139 replies to this topic

[Mr Walker]

To take up one point above. If you wish to deny categorically  that another person's known reality is not actually real and objectively existent, then yes, you must be able to prove their reality does not exist, even if only for them.  If that is hard, it is no more hard than for me to prove the existence of my objective reality to you.

[Simatong]

Mr Walker, on 31 January 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

To take up one point above. If you wish to deny categorically  that another person's known reality is not actually real and objectively existent, then yes, you must be able to prove their reality does not exist, even if only for them.  If that is hard, it is no more hard than for me to prove the existence of my objective reality to you.

Again, most of us do not live another reality (unless you are literally able to move to another reality for a time). It doesn't matter if this is on a disabled level or a psionic one, it is still the same reality experienced in different ways. The understanding of a tree as witnessed by a blind person will be different from a person with sight, but it is still the same tree. There is nothing "different" about it

[Mr Walker]

Simatong, on 31 January 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

I was born with a mild form of hemophlegic spastic cerebral palsy due to the left side of my brain being underdeveloped, meaning that doing certain tasks is a little (sometimes a lot) more difficult. I am an amateur composer and arranger able to compose music "by ear" if you will, I am an amateur poet and writer and I learn foreign languages extremely fast due to being a mnemonist with high memory recall. I do not live in a reality that is different from anyone else around me due to these traits. Whether you are blind or deaf, have compromised motor skills or suffer from certain developmental issues, you live in the exact same reality as everyone. The reality is not different. How you experience and interpret it, is

yes you do.  (live within a different reality)

What is reality?  Potentially it has two definitions. That which is, and second, that which we know is.

And so the reality which exists within any human mind is differentiated by things like your own gifts and talents.

A  blind person does not live in the same world as a sighted one, because they cannot interpret and react to the same things a sighted person takes for granted.

Even a colour blind person does not. It shapes their life, their existence and their perceptions, and hence their reality.

Of course an independent reality would exist if there were no sapient self aware observers of that reality, but the fact that there are,  by our/their nature, alters and shapes that reality to a different reality, and it  also does so individually for every observer and participant within that independent reality..

[Mr Walker]

Simatong, on 31 January 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

Again, most of us do not live another reality (unless you are literally able to move to another reality for a time). It doesn't matter if this is on a disabled level or a psionic one, it is still the same reality experienced in different ways. The understanding of a tree as witnessed by a blind person will be different from a person with sight, but it is still the same tree. There is nothing "different" about it

How does the blind (or the sighted person) know this. And how will their perception alter how they feel and think about the tree, and how wll tha  affect how they treat the tree,  an thus how will it alter the indpendent reality of the tree. If a person can speak to a tree and get thoughtful and knowledgeable answers, how does that affec the reality in which they live? If a person was struck by lightening  under a tree, or fell from a tree as a child how does that affect their own reality and their relationship with trees in general.? Cumulatively our life experinces and our world views inform and create our individual realities. If you are allergic to fish or peanuts you  live in a very differnt reality to a person who is not and would be advised not to try and live in theirs.

[Seeker79]

Simatong, on 31 January 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

As I stated previously, science collects the pieces of the puzzle over time. Our knowledge and theories of the universe is based on this empiricism you speak of is based off of supported evidence. However, your statement implies that scientists see these their theories as being set in stone. No scientist worth a grain of salt would ever state that. However, they base their theories and methods on years and years of corroborative data and methodology, and they are more likely to be right based on this empiricism than you or I would be by merely guessing. Speaking of which, who are you to say our understanding of the universe based on empiricism is wrong? Would you mind backing that up, or is that an empty statement?
Key data can be learn over time, as I have said about the puzzle pieces before.
Obviously, the people of the epoch would not know about the galaxies because they didn't have the technology, but they did have a piece of the puzzle when they started to study the Milky Way thousands of years ago. It is illogical to assume in any way that empiricism is limited because of what is not known. There always has, and always will be, limits to what we know, but as time goes on, we learn more and our skills become more and more refined when it comes to empiricism. There is no method on Earth that would make it otherwise


Since your guilt or innocence is decided upon said empirical data, it is not beside the point, it is, without question, the main point. How else would they figure out what truly happened? While some assumptions might have to be made, your guilt or innocence will be discussed using ballistics and DNA. Case closed. Even without the witnesses. Concerning the data itself, if you truly did not kill both individuals, gunpowder residue would probably be on the actual assailant as well, implicating them in the process, especially if we consider all the parameters. If the assailant was close enough to the victim, their blood (the victim's) would have gotten on the assailant. But there are way too many possible scenarios to go into. The bottom line is, unless the judge, jury and scientists are idiots, most of them are not going to assume you killed both individuals
Concerning your friend, it was indeed a tough ordeal to go through, but there is a difference between doctors and nurses who see signs that make them suspicious of your story and forensic scientists who would actually be able to check out your story. The doctors and nurses only know what they see in front of them in the patient's room, a forensic scientist can actually go and get data that would actually corroborate (or refute) a claim.


Why on Earth should I have to prove whether or not you actually saw a flying spaghetti monster. YOU are the one who claimed it. Therefore, you are the one who needs to prove it, because it is your How the heck can I provide proof of something you saw. I will use my experience today as an example. I told the woman interviewing me that I could speak Mandarin Chinese and Japanese. She wanted me to prove it (possibly because she wanted to know whether or not I was BSing her).  Let's assume we had been confrontational with each other, and she said I was lying or delusional about being able to speak Mandarin or Japanese. According to your logic, I should've said "prove that I can't speak Mandarin/Japanese" or it would be like if I told someone that I saw a ghost, and they said I am delusional, and I said "prove that I'm delusional". Why the hell should they do the work for me? It is MY claim, not THEIRS. Common sense dictates that a person making the claim is responsible for the burden of proof. If you don't want the burden of proof to be on you, then don't make a claim. Common sense.


Again, I am not interested in being taught something. You say you have a power that you can show me, so I want you to show me what you can do. If you have this conscious medium to see distant galaxies using another language, then just freaking demonstrate your ability! If I told someone that there is a method that can be used to study 30 or so Chinese characters in an hour, and that I would be willing to teach them and if they crossed their arms and said "prove it!", I would simply show them what I can do and the methods I use, and if and when they were convinced, and they thought they could do the same, then I would show them how to use the method for themselves.  You don't tell a child that swimming is easy and expect them to just jump in without seeing what you yourself can do. That's just basic common sense

I'm not going to try to keep up with all that on my little iPhone, but you are missing the point on a few of the issues. But i dont have the energy to argue about it other than to say that our methodology is good... I like it. Just severely flawed in a few departments. Yes it's the best we can do right now, that's fine, but would awfully egocentric to believe that it is the only method of inquiry. It's not my job to show anybody... There are indeed things that can only be experienced, I can't show you what bubble gum tastes like, you have to chew it. But I would not expect an empiricist to understand that there certain kinds of knowledge that must be experienced it goes against the dogmas of their mode of thinking. Some things do not have language equivalents .  Why do i think our model of the universe is probably wrong.... Precidence. Every other model before it has been wrong, there is no reason to assume we got it 100% right. For example, we base the age of the universe off of the furthest galaxies we can see, yet we know that when we look in the other direction we can see just as far. Those two galaxies are further away in light years than the age of the universe. The furthest known galaxy from earth is 13.3 billion light years. It's just after the birth of the universe at 13.7. It's been traveling that long to get here.... But wait  13.3 billions years ago it was fairly close because the universe was new. Why do we see it as it looked then? It's because space itself is expanding quite near the speed of light between us... But wait dosnt this mean that there are probably more galaxies beyond that horizon. We are not the center of the universe. There must be galaxies beyond the expansion horizon. But these are realms hidden to us, and the empiricist must only use data that is obtainable. In the end they only use red shifts, cooling of cosmic background radiation, backwards extrapolations of the cosmological constant given to us by distant supernova, age of the oldest white dwarfs... Etc etc. the white elephant in the room is that all this data is comeing from the matter and radiation we can see, yet we know there is potentially a vast portion of the universe that is speeding away from us faster than the speed of light. Indeed our current models predict evenchually  this will happen between all galaxies. If we are going to consider us in an average position, we are missing nearly half the universe from our information gathering. 20 billion light years, there could be a race of people looking at another 13.3 billion light years away in the other direction. I suspect the universe is much older than anticipated, and the the focus on the empirical misses the boat because it cannot take into account parts of a universe that are effectively out of this univers, but whe know logically must

[Simatong]

Seeker79, on 31 January 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

I'm not going to try to keep up with all that on my little iPhone, but you are missing the point on a few of the issues. But i dont have the energy to argue about it other than to say that our methodology is good... I like it. Just severely flawed in a few departments. Yes it's the best we can do right now, that's fine, but would awfully egocentric to believe that it is the only method of inquiry. It's not my job to show anybody... There are indeed things that can only be experienced, I can't show you what bubble gum tastes like, you have to chew it. But I would not expect an empiricist to understand that there certain kinds of knowledge that must be experienced it goes against the dogmas of their mode of thinking. Some things do not have language equivalents .  Why do i think our model of the universe is probably wrong.... Precidence. Every other model before it has been wrong, there is no reason to assume we got it 100% right. For example, we base the age of the universe off of the furthest galaxies we can see, yet we know that when we look in the other direction we can see just as far. Those two galaxies are further away in light years than the age of the universe. The furthest known galaxy from earth is 13.3 billion light years. It's just after the birth of the universe at 13.7. It's been traveling that long to get here.... But wait  13.3 billions years ago it was fairly close because the universe was new. Why do we see it as it looked then? It's because space itself is expanding quite near the speed of light between us... But wait dosnt this mean that there are probably more galaxies beyond that horizon. We are not the center of the universe. There must be galaxies beyond the expansion horizon. But these are realms hidden to us, and the empiricist must only use data that is obtainable. In the end they only use red shifts, cooling of cosmic background radiation, backwards extrapolations of the cosmological constant given to us by distant supernova, age of the oldest white dwarfs... Etc etc. the white elephant in the room is that all this data is comeing from the matter and radiation we can see, yet we know there is potentially a vast portion of the universe that is speeding away from us faster than the speed of light. Indeed our current models predict evenchually  this will happen between all galaxies. If we are going to consider us in an average position, we are missing nearly half the universe from our information gathering. 20 billion light years, there could be a race of people looking at another 13.3 billion light years away in the other direction. I suspect the universe is much older than anticipated, and the the focus on the empirical misses the boat because it cannot take into account parts of a universe that are effectively out of this univers, but whe know logically must

Correction. Not every model before it has been wrong. Even data collected thousands of years ago has been shown on many occasions to be correct or off only by the slightest of margins. Many scientists have well established that there may be stars and galaxies older than the ones we can see, and that some of the things in the event horizon may be indicative of a previous universe. However, we are not talking about a previous universe. We are talking about the present one The age of the universe is an estimation. Again, no scientist worth a hill of beans would make a claim that it is definitive.
When it comes to tasting gum,you are comparing apples and oranges; Taste is in some ways subjective. How one thing tastes to one person may have a somewhat different taste and appeal to another. The proof showing the existence of psi phenomena would not be subjective; either you can demonstrate it or not.

But we really should get back to CakeorDeath's point, which is, how come with so many of these Jeanies can't at least one of them show their ability to a scientist if they are so great and boastful. For those who have a sense of humility and genuineness about their statement, I won't pressure them. But with all these Jeanies and Stormies out there whose only psionic ability seems to be irritating people with their pseudo-powers, either put up or shut up.

[Chrlzs]

I agree with CorD, this is getting off topic, so I'll try to keep this brief:

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

I think my example makes it quit clear.

What you think isn't important - I asked you to properly clarify.  You didn't, and haven't in this post either..

Quote

The methodology is ultimately flawed.

Opinion, no supporting evidence.

Quote

It works fine and dandy for most things, but ultimately it has a horizon that it cannot cross.

Handwaving - clearly define the 'horizon' and state precisely why it no longer works.

Quote

Because of this you would probably stack your eggs in a basket that only involved this galaxy, much like was done before galaxies were discovered. And of course you would be utterly wrong.

Ridiculous - read my questions again (remember, the ones you agreed with?)- they are clearly intended to get at the truth, indeed one of the most important ones was to simply ask - does your theory explain things better?  If it doesn't, then game over.  As it dang well should be.

Quote

Because of this empirical fundamentalism scientific knowledge is limited.

More handwaving.  Scientific knowledge is indeed limited.. to that which is properly evidenced and 'real' and works.  I'm good with that.  What I don't like is the attitude that the allegedly paranormally gifted refuse to 'share' their skills with science.  And there's a very obvious, Occam's Razor-ish, viable explanation for why that might be.  It isn't the one you are pushing.

Quote

What if that same person from my example said, come on I'll show you? It's going to be a bit of work, you are going to have to meditate for several years

Oh, now there's a surprise.  Your hypothetical example suddenly got very involved and now needs the investment of a huge amount of time along with unwavering faith - why is that?  Is it required to train non-believers' simplistic and inferior minds to the higher states needed to grasp these unbelievably complex issues?  Is it required for the lengthy but essential indoctrination / brainwashing..?  Or is it that you need to make the whole thing sound so unpleasant that I'll say I wouldn't bother?  Yes, there's a point where a hypothetical just gets too ridiculous to respond to.

Quote

You did say "show me"? Right?

Yes, I did.  And to date neither you or anyone has done so, instead preferring to orate at great length on various excuses.

Well, then, let's just go with your hypothetical.. Get started.  Begin the process now - I mean, I may not get it, but surely other higher beings are reading - they will benefit. Who cares if 'showing me' takes a year or two?  Just get on with it.

Again, why would you withhold this stuff? - seems very selfish to me..

[Seeker79]

Chrlzs, on 31 January 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

I agree with CorD, this is getting off topic, so I'll try to keep this brief:
What you think isn't important - I asked you to properly clarify.  You didn't, and haven't in this post either..
Opinion, no supporting evidence.

Handwaving - clearly define the 'horizon' and state precisely why it no longer works.

Ridiculous - read my questions again (remember, the ones you agreed with?)- they are clearly intended to get at the truth, indeed one of the most important ones was to simply ask - does your theory explain things better?  If it doesn't, then game over.  As it dang well should be.

More handwaving.  Scientific knowledge is indeed limited.. to that which is properly evidenced and 'real' and works.  I'm good with that.  What I don't like is the attitude that the allegedly paranormally gifted refuse to 'share' their skills with science.  And there's a very obvious, Occam's Razor-ish, viable explanation for why that might be.  It isn't the one you are pushing.

Oh, now there's a surprise.  Your hypothetical example suddenly got very involved and now needs the investment of a huge amount of time along with unwavering faith - why is that?  Is it required to train non-believers' simplistic and inferior minds to the higher states needed to grasp these unbelievably complex issues?  Is it required for the lengthy but essential indoctrination / brainwashing..?  Or is it that you need to make the whole thing sound so unpleasant that I'll say I wouldn't bother?  Yes, there's a point where a hypothetical just gets too ridiculous to respond to.

Yes, I did.  And to date neither you or anyone has done so, instead preferring to orate at great length on various excuses.

Well, then, let's just go with your hypothetical.. Get started.  Begin the process now - I mean, I may not get it, but surely other higher beings are reading - they will benefit. Who cares if 'showing me' takes a year or two?  Just get on with it.

Again, why would you withhold this stuff? - seems very selfish to me..

Do you want to give it a shot? I'm completely willing to put up if you will. I do it everyday.  I never said science is not aimed at the truth. It's the bias and dogma  that creeps into the institution That disturbs me. I rather like science and would rather see it free of such constraints. Just like I'd like to see the FDA actually concerned with concumers, just like I'd like to see the American cancer association actually be interested in curing and preventing cancer, just like I'd like to see politicians actually represent their constituents. Unfortunately I was formally trained in economics and I know intimately as a science ( a social science) that institutions and most people follow incentives not the truth. Scientific institutions and universities included.

Anyway I'm breaking my new years resolution to not argue anymore ( although I appreciate that no one here has resorted to adhominimns I'm so sick of them).

If you want to see, I'll follow up personally with you. Be warned, I can be a bit of an effort, but I'll stick with you until you get the verification that you need. Let me know.

[Seeker79]

Simatong, on 31 January 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Correction. Not every model before it has been wrong. Even data collected thousands of years ago has been shown on many occasions to be correct or off only by the slightest of margins. Many scientists have well established that there may be stars and galaxies older than the ones we can see, and that some of the things in the event horizon may be indicative of a previous universe. However, we are not talking about a previous universe. We are talking about the present one The age of the universe is an estimation. Again, no scientist worth a hill of beans would make a claim that it is definitive.
When it comes to tasting gum,you are comparing apples and oranges; Taste is in some ways subjective. How one thing tastes to one person may have a somewhat different taste and appeal to another. The proof showing the existence of psi phenomena would not be subjective; either you can demonstrate it or not.

But we really should get back to CakeorDeath's point, which is, how come with so many of these Jeanies can't at least one of them show their ability to a scientist if they are so great and boastful. For those who have a sense of humility and genuineness about their statement, I won't pressure them. But with all these Jeanies and Stormies out there whose only psionic ability seems to be irritating people with their pseudo-powers, either put up or shut up.

I'll stand corrected .... Severely Incomplete is a better term I guess. I am trying to put up, but unfortunately the only skeptic with enough Cahunas to ever take me up on it was Sakari. True integrity.

It can be demonstrated, but like you said, we all experience things differently, and the methodology throws out experiences. What I have to offer is a confirmation for you. You will not be able to quantify it any more than you can quantify the taste of bubble gum.

I'm not convinced as much as I used to be that the BB happened the way they say it did. To many holes. We know this horizon must exist, and it would be foolish to think there is not a vast extension of the universe behind it. If it is an end of this universe then it's a moving and expanding end. Think about that for a second. The edges of the universe are expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. By standard physics Dark energy must be beyond infinite.... ( I don't really believe in dark energy something else is happening). There are other holes. If this galaxy looked the way it did 400 or so million years after the bb, then all the galaxies in between were crunched into that space. Then galaxys beyond it's horizon were crunch very close, but would not have been beyond its horizon at that time. This just beggs the question of just how big the big bang really was. If there are galaxy's 100 billon light years away then the entire structure age and nature of the universe is quite different than we ever thought.... Yet again. Then how does this play into qm, string theory, curled dimensions, and how our pinpoint conciousness interacts with it.

Anyway I have experienced things and verified them personally, I just can't reproduce them only show how one might see what I have. which is reproduction. Verification of something seems to be about how many people can experience it, so it's just a matter of numbers. I am convinced if enough people could see the depths of thinks like MW, we might indeed progress a loose this silly and defeated notion that material based methodologies can give us complete answers.

Anyway take care. Good times

[Simatong]

Seeker79, on 31 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

I'll stand corrected .... Severely Incomplete is a better term I guess. I am trying to put up, but unfortunately the only skeptic with enough Cahunas to ever take me up on it was Sakari. True integrity.

Obviously, something is incomplete if you don't have all the pieces yet... No one here even implied that the knowledge was complete. Most scientists themselves don't make such an assessment.

Seeker79, on 31 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

It can be demonstrated, but like you said, we all experience things differently, and the methodology throws out experiences. What I have to offer is a confirmation for you. You will not be able to quantify it any more than you can quantify the taste of bubble gum.

That makes absolutely no sense. The methodology doesn't throw out experience. It is in fact created from it. We all experience a different type of rainbow when we look at it. Methodologies were created to question and bring understanding when considering these experiences. If this experience did not exist, there would be no need to make a methodology to test it. You don't test something that doesn't exist.
Concerning bubble gum, as I said, taste is often subjective. Telekinesis or lasers coming out of the eye sockets would be considered objective evidence; either it can be done by an individual or it can't. You are comparing apples and oranges

Seeker79, on 31 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

I'm not convinced as much as I used to be that the BB happened the way they say it did. To many holes. We know this horizon must exist, and it would be foolish to think there is not a vast extension of the universe behind it. If it is an end of this universe then it's a moving and expanding end. Think about that for a second. The edges of the universe are expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. By standard physics Dark energy must be beyond infinite.... ( I don't really believe in dark energy something else is happening). There are other holes. If this galaxy looked the way it did 400 or so million years after the bb, then all the galaxies in between were crunched into that space. Then galaxys beyond it's horizon were crunch very close, but would not have been beyond its horizon at that time. This just beggs the question of just how big the big bang really was. If there are galaxy's 100 billon light years away then the entire structure age and nature of the universe is quite different than we ever thought.... Yet again. Then how does this play into qm, string theory, curled dimensions, and how our pinpoint conciousness interacts with it.

First of all, many scientists admit to there perhaps being older galaxies and planets and other things beyond the event horizon, but again, we are talking about OUR universe. If there is a galaxy 100 billion light years away, it may be a part of the older universe. If it is a part of our universe, then we would have to rethink the age of the universe.... Welcome to science, where theories and discoveries change at times. However, at present, the evidence suggests 13.7 billion years give or take 59 million years, and these are scientists using methods far beyond the comprehension of myself and (obviously) you.

