dave_a_mbs
Super Member
Offline
Afterlife Knowledge Member
Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: 
|
Hi Berkerk,
I've displaced this to a more appropriate place where we can stay on thread. Now you told me:
Dave, I do have abackground in academic statistical applications to research. When are going to shift from self-serving posturing about credentials and actually address the mainstream issues raised? And Hawkeye, I apply my in-your-face approach precisely because it works. Close-minded types like you are a lost cause. Or are you actually willing to engage me at a critical level and explore new ideas and paranormal experiences? Yoiu know, actual arguments and experiences that shed light on crucial distinctions that need to be made. Naw, I knew you weren't. The Ghetto is juist too darn comfortable, isn't it?
Don
OK, I'll happily accept you as my equal in this endeavor. (Far as I can see, you are God, that's equality enough.) So let's do something useful rather than just sitting in our "comfort zone". You challenged, I accept.
We have a lot of trouble trying to get subjective data to correspond to controlled experimental conditions, and anecdotal material is interesting, but not very useful. So we'll have to find a different approach if we are going to learn much in a short time. The best that we can do with most reports is what Campbell and Stanley call "One shot quasi-experimental" designs, even if we extend to longitudinal studies over time.
So we need to approach the topic in some other way. I propose that we look at the possible structures of the "spirit world" in terms of physics. This is because the subjective experience and objective physical states must be explained by the same model. While we can't look into the internal affairs of cosmological constructs, we can look at limit states within which they are constrained.
The model I use is essentially similar to Paul Dirac's "two-spinor" model which seems well borne out by QM at present. On that basis, in an additive space, thermodynamics requires that entropy continue to accrete through internal combinations. Thus we get either a Dirac spinor universe, or a twistor space such as Penrose prefers, or we can look at the attribution of the subsets and express them as a dynamic state space of discrete traits, which is where my model went. It is convenient to take each trait as an orthonormal basis, and by mapping their evolution as an iterated complexion, we not only get Guth's inflationary phase but also the rest of the Friedman-LeMaitre cosmology.
One usual problem is that Friedman-LeMaitre started with a singularity that necessarily collapses into its own imaginary cross space. So the nature of extended matter is still open for grabs.
I propose that extended matter is epiphenomenal on the patterns of relationships that are projected out of "Event One". (You can call the "Uncaused Cause" by the name "God" if you like, "Thermodynamics" works about as well.) This occurs because of the inevitability of the combinatorial dynamic through which the world manifests - and because in a static world, there is no manifestation, no sensation, an no projection of existential state. Aside from the dynamic of shifting attributive relationships, there is no existence.
Given this proposal, the problem is to find examples of the iterated structure - Ths has been accomplished for knowledge systems, and can easily be seen to be both necessaery and sufficient, since the iterated complexion is the most rapid accretion rate possible, and any other rate must be some functon of this rate. (Georg Hegel's Philosophical Propadeutics treat this from the more common viewpoint of transcendental phenomenlogy, while Cantor used the same system to develop his transfinite calculus, and we can also see it in Pitirim Sorokin's model of three aspects of social states.)
Having demonstrated the nature of the world to fit this model on the level of information, and that its terms must include all processes less than its limit, we can apply that model to "spiritual stuff". (Still with me?) That means that whatever we put into the spiritual space, since it is an epiphenomenon (actually a triply aspected epiphenomenon) we can expect to recover later as a fraction of whatever output we get. That's why leading people doesn't work. Still, because we can create the substrate complex upon which the epiphenomenon rests,
However, because we have a three aspect epiphenomenon, we can attack disorders such as the obsessive-compulsve-phobic triad which acts as a circular dynamic, feeding on itself. The phobic object incites fear (positive punisher), flight relieves it (negative reinforcement), the reinforcement also generalizes to the gestalt making it stronger, leading to obsession on the phobic object, and that creates fear etc ... round and round it goes until it saturates near panic lvel. The closed internal definitions make this hard to treat. The three aspects of definition allow two degrees of freedom, so we can define any two "easy aspects" and the third must follow. That allows two of the verticestobe removed, and the problem goes away. I use this, it works. So this type of thinking has clinical value.
Then we have the problem that Werner von Heisenberg faced with QM - a dynamic system rests in the middle of a Planck unit of action, so that its event of origin is indeterminate, as is its conclusion. This gives an uncertainty of at least one bit of entropy. So the outcome and input to an experiment are entangled and uncertain, and the act of experimentation will alter the nature of results obtained, and much more than that, they will alter the manner of interpretation of the results. A non-trivial methodology problem.
Where would you like to go from here? - Direct experimentation has befuddled the best thinkers of the day. We can explore ontological models, or continue with a synthetic metaphysics in hopes that we can find testable premises. I think about and work at this stuff 24-7-365 because it's my career, and I'm willing to work with anyone who wants to go into it deeper.
You challenged me to get into the nity gritty - OK, let's do it - I've given you my basic model, and the experimental and clinical support for it - I suggest that we might want to look at the manner in which the influence cone emergent from the actor can carry the actor's nature into the external world after death, since that has to do with past life stuff, but I'm willing to look elsewhere - so what's next, Berserk?
dave
|
Home
Pages: 1 
