The scientific method versus scientific belief

This could be an interesting base for discussion. Take a look at this video. It isn’t a critique of the scientific method, but rather a critique of scientific dogmas. It is directly relevant to my own article “On will“.

6 thoughts on “The scientific method versus scientific belief

  1. Good video. Love your piece on free will.

    A few weeks ago I ‘discovered’ I had difficulty with being a “watched particle”.

    Seems to me free will goes out the window with the ‘being watched’ effect.

    I could be wrong.

  2. So this video is posted in the wrong place.

    (I suggest starting at 5 minutes and waiting for the part about Berkeley)

    Assuming that Berkeley’s philosophical assertions about each of us being free floating minds that exist only through the perception of others may ACTUALLY be a thing …

    …AND …

    Adding to it a different notion that IF one can transcend this universe and perceive one’s own “undefinable form” separate from the God of the 8th dynamic who is controlling said undefinable form, and that this form can be free from such a perception …

    …AND …

    IF “Being Watched” is the dampener of that undefinable form’s free will, and that dampener is, in fact, the “God” of the 8th dynamic.

    Was God the last body thetan LRH was trying to get rid of via Sarge’s Electropsychometer Execution Machine?

    We’ll never know. But it makes for cool speculation.

    If Berkeley is right, his notion of God holding everything together makes sense and would make the 8th dynamic the last trap to escape from in this cosmology. Berkeley, however, thinks one cannot perceive oneself apart from God. I tend to think that one could perceive oneself in various ways to hack this restriction IF an undefinable soul (Batshit self) is actually a reality.

    The fact that nobody has done this and come back to tell anyone seems that if it is true, God has the drop on us.

  3. Sooo … if we are not just meat (realism) and we are actually free will beings made puny (Idealism), then is what causing this puniness God’s TR0?

    And if so, how do we get God to … blink …

  4. I wrote this 5 years ago. Possibly it is relevant to this discussion. I don’t believe my conjectures to be true, only interestingly plausible. Mostly I am trying to ask better questions.
    Chris Thompson

    June 15, 2011 at 10:15pm · My Purpose – The Resolution of Creation, Life, and Death
    But if there are only these two: 1. Creation and; and 2. No-creation, then half of the equation we’ve been worrying over is off the table. What if we learn that Planck length and Tone are relative to one another? What if we exceed extant silicone computers in favor of a material which computes fast enough to bring Tone into measurable focus? What if we said that in between the creations are left nothing but The Static or Zero Point? An infinity of no-time between the creations, and yet hardly any real-time. This might be consistent with The Factors. Think Fractal. Think Digital. Think Analog. Think Quantum. How can these fit? Will we find an actual measurable package of thought at the quantum level? Will it need to be particles or waves or some yet un-named concept? How does it “burst forth” from the Static? What has “intention” to do with this? What if the in-between lives area – or other “limbo” – were found to be a condition precisely out-of-phase with the creation cycle – using the Planck second/length? (That “nothing” area between the creations.) And what if that’s what occurs at body death? This would allow for all manner of spirits to be with us and all around us at all times, yet rarely heard from? Do you see how easily this might be “multi-plexed?” (computer “switching” terminology) And Elizabeth’s processing out “every attachment” to MEST until she leaves herself both aware of and vulnerable to and operating within this in-between-creation area? Does anyone see this as I am? And if this “string of creations” can be performed by one of us, then it can be performed by all of us? And if the “wavelength” can be agreed upon by any of us, then it can it also become out-of-sync? And if it can be gotten out of sync at all, then is the door open for a large number of harmonics? I am proposing the mechanics for multi-verses. Real-as-MEST ones. Not only “this” MEST one. For consistency, we can consider them all under the umbrella of MEST or consider them discreetly. Neither of these directions are troubling to me not do they create inconsistency toward the rest of the idea.
    My questions and conjectures might form a common basis for peace between the physicist and meta-physicist because they: 1. Allow for real physical scientific explanations which plow meta-physics back under the umbrella of physics. 2. Acknowledge metaphysical activity, explain, and prove its reality. Everybody becomes right. So are we knocking on the door of creation yet?

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s