Evidence for Thelema.

[MikeG]

I've been arguing here for about a year now, most, but not all, here are hardcore Materialists. This can be verified by others as well by just following the
discussions that happen on this board.

Dave gave the perfect answer to this, but I'll just say the following. Being a materialist, or a reductionist, or a sceptic, of whatever, doesn't mean accepting absolutely every single postulate that every other materialist, or reductionist, or sceptic, or whatever, comes up with. If people want to investigate ideas such as multiverses and the like, then fine, but it is of no interest to me. I no more believe in them than I believe in anything else. When they bring evidence, tested, replicated evidence, then I'll take a serious look. And the same with you: bring us evidence, not belief. Oh, and it would help your cause if you could write more clearly and without assumptions of our familiarity with obtuse subjects such as "Thelema", and if you could link us to readable evidence in support of your case.

 

[TheAdversary]

It proves nothing because it says nothing.

Look up what 'Logical Trivialism' actually means. Then you'll see how well this passage expresses it. I'm sorry it's gibberish to you but
so are books on Abstract Algebra to the layman.
And my point is that you're much more forgiving towards Computer Simulation theorists than to this. Why is that? You could abandon
Multiverse or Computer Simulation for the same reasons. Is Computer Simulation theory falsifiable, then?

 

[Agatha]

You seem to think that as sceptics, we must hold the multiverse theory and/or the computer simulation theory to be true. As far as I'm aware, they are hypotheticals, so I do not hold them to be true unless there is evidence, and this is the position of most here.

What do they have to do with thelema anyway?

 

[Cayvmann]

"Let's start with Achilles and the Tortoise. Achilles is very fast, so the Tortoise is given a head start in their little competition.
Now, whenever Achilles moves, the Tortoise moves as well. Slower maybe, but he still moves. And since there's never a moment where Achilles moves and the
Tortoise doesn't advance his position, from this Zeno concluded that Achilles could never overtake the Tortoise."

If Achilles is faster he will eventually catch up with the Tortoise, given enough time. No matter that they both move at the same time. How long it takes depends on the head start the tortoise has and the difference of speed between the two. A simple computer mock-up can show this. There is no paradox here at all.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Look up what 'Logical Trivialism' actually means. Then you'll see how well this passage expresses it.

Andrew Lloyd Weber expressed it equally precisely in the lyrics of "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina," in the line "Every word is true". So *********** what?

And please stop wittering on about multiverses and computer simulations. Nobody's interested in defending your strawmen.

Dave

 

[Cavemonster]

What's a Thelema?

She drove into the Grand Canyon with Louise.

 

[TheAdversary]

What do they have to do with thelema anyway?

Thelema has _more_ evidence going for it than Simulation Theory or Multiverses, yet it's not a part of academia and will face extreme opposition
on a sceptics board and people are much more forgiving towards Simulation or Multiverse even though they are _more_ problematic from
a scientific perspective. They have zero evidence.
And Thelema has this to say about it : Why? Because of the fall of Because, that he is not there again.

 

[Cavemonster]

Thelema has _more_ evidence going for it than Simulation Theory or Multiverses, yet it's not a part of academia and will face extreme opposition
on a sceptics board and people are much more forgiving towards Simulation or Multiverse even though they are _more_ problematic from
a scientific perspective. They have zero evidence.
And Thelema has this to say about it : Why? Because of the fall of Because, that he is not there again.

What does moral philosophy have to do with science?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Which is why it's so interesting that a Religion now starts trumping Physical Science in evidence!

When did this happen?

Did I miss a meeting??

 

[Dave Rogers]

Someone needs to use the word paraeidolia in this thread. This is a classic example. Crowley's texts are simply linguistic white noise. TheAdversary is attempting to find patterns in them, and, unsurprisingly, is finding the patterns s/he is looking for.

Dave

 

[TheAdversary]

If Achilles is faster he will eventually catch up with the Tortoise, given enough time. No matter that they both move at the same time.
How long it takes depends on the head start the tortoise has and the difference of speed between the two. A simple computer mock-up can show this.
There is no paradox here at all.

