What's REALLY possible from Magic/Magik/Magick? What have you achieved?

[KenBrace]

That sort of reasoning might make sense to you ... but it doesnt make any sense of itself.

 

Boy ! .... if I assumed things that didnt 'make sense' to me , at the time, didn't exist ........

 

 

 

 

Refer to post #75.

Edited July 30, 2014 by KenBrace

[BaguaKicksAss]

Magic doesn't exist.

 

The supernatural doesn't exist.

 

The only thing that exists is reality.

 

Anything in reality exists because there is a physical and scientific process behind it.

 

Therefore science can explain everything.

 

The only reason that things like setting paper on fire, talking to the dead, and levitating into the air are considered "magic" by most people is due to the current ignorance of the scientific community.

 

Actually I feel it is the scientific community who is ignorant.

[KenBrace]

Actually I feel it is the scientific community who is ignorant.

 

"The only reason that things like setting paper on fire, talking to the dead, and levitating into the air are considered "magic" by most people is due to the current ignorance of the scientific community."

-KenBrace

 

Edited July 30, 2014 by KenBrace

[BaguaKicksAss]

OK don't post on TTBs until fully awake, got it .

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

...Anything in reality exists because there is a physical and scientific process behind it.

 

Therefore science can explain everything...

The problem is that you're defining anything that isn't physical as 'supernatural', thus eliminating any possibility in your mind of something existing that is not physical. Of course everything is natural. But consciousness, which is not material (although there are neurological correlates), is just as natural as rocks are.

 

Your circular reasoning: everything is physical -> science can explain everything -> therefore everything is physical.

 

You are making an assumption that everything is physical in such a way that it is unfalsifiable, because you state that everything has either been explained or will be explained in purely material terms, rather than looking at the evidence or lack thereof that currently exists.

 

Do you see the issue in your logic? If something were nonphysical in nature, your logic would insist on saying 'it will be figured out in physical terms eventually' despite this being impossible, rather than saying 'this is natural but not physical, time for a paradigm shift'.

 

If consciousness is physical, an emergent property of neurology, how can you explain the effects of observer-participancy (as well documented from stuff like the double-slit experiment)? This challenges the closure principle, and therefore provides replicated experimental evidence against materialism.

 

Any materialistic theory of consciousness would need to explain why a human brain and eyes looking at measuring equipment affects quantum systems in a way nothing else does... which I won't be holding my breath for, as so far most scientists will cough and awkwardly look at their shoes rather than think about it seriously.

[BaguaKicksAss]

Refer to post #75.

 

Ken, here is a thread you may find interesting . Discussion of science relating to alchemy, and how scientific thought has changed over time: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35597-historical-connection-between-eastern-and-western-alchemy/page-4 (I mean to read, not to tell them they are all imagining things ).

[BaguaKicksAss]

Anyone remember the physics experiments where what the researchers assumed the outcome would be, actually changed what the molecules were up to? It actually changed the end results. Unfortunately I don't remember enough about it to find the study. Also I don't know enough about physics to even think of what to search for. This was brought up in one of my university biology classes back in about 94'....

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Anyone remember the physics experiments where what the researchers assumed the outcome would be, actually changed what the molecules were up to? It actually changed the end results. Unfortunately I don't remember enough about it to find the study. Also I don't know enough about physics to even think of what to search for. This was brought up in one of my university biology classes back in about 94'....

 

The search 'quantum weirdness in biology' produced this site:

 

Quantum Weirdness in Life, Quantum Biology

among others and may lead you in the right direction.

[BaguaKicksAss]

 

The search 'quantum weirdness in biology' produced this site:

 

Quantum Weirdness in Life, Quantum Biology

among others and may lead you in the right direction.

 

Awesome link, thank you!

 

 

Quantum mechanics has many weird counter intuitive properties:

1. Superposition, for example, suggests that all future possibilities about a piece of matter exist at the same moment in a mathematical form called the wave function.
2. 

   Entanglement

   Coherence is a state where all parts of a system stay in perfect sync without any clear mechanism.

3. Entanglement allows two particles to be forever connected such that changing one changes the other instantly, no matter the amount of separation.
4. Tunneling assumes that matter is both a particle and a wave. Matter’s waviness allows its exact place to be smudged such that parts of it could be on both sides of a barrier at the same time. This allows particles to seemingly sneak through barriers, like slithering through wormholes, to get around energy and material obstacles.

- See more at: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/mathematics-information-and-physical-reality/quantum-weirdness-in-life#sthash.FH9w1sJu.dpuf

 

Makes perfect sense with how I've seen things work (within my practice) to me . Some fun analogies which seemed obvious to me with a quick read...

 

1. The whole alternate versions of "us" and "here" all existing at once, unlimited numbers of such.

2. Hmmm some sort of like attracts like regarding energies sort of thing. Also the lining up of the energies during a working.

3. Link objects . How a piece of someone's hair can be used for a spell, thousands of miles away from them (more affectively if no piece of hair).

4. Hmm, portals? Slight shiftings within the temple?

[BaguaKicksAss]

Just now a local fb friend posted this: http://www.iflscience.com/physics/%E2%80%9Cquantum-cheshire-cat%E2%80%9D-phenomenon-observed-first-time

 

and http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5

 

Interesting stuff.

 

I guess the universe heard me thinking again .

Edited July 30, 2014 by BaguaKicksAss

[Brian]

This is a little more old-school but is fundamental:

 

Double-Slit Experiment

[KenBrace]

The problem is that you're defining anything that isn't physical as 'supernatural', thus eliminating any possibility in your mind of something existing that is not physical. Of course everything is natural. But consciousness, which is not material (although there are neurological correlates), is just as natural as rocks are.

 

Everything is natural and has a scientific explanation. I never claimed that everything was physical. Consciousness isn't physical, love isn't physical, excitement isn't physical. However the process that cause the are.

Edited July 30, 2014 by KenBrace

[aboo]

Many spiritual masters claim that consciousness creates matter Ken. That's what the double split experiment is hinting at. Science may be able to explain how consciousness animates the physical world, it may never be able to explain how consciousness came to be.

Edited July 31, 2014 by aboo

[KenBrace]

Many spiritual masters claim that consciousness creates matter Ken. That's what the double split experiment is hinting at. Science may be able to explain how consciousness animates the physical world, it may never be able to explain how consciousness came to be.

You are right that we as a species may never know but it will only be because of our ignorance. The fact remains that there is still a natural and real explanation for how consciousness came to be.

[Nungali]

Magic doesn't exist.

 

The supernatural doesn't exist.

 

The only thing that exists is reality.

 

Anything in reality exists because there is a physical and scientific process behind it.

 

Therefore science can explain everything.

 

The only reason that things like setting paper on fire, talking to the dead, and levitating into the air are considered "magic" by most people is due to the current ignorance of the scientific community.

 

You have a very 'matter of fact' style dont you Ken? Declaring this and that; opinion as ultimate fact and not answering valid questions that see holes in your theories with more 'opinions and facts' ... they will stay your opinions unless you can demonstrate ... any sort of ... objective correlation. Also just ignoring the valid points raised in other's posts in objection to your 'theories' doesnt really cut it either.

 

You arent even arguing - just refuting. Its pretty pouintelss really. Just as pointless as me posting in reply to you;

 

Magic does exist.

 

The supernatural does exist.

 

The only thing that exists is multiple - realities.

 

Anything in reality exists because there is more than a physical and scientific process behind it.

 

Therefore science can not explain everything.

 

The only reason that things like setting paper on fire, talking to the dead, and levitating into the air are considered "magic" by some people is due to the current ignorance of the those people not realising that is stage magic. ... and actually, has nothing to do with the type of things some of us are talking about.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Nungali

[Nungali]

Everything is natural and has a scientific explanation. I never claimed that everything was physical. Consciousness isn't physical, love isn't physical, excitement isn't physical. However the process that cause the are.

 

You claimed everything had a physical process behind it. I wonder what the physical process behind 'charm flavoured' quarks can be?

[Nungali]

My point is the scientific approach is one way of explaining certain levels of 'reality' ... go beyond that and science itself starts to 'get magical' ie, use descriptions and define processes that in many cases seem the essence or fundamentals of 'magic' itself. Magic is another approach and within that are multiple views, as there are in the religious or theological viewpoint.

 

One comes up against the same difficulties you do here when one tries to insist on one reality in the religious view point as well.

 

IMO the only way to begin to get a handle on 'extended reality' is a multiple reality approach ... at least that way you can compare them to define any one point of 'cross roads' or 'realities intersection' one happens to find one's self in.

 

I live in a world where the things that happen can be explained part in a magical world, part in a physical world and part in a mythological world. I dont insist on experiencing 'reality' from my particular ' magical theory of the universe' , what I learn from science or that the aboriginal myths I am taught are literal and over riding the scientific viewpoint ( eg. in creation theories and myths) .. at times, with an open mind, one can detect that they are different forms of expression ( there are the multiple realities!) defining one indefinable thing ( and that is the one reality ) .

[KenBrace]

 

You have a very 'matter of fact' style dont you Ken? Declaring this and that; opinion as ultimate fact and not answering valid questions that see holes in your theories with more 'opinions and facts' ... they will stay your opinions unless you can demonstrate ... any sort of ... objective correlation. Also just ignoring the valid points raised in other's posts in objection to your 'theories' doesnt really cut it either.

