From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 10:25:16 MST
Michael Wiik wrote:
>
> animated silicon love doll <cheshire@velvet.net> wrote:
>
> > >Chesh, if you want to try to accumulate a bit of proof, try logging the
> > >exact amount of greens vs reds, maybe with a measurement of how long you
> > >wait at the red. Get some non-magickal friends in the same area who use
> > >similar routes to do the same. Compare notes. You could even try turning
> > >them red vs turning them green to see if you can get a measurable
> > >difference.
> >
> > Hmm. I should try that. Once the Olympics are gone and I start leaving the house....
>
> Don't do it, Chesh! Most likely you won't find any measurable
> difference, get turned off on magick, and get stuck at red lights for
> the rest of your life. Once you start trying to pin it down, it'll go
> away. Magick doesn't gel with empirical investigation.
>
> Chances are almost certain anyway that we're living in a simulation,
> where bored programmers amuse themselves by letting reality slip a
> little for some people who are open to the flow. Generally, this means
> extropians are excluded. It'd cause too many aberrations if they let it
> slip for those engaged in any kind of scientific work. Aberrations mean
> long days of work tweaking reality below the surface such that the
> anomaly gets all logically explained in some theoretical paper written
> by a physicist in Turkey a week before the observed event.
Ah, but a total lack of aberrations is evidence in and of itself. Since
life is chaotic, getting a perfect 50-50 split every time would be
suspicious.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:38 MST