You're measuring time properly in that case, so measure is properly defined obeying the rules of summation, as I've already stated in the OP.
But you'll run into further paradoxes, like the Banach-Tarski Paradox. To resolve _all_ paradoxes of continuity requires a logic that
can handle trivialism. That's the further issue of the continuum I'm talking about; It's beyond non-standard analysis even. And Liber 418
actually has interesting things to say about this if you're into this subject. You just need to learn its language. It's worth it.

 

[MikeG]

....There is no paradox here at all.

There isn't, if you don't want there to be. But if you do want there to be a paradox, you frame it in terms of halving the distance between them, and then of course, you have simply linguistically set up the paradox you sought. Which seems (for reasons I haven't fathomed) to suit TheAdversary's argument. Or, at least, s/he seems to think it does.

 

[Agatha]

Thelema has _more_ evidence going for it than Simulation Theory or Multiverses, yet it's not a part of academia and will face extreme opposition
on a sceptics board and people are much more forgiving towards Simulation or Multiverse even though they are _more_ problematic from
a scientific perspective. They have zero evidence.

Show us this evidence for Thelema, then. Nobody on this thread is proposing evidence for simulation theory or multiverses, and you bringing them up as something that you believe sceptics support is a strawman argument, not to mention off-topic in this thread.

And Thelema has this to say about it : Why? Because of the fall of Because, that he is not there again.

Thelema says this about what? And what does that phrase mean?

 

[TheAdversary]

And please stop wittering on about multiverses and computer simulations. Nobody's interested in defending your strawmen.

No, the correct statement is : Nobody wants to know that Multiverses and Computer Simulations are Religions, and very poor ones at that.
This point is fundamental. It shows there's something wrong in science-land. The only reason to prefer Computer Simulations over
Angels and Demons is that they're 'sciency', as some cultural leftover. Remember, if the world is a simulation, maybe one of those magical programmers
just thinks Angels and Demons are cool! See what I mean? There's no difference _except_ that Multiverse theory is science-like. And that's not Science.

 

[Agatha]

Even if everyone agrees with you that multiverses and simulation theory are religions rather than science, that still doesn't advance your case that there is evidence for Thelema at all.

Perhaps you could post your evidence for Thelema?

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, the correct statement is : Nobody wants to know that Multiverses and Computer Simulations are Religions, and very poor ones at that.

There seems little point in responding, since you're clearly uninterested in trying to comprehend; but these are postulates, not beliefs. They are unproven possibilities that we may want to consider the possibility of evidence for and against, and until such evidence exists, judgement is suspended on them. And if we were to find evidence for them, it wouldn't be in the form of dubious interpretations of the random word salads of a drug-addled hedonist with a severe personality disorder.

Dave

 

[TheAdversary]

Show us this evidence for Thelema, then. Nobody on this thread is proposing evidence for simulation theory or multiverses,
and you bringing them up as something that you believe sceptics support is a strawman argument, not to mention off-topic in this thread.

I've explained it. It's deep, and it requires study. Post #31 does a good job. But the main point was actually to show that Thelema is more plausible than the
rubbish modern scientist peddle. And that's not a straw man, evidenced by many discussions on this board. Including this one, in fact.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I read about Aleister Crowly a lifetime ago; I thought he was talking occult nonsense then and have never changed my mind. Wikipedia points out that he did mountaineering and may well have written facts about that, but occult facts? No such thing.

 

[MikeG]

No, the correct statement is : Nobody wants to know that Multiverses and Computer Simulations are Religions, and very poor ones at that.

Repeat this crap and you'll lose half your audience. No-one here treats either of these two subjects as anything anywhere near a religion, nor even as ideas which science is taking seriously. Is that clear?

This point is fundamental. It shows there's something wrong in science-land.

No, it shows that your grasp of science is extremely weak. It shows that you will mis-define your opposition's position in the way that suits your argument. In other words, this is your problem, not ours.

 

[sphenisc]

Someone needs to use the word paraeidolia in this thread. This is a classic example. Crowley's texts are simply linguistic white noise. TheAdversary is attempting to find patterns in them, and, unsurprisingly, is finding the patterns s/he is looking for.

Dave

Nah, if someone just uses the word "pareidolia", that's just going to feed your desire to find patterns in the words and unsurprisingly find the patterns your looking for.