Belief vs Knowledge - The Force

Gisteron wrote: Now, point taken, I do not know just what untapped power of the mind you are speaking of. I was assuming some kind of power that we actually didn't have knowledge or mastery of yet. Maybe my assumption was flawed. If that's not what you meant, then by all means, I stand corrected. However, if you are going to argue that there are "great" forces at play outside of our view, then I'll beg to differ. The room left to forces entirely yet unseen is so narrow as to render them effectively irrelevant.

I actually explained the issue with this earlier in the thread. Your point of view of these "marginal forces" is not as objective as you may intend. Subtlety means less direct, not less powerful. The same quantum mechanics you point to, point to the power of subtlety.. there are examples all through life of the power of thought and other subtle forms of power..

What might be the issue is your view of strength in this case. It seems that the greater the direct physical effect. The more power you credit it.. but if those "outside" influences are the source of the laws that govern these more direct phenomena. They would naturally be the superior force. Gravity is a great example. We owe so much to such a weak force..

So, strictly to the title of the thread, I am going to state the difference between knowledge and belief. Though I will say I liked Manu's response pretty spot on.

Knowledge - Information mentally categorized and gained through experience. This experience is everything you do, reading an article to tripping and falling to just sitting around looking randomly at stuff. I have knowledge that the fan running next to me is running because it is physically working. This allows me to deduce that the circuitry is functioning properly which would be also physically observable. That means I know the power plant supplying in power and the infrastructure that supports it is also at this moment functional. And so on through the logical process of what is literally physically acknowledged. Now there is knowledge when it comes to social situations I.E. I can predict my brother's general response to certain thing because it is observable, however, there are simply different underlying variables. Not more or less against a strictly physical sense die to thought process and difference between the 2 of us. That is why sometimes I am surprised at his solutions but not the normal process he goes through to arrive at them. This dictates how I act in those situations. So, there is logic, truth, observable processes and conclusions to this knowledge but that doesn't mean it's right.

Belief - So to me I always liked the word Idea more, ideas are more malleable. Any way, is the rate of trust you are putting in an observable but unproven series of observation, assumptions, predictions of conclusions reached from knowledge but surpassing the level that you do not have. Belief entails faith because of assumptions and predictions, this can lead it down road to a lot of fallacies (not to say faith is bad, I have some of my own! It can be a very useful tool and support).

This is why I like to use idea here, because it remains a malleable to reality and observable models as they come, both in the tangible and intangible.

So, I have ideas about the Force on some of the assumptions and predictions based that everything kind of just is and in that form it is some how interconnected in some way even is minutely or entirely inconsequentially in the majority of situations. That said this idea is entirely personal also, aspects of it may be shared by others as will opposing view points both of which can help eliminate some assumptions and allow the idea to change (as it does quite a bit for me). But, I am still using and underlying assumption in order to consider this idea. So, basically this is just a malleable belief.

Just 2 cents,
Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: ... if you are going to argue that there are "great" forces at play outside of our view, then I'll beg to differ. The room left to forces entirely yet unseen is so narrow as to render them effectively irrelevant.

I actually explained the issue with this earlier in the thread. Your point of view of these "marginal forces" is not as objective as you may intend. Subtlety means less direct, not less powerful. The same quantum mechanics you point to, point to the power of subtlety.. there are examples all through life of the power of thought and other subtle forms of power..

Full disclosure, I have not the slightest clue what you mean by any of this. Without exception, every interaction any human has ever had the pleasure of documenting has so far been physical, as has every consequence. Every influence any thing can have on another in nature is transmitted in these ways. I'm not sure what you think how much I intend my perspective on the forces that have any sort of impact on our lives to be objective, and if you find that considering the energy involved is not quite objective enough to meet what ever that standard is, I do not understand that, because I do not understand what dependency on any subject that carries. One might correctly albeit trivially point out that everything is technically subjective, I just don't find that an interesting objection. To the extent to which everything is, there is nothing we can do about it so we are better off not wasting our time worrying about it and instead focusing on the extent to which it doesn't have to be. And to that extent, I'm proposing the single most objective measure we have ever had and - by the looks of it - ever will.
On the other hand, I don't know what subtleness or directness are in any kind of not-entirely-subjective terms or how to measure them. I don't know what "the power of subtlety" means either, but I have only learned enough quantum mechanics to be giving but my first ever class in it, so my grasp on it may admittedly be shakier than yours still. At any rate, I wouldn't call the power of thought untapped or even subtle by any colloquial usage of the term. We have known that what we think affects what we do for literally millennia now. We have been exploiting that power, "tapping it", one might say, on both individual and social levels for roughly that long, too. Not quite as long have we known about the bio-/electrochemical nature of thoughts and the consequent radiation that produces well outside of what else the rest of our bodies do with them. But before we can rejoice and celebrate our woo being confirmed at last, no, that, too, has been well "tapped" by now. In fact, it has been tapped so well, that literal toys are available at affordable prices with which children and their parents can practice projecting their thoughts for machines to obey without verbal or button command. Any power of the mind left untapped still at this point necessarily has to be weaker than any of that, weaker than what we can detect and tap, else we would have detected and tapped into it by now. I have yet to see a substantive objection to that reasoning, though I don't expect one. Without one, however, I don't understand what there be left to say on the issue.

What might be the issue is your view of strength in this case. It seems that the greater the direct physical effect. The [sic] more power you credit it..

Of course. What else can I use to make that judgement?

but if those "outside" influences are the source of the laws that govern these more direct phenomena. They [sic] would naturally be the superior force.

What do we mean by "source of the laws..." here? That is, how would we go about finding out something like that? And if it be so, what do you mean by these "source" influences being "superior" exactly?

Gravity is a great example. We owe so much to such a weak force..

Example of what? Gravity is not outside nature. Not sure what other kind of "outside" you might have been referring to, or what laws you reckon gravity be a source of... And while we owe it the aggregation of mass and what ever consequences that has - a lot, surely - let's not overstate it. If gravity were to cease tomorrow, chemistry - and biochemistry - would remain pretty much the same they are today. "Pretty much" here means a relative difference on the order of something like 10^-35%.

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: ... if you are going to argue that there are "great" forces at play outside of our view, then I'll beg to differ. The room left to forces entirely yet unseen is so narrow as to render them effectively irrelevant.

I actually explained the issue with this earlier in the thread. Your point of view of these "marginal forces" is not as objective as you may intend. Subtlety means less direct, not less powerful. The same quantum mechanics you point to, point to the power of subtlety.. there are examples all through life of the power of thought and other subtle forms of power..

Full disclosure, I have not the slightest clue what you mean by any of this. Without exception, every interaction any human has ever had the pleasure of documenting has so far been physical, as has every consequence. Every influence any thing can have on another in nature is transmitted in these ways. I'm not sure what you think how much I intend my perspective on the forces that have any sort of impact on our lives to be objective, and if you find that considering the energy involved is not quite objective enough to meet what ever that standard is, I do not understand that, because I do not understand what dependency on any subject that carries. One might correctly albeit trivially point out that everything is technically subjective, I just don't find that an interesting objection. To the extent to which everything is, there is nothing we can do about it so we are better off not wasting our time worrying about it and instead focusing on the extent to which it doesn't have to be. And to that extent, I'm proposing the single most objective measure we have ever had and - by the looks of it - ever will.
On the other hand, I don't know what subtleness or directness are in any kind of not-entirely-subjective terms or how to measure them. I don't know what "the power of subtlety" means either, but I have only learned enough quantum mechanics to be giving but my first ever class in it, so my grasp on it may admittedly be shakier than yours still. At any rate, I wouldn't call the power of thought untapped or even subtle by any colloquial usage of the term. We have known that what we think affects what we do for literally millennia now. We have been exploiting that power, "tapping it", one might say, on both individual and social levels for roughly that long, too. Not quite as long have we known about the bio-/electrochemical nature of thoughts and the consequent radiation that produces well outside of what else the rest of our bodies do with them. But before we can rejoice and celebrate our woo being confirmed at last, no, that, too, has been well "tapped" by now. In fact, it has been tapped so well, that literal toys are available at affordable prices with which children and their parents can practice projecting their thoughts for machines to obey without verbal or button command. Any power of the mind left untapped still at this point necessarily has to be weaker than any of that, weaker than what we can detect and tap, else we would have detected and tapped into it by now. I have yet to see a substantive objection to that reasoning, though I don't expect one. Without one, however, I don't understand what there be left to say on the issue.

What might be the issue is your view of strength in this case. It seems that the greater the direct physical effect. The [sic] more power you credit it..

Of course. What else can I use to make that judgement?

but if those "outside" influences are the source of the laws that govern these more direct phenomena. They [sic] would naturally be the superior force.

What do we mean by "source of the laws..." here? That is, how would we go about finding out something like that? And if it be so, what do you mean by these "source" influences being "superior" exactly?

Gravity is a great example. We owe so much to such a weak force..

Example of what? Gravity is not outside nature. Not sure what other kind of "outside" you might have been referring to, or what laws you reckon gravity be a source of... And while we owe it the aggregation of mass and what ever consequences that has - a lot, surely - let's not overstate it. If gravity were to cease tomorrow, chemistry - and biochemistry - would remain pretty much the same they are today. "Pretty much" here means a relative difference on the order of something like 10^-35%.

Gravity is a material example of the non-material phenomena I'm referring to.. following the "as above, so below" rule. Not arbitrarily, of course. Gravity is considered a weak force. Yet, without it, and the amalgamation of mass, our world would undoubtedly cease to exist in the way it does now. In the same sense, etheric energy has a small but powerful influence on matter itself. The ways in which matter acts are governed by the nature of their etheric signatures. Down to the string level. The strings act, but the ethereal sets the tone. So to speak..

It's like law, in a way.. The Government writes the laws, and the subjects act on it in agreement. Except in this case, it's more of a total subjection than agreement.

In my experience, if you can influence the ethereal part of matter. The matter itself will follow.. but it's easier said than done.. and there are limits, probably.. messing with dtv signals is infinitely more simple than exploding a sun lol

Uzima Moto wrote: Gravity is a material example of the non-material phenomena I'm referring to..

What does that mean?

Gravity is considered a weak force. Yet, without it, and the amalgamation of mass, our world would undoubtedly cease to exist in the way it does now.

Well, yes, it would be different by roughly the magnitude of Planck's constant, i.e. barely at all.

In the same sense, etheric energy has a small but powerful influence on matter itself.

Well, if it is the same sense, why are the same methods unfit to detect it? Why are we unable to quantify it the same way we can any other real force? Why are we stuck listening to woosters without any credible experiment on their hands, let alone functioning technology? I don't think it is the same sense at all! I think it's a vastly different sense. I think it's the sort of sense that leaves us with charlatans contradicting themselves and each other with no means of telling them apart by merit and gravity is analogous to it in precisely zero ways.

The ways in which matter acts are governed by the nature of their etheric signatures. Down to the string level. The strings act, but the ethereal sets the tone. So to speak..

And what's the rule, exactly? How do we characterize these signatures or behaviours? Where is the prediction this picture makes that I can go out and test to see that it is indeed useful?

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Gravity is a material example of the non-material phenomena I'm referring to..

What does that mean?

Gravity is considered a weak force. Yet, without it, and the amalgamation of mass, our world would undoubtedly cease to exist in the way it does now.

Well, yes, it would be different by roughly the magnitude of Planck's constant, i.e. barely at all.

In the same sense, etheric energy has a small but powerful influence on matter itself.

Well, if it is the same sense, why are the same methods unfit to detect it? Why are we unable to quantify it the same way we can any other real force? Why are we stuck listening to woosters without any credible experiment on their hands, let alone functioning technology? I don't think it is the same sense at all! I think it's a vastly different sense. I think it's the sort of sense that leaves us with charlatans contradicting themselves and each other with no means of telling them apart by merit and gravity is analogous to it in precisely zero ways.

The ways in which matter acts are governed by the nature of their etheric signatures. Down to the string level. The strings act, but the ethereal sets the tone. So to speak..

And what's the rule, exactly? How do we characterize these signatures or behaviours? Where is the prediction this picture makes that I can go out and test to see that it is indeed useful?

Your idea that a world without gravity would hardly be different at all is demonstrably false..

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160212-what-would-happen-to-you-if-gravity-stopped-working

Your understanding of the concept I'm speaking on is limited by your limited understanding of simple sciences..

The consciously blind can call it whatever they want. Because their thought process nearly guarantees that they won't experience it directly. However, in essence they are similar, the sense being the same. Just as gravity plays a small but powerful role in reality. So does ethereal energy. Since every atom has an ethereal signature that will NEVER be detected by physical means..

READ THIS CLOSELY...

The only thing you will detect is what residual effects of the interaction of ethereal bodies leaves on there respective objects independent of another..

In short.. if my ethereal body moves the ethereal body of a rock. The rock will move with its ethereal body in response to IT not Me..

Uzima Moto wrote: Your idea that a world without gravity would hardly be different at all is demonstrably false..

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160212-what-would-happen-to-you-if-gravity-stopped-working

What's the disagreement here? I said before what I meant by it, and you even quoted me in post #339198:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: And while we owe [gravity] the aggregation of mass and what ever consequences that has - a lot, surely - let's not overstate it. If gravity were to cease tomorrow, chemistry - and biochemistry - would remain pretty much the same they are today. "Pretty much" here means a relative difference on the order of something like 10^-35%.

Nothing in the article you linked contradicts this. In fact, I go out of my way to say that we do indeed owe it a lot, but that in terms of actual properties of how the universe works it means very, very little indeed. What is your criticism, exactly?

Your understanding of the concept I'm speaking on is limited by your limited understanding of simple sciences..

I admit, I only have been published in Nature Communications once, and am co-authoring second publication in total that'll hopefully appear in Physical Review Letters. I'm also giving only my first exercise class in quantum mechanics. My credentials are indeed nothing to brag about, by any means, I do not even have any relevant degrees. Do you feel that this is a substantive objection to the content of what I said, though, or is this an ad-hominem appeal? How do you propose I respond to this most respectfully?

Just as gravity plays a small but powerful role in reality. So [sic] does ethereal energy. Since [sic] every atom has an ethereal signature that will NEVER be detected by physical means..

So you are admitting that this is not a matter of science catching up, but it is explicitly beyond critical inquiry. I'm sorry, but if it is not detectable by physical means, then it has no detectable physical effects, which is what I was saying all along. This doesn't mean it has no effects, just none we can point to or need ever worry about. There is, if what you say is accurate, no way for there to even be a "there!" there, and no reason to waste any more of our time on it.

The only thing you will detect is what residual effects of the interaction of ethereal bodies leaves on there [sic] respective objects independent of another..

I'm looking forward to reading about the experiment that detects those effects and can accurately attribute them to this "ethereal energy" you propose. Until then I have nothing to move me to ignore our entire understanding of physics yet, but mayhaps soon enough the discovery you predict shall occur. It will be an interesting and exciting one, no doubt.

You also said that there would hardly be a difference without gravity.. if I understood what you meant correctly, that's demonstrably false..

The concepts I'm speaking on are not critically examined by material tools in the same way you use them to examine things like radiation. I clearly stated this when I said you would only detect the effects it has on nature using material methods, not the Ethereal itself. That's not a foreign concept if I'm not mistaken.. testing for something that you can't directly detect..

Ethereal phenomena isn't beyond critical inquiry. It takes the most critical inquiry to study it..

They nay-sayers and close minded can call it what they want.. I'm not doing this for their satisfaction because there are bigger fish to fry.. another reason why I wouldn't openly expose too much of this at this time..

Uzima Moto wrote: You also said that there would hardly be a difference without gravity.. if I understood what you meant correctly, that's demonstrably false..

Seeing as I had explained clearly what I meant before and after, I have nothing to add to this. I'm sorry if I unduly caused misunderstanding about the latter instance of the claim being a reiteration of the former. I hope this is cleared up now.

The concepts I'm speaking on are not critically examined by material tools in the same way you use them to examine things like radiation. I clearly stated this when I said you would only detect the effects it has on nature using material methods, not the Ethereal itself. That's not a foreign concept if I'm not mistaken.. testing for something that you can't directly detect..

There is nothing at all of which we can say to be having "direct" access to. Everything we observe is effects, without exception. This caveat does not protect the ethereal energies from scientific inquiry, only the explicit insistance that they are not subject to any can. However, I still do not understand how this is a point interesting enough to be making several times over. Either this "the Ethereal" has an effect on nature, in which case we can study it the way we study all other effects on nature, or it doesn't. If it does, I'll be happy to read what ever studies are either available or will be in future. If it does not, then Occam's razor liberates us from any need to suppose that it is there at all.

Ethereal phenomena isn't beyond critical inquiry. It takes the most critical inquiry to study it..

Except the kind of critical inquiry that has ever produced reliable results is the one that you say is unfit for it, whilst what is being proposed instead has time and again shown to be unreliable.

They nay-sayers and close minded can call it what they want.. I'm not doing this for their satisfaction because there are bigger fish to fry.. another reason why I wouldn't openly expose too much of this at this time..

The "closed-minded" are happy to see evidence to convince them, and retort with reason, whilst the "open-minded" keep avoiding giving any and complain that the "closed-minded" don't believe this thing that "takes the most critical inquiry to study" uncritically.

Gisteron wrote: Well, yes, it would be different by roughly the magnitude of Planck's constant, i.e. barely at all.

This is the comment I was referring to as misunderstood. Not the one you cherry picked..

What does Planck's Law have to do with the absence of gravity and how would that absence barely change things??

Look, Gisteron, if you're just going to keep misrepresenting my point and twisting yours to seem superior there's no need for this conversation between us..

Because I never said the Ethereal wasn't observable, nor untestable through the scientific method. However, there's no machine that will detect ethereal energy/matter itself. Only the affects its movement has on the atomic bodies attached to it. I have to constantly reiterate it because you can't seem to understand that point correctly..

You're making seem as if I said "It exists and you can't check to see!!" but I'm saying the exact opposite.. as many have, scientists and not..

The close minded are closed because they cannot see the forest for the trees.. you keep saying that "woosters" have no evidence, but it's only because you reject what evidence is out there as anecdotal. The only reliable source of information for you is what you can physically touch.. though I had to figure out Astral travel before I had even heard of the concept.. with no help using a scientific method.. the physical world is our reference point.. not the whole of reality..