Ramsey Dukes spends a great deal of time discussing the dual relationship of magic and science. I'm not really surprised, there are numerous examples of modern science being born of occult alchemists.
Most Atheists i have encountered ridiculed sincere people who don't buy into the irrational scientism they promote. On the other side we have people claiming the power to side-step the apparent laws of physics, yet when asked to demonstrate that power, not only do they not provide the demonstration, but the reasons they give for not so doing a range of mildly amusing to utterly ridiculous. It may sound flimflam, but I believe levitation might violate known laws of physics, but that's no reason to deny.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Yeah, but it is a good reason to be highly skeptical.
indeed it is my friend. Indeed it is.
@ I believe levitation might violate known laws of physics, but that's no reason to deny.
Then explain how the physicists are able to do it? Obviously they are following the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
WHAT HAS ANY OF THIS TO DO WITH ATHEISM?
1. If reality is mechanistic it does not stand to reason anything at all is programmed. The assumption of a programmer must be proved. This is "Begging the Qeustion" a logical fallacy. You assume the answer in the premise.
Quantum Locking Levitation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
Magnetic Levitation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y51rrBmepMw
Or perhaps you meant this stupid crap. (Even I can do this one.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v15OcJTjNyE
There is no paradox in Johnston's Paradox.
2) These subrealities would generally be variants from the original rather than exact copies (witness the widespread existence of magic, reincarnation and gods in our subjective realities) and so would seldom themselves be purely mechanistic.
There is no justification at all for the second premise. No sub realities and why should there be a copy vs. just other realities. This is a "false dichotomy" fallacy where certain choices are offered while hundreds of others are omitted. It further assumes that there is something called "Original Reality!" What the hell is that and wouldn't all realities simply be reality if they existed?
Beyond all that, Just because there are alternate realities, there is no justification what so ever for the idea that those realities, unlike our own, would contain Gods, magic, or reincarnation.) This is all just imaginative BS.
JOHNSTON'S PARADOX:
1) if reality is ultimately mechanistic it could be programmed into an information structure and generate multiple sub-realities (witness the fact that each of us inhabits our own subjective sub-universe).
2) These subrealities would generally be variants from the original rather than exact copies (witness the widespread existence of magic, reincarnation and gods in our subjective realities) and so would seldom themselves be purely mechanistic.
3) As subrealities generate their own sub-subrealities the probability that we happen to occupy the original mechanistic reality shrinks toward zero.
4) Therefore, if reality is ultimately mechanistic, then we are most unlikely to be living in a mechanistic universe.
Ironically, You Have Proved My Point.
Yes, of course, I see that now. The bedazzling grandeur of your aphoristic observation is confounding to my inattentive utterance to say the least. All praise to your mastery of the English language and your adept resourcefulness and allucative soliloquy. Congratulations.
I speak 5 languages, And English was the last one I had to learn. Thank you for your wishful thoughts. The point is you are falsifying something that is unfalsifiable.
I don't see the point in making fun of how people write. If you want to improve someone's writing sincerely, then be forward and point out the flaw explicitly.
No. Rejecting the claim.
Is there an authoritative source on Johnstone's Paradox (like maybe something from Johnstone, whoever that is)? I found many different versions.
The main books that cover it are S.S.O.T.B.M.E. and Words Made Flesh and BLAST!.
Ramsey Dukes elaborates on what he calls "Johnstone's Paradox". The dude spends a great deal of time discussing the relationship of magic(the occult) and science.
This was the best I found as it has some discussion with it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/occult/comments/t7j3o/johnstones_paradox/
chimp3 is right (posted below); might as well be from the New Age Bullshit Generator.
It is easier, by far, to accept that the laws of physics have not been violated than it is to accept a claim of levitation that lacks extraordinary evidence. Without that evidence, we need only say that levitation is not credible. That means there is no particular reason to take it seriously. There is no requirement to deny it anymore than there is a requirement to deny the Easter Bunny.
Lemuel Johnston, a pen name for Lionel Snell, a contemporary English magician, publisher and author on magic and philosophy. The paradox in question appears in one of his books.
Unless the OP has another Paradox he is thinking of. S.S.O.T.B.M.E. is written by Ramsy Dukes, another pen name for Lionel Snell. Leads me to think there is nothing in here at all that is designed to be taken seriously.
Johnstone's Paradox? Time to revisit the New Age Bullshit Generator:
http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
"Consciousness consists of expanding wave functions of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a condensing of the conscious. Nothing is impossible."
" If reality is ultimately mechanistic it could be programmed into an information structure and generate multiple sub-realities (witness the fact that each of us inhabits our own subjective sub-universe)".
"How should you navigate this pranic quantum cycle? If you have never experienced this paradigm shift of the creative act, it can be difficult to exist."
Can you Spot the Johnstone Paradox?
@adam22
Can we agree that the definition of "levitation" is the process by which an object is held aloft, without mechanical support, in a stable position?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitation
If this phenomena is observed, it must be observed and examined to determine the cause. We just don't slap the "magic" label on it.
Can you provide any valid observations of levitation? That is the starting point, not to just accept rumors and fables.
Johnstone's Paradox = new age bullshit.
rmfr