Dr. Michael Masters – UFOs Could Be Us From the Future – October 29, 20

[The One]

Dr. Michael P. Masters is a professor of biological anthropology at Montana Tech in Butte, Montana. He received a Ph.D. in Anthropology from The Ohio State University in 2009, where he specialized in human evolutionary anatomy, archaeology, and biomedicine. Dr. Masters spent the following decade developing a broad academic background that unites the fields of anthropology, astronomy, astrobiology and physics, to examine the premise that UFOs and Aliens are simply our distant human descendants, returning from the future to study us in their own hominin evolutionary past. His new book, Identified Flying Objects: A Multidisciplinary Scientific Approach to the UFO Phenomenon, challenges readers to consider new possibilities while cultivating conversations about our ever-evolving understanding of time and time travel.

In this episode, we discuss Michael’s research and what inspired him to do this research and write the book.

Read more about Dr. Michael Masters and his book at: idflyobj.com. (https://idflyobj.com/)

https://d1at8ppinvdju8.cloudfront.net/1/156/show_11567385_2019_10_30_01_36_23.mp3?

[Emil El Zapato]

That's always been my favorite theory...I'm sure I wasn't the 1st one to consider that...

[Emil El Zapato]

I'm buying the book... :)

[Emil El Zapato]

I read the 1st chapter of his book and I'm ready to supplement his theory. It goes like this:

Dr. Masters states that only 30% of postgraduates give any credence to UFO theories while the general public believers form a much higher percentage. Everyone knows that the natural habitat of the liberal is postgraduate academia. On the other hand, conspiracy theorists form a high percentage of believers for obvious reasons (often abducted?) and coincidentally, or perhaps not, many conspiracy theorists are rabid conservatives.

Many, if not most abductees report some aspect of genetic manipulation or (damn thing's jumping around on me) recovery of genetic material with admonitions of 'treat your planet kindly', 'treat your neighbor kindly', etc. Are you starting to see it...I was correct all along.

Conservatives went extinct and our distant descendants are returning to recoup some of their genetic material, presumably to house in some 75th century facsimile of a zoo!

[Aragorn]

[...] liberal [...] rabid conservatives.

And on a thread about UFOs and time traveling, no less... :rolleyes:


<sigh> :fpalm:



Beam me up, Scotty; Captain Brainwash was here... :abduct:

[Emil El Zapato]

lol...it was kind of a joke...I'm a hybrid by the way... :)

On a more serious note, I just started reading but his support for the time traveling is a little weak...he didn't consult with a true physicist... :)

[Chris]

I think it is more of a trying to keep the integrity of the timeline intact kind of deal.

Many might benefit from messing with our timeline, which presupposes, that there must be some sort of system in the future, or even outside time, from a higher-dimensional perspective (since time is just a dimension, the fourth one), which deals with infiltrators and manipulators. This might very well be run by our future descendants. In fact, if we presume, that time travel is possible (and it is, since we are dealing with another dimension, hence it should be possible to traverse it, once you can move in four dimensions), then at some future point, civilisation on earth will reach a level of technological development, where time travel is routine.

Given all of the above, there must be time travellers even today, though they would generally avoid direct contact to keep the timeline clean. On the other hand, some would seek to manipulate it for their own ends, therefore we would see signs of intervention from advanced craft and the occasional accident. If there was ever contact with present humans, those from the future should be broadly similar to us, or perhaps a further evolved version of modern humans, probably with a smartphone stuck permanently to their faces :p

In any case, existing UFO sightings would certainly conform to some of these patterns, so it is logical to assume that at least some of the UFO activity that has been reported is a result of time travel. The rest is probably interdimensional and interstellar, though of course in the concept of multiple higher dimensions, there is really no difference between any of these forms of travel, the technology used to bridge and traverse these vast distances is probably identical in all these cases.

[Emil El Zapato]

Is it ok to say more likely stuck up their vestigial canal. Your speculation, Chris, makes sense. Preserving the timeline would be paramount but consider if the timeline manipulation is geared toward the 'lost genetic material'. Manipulating the timeline might not be critical given that history/future would be unchanged as a result because it would not exist in the case of the lost.

[Emil El Zapato]

Fake or Not: The reporter is much too calm in reporting this (First thing of interest I've seen on PA in awhile)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GJ1T1SiKPM

[Aragorn]

Fake or Not: The reporter is much too calm in reporting this (First thing of interest I've seen on PA in awhile)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GJ1T1SiKPM

It's fake. This video has been discussed here before, and as it turns out, neither of those two news agencies exist. It's probably an excerpt from a sci-fi series ─ possibly one that never aired ─ that got posted on YouTube as being real. ;)

[Emil El Zapato]

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/icoblk/i-111.png
Ufo in Stuttgart Tunnel caught on Surveillance cams.

"Sorry to say but that's fake. A semi trailer being lifted up what looks like at least 6 -7 feet up in the air then dropped with no damage. I think not. The graphics look pretty fake to me. As for the ball lightning. I think I've seen this before. But I don't know were. Reminds me of a photon torpedo in Star Trek."

Internet users unmask a video about a supposed UFO in Germany (published in 2013)

An alleged UFO caused an accident while chasing a truck in a tunnel in the German city of Stuttgart. This is ensured by a report uploaded to YouTube that has already generated numerous criticisms from Internet users.
The report, allegedly transmitted from the scene of the accident, was posted online on February 27 by a crustyclips1, a UFO news collector, according to the selection of videos he had put on YouTube. The story begins with the presentation of a correspondent who tells how the accident was. Then comes the turn of the images allegedly captured by surveillance cameras installed inside the tunnel and on the highway, near the exit of the tunnel.

In one of the fragments you can see how a luminous ball quickly passes over the cars inside the tunnel. In another fragment a pillar of light knocks down a truck that has just left the tunnel. According to the logo that appears on the screen, the report was made by the German news channel 9 HPDM. In five days the news was seen by more than 121,000 people. However, users are sure that it is a 100% manipulated story.

"It is a simulation of very low quality. The reflections of this ball of lights are not even visible in the tunnel walls," says one of the Internet users, dmitriy_5. Others think the video looks too much like one of the 'Men in black' scenes in which Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are chasing an alien in a futuristic car. Other commentators go further in finding problems and say that the correspondent, Andrea Krauss, speaks German with a very strong accent. One thing is clear, regardless of several opinions the chain 9 HPDM does not even exist.

[Emil El Zapato]

So far the book is pretty disappointing. Masters spends an inordinate amount of time discounting the possibility of ET because of the distances involved and then launches into his defense of his theory based on time travel. He obviously is aware of space-time but seems to miss how they might play together, but he is trying to sell a book, after all.

Anyway, Why not travel back in time say, about 10 billion years and see what you have around you...hell, they might end up on ET's parents doorstep.

How Big Was The Universe At The Moment Of Its Creation?

An ultra-deep view of galaxies many billions of light years away in the distant Universe.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017 %2F03%2F1-3Jenjio4tNuTGQx3NSnHAA-1200x528.jpg

You might think of the Universe as infinite, and quite honestly, it might truly be infinite, but we don't think we'll ever know for sure. Thanks to the Big Bang -- the fact that the Universe had a birthday, or that we can only go back a finite amount of time -- and the fact that the speed of light is finite, we're limited in how much of the Universe we can see. By time you get to today, the observable Universe, at 13.8 billion years old, extends for 46.1 billion light years in all directions from us. So how big was it all the way back then, some 13.8 billion years ago? Let's look to the Universe we see to find out.

When we look out at the distant galaxies, as far as our telescopes can view, there are some things that are easy to measure, including:


what its redshift is, or how much its light has shifted from an inertial frame-of-rest,
how bright it appears to be, or how much light we can measure from the object at our great distance,
and how big it appears to be, or how many angular degrees it takes up on the sky.


These are very important, because if we know what the speed of light is (one of the few things we know exactly), and how intrinsically either bright or big the object we're looking at is (which we think we know; more in a second), then we can use this information all together to know how far away any object actually is.

https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017 %2F03%2FCandleRulerWide_1-1200x675.jpg
Standard candles (L) and standard rulers (R) are two different techniques astronomers use to measure the expansion of space at various times/distances in the past.

In reality, we can only make estimates of how bright or big an object truly is, because there are assumptions that go into this. If you see a supernova go off in a distant galaxy, you assume that you know how intrinsically bright that supernova was based on the nearby supernovae that you've seen, but you also assume that the environments in which that supernova went off was similar, the supernova itself was similar, and that there was nothing in between you and the supernova that changed the signal you're receiving. Astronomers call these three classes effects evolution (if older/more distant objects are intrinsically different), environmental (if the locations of these objects differ significantly from where we think they are) and extinction (if something like dust blocks the light) effects, in addition to the effects we may not even know are at play.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017 %2F02%2F0-dHYyl2pY0-KA4MKs.jpg
But if we're right about the intrinsic brightness (or size) of an object we see, then based on a simple brightness/distance relation, we can determine how far away those objects are. Moreover, by measuring their redshifts, we can learn how much the Universe has expanded over the time the light has traveled to us. And because there's a very well-specified relationship between matter-and-energy and space-and-time -- the exact thing Einstein's General Relativity gives us -- we can use this information to figure out all the different combinations of all the different forms of matter-and-energy present in the Universe today.

But that's not all!
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017 %2F03%2FPlanck_before_after.jpg
If you know what your Universe is made out of, which is:

0.01% — Radiation (photons)
0.1% — Neutrinos (massive, but ~1 million times lighter than electrons)
4.9% — Normal matter, including planets, stars, galaxies, gas, dust, plasma, and black holes
27% — Dark matter, a type of matter that interacts gravitationally but is different from all the particles of the Standard Model
68% — Dark energy, which causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate,
you can use this information to extrapolate backwards in time to any point in the Universe's past, and find out both what the different mixes of energy density were back then, as well as how big it was at any point along the way. Because of how illustrative they are, I'm going to plot these on logarithmic scales for you to view.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017 %2F03%2FUntitled.jpg

As you can see, dark energy may be important today, but this is a very recent development. For most of the first 9 billion years of the Universe's history, matter -- in the combined form of normal and dark matter -- was the dominant component of the Universe. But for the first few thousand years, radiation (in the form of photons and neutrinos) was even more important than matter!

I bring these up because these different components, radiation, matter and dark energy, all affect the expansion of the Universe differently. Even though we know that the Universe is 46.1 billion light years in any direction today, we need to know the exact combination of what we have at each epoch in the past to calculate how big it was at any given time. Here's what that looks like.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017 %2F03%2FsizeVageV2.jpg

Here are some fun milestones, going back in time, that you may appreciate:


The diameter of the Milky Way is 100,000 light years; the observable Universe had this as its radius when it was approximately 3 years old.
When the Universe was one year old, it was much hotter and denser than it is now. The mean temperature of the Universe was more than 2 million Kelvin.
When the Universe was one second old, it was too hot to form stable nuclei; protons and neutrons were in a sea of hot plasma. Also, the entire observable Universe would have a radius that, if we drew it around the Sun today, would enclose just the seven nearest star systems, with the farthest being Ross 154.
The Universe was once just the radius of the Earth-to-the-Sun, which happened when the Universe was about a trillionth (10-12) of a second old. The expansion rate of the Universe back then was 1029 times what it is today.

If we want to, we can go back even farther, of course, to when inflation first came to an end, giving rise to the hot Big Bang. We like to extrapolate our Universe back to a singularity, but inflation takes the need for that completely away. Instead, it replaces it with a period of exponential expansion of indeterminate length to the past, and it comes to an end by giving rise to a hot, dense, expanding state we identify as the start of the Universe we know. We are connected to the last tiny fraction of a second of inflation, somewhere between 10-30 and 10-35 seconds worth of it. Whenever that time happens to be, where inflation ends and the Big Bang begins, that's when we need to know the size of the Universe.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2016 %2F10%2Ffig1_cosmic_timeline-1200x861.jpg

Again, this is the observable Universe; the true "size of the Universe" is surely much bigger than what we can see, but we don't know by how much. Our best limits, from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Planck satellite, tell us that if the Universe does curve back in on itself and close, the part we can see is so indistinguishable from "uncurved" that it much be at least 250 times the radius of the observable part.

In truth, it might even be infinite in extent, as whatever the Universe did in the early stages of inflation is unknowable to us, with everything but the last tiny fraction-of-a-second of inflation's history being wiped clean from what we can observe by the nature of inflation itself. But if we're talking about the observable Universe, and we know we're only able to access somewhere between the last 10-30 and 10-35 seconds of inflation before the Big Bang happens, then we know the observable Universe is between 17 centimeters (for the 10-35 second version) and 168 meters (for the 10-30 second version) in size at the start of the hot, dense state we call the Big Bang.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017 %2F03%2FUS_Navy_041105-M-0095Z-009_Hospital_Corpsmen_3rd_Class_Tarren_C._Windham_ kicks_a_soccer_ball_around_with_an_Iraqi_child_in_ Ad_Diwaniyah_Iraq-1200x800-1200x800.jpg

The smallest conceivable answer -- 17 centimeters -- is about the size of a soccer ball! The Universe couldn't have been much smaller than that, since the constraints we have from the Cosmic Microwave Background (the smallness of the fluctuations) rule that out. And it's very conceivable that the entire Universe is substantially larger than that, but we'll never know by how much, since all we can observe is a lower limit on the true size of the actual Universe.

So how big was the Universe when it was first born? If the best models of inflation are right, somewhere between the size of a human head and a skyscraper-filled city block. Just give it time -- 13.8 billion years in our case -- and you wind up with the entire Universe we see today.

[Emil El Zapato]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh2L-V2M8DQ

[Emil El Zapato]

Same book but this IS interesting:

The Australian National University's Research School of Physics and Engineering moved Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment (John Archibald Wheeler's thought experiment) from theory to reality by using Helium atoms instead of photons.

The twist on the double-slit experiment adds a 2nd screen sometimes. If the 2nd screen (laser light) is placed 'after' the atom passes through the 1st traditional screen, the atom(s) act as a wave, if the 2nd screen is not added the atom(s) act as particles. What is weird is that it appears that the atoms seem to know in advance if the 2nd screen is going to be placed.

"In essence, the future event (cause) would appear to dictate the past state (effect) of the helium atom, as if it somehow knew ahead of time whether the second screen was going to be inserted. This stands in stark contrast to how we perceive cause and effect in a linear conceptualization of time and indicates that our notion of time flowing only from past to future is largely a product of our perception. It also suggests that free will is an illusion and that the measurements we take while observing natural phenomena can affect, or at least be highly integrated with, a much more complex predetermined reality." - Dr. Michael P. Masters

[Emil El Zapato]

On the note of free will/predestination. Masters cites Paul Davies (physicist) statement that the notion of free will has been discounted due to experiments conducted (gedanken and others) show that there is no mystery to events in space-time. They exist essentially all at once, even though we perceive a past, a perceived now that doesn't really exist, and a potential future.

Davies says that because of the predestined nature of reality there can be no free will. Really? If all things (events) exist simultaneously in the cosmic space-time, how does the PRE have any substance in an eternal now?

[Aragorn]

Davies says that because of the predestined nature of reality there can be no free will. Really? If all things (events) exist simultaneously in the cosmic space-time, how does the PRE have any substance in an eternal now?

I think you're just splitting hairs on the semantics. You could just as easily replace the term "predestination" by the timeless phrase "Things are what they are." :hmm:

Perhaps an easier way to visualize it would be to think of spacetime as a chessboard, with pieces. There are 64 squares to go to, but every piece is limited in its mobility by the moves it is allowed to make, and that's what determines how the game will be played.

For instance, the pawn can only move straight ahead by one square, except on its first move ─ then it can move straight ahead by either one or two squares ─ and when it captures another piece, which is always a diagonal move. Considering that the pawns are aligned on the second rank for white (or the fifth rank for black) at the start of the game, they can never move to the first rank (for white) or the sixth rank (for black). As another example, the bishops are always tied to the color of the square they are on at the start of the game, and so either player has one light-square bishop and one dark-square bishop.

The number of possible legal moves available between both players leads to an astronomical amount of permutations, and yet it is still a finite number due to the limited mobility of each of the pieces and the fact that there are only 64 squares ─ 32 light ones and 32 dark ones. Spacetime ─ space and time combined ─ is like that chessboard.

I'm oversimplifying things here, but you should get the idea. ;)

[Emil El Zapato]

hmm, I'll get back to you on that one... :)

Actually, that is a very good point, there are rules to follow after all...ok, there is a difference between 'countable infinity' and 'uncountable infinity'. For now, I'm going with countable infinity.

But I think the scenario is a little restrictive, but if things are relative past to future and future to past, it is very difficult to ascertain a pre

[Emil El Zapato]

The Set of Real Numbers is Uncountable
Theorem 1: The set of numbers in the interval, [0,1], is uncountable. That is, there exists no bijection from N to [0,1].

The argument in the proof below is sometimes called a "Diagonalization Argument", and is used in many instances to prove certain sets are uncountable.

Proof: Suppose that [0,1] is countable. Clearly [0,1] is not a finite set, so we are assuming that [0,1] is countably infinite.
Then there exists a bijection from N to [0,1]. In other words, we can create an infinite list which contains every real number. Write each number in the list in decimal notation. Such a list might look something like:


0.02342424209059039434934...
0.32434293429429492439242...
0.50000000000000000000000...
0.20342304920940294029490...



Let N be the number obtain obtained as follows. For each n∈N, let the nth decimal spot of N be equal to the nth decimal spot of nth number in the list +1 if that number is less than 9, and let it be 0 if that number is equal to 9. In the list above, we would have N=0.1315....
By construction, N is different from every number in our list and so our list is incomplete. But this contradicts the existence of a bijection from N to [0,1]. Hence [0,1] must be uncountable.■

Corollary 2: The set of real numbers, R, is uncountable. Proof: Since [0,1] is uncountable and [0,1]⊂R we have that R is uncountable. ■
Corollary 3: The set of irrational numbers is uncountable.

Proof: The set of irrational numbers is R∖Q. We know that the set Q is countable and the set R is uncountable. Therefore the set difference R∖Q is uncountable. ■

I was splitting hairs...and you caught me...

[Dreamtimer]

...how does the PRE have any substance in an eternal now?

Great point.

If you watch a movie (on a medium where you can control it), you can watch it start to finish, you can pick a point to watch, you can 'go back in time', etc.

You can't change the movie, only how you perceive it.

In a universe as big as ours, it may be possible to 'change the movie' on an individual scale which would seem major to us as people but would be a tiny thing on a cosmic scale.

So, as a thought exercise, nothing is set in stone.

The chess analogy is probably a better one.

[Emil El Zapato]

The chess analogy is a very good one...it follows the laws of mathematics...but then I always despised mathematicians principally because they believe that everything is deterministic.

In the math department where I studied there was a poster that read: "Mathematics is like Religion, a lot has to be taken on faith!"

I had a Professor that always tried to pigeon-hole (Another proof) :) me as a jackass. I solved a problem in a graph theory class that no one else could do. I've posted this before but anyway...as he wrote my solution on the board for the class, the first words out of his mouth were: "This is the kind of problem that can be solved without knowing anything"...God's truth!

We got into an argument once about the definition of 'heuristics' and how they applied to doing proofs...He stated that there were no heuristic methods for doing it and I said he was full of crap. He was a Professor and I was a drop in student and completely cowed...How could I launch an effective argument against him without having the mathematical vocabulary to do so. I and everyone else hated this guy.

Heuristics and Cognitive Biases
By Kendra Cherry Medically reviewed by Steven Gans, MD

A heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows people to solve problems and make judgments quickly and efficiently. These rule-of-thumb strategies shorten decision-making time and allow people to function without constantly stopping to think about their next course of action. Heuristics are helpful in many situations, but they can also lead to cognitive biases.

A Brief History of Heuristics
It was during the 1950s that the Nobel-prize winning psychologist Herbert Simon suggested that while people strive to make rational choices, human judgment is subject to cognitive limitations. Purely rational decisions would involve weighing such factors as potential costs against possible benefits. But people are limited by the amount of time they have to make a choice as well as the amount of information we have at our disposal. Other factors such as overall intelligence and accuracy of perceptions also influence the decision-making process.

During the 1970s, the psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman presented their research on the cognitive biases that influence how people think and the judgments people make.

As a result of these limitations, we are forced to rely on mental shortcuts to help us make sense of the world. Simon's research demonstrated that humans were limited in their ability to make rational decisions, but it was Tversky and Kahneman's work that introduced the specific ways of thinking people rely on to simplify the decision-making process.

Why Do We Use Heuristics?
Why do we rely on heuristics? Psychologists have suggested a few different theories:

Effort reduction: According to this theory, people utilize heuristics as a type of cognitive laziness. Heuristics reduce the mental effort required to make choices and decisions.

Attribute substitution: Other theories suggest people substitute simpler but related questions in place of more complex and difficult questions.
Fast and frugal: Still other theories argue that heuristics are actually more accurate than they are biased4. In other words, we use heuristics because they are fast and usually correct.

Heuristics play important roles in both problem-solving and decision-making. When we are trying to solve a problem or make a decision, we often turn to these mental shortcuts when we need a quick solution.

The world is full of information, yet our brains are only capable of processing a certain amount. If you tried to analyze every single aspect of every situation or decision, you would never get anything done.

In order to cope with the tremendous amount of information we encounter and to speed up the decision-making process, the brain relies on these mental strategies to simplify things so we don't have to spend endless amounts of time analyzing every detail.

You probably make hundreds or even thousands of decisions every day. What should you have for breakfast? What should you wear today? Should you drive or take the bus? Should you go out for drinks later with your co-workers? Should you use a bar graph or a pie chart in your presentation? The list of decisions you make each day is endless and varied. Fortunately, heuristics allow you to make such decisions with relative ease without a great deal of agonizing.

For example, when trying to decide if you should drive or ride the bus to work, you might suddenly remember that there is road construction along the standard bus route. You quickly realize that this might slow the bus and cause you to be late for work, so instead, you simply leave a little earlier and drive to work on an alternate route.

Your heuristics allow you to think through the possible outcomes quickly and arrive at a solution that will work for your unique problem.

Types of Heuristics
Some common heuristics include the availability heuristic and the representativeness heuristic.

The availability heuristic involves making decisions based upon how easy it is to bring something to mind. When you are trying to make a decision, you might quickly remember a number of relevant examples. Since these are more readily available in your memory, you will likely judge these outcomes as being more common or frequently-occurring. For example, if you are thinking of flying and suddenly think of a number of recent airline accidents, you might feel like air travel is too dangerous and decide to travel by car instead. Because those examples of air disasters came to mind so easily, the availability heuristic leads you to think that plane crashes are more common than they really are.

The representativeness heuristic involves making a decision by comparing the present situation to the most representative mental prototype. When you are trying to decide if someone is trustworthy, you might compare aspects of the individual to other mental examples you hold. A sweet older woman might remind you of your grandmother, so you might immediately assume that she is kind, gentle and trustworthy. If you meet someone who is into yoga, spiritual healing and aromatherapy you might immediately assume that she works as a holistic healer rather than something like a school teacher or nurse. Because her traits match up to your mental prototype of a holistic healer, the representativeness heuristic causes you to classify her as more likely to work in that profession.

The affect heuristic involves making choices that are strongly influenced by the emotions that an individual is experiencing at that moment. For example, research has shown that people are more likely to see decisions as having higher benefits and lower risks when they are in a positive mood. Negative emotions, on the other hand, lead people to focus on the potential downsides of a decision rather than the possible benefits.

How Heuristics Can Lead to Bias
While heuristics can speed up our problem and the decision-making process, they can introduce errors. Just because something has worked in the past does not mean that it will work again, and relying on an existing heuristic can make it difficult to see alternative solutions or come up with new ideas. As you saw in the examples above, heuristics can lead to inaccurate judgments about how common things occur and about how representative certain things may be.

Heuristics can also contribute to things such as stereotypes and prejudice. Because people use mental shortcuts to classify and categorize people, they often overlook more relevant information and create stereotyped categorizations that are not in tune with reality.

A Word From Verywell
Heuristics help make life easier and allow us to make quick decisions that are usually pretty accurate. Being aware of how these heuristics work as well as the potential biases they introduce might help you make better and more accurate decisions.

[Emil El Zapato]

Challenge question for the day:

Dr. Master's argues that his theory shouldn't be discounted merely based on teleological principles.

tel·e·o·log·i·cal
/ˈˌtelēəˈläjəkəl/

PHILOSOPHY
relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
"teleological narratives of progress"

THEOLOGY
relating to the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
"a teleological view of nature"

But that isn't really the point, He states this:

"These networks of self-sustaining cyles, spanning small segments of a far greater spacetime that- - because of their perpetual interaction and contorted connection between cause and effect -- exist outside the realm of premeditated purpose and design"

Is it or is it not a conceptual contradiction in light of his earlier statements regarding predestination? This is a question derived using heuristic reasoning... :) Aragorn...before you accuse me of splitting hairs again... :)

[Aragorn]

"These networks of self-sustaining cyles, spanning small segments of a far greater spacetime that- - because of their perpetual interaction and contorted connection between cause and effect -- exist outside the realm of premeditated purpose and design"

I think that's very hard to say. Perhaps it exists out of the range of predictability as calculated by us, humans in a 4-dimensional image of reality, but that does not necessarily preclude that they were indeed intended to exist, even if only as seemingly random background noise.

But then again, we must not ever assume that for the Prime Creator Consciousness, there would be no such thing as seemingly random background noise. There is, because there is a part that consciousness has not yet managed to identify (and thus "create order out of ") because the focus of its attention was not homing in on that. As such, this seemingly chaotic information can percolate into our perceived 4D existence and appear as random and unpredictable events for us. Yet, at the same time, some other fragment of the consciousness field could indeed be homing in on it and could indeed see order there.

The bottom line is that predictability versus randomness appears to be a subjective matter. :hmm:

(I don't know whether I'm making any sense. I've got a very painful inflammation and I'm kind of absent-minded right now.)

[Emil El Zapato]

I'll chew it on awhile... :)

[Emil El Zapato]

Dr. Master's cites that cultural and biological pressures are leading to a neotenous change in our physical appearance specifically changes in craniofacial morphology. Feminization of the skull and facial characteristics (large eyes), etc. He cites this to bolster his time travel theory regarding the neotenous ones (Grays). Early hominins to us to abductors seem to follow this evolutionary pattern. But there is one reason I'm not going to buy it. Because, even as he claims, there is a cultural and biological tendency to find this phenotype...cute. Who doesn't love babies, kittens, puppies, baby chimpanzees, Betty Boop? Has any abductee ever reported thinking that Grays were cute? Uh, no! Case closed.