For sure! What does the belief that entity identity is inexorabley tied to slower than light particles do for transportation and to what extent does belief regulate sensory experience of reality itself? Is it possible that FTL travel is possible [and natural] but that STL particulate identity belief structures make it unbelievable, therefore, disallowed? Many people believe in life after death. Some believe they experienced it with sensory input without sensory organs such as we now know them as being tied to "body". Some people equate pain input as pleasure. Hypnotism can distort such judgements making for painless surgery and such. Such phenomenon seem to me to be "blunt instrument" clues in a laser surgical universe that maybe the senses are designed to filter the universe out rather than expand perception of it. Possibly, science not so much explores reality, but the extent of commonly held beliefs 'about' reality. [hence some rare discrepencies and exceptions to the "rules"] The conclusion being that belief systems can be quite cohesive and beliefs are communicated in subliminal manners , perhaps including FTL/nonlocal/time independant ways, as well as obvious ones.
Odd things seem to be creeping into this version of reality such as intelligent [heat signature?] critters now being video taped that have an ablity to change density, emit light and travel through the air faster than the eye can see without so much as creating a breeze. They look very much like giant microbes to me, love to play tag with airplanes and sometimes emit bilogical matter such as fine evaporating threads and bacteria laden blobs. Ken At 09:11 AM 3/27/01 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 3/27/01 8:24:40 AM EST, [email protected] writes: > ><< It could even be that the scientifically provable is nothing but a > commonly held [in whatever nonlocal mental field] belief. > Ken >> > >Ken: I would rather liken it to probability theory. What is scientifically >"provable" is often dependent on the level of confidence we choose to apply >to a particular outcome with regard to its reproducibility over time. It's >not unusual for science to allow for as much as a 5 or even a 10% "error" to >sustain a particular conclusion because the effect of NOT believing that >result is relatively inconsequential and the benefits of maintaining such a >belief are enormous. In other cases, the confidence level is 99.99999999999% >as in applying Newtonian physics to particles moving much slower than the >speed of light where there is practically no benefit at all for the vast >majority of Earthbound inhabitants in not accepting the validity of this >physical subset (as it applies to transportation, for example). Almost >everything else falls in between these two extremes. Roger > > >-- >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > >To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: >[email protected] -or- [email protected] >with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > >To post, address your message to: [email protected] >Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html >List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > >
