Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

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

  1. #16
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    15,106
    Thanks
    67,429
    Thanked 63,318 Times in 15,101 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    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."

    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.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (5th January 2020), Elen (5th January 2020), NotAPretender (4th January 2020)

  3. #17
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    5,490
    Thanks
    20,044
    Thanked 23,052 Times in 5,455 Posts
    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
    "A large infusion of cash will cure most forms of fanatacism" - Thumbnail Biographies

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (4th January 2020), Dreamtimer (5th January 2020), Elen (5th January 2020)

  5. #18
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    5,490
    Thanks
    20,044
    Thanked 23,052 Times in 5,455 Posts
    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:

    1. 0.02342424209059039434934...
    2. 0.32434293429429492439242...
    3. 0.50000000000000000000000...
    4. 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...
    "A large infusion of cash will cure most forms of fanatacism" - Thumbnail Biographies

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (4th January 2020), Dreamtimer (5th January 2020), Elen (5th January 2020)

  7. #19
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    10,489
    Thanks
    56,876
    Thanked 46,610 Times in 10,406 Posts
    ...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.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (5th January 2020), Elen (6th January 2020), NotAPretender (5th January 2020)

  9. #20
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    5,490
    Thanks
    20,044
    Thanked 23,052 Times in 5,455 Posts
    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.
    Last edited by NotAPretender, 5th January 2020 at 16:30.
    "A large infusion of cash will cure most forms of fanatacism" - Thumbnail Biographies

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (5th January 2020)

  11. #21
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    5,490
    Thanks
    20,044
    Thanked 23,052 Times in 5,455 Posts
    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...
    "A large infusion of cash will cure most forms of fanatacism" - Thumbnail Biographies

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (5th January 2020)

  13. #22
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    15,106
    Thanks
    67,429
    Thanked 63,318 Times in 15,101 Posts
    "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.

    (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.)
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (6th January 2020), Elen (6th January 2020)

  15. #23
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    5,490
    Thanks
    20,044
    Thanked 23,052 Times in 5,455 Posts
    I'll chew it on awhile...
    "A large infusion of cash will cure most forms of fanatacism" - Thumbnail Biographies

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (5th January 2020), Elen (6th January 2020)

  17. #24
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    5,490
    Thanks
    20,044
    Thanked 23,052 Times in 5,455 Posts
    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.
    "A large infusion of cash will cure most forms of fanatacism" - Thumbnail Biographies

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (11th January 2020), Elen (12th January 2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •