• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for Thelema.

TheAdversary

Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
1,548
This post got moved a couple of times, because the moderators didn't think it was relevant. It is because it contains evidence for the existence
of 'occult' phenomena. The last time I posted it, it was in response to someone who tried to ridicule Thelema, just to show that there's more to
Thelema than 'hogwash'.

I can provide evidence for the 'occult' as well. (Hint : Show me the money!!!)
The point is that there are remarks in this revealed document, Liber 418, that speak of the relation between contradiction and continuity
and Zeno's Arrow Paradox. Much of this knowledge was beyond what was known at the time and certainly beyond Crowley's knowledge, as Crowley himself
acknowledges many times in the Book; The communicating entity also says this over and over. 'utterly beyond thine understanding'
The Book was revealed after the performance of Sex Magick Rituals. The fact that it's communicating knowledge beyond the capabilities of the
receiver proves the communicating entity legit, in this sort of Operation.

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. And since there's obviously no such
problem in the real world, you have a paradox. So what's wrong? Measure is improperly defined. Measure or lenght, area and volume, cannot be defined
by summing points on the real line. A line might be composed of an infinite number of points, you cannot define the length of a line in this way without
running into paradox. A proper measure function, that obeys the rules of summation, needs to be defined. Then the Achilles/Tortoise problem disappears.
There's also another way to remove the paradox using smooth infinitesimal analysis, where a point doesn't have zero measure, (which is the source of the
paradox, that a point has dimension zero,) but infinitesimal measure. And summing points as infinitesimals is an integral, obeying the rules of a proper
measure.
(For those of you interested in my Religious theory, you might want to check out Liber 418 by Aleister Crowley, The Cry of the 5th Aethyr.
The Vision of the Arrow therein described is a version of Zeno's Arrow Paradox, but whereas the paradox can be resolved by relaxing the law of excluded
middle (smooth infinitesimal analysis), the Vision describes a higher problem of the continuum to be resolved by relaxing the law of no contradiction.)

Later in the discussion I wrote this :

The physical sciences are now becoming so nonsensical, they really can't laugh at Scientologists any more. That would be almost, but not quite,
completely hypocritical of them. And now Crowley's system actually has more evidence going for it.
Are there any books about Magical Simulation Programmers talking about interesting Philosophical or Mathematical issues that weren't known before?
(And before you think I believe in Angels or Gods, I don't. I think the further step in understanding the Universe will turn out to require
Aesthetics, so the Deities are like literary devices. I'm presenting a new Logic Theory.)

Thoughts?
 
If you are to start a new thread about Thelema, it might be worth saying who Thelema is, and what is claimed on his/ her behalf, don't you think? You might also say who Crowley is, what the Liber 418 document is, and give a summary of Zena's Arrow Paradox if they are pertinent to whatever point you are trying to make. Having done that, you could link to some supporting evidence for whatever you are trying to say.

So, poor attempt at an OP. Have another try.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm a physical scientist, and I have no difficulty whatsoever laughing at scientologists.

So no problem believing in an infinity of Multiverses, or believing reality is a Computer Simulation but you do have issues with this?
You do realize that using Multiverse theory, you're almost, but not quite, capable of proving that Lord Xenu exists?
The only reason you prefer those theories is because they're 'sciency', but without a single shred of evidence that means nothing. Just a cultural leftover.
That's already hypocritical, and laughing is just a natural way of getting rid of ideas you don't want to know about in your head. The Gay Science, remember?
But now I'm presenting actual, physical, evidence. Against Materialism mind you, not against the Science of the Physical World.
Let's talk about the evidence, please.
 
Last edited:
So no problem believing in an infinity of Multiverses, or believing reality is a Computer Simulation but you do have issues with this?

Rule of So alert! You do realise that Multiverses and Simulated existence are just postulations, not actual science, don't you?

The only reason you prefer those theories.......

Straw man alert! Demonstrate that anyone here "prefers those theories".
 
MikeG said:
If you are to start a new thread about Thelema, it might be worth saying who Thelema is, and what is claimed on his/ her behalf, don't you think?
You might also say who Crowley is, what the Liber 418 document is, and give a summary of Zena's Arrow Paradox if they are pertinent to whatever point you
are trying to make. Having done that, you could link to some supporting evidence for whatever you are trying to say.

So, poor attempt at an OP. Have another try.

I'm running under the assumption that Thelema and Aleister Crowley are well known, in a pop-cultural sense of the word. I think that's fair.
And you do have google and an inquiring mind if you want to know the consensus position. Which is _not_ mine, usually.
So, I've limited myself to providing information that is not known, that you won't find anywhere else.
And I have described Liber 418 as an allegedly revealed document that was received after the performance of Sex Magick Rituals.
I also gave a good description of Achilles and the Tortoise, which is solved in the same way as Zeno's Arrow Paradox because it's the same problem :
Improper definition of continuity leading to paradox. And then I did give a link, albeit an old-fashioned one, to the relevant chapter in the Book.
And then you can make up your own mind. But remember that any evidence is already more evidence than that provided for the current consensus position
theories like Magical Computer Simulation Programmers. Do you have any supporting evidence for that?

Poor attempt at a rebuttal! Next!

Here's a link :

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/418/aetyr5.htm
 
MikeG said:
Rule of So alert! You do realise that Multiverses and Simulated existence are just postulations, not actual science, don't you?

Which is why it's so interesting that a Religion now starts trumping Physical Science in evidence! And why aren't they researching Thelema, then?
 
MikeG said:
Straw man alert! Demonstrate that anyone here "prefers those theories".

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.
 
So no problem believing in an infinity of Multiverses, or believing reality is a Computer Simulation but you do have issues with this?

Stop telling lies about what I "believe in". I don't "believe in" multiverses or that reality is a computer simulation. The concept of a multiverse is a postulate worthy of serious consideration, but not one that is proven or disproven, so I neither believe nor disbelieve in it. The same is true of reality being a computer simulation. Until there's evidence for or against, they're just interesting talking points.

Anyway, you asked for thoughts, and for me your OP only provoked that one.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Stop telling lies about what I "believe in". I don't "believe in" multiverses or that reality is a computer simulation. The concept of a
multiverse is a postulate worthy of serious consideration, but not one that is proven or disproven, so I neither believe nor disbelieve in it. The same is
true of reality being a computer simulation. Until there's evidence for or against, they're just interesting talking points.

The point is that Computer Simulation and Multiverses are accepted in academia. Thelema is not. Why? It can't be the evidence because the amount of evidence
is zero. And Thelema has actual evidence going for it, at least more than the 'sciency' speculative stuff. This should change, then.
Thelema should then also be taken seriously in academia. Aleister Crowley's body of Work is worthy of serious consideration.
But I've got a feeling that's not going to happen ...
 
OK, more thoughts. You've posted a link to a highly ambiguous text that you've chosen to interpret in a way that makes very little sense, and you're now claiming (if I can understand your opaque style) that this points to a scientific revelation of principles that either were not known at the time or are still not known. As evidence for this you're pointing to a vague passage that could be interpreted as a reference to an ancient paradox that, so far as I can tell, was satisfactorily resolved by Liebnitz and Newton. You're also claiming that the passage says it contains knowledge that was beyond Crowley's understanding, therefore it does. None of this points to anything resembling evidence.

So what I would suggest is that you do the following.
(1) Choose a suitable piece of information that supposedly was relayed to Crowley.
(2) Demonstrate that your interpretation of this information is at least a defensible one.
(3) Demonstrate that this information could not have been known to Crowley at the time.
(4) Phrase all the above in language that can be comprehended without the aid of hallucinogenic drugs.

Then you might get a serious response.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
satisfactorily resolved by Liebnitz and Newton.

No, it wasn't. They had to sweep infinities under the rug by ways of the limit notation. A proper definition of infinitesimals wasn't given until
Robinson developed non-standard analysis in the sixties.
 
+Dave Rogers
Ok, I'm going to provide more examples of passages in Liber 418 to strengthen my argument. I'll try to find ideas that are easier to understand but
you have to know that Liber 418 is a book about a new Logic Theory that can handle logical trivialism. Here's a passage :

The Cry of the 4th Aethyr said:
Holy art thou, Chaos, Chaos, Eternity, all contradictions in terms!

In the meantime, can you do the same for Multiverse or Computer Simulation theory? Then we can weigh the evidence.
 
No, it wasn't. They had to sweep infinities under the rug by ways of the limit notation. A proper definition of infinitesimals wasn't given until
Robinson developed non-standard analysis in the sixties.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a reasonable statement (which I don't agree with; Robinson himself claimed that his work was a vindication of Liebniz's ideas), please justify your implicit assertion, therefore, that the Crowley text can only be interpreted as referring to Robinson's analysis and cannot possibly refer to the centuries-old approach of calculus, which Crowley could very easily have been aware of. If you can do that, you may not have a good argument, but you'll at least have an argument.

Dave
 
Sorry but in all seriousness, I can't see what you're claiming as evidence in the OP. It all would appear to be a claim/assertion, from which unsupported conclusions are drawn - as if the assertions were a given.
 
I mean, vague evidence already trumps no evidence. But the ideas expressed in Liber 418 are not vague at all. They coincide with deep mathematical
truths. That's what provided the evidence for me to take it more seriously than other supposed 'revealed' texts.
But none of it is easy to understand or to explain. In fact, I've been arguing on this board for some time to get certain ideas across ...
 
Googling Thelema led me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema which seems to describe it as a religion/philosophy of life discovered by or revealed to Crowley. If that is the case, what does science need to explore? - it's as non-falsifiable as any other religion.

If I've misunderstood, could you explain what it is you understand by thelema?
 

Back
Top Bottom