A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

New age is not an insult. I might even start there. I think scientists are the wrong group because they are the most egotistical and will reject the book before opening the cover (and I am not willing to go through this all over again as I did in here) because he didn't use the scientific method.

Doubt it. Doesn't fit the mold of the shunned outsider with a new "discovery" discounting mainstream science but all the while deep down craving its acceptance. Maybe you should turn his book into a graphic novel. Lessans writing style does seem to be inspired by the genre.

[davidm]

1. Reincarnation of the soul. 2. Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence. 3. Clark/Stewart's Generic subjective continuity/existential passage.

There are no other options.

Which one is Lessans' arguing for, and why, peacegirl?

We know it can't be one or two. So that leaves three.

Can you explain in your own words how what Lessans wrote differs from what Clark and Stewart wrote?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do they act like it is? They act like time travel is possible, when it's not. They should call it science-fiction, not science.

Much of it may only be science fiction but many call it science speculation.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do they act like it is? They act like time travel is possible, when it's not. They should call it science-fiction, not science.

Wrong. Travel backward in time is perfectly possible under general relativity. Whether it is physically possible is another matter. Hawking thinks that it is possible in principle but not possible in practice, because the energy needed to effectuate opening and traversing a worm hole to the past will not be achievable. The physicist Paul Davies has written an entire book on how to build a time machine. Your "rebel science" source is a crackpot, and Dragar explained why he is, which you have not rebutted because you are unable to do so. Yet you love crackpots because you and your father are both crackpots.

It should be noted that the absence of time travelers from the future in our own time is not evidence of the impossibility of time travel. The kind of time travel possible under GR is of this kind only: You cannot travel backward in time beyond the moment of activation of the time travel wormhole. So if, in the future, a time travel machine is built, the earliest previous time that future time travelers will be able to reach, is the moment when the machine first became active.

[ChristinaM]

Peacegirl, what I'm slowly trying to get at here is just a brief cover letter that you could send along with the book (or parts of the book) that you feel are appropriate for the recipient. I'll try to go through that summary that David wrote bit by bit to tell you why I think it's effective.

This book features a profound new slant on the free-will determinism debate, in which we find a mathematical relation between humans always moving toward greatest satisfaction, and as a consquence of understanding this, refusing to strike the first blow in any relationship.

The words in purple will catch the attention of people who are interested in philosophy and they might think "hey, that might be interesting". The words in blue might capture the attention of a mathematician too because s/he might be curious to see what you mean by that. The words in pink might make someone who thinks about how to have healthy relationships want to know more.

It also portrays a dynamic new understanding of the nauture of light and sight, and how we illicitly project words onto objects and persons in the world that lead us to making unsupported judgments about the world. Once this fact about how we really see is laid bare, the projection of judgments will come to an end.

The words in red will definitely attract the attention of scientists (for better or worse). I've already told you that I think that part is going to be your most difficult stumbling block but you know that already since it's the most controversial part of the book when it comes to scientists.

Many, many people feel that the world is a cold and unfeeling place full of harsh judgments and a lack of tolerance and compassion. I think that their interest might be engaged by the words in green because they would like the idea of a world where people were kinder and less judgmental and didn't place so much value on appearance.

Finally, the book points out a previously undisclosed connection between conciousness and death, and what we can look forward to upon our demise.

Everyone thinks about what happens after death and I've yet to meet a person who didn't find it at least a bit interesting to wonder about it. I sure would like to know the answer to the part in purple.

What I think is really great about this is that there is nothing to object to in it at all and nothing that would cause someone to say "oh, I already think/know that this is BS and not worth my time" without giving it a fair chance. It has all the right buzzwords to attract the interest and curiosity of a wide range of people but they still have to read your dad's book in his own words if they want to know more about it or to try to disagree with it. It doesn't give them a reason to start to argue with the summary instead of reading the book.

I'm glad that you aren't going to write off the new age community because I think that you'll find it a much gentler and more open-minded group than you usually find on mostly secular forums. This is the group that I grew up with and I spent decades being the lone skeptic in a big crowd of people who believed in all sorts of non-scientific things but they aren't bad people or even necessarily dopey. In the end they just want to feel happy and find some meaning in their lives and they aren't hurting anyone with their beliefs (at least not until they get into the dangerous quack medicine and anti-vaccine stuff IMO). They don't value the scientific method above all other things and don't mind bending the laws of physics a bit in order to see the world in what they hope is a better way. They absolutely believe that it's possible to create a different world through peace, love and understanding. Chances are that they wouldn't even notice that the stuff about the eyes contradicts the beliefs of scientists because they don't know what those are in the first place. They might not even know what determinism is or have ever seen serious philosophers debate so they won't have already decided that your dad is wrong. I'd be willing to bet that the kind of people that you've interacted with on these more heavyweight academic forums are the toughest audience that you're ever going to run into anywhere. I suppose that there's something to be said for gaining experience through a trial by fire but there are less painful ways too and building on small successes (or at least non-disasters) builds some confidence and helps you work out your pitch.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wrong. Travel backward in time is perfectly possible under general relativity. Whether it is physically possible is another matter. Hawking thinks that it is possible in principle but not possible in practice, because the energy needed to effectuate opening and traversing a worm hole to the past will not be achievable. The physicist Paul Davies has written an entire book on how to build a time machine. Your "rebel science" source is a crackpot, and Dragar explained why he is, which you have not rebutted because you are unable to do so. Yet you love crackpots because you and your father are both crackpots.

Wormholes, time machines, time warps, time dilation, the bending of time, etc. I guess it's a matter of opinion who the real crackpot is.

Originally Posted by davidm

It should be noted that the absence of time travelers from the future in our own time is not evidence of the impossibility of time travel. The kind of time travel possible under GR is of this kind only: You cannot travel backward in time beyond the moment of activation of the time travel wormhole. So if, in the future, a time travel machine is built, the earliest previous time that future time travelers will be able to reach, is the moment when the machine first became active.

You should have been a science fiction writer like Stephen King. But you fail as a science buff.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

1. Reincarnation of the soul. 2. Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence. 3. Clark/Stewart's Generic subjective continuity/existential passage.

There are no other options.

Which one is Lessans' arguing for, and why, peacegirl?

We know it can't be one or two. So that leaves three.

Can you explain in your own words how what Lessans wrote differs from what Clark and Stewart wrote?

Maybe there isn't a difference between what he wrote and what Clark/Stewart wrote. Any truth that is part of the real world will be discovered by more than one person, and this certainly is a valid observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Peacegirl, what I'm slowly trying to get at here is just a brief cover letter that you could send along with the book (or parts of the book) that you feel are appropriate for the recipient. I'll try to go through that summary that David wrote bit by bit to tell you why I think it's effective.

The words in purple will catch the attention of people who are interested in philosophy and they might think "hey, that might be interesting". The words in blue might capture the attention of a mathematician too because s/he might be curious to see what you mean by that. The words in pink might make someone who thinks about how to have healthy relationships want to know more.

The words in red will definitely attract the attention of scientists (for better or worse). I've already told you that I think that part is going to be your most difficult stumbling block but you know that already since it's the most controversial part of the book when it comes to scientists.

Many, many people feel that the world is a cold and unfeeling place full of harsh judgments and a lack of tolerance and compassion. I think that their interest might be engaged by the words in green because they would like the idea of a world where people were kinder and less judgmental and didn't place so much value on appearance.

Everyone thinks about what happens after death and I've yet to meet a person who didn't find it at least a bit interesting to wonder about it. I sure would like to know the answer to the part in purple.

What I think is really great about this is that there is nothing to object to in it at all and nothing that would cause someone to say "oh, I already think/know that this is BS and not worth my time" without giving it a fair chance. It has all the right buzzwords to attract the interest and curiosity of a wide range of people but they still have to read your dad's book in his own words if they want to know more about it or to try to disagree with it. It doesn't give them a reason to start to argue with the summary instead of reading the book.

I'm glad that you aren't going to write off the new age community because I think that you'll find it a much gentler and more open-minded group than you usually find on mostly secular forums. This is the group that I grew up with and I spent decades being the lone skeptic in a big crowd of people who believed in all sorts of non-scientific things but they aren't bad people or even necessarily dopey. In the end they just want to feel happy and find some meaning in their lives and they aren't hurting anyone with their beliefs (at least not until they get into the dangerous quack medicine and anti-vaccine stuff IMO). They don't value the scientific method above all other things and don't mind bending the laws of physics a bit in order to see the world in what they hope is a better way. They absolutely believe that it's possible to create a different world through peace, love and understanding. Chances are that they wouldn't even notice that the stuff about the eyes contradicts the beliefs of scientists because they don't know what those are in the first place. They might not even know what determinism is or have ever seen serious philosophers debate so they won't have already decided that your dad is wrong. I'd be willing to bet that the kind of people that you've interacted with on these more heavyweight academic forums are the toughest audience that you're ever going to run into anywhere. I suppose that there's something to be said for gaining experience through a trial by fire but there are less painful ways too and building on small successes (or at least non-disasters) builds some confidence and helps you work out your pitch.

Thank you for your ideas; I can tell you've given this quite a bit of thought. I have no problem using David's synopsis but it sounds more to me like a press release than a letter. But maybe it could be used for both. I also agree that these forums have been my toughest audience, but it has shown me I have what it takes to persevere in spite of the constant attacks. The bad part is that I do not want to do this again on any kind of social media like twitter, facebook, or even writing on a blog. So I'm left doing interviews, or trying to reach specific individuals who could be instrumental in passing this knowledge on. I hope to have my own forum where people can discuss the book after they have read it, not before. I also agree that sometimes less is better. The less people know about determinism, the less conflicted they are, and the easier it is to explain his observations, which has unfortunately been a big stumbling block in here. Hey, you and LadyShea can be my marketers. You both are very creative! Seriously, if I had the money to put you both on the payroll, I would.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Much of it may only be science fiction but many call it science speculation.

That's a sneaky way to get out of telling the truth; that time travel is science fiction.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a sneaky way to get out of telling the truth; that time travel is science fiction.

Call it what you like. You will anyway.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should have been a science fiction writer like Stephen King. But you fail as a science buff.

Stephen King is a horror writer, not a science fiction writer.

The stuff on science is well-established. Just ask Dragar. He's a physicist. You, on the other hand, are an uneducated buffoon, just like your father.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Born, not reborn which implies a connection Spacemonkey. Do you actually think I will get into this with you when you are so convinced that Lessans is wrong on every subject that he wrote about?

So Lessans' big discovery is that people are born? Did he not think people already know that?

Are you saying Lessans never claimed we will be reborn after we die? You have no idea what Lessans wrote about, do you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Take out the word reborn. Think of it this way: We're always here.

How can we be always here if we are not reborn after we die?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for your ideas; I can tell you've given this quite a bit of thought. I have no problem using David's synopsis but it sounds more to me like a press release than a letter.

I'm really glad that you said that because it helps me to see where we aren't quite connecting. You're absolutely right - it does sound a bit like a press release and I don't think that's a bad thing although it isn't a summary of the book in the way that the one that your dad wrote is. That's OK because you aren't going to be using it for the same purpose. I used to send out press releases for 2 different reasons. The first were the easy ones where I just wanted them to print it in the paper to announce a fundraising event. The others were a bit more complicated because what I really wanted was to get their attention enough that they would come and do a full-length glowing article but it's a little tacky to come right out and say that, especially since they can already tell anyway.

This time you won't be sending anything to the press but you're essentially going to want to do the same thing - make the recipient aware that something new exists, try to make it sound as intriguing as possible without over or underselling it and hopefully get them to take a closer look by reading the book. What you really want is for them to read the book and write a glowing endorsement but it's a little inappropriate to ask for it right up front. If we can get past this part we can start to talk about what it is that you want them to do if they read it and what's in it for them.

The bad part is that I do not want to do this again on any kind of social media like twitter, facebook, or even writing on a blog.

I can't help you with that part because if there is a part of FB that isn't "buy my stuff", "share this prayer", "what I had for lunch" and a locked down private area to BS about nothing important with a few friends and some strangers that I accidentally said yes to then I don't know what it is. I took everything out of my feed but news and music.

Seriously, if I had the money to put you both on the payroll, I would.

Thanks, but I don't want a job because retirement is just too great. If you aren't a homeless kid or animal then the chances are not good at all that you'll get me out of the garden.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Take out the word reborn. Think of it this way: We're always here.

What does that mean? Define "we" and define "here".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not denying that there is a review, but because I resubmitted it there is no book that one can order until I give the okay for it to go live, which I have not done yet. It has taken me quite a number of times to get it the way I wanted it. Remember, I am doing this alone and I have no back-up proof readers or anyone to give me help. Actually, this group helped me in quite a few instances. I thank Spacemonkey, LadyShea, and Ceptimus for their contributions. If I forgot anybody, please let me know so I can thank you.

So do you think you have finally gotten the ideas obscure enough, and obfuscated the meaning enough, that peole will read it and think it must be wonderful because they can't understand a word of it?

Peacegirl have you forgotten all the wonderful suggestions I've made based on my astute observations?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do they act like it is? They act like time travel is possible, when it's not. They should call it science-fiction, not science.

They don't act like it is reality, but they get excited at the prospect that it is hypothetically possible according to real science.

[Vivisectus]

New age is not an insult. I might even start there. I think scientists are the wrong group because they are the most egotistical and will reject the book before opening the cover (and I am not willing to go through this all over again as I did in here) because he didn't use the scientific method.

I see! So the book is scientififc, which means undeniable, but best not read by scientists, because of emotional reasons. In other word, science is only Undeniable when it involves your father not actually doing any science: the rest of the time it is just all biased, semi-hysterical ivory tower theorists continually stamping out all these brilliant ideas left and right so they do not have to change their minds.

It does rather remind one of the conspiracy theory the flat earthers require doesn't it? An example of where you need to explain away heaps of evidence against, and a complete lack of evidence in favour of your own idea?

If your idea requires a protective covering of agreement, lack of critical testing and sheltering from general opinion, it probably is not a very good one.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

They don't act like it is reality, but they get excited at the prospect that it is hypothetically possible according to real science.

It is an example of the fundamental difference between your father and actual scientists or philosophers.

Your father sits around and declares "things are thus, and anyone who doubts it has misunderstood! This is Mathematical (by which I mean undeniable even though I do not understand the self-releferential nature of mathematics) and Scientific! (by which I mean Not Scientific, but Absolute Truth in the religious sense)"

Scientists say "This might be a useful framework for understanding what we see! Let's see if the tests match the math!"

Philosophers say "This might be a useful way of thinking about thinking. Let us see if it leads anywhere even more interesting!"

None of them, EVER, say "And this is basically all you need to know".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Stephen King is a horror writer, not a science fiction writer.

The stuff on science is well-established. Just ask Dragar. He's a physicist. You, on the other hand, are an uneducated buffoon, just like your father.

Fiction is a certain genre David regardless of area of writing within that genre. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Paris Review - The Art of Fiction No. 189, Stephen King

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is an example of the fundamental difference between your father and actual scientists or philosophers.

Your father sits around and declares "things are thus, and anyone who doubts it has misunderstood! This is Mathematical (by which I mean undeniable even though I do not understand the self-releferential nature of mathematics) and Scientific! (by which I mean Not Scientific, but Absolute Truth in the religious sense)"

Scientists say "This might be a useful framework for understanding what we see! Let's see if the tests match the math!"

Philosophers say "This might be a useful way of thinking about thinking. Let us see if it leads anywhere even more interesting!"

None of them, EVER, say "And this is basically all you need to know".

Never in my entire life did Lessans say, "This is all you need to know." You must know something I don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

They don't act like it is reality, but they get excited at the prospect that it is hypothetically possible according to real science.

Science-fiction buffs also get excited about the prospect that what is now fiction could one day become a reality. My question is: Why do so-called "scientists" get a free pass calling their worm holes and time dilation science (which it's not), yet Lessans can't use the term "scientific" even if his discovery does what it claims it can do; bring about world peace? This whole thing is nuttier than a fruitcake if you think about it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is nuttier than a fruitcake if you think about it.

Now there's something to put on the dust cover of your book.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science-fiction buffs also get excited about the prospect that what is now fiction could one day become a reality. My question is: Why do so-called "scientists" get a free pass calling their worm holes and time dilation science (which it's not), yet Lessans can't use the term "scientific" even if his discovery does what it claims it can do; bring about world peace? This whole thing is nuttier than a fruitcake if you think about it.

Time dilation is observed and must be taken into account in order for GPS devices to work. You have also been given an explanation of muon decay, which proves time dilation. Time dilation is as established a part of science as gravity and evoution, and has been so for one hundred years. Relativity theory, along with evolutionary theory and quantum mechanics, is the most empirically confirmed scientific theory we have ever had.

Worm holes are a consequence of general relativity. Time travel to the past is speculative science based on the properties of space-time in general relativity. All of this is well understood to those who have acquired an education.

All of Lessans' claims are bunk, and in the case of light and sight have been known to be bunk for hundreds of years.

So, there's the difference. You are welcome.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do so-called "scientists" get a free pass calling their worm holes and time dilation science (which it's not)

It is science if scientific methodology is used. Time dilation can be empirically tested. Wormholes are theoretical, but the hypotheses still came about by methodology.

Lessans can't use the term "scientific" even if his discovery does what it claims it can do; bring about world peace?

Lessans didn't do any science, so his work is not scientific. Philosophical, yes, scientific, no.

And you are speculating about the world peace just as much as scientists speculate about wormholes. World Peace via Lessans is just a theory, after all.

This whole thing is nuttier than a fruitcake if you think about it.

No, you have simply been raised to believe that the word scientific means undeniable, which it doesn't to anyone in the whole world but you. When you learn what science is, you won't be confused.