Seeker79, on 31 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

Anyway I have experienced things and verified them personally, I just can't reproduce them only show how one might see what I have. which is reproduction. Verification of something seems to be about how many people can experience it, so it's just a matter of numbers. I am convinced if enough people could see the depths of thinks like MW, we might indeed progress a loose this silly and defeated notion that material based methodologies can give us complete answers.

Anyway take care. Good times

This entire debate has been basically nothing but a bunch of hand-waving and redirects. Here is a direct question for you. Using what was discussed in the original post... simply answer this question. Can you do telekinesis? Yes or no? Can you incinerate anything? Yes or no? If you could, would you want to show evidence of it? Yes or no.
No more hand-waving, no more talking about the universe. It is a simple question with a simple answer that you seemed to have only answered with increasing amounts of hand-waving

[keninsc]

Well, not to try and create any more negative energy here, but if one of the psychics want to email me what they think might be the winning number for the up coming powerball drawing on Saturday then I'd gladly play them. Worse thing that could happen is they don't hit.......just email me before Saturday.

[Mr Walker]

Simatong, on 31 January 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

Again, most of us do not live another reality (unless you are literally able to move to another reality for a time). It doesn't matter if this is on a disabled level or a psionic one, it is still the same reality experienced in different ways. The understanding of a tree as witnessed by a blind person will be different from a person with sight, but it is still the same tree. There is nothing "different" about it

How do you know this? How does the blind person know this? How does a colour blind person know what colour pants he is putting on in the morning? How does the blind man find the tree to sit in its shade on a hot day?


His reality IS different to a sighted person's. And if a person can see physical ghosts, or angels, or god, or something a thousand miles away, then their reality is different again . Of course the universal reality also exists (one is likely to assume) but that is NOT the reality self aware entities live in. They live in a reality which involves their perception of, and engagement with, a much more personal and individualised reality. Feedback from that reality influences their perception of the universal reality and thus creates an even more personalised reality in which they exist.
If we all lived in the same reality we would all BE the same. ie a form of hive mind.
Ps any human can chose to move to another reality, and many of us do it all the time. It does not involve altering the common shared reality but shifting ourself to another time and place by using the abilities of our minds.

[Simatong]

Mr Walker, on 02 February 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

How do you know this? How does the blind person know this? How does a colour blind person know what colour pants he is putting on in the morning? How does the blind man find the tree to sit in its shade on a hot day?


His reality IS different to a sighted person's. And if a person can see physical ghosts, or angels, or god, or something a thousand miles away, then their reality is different again . Of course the universal reality also exists (one is likely to assume) but that is NOT the reality self aware entities live in. They live in a reality which involves their perception of, and engagement with, a much more personal and individualised reality. Feedback from that reality influences their perception of the universal reality and thus creates an even more personalised reality in which they exist.
If we all lived in the same reality we would all BE the same. ie a form of hive mind.
Ps any human can chose to move to another reality, and many of us do it all the time. It does not involve altering the common shared reality but shifting ourself to another time and place by using the abilities of our minds.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. I will say this one more time and then end. Just because you experience reality in a different way, it doesn't make it a different reality, it just means your experience in that reality is different. Period/

[Mr Walker]

keninsc, on 01 February 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Well, not to try and create any more negative energy here, but if one of the psychics want to email me what they think might be the winning number for the up coming powerball drawing on Saturday then I'd gladly play them. Worse thing that could happen is they don't hit.......just email me before Saturday.

My wife interrupted me in the middle of this, so I' m not confident, but try 5  7 13 11 41 then 19 ( my birthday) If you are buying multiple tickets include as many  multiples of 3 as you can, and more fives and sevens. eg 27 or 15

[Mr Walker]

Simatong, on 02 February 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

That makes absolutely no sense at all. I will say this one more time and then end. Just because you experience reality in a different way, it doesn't make it a different reality, it just means your experience in that reality is different. Period/

I am sorry it makes no sense to you. That is because your reality is differnt to mine.

As i stated in my original post, it depends on your definition of reality. There are at least two.

The reality  which exists indpendent of us (And would exist if there were no self aware observers and participants ) and the reality which exists with us, self aware, within it.  These are very different things, but both ARE our reality.

We are like observers in a quantum experiment. Our very existence as observers alters the reality which would otherwise exist without our presence in it.
Finally, an age old question. How does a self aware and perceptive entity distinguish between what would exist without his presence and observation, and that which he perceives to exist?

Edited by Mr Walker, 02 February 2013 - 08:33 AM.