The Great Philosophical Discussion Returns

{TITLE WAS EDITED BY ADMIN}

The Return of the Greatest of all Philosophical battles is back.


Mr.Writer:


Science

Reason

Logic



ChinaCatSunflower02:


Magic(k)

Intuition

Illogical Truths



It's back baby!!!! ChinaCat is back. Now where is Writer these days??

 

He probably has a life

 

To kick things off...I believe that Writer told me that if I could Scientifically prove that Magick was real that he promised me his possessions and this and that. Not sure if I will be able to dig up that old post but I know for a fact that he doubted that I could do it to such an extent that he guaranteed me anything of his that he owned.

Well, what if I said that I do have some pretty interesting Scientific evidence? I won't demand any of Writer's possessions, but I haven't forgotten about our past debates regarding that stuff.

 

Share it! Regardless of mr. Writers attendance. To be fair: haven't seen a post of him in months

 

17,000 Rolls of a non-biased Vegas singular die.

Hypothesis:

Mental Intention can subtly affect the Quantum field of Probability and can have an influence over a chosen number to make it appear more than the rest. Basically a Macro version of the Double Slit Experiment and attempt to disprove the No-Communication Theorem. Ritual, intoxication, and other means and tools are encouraged but not required.

Test: 100 rolls at a time, and the tests are split into 1000 roll tests. So one test can last up to 10 days before re-evaluating, counting, calculating, etc.

In the world of Statistics with dice, the thing you're really looking for is to surpass 2 Standard Deviations. The average number of rolls per 100 for any given number is around 17. The average number of rolls for any given number out of 1000 is around 177. If you get 191 or more, you surpassed 2 Standard Deviations, which is statistically significant in surpassing the average.

Chosen Number: 2

At 17,000 rolls, the current standings are:

2: 3 1000 roll Tests of surpassing 2 Standard Deviations

4: 2 1000 roll Tests of surpassing 2 Standard Deviations

1: 1 1000 roll Test of surpassing 2 Standard Deviations

Every other number: 0 Tests of surpassing 2 Standard Deviations


Also worth mentioning is that the average per 100 rolls is 17 rolls for any given side. I have been able to get my chosen number to 30/100 once, and the number 1 has the record at 34/100. I've also gotten 25/100, 27/100, etc. a little more often than I think would be normal. There's other little things that I could mention but I'll stick with the main beef, which is the 2 Standard Deviations.

 

LOL

not this again..

I pm'd him a few months ago and he responded days later.
He is doing good and living his life with little time or concern for this type of stuff or Hip Forums
Doubt he will want to get back into this "debate" ChinaCat, maybe you should consider moving on in your life as well.

pics, preferably video or it didn't happen.....

 

to make it really interesting, use some D&D 20 siders

 

?

 

Second, I assume you are conducting your own experiment...above?
You need to write it up with more exact data.
For instance, what kind and how many die are you using?
How are the dice being rolled by hand or some sort of mechanical release? Is the release a randomly timed event or not? Do you have a control if you are rolling the dice?

6 sided non-biased singular die. So not two dice but just one.

I roll them myself. I take as long as I need to, sometimes calling "time-out" to better prepare myself for the next roll. Since you're not supposed to be able to have any technique towards non-biased dice, this shouldn't matter at all. It's the Magickal approach to the Science, however.

I haven't tested with other people or mechanical releases. To me, it's crucial that the one putting in the Mental Intention is the one doing the rolls.

Are the probabilities of certain random numbers appearing on the dice taken into consideration?
Dice Roll Probability
The chance of rolling a total of 2 is 2.78 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 3 is 5.56 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 4 is 8.33 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 5 is 11.11 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 6 is 13.89 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 7 is 16.67 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 8 is 13.89 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 9 is 11.11 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 10 is 8.33 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 11 is 5.56 percent
The chance of rolling a total of 12 is 2.78 percent

Where did you get these stats? Is this regarding non-biased dice?


Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice: A Meta-Analysis
You're conducting an interesting experiment, but we need more date.

I came across that study after I started doing mine in January of 2017. I love Dean Radin's work and see that he's already beaten me to this around the time I was 2 years old, but I hope to expand on it more thoroughly. He's currently got even more very interesting studies regarding the Double Slit Experiment in regards to Mental Intention. I think he is a way underrated Scientist. I have actually been emailing him a bit this year. Looking forward to his new book coming out that is supposed to be about Science and Magic(k).

 

I should start doing a video version of it. I haven't done it. But I am not bullshitting you. I have been working on this all year since January.

Whether he has time for this debate or not, I didn't forget about his challenge to Scientifically quantify this sort of stuff.

 

I have some and have messed with them a little, but they aren't non-biased Vegas dice, so I don't trust the test.

 

I thought everything was magic when you're on LSD...

 

Seriously though---there are the experiments done at MIT, and well documented in the Book about the experiments---Conscious Acts of Creation----I think that's the title----I will verify it later and give the authors and ISBN----or you can look at it on Amazon. These experiments more than amply demonstrate in my opinion that the mind can alter physical reality.

 

I should also add that while 4 struck first with the early lead of surpassing 2 Standard Deviations in either the first or second 1000 roll test (197/1000), 2 quickly tied it up the very next test, and then took the lead, and has sustained it ever since. So the majority of the entire experiment, 2 has had and has sustained the lead all the way to where I am at now.

 

I vote this thread Oh my god who cares to both pundits

 

But why? What's not fascinating about the notion that your Mental Intention could play a role in Quantum phenomena, which you could also bring into the Macrocosmic phenomena? This would Scientifically validate Magick, and along with that, it would disprove the No-Communication Theorem, and would show that there is indeed a link between the world of Quantum Mechanics and "Newtonian" Mechanical Physics (Newton was actually a hardcore Alchemist and Theologian). That would indeed be very Scientifically groundbreaking and crucial.

(As a side note, it would also really add much aid to the Von Neumann interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

What's even more interesting is that my state of being seems to have a direct correlation. While this part is much harder to quantify, I have absolutely noticed that whether I'm feeling crappy or feeling "on" that there really seems to be a correlating decrease or increase in my "skill" of throwing a 2. Sometimes, when I really get in the zone, I go through window moments where it almost feels automatic. The more I act like there is indeed a skill to it, sometimes I will get really confident and throw like five 2's in a row, or go into one of those 28/100 tangents. This goes back to how the Alchemists separated themselves from the Chemists when they were both starting to branch off from each other. The Alchemists adhered to the notion that their state of being played a direct role in the chemical operations, unlike the Chemists. The Alchemist was an active participant while the Chemist was just a passive observer. It also plays into the Chaos Magick ideas of using "Belief as a Tool" (Something I refer to as an 'Intentional Placebo') via an altered state of Consciousness in order to achieve a desired result.

I treat it like skipping stones or shooting a basketball into a hoop. It just requires a little imagination and creativity to get in that mode. This is where the intoxication can help, as it can help blur down the Psychic Sensor and allow me to treat each roll as a fresh roll. But lately, I've even been able to get "on" without being intoxicated. It just takes some practice to get your skeptical mind out of the way.

 

Yeah...so it almost seems like the Dark Overlords of the Planet already understand this and therefore "attempt" to "control" the World. (Drunken afterthought)

 

I pointed out in a debate some time ago in which China Cat Sunflower was also present (and Mr. Writer) that the problem with the Double Slit Experiment is decoherence---most simply, that interaction of one wave with another such that both positions are determined, and a probability wave collapse occurs. The problem is that in order to physically percieve what is passing through the slits, whether wave or particle, it has to manifest as a particle at some point. (This is part of the reason why I assert, in Archephenomenalism, that the wave is nonphysical and the particle is physical.)

The Materialist or Naturalist argument follows that the mechanics of the observation, for example, the wave being hit by an electron beam, causes the collapse. But the problem is that decoherence always ocurrs anyway--for example, when the wave hits the screen at the end of the channels, there is decoherence with the waves representing the atoms of the screen, in which positions are defined and the atom and the particles of the beam are manifested. This is true whether we get a reflection of the two slits or an interference pattern (i.e. whether it is indicating a wave or particles). On top of that, the Wheeler Delayed Observation version of the experiment demonstrates that it does not matter when the observation takes place to determine that particles are observed, therefore the decoherence of the screen should be just as significant as any other decoherent event or observation in determining that a particle passed through the slits or a wave did. In fact, decoherence can happen anywhere in the experiment since it is not necessarily done in a vacuum type environment, even particles within the air could cause decoherence. Therefore it has never really been a problem of whether there is a particle or a wave, because it is always a particle at some point. The problem is what kind of phenomena is being generated---the phenomena of the wave or of the particle. This means that the physical mechanics of the observation has no bearing on which phenomena is produced, because the same mechanics affect the wave/particle regardless of whether an observation takes place or not.

This means that there is an 'intention' as to which phenomena is produced--an intention that is encoded within the Quantum Information of each individual quanta, and this intention is connected to the observer rather than the observation. But even if one tried to argue that it is intention tied to the action of the observation, it still has to differentiate between the 'meaning' for the decoherence (e.g. whether it was decoherence of trying to identify an individual particle passing through the slits, or simply an unobserved wave hitting the screen. Again, both represent the same decoherence, it is the observer that places the meaning in or reason for the decoherent event.

Then there is my argument on Quantum Mechanics, specifically the implications of quantum randomness within the wave/field, providing a proof for essentialism-----in other words that there is a nonphysical order to the universe, and that quantum information is a part of that. (You can see my thread in the philosophy section on the Quantum Mechanical argument for Essentialism.