180. Dr. William Bray, Quantum Physics Incompatible With Atheists Ideas About Intelligent Design and Consciousness (Podc

[c4chaos]

Originally Posted by phs1it

What Godel's theorems show is that there are assertions which are true, but which cannot be (formally) proved.

For this reason, I did not ask that all the assertions in a theory be proved. There may well be some that can be seen to be true, but for which a proof does not exist.

I only asked that the proofs that are given to be consistent.

The test is in the application. Whether in science, or in life.

exactly. i'm not disagreeing. but what i'm pointing out is that the ultimate "proof" of the ultimate "truth" can never be found in an equation or a set of theorems. it can only be experienced.

but i could be wrong, you know

~C

[alextsakiris]

CChaos, please allow me to re-post from FB

Originally Posted by c4chaos

whoah! serendipitously, I found this post by William Bray on the NHNE site.

"A UFO sighting seems subjective, but the math I did for the Department of Defense many years ago differentiates with very exacting lines their own disinformation (they encourage UFO urban mythology for their own purposes but now have difficulty getting accurate numbers on genuine ‘phenomenon’) and ‘phenomenon’ amidst a background noise of media and personal expectations; and exactly how to tell the difference and measure the number.
If a thing can be observed by any two individuals, regardless of the conditions that differentiate their ability to make such observations, even to the inclusion of powerful hallucinogens amidst a background of archetypes – I can render an exacting number.

"The math I presented for this predicted 911 to within 7 weeks 25 years before it happened, and every subsequent change in commerce, based purely on Chaos and a ‘Wild Card’ necessary to deflate the Chaos.

"If you’ve got data, and two people who report the same thing without sharing such information, particularly in the case where it resembles an archetype but deviates wildly and unexpectedly from an archetype; I can render a number to within 99% accuracy, even in a seemingly subjective human model."

NDEs, Christ, A Course in Miracles, Robert Perry's CMPEs - NHNE Near-Death Experience Network

[c4chaos]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

CChaos, please allow me to re-post from FB

Alex, glad you saw that. i found that post quite interesting.

obviously, who wouldn't be interested?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by c4chaos

Alex, glad you saw that. i found that post quite interesting.

his claim about UFOs is not believable.

his claim about 9-11 is not believable.

his claim about archetypes is unintelligible to me.

[c4chaos]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

his claim about UFOs is not believable.

his claim about 9-11 is not believable.

his claim about archetypes is unintelligible to me.

I'm just curious that he did some work for the Department of Defense on the topic of UFOs. if true, then shouldn't this be classified information? or maybe I'm missing something.

[phs1it]

Originally Posted by c4chaos

I'm just curious that he did some work for the Department of Defense on the topic of UFOs. if true, then shouldn't this be classified information? or maybe I'm missing something.

Yes.
I think he was boasting, in some way.
Whether it is true, remains unclear, to say the least.

[smalleffect]

I agree with Alex's question regarding mathematical descriptions of meta-reality. I would also add that it seems implausible mathematics would have greater descriptive power than verbal language for dealing with this larger reality Dr Bray describes. I feel something like the uncertainty principle applies to my efforts to understand the universe; I can be very certain about one thing or somewhat certain about many things but never completely certain about anything.

Mathematics is not as solid and grounded as we presume. To give this view a little more substance I recommend watching the BBC documentary "Dangerous Knowledge." Here are part 1 and 2 video links that may still work;

Dangerous Knowledge 1 of 2
Dangerous knowledge (part 2)

I have purchased Dr Bray's book and am working my way through it but already I see that he is looking for certainty and believes he has found it.

[Scott]

Evan though it seems like something over the top. I would bet even money on this being a Poe - if not it is an example that proves the meme. Painful in most every way to listen to.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Atheism is most definitely an inexact term! It's no good saying a disbelief in any gods unless you give a generic definition of "god".

Most atheists seem to disbelieve in a "god of the gaps" type of god and by implication a "god" which scientific evidence could be brought to bear. But what about something like panentheism?

god - a supernatural being with abilities beyond just having abilities well beyond humans. As for god being nature and more ... I see no evidence this individual god dose or reasons they need to exist. Still Atheistic
Agnostic atheistic.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by smalleffect

Mathematics is not as solid and grounded as we presume. To give this view a little more substance I recommend watching the BBC documentary "Dangerous Knowledge." Here are part 1 and 2 video links that may still work;

I remember seeing this... really good.