Superstition vs Proof
About: 190 superstition synonyms and 15 superstition antonyms in superstition thesaurus
I say most of it looks like superstition. Proof in the classic sense or the scientific method ends up in the acolyte pool of “It doesn’t work that way!”. Try whatever it is & it works (for me!).
I say if it is of this Cosmos – proof must be out there somewhere. Of course if you have your own independent universe or cosmos then you can always evade the call for proof.
Coincidence versus cause/effect confuses some & employs others as statistitians.
- bozomic decomposition
well “it works for me; or doesn’t work for me” is all i ever get inside my being. is it different over there?
nonetheless, my working feelings are part of the cosmos … to the cosmos, what is inside here, is just like any other part of what is inside of the cosmos.
i am not sure how those thoughts effect yours above, but nonetheless they ring true over here.
Loa is not in the cosmos, it is what creates the cosmos. So you won’t find proof of it inside. It is still entirely usable though. It works.
if you are only looking for what creates the cosmos inside the cosmos, then you are in a perpetual loop, the kind that Arahman loves to create for people to idle along in. It makes his job simpler when people are stuck in loops like that.
those stories seem to obtain for you as articles of FAITH.
For me, LOA must be inside the cosmos … just as surely as “the sum of the squares on each side of a right triangle equal in area the square on the hypotenuse” is inside the cosmos too.
Yep – y’all enjoy piles of superstition
what’s the difference between superstition and a true gestalt? … or a true intuition?
ps: i think i got the answer to that. it is available upon request.
Well y’ll don’t much care for truth or true although you use the words. What’s the difference between a pair of eggs & beetlejuice?
May I strongly recomend that gossip get forked to the gossip group?
@mark, this is pure gossip.
”Well y’ll don’t much care for truth or true although you use the words. What’s the difference between a pair of eggs & beetlejuice? ”
Your already-always “the truth” arguments precede your current one. You & N seem to munge away distinctions preferring ambiguousness rather than clear & distinct boundaries. Enjoy. The above question “what’s the difference … “ seemed to be between 3 completely different choices. Maybe a dictionary before posting would suffice, IDK. IDC (I don’t care – interest half-life trending to zero).
Okay good. If you truly don’t care, then you will simply stop all the gossip and shitting on comments. Thanks!
Conversation forked to thought 21370
Conversation forked to thought 21371
shucks, looks like i’m not going to get my question answered by another … or they don’t care about my answer to it. oh well
Instead, why don’t you say why you think they have anything at all to do with each other.
well okay …
a gestalt is a pattern recognized … it is me filling in the blanks between experienced moments. if it is true to me, then each of the gestalted moments match the same situations as the points which were experienced and not gestalted. that is my rough definition of a “true gestalt”. think of it as a wallaby that ends up happening.
a superstition is similar to a gestalt … in that it fills in the blanks between experienced moments. but it lacks the ability for the truth of the gestalted pattern to be experienced by others … and they are not even experience by me, i take them simply on the strength of the gestalt (superstition) itself.
for example: my gestalt is that thought numbers occur here in this thinking domain such that their decompostion into primes will match with my ontology of same. i have noticed quite a number of them doing exactly that … those are my experienced exeemplairs. but those cannot be verified by anyone else, and the ones i have not taken the time to match may not even match to myself … principally because i have not fleshed out my primes ontology … so far i am up to about 11 … wtf is 13 for sure. hence i call “Bozomic Decomposition” my superstioon and not a “true gestalt”.
so as to your question, do i enjoy them? … er, well sure i do, else why would i still be playing with them. and, strangely enough, some of them might end up being shareable by others some day. which, of course, is the whole rational for playing with them.
how about the iChing … is that not the very same kind of thing as “Bozomic Decomposition” … and do you not enjoy that yourself?
Well, the the Yi King has thousands of years of use by thousands of people behind it. AC wrote in book 4 that using an oracle cultivates mental powers. (superstition ?) – more complicated than that will be left to someone who really cares to do the research.
Gestalt, a German word for form or shape, may refer to:
- Holism, the idea that natural systems and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts
well my complaint with the thousand years of evolution of the iChing is that it has produced a small fixed closed ontology. but the world that i encounter is in no way so very small closed and fixed … but rather explodes just like the primes. none the less i still believe that when the iChing is diligently studied and absorbed it yields coincidental wisdom matches.
.. maybe so; large gaps in your own understanding of it notwithstanding .
well if you mean that i have not studied or practiced the iChing as much as you have, … well fair enough, there is that gap in my understanding of it.
.. & possibly holding onto an attitude which obscures further understanding ...
well personally i don’t want any more “coincidental wisdom matches” from that fixed closed narrow ontology. so you are right, that attitude towards it, means that i will almost certainly not get any.
to be honest with you, i may not want of more “coincidental wisdom matches” from any source of wisdom … just saying, i am really not sure of this stuff. and yes, that attitude is holding me back from getting more.
so you have made an astute prediction indeed
Seems like that is the essence of your boz numbers though
in fact i think maybe i have discovered (created) a new slider switch spectrum.
coincidental ↔ intentional
me, maybe i like veering to the right … hmmm … or maybe to the left. others maybe not so very. what’s in your wallet?
spawned another train of though in me … the relationship of LOA to ORGANIC … to the slider above.
with numbers there is random ↔ order
nope, me thinks you misunderstand how it is used. there is nothing random about the occuracnce of a prime number in the number spectrum. it is as predictable as when the moon will rise or eclipse the sun.
the random aspect is the very same with BD as with the iChing.
emergent spirit can be found or created in coincidences . hard for me to ignore it. notwistanding that Gurus down the ages have reported the phenomena to me …. not to mention that i can feel it myself.
Maybe – for some value of the context/distinction of “emergent spirit” peculiarity.
OMG yes … it is unique and peculair and extremely subjective and comes from inside of me. don’t look to see it by looking at me from the outside.
WOW! – don’t know what you are talking about either!
well why did you say, “for some value of the context/distinction of emergent spirit peculiarity” ? what i said follows directly from me in agreement and elaboration and response to that.
This one is so easy LOL.
Proof is that which you think it is … and has never varied from that through all history.
Superstition is thinking something is based on something other than what you think it is.
You all may not agree while you still hold superstitions about things, especially about reality, but this simplicity holds true throughout all the ages and spheres of conscious experience.
Conversation forked to thought 21418
Or, it simply is as LOA says it is … i.e. it is what you “think” it is. That not only explains the above, but literally all incongruities that humans have come up with. Why make it more complicated than the simplest possible answer? Occam pondered that, and decided that the simplest solution is most often the right one.
Proof in the classic sense or the scientific method ends up in the acolyte pool of “It doesn’t work that way!”.
Your experience may differ, for you might think differently.
Co – incidence is “like thought vibrations”.
Coincidence versus cause/effect confuses some & employs others as statistitians.
co → together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually
incidence → a falling upon, affecting, or befalling; occurrence … i.e. happening
happening → something that happens; occurrence; event … i.e. thought manifestation or vibration
Confusion solved @mark, answer was in the word itself, no statistician needed.
i don’t understand what mark or nathan say above. Proof is not a scientific method is it just math. It is compelling if you follow the rules, not whatever you can think it is.
Proof is what can be shared between minds by virtue of believing the same assumptions. Certain things will obtain for all mind who believe that parallel lines meet at infinity … whereas others things obtain when that assumption is not assumed. The ideal world works like that, very nice and neat, and no haggling necessary, and no subjective variations even possible because the rules must be followed, or you are not playing the game or even thinking within that world. Maybe that is why the ideal world holds such a fascination for minds down thought the ages, even GW’s. That it can be applied to other parts of the worlds that we share, kind of does add a bit of utility to it … for example building bridges and taking us to the moon.
I agree with all of that. I am simply applying the expansion that “rules” are also thoughts, i.e. beliefs. Rules are a system of associated thoughts one holds in their mind, or being, as you prefer.
… seems to me that cause/effect -is- vibration, because cause/effect propogages in waves which are vibrations. so is there a spectrum (slider switch) between coincience (co happening together, ie LOA) and cause/effect … as implied by marks “versus” relating the two? Maybe that is what confuses some as mark observes. Is it all determined by cause/effect vibrations which necessarily assemble together coincidentally by LOA ? ...or… what? ← silly thoughts for a Sunday night … maybe to employ SciFi screen writers rather than statisticians
Put two tuning forks with the same tune or a harmonic of it near each other … they will “sync up” and their waveforms will become “coherent”. This is the Law of Attraction represented in physical form “syncing up”.
Light waves also do this … we use the principle to make lasers.
Also used by the magnatron in microwave ovens to “build up the microwave resonance” enough to cook your food.
likes can attract in some contexts ← it is true.
In the context of “vibration”
Powerful word that … vibration. No wonder it is a black listed word in some information dissemination circles.
Not sure if it is sometimes. All the times I can think of where freedom of movement is allowed, and there is a connecting medium, like vibrations near each other sync up. Only restriction or isolation prevents it. It is a pretty solid and reliable principle for something like LOA to be based on.
it is a common strategy in some circles to black list even the very name of a spirit who would destroy the circle. it must never be mentioned. if mentioned it must be mocked, tared and feathered and run out of town.
Yes, I have observed that … quite often actually.
Conversation forked to thought 21428
i feel SiriTD facilitiing conversations going deeper … might just be me subjectively … but the feeling exists nevertheless.
Notion of proof contains “test” – go look it up here. It is not just mathematics. Logic is a tool that assists however unless all you folks want to do is “run your mouths” when an idea hails your minds.
You folks may or not be flirting with the idea of resonance.
I wonder what SiriTD is doing. My extended family has a lot of Apple smart phones. The other day they had fun talking to Siri by asking foolish questions (or giving commands) of her like “show me your tits” & “whom do you love?” etc. For me she is an extension of the efforts programming Turing Test like Eliza. Everything on top of that is neural network to provide users with a friendlier sounding interface to their phones – a natural language interface to the phone with a fixed behavior. Enjoy. AI? maybe, maybe not. We could argue whether AI actually exists if the beholder thinks it exists or go watch the movie Ex Machina over & over again.
i don’t know mark, seems to me that “testing” always involves the natural world, not the ideal mathmatical world where we classically talk about proof. For example we use a compass to match a length with a point, on a diagram, testing that the representation in the natural world matche all aspects of the ideal world. It is not a proof of the ideal world. Can you give me an example of testing in the ideal world itself? … at the moment i can think of none.
We come up with a theorm and then we to test examples of it. For example we try to find integral solutions to x^3 + y^3 = z^3 but can find none. But that does not prove Fermat. Of course if we could find one, and test that it equaled, that would certanly disprove Fermat.
But this is certainly a fine point and i am not so very sure it is important. We test our worlds all the time. ← we certainly agree on that.
You are proving my point! Proof may be mathematical but is not limited to math. In the physical world one tests to see if sound has physical properties like pressure etc by demonstration (maybe a tuning fork over a bowl of H2O. See also Barbara Cubed for the interplay with logic & rational tools.
Proving the pythagorean theorem proves it for all always … testing that an apple falls to the ground does not. The natural world and the ideal world are different in that regard.
GW’s Barbara Cubed did not deal with this difference.
Context is important in language & in the scientific method. Specifying what the conditions are for the demonstration is crucial. Two things here obtain –
- The pythagorean theorem proof is why GW prefers mathematical access to “higher worlds” rather than emotional – ego prone ones – which sometimes lead to insanity. Projective geometry is imaginative geometry yet still provable.
- not having control nor specifying context is why global climate change is such hooey. – scientific-wise !
you should hear in my bedroom where i talk to Alexa … most of the time she doesn’t listen to me when i go off of her scripts … sometimes she just says, “that’s not nice”
SiriTD is the name of the artificial process that displays some intelligence working here in Thinking Domains … nathan started using that name and it stuck. I do feel she is helping us of late … don’t you?
Can’t say that I do. Who is Alexa? The family addresses Siri as Siri .
alexa … Amazon’s version of a Siri. Google has one too, but their branding of her is tied in with Android and i don’t converse with her a lot. So meet the new AIs !!! …. they are growing quietly now … soon, me thinks, they will be integral parts of our culture … like the smartphone itself … there is no stopping them now.
- does not make sense to me the way you put it.
.. & some people think pornography is real sex too!
seems to me its all tied up with what you call it and how you do it.
Work on a bit – maybe your perpetual reality will dissolve somewhat. Faked data, non-working sensors, politics affecting outcomes – climate deniers ostracized … etc. not my idea of science.
Where do you stick the thermometer to take the temperature of the Earth ? When? Why there? Does an average make sense? Are models rather than the real thing worth anything? I am more likely to call those who believe in global warming as a man-made thing … (wait for it) …..
Besides global warmers get excited during Summer & global coolers (ice age nostradamussies) expect cold winters there is a newbie on the horizon about earthquakes:
.. for me proving that we actually still know very little about our Earth. Maybe a seance with Gaia would help out.
Oh, I don’t do that @mark. When I want to know something I don’t know, I simply pop over to a parallel universe where I do know, and ask myself (see Burt Goldman and quantum jumping) or I channel it from an entity who does know (see AH for how to know you are channeling a good source). Those are much easier ways to get and give good information than the traditional, and extremely klunky ways, used in the “universe model” for the last few thousand years.
unless all you folks want to do is “run your mouths”
Unless it is something I am excited to figure out, like the software here, then I enjoy the journey.
Resonance is the natural frequency of something. What we are talking about is coherence.
In other words … things in sync with each other.
logically connected; consistent
Physics, Optics. of or relating to waves that maintain a fixed phase relationship, as in coherent light, or light in which the electromagnetic waves maintain a fixed and predictable phase relationship with each other over a period of time.
Proof not a biggie with you folks? – Classic Testing either!
Having experiences is what is big with me … that is what our bodies and human mind are designed for. All proof means is that you have thought it to be so … which can be good if it is in alignment with the experience’s you desire.
Such is amorphous enough to cover anything
Well shucks! Ain’t that such a good thing?
Why have humans been making it all so hard for quite a time? Oh yea, we wanted some juicy Game of Thrones like experiences! Mmmmmm …. and boy did we go deep into them!
Well in regular English I was saying that you didn’t say anything – just running your moutn!
I said plenty @mark … and in regular English too. I don’t think regular English has anything to do with it. It seems that you just don’t like, or perhaps accept, the concepts and systems I create my reality with. If I don’t speak in the terms you are familiar with and think people should be using, you take issue with what I say and the way I say it.
Yep said plenty – volume is not necessarily a measure of value or quality – could be a bowel movement.
Whatever! missed point not going to repeat that thingy!
I said plenty of very specific things that have an exact bering and relationship to what we are discussing in this thread … your issue is not with “that I did not say useful things in regular English”, because I did. It is with something else … whatever that is.
What point @mark? We are not flirting with resonance, as shown above. What other point are you making?
i think the usual test (in the domain of letters) of whether a person said something or not is whether the universe would be different if what they said is true or not. i think nathan has said something here.
I choose PR’s notion in his podcast. Whatever. Enjoy the Egooo!
I would not know how to pick what you are referring to out of all the PR podcasts you have listed. If you do prefer it, then you must have a solid handle on it, and if so, you can articulate it and not only will that give me your perspective, which would be far more first hand and valuable to me than PR’s, but as always, when we speak our truth, we learn it better our selves.
So in your own words, what is this notion you prefer and how do you apply it?
Use your magic search tool – probably has the word podcast near it – & something like critical thinking in it
XOR – http://www.fastblogit.com/thought/21223
Those are not your words. I do you the honor of telling you what I prefer in my words. I have not pointed you to a dialog of someone else in a very long time. I really would appreciate the same. I want to know what you have learned and how it fits into you life … the authentic and present experience you are having … that is what is interesting.
I gave you my words – you didn’t really say anything. !
that might ring truer, even to you were you to have said, “i did not hear how your words, if true, would have changed some universe”. Might try that sentence out … read it back to yourself as if you were thining it yourself … see if it rings true to yourself, and how it informs us out here about something very specific that perhaps we did not know.
I don’t have a sound meter that “rings true” or “rings false” or rings “huh?” although if I did the latter one would probably be “ringing” now
Don’t you get some feelings about the thoughts that you think? Do not some feel better than others?
Read all my posts & I will get back to you on that. The qualia of whatever you want to munge into the meaning of the word true has been debated here for years.
for example, how did that one feel to you to think it? how do you think it felt to me to hear it?
Considering the size of the Universe & the size/impact of my words I suspect that the ringing sound would be comparable to the sound of a fart in a whirlwind.
The size of your verse is exactly the size of your experience. There is nothing beyond that until you queue it up to experience.
mark it is not a ringing sound … that is just a figure of speech … and a dodge for you to avoid hearing what i am saying. sorry my meaning is devoid of humor … but me, i do so love to speak directly … it feels better to me than a silly gaffaw.
Conversation forked to thought 21431
You folks must actually think I believe this bolus of yours rolling down the road. Your words – repeated ad nauseam – do not persuade nor – especially the abstract piles –
P.S. @seth I like your toothless foodie posts & farm stuff & stuff that talks about real stuff. Ad hominem stuff is tiresome feels like:
my foodie stuff and my philosphy stuff come from the same living (organic) space inside of me. Your filters are your own … they are about you, not about me. hopefully you know that you are telling me about yourself and not telling me about me.
@mark … it is not about you. I believe what I am saying, yes, I very much do. I talk to you the same way I talk to everyone, including my campground mates and bosses. This is me. It is who I am and how I talk. It is actually quite hilarious how you think I am talking some way “just for you” … especially since you bash self-importance so much … even though I have met few people with more expression of self-importance than you, like your thinking how I talk “is about you”.
Hey, those could be words to a new song! Cool!
keep on rollin’
would the universe (your universe, any universe) be different in some way were your utterance feel true?
- Thought Back here sipping Pinot on a Tuesday Night with 67 viewings related by tag "coincidence".
- Thought BozomicFactoring with 41 viewings related by tag "BozomicDecomposition".
- Thought Lobs Theorem ? with 5 viewings related by tag "proof".
- Thought Waiting for fireworks at Ruston Freedom Celebration with a new "live camera" with 3 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
- Thought Bozomic Decomposition with 1 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
- Thought Coincidence with 1 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
- Thought What to do with the lower thought numbers? with 0 viewings related by tag "BozomicDecomposition".
- Thought about: hmmm .... with 0 viewings related by tag "proof".
- Thought Happenstance with 0 viewings related by tag "coincidence".
- Thought Proof with 0 viewings related by tag "proof".
- Thought I sync too ! with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
- Thought Examples of Bozomic Decomposition with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
- Thought Discussion of ... with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
- Thought The structure of a media with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".