like you said. And because I don’t have any non-dual experiences, it’s essentially a belief at this point. For all that I know, all the non-dual mysticism stuff could be BS, and Dave may be correct, certainly seems more plausible considering everything that science is able to explain about the world. However, there is still much that is hard to explain.

Carl-Richard did leave a comment about 7 months ago. Way before I was aware of this video. And I posted it mainly because I was like, ‘hey guys, I just found a debunking video of Quantum mechanics and mysticism’, so I thought all of Leo’s videos were BS’. From what I can see from the comment, Dave didn't agree at all, I think you’d have to write a paragraph explaining all of this to Dave and his followers.

However, one thing I am confused about is that, if I am more than Dave about these ideas, it doesn’t really make sense, if they are true that is. Because I am definitely not as educated as Dave is, and thus am more likely based on common sense to fall into non-dual mysticism delusions about quantum mechanics. So, I am above and below Dave in a way (more open minded, but then less intelligent).

@8Ball@Carl-Richard Generally what I understand about Dave based on what has been said and SD, is that Dave and most of the scientific community, assumes that anything that has a bit of mysticism (yellow and turquoise, possibly coral if that’s a stage too) in it must be stage blue nonsensical beliefs and dogmas. Which makes it convenient for them to ignore all the not so easy to explain stuff, I guess.

On 2021-11-09 at 5:18 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Only empirically is there a lack of evidence. And this is because mainstream science isn't interested in doing the necessary experiments to verify/falsify these things.

But if the nature of mysticism and non-duality is abstract, then even doing experiments into it would conclude that it is not or not real. And thus is kinda pointless in a way.

On 2021-11-09 at 5:18 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Well, the method Leo prescribes is to do 30mg of 5 Meo DMT ten times. However, I advise against this, not because it's ineffective. In fact, given the response most humans have to the substance(it produces an Omniscient state of consciousness), empirically this would work. The main reason I would suggest an alternative is simply that if you do this, it will dissolve your ego so rapidly that you'll have something like a psychotic breakdown(at least in the first trip anyway). It turns out that dying is a terrifying experience who would have known?

I would assume it is. But on the other hand, Leo makes go sound like love and bliss so I don't know what he is actually trying to say. This honestly sounds irresponsible to me (coming from a man who professes to be responsible with psychedelics), because of the experiences he has described in various psychedelic trips. They sound pretty excessive. And if people are to take that advice as a prescription, they’d likely f*ck themselves up (which is a big problem if independent bodies, they are not liable for hurting or damaging others). Have you done this yourself? If so, how is it? I may try some in the future, but a very small amount, I personally have no experience with psychedelics (or any drug at all), so I’m not sure how it’ll go.

 

On 2021-11-09 at 5:18 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

I have an alternate method, but which won't work as swiftly but also isn't nearly as terrifying. For the next 30 days, think to yourself mentally "I remember my dreams" over and over as often as you can, taking breaks from that when you find you need to think about things in order to function then return to the exercise. When you're watching a video think this, when you're falling asleep at night think it etc etc. The reason for my suggesting this, is that you're effectively asking yourself how you can know the things Leo says to be true. Or in other words, you want to know firsthand the true nature of the universe. Your nighttime self has the knowledge you seek(or at least is more capable of obtaining it than your daytime self).

 

You can transcribe your dream memories in a journal if you want. This will assist you, but is not entirely vital as you'll become competent enough at recalling dreams in your own mind that it should be ultimately unnecessary.

 

If and when you've done what I've suggested, I'll want to hear what you've learned in that month. Based on what you tell me, I'll give further instructions. But for now, you should read Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self by Robert Waggoner. As it contains incredibly valuable knowledge about this topic. Including accounts of experiences that are effectively impossible under the materialist paradigm(which you can recreate yourself).

I have tried lucid dreaming in the past. I did reality checks during the day, and wrote every once in a while about my dreams in a dream journal, but it did not work though. However, I will say that my reality checks did get hijacked by my OCD a bit so that is probably the reason it did not work for me, and possibly wasn’t consistent enough about it, though I don’t remember exactly. Anyhow,  I’m wondering how the phrase “I remember my dreams' would help me. I don’t think my brain knows it is dreaming when it is dreaming (or even what dreaming is), so asking it to remember something without that it knows of no inherent meaning doesn’t seem helpful. However, I could be wrong. Do lucid dreaming and taking 5 meo dmt have the same effect? I feel like they do two very different things.

I may have repeated a few things, but I hope it makes sense to you.

 

@Verdesbird

On 2021-11-09 at 9:19 PM, Verdesbird said:

the more you buy into these schools of ideais the more you wil have to work to clear your mind

Which school of ideas are you talking about? There are probably many schools and universities that actually teach things that are very similar to Leo. So, clearing your mind of those would not be helpful in any way (unless you're just believing them, which I am to a certain extent).

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, caelanb said:

Generally what I understand about Dave based on what has been said and SD, is that Dave and most of the scientific community, assumes that anything that has a bit of mysticism (yellow and turquoise, possibly coral if that’s a stage too) in it must be stage blue nonsensical beliefs and dogmas. Which makes it convenient for them to ignore all the not so easy to explain stuff, I guess.

That is a perfect re-telling of the "pre-trans fallacy" coined by Ken Wilber (idk if you already knew about it). Rational people (Orange) can't differentiate between pre-rational statements (Purple, Red, Blue) and trans-rational statements (Green, Yellow, Turquoise). Pre-rational beliefs (abstract statements and below; ≤9) don't reach the level of a logically coherent formal system (10-11), and trans-rational beliefs (metasystematic statements and above; ≥12) go beyond the level of logical formal systems.

This is also why rationalists get hung up on things like performative contradictions of postmodernism, because 1. they believe formal logic is absolute truth, and 2. they don't make the distinction between formal statements and metasystematic statements. A rationalist, who only works with formal statements, will take a statement like "there are no absolute true statements" and say it cannot be true because there is a self-contradiction. The solution is to say "there are no absolute true formal statements", which itself is a metasystematic statement, so there is no self-contradiction. Contradictions only arise out of a failure to make adequate distinctions.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, caelanb said:

I see. And by being omnipotent do you mean transcending your own finite consciousness into infinite consciousness?

Not exactly, power and consciousness are different dimensions of consciousness. In an Omnipotent(infinite power) state you can think objects into and out of existence, or alter the laws of physics. Consciousness however is more like just pure awareness/being. So being infinitely conscious doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be affecting reality with your mind at such a level(though you'd certainly be aware of the fact that you're creating everything out of nothing, which is one of the reasons infinite consciousness is valuable).

 

25 minutes ago, caelanb said:

What happens to your finite state if you leave it for a while?

Well, Leo's way of accomplishing this is doing 5 MEO DMT. It has some impact on your baseline consciousness but is very minimal. You basically become infinite for a finite duration of time(relative to consensus reality) then return to something about 99.9% the same as your old baseline consciousness.

 

35 minutes ago, caelanb said:

Have you done this yourself? If so, how is it? I may try some in the future, but a very small amount, I personally have no experience with psychedelics (or any drug at all), so I’m not sure how it’ll go.

I've not done 5 MEO, I only know about it's effects studying the experiences of others. However, I have done other psychedelics. And the most impactful experience I had was when I accidentally did 25I NBOMe(I ordered 1P-LSD, but based on the effects it had I know it couldn't possibly be LSD, as my trip was perfectly consistent with NBOMe trip reports, in the future I'll never do a psychedelic without subjecting it to GC/MS first.). Safety precautions aside, I experienced ego death and infinite love, and also realized that I'm the creator of the universe. Then the next day when I sobered up, I rejected the experience entirely thinking it was just delusion. However, later on practicing lucid dreaming I discovered that I actually am God.

 

What happened is I had 3 precognitive dreams that occurred seemingly randomly and months apart from one another. In which I became aware of future events that should have been humanly impossible to know. And then I had a dream where I was trying to control the dream(because I knew it was a dream due to strange things occurring in it that couldn't happen in the waking world) but I failed to do so. My dad was in the dream, and I asked him about it. Describing to him all of my failed endeavors, like when I try to walk through a wall I bounce off it as though it were solid, so I asked him "How do I create reality?", and he told me "We're already creating reality". When I awoke from the dream I had an existential crisis because I had to come to terms with the fact that I'm God(based on the fact that I've became aware of future events in the waking world from the dream state which came to pass as I was shown they would, I knew I could rely on it for accurate information about the nature of reality). I debated the subject in my own mind thinking something along the lines of "that means I made Hitler and all the things he did, and children starving in Africa. how could I do that"? But when I thought about it more, I realized I had no logical objection to the notion that I'm God. And any logical objection you could make would be easily shot down. Like if you asked me how it is that I can be God and therefore know everything but simultaneously also not know everything as a human. To be omniscient(all knowing) I would have to know what it's like not to know. So the reason I didn't know things is precisely because I know everything. To add another dimension of understanding, I know all things unconsciously, but consciously my knowledge is finite. Because by becoming conscious of the unconscious my knowledge expanded to include things in a way that's impossible(given the notion that I'm not God it would be impossible).

 

1 hour ago, caelanb said:

Anyhow,  I’m wondering how the phrase “I remember my dreams' would help me. I don’t think my brain knows it is dreaming when it is dreaming (or even what dreaming is), so asking it to remember something without that it knows of no inherent meaning doesn’t seem helpful. However, I could be wrong.

Consciously it's true that you don't know when you're in your bed dreaming or in the waking world. However, unconsciously you know everything(because unconsciously you're creating everything, and therefore know everything about it). Also you can become conscious of the unconscious. So yes you're wrong, and the reason for it is that while you're not infinitely powerful from your human state. Your power level(degree of omnipotence) is not perfectly 0, but is just slightly higher than that. So you can affect reality with your thoughts, but to do anything substantial(like curing a disease for example) you'd need to issue the command a ridiculous number of times(like in the 100,000's or even more) before reality responds to it faithfully. Making yourself remember your dreams is one of the easiest things you can do with finite power. You could literally just sit with eyes closed for like 10 minutes before bed thinking "I remember my dreams" repeatedly and even with that little practice you'd notice some effect. If you want more understanding relative to how well this will work and why(like why I recommend closing your eyes for example). Then you should read the comment I made on the post below. But basically, when you have your eyes closed, your brainwaves slowdown, so you get slightly closer to being unconscious(the level of the Godhead which is infinitely powerful).

 


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JuliusCaesar Nice. Probably the first existential crisis I had was after a week of, all of the sudden, astral projecting every night, after having been basically completely ignorant of anything at all spiritual or trans-materialist up until that point. It was like, “okay, okay, I get it, something’s up with what I call reality.” 😂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

The comment is 7 months old. That might be why you can't find it. The comment was originally "Where is your PhD in mysticism?", but I edited after he responded with the first comment.

Lol, I’m a little late, you commented on the video like 6 months before I knew about it. I took the video (without watching it) as an oh sh*t, Leo is wrong about how Quantum Mechanics applies to reality because this man Dave is to a certain degree an academic and must know more about how Quantum mechanics actually works and the correct way in which it can be applied to reality. And you definitely saw it in a 180 degree perspective as I did. I feel like this shows my ignorance with these deep topics because I can get swayed by different views so easily. Interesting to see the massive polarity between you and Dave in that comment, my mind interprets that as being that one of you two is massively wrong. Thanks for showing the comment.

I’m curious, what language is your browser set to? It doesn't look familiar.

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Dave has no idea what construct awareness is. It makes no sense to mention it. You can only probe for it in conversation (which I tried to do).

I was thinking of bluntly mentioning it to him. Saying something like ‘there is something called construct awareness, and it is …’. This could help or not, he may close down even more, but wtf to I know.

However, if there are any comments under the video that bring up issues with his video, then he’ll probably deny things as being anti-science or some pseudoscience (at least from what I’ve seen).

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

People already get depressed and suicidal without discovering self-help or spirituality. People who pursue self-help or spirituality are more predisposed towards such problems. It would be surprising if we never saw any depressed people on the forum.

Maybe, but still there are probably a lot of relatively psychologically healthy people that watch Leo and that may become depress or suicidal due to what he says in some of his videos (however, you can probably make the argument that they weren’t psychologically healthy). Or just be turned off by his content from the negative things he says about society and people (having problems and such).

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

If you trace MHC back towards its origins, you'll see that it's actually being taught in school as we speak. MHC is an extension of Jean Piaget's model of cognitive development, which is arguably the most famous developmental model in the world. You can read about Piaget in the undergraduate curriculum for developmental psychology. You could probably learn about MHC in some graduate program.

Interesting, maybe my psychologist has heard of it. I’d assume that most people with an education in developmental psychology have heard of it too then. Is the MHC model itself at any level?

 

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Simple: SD tracks worldviews (value systems), and MHC tracks complexity of cognitive operations. It just happens that MHC describes more types of operations than SD describes worldviews. The operations will still roughly correlate with SD, because worldviews are very much based on cognition. Sub-metasystematic is all levels under 12. However, it's not like you only ever operate from one level. People who reside around the sub-metasystematic area will utilize 1-11 all the time. You see the same thing with SD to some extent: you don't suddenly forget all the lessons of Blue when you turn Orange.

So then, there are some similarities between the two. How does one study the levels that are like 1-3? It seems like it would be very difficult to study them, kinda like trying to study and make a model of the first 3 stages of Ego development. You can’t really survey a child on his ego development because of how young they are.

Is it helpful to put yourself on a level on the MHC model? And if so, how does one accurately do so?

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Alcohol is bad for you even in small amounts (just less bad). It's just the antioxidants that aren't bad for you. Those studies are only excuses to keep drinking wine. If you want antioxidants, eat a fruit.

As they say, the dose makes the poison. Yeah, I'd agree with that, fruit, or anything high in antioxidants is usually a better choice than alcohol. However, do you think that there are any benefits of drinking alcohol that outweigh the negative effects of drinking it?

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

When I say "chemicals in red wine", I mean phytochemicals from the grapes themselves. The word "chemical" has been poisoned by common vernacular.

According to NCBI.gov, phytochemicals are generally thought to be safe for consumption. What do you mean by ‘poisoned by common vernacular’?

On 2021-11-19 at 3:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Comparing paradigms happens at cross-paradigmatic cognition (14): connections between frameworks.
Science (verifying or falsifying hypotheses) happens at formal operational cognition (10): connections between variables.
Grammar correction (evaluating sentences) happens at sentential operational cognition (5): connections between words.

Trying to use science (e.g. empirically verifying a statement) to evaluate the comparisons between two paradigms is like trying to use grammar correction to do science. It does not compute.

Is this model modelling all forms of human cognitive communication (from Leo’s teaching, to between the members of a gang in a dangerous city)? Or is that not correct? I see, so then a lower level of cognitive understanding trying to grapple with a higher level of understanding is like me trying to understand some highly complex topic in chemistry (something that I have been faced with), my mind does not connect the dots, therefore it does not compute and seems like a bunch of random stuff being said (while calling the higher level annoying and possibly saying wtf is the point of doing this, lol)? Though I do understand that it is important for certain things.

 

@8Ball

On 2021-11-19 at 5:54 PM, 8Ball said:

Professor Dave is the definition of SD Stage Orange. He made quite the entertaining video though when he debunks flat earthers.

I don’t think that is 100% accurate because no one can fit perfectly in one stage (what I have heard), unless you are talking about a specific facet of spiral development someone is at (e.g. moral).

So, then he has some good videos? Should I watch the flat Earth one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

Lol, I’m a little late, you commented on the video like 6 months before I knew about it. I took the video (without watching it) as an oh sh*t, Leo is wrong about how Quantum Mechanics applies to reality because this man Dave is to a certain degree an academic and must know more about how Quantum mechanics actually works and the correct way in which it can be applied to reality. And you definitely saw it in a 180 degree perspective as I did. I feel like this shows my ignorance with these deep topics because I can get swayed by different views so easily. Interesting to see the massive polarity between you and Dave in that comment, my mind interprets that as being that one of you two is massively wrong. Thanks for showing the comment.

Good insights.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

I’m curious, what language is your browser set to? It doesn't look familiar.

I'm Norwegian. English is my second language.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

I was thinking of bluntly mentioning it to him. Saying something like ‘there is something called construct awareness, and it is …’. This could help or not, he may close down even more, but wtf to I know.

However, if there are any comments under the video that bring up issues with his video, then he’ll probably deny things as being anti-science or some pseudoscience (at least from what I’ve seen).

True. It's easy to discard any push-back from "mystics" once you completely disregard the legitimacy of their view.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

Maybe, but still there are probably a lot of relatively psychologically healthy people that watch Leo and that may become depress or suicidal due to what he says in some of his videos (however, you can probably make the argument that they weren’t psychologically healthy). Or just be turned off by his content from the negative things he says about society and people (having problems and such).

Yes, like I said: people who pursue self-help or spirituality, even relatively healthy ones, are more predisposed towards such problems. You can appear to be healthy in one moment but become sick in the next.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

Interesting, maybe my psychologist has heard of it. I’d assume that most people with an education in developmental psychology have heard of it too then. Is the MHC model itself at any level?

Probably. MHC is a meta-theoretical model, which is a so-called "model about models". At the lowest level, a model is a system, and therefore the simplest type of meta-theory would be meta-systematic. There are more complex types of meta-theories that try to understand the more simpler meta-theories, and there are even more complex meta-theories that try to understand the more complex ones again. Then MHC tries to understand all of that, which means it's at least at a level above that, which means it lands at the highest level of complexity (meta-cross-paradigmatic). The highest level includes a caveat ("performative-recursive"), and the way I interpret it is that there is really no highest level. It can go on forever. So in a sense, MHC seems to model itself, infinitely. Meta-theories are notoriously self-referential, and MHC truly takes the cake in that aspect.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

So then, there are some similarities between the two. How does one study the levels that are like 1-3? It seems like it would be very difficult to study them, kinda like trying to study and make a model of the first 3 stages of Ego development. You can’t really survey a child on his ego because of how young they are.

The lowest level are the easiest to study quantitatively, but they're so simple that they're not that interesting. Surveying children goes into qualitative studies, and those are always difficult, but yeah even more so with children.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

Is it helpful to put yourself on a level on the MHC model? And if so, how does one accurately do so?

I think it's most helpful to use it when trying to understand abstract systems themselves, i.e. scientific hypotheses, theories, meta-theories, paradigms etc., rather than trying to specifically understand cognitive development. For example, how complex is the paradigm of evolutionary biology compared to the paradigm of biology? What about cross-disciplinary approaches? Though of course, you can use it to assess your own or somebody else's main mode of operation in your daily life. I think it's particularly useful to explain the different levels of context awareness, construct awareness and theory pluralism (see my topic on Systems thinking), or in other words the ability to see a larger perspective, having high self-awareness and openness to different views. How to accurately pin yourself on a stage just boils down to the willingness to investigate your own psyche.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

As they say, the dose makes the poison. Yeah, I'd agree with that, fruit, or anything high in antioxidants is usually a better choice than alcohol. However, do you think that there are any benefits of drinking alcohol that outweigh the negative effects of drinking it?

Not in a strict physiological sense, but other than that, it's up to you. If you like to party, sure.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

According to NCBI.gov, phytochemicals are generally thought to be safe for consumption. What do you mean by ‘poisoned by common vernacular’?

Phytochemicals is a humongous class of substances; basically anything that comes from a plant. It includes everything from poisons like cyanide and ricin to narcotics like morphine and cocaine to medicines like Aspirin and Aloe Vera. What I meant is that the word "chemical" usually refers to something synthetic in everyday speech, but from a chemistry perspective, everything has a chemical basis.

 

On 18.12.2021 at 8:13 PM, caelanb said:

Is this model modelling all forms of human cognitive communication (from Leo’s teaching, to between the members of a gang in a dangerous city)? Or is that not correct? I see, so then a lower level of cognitive understanding trying to grapple with a higher level of understanding is like me trying to understand some highly complex topic in chemistry (something that I have been faced with), my mind does not connect the dots, therefore it does not compute and seems like a bunch of random stuff being said (while calling the higher level annoying and possibly saying wtf is the point of doing this, lol)? Though I do understand that it is important for certain things.

It's modelling the level of complexity of cognitive operations, so in a sense yes. Misunderstanding a chemistry question isn't necessarily a sign that your mind is too simple and that the level of analysis is to complex, but maybe that you're just not identifying the correct level (i.e. it's be much simpler than you think). That is usually the insight people get after they finally get the answer: "was it really that simple?" Getting the answer might be simple, but that doesn't mean it's not complicated.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2021 at 7:01 AM, caelanb said:

@Adamq8

If all of reality were not real, then why is it so realistic and convincing? 

Here's my current understanding. 

Because the illusion is total. That's the mind fuck! You will never stop dreaming a perfectly coherent reality. An illusion, by definition, is something that you do not know is an illusion, it has you completely fooled! An illusion so perfect that you believe it's real. 

Just think of this, if you started noticing glitches in reality you would be a lot more suspicious about what reality actually is. 

But the illusion is so perfect that there is never a single glitch for you to notice. 

Zoom infinitely into reality and zoom infinitely out of reality and you'll still find more reality, but none of it causes the other, that's all imagined story.


✿ஜீ۞ஜீ✿•.¸¸.•*`*•.•ஜீ☼۞۞☼ஜீ•.•*`*•.¸¸.•✿ஜீ۞ஜீ✿

What assumptions am I making right now? 

✿ஜீ۞ஜீ✿•.¸¸.•*`*•.•ஜீ☼۞۞☼ஜீ•.•*`*•.¸¸.•✿ஜீ۞ஜீ✿

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I didn't miss any of the other responses from previous pages because I answer them in parts; this thread is very long. Also, sorry for my grammar mistakes.

 @JuliusCaesar What Leo is teaching seems to be very close to pantheism (in my opinion).

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Not exactly, power and consciousness are different dimensions of consciousness. In an Omnipotent(infinite power) state you can think objects into and out of existence, or alter the laws of physics. Consciousness however is more like just pure awareness/being. So being infinitely conscious doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be affecting reality with your mind at such a level(though you'd certainly be aware of the fact that you're creating everything out of nothing, which is one of the reasons infinite consciousness is valuable).

I have not heard Leo speak about power, only consciousness, and that it is infinite. I can sort of grasp what you are talking about when you say dimension, but even that is a little bit abstract, all I am really familiar with is 3 dimensions and time (if you count that as another one). I see what you’re saying makes sense to me from a logical linear perspective. Consciousness is the substance of that which is thought into reality by infinite power (omnipotence). This is pretty much pantheism as I understand it. And if it is true, Pantheism is likely the most correct philosophy, or maybe that is an oversimplification and requires nuance, I don’t know.

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Well, Leo's way of accomplishing this is doing 5 MEO DMT. It has some impact on your baseline consciousness but is very minimal. You basically become infinite for a finite duration of time(relative to consensus reality) then return to something about 99.9% the same as your old baseline consciousness.

True, but I think Leo has made another video about 5 MEO MALT, which does the same thing. Makes sense, pretty much the same thing as conventional drugs I guess. Though some drugs don’t impact certain people at all, which is quite an interesting thing; Frank Yang says that psychedelics have no effect on him at all. Maybe he is spiritually gifted (term I’ve heard from Leo). I think it’s very strange that one of the most powerful psychoactive substances would not affect certain people at all, while just straight meditation sends them to a super high state of consciousness.

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

I've not done 5 MEO, I only know about it's effects studying the experiences of others. However, I have done other psychedelics. And the most impactful experience I had was when I accidentally did 25I NBOMe(I ordered 1P-LSD, but based on the effects it had I know it couldn't possibly be LSD, as my trip was perfectly consistent with NBOMe trip reports, in the future I'll never do a psychedelic without subjecting it to GC/MS first.). Safety precautions aside, I experienced ego death and infinite love, and also realized that I'm the creator of the universe. Then the next day when I sobered up, I rejected the experience entirely thinking it was just delusion. However, later on practicing lucid dreaming I discovered that I actually am God.

I have never heard of 25I NBOMe. You ordered one pound of LSD, isn’t that a lot? I have also never heard of GC/MS, I’m assuming that it is used to test psychedelics. How do the experiences that each psychedelic offers differ? Was your intention to have an ego death, or was it something else? Is ‘creator of the universe’ that you experienced the same thing as the delusions of grandeur that many psychiatrists speak about in the use of psychedelics in medicine? How the f*ck do you experience a delusional ego-death plus infinite love? That sounds like a rather confusing thing; hallucinating that you have died. How do you remember such a thing if you had no ‘ego’ that could put it into memory? Most scientists, academics and even laymen (like me to a certain extent) would think what you had was a delusional experience of some sort. But if they were in the field of studying psychedelics then they would probably be more open to this interpretation. However, I haven't really heard psychedelic therapists use the words infinite consciousness and love very often when describing what they have heard people say. They mainly speak about psychedelics in a scientific way; ‘this class of psychedelics affects this receptor and people usually get this type of subjective experience from it, and it seems to work pretty well with helping people in this way, and so on’. I have not heard any psychedelic professionals speak about literally being God when being on a psychedelic, they mostly say it was an expanded consciousness that was experienced.

Isn’t it f*cking terrifying to experience an ego-death? I would assume that it is. In my life, I could not really imagine it could really be. It may be scary or relatively peaceful. I have heard that it also depends on how much you try to grasp things that could impact the experience. 

I am curious if it feels any different to experience actual death when leaving the world vs experiencing an ego-death on psychedelics, or during meditation (such as maha-samadhi). People get sad when talking about death (and say things like 'that's horrible’ especially if the individual is close to them) and if it is the same thing as a psychedelic experience of ego-death, only you don’t come back. So if you experience some ego-death and come back, would that not be experiencing the same thing as a person who experiences actual death, you just come back and are able to maybe learn something from it, idk. Or maybe these are all very different experiences.

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

What happened is I had 3 precognitive dreams that occurred seemingly randomly and months apart from one another. In which I became aware of future events that should have been humanly impossible to know. And then I had a dream where I was trying to control the dream(because I knew it was a dream due to strange things occurring in it that couldn't happen in the waking world) but I failed to do so. My dad was in the dream, and I asked him about it. Describing to him all of my failed endeavors, like when I try to walk through a wall I bounce off it as though it were solid, so I asked him "How do I create reality?", and he told me "We're already creating reality". When I awoke from the dream I had an existential crisis because I had to come to terms with the fact that I'm God(based on the fact that I've became aware of future events in the waking world from the dream state which came to pass as I was shown they would, I knew I could rely on it for accurate information about the nature of reality). I debated the subject in my own mind thinking something along the lines of "that means I made Hitler and all the things he did, and children starving in Africa. how could I do that"? But when I thought about it more, I realized I had no logical objection to the notion that I'm God. And any logical objection you could make would be easily shot down. Like if you asked me how it is that I can be God and therefore know everything but simultaneously also not know everything as a human.

To be honest this is a bit airy-fairy and outlandish to me, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Not saying that it is not true, it’s just hard to believe which I am sure you understand. I’ve heard many scientists and academics say anecdotal evidence is a bad source of evidence (which is true for many things), especially when it comes to a person's experience on psychedelics and lucid dreaming I would assume, but I’ll put that aside.

But essentially, you are saying you were able to tell the future from your lucid dreams? Taking religion into the conversation a little bit, this experience that you had which made you realize you were God, is the same or similar as those that all of the major religions profits and the like experienced as well? If so, I am confused how all religions are so radically different from one another if this experience feels pretty similar across most of the world. However, I have heard that a lot of the experience is influenced by culture too, so that is a very important variable to consider as well. If this God that you describe is true and it connects all religions together in a way, it would great to understand how this is so, in order to be able to see all the different religions in a way that is not so separating, because one religions says one thing, another says another and it gets really confusing. This would lead me to a level of understanding could benefit me and others if religions enters a conversations that I so happen to be in. And, then eventually bringing in atheism and theism (and all the other isms and agnostics) into the understanding. However, I would assume it's going to take a lot more work that I can foresee, so I don't know how far I'll get with it.

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

To be omniscient(all knowing) I would have to know what it's like not to know. So the reason I didn't know things is precisely because I know everything. To add another dimension of understanding, I know all things unconsciously, but consciously my knowledge is finite. Because by becoming conscious of the unconscious my knowledge expanded to include things in a way that's impossible(given the notion that I'm not God it would be impossible).

I’m lost here, there are too many paradoxes lol. The unconscious and the conscious part is what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, caelanb said:

What Leo is teaching seems to be very close to pantheism (in my opinion).

Pantheism is rather accurate, so yeah.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

I can sort of grasp what you are talking about when you say dimension, but even that is a little bit abstract, all I am really familiar with is 3 dimensions and time (if you count that as another one).

I was applying the concept to the specific forms that consciousness can take. It can take the attribute of power for example, it can take the attribute of knowing, it can even take the form of specific abilities. For example, there exist Telepathic states of consciousness. Which we could say is a form of Omniscience because it involves a supernatural way of knowing. We could also say it's a form of Omnipotence(a power) because it involves perceiving things in a way that requires you to move past your ordinary boundaries(power allows you to lose your limitations). We could also say that it's a form of Omnipresence(because your presence has expanded to include the mind of another). We could also say that it's a form of Omnibenevolence(infinite love) because power is correlated with sweetness of emotion. You see where this is going? I've only used the concept of dimensions of consciousness to attempt a form of understanding compatible with the human mind. Which necessitates duality, when the actual nature of reality is inherently non dual(so duality=non duality, and sameness=difference). Thus, the dualistic perspective is perfectly valid(because it's not objectively any different from the non dual perspective.) Therefore, I'd classify Telekinesis(the ability to affect the outer environment with the mind) as a form of Omnipotence(even though all the other possible perspectives are just as valid). And Telepathy probably as a form of Omniscience(because it involves knowing what might otherwise be unknown) etc etc.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

I think it’s very strange that one of the most powerful psychoactive substances would not affect certain people at all, while just straight meditation sends them to a super high state of consciousness.

This is down to differences in brain chemistry and personal consciousness between individuals. Most humans live in relatively the same reality(because we all have very similar brain chemistry and a similar state of consciousness). But some are radically different to the rest of us. And as such they respond to the same substances very differently.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

You ordered one pound of LSD, isn’t that a lot?

No lol. 1P-LSD is the name of the chemical. It's a quasi legal analogue of LSD(because it metabolizes into LSD in the body, but the substances itself is legal to buy/sell/posses as it's classified as a research chemical unlike LSD which is a scheduled substance).

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

I have also never heard of GC/MS, I’m assuming that it is used to test psychedelics.

Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry is a 100% specific analytic method(it can positively identify practically everything in a given sample). It's not just used to test psychedelics. But for basically everything(from common food to prescription drugs to illicit drugs). If you want to know more about it, I'd suggest reading the Wikipedia article on it.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

I have never heard of 25I NBOMe.

It's a physically dangerous substance that causes cardiovascular events(things like strokes and heart attacks). I only ate one blotter wondering if I should have dosed higher at the time. But in hindsight I'm glad that's all I did as I may not be here had I chosen to do a higher dose. Hence why I'm so skeptical of most psychedelic vendors and suggest testing your substances before you do them so fervently.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

How do the experiences that each psychedelic offers differ?

They differ incredibly, I could write a whole 500 page book on that very subject. But they all seem to have things in common. Nearly every psychedelically induced experience and near death experience(where the patient has no pulse nor neural activity for a certain period of time like 30 minutes, then "comes back to life" so to speak) have in common. Is that they all involve a departure from what is considered ordinary reality. And a wide variety of things can happen(some people experience themselves dying and going to hell and Jesus pulls them out, other people experience God realization etc). What's happening is effectively this, "ordinary reality" is a dream, and when you die/are influenced by certain substances, you enter a different dream. And there's ridiculous variability in terms of what kinds of dreams are possible.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

Was your intention to have an ego death, or was it something else? Is ‘creator of the universe’ that you experienced the same thing as the delusions of grandeur that many psychiatrists speak about in the use of psychedelics in medicine?

No, my intention was to cure a disease I had which I knew from studying the brain chemistry alterations of LSD would be cured by the same. I had no idea at the time about ego death(or even what the concept of ego is) or that I'm God or anything. I believed 100% in Materalism at the time. Which is one of the reasons the experience is significant(as the substance basically just did these things to me irrespective of my conscious intentions).

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

How the f*ck do you experience a delusional ego-death plus infinite love?

Well that's just it, objectively speaking it wasn't delusional at all. It's just that at the time my materalist mind had to explain away the experience when I came back to baseline.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

How do you remember such a thing if you had no ‘ego’ that could put it into memory?

The issue here is you don't really understand what ego death is likely because you've never experienced it before. You see, when you lose your ego you don't really lose anything. What actually happens is your ego expands to include things that it previously didn't. Like for instance, a low level ego death might involve you looking at a wall and experiencing the wall as part of your body(there's no longer any difference between you and the wall). A high level ego death would involve you becoming absolutely everything(infinity). And at that point, you know you're God because you're Omnipresent, and as you're Omnipresent(have all experience) you're also Omniscient(have all knowledge) as knowledge arises out of experience. We call it ego death simply because when it happens your old limited sense of self(as a human) has been dissolved to include everything else. 

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

How do you remember such a thing if you had no ‘ego’ that could put it into memory?

Because the ego is just your human set of experiences/memories/identity. Which objectively is no different than the Godhead and as such is immortal(in an absolute sense, so you can die in every way imaginable and still live). So when you lose your ego you still have your ego, and as such your memory is still capable of functioning.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

Most scientists, academics and even laymen (like me to a certain extent) would think what you had was a delusional experience of some sort.

That's only because they lack understanding.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

However, I haven't really heard psychedelic therapists use the words infinite consciousness and love very often when describing what they have heard people say.

Yeah, very often classic psychedelics(like Psilocybin and LSD) in the relatively low quantities(1-3grams for Psilocybin, or 100 to 300 micrograms for LSD) they're commonly taken usually don't produce God realization. But they do dissolve the boundaries of the mind enough to allow for powerful psychological catharsis and healing. These psychological benefits will likely serve as impetus to legalize these substances in the near future.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

They mainly speak about psychedelics in a scientific way; ‘this class of psychedelics affects this receptor and people usually get this type of subjective experience from it, and it seems to work pretty well with helping people in this way, and so on’.

There's something to be said for the scientific perspective. However, alternate perspectives(like the animistic for instance) are also valid and necessary in acquiring a complete understanding of these matters.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

Isn’t it f*cking terrifying to experience an ego-death? I would assume that it is. In my life, I could not really imagine it could really be. It may be scary or relatively peaceful. I have heard that it also depends on how much you try to grasp things that could impact the experience. 

At first it's scary as all hell, because you think you're going to cease to exist(which is a lie), and so you cling to everything you've ever known. But when you surrender to it, it becomes a blissful experience. And in fact you learn that death(which isn't even real) is the best thing that could happen to a created being which of course is tremendously ironic(as that's the very thing mortals spend their entire lives running away from).

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

People get sad when talking about death (and say things like 'that's horrible’ especially if the individual is close to them)

There's never been a time where they or their loved ones didn't exist nor will they ever be a time where they don't exist. So, mortals mourn the dead for lack of wisdom.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

and if it is the same thing as a psychedelic experience of ego-death, only you don’t come back. So if you experience some ego-death and come back, would that not be experiencing the same thing as a person who experiences actual death, you just come back and are able to maybe learn something from it, idk. Or maybe these are all very different experiences.

All of the options you've entertained have some validity to them. You'd just have to study trip reports of various psychedelics and NDE's and compare and contrast them. 

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

To be honest this is a bit airy-fairy and outlandish to me, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Not saying that it is not true, it’s just hard to believe which I am sure you understand.

It wasn't all that long ago that I felt the same way about such things. Assuming they were merely fabrications or maybe just the product of overactive imagination. But when you experience these things yourself as I have, you know they're valid.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

I’ve heard many scientists and academics say anecdotal evidence is a bad source of evidence (which is true for many things), especially when it comes to a person's experience on psychedelics and lucid dreaming I would assume, but I’ll put that aside.

There's a number of problems with empiricalism. One of the most glaring is the fact that it assumes there's a difference between the anecdotal and empirical. When in fact the empirical is always anecdotal. To illustrate what I mean, imagine you're looking at a river and you want to establish consensus relative to it's existence. So you point to the river asking others if they see it too, and they say yes. Now you assume that means the river is real. The problem is, where is the experience of other people validating your experience occurring? It's in your own experience, which is the same as you experiencing the river yourself in the first place(which was anecdotal). So the empirical is always inherently anecdotal, and as such empiricalism effectively rejects itself due to unconscious metaphysics(empiricalism depends on third person experience, which in fact doesn't exist as it's just first person experience disguised as third person experience).

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

But essentially, you are saying you were able to tell the future from your lucid dreams?

Yeah, and in all three instances I foreknew things that should have been humanly impossible to know.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

Taking religion into the conversation a little bit, this experience that you had which made you realize you were God, is the same or similar as those that all of the major religions profits and the like experienced as well?

Exactly, I'm basically no different than Moses or Abraham.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

If so, I am confused how all religions are so radically different from one another if this experience feels pretty similar across most of the world.

We're infinitely loving, which means we have no preferences whatsoever. So we created everything that could be imagined. And in this specific dream that includes many different religions, that have differing views and that even wage wars over the differences in theology.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

If this God that you describe is true and it connects all religions together in a way, it would great to understand how this is so, in order to be able to see all the different religions in a way that is not so separating, because one religions says one thing, another says another and it gets really confusing.

 The best way to understand religions, is to realize that they all teach the same thing in a general sense. They all teach essentially, that God exists and made everything(though some of them have God as many gods instead of just one) and they all teach that God is love. Which is the most important part of it all. They however, can't teach the entirety of the truth for an infinite number of reasons. One of them is the fact that since God loves everything, that means God loves everything that humans hate. If you taught that to people, most of them would want nothing to do with God(they're too judgemental to accept something that's infinitely loving). So the major religions of the world have had to demonize God in order to make us more palatable to your average mortal. And this has also served them to create cohesive and safe societies via the risk of eternal damnation. As otherwise ruthless personal ambition and selfishness would give rise to chaos and endless military conflict.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

However, I have heard that a lot of the experience is influenced by culture too, so that is a very important variable to consider as well.

It's an important variable even one that's played a major role in my own life. As despite the fact that I know myself to be God and everything(so I am all of the religions in the world for instance, you could call me an Omnitheist). I'm a practicing Roman Catholic on the rationale that when I become personally Omnipotent(which is something I do in the future) my way of fitting into human society will be as a Catholic saint(since they tend to canonize laymen that do miracles). However, if I didn't have Catholic grandparents(my own parents basically rebelled from the Church as hippies, fight the power lol) then I would probably be something else entirely. Like if I had a middle eastern background, I'd probably be a Muslim, if I had an Indian background, I'd probably be a Hindu etc etc.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

This would lead me to a level of understanding could benefit me and others if religions enters a conversations that I so happen to be in.

There's great difficulty in reaching out to most religionists. Because they tend to be hard nosed and totally absorbed in their own dogma. Completely rejecting and demonizing alternate religions and perspectives due to small differences in detail. As such, I mostly don't discus these things with such individuals. However, when I do, I make certain that I articulate things in a way that I don't contradict anything they currently believe. And as such I sort of interrogate them rather intensely to obtain a greatly detailed understanding of their personal worldview before I make any statements.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

And, then eventually bringing in atheism and theism (and all the other isms and agnostics) into the understanding.

The mindfuck there is the atheist is God imagining that there is no God, and the theist is God imaging that it's offending God with it's human shortcomings. 

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

However, I would assume it's going to take a lot more work that I can foresee, so I don't know how far I'll get with it.

Well, what you're describing is far from impossible. But understanding every religion, and being able to actually effectively sell religionists on the actual truth are different things. And there's much diplomacy/negotiation in order for there be to union between these differing entities.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

I’m lost here, there are too many paradoxes lol. The unconscious and the conscious part is what?

What in my experience helps a great deal in understanding this, is the perspective that integrates neuroscience with the occult. Neuroscientists have broken down human consciousness into 5 states based on the rate of firing neurons as measured in HZ(cycle per second). These are Beta(12-35hz), Alpha(8-12hz), Theta(4-8hz), Delta(1-4hz), and Gamma(all brain activity above 40hz). Beta is the level of ordinary everyday waking consciousness. From which there is no significant expression of the powers of the mind(things like remote viewing are experienced as nearly impossible). In this state you experience yourself largely as an observer of an external world that seems very real and unmalleable. The ego is most tangible and present here. And this is the state most humans spend the majority of their conscious existence.

 

Alpha under ordinary circumstances is only associated with transitioning between waking and sleeping/dreaming. However, if you manage to become conscious at the lower boundary of the Alpha range and become competent there. You can gain the ability to alter your physical faculties consciously(immune system, metabolic system, what diseases are possible or present in you etc etc). Because the ground floor of the framework that makes you the individual you think of yourself as is basically located somewhere around lower alpha. As such, if you become competent at lower alpha, you can do things that would seem to be medically impossible. Wim Hoff is a great example of this(he uses specialized breathing exercises to enter alpha when he'd normally be in Beta), whom I recommend you study(as many of his exploits have been measured and documented by medical scientists). 

 

If your brain slows down even further, and assuming you can remain conscious in that state(which is difficult but possible). You'd be in the Theta range(4-8hz). At this level you're effectively omniscient as any question you ask will be answered infallibly(and specifically at around the 4.5hz range this ability is perfected). I know this from firsthand experience. As I have a specialized form of meditation to put me in the 4.5hz range, and while I have limited experience with it(because I've been foolishly focusing too much on the beta level gaining intellectual understanding of things as a human due to performance anxiety). I have in fact used it before with miraculous effect. And could undoubtedly if I so desired, go and hit the lottery on purpose(as I'm capable of foreknowing the drawing). However, Theta ordinarily is associated with mental inefficiency, as under normal circumstances you're basically losing individual consciousness at this level.

 

And finally, there's Delta(1-4hz) this is the level of the Godhead. Where the differentiated self disappears, and where all possibilities are waiting to be unfolded. This is the level from which you're creating all of existence out of nothing. If you were to be conscious at this level, your mind would be powerful enough to effectively control the dream of ordinary reality(as you're Omnipotent there). However, in an ordinary human this level is associated with somnabulistic unconsciousness. And I haven't yet become entirely too competent at the level, I've really only thus far been able to explore the region of lower Theta(mostly for lack of discipline or more powerful practices that require less work). And as such I only know what possibilities exist at Delta and have yet to seriously utilize them.

 

Finally, we have Gamma. Ordinarily this state only occurs in rapid bursts when one experiences strong sensory phenomena(like when tasting an orange for instance). However, when one becomes conscious at the usually unconscious levels of the mind(like theta and delta, and even alpha to some degree). Gamma waves become predominate, and as such are associated with superconsciousness and paranormal abilities(like lucid dreaming, telekinesis etc). Because Gamma is effectively a level that integrates all the lower levels of the mind. So it incorporates the Beta function of subjective awareness with the power of the Godhead from the Delta level. This is why from a neurological point of view Gamma is sort of the oddman out in the sense that it's the only level where amplitude of energy rises with increases in frequency(Beta has the lowest amplitude of energy but the highest frequency, and Delta has the lowest frequency but the highest amplitude of energy).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by JuliusCaesar
missing words

Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JuliusCaesar

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Your power level(degree of omnipotence) is not perfectly 0, but is just slightly higher than that.

I’m curious who Leo does not use omnipotence, omniscience or power when he speaks about god, he just sticks with infinite consciousness/intelligence. Nor does he really speak about being able to affect reality through power. DO you possibly know why?

 

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

So you can affect reality with your thoughts, but to do anything substantial(like curing a disease for example) you'd need to issue the command a ridiculous number of times(like in the 100,000's or even more) before reality responds to it faithfully.

To be honest by that point I feel like it would be just a coincidence that whatever you are hoping for to happen has happened. If someone actually did a command 100,000 times, most people (including me) wouldn’t take that as evidence that you are affecting reality, it would be considered just a fluke.

 

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Making yourself remember your dreams is one of the easiest things you can do with finite power.

My uncle used to do lucid dreaming, as well as my friend (for him he said it was pretty easy) I think. 

 

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

You could literally just sit with eyes closed for like 10 minutes before bed thinking "I remember my dreams" repeatedly and even with that little practice you'd notice some effect.

I have read a bit about lucid dreaming and what I think you are getting at is trying to ‘get yourself’ to lucid dream by being more conscious about your intentions about wanting to do so. Is this correct? Other ways that I have to help one do so are to write your dreams in a dream journal, and do reality checks (though I think I’ve mentioned them before in this thread). Would these also work? When you say some effect, do you mean a little bit of an increase in your ability to notice that you are dreaming when you are dreaming, raising your likelihood of lucid dreaming?

 

On 2021-12-02 at 9:30 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

If you want more understanding relative to how well this will work and why(like why I recommend closing your eyes for example). Then you should read the comment I made on the post below. But basically, when you have your eyes closed, your brainwaves slowdown, so you get slightly closer to being unconscious(the level of the Godhead which is infinitely powerful).

I guess you already commented on this just above. I’m just a little confused how the godhead is not the lowest level of brain waves, or even no brain waves at all. This is because the brain waves themselves have a biological bases, and if the godhead doesn’t (have a biological basis) and is present at a low level of waves it seems as though you're saying that the godhead has a biological basis, but this is contradictory to what I have heard which is that the godhead is absolutely nothing, it has no biological basis because it invented biology, it exists and does not exist everywhere at all times. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, I just have not heard Leo talk about the relationship between brain waves, and thus the relationship between the brain waves and the godhead, he has only said that the godhead transcends everything. Maybe you’re saying that you can only access its power (the ability/intelligence that the godhead possesses) at a lower level of brain waves, but I would think that it would have to be at the lowest level of waves because it is the baseline of all of reality. I am speaking with the proper (or somewhat proper) terms as if I know wtf I am talking, but it’s only in a conceptual sense, but I hope you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

I’m curious who Leo does not use omnipotence, omniscience or power when he speaks about god, he just sticks with infinite consciousness/intelligence. Nor does he really speak about being able to affect reality through power. DO you possibly know why?

He does speak about these things to some extent. In his video called an advanced explanation of God-realization he describes a trip he experienced on 5 MEO MALT where he became Omnipotent. But in general, he does shy away from the topic. I think mostly because he hasn't yet managed to bring the absolute down into his everyday life very well yet. So he's developed this belief that using God's capabilities for his own agenda is somehow wrong or even impossible. When the actual truth is that we're more than willing to do everything to fulfill his every desire because we perceive him to be our self as we are him(and that our self isn't a grammar error, we are one so it's our self, not ourselves lol).

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

To be honest by that point I feel like it would be just a coincidence that whatever you are hoping for to happen has happened. If someone actually did a command 100,000 times, most people (including me) wouldn’t take that as evidence that you are affecting reality, it would be considered just a fluke.

Perhaps a more concrete perspective would better solidify my point. After I originally discovered that reality wasn't as I was taught. One of the phenomena I studied which helped me to make sense of the world was the placebo effect. There's as of today an abundance of studies relative to this subject. But I'll mention just the example of the man credited for effect's discovery. Henry Beecher was a medic in WWII and when he rain out of morphine, he started using an inert solution before surgery and told the soldiers it was morphine. Something like 40% of the men he operated on didn't experience pain to such an extent they had no idea they'd been given a fake pain killer(they report no pain when being cut on). Now think this through, how are you to explain such a thing in a purely mechanical way that doesn't invoke the obvious possibility that the patient's mind alone caused the effect? And keep in mind that this cannot be explained away as coincidental. As the effect of the mind on the body is so powerful that it's necessary to test a fake drug against a "real" one to determine its legitimacy. And there are now many medically documented examples of things that would be medically impossible occurring in this domain. Like people going fully into remission from advanced cancer by taking a fake drug(and without changes in diet or anything that would seem remotely capable of affecting change other than the subject's perception that they should be healed).

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

My uncle used to do lucid dreaming, as well as my friend (for him he said it was pretty easy) I think. 

It's easier for some people than others, some even do it purely by accident.

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

I have read a bit about lucid dreaming and what I think you are getting at is trying to ‘get yourself’ to lucid dream by being more conscious about your intentions about wanting to do so. Is this correct?

Yep

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

Would these also work?

They do, but they only work to a great degree if you repeat the practice rather a great deal.

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

When you say some effect, do you mean a little bit of an increase in your ability to notice that you are dreaming when you are dreaming, raising your likelihood of lucid dreaming?

Exactly.

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

I’m just a little confused how the godhead is not the lowest level of brain waves, or even no brain waves at all.

You clarify your own misunderstanding towards the end of the paragraph. When I say that Delta(1-4hz) is the level of the Godhead I don't mean that as literally as you're interpreting it. When death occurs the mind expands everywhere(becomes Omnipresent, and therefore Omniscient as knowledge arises out of experience etc). If you were to become conscious while your brain is oscillating predominately in the Delta range, you would be so heavily connected to the Godhead that you could manifest your thoughts incredibly well(if you were competent enough at this level, you'd basically be a god unto yourself). However keep in mind, there are more variables affecting your power level than your degree of awareness of the unconscious(like your emotions for example). But all of these variables correlate with one another to a high extent(for example you become more powerful the sweeter and stronger your emotional expression, which causes you to be slightly more aware of deep levels of mind you're normally not aware of at all).

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

This is because the brain waves themselves have a biological bases, and if the godhead doesn’t (have a biological basis) and is present at a low level of waves it seems as though you're saying that the godhead has a biological basis, but this is contradictory to what I have heard which is that the godhead is absolutely nothing, it has no biological basis because it invented biology, it exists and does not exist everywhere at all times.

Well, actually we're everywhere(as God) because we're everything. So in that sense, we do have a biological basis(as for instance God incarnate as you we have such a necessity because we imagine it to be so). When I say Godhead, I'm referring to God in the more dualistic way that people tend to traditionally think of us(which is the level of infinite mind, that is discarnate intelligence). And to what you said at the end, nonexistence is impossible. And another thing, nothing does not equal nonexistence(at least not when we say that we're nothing). This kind of nothingness/pure void exists, but it has no attributes. This is why it's the substance of which all realities and everything within them consists(as any attribute we have everything will have because everything is made out of us).

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

Maybe you’re saying that you can only access its power (the ability/intelligence that the godhead possesses) at a lower level of brain waves

That's precisely what I'm saying.

 

On 1/1/2022 at 11:06 AM, caelanb said:

but I would think that it would have to be at the lowest level of waves because it is the baseline of all of reality.

Yes, the Delta level creates the Theta level, which creates the Alpha level, which creates the Beta level. And the Gamma level predominates when the subjective awareness of the ego becomes present in the lower Theta to Delta range(representing the presence of supernatural capacities in the sentient being in question).

 

This is correct in the sense that if you want to function in an Omnipotent capacity, you want to be in Delta. But if you simply want to become Omniscient, it's easier as you only need to become all perceiving and all-knowing personally. For instance, let's say you want to know what's going to happen tomorrow. In order to accomplish this, it is not necessary that you send your body physically forward in time and then back to the present. You can simply command your mind to project to you the things that will occur(which can be done at a dramatically lower power level than full-blown physical time travel). The level at which this becomes most possible(and is, therefore, the level that is optimal relative to such an intention) is actually approximately 4.5hz(lower theta). When the brain shows predominately lower theta waves. Your mind is effectively at the portal between your human self and the Godhead which is creating everything and as such, you can retrieve any form of knowledge you want at that level.

Edited by JuliusCaesar
My mind is faster than my hands

Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2021 at 9:57 PM, Blackhawk said:

@caelanb Dude, science does not understand quantum mechanics. They can only try to make interpretations of it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html

(If the article is locked, maybe this will be unlocked, it is for me: https://www.google.se/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.amp.html )

 

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

- Richard Feynman

 

" I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." 

- Richard Feynman

 

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

- Niels Bohr

 

"It is meaningless to assign reality to the universe in the absence of an observer; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exists as fuzzy mixture of all possible properties."
- Niels Bohr

 

"The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ... without recourse to the concept of consciousness."

- Eugene Wigner

 

"Quantum mechanics thereby provides a rational science-based escape from the philosophical, metaphysical, moral, and explanatory dead ends that are the rational consequences of the prevailing entrenched and stoutly defended in practice—although known to be basically false in principle—classical materialistic conception of the world and our place within it."
- Henry Stapp

 

“… it begins to look as if we ourselves, by the last-minute decision, have an influence on what photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in the shaping what we have always called past. The past is not really the past until it has been registered. Or put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exist as a record in the present”.
- John Wheeler

 

“Solipsism may be logically consistent with present Quantum Mechanics, Monism in the sense of Materialism is not.”
- Eugene Wigner

 

"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
- Eugene Wigner

 

"We have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."
- Anton Zeilinger

 

Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.”
- Richard Conn Henry and Stephen Palmquist

 

"Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position."
- Pascual Jordan

 

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,"
- Andrew Truscott

 

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such!"
Max Planck

 

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."
- Werner Heisenberg

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
- Bernard d'Espagnat

 

“It is basic for physics that one assumes a real world existing independently from any act of perception - but this we do not know."
- Albert Einstein

this! dang bro!


my mini-blog!

https://wp.me/PcmO4b-T 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2021-12-22 at 10:53 PM, Carl-Richard said:

True. It's easy to discard any push-back from "mystics" once you completely disregard the legitimacy of their view.

@Carl-Richard

On 2021-09-21 at 0:27 PM, Blackhawk said:

@caelanb Dude, science does not understand quantum mechanics. They can only try to make interpretations of it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html

(If the article is locked, maybe this will be unlocked, it is for me: https://www.google.se/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.amp.html )

 

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

- Richard Feynman

 

" I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." 

- Richard Feynman

 

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

- Niels Bohr

 

"It is meaningless to assign reality to the universe in the absence of an observer; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exists as fuzzy mixture of all possible properties."
- Niels Bohr

 

"The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ... without recourse to the concept of consciousness."

- Eugene Wigner

 

"Quantum mechanics thereby provides a rational science-based escape from the philosophical, metaphysical, moral, and explanatory dead ends that are the rational consequences of the prevailing entrenched and stoutly defended in practice—although known to be basically false in principle—classical materialistic conception of the world and our place within it."
- Henry Stapp

 

“… it begins to look as if we ourselves, by the last-minute decision, have an influence on what photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in the shaping what we have always called past. The past is not really the past until it has been registered. Or put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exist as a record in the present”.
- John Wheeler

 

“Solipsism may be logically consistent with present Quantum Mechanics, Monism in the sense of Materialism is not.”
- Eugene Wigner

 

"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
- Eugene Wigner

 

"We have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."
- Anton Zeilinger

 

Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.”
- Richard Conn Henry and Stephen Palmquist

 

"Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position."
- Pascual Jordan

 

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,"
- Andrew Truscott

 

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such!"
Max Planck

 

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."
- Werner Heisenberg

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
- Bernard d'Espagnat

 

“It is basic for physics that one assumes a real world existing independently from any act of perception - but this we do not know."
- Albert Einstein

Maybe commenting this on the video would have worked fine; the quotes are pretty straight forward. They are kinda hard to argue with, unless physicists now understand quantum physics (at least the theoretical part) to the point where these quotes are out of date and not accurate, which may have not been so clear back then. I wonder what Prof Dave would say about the quotes. Maybe you'd get the response from him that you would get from physicists (reluctance) explained in the NewYorkTimes article referenced by @Blackhawk (I have not read the article though because it's locked, I'm just guessing 'reluctance' because the title seems to point to it). The article is categorized as opinion, so it is someones speculation that they would not want to understand quantum physics. However, on psychologytoday.com and others they have articles about the same thing, so maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now