 

You arent even arguing - just refuting. Its pretty pouintelss really. Just as pointless as me posting in reply to you;

 

Magic does exist.

 

The supernatural does exist.

 

The only thing that exists is multiple - realities.

 

Anything in reality exists because there is more than a physical and scientific process behind it.

 

Therefore science can not explain everything.

 

The only reason that things like setting paper on fire, talking to the dead, and levitating into the air are considered "magic" by some people is due to the current ignorance of the those people not realising that is stage magic. ... and actually, has nothing to do with the type of things some of us are talking about.

I haven't seen any valid points made against my argument. Only a bunch of wishy washy want to live in a supernatural magic land arguments. Some of you don't seem to have a grip on reality and logic.

 

I would define magic as "supernatural phenomenon".

 

I would define supernatural as "something that does not have a natural, scientific, and logical explanation for its existence."

 

If any force, phenomenon, process, event, etc. exists in our reality, then it does indeed have a natural and scientific explanation behind it. It can't just exist with no cause or explanation.

 

There may be what would be considered "multiple realities" but in actuality it only be a part of the larger (who knows how many dimensions) reality. It wouldn't be a "different" reality. Just a different dimension.

 

The supernatural doesn't exist, so therefore neither does magic according to the definition I gave.

[KenBrace]

 

You claimed everything had a physical process behind it. I wonder what the physical process behind 'charm flavoured' quarks can be?

I'm not an all-knowing physicist of quantum mechanics so I can't tell you.

[BaguaKicksAss]

I just re-read the topic title, and realized I had no answered the OP's question.

 

I would say complete change (for the better) within myself many times, over the years.

 

Oh some might say you don't need magic for that... well.... I would say that most people rarely change at all whatsoever over their lifetime, unfortunately. On a side note, the things which Taoists and Buddhists and etc. do are pretty much the same things magicians practice, but with different packaging. (IMO)

 

Well then there is also the money spells, the incense and oils I make where complete mundanes are asking me wttf?! lol, the experiences which I have had, with other people around to witness at times, which most would call supernatural (because they just haven't had them happen enough times to count them as natural is all). Then there is the spellwork for others where the situation was enhanced manyfold, quite obviously; those are always fun .

 

To the OP, it depends though, what do you want out of magic? Everyone goes into it for a different reason. I feel we all go into it to learn more about ourselves and our reality and universe, and etc., but there is always the initial ego reason (I call 99% of those "to help others" folks full of it).

[Silent Answers]

Science only really helps to describe the process in a way that we can put into numbers so that others may understand. Those formulae often lead to other clues about previously unknown processes. They allow us to accurately calculate what to expect.

 

However ... It's like a dog trying to understand a human. The dog might measure us, know when we come home and when it will get fed...dogs can do a whole bunch of tricks. But can they understand that we goto work and why?

Edited July 31, 2014 by Silent Answers

[Brian]

I haven't seen any valid points made against my argument. Only a bunch of wishy washy want to live in a supernatural magic land arguments. Some of you don't seem to have a grip on reality and logic.

 

I would define magic as "supernatural phenomenon".

 

I would define supernatural as "something that does not have a natural, scientific, and logical explanation for its existence."

 

If any force, phenomenon, process, event, etc. exists in our reality, then it does indeed have a natural and scientific explanation behind it. It can't just exist with no cause or explanation.

 

There may be what would be considered "multiple realities" but in actuality it only be a part of the larger (who knows how many dimensions) reality. It wouldn't be a "different" reality. Just a different dimension.

 

The supernatural doesn't exist, so therefore neither does magic according to the definition I gave.

IF the definitions you state are accepted, KenBrace, I largely agree with you.

 

I think you are mistaken in the assumption that everything is answerable by science. Science itself contradicts that assumption, in fact. The conclusion built on it -- that everything is science -- is thus flawed on two counts. This line of reasoning is self-referential and egoistic -- it is the bugaboo within scientism/materialism/physicalism/etc.

 

I agree with you (or at least with what I think you are saying), though, that "supernatural" is sort of a silly word to be used within the context of a forum dedicated to Tao. Lots of Bums have expressed dissatisfaction with that term over the few years I've been here.

 

Seems to me that there is a perpetual struggle within our community to find ways to express the nuances of energetic events within the flow, to differentiate those improbable manifestations which sometimes occur "out of the blue" but which also "follow" some people from the more familiar manifestations of the "mundane everyday world." (All my quotation marks rather than intending to indicate attributions.) There are people, of course, who view the totality as one massive stochastic process and who also believe an individual has only a small mechanical influence on that process -- these people do not recognize that differentiation.

 

By defining magic as supernatural, however, and then defining supernatural as something unnatural and then defining everything to be natural, you have intentionally constructed a self-serving syllogism which really just says "KenBrace doesn't believe in magic" rather than proving your point.

[Satya]

...

Edited July 31, 2014 by Satya

[Satya]

I haven't seen any valid points made against my argument. Only a bunch of wishy washy want to live in a supernatural magic land arguments. Some of you don't seem to have a grip on reality and logic.

 

I would define magic as "supernatural phenomenon".

 

I would define supernatural as "something that does not have a natural, scientific, and logical explanation for its existence."

 

If any force, phenomenon, process, event, etc. exists in our reality, then it does indeed have a natural and scientific explanation behind it. It can't just exist with no cause or explanation.

 

There may be what would be considered "multiple realities" but in actuality it only be a part of the larger (who knows how many dimensions) reality. It wouldn't be a "different" reality. Just a different dimension.

 

The supernatural doesn't exist, so therefore neither does magic according to the definition I gave.

 

I haven't had time to read through the rest of the thread, but, regarding this science argument, to me, it seems fairly simple.

 

Objective phenomena, or the external empirical writings about subjective phenomena (which are necessarily/inherently second hand) = quantitative and qualitative 'Science'. (Though even writings/studies about phenomena we can all witness relatively objectively are viewed/experienced subjectively).

 

Subjective phenomena that cannot fully be portrayed (arguably everything, because, really, all information/phenomena that isn't experienced first hand is necessarily/inherently second hand, and not completely portrayable/translatable) = everything else.

 

That leaves a lot of everything else.

 

Really, all you can know is your own reality, your own YOU-niverse. Everything else is second hand.

 

Yes, there seem to be laws/rules/principles/phenomena that we can study in a way that we call 'objectively' and 'scientific', that throughout the past have repeatedly come up with the same results when studied, suggesting that there are underlying rules that are constant, but, we can't know that they are constant, that they will always produce the same results, or that they even exist; unless we're in the NOW and currently observing the phenomena being tested, then saying something like "the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second" is based on assumption/knowledge/thought, which isn't NOW, which therefore isn't True Reality. Even observing the phenomena being tested so we can verify it in the NOW depends on a whole load of other assumptions and layers, foundations of other information that have been built upon in our minds.

 

All I can really know is that I simply am/exist.

 

The rest is useful for navigating my way around this playground, but, mistaking the label/thought-about/name of the What Is, of the phenomena we are currently experiencing, mistaking these labels for the actual What Is, mistaking and misattributing their/the reality to the label rather than the NOW/Reality/What Is/Actual phenomena itself, this, to me, is where un-enlightenment itself comes from. As soon as a label is believed to be a thing, rather than just utilised as a tool to navigate (conceptually, metaphysically and physically), as soon as this happens, then, a necessary/inherent separation occurs; suddenly there is observer and observed. This is, to me, is Maya/Illusion, the Mother of the two brothers, Fear and Control.

[Satya]

I haven't seen any valid points made against my argument. Only a bunch of wishy washy want to live in a supernatural magic land arguments. Some of you don't seem to have a grip on reality and logic.

 

I would define magic as "supernatural phenomenon".

 

I would define supernatural as "something that does not have a natural, scientific, and logical explanation for its existence."

 

If any force, phenomenon, process, event, etc. exists in our reality, then it does indeed have a natural and scientific explanation behind it. It can't just exist with no cause or explanation.

 

There may be what would be considered "multiple realities" but in actuality it only be a part of the larger (who knows how many dimensions) reality. It wouldn't be a "different" reality. Just a different dimension.

 

The supernatural doesn't exist, so therefore neither does magic according to the definition I gave.

 

For magic, I pretty much agree with the definitions.

 

And, I'd simply restate:

 

 

 

 

KenBrace, on 26 Jul 2014 - 23:18, said:

There is no such thing as magic or the supernatural.

 

 

Michael Sternbach, on 26 Jul 2014 - 23:23, said:

Only sciences which we don't understand.

 

 

Satya, on 27 July 2014 - 02:03, said

 

Currently, higher mechanisms of action/laws of the universe than we can, at the moment, easily empirically measure (or maybe never will be able to) and/or manipulate, we call magic/k/ck. This has always been the case.

 

This is what I'm currently referring to now. Unless someone can provide a better name.

 

Anything that our tech either cannot yet, never will, or has great difficulty currently measuring, and consequently is difficult for us to empirically manipulate, is, I think, a fair definition for mystical/magical phenomena.