Comments on: Nothingness? Or a balance of everything? http://spiritualscientific.com/blog/2008/12/14/nothingness-or-a-balance-of-everything/ Pauline's Blog Sat, 15 Oct 2011 21:10:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reality Check http://spiritualscientific.com/blog/2008/12/14/nothingness-or-a-balance-of-everything/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Reality Check Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:02:39 +0000 http://spiritualscientific.com/blog/2008/12/14/nothingness-or-a-balance-of-everything/#comment-20 Just saw that I did not tell you where my review from reeading Terence Witt’s "Our Undiscovered Universe" is! http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html Just saw that I did not tell you where my review from reeading Terence Witt’s “Our Undiscovered Universe” is!
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html

]]> By: Melvin http://spiritualscientific.com/blog/2008/12/14/nothingness-or-a-balance-of-everything/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Melvin Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:19:52 +0000 http://spiritualscientific.com/blog/2008/12/14/nothingness-or-a-balance-of-everything/#comment-12 Hi, Pauline asked me to write a bit about Terence Witt's Null Physics. My theory of near death experiences and non local perceptions depends on quantum physics, specifically concepts such as entanglement and quantum reality. Real physicists, such as Henry Stapp, Amit Goswami, and Hal Puthoff embrace the philosophical concepts of consciousness being a part of reality itself. If we accept this, then we can accept that consciousness can exist independent of a brain, indeed, the brain serving only to express consciousness in this local reality. Now comes Terence Witt, and his book The Undiscovered Universe disputes all of this! I read his book, which is more than 90% of his critics did! It was astonishing to read reviews of his book and lengthy discussions of his book based entirely on the authors reading the jacket blurbs and Amazon.com reviews! Well, not really. The most extensive discussion of Witt's book online is on the James Randi skeptical site. No surprise there that those who discussed the book had never read it and roundly condemned it. Witt joins in a lengthy discussion with them, which, no surprise again, quickly degenerates into name calling! However, James Randi is an intellectual fraud posing as a skeptic. I once appeared with him on National TV, and I was astonished how intellectually shallow and narrow minded he is. One the other hand, I did learn some really great tricks of the trade from him on how to give the appearance of being a mind reader, and how to "find" lost objects with one's mind. He gave an excellent demonstration of how to fake remote viewing. Don't misunderstand me, I think there is a place in the world for James Randi. One reason I learned to remote view myself, is that I learned from Mr. Randi how easy it is to con people, especially scientists. He gave a breathtaking demonstration of remote viewing, and "found" a hidden object in a room, which was all magic and subtle mind techniques. It is just unfortunate that he is also narrow minded and lacks true intellectual honesty. I also learned from the James Randi site discussion with Mr. Witt what NOT to do when you have a controversial theory. The discussents argued back and forth with Mr. Witt, but then soon started subtle digs at his character. After a bit, he lashed out at them. Ahah, then they had him. They immediately dismissed him as a "crackpot" on the basis of his overreacting to their subtle personal digs at him. I wish I knew Mr. Witt and could have told him there is no point in arguing with people on the James Randi skeptical website, they are really just stringing him along until he makes a mistake and then jumping all over him. They then ruthlessly promote the thread of the discussion all over the web, to prove he is a "crackpot", whatever a "crackpot" is. Actually, I know what their definition of a "crackpot" is, and I took their Discovery magazine test and guess what? I am not a crackpot, and I pass the test for being a respectable alternative scientist. Big whoopee. Anyway, back to Witt's book. Well, it is a riot, so those who didn't read it are really missing out. He has great lines in it such as "physics has been infected with mysticism at a subhysterical level for the past 90 years", and "the Big Bang Theory will be our generation's Flat Earth theory". He basically completely disputes everything about quantum physics. Otherwise, I don't have the math or the physics background to assess the book. Using Mark Twain's criteria that if everyone hates what you are doing, it is probably correct, he must have something going for him. Melvin Hi, Pauline asked me to write a bit about Terence Witt’s Null Physics. My theory of near death experiences and non local perceptions depends on quantum physics, specifically concepts such as entanglement and quantum reality. Real physicists, such as Henry Stapp, Amit Goswami, and Hal Puthoff embrace the philosophical concepts of consciousness being a part of reality itself. If we accept this, then we can accept that consciousness can exist independent of a brain, indeed, the brain serving only to express consciousness in this local reality.

Now comes Terence Witt, and his book The Undiscovered Universe disputes all of this!
I read his book, which is more than 90% of his critics did! It was astonishing to read reviews of his book and lengthy discussions of his book based entirely on the authors reading the jacket blurbs and Amazon.com reviews!

Well, not really. The most extensive discussion of Witt’s book online is on the James Randi skeptical site. No surprise there that those who discussed the book had never read it and roundly condemned it. Witt joins in a lengthy discussion with them, which, no surprise again, quickly degenerates into name calling! However, James Randi is an intellectual fraud posing as a skeptic. I once appeared with him on National TV, and I was astonished how intellectually shallow and narrow minded he is. One the other hand, I did learn some really great tricks of the trade from him on how to give the appearance of being a mind reader, and how to “find” lost objects with one’s mind. He gave an excellent demonstration of how to fake remote viewing.

Don’t misunderstand me, I think there is a place in the world for James Randi. One reason I learned to remote view myself, is that I learned from Mr. Randi how easy it is to con people, especially scientists. He gave a breathtaking demonstration of remote viewing, and “found” a hidden object in a room, which was all magic and subtle mind techniques. It is just unfortunate that he is also narrow minded and lacks true intellectual honesty.

I also learned from the James Randi site discussion with Mr. Witt what NOT to do when you have a controversial theory. The discussents argued back and forth with Mr. Witt, but then soon started subtle digs at his character. After a bit, he lashed out at them.

Ahah, then they had him. They immediately dismissed him as a “crackpot” on the basis of his overreacting to their subtle personal digs at him.
I wish I knew Mr. Witt and could have told him there is no point in arguing with people on the James Randi skeptical website, they are really just stringing him along until he makes a mistake and then jumping all over him. They then ruthlessly promote the thread of the discussion all over the web, to prove he is a “crackpot”, whatever a “crackpot” is.

Actually, I know what their definition of a “crackpot” is, and I took their Discovery magazine test and guess what? I am not a crackpot, and I pass the test for being a respectable alternative scientist. Big whoopee.

Anyway, back to Witt’s book.
Well, it is a riot, so those who didn’t read it are really missing out. He has great lines in it such as “physics has been infected with mysticism at a subhysterical level for the past 90 years”, and “the Big Bang Theory will be our generation’s Flat Earth theory”. He basically completely disputes everything about quantum physics.

Otherwise, I don’t have the math or the physics background to assess the book. Using Mark Twain’s criteria that if everyone hates what you are doing, it is probably correct, he must have something going for him.

Melvin

]]>