Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

What I'm simply trying to point out is that the results may change if the method is changed. Of course, a test in hopes of what you want to happen has a certain bias, but Magicians are being very honest about their bias from the very beginning. The whole point is to create the results that you seek. But on the other hand, Scientists are claiming that they have this no-bias but still have underlying unconscious biases that they aren't admitting to themselves may have an affect on their conclusions of the experiment at the very least.

The fact is, is that Quantum Mechanics says already that whether the observer is or isn't human, that a different observing consciousness does indeed have an affect on the outcome and final result. Just because it has to do with the cellular level, makes it not worth paying attention to? No, that's where Hermetic "As Above, So Below" steps in and shows that the Microcosm is linked and has an affect on the Macrocosm, and vice versa.

A way to test this would be for the Scientists themselves to run the Scientific Method on a Magickal collective Intention itself, and compare that to the isolated Scientific observations.

Also, I'm very much into the true passion of a Scientist, but i feel that in the modern day that mainstream Science is very bloated. It has lost touch with its original form. Just my opinion. And throughout any age of its existence, it can't help but to peer its head down at any notions of the supernatural or mystical...throwing all of it into the same category as mere religion. If that's not true, then why wouldn't it be studying Kundalini at the very least: a psychospiritual phenomenon that completely rewires and rewrites an entire person's being, and includes mystical, paranormal, psychic, and supernatural occurrances, alongside radical physical, audio, and visual changes and disturbances?

However, I also feel that there are certain Scientists that are beginning to wake up to the ideas of Consciousness and the integral part it plays in shaping reality. This will only continue as time goes on.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/reality-doesnt-exist-until-you-look-at-it-pioneering-quantum-physics-experiment-finds-10305047.html

Read that article...it shows that reality doesn't exist until it is measured. Now all I'm simply proposing is to add in the aspect of will and intention into this, and one can create the outcomes.



And on another note...a link to Time Travel? http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/


Also, finally Science is beginning to study NDE's...this website tries to show the relationship of it to Kundalini and why then it should also be starting to study Kundalini http://www.commonsensekundalini.com/science_spirituality/near_death_experience_and_k.html

...in my opinion it will be only be a few years tops before I will be posting an article showing that Science is now beginning to study Kundalini, for that will most likely arrive first before the study of Magick or other Esoteric subjects. Then the money will be fully shown. This will also be very linked up to the new Mayan Cycle: the Age of Aquarius.

 

How exactly is it that a conscious observer influences the outcome?

 

To me it seems it's more often than not the Christian concept of god that people mean. Or rather, their own ideas about that concept.

Most of these threads do become the same old stuff cycled over and over. I get bored with participating in them.

 

First off They are not talking about the cellular level, they are talking about a single atom. Read the context of the article and don't just jump at a catchy title. There is nothing this article mentions that changes my understanding of the observer effect.

 

No reason science should intentually incoporate biases into the mix, otherwise fradulent crap like this would never get exposed and the masses would be even more dumbed down and fed fabricated stuff for profit.


http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/07/discovery-channel-provokes-outrage-with-fake-shark-week-documentary/

 

Anyone else here familiar with the work of Stanislav Grof?

Grof's work is based on research in which he was involved using LSD, from 1955 onward to when LSD was banned for research. He worked in Czechoslovakia and later in the United States.

Many psychiatric patients as well as therapists and others were given multiple LSD sessions in what became known as psycholytic therapy. Eventually, sometimes after several sessions, most people had what Grof terms 'transpersonal' experiences, some of which include union with god and other states usually associated with mysticism.

Now, having such experiences in itself doesn't prove anything about the existence or non existence of a divine reality or power. But the key thing is that such experiences have a definite therapeutic aspect. Many patients who had struggled for years with deep traumas and so on had positive changes after having such experiences.

Grof has come up with his own system of psychology based on the results of this work, which is or attempts to be, scientific in form. As scientific as one can be where psychology is concerned.

I suppose you could argue that a.) LSD merely causes hallucinations, b.) that it is simply a changed brain state that is experienced. On the practical side however, people experience real healing and personal growth as a result.

I recommend Grof's 'LSD - Doorway to the Numinous' for anyone interested.

http://www.stanislavgrof.com

 

Doesn't even need to be a matter of superior intelligence as in intellectual ability but of superior intelligence as in having some useful information which can be had by hook or by crook, or by accident or revelation. World models or beliefs are software that provide the parameters and files that your thinking computer runs on. We are just as perplexed in the same way you describe by insane behavior as we are by the behavior of the brilliant eccentric. And in turn to be familiar with your own psychology gives you understanding of the punchlines and predictable conclusions engendered by certain prevailing attitudes of the human being. The thing that limits familiarity is not intelligence but a lack of interest or attraction, or as a more overtly energetic reflection, revulsion.

I see the same effect as regards the attitudes of some anti-theists toward the devout or vice versa, i.e. you people are living life in a crazy or deluded way. What are the metrics for that observation? How are you in any way superiorly situated in terms of life capital? To me it just reflects the inability of some people to relate to others on a sane or reasonable basis.

 

I haven't heard of grof but i have been pitching that the way to measure the phenomena of god is in men. The scientific study of psychedelics has been retarded by the determination that they are not therapeutically useful. We could make the same retarded error concerning god.

 

Yes, you were the one who mentioned the cellular level. Both you and the article are stating that it isn't until there's an observer that it is shown what form the final result will be.

 

It appears that with new research taking place into psychedelics the therapeutic value is becoming more recognized.

 

My argument is that if the result is dependant upon the observer, then certainly the observer's consciousness would be able to influence the result in some way. This is why when you insult a plant and put it in the same conditions as another plant that you say loving things to, the results are radically different. That's a perfect example of the observer influencing the outcome.

 

Breath of fresh air. I'm referring to the fact that lsd among other substances are classified by the DEA as having no therapeutic value and therefore research has previously been scarce. It's the same argument about god. Why wouldn't you investigate god, because it is determined to have no therapeutic value or relevance to the way the world works.

 

The way is through the quality of your observations. There are no results only your current regard. You see things as they appear to you because things are there for you to interpret. You do not create what you see but you make an image of what is there.

Pray tell what might a plant consider insulting? Is this an experiment that you have preformed yourself? I would point out by the way that someone adding insult to the experiment is not an observer.

 

he is thinking of the uncertainty principle and in that respect he is partially correct, we can not know both the position and velocity of a particle and the act of observation "locks" it into one state or another.

remember, the maybe dead cat in a box thing, but china is taking it to the extreme extrapolation of the phenomena, but his ideas are certainly not new or foreign.

and how the hell did this become yet another thread about chinacat and magick?????????

 

You're right, it's the observer plus intention. There's already a certain intention so to speak just from observation itself. This is why people can sense when someone is looking at them from behind. But if you add in conscious intention such as insult or love, then you're moving in the direction of Magick.

 

Because people are so damn stubborn on this forum to my ideas. At least you were able to acknowledge that my ideas aren't that far-fetched. If the observer is what locks it into one state or another, then certainly the intention of the observer has its own part to play as well. Why not go a step further and start studying that? This is why Colin Wilson refers to Consciousness as the Philosopher's Stone. I will depart again from this forum again soon. I like to swoop in and out.

 

Now I get to reiterate my rap about calibrating the scientist. Because we are raised in a cultural setting our image making machinery has been attuned to those prevailing attitudes. Biases inherited through childhood education. The photon automatically goes right or left in this sense regardless any conscious consideration. So a scientist in terms of a wise man would have a personal obligation to reflect on his own shit. A technician can appear to leave his troubles at home but if he has any discord with his environment, his results are better analyzed by someone who is more liberal with their attention..

It is unraveling these biases engendered through childhood education that is suggested by the statement unless you become as little children, born anew, you cannot achieve a brilliant state of perception. Your measuring device has been corrupted by a kind of rust or the assault of time. For one there is the criminal record, that list of offenses that you feel had been perpetrated on you over time that have influenced in a negative way what you think is right. We don't know how to be objective under this influence.

 

Whether or not science should address your particular irritation is another matter.