Welcome to the Last Days of Planet Earth.

[Technosoul]

Are we close to the end times, do we have a limited future if we continue the way we are without changes being made?

Let's ask Alice...

http://www.deoxy.org/omega.htm

What do you think about the theorys explanned on that weblink?

Lets talk, should we be concerned about the "latter days"?

Technosoul.

[Suburbanite]

If it doesn't say anything about the world coming to an end in my life time, I don't care.

[Starboy]

Technosoul, you need to change your name to soulman or something. There is not much techno in your responses. If the sun keeps expanding it is currently predicted rate the surface temperature of earth will get to a point where there will no longer be any surface water on the planet. This is expected to occur in around 500 million years. Most scientists will concede that at that point most of the life on the planet will become extinct if it hasn't already happened by then. As for the physical demise of the earth, that is a more difficult question to answer and depends on what our solar system encounters as it travels around the center of our galaxy.

Starboy

[Scribbler1]

What the hell is with the clock, and where does it explain WHY the thing is set for 2012? Is that when we meet our maker or what?

If I went for fantastic predictions I'd go with Nostradamus. I believe he said the war to wipe out humanity would be started by a man wearing a blue turban, and right around now, too.
Seems more of a possibility to me than anything I saw on that web page.

[Technosoul]

Okay, let's for a moment drop the soul from technosoul and look at the techno science department concerning this topic.

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/quasar.html

Now about the date 2012.

The idea was first generated relative to the Myan calendar and with a three demensonal understanding of the I ching.

Then using a computer McKenna created software which showed the novelty waves of history, each important historical event would be represented by a peak (mountian) on the graph,
Each part of history that did not have any novelty events are indicated by low point on the graph. Then, using that background historical data which has a repeatable pattern he could then use the computer to project future novelty waves in order to attain predictions about the future. That computerized projection resulted in a finding of a drop off in the year 2012. See information is following link.

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/noveltyreport.html

That work was founded upon the work of the person who originated the "novely theory". See next link.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~hi.../Whitehead.html

Here are some details that help to explain the patterns being used for the time wave theory.

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/twzdemo.html

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/1996-29-40.html

This computer software was used to predict good times during Clinton years.

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Clintonsit.html

Other supportive informaiton.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/

http://alife.fusebox.com/

Well, now what do you think?

Techno.

[Starboy]

The problem with this sort of nonsense soul is that just like religion it is only good at predicting things after the fact. What they need to do is make several predictions for each year for several years into the future. Keep them secret so they cannot influence future history and place them in a capsule for each year under the care of an impartial third party. Allow several other methods to also participate based on tarot cards, astrology, soothsaying and whatever. Also include predictions based on the flip of a coin or die. Make sure to only allow predictions of events that could not be influenced by the predictors. After all the years are up, open up the canisters and compare the predictions to what happened. If they didn't do much better than any of the other methods then one can conclude that each method is no better than random chance. This is how the novelty advocates can keep themselves honest. They need to make sure that they conduct the experiment in a way that is as honest as possible otherwise people will not and should not pay much attention to anything they say.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Soul, if you want to put the techno back into your name I suggest that you study mainstream science and understand it, its methods and values before you try to evaluate the fringe or psuedo science.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Starboy, The problem with this sort of nonsense soul is that just like religion it is only good at predicting things after the fact. What they need to do is make several predictions for each year for several years into the future. Keep them secret so they cannot influence future history and place them in a capsule for each year under the care of an impartial third party. Allow several other methods to also participate based on tarot cards, astrology, soothsaying and whatever. Also include predictions based on the flip of a coin or die. Make sure to only allow predictions of events that could not be influenced by the predictors. After all the years are up, open up the canisters and compare the predictions to what happened. If they didn't do much better than any of the other methods then one can conclude that each method is no better than random chance. This is how the novelty advocates can keep themselves honest. They need to make sure that they conduct the experiment in a way that is as honest as possible otherwise people will not and should not pay much attention to anything they say. Starboy

Well, if you had looked over all the information you would have found that he predicted good things during the Clinton years and things were pretty good during his run at the white house. And the prediction about year 2012 is not well known about enough to influence the future.

The thing is that webpage was created before Clinton and Bush # 2.

And remember these are not predictions based on faith alone, but on the technology involved to set up the models.

[Starboy]

Maybe he did, but how do I know. All sorts of people make all sorts of claims about predicting the future. If they want to be taken seriously they must submit to a double blind test.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Although, I might add, in hearing him personally speaking on the topic he noted that following years when Clinton was in the White House (he not yet knowing who would win that election) he said we would have about 10 years of fundamentalism that would represent a repeating of the era of the Christian Cursades, which would end around 2010 or 2012. Following 2012 the earth will experience at least 1000 years of no novelity. (no major events) How that might be interpreted is up to anyone's guess. The year 2012 would represent the discovery of America as the new land. So we can expect some sort of fantastic discovery at that time that will open up a whole new attitude of thinking, bringing long term peace. His guess was that it will not be the end of the world (no doomsday effect) but rather the end of history as we know it, the end of this historical time and the beginning of a new "age".

However, maintianing the reality that computer models cannot say just what will take place but only that it will take place, and it would be somewhat compatable with events that took place on the graph from past times. However the graph following 2012 in total non-conformity with anything that has taken place since the big bang.

In other words, he had eleminated a lot of the "random luck" that could explain a occational prediction coming true. I guess in 9 years we will know if we are still here.

[Starboy]

If his claims have any basis in reality then it will be shown in a double blind test.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Starboy, Maybe he did, but how do I know. All sorts of people make all sorts of claims about predicting the future. If they want to be taken seriously they must submit to a double blind test. Starboy

If you are doing double blind tested study to prove something that is fine, and important if you are the researcher, but that has nothing to do with being taken seriously, thousands of people have accepted medical treatments for cancer and none of them were arrived at via such a study.

But for the sake of responding to your standard, how would you conduct a double blind test for his theory? Being that he is now dead and can do nothing anymore how would a 3rd party researcher set up a test for his computer models, how could someone create such a test for the concepts of global warming? I await some kind of answer.

[Starboy]

I understand that millions if not billions of people do not care if something can be shown to be effective. All that matters to them is if they think it is effective. However such behavior is not honest. People fool themselves all the time. Many do get better from snake oil. This is a well known effect in medical tests and is called the placebo effect. This is why you will hear on drug commercials statements such as "side effects found to be to be no worse than placebo". That is because the placebo effect can go both ways. Even if a person is given a substance with no active ingredient, if they think it will cause harm then some people will experience actual harm. It just goes to show how much people can fool them selves and how much control the mind has over the body. This is very important to remember whenever you hear fantastic claims. You must control your enthusiasm and look at the facts. Can they be explained in other ways than what is presented and has the claimant taken the time to conduct experiments to rule out his own explanation. If someone can do that and do it honestly and accept the results as they fall then actual science is happening instead of quackery even if all the results are negative.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Starboy, If his claims have any basis in reality then it will be shown in a double blind test. Starboy

And so can the year 2012 even be classified as part of our reality here and now?

So to have a double blind test of the theory would mean that we would have to have a test that could prove some of the following.

(1) Does history show any signs of repeating the same patterns over and over?

(2) Can the software program used for the computer come up with different results. (people can buy the software and play around with it).

(3) Can we test history to find out if it is self-healing? Example: Can and does the negative energy of wars self-heal with times of peace, until the next novelty generates a new world war? Can that be monitored in a predictable way if one comprehends the math that must be used?

Sure, if you have formulated a new drug you hope will cure something it should be conducted to a double blind test. But not sure what you are asking for relative to a science theory? How did they double-test the theory of evolution? The theory of the Big Bang? etc.

Best I can do now is like they do at some church... can I get a witness?

Here's comes the witness

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/intro.htm

Even in Germany the intellectuals and scientists are talking about Terrence McKenna's theory, along with Sheldrake, and S. Hawkings who all agree it meets the standards expected form the science community.

[Technosoul]

I should add the link page to note the gobla interest in his theory.

http://www.syntropia.de/index.php?cPath=1_102

Technosoul,

[Starboy]

Soul, what do you mean by history? The part of history that includes humans is so tiny that it would require an electron microsope to view it if all of history were represented by a one foot ruler. Does human history repeat itself? Yes and no. The seasons of every year are similar to the last, however over time this too has changed. People are born, have children and die. Yet people are also evolving. The sun is getting bigger. Big things hit the earth and change everything. All of life is evolving and changing. If you think that novelty can somehow account for all of this then you are tripping on dream cookies.

Starboy

[Starboy]

It is very standard for cons to mix a little bit of speculative science to add credibility to their theories. I could give a damn what he reference. Nobel laureates have been wrong before. It all comes down to the results of actual experiments on reality.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Reality - what reality, was it tested?

Is math reality?

A theory is based on an interpretation of known data.

If later data presented by a peer review shows that the data was not correctly interpreted, or if real life experience finds it was not correct, then the the theory is simply discarded, and only of importance perhaps for historical reasons.

If the theory is mostly correct as later demonstrated, then that theory will become important for form then on for many reasons. But theory making is taking a risk, first you must be (as Terrence MeKenna once said) your own cirtic, you gotta review your theory from all sides, work out the weak points so it can hold up under peer review. Then you toss it out and whatever happens with it happens. And you must be well read concerning all background and aspects of the theory being developed, which Terrence did.

I am not advocating that any theory must be viewed as some absolute truth, or that we must have faith because a lot of evidence was presented. They are just to make us think, to wonder, and to check out as time passes.

You see Starboy, you have refused to even explore the theory, you did not state one reason you think the theory is faulted, or one reason why you might agree - you avoided all that with a pre=established opinion.

Likewise you did not omment line-for-line any reasoning I presented. Needless to say I do not own a testing lab with a staff of people to do any testing. McKenna on the other hand hung out with many of the best minds of this generation and spoke at top universities and conferences. And has had published about 10 books and papers. RE: Amazon.com

Reality is just something that vanishes in the wake of another reality, is it logical to build a house on shifting sand?

Technosoul.

[Vee]

what timezone is that date set to?

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, Reality is just something that vanishes in the wake of another reality,  is it logical to build a house on shifting sand?  Technosoul.

Soul, you appear to have already made your conclusions about reality and you are trying to cram everything you see into those conclusions. Science is not philosophy, not mathematics and it is not religion. It is a tradition of mankind that tries to make an honest attempt to explore and explain reality. Not as man wants reality to be but as it is. Because it is done by men and not by gods there is no absolute viewpoint. There is no way to know if mankind has actually succeeded in knowing reality in any way, so all scientific knowledge is tentative. Science has not replace religion as the magicians of the cosmos even though many magical thinkers think that it has. Science is a very new idea in the history of mankind. An idea that you will not comprehend if you continue to study the ancient ideas you appear to be fond of. You must study science itself not what the philosophers tell you it is. The philosophers do not have a clue because they are still mired in the age of Plato and Aristotle (the Bronze Age).

Starboy