/sci/ - Science & Math

Frankly, I'm more of a Shin Megami Tensei fan than a Persona fan.

>>11904064
Not a physicist, but I believe the double slit "measurement" does not mean there has to be a consciousness that performs a measurement, does it? Also, what are the syncronicities you've experienced? It seems to me that these are things people believe because they want to believe them, not because the evidence suggests they are true.

Btw does anyone here have a pdf of the german (original) text of Jung's red book/liber novus? I can only find it printed for a ridiculous prize.

>>11904139
Not a physicist either, however, I am familiar enough with the tenets to have an entry level understanding. From what I have read, for some reason when particles are shot through two slits they behave as waves and we know this because of the interference pattern that is shown on the other side of the slits, However, when we place measurement devices to see why this happens the particles no longer behave as waves and form two columns as if they were particles. In essence, when we observe the particles (project consciousness onto them) they behave differently.

Synchronicity in reference to tarot readings I have given to other people and myself. I have not had a single day go by where I have given myself a reading and a part of my day wasn't in the cards. In addition the readings I have given others always shock the participant at the accuracy of the reading.

>>11904139
Also here is the book you asked about. It also comes with a plethora of various other esoteric literature if you are interested. The red book is located in /temple of Solomon the king/psychological model/Jung/the red book - fixed.pdf

I found this treasure trove on /x/. Enjoy anon.

>>11904247
>>11904139
https://mega.nz/folder/jlEwhYyJ#iK4mVC4y5iwk_cr3eIpX4g/folder/aplWXYCZ

OP here again,

I would also like to draw attention to this document I found on the CIA's website.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000100200002-9.pdf

Page 12 describes experimental test subjects exhibiting telekinetic abilities. I would be heavily skeptical if this document did not have the .gov domain.

I'm posting this here because I am hoping that the people of /sci/ can give me a logical explanation for these metaphysical phenomena other than the psychological model proposed by Jung.

>>11904219
>In essence when we observe the particles (project consciousness onto them) they behave differently.
This is exactly the point I don't agree with. I think the word "measurement" used here means something that can also take place if no consciousness is present as opposed to the way we use the word "measurement" in daily life. However I'm not a physicist, I just remember once having read something like this.

I am still sceptical of the synchronicities you describe, because there is not really a way to tell if there is some "spooky" external force that causes the readings to be true or if there are other factors (for example the predictions might be so open-ended that you can always find some truth in them). To make this statement more rigorous, let's assume that the probability that a random prediction of the day of a random friend of yours is true is p. If you observe how often your tarot cards hold true and it turns out they're true with a higher probability than p, then you would have proven that there is some "spooky" force at work. However such an experiment is impossible because you cannot actually find a value for p. There are too many things that influence p. How accurate are the predictions you make? "You will meet someone you love today", "You will meet someone you love romantically today", "You will fall in love with a big tiddy goth girl named Britta, 23 years old, today",...? If you tell 15 friends they'll find a gf that day and one of them actually does, does that prove or disprove synchronicity? I think you'd need a lot of data that accurately represents the likelihood of random events in your friend's lives to be able to answer such questions. And even then, there might be subconscious processes at work where you make a prediction based on what you know about that friends life, thus getting a value that is higher than p. I would say the best bet is to apply ockhams razor and assume that there is no synchronicity.

Thanks for the pdf :)

>>11904064
He was brilliant, and basically correct.

>>11904280
The fuck?

>>11904280
*ahem*

THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT HUH

Synchronicity is a form of angel magick.

>>11906209
Bro.

He was great, but I think Jordan Peterson ruined him for a lot of people.

>>11904280
"on light and other high frequency phenomena" lecture by tesla has some ideas. one being the generation and projection of electrical waves from the eyes. /x/ you know.

>>11904064
yes, welcome to the world that is not /sci/, now out
go either to lit or x with this
i doubt anyone considers jung to be a scientist

>>11904064
>As someone who takes a scientific approach to life
>Synchronicity and Magick
Wew, lad.

Synchronicity is literally just glorified coincidence. I wonder why people are willing to believe in (((coincidences))) only when they involve Jews but there must be a deeper meaning in every other kind of coincidence. There is zero evidence for any of this shit; /pol/'s tin-foil hat theories are more plausible than any of this.

>>11904219
The tools you use to measure are the thing that affects the particles, not your "consciousness". The issue is that you can't measure a phenomenon without interfering with it, and this becomes a non-negligible problem at the quantum level.

>>11904280
>https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000100200002-9.pdf
You do realize that the CIA put money into ANYTHING that could turn out to be useful, right? They even thought they could mind-control people with LSD as is exemplified by their famous MK-Ultra. Just because something has "CIA" written on it, it doesn't mean you should take it seriously (other way around, if anything).

>>11906329
/lit/'s been thoroughly schizofried. It's shit now. Fuck that place.

>>11906342

OP here,

>Synchronicity is literally just glorified coincidence. I wonder why people are willing to believe in (((coincidences))) only when they involve Jews but there must be a deeper meaning in every other kind of coincidence. There is zero evidence for any of this shit; /pol/'s tin-foil hat theories are more plausible than any of this.

Nobody said anything about Jews, you are the only person in this thread who mentioned "(((them)))". I find it funny how a legitimate intellectual discourse has to be tainted by this carcinogenic belief that "(((they)))" control everything in an attempt to not take responsibility for your own actions in life.

>The tools you use to measure are the thing that affects the particles, not your "consciousness". The issue is that you can't measure a phenomenon without interfering with it, and this becomes a non-negligible problem at the quantum level.

How could you tell either way? If it's the tool that causes the change, any method of measuring it is null and void according to your theory. According to the dogma of "science" and I am assuming also you, anything that cannot be measured is a pseudoscience.

>You do realize that the CIA put money into ANYTHING that could turn out to be useful, right? They even thought they could mind-control people with LSD as is exemplified by their famous MK-Ultra. Just because something has "CIA" written on it, it doesn't mean you should take it seriously (other way around, if anything).

The problem with your example is that they did use LSD for mind control. The test subjects are documented to have gone clinically insane because of their experimentation. Of all things you could have used as an example, this was probably the worst, LSD puts you in a highly suggestible state, furthermore, the act of using electroshock therapy and consistent autosuggestion in this altered state is guaranteed to have an effect on the subconscious belief system.

>>11906151
I can understand your point, however, like I said to the other anon, how could you tell either way if it is the measurement tool or consciousness itself? Ockhams razor would imply that it is consciousness itself that is causing these events to take place.

I completely understand your skepticism for the tarot cards, it baffles me to this day and I have been seeing results for nearly 2 years now. Yes the information you can receive from them is vague, however, if the universe is solely random, the information I would receive would also always be random and insignificant. The fact that there is any semblance of reality reflected in the cards demonstrates that there must be some force projecting information through the cards.

Also, glad I could help, enjoy the book.

>>11904064
>I needed a way to explain paranormal experiences I have had in my life
you have never had a paranormal experience in your life
you have had experiences that you might not have been able to adequately explain, but they were basically normal

>>11906642
You are correct, that's why I chose to adopt Carl Jungs archetypal world view. It no longer classifies things that are not explainable as paranormal, instead it suggests that they are anomalies that are brought about because of our unconsciousness having direct connection to reality.

I'm from /x/. I don't want to bother you guys if you're busy building the historical model of imaginary-symbolic scientific reason. But I do think there's room for truth in science, which is why I'm here.

>>11906151
Divination is not synchronicity, merely a function of intuition. Synchronicity cannot occur under objective causal contracts, such as intuited knowledge of the future, as the divine does not work within the mortal and profane.

>>11906342
Coincidence is just an acausal juncture of meaning unfathomable to the individual.

>The issue is that you can't measure a phenomenon without interfering with it, and this becomes a non-negligible problem at the quantum level.
That's exactly the point I was making above. That's why I don't do /sci/, the vast majority is restricted to the Imaginary-Symbolic in complete neglect The Real. But that is due to scientific subjectivities with an infantile dependence upon symbolic evidence. Pop-scientists, you know? I'm clearly jaded. I'm willing to be vulnerable and intimate in order to share understanding, and have been hurt enough to cause resentment. "Show me evidence. Prove it." It's called reason, bitch. Logos. Nous. Not just sense, but good sense. Not just eyes and ears, but eyes which can see and ears which can hear. Evidence of God? EVERYWHERE. FUCKING LOOK AROUND.

I know the people I'm bitching about actually have nothing to do with science. They're just scientific subjectivities and trapped within it's historical framework, having no actual understanding of it. Thanks for helping me get that out.

>>11906642
Paranormal refers to a branch of normalcy, though I do consider that distinction to be unnecessary.

>>11906646
In my experience concepts like God, magic, miracles, demons, mysticism, etc. all fit perfectly in a naturalist framework.

While I'm here, what does /sci/ think of Alfred North Whitehead?

>>11906940
>Divination is not synchronicity, merely a function of intuition. Synchronicity cannot occur under objective causal contracts, such as intuited knowledge of the future, as the divine does not work within the mortal and profane.

OP here,
While I agree with you on your thought that the tarot is a faculty of intuition. I fail to see how this is not an example of synchronicity. I say this only because the order of the archetypal images (the tarot cards) are demonstrated in a manifestation within the physical plane. If we were discussing scrying using a crystal ball however, there is no objective manifestation, hence being a purely intuitive observation and fulfilling the requirements of being an intuitive faculty while not exhibiting synchronistic behavior.

>>11904064
I've had incredible coincidences or synchronicities throughout my life with strong connections. I know humans love to seek out patterns (even where there may not be any) as a survival instinct, but it feels like more than that. The odds, the math alone, points toward a deeper explanation.

>>11906342
Imagine being a scientist with zero intuition.

>>11907290
Tarot is synchronic, it "aims at describing a language at a specific point of time, usually the present." It aims at describing the order of objects, which is the relation between all oscillating systems in the cosmos, from heartbeats to the eternal objects contained within the Godhead. As above, so below. There is no simultaneous occurrence of meaningful events, but an event which describes the occurrence of meaningful events. Tarot is one of the best representations of our system Logos. I consider Tarot itself to be a refinement of mythologies, which are also synchronic. Studying them is an excellent practice, drawing them is just too profane for my liking. It's not cosmic sexy.

Using Tarot for divination is an attempt to strategize seduction. It pulls the divine into an objective framework then draws a causal contract, which extinguishes divine light in order to extract meaning. I consider synchronicity to be a liberation of divine light which shares meaning. It is romance and intimacy manifested into bodies which represent it to itself. Divination is sex manifested through bodies, which may represent a romance and intimacy not of itself.

>What more is there to say? Nothing is closer to this delicious, vertiginous, insoluble sensation of being the decisive element in some situation without willing it, than pleasing someone with a single glance. A tiny cause, an extraordinary effect: it’s the only proof we have of the existence of God. Incalculable connections are the stuff of our dreams, but also of our daily bread. We like nothing more than this crazy imbalance of cause and effect - it opens fabulous horizons on our origins and on our potential power. They say that seduction is a strategy. Nothing could be more wrong. Seduction is a matter of these unexpected connections that any strategy can at best only attempt to reproduce. (Baudrillard).

Scrying a crystal ball attempts sympathetic resonance between intuition and the medium.

>>11904219
based schizoposter

>>11904064
You say you have synchronicities with tarot readings.

I would contend that the vague, symbolic nature of tarot cards allows one to invent connections where none may exist. The fact that you describe Tarot cards as physical, and therefore more legitimate, is foolish- they exist, especially in your memory, as mental objects, vulnerable to all manner of distortions.

As for Jung himself, I find his work unviable for its unfalsifiable quality. He's more of a philosopher than a scientist, like many psychologists of his kind.

>>11909329
Based, Yes. Schizoposter? How exactly?

>>11909384
>The fact that you describe Tarot cards as physical, and therefore more legitimate, is foolish- they exist, especially in your memory, as mental objects, vulnerable to all manner of distortions.

If I am able to intuit from the order of the archetypal cards, the current life circumstances of the patient in question, regardless of how much is mental processing, some factor played a role in organizing the cards in the order they appeared in the physical plane to allow me to intuit meaning from them.

As I have said earlier in this thread, even if the archetypal cards have vague meanings, they still have relevance to the question asked and hold true. If the universe was truly random the cards would very rarely have any relevance to the question asked at all.

>>11910038
Alternatively, the order of the cards is actually irrelevant- those that attend tarot readings aren't coming with a skeptical mind.

You said it yourself. The vagueness means that they have relevance to any question.

>>11910466
Well see, that's where you are wrong. The occult is a science in and of itself, If you didn't approach it with skepticism it would be the same thing as being a die hard catholic. The point isnt that it relates to the query, its that it is correct. My first tarot reading went something like this...

>go on vacation
>start wandering down the strip
>see metaphysical store
>disbelief.png
>walk in because I think it is important to have an open mind to be a good scientist.
>pay $20 for a tarot reading
>sit down get reading
>shit.exe
>maybe this is real... nah ill just live my life as I was and see what happens.
>go back home from vacation and live as I was for 6 months

Everything I was warned would happen did happen. I was warned to stay away from certain people because they would betray me if I do not change what I am doing.

CoInCiDeNcE?

After that experience I bought a tarot of my own and taught myself how to read the cards. Since then I have been giving readings to other people and seeing them experience the same thing I have when I went on vacation.

>>11904064
https://www.pnas.org/content/101/35/13050

Occult studiers can sometimes underestimate the extent to which the human brain relies upon an unconsious recognition patterns and experience. You visually disregard so many things in your day to day that once you have an image of something in your mind and notice it elsewhere, the belief that it has always been there can be temporarily suspended.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5625017/

Taking that into consideration, it's no wonder so many schizophrenics flock to /x/.

>>11910713
What've you done, as a skeptic, to assure yourself that the readings are specific enough to count as divination and not just universals that can be applied to everyone in some fashion?

>As I have said earlier in this thread, even if the archetypal cards have vague meanings, they still have relevance to the question asked and hold true. If the universe was truly random the cards would very rarely have any relevance to the question asked at all.

I think you have this backwards, if the cards pulled were truly random the universe would rarely have relevance. The cards are not random. Fortune, betrayal, love, disease, and death are all universals that will occur with or around a person at relatively often intervals.

>>11904280

>>11906641
>The fact that there is any semblance of reality reflected in the cards demonstrates that there must be some force projecting information through the cards.
Inverse is more probable given our world model. Human experience in western tradition is universal in a lot of ways. Vague concepts can be easily fit to model your life circumstances. And in theese cards, the concepts that had more probabillity to describe human experience in western tradition were selected for. Your brain is the projector by assigning meaning to theese situations, and by the assumption of some level of universality of human experience and selection for the concepts (in the deck) effectively describing that universality, they are just not too far fetched to not be meaningfull yet enough to give you a sense of oath. And same thing happened to people before and is one of the reasons for the perserverance of the tradition.