Chris Bocay @ChrisBocay

A rough dummy of the cover of a POTENTIAL new book that I am thinking about writing. Working title: "Physical Reality: An Objective, Solid, External World, or a Nonsense Physicalist Fairytale?"

OCKHAM 3/3: The problem is just there are just too many phenomena that are NOT considered by science. So by NOT taking all those phenomena into consideration, and NOT regarding them to be "necessary" to include, science shows its desire to keep their theory frameworks "clean".

OCKRAZ 2/3: And the problem with that principle is this: what means "necessary"? Well, for Dennett and other science geeks out there, the principle boils down to "simplification" and "streamlining": if they don't need a metaphysical ontology to predict things, just erase it.

OCKRAZ 1/3: And what's Ockham's razor, by the way? It's a statement that is ATTRIBUTED to William of Ockham (not necessarily uttered by him): "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", that is, "Entities are not to be multiplied more than necessary".

DENN 2/3: So it's the typical (UNPROVEN principle of) "Ockham's razor" once again, used by scientists who want to explain away supernatural things: minimize the ontology so that all "suspect" entities are removed, and THEN go from there to create your own new "scientific" theory.

DENN 1/3: I'm NOT a fan of Daniel Dennett's books. Take, for instance, "Breaking the Spell". His basic idea is that religion is NOT about God, angels, or supernatural things; religion is just a "natural phenomenon", and should be studied by science. Goodbye God, Hello Scientism!

Some arguments AGAINST an objective external world? 1. Philosophical skepticism 2. Perceptual illusions & hallucinations 3. Idealism & subjective idealism 4. Quantum mechanics & observer effects Some of these may support the ALA story: there's no solid external objective reality.

What are four arguments IN FAVOR of an objective external world? 1. Direct perceptual experience 2. Intersubjective consistency 3. Scientific consensus & predictive power 4. Existence of physical laws I'm not in favor of any of these, but it's good to know which one there are.

ARISTVER 3/3: In other words, students of the authorized version of Law of Attraction (ALA) do not prioritize "friends" over TRUTH. We do not try to "adjust" the philosophy of ALA so that it pleases others. The worldview of ALA is what it is, and we are very happy about it.

ARISTVER 2/3: But if that phrase represents Aristotle's thinking, then A. thought that also friendship has its limits. This fits well with ALA, where we are free to reject anyone else's theories (friends or not), if they don't fit with our own very carefully researched worldview.

ARISTVER 1/3: The phrase "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas" is often attributed to Aristotle. Literally: "[a] friend Plato [is], but [a] greater friend [the] truth [is]". Thus: "Plato is a friend, but truth is a better friend." Note: ATTRIBUTED, not necessarily spoken by A.

DUR 4/4 Seth: "All That Is is a source of infinite and unending simultaneous action. Everything happens at once and yet there is no beginning and end to it in your terms. So it is not completed in your terms at any given point." (Seth Speaks, p. 300) amazon.com/Seth-Speaks-Et…

DUR 3/4 Seth: "Experience existing outside of that reference is not dependent upon duration in your terms, there is no "perfect ending," no completed perfection beyond which further experience is impossible or meaningless." (Seth Speaks, p. 300) amazon.com/Seth-Speaks-Et…

DUR 2/4 Seth: "This has to do mainly with the necessary distortions arising from your time concept and the idea of duration. For duration to you presupposes existence continued within a time framework — predisposing to beginnings and endings." (SS, p 300) amazon.com/Seth-Speaks-Et…

DUR 1/4 Seth: "All That Is simultaneously and unendingly creates itself. Only within your particular frame of reference does there seem to be a contradiction between action that is simultaneous and yet unending." (Seth Speaks, p. 300) amazon.com/Seth-Speaks-Et…

Thomas Nagel: "Physical science has progressed by leaving the mind out of what it tries to explain, but there may be more to the world than can be understood by physical science." (What Does It All Mean? [OUP 1987], Ch: "The Mind-Body Problem", p. 37)

Thomas Nagel: "But the reasons against a purely physical theory of consciousness are strong enough to make it seem likely that a physical theory of the whole of reality is impossible." (What Does It All Mean? [OUP 1987], Ch: "The Mind-Body Problem", pp. 36-37)

In this argument (CON-LIMFOV-V1), the idea is that a limiting of awareness might be achievable by narrowing our FIELD OF VIEW. This may perhaps be combined with the argument for the narrowing of FREQUENCIES that I posted yesterday (CON-LIMFREQ-V1)