Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Society for the Investigaion of Prescience, SIP

  1. Nov 7, 2004 #1
    We are pleased to announce the formation of a group for scientists and others interested in the developing convergence of physics (measurement and theory) with the practices of ancient traditional experienced-based systems.

    Can sacred geometry and direct perception as handed down through generations of advanced thinkers who worked without the benefit of our modern instrumentation give us and insight into current questions regarding the energies and structures of vacuum states?

    Is there any correspondence between the higher dimensions found by intuition and the higher dimensions found in supersymmetric string theory?

    If you are a scientist or other interested person, please visit us at our board on Meetup.com and join in the discussion.
    If you can't find us, look for the index word PRESCIENCE on the meetup.com welcome board.
    Thank you,

    Richard T. Harbaugh
    Director of Programs

    Joseph J. Fasano
    Director of Research

    Suzanne Elizabeth Seitz
    Executive Secretary
    Assistant Director of Research

    Gerald Wesley Seitz
    Director of Finance

    and the Members of
    The Society for the Investigation of Prescience, SIP

  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 7, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Good luck folks.
  4. Nov 7, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Was that directed toward Shoshana, or the rest of us reading that post? :rofl: I was thinking Christmas must be here early, a crackpot theory and spam all in one post! This looks like a job for anti_crank! :biggrin:
  5. Nov 7, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Let it ride. These guys are not presenting a theory but are looking to do research. You may notice that some of our members are on board.
  6. Nov 7, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I hadn't gone so far as to follow the link before, and jumped to the conclusion it was another flaky pseudoscience site. Now that I have followed the link, I see they are more serious than my first impression. The intro doesn't really do the site justice.
  7. Nov 7, 2004 #6
    Moonbear got yelled at. hehe Should have asked me first, I'm a parapsychic and could have told you the planets' alignment pointed to trouble if you criticized them.
    On the other hand, like I always say. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then this group just might be a bunch of quacks.
  8. Nov 8, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I went to their site and nosed around a bit. Nothing of much interest to me there, but at this point, while they seem to enjoy speