BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Quantum Physics and Magical Theory

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Unconditional Love
14:45 / 18.04.06
This link may well intrest some people>

Hacking matter

The Flick of a switch: A wall becomes a window becomes a hologram generator. Any chair becomes a hypercomputer, any rooftop a power or waste treatment plant.

Programmable matter is probably not the next technological revolution, nor even perhaps the one after that. But it's coming, and when it does, it will change our lives as much as any invention ever has. Imagine being able to program matter itself--to change it, with the click of a cursor, from hard to soft, from paper to stone, from fluorescent to super-reflective to invisible. Supported by companies ranging from Levi Strauss to IBM and the Defense Department, solid-state physicists in laboratories at MIT, Harvard, Sun Microsystems, and elsewhere are currently creating arrays of microscopic devices called "quantum dots" that are capable of acting like programmable atoms. They can be configured electronically to replicate the properties of any known atom and then can be changed, as fast as an electrical signal can travel, to have the properties of a different atom. Soon it will be possible not only to engineer into solid matter such unnatural properties as variable magnetism, programmable flavors, or exotic chemical bonds, but also to change these properties at will.

Wil McCarthy visits the laboratories and talks with the researchers who are developing this extraordinary technology; describes how they are learning to control its electronic, optical, thermal, magnetic, and mechanical properties; and tells us where all this will lead. The possibilities are truly magical.
 
 
Quantum
18:49 / 18.04.06
Smart matter, yay! At last!

it would be false to claim that magick affects the world on a quantum level or that quantum physics is magical.

I can see where you're coming from, but to be a bit pedantic magick does affect the world on a quantum level, inasmuch as it affects the world generally, including the very small parts like photons.
But I agree, QM isn't the explanation for magic, and it's not a mystical discipline, or the final synthesis of magic and science. It might be a step on the ladder to that synthesis though.

s3r3bus- I haven't heard of that guy, will have a look. Books? hmm, anything introductory on quantum physics is probably best (Feynmann is particularly good), or Heisinger's Physics and Philosophy, I find stuff from the philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Feyeraband) pretty relevant, and as mentioned RAW is into it, as is Hyatt and quite a few chaos magicians generally.
 
 
Quantum
18:53 / 18.04.06
"Programmable matter is probably not the next technological revolution, nor even perhaps the one after that." (from the link)
Dammit.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
22:22 / 18.04.06
I can see where you're coming from, but to be a bit pedantic magick does affect the world on a quantum level, inasmuch as it affects the world generally, including the very small parts like photons.
But I agree, QM isn't the explanation for magic, and it's not a mystical discipline, or the final synthesis of magic and science. It might be a step on the ladder to that synthesis though.

In some sense, maybe, but even that is too close a connection for my taste. It's a leap of logic that I think makes a few questionable assumptions such as that there can be a synthesis between science and magic or that magic is not already a science.

Essentially, as you sorta point out, if you affect the world at any level then you will affect it at the quantum level because "quantum" essentially mean fundamental. If you make a casserole, you are affecting the world on the quantum level, but if you read a description of all the quantum events, or simply the chemical reactions involved in the process, it would tell you absolutely nothing about what's going on because the purpose of making a casserole is not to affect the universe on the quantum level.

I think I pointed out on another thread (or was it this thread) that Frank Tipler in PHYSICS OF IMMORTALITY writes that unless it's all nonsense, theology will eventually have to become a branch of science. However, I think he's confusing the purpose of either discipline. Essentially, he's claiming if angels, gods and demons have an independent material existence of any kind then science will eventually find it, and if not, then they aren't real.

However, I believe that "imaginary" items, such as ideas, are real even if immaterial. In this artificial world we live if you look in any direction you will see innumerable objects that began existence as an immaterial idea. I'd say we are as affected by the manifestation of imagination as by "natural" reality.

My point here is twofold: first, if the mystical or spiritual has an existence completely outside material reality, it is still real in a very perceptible sense.

Second, even if it has an independent material existence - that still does not mean that science will ever be able to find it. I liken it to being a Sim in SimCity. From the point of view of the inhabitants, there would be no experiment that could discern whether any event in the city was a "natural" occurance of the operating system of the software or an "artificial" occurance caused by the player. And, like a character in a film that tries to emerge whole into the waking world, there is no amount of scientific advancement on the part of the Sim that could perceive the workings of their programmers or players of the games.

Now, as Brian Green points out in THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS, if string theory is correct (the hypothetical unification of Quantum and Reletivistic physics) - then the world is filled with many more dimensions than we can perceive. That is similar to many magical and mystical ideas, but I think it is a basic error of reason to believe that these basically material dimensions are actually mystical realms or states of being. That there is a heaven, hell or kabbalistic pathway in the universe and that you are actually travelling and touching the world through those specific paths.

On top of all this is the basic error of assuming that there must be a synthesis between mystical cosmology and physical cosmology. Is anyone really proposing to bring quantum physics and anthropology together? Or is there a school pursuing the connection between string theory and etymology?

Magick can already be a science of spiritual practices and propose methods of categorizing and documenting their effects. As Alan Moore stated - if you look at religions as different languages, the Magick is like linguistics.

The point here is that metaphorically you can use fuzzy logic, quantum leaps and multiple dimensions in visualizing much of the concepts promoted in mystical thought, but there really isn't much evidence, or much to be gained I think, in pursuing the idea that they are the same.
 
 
E. Coli from the Milky Way
00:47 / 19.04.06
Hi, just surfing on the net founded this. It's from a dialog between mckenna and robert hunter from the grateful dead:

Your report of the high Tibetan character reminds me of an experience by my bright and believable friend Paul Mittig in 1968. It happened in a pueblo in New Mexico. He was looking for a shaman he'd heard about and found him in the corral of the pueblo. He tried to strike up a conversation, but the medicine man didn't have much to say. Paul, a DMT advocate in those days, happened to have some crystals with him. He avowed that you didn't even need to smoke it, just carrying the crystals on your person was enough to change reality. Paul said to the Indian: "I'll show you some of my magic if you'll show me some of yours." The braided grandfather agreed and Paul prepared a tiny pipe with mint leaves, sprinkled DMT on top, and lit it for him. The shaman smoked, then sat silent for a few minutes. Finally he said "Pretty good magic. Now I show you some of mine." A strong wind rose and hit Paul from the East side of the corral. Then a wind hit him from the West. Then one from the North followed by one from the South. Suddenly half a dozen white horses galloped into the corral, circling Paul and the Indian three times before running off through the open corral gate. "My magic good. Yours better," Paul said to the old magician.

Euhmmm ... now not sure if it fits well here, but, any thoughts? Do you know more "exemples" of magic practices interacting at this level with matter?
 
 
Sam T.
07:32 / 19.04.06
I liken it to being a Sim in SimCity. From the point of view of the inhabitants, there would be no experiment that could discern whether any event in the city was a "natural" occurance of the operating system of the software or an "artificial" occurance caused by the player. And, like a character in a film that tries to emerge whole into the waking world, there is no amount of scientific advancement on the part of the Sim that could perceive the workings of their programmers or players of the games.

Just imagine that those Sims have at their disposition the equivalent of Peek and Poke. This is not far out. They could then watch and manipulate the content of the program that are running them. And, by a single well placed manipulation, they could get 999,999,999$ in their bank account. Wouldn't it look like magic?

Anyway, I see what you are getting at. Sure, there are a lot of paradigm that could be used to 'do' magic, and they all work and give results accordingly. So in a way, QM isn't very different. Or is it? There is an huge difference, I think, because QM is experimental science. So you can design experiments and have some verified outcome.

Let's do bit of self pimping.

And if you need proof that it is indeed working, just look at my log for the past few week. I'm sure anyone can do the same with a bit of practice.
 
 
Quantum
10:02 / 19.04.06
It's a leap of logic that I think makes a few questionable assumptions such as that there can be a synthesis between science and magic or that magic is not already a science. henningjohnathan

How about scientific evidence for magic?
For example, the observer effect provides proof that witnessing an event directly affects the outcome, that our conscious minds (apparently acausally) are intimately connected to events we perceive and physical objects in the world beyond our body. That could be said to be a premise of magic, a magical or mystical belief, the interconnectedness of all things.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
14:27 / 19.04.06
Yes, I believe that magick is or at least can be already approached as a science, and I think that a lot of the methods on the cutting edge of science can be quickly applied to magickal practice and research, but just as Quantum Physics won't really help make a better casserole - the focus of the disciplines is so different - there is probably not a direct connection. I doubt that the Kabbalah is an actual object or landscape in the fourth dimension, for example, or that that Plato's ideal forms exist in a material dimension somewhere.

However, there may be something to be gained pursuing that possibility but I wouldn't found an order based on that concept. It might be proven very wrong.

Tempest - interesting links, I'll look further when I have more time. Thanks.
 
 
Digital Hermes
21:00 / 23.10.07
Just resurrecting this thread, mainly because I recently listened to an audio-book, The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, by Gary Zukav. It explains these theories extremely well, and compares eastern philosophy with it, but rarely says one proves or validates the other. He leaves that to the reader.

What it meant for me, in regards to magic, was that it opened the doorway of logical possibilty. Rather than simply having faith that sigils work, or tarot has some connection to a greater knowledge of timestream, you can take some of these theories, and (seeming to me) defensibly cycle them up into explanations for the eerie familarity of a card reading, or throwing of the I Ching.

More to type, soon.
 
 
EvskiG
15:36 / 24.10.07
Unfortunately, (as discussed a bit above) there's a tendency for some practitioners to use quantum physics as a fuzzy catch-all explanation for how magic works:

Telepathy? Quantum physics!

Sigils? Quantum physics!

Synchronicities? Quantum physics!

It's the modern equivalent of "vibrations in the ether."
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:15 / 24.10.07
The same goes for psychology as it does for quantum physics in many ways, what i wonder is an accurate application to magic in this context.

Authors put forward the scientific method while still retaining a magical/spiritual context, i think that may be the problem.

Surely the study of parapsychology covers this area more accurately rather than trying to lump together areas that have grown out of very different philosophy's.

Some ideas that have been applied to physics may well be rooted in ideas from Taoism and Buddhism but that does not make them the same thing.

When the context of a magical experiment is largely using irrational structures to achieve an effect how then do you apply a logical rational experimental method to an already heavily biased structure, rooted in spiritual philosophy and some degree of superstition. That seems like a flawed experiment to me from the out set.

Where as something like this Searching for God in the Brain does not so much seem inclined in that way as the results it seeks to collect are rooted in scientific context rather than Magical/spiritual judgements.

Rather than creating correspondence between disparate systems a form of internal validity is being created. Although there may be a real value to creating social correspondence between systems of thought, how logical does it become to then equate a real measured value between them?
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:17 / 24.10.07
Thelema seems to be pretty sloppy in this area, trying to create validity through the adoption of scientific method to acts that do not correspond in anyway to experimental structure or planning. Essentially it uses a misguided notion that experimental method can be applied out of an accurate context with inherently illogical content.
 
 
Quantum
10:57 / 25.10.07
Immortality? Quantum Physics!
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
13:08 / 26.10.07
It's the modern equivalent of "vibrations in the ether."

In Scientific American Magazine there was a semi decent article called An Echo of Black Holes by Theodore A. Jacobson and Renaud Parentani which states: -

"An ECHO of Black Holes

Sound waves in a fluid behave uncannily like light waves in space. Black holes even have acoustic counterparts. Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?

When Albert Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, he rejected the 19th-century idea that light arises from vibrations of a hypothetical medium, the "ether." Instead, he argued, light waves can travel in vacuo without being supported by any material--;unlike sound waves, which are vibrations of the medium in which they propagate. This feature of special relativity is untouched in the two other pillars of modern physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Right up to the present day, all experimental data, on scales ranging from subnuclear to galactic, are successfully explained by these three theories.

Nevertheless, physicists face a deep conceptual problem. As currently understood, general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible. Gravity, which general relativity attributes to the curvature of the spacetime continuum, stubbornly resists being incorporated into a quantum framework. Theorists have made only incremental progress toward understanding the highly curved structure of spacetime that quantum mechanics leads them to expect at extremely short distances. Frustrated, some have turned to an unexpected source for guidance: condensed-matter physics, the study of common substances such as crystals and fluids."
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
13:10 / 26.10.07
A downloadable copy of the article can be found here
 
 
Digital Hermes
20:38 / 30.10.07
That blurb seems really fascinating... I'll have to read the rest of it soon.

In relation to magic and quantum physics, I've found it validates magical perceptions and philosophies, more than somehow unlocks the capacity to throw a fireball.

I might be either off-base or just too skeptical, but the magic I've found in my studies has been more information-based, or perceptual-based, than some etheric manifestaion into the 'real' world. (A lot of contested lingo there, I admit.) The way to affect the world is by affecting how you perceive it, and what you do as you interact with it, in any form that that entails.

Back to the quantum. At it's core, quantum theory seems to imply that creation has at it's core an information base, and living beings are organic information processors. The interaction between higher and lower levels of information seems to be what magic, religion, and physics are all drifting towards.

(A bit rambly, but hopefully someone will take issue with some of this, and I can unwrap it in conversation.)
 
 
Quantum
08:32 / 31.10.07
At it's core, quantum theory seems to imply that creation has at it's core an information base, and living beings are organic information processors.

Care to come to the Lab with that? I don't think QT does imply that, or anything similar in fact, and I don't see how living beings are organic information processors- is a plankton or virus an information processor?
I'm familiar with the 'Information as fundamental reality' view, but it isn't terribly related to quantum theory AFAIK.
We can thrash it out here if you like, I'm game.
 
 
Digital Hermes
14:28 / 31.10.07
I'm at work as I'm posting, so I'm going to be a bit shy with reference at the moment, but I'll try to do better by the weekend.

I think the core element of my point relies on a very broad definition of information. Broadly speaking, trees are processing information, though not in anything similar to an animal-based brain. They react to light and soil quality, and actively pursue those things when they find them. The 'action at a distance' element that occurs with split particles, where one particle is affected and it's twin responds, despite there being any perceivable connection between them, is part of what hints, to me, of a very base-level information system between sub-atomic particles.

If the concept of information is taken at it's broadest, plankton or a virus are still processing it, because being alive involves a process of adaptation and change, though often at rates that seem like stillness to our perception of time.
 
 
EvskiG
15:16 / 31.10.07
I think the core element of my point relies on a very broad definition of information.

Yes.

Broadly speaking, trees are processing information . . . [t]hey react to light and soil quality, and actively pursue those things when they find them.

Instead of processing information, it seems more accurate to say that trees are processing sunlight (energy) and soil (a rich mix of purely material elements).

The 'action at a distance' element that occurs with split particles, where one particle is affected and it's twin responds, despite there being any perceivable connection between them, is part of what hints, to me, of a very base-level information system between sub-atomic particles.

You're discussing Bell's Theorem, and how particles can seem to react to each other instantly over a distance. The problem is that, at least as I understand it, it's never been clear that this has any necessary relation to events in the everyday macro world.

It's a big stretch to go from Bell's Theorem to the laws of sympathy or contagion, for example. (Quantum physics!)
 
 
Digital Hermes
16:48 / 31.10.07
Ev:
Broadly speaking, trees are processing information . . . [t]hey react to light and soil quality, and actively pursue those things when they find them.

Instead of processing information, it seems more accurate to say that trees are processing sunlight (energy) and soil (a rich mix of purely material elements).


I don't know if this statement disallows the idea of plants processing information. They are responding to stimuli, and though the rate of reaction is slow, and by our perceptions, simple, I'm not seeing how they are mutually exclusive. They do process the sunlight or feed from the soil, but when they are actively turning towards it, or reaching deeper into a particular area, that seems like a very basic stimuli/response. It might not be intelligent, as we define the term, but it is a reaction rather than a base law.

There is also the encoded information within a plant, or any organic form, to create more of itself, either through cell division or other reproductive forms.

What would be the upper and lower limits of 'information,' if the way I seem to be using it is too broad?

The 'action at a distance' element that occurs with split particles, where one particle is affected and it's twin responds, despite there being any perceivable connection between them, is part of what hints, to me, of a very base-level information system between sub-atomic particles.

You're discussing Bell's Theorem, and how particles can seem to react to each other instantly over a distance. The problem is that, at least as I understand it, it's never been clear that this has any necessary relation to events in the everyday macro world.

It's a big stretch to go from Bell's Theorem to the laws of sympathy or contagion, for example. (Quantum physics!)


It is a big stretch to go from quantum entanglement to a beleif in the power of voodoo dolls, and I should clarify that I'm not saying this scientific theory of entanglement somehow 'proves' that that sort of magic works. That said, as far as I've been able to see so far, possible explanations of that entanglement that are not 'magical' theories, do seem to leave a sliver of possibility that there is a connection to the subatomic and macro scales of information. That connection does not appear to be overtly applicable or capable of manipulation, but I haven't heard any theories that invalidate either the connection, or a more subtle interrelation between them.
 
 
Unconditional Love
20:10 / 31.10.07
My problem with this is that tribal shamans/sorcerers have been doing this stuff for ages without scientific clarification, not that science does not make a marked and more understandable difference.

But does not magick seem to have a set of existing theories that work if followed, does a scientific explanation actually improve the practicality or reality of a practice or working, or does it just satisfy those of a more scientific mind set to have explanations that fit into more suitable models for there favoured mindsets?

Maybe i just do not get it but, if a spirit model works and a sympathetic model works and has worked for centuries.... well if it ain't broke do not try and fix it.

Eastern energies models can work for those whom adopt them as well, so why all the deconstruction into western scientific methodology, is it an attempt to somehow make magic more valid.

I really do wonder about this fusion of magic and science, i know it can be pointed too in the works of many alchemists for example, but didn't science actually make the choice to distance itself from a lot of magical/spiritual thinking so it could actually stand apart from those kinds of thought processes, it seems to even sneer at parapsychology. But it does seem very happy to reduce all magical/spiritual thinking into its own terms and language.

I think i am quite happy to practice magic without any validation what so ever, i do not see it as a logical or rational art, i see it as a part of instinct something that has nothing to do with social scripts and fictions or education and more to do with the reptile part of the brain, very old better expressed through art forms.

Why this need to validate a perfectly good working form with science? (or religion for that matter, thou that would be more relevant for another thread)
 
 
EvskiG
13:28 / 01.11.07
I don't know if this statement disallows the idea of plants processing information. They are responding to stimuli, and though the rate of reaction is slow, and by our perceptions, simple, I'm not seeing how they are mutually exclusive. . . . What would be the upper and lower limits of 'information,' if the way I seem to be using it is too broad?

If someone punched me in the face you could describe my response to that stimulus (including purely physical and physiological responses such as falling down, swelling up, etc.) as processing information, too.

But I don't think that's the most useful or accurate way of describing the situation. And I don't see that it has any bearing on the quantum realm. There's no clear relationship between the "information" that I'd be processing in that situation and the "information" that one particle might transmit to another nonlocally as per Bell's Theorem.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
14:06 / 01.11.07
I guess that what I would like to hear is, are there anyone out there who has integrated aspects of quantum physics/mechanics into a set of practices in ways that go beyond just going: "Entanglement equals the laws of sympathetic magic nana-nana-na-na!"

What about the Carroll stuff on H6D? Has he or any of his associates done the nitty-gritties using his quantum theory? Come to think of it, has anyone from a conventional QM background had a look at his theories? I tend to assume, perhaps unfairly, that it's a load of crock.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:47 / 01.11.07
Why this need to validate a perfectly good working form with science?

Well, a point I've raised before is that magic is supposed to affect noticable changes in the world. So arguably, art or not, it should be something that can be measured (or at least statistically analysed).

I'm not saying that anyone should have to prove it works. It won't affect you if other people go on thinking magic isn't a real and useful tool. But, personally, I would be more likely to accept magic as a reality if it underwent a system of analysis which, while not perfect, has been proven as an effective way of seeing if things work or not.

(Edited to insert "not")
 
 
Quantum
16:30 / 01.11.07
So arguably, art or not, it should be something that can be measured

It's not a very useful system of measurement though, just as statistical analysis of art isn't very enlightening. The best way to measure magic (and Art arguably) is by it's effect on people.
If you mean the results of magic should be quantifiable, then yeah, but IME most magic is better judged qualitatively- which is a burgeoning technique in the social sciences, so hopefully any day now...
Anyway, back to Quantum theory & magic beyond entanglement.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
18:11 / 01.11.07
I'm saying that anyone should have to prove it works.

I suspect that you left out a very important "not" in this sentence.

re: trees processing information - the first thing I thought of when I read your post was using trees as a map of something hidden, for instance. looking down from above at the pattern of where trees are, what kind of trees there are, how big they are, etc. and you will be able to infer patterns about things you can't see - what kind of water and nutrients are available in the soil, what the long term climate is, and possibly information about the animal population. in a sense, they transform information from one form to another, whether or not they are sentient.

anyway, QM + magic: I often see in people - including myself - the tendency to hear "the observation of quanta causes changes in their states" and equate this to "changing your environment by Willing it to happen". which are very very different. even ignoring the scientific definition of "observation" - which is discussed earlier in this thread as not requiring sentience or life - observing the state of a thing is really not the same as willing it to change.

I believe the apparent similarities between QM and magical theory - or between QM and Taoism, or whatever - happen because they both question the same mundane deterministic view of the universe we all grow up to have. ideas like mutual exclusion and discrete categories are conveniently simple and useful for most human interactions, but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the real world, where something can be both good and evil, or both a particle and a wave.

I have some vague, ill-formed ideas about connections between "parallel worlds" and the moving consciousness of astral travel, but nothing I'd care to subject others to at this point.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
18:58 / 01.11.07
Eastern energies models can work for those whom adopt them as well, so why all the deconstruction into western scientific methodology, is it an attempt to somehow make magic more valid.

 
 
Unconditional Love
11:56 / 02.11.07
The above begs a question to me, while being funny, it makes me wonder at the why of explanation, the simple answer is curiosity, but i wonder is explanation actually pertinent to an act of magic or a wondrous act. Explanation is in a sense or could be seen as an act of limitation, any definition creates a limit and an understanding. which informs another limit.

It takes a characteristically irrational magical act and gives it a conscious limitation, in may ways removing the idea of a wondrous act or miracle which in may ways rely upon the notion of being boundless and unlimited, not contained by the various notions of physical laws.

The variety of premises seem really at odds with each other, i can see how they perhaps relate as reflection within a pluralistic value structure, but practically it would just seem to be an obstacle to an effective magical operation.
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:05 / 02.11.07
I suspect that you left out a very important "not" in this sentence.

Whoops! Yep, edit request going through.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:26 / 02.11.07
I am using a characteristic of awareness uncluttered by content as a pretext to a magical act, undifferentiated consciousness without self or other conception as that state of wonder but only in communication not in experience.

How then does explanation or understanding add to that state, it does not it just undoes the required state for particular magical acts, understanding and comprehension create differentiation in consciousness creating a reflected other in mind.
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:26 / 02.11.07
It takes a characteristically irrational magical act and gives it a conscious limitation, in may ways removing the idea of a wondrous act or miracle which in may ways rely upon the notion of being boundless and unlimited, not contained by the various notions of physical laws.

That's a curious thought. Do you feel that magic is (to channel Pop-Culture Scientist) like when Wile E. Coyote runs off a cliff and stays suspended until he looks down? That the physical laws which generally affect the world can be bent or broken by truely ignoring them? Intentionally collapsing the infinite possibilities of the waveform into one where the laws of physics are altered.

One theory (not widely embraced by we Evil Scientists) is that conciousness cause the collapse of the quantum waveform.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:33 / 02.11.07
This idea is very much reinforced by the notion that measurements made by consciousness either by sense, word or numera have essences that have some kind of value or worth structure.

If they become known as empty forms then where does comprehension explanation or understanding have a place? In my experience they get reinforced as structures through the act of social communication to the point where a trance is created through a network of association until one no longer recognises them as essentially empty vehicles, that only contain meaning within the relative vehicle of communication.
 
 
Papess
12:42 / 02.11.07
...but i wonder is explanation actually pertinent to an act of magic or a wondrous act.Explanation is in a sense or could be seen as an act of limitation, any definition creates a limit and an understanding. which informs another limit.

Explanation doesn't make it any less of a miracle. Divinity is not inherent only in ignorance. (Is there some left over thinking here that magick needs to be kept in secrecy?) What is limited is the idea of what is magick...what is divine.

At one time, sex, fire and the weather were unexplained processes and considered magickal and divine. Does knowing the scientific process of them actually diminish that magick or make them less divine? IMHO, only if you want it to.

How is it that breaking life down into all it's various working components makes any of those components less magickal, or the very fact they work together less of a miracle? Why is ignorance of the nature of miracles held in such reverence? And why is it that because a miracle can be explained, it is no longer one?
 
 
Unconditional Love
13:12 / 02.11.07
Its not in the knowing or communicating of the understanding, but in the acceptance of an understanding as the baseline of the experience. I do not advocate ignorance but nor do i advocate knowledge.

To use metaphoe - Its the wonder of asking the question without settling for any answer any limit upon how the situation may resolve it self, it has no sum no parts, just the initial wonder and continued fascination.
 
 
Unconditional Love
13:15 / 02.11.07
Consciousness as the cause of the quantum wave form having read it seems to place too much validity on the idea of measuring, as if the measurements being made have an inherent value in and of themselves, thats not my experience.

I have yet to read the counter arguments properly which may shed some light.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply