Return Home
It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:43 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:44 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5713
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
My point is the only limitations that exist are within us,
That ignores the ruleset, and the probability distribution. Let's say an ultrasound is taken of a pregnant woman at 6 months of pregnancy. The sonogram shows that the fetus has a severe cranial deformity. And the prognosis is 100% that the baby will die shortly after birth. No baby has survived with this deformity. At that point the probability wave has collapsed and the event is in the timeline. On the other hand, no measurement had been taken of the person having brain surgery until the operation showing large parts of the brain missing. If that probability is even in the probability wave distribution it would be on the far edge. Otherwise it is just the LCS giving a nudge.

There has to be some randomness in the probability wave for you to effect the Probable Future Database. Let's look at a lone hiker and a rattlesnake. The hiker and the snake never meet, the hiker is paying attention and he sees the snake and avoids it, the hiker isn't paying attention and the snake strikes.

There is some randomness in that event. Rattlesnakes have been known to dry bite and not inject any venom. Or maybe the snake bites his boot and not his leg. But also the snake could bite his leg above his socks with a full injection of venom. One hiker is in a state park not far from a good sized city, and he has cell service. His chances of getting help and surviving are good. But say the hiker was 100 miles from anywhere and didn't have cell service. If a hiker is hiking 100 miles from civilization and get a full injection of venom, then the randomness in the probability wave distribution are greatly diminished. The probability that hiker would die is probably upwards of 99.99%. There may be a .001% chance that a draw will be taken from the outside edge of the probability wave. Another hiker happens upon the bitten lone hiker. This new hiker has a sat phone and calls for a helicopter.

So there are limitations within the ruleset and within the probability wave distribution. If what you want is not in the probability wave distribution that chances that it will happen are zero, UNLESS the LCS interferes and puts it in the data stream. And that is done as a nudge to make people think about a larger reality. It is never done just because someone thinks it would make their life better.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:53 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5713
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
I have searched the trilogy for evidence of the use of this phrase and found none.
I have changed this to read 'randomness in the probability wave distribution.' Meaning that an event can have a few, or many, possibilities in a probability wave distribution. So there can be a lot of randomness around an event if there is a large probability distribution.

US Space and Rocket Center (Part 1 of 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxeEaO ... ibCRsMi_IM
TOM:
I want to explain to you what it means to say, “Take a random draw from the probability distribution.” You hear me say that phrase over and over again. And most of you probably think that there’s a bunch of possibilities out there and you randomly just reach up and grab one. That’s not what’s going on at all. In that case every possibility would have the same likelihood of being drawn. It doesn’t. That’s why we have the probability distribution.
Attachment:
Probability curve.jpg
Probability curve.jpg [ 151.12 KiB | Viewed 976 times ]
We have twenty-six possibilities here. So everything from A-Z is a possibility. A is a possibility, B is a possibility, and C is another. We have twenty-six different possibilities that could happen. This is a probability distribution. This line which goes up here and here and here and so on and back down is the probability distribution. Many of you think of probability distributions as either being uniform in which all of the possibilities have the same probability or Gaussian which is the bell-curve. It starts low and comes up and goes down. Bell curves are nice, neat, easy things to work with. Real probability distributions, that describe the real world, can be any kind of ugly distribution. It doesn’t have to be something nice, pretty or symmetric.

This probability curve I made up. And that means that there’s one 'A' here. That’s what the one is. There’s two 'Bs' here. That’s what the two is and so on. There’s six H’s here and that’s the six. Each one of these letters has a probability that’s represented by the number of those letters that are in here. A probability distribution gives the relative probability between the different possibilities. So this 'K' is 25 times more likely, more probable, than the 'D' or 'E' which have one. Look at the 'L.' It’s seven times more probable than the 'G' because here’s the 'L' and it’s at 21 and here’s the 'G' at three. So it’s seven times more probable than 'G.' It’s just simple arithmetic there. So this is an example of a probability distribution.

Here’s an example of how a random draw is taken from the probability distribution. There’s 165 letters under this distribution. That’s one, plus two, plus two, plus one, plus one, plus two, plus three, plus six, and so on. You keep doing that all the way to the end. Count them and you get 165 letters. I’m sure somebody’s going to count them and see if I calculated it correctly. Put all 165 letters in a box, shake them up, turn the box upside down, and shake it again. Reach in and pull out one letter and that’s the random draw. Not all letters are as likely as others. The Z, the D, and the E are very unlikely because they only have one letter out of 165. You could pull one of those letters out, but it’s unlikely. You’re most probably going to pull out a K because there’s 25 of those there. That’s what I mean about the most probable thing being the most likely thing to happen. So to take a random draw on the distribution means that you pull things out according to the probability.

What’s the probability that you’d get any one of these letters from A-Z? One - because you’d take all the area under the curve and divide it by all the area under the curve. And if you reach into the box you will pull out a letter. The probability of getting one of the letters is one. The probability of getting any particular letter depends on the relative probabilities between the letters.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:36 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 968
Quote:
Quote:
My point is the only limitations that exist are within us,
That ignores the ruleset, and the probability distribution. Let's say an ultrasound is taken of a pregnant woman at 6 months of pregnancy. The sonogram shows that the fetus has a severe cranial deformity. And the prognosis is 100% that the baby will die shortly after birth. No baby has survived with this deformity. At that point the probability wave has collapsed and the event is in the timeline. On the other hand, no measurement had been taken of the person having brain surgery until the operation showing large parts of the brain missing. If that probability is even in the probability wave distribution it would be on the far edge. Otherwise it is just the LCS giving a nudge.

There has to be some randomness in the probability wave for you to effect the Probable Future Database. Let's look at a lone hiker and a rattlesnake. The hiker and the snake never meet, the hiker is paying attention and he sees the snake and avoids it, the hiker isn't paying attention and the snake strikes.

There is some randomness in that event. Rattlesnakes have been known to dry bite and not inject any venom. Or maybe the snake bites his boot and not his leg. But also the snake could bite his leg above his socks with a full injection of venom. One hiker is in a state park not far from a good sized city, and he has cell service. His chances of getting help and surviving are good. But say the hiker was 100 miles from anywhere and didn't have cell service. If a hiker is hiking 100 miles from civilization and get a full injection of venom, then the randomness in the probability wave distribution are greatly diminished. The probability that hiker would die is probably upwards of 99.99%. There may be a .001% chance that a draw will be taken from the outside edge of the probability wave. Another hiker happens upon the bitten lone hiker. This new hiker has a sat phone and calls for a helicopter.

So there are limitations within the ruleset and within the probability wave distribution. If what you want is not in the probability wave distribution that chances that it will happen are zero, UNLESS the LCS interferes and puts it in the data stream. And that is done as a nudge to make people think about a larger reality. It is never done just because someone thinks it would make their life better.
Yes, there are limitations within the rule set. Your avatar is located within the rule set. Are you located within the rule set?

I hope no consciousnesses were harmed with all of these horrible events you describe going on. :p

Lots of nudging going on. I wonder how many nudges it will take to get to the center of this tootsie pop? :)


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 680
Quote:
Quote:
I have searched the trilogy for evidence of the use of this phrase and found none.
I have changed this to read 'randomness in the probability wave distribution.' Meaning that an event can have a few, or many, possibilities in a probability wave distribution. So there can be a lot of randomness around an event if there is a large probability distribution.

US Space and Rocket Center (Part 1 of 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxeEaO ... ibCRsMi_IM
TOM:
I want to explain to you what it means to say, “Take a random draw from the probability distribution.” You hear me say that phrase over and over again. And most of you probably think that there’s a bunch of possibilities out there and you randomly just reach up and grab one. That’s not what’s going on at all. In that case every possibility would have the same likelihood of being drawn. It doesn’t. That’s why we have the probability distribution.
Probability curve.jpg
We have twenty-six possibilities here. So everything from A-Z is a possibility. A is a possibility, B is a possibility, and C is another. We have twenty-six different possibilities that could happen. This is a probability distribution. This line which goes up here and here and here and so on and back down is the probability distribution. Many of you think of probability distributions as either being uniform in which all of the possibilities have the same probability or Gaussian which is the bell-curve. It starts low and comes up and goes down. Bell curves are nice, neat, easy things to work with. Real probability distributions, that describe the real world, can be any kind of ugly distribution. It doesn’t have to be something nice, pretty or symmetric.

This probability curve I made up. And that means that there’s one 'A' here. That’s what the one is. There’s two 'Bs' here. That’s what the two is and so on. There’s six H’s here and that’s the six. Each one of these letters has a probability that’s represented by the number of those letters that are in here. A probability distribution gives the relative probability between the different possibilities. So this 'K' is 25 times more likely, more probable, than the 'D' or 'E' which have one. Look at the 'L.' It’s seven times more probable than the 'G' because here’s the 'L' and it’s at 21 and here’s the 'G' at three. So it’s seven times more probable than 'G.' It’s just simple arithmetic there. So this is an example of a probability distribution.

Here’s an example of how a random draw is taken from the probability distribution. There’s 165 letters under this distribution. That’s one, plus two, plus two, plus one, plus one, plus two, plus three, plus six, and so on. You keep doing that all the way to the end. Count them and you get 165 letters. I’m sure somebody’s going to count them and see if I calculated it correctly. Put all 165 letters in a box, shake them up, turn the box upside down, and shake it again. Reach in and pull out one letter and that’s the random draw. Not all letters are as likely as others. The Z, the D, and the E are very unlikely because they only have one letter out of 165. You could pull one of those letters out, but it’s unlikely. You’re most probably going to pull out a K because there’s 25 of those there. That’s what I mean about the most probable thing being the most likely thing to happen. So to take a random draw on the distribution means that you pull things out according to the probability.

What’s the probability that you’d get any one of these letters from A-Z? One - because you’d take all the area under the curve and divide it by all the area under the curve. And if you reach into the box you will pull out a letter. The probability of getting one of the letters is one. The probability of getting any particular letter depends on the relative probabilities between the letters.
Linda, thanks. Your dedication is priceless. As I said, my profession mandated that I have a complete understanding of probability distributions and related subjects. The use of the phrase: "randomness in the probability" did not comport to my understanding and necessitated your clarification. However, replacing it with the phrase "randomness in the probable wave distribution" does not clarify it.

Here is your example:

You can react to the data you get by using focused Intent to change your character if there is enough randomness in the probability wave distribution. If a child is born with severe Down's Syndrome, then all the focused Intent possible will not make that child cognitively normal. There isn't enough randomness in that probable outcome. But if you are a war veteran with PTSD, then through meditation, or other therapeutic activities, you can change your brain back to the way it was before you went to war - or even better. There is a lot of randomness around that probable outcome.

In the case of the child with "severe down's syndrome" the wave distribution is irrelevant because you imply the child cannot focus intent effectively. You imply the Vet can focus intent effectively with PTSD. The Vet then makes a choice to do nothing, meditate, or other therapeutic activities which, you imply, can cause the brain to change back to the way it was. Then the question is what is the probability that the choices will result in normal brain activity for a vet with PTSD. The next step is then obtain data on a population of vets with PTSD specific to the choices. You gather the data and plot a bell curve. The randomness of outcomes is predictable (uncertainty in the result) and can be narrowed given the statistical data. So that for example there is a 20% probability that meditation will effect a positive result.


Last edited by Jdjr on Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:58 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:47 am
Posts: 288
Quote:
Yes, there are limitations within the rule set. Your avatar is located within the rule set. Are you located within the rule set?

You come off very condescending for someone who's completely missing the conversation. You actually backpedaled on your original statement that initiated your line of questioning and then you conclude with a complete non-sequitur that your point is, "limitations that exist are within us".

When people talk about things in PMR terms, do you think you are enlightened because you interject with, "its just data, its not actually real"? Yes, we're all familiar with Tom's theory. Try not to be socially inept.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:57 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 968
Thanks for the feedback Human. :)

It’s all real, and all necessary. I sometimes just place everything that is real and necessary under the heading of Consciousness within my mind and then that becomes my focus. Sorry for my confusion.

I certainly don’t consider myself to be enlightened. I will better express myself in the future.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5713
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
In the case of the child with "severe down's syndrome" the wave distribution is irrelevant because you imply the child cannot focus intent effectively.
No, what I'm saying is that there is no longer randomness around the health of the fetus once the sonogram has been read. At that point a random draw has been done and the health of the fetus is determined. The probability wave collapsed and the fact that the fetus is severely brain damaged is in the time line. No amount of focused Intent from the mother, father, or others can change the outcome then.
Quote:
Then the question is what is the probability that the choices will result in normal brain activity for a vet with PTSD. The next step is then obtain data on a population of vets with PTSD specific to the choices. You gather the data and plot a bell curve.
Each veteran would have their own probability distribution based upon their past experience, beliefs, fears, expectations, dedication, ect. But the uncertainty around their healing is such that most would have a good chance of improvement.

Take the example of a woman who feels a lump in her breast. She has not had any tests or diagnosis. So there is some randomness around what the lump will be. She, her family, and her friends use focused Intent until her doctor's appointment. She has a biopsy taken of the lump. The moment the pathologist reads the slide, a random draw is taken and the probability wave collapses. Now, the diagnosis is in the timeline. There is little randomness around whether or not the lump is benign or cancerous.

But the statement, "the only limitations that exist are within us," is untrue in many situations. There are many parameters that can inhibit our ability to change our health and environment. There has to be randomness around an event for focused Intent to change the probability enough to make a difference.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:25 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 680
Quote:
Quote:
In the case of the child with "severe down's syndrome" the wave distribution is irrelevant because you imply the child cannot focus intent effectively.
No, what I'm saying is that there is no longer randomness around the health of the fetus once the sonogram has been read. At that point a random draw has been done and the health of the fetus is determined. The probability wave collapsed and the fact that the fetus is severely brain damaged is in the time line. No amount of focused Intent from the mother, father, or others can change the outcome then.
Quote:

Your answer responds to a different example that you set forth. In your fetus example "down's syndrome" had not been diagnosed but severe cranial deformation had been observed in the sonogram.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:28 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5713
Location: Ocala, FL
In the case of a child with severe Down's Syndrome the probability wave has already collapsed and the data is in the data stream. With the constraints of the ruleset there is very little randomness around trying to improve the cognitive ability of the child. As soon as a probability wave collapses then the randomness is severely constrained in most cases.


Top
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2019 7:20 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:21 am
Posts: 50
Graham Hancock was on The Joe Rogan Experience last week, and provides proof modern humans go back at least 10 times longer (in America) than we have been told:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxmw9eizOAo

We have been lied to


Top
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2019 7:52 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5713
Location: Ocala, FL
From Wikipedia: Graham Bruce Hancock is a British writer and journalist. Hancock specializes in pseudo-scientific theories involving ancient civilizations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past.

His degree is in sociology not anthropology.

Dictionary.com - pseudoscience - A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not.


Top
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 11:16 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:21 am
Posts: 50
More info on this topic: Forbidden Archeology with Michael Cremo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEAaaWlVv0
Quote:
These reports show evidence of modern human remains found in geological formations that are millions of years old -- long before the generally accepted dates of homo sapiens sapiens. If taken seriously, Cremo explains that this data contradicts standard interpretations of human origins.


Top
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 12:24 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5713
Location: Ocala, FL
Wikipedia: Michael A. Cremo also known by his devotional name Drutakarmā dāsa, is an American freelance researcher who identifies himself as a Vedic creationist and an "alternative archeologist." Forbidden Archeology, which he wrote with Richard L. Thompson, has attracted attention from mainstream scholars who have criticized the views given on archeology and describe it as pseudoscientific.

Dictionary.com - pseudoscience - A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not.


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 11:09 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:21 am
Posts: 50
Thanks for reminding us again & again that everyone questioning the TRUTH are not accepted by the high priests.

Nice to see such open minded skeptics in this forum.

Everything that's not according to the main stream theory, the scientists (the high priests) is pseudo science, while everything that does not deviate from it is THE TRUTH.

I guess Thomas Campbells book is 100% pseudo science then. So why are you here? What is it that you're trying to achieve? Are there not forums with real truth that fits your belief system better than this forum based on a 100% pseudo scientific theory?

Trolls will keep on trolling, all forums questioning the truth shall be trolled, infiltrated. The illusion must be defended.


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5713
Location: Ocala, FL
The difference is that real anthropologists go out in the field and find fossils. They carbon date the fossils to get an idea of when they were deposited. They use science to make conclusions.

The people you are referencing are making things up based upon what they believe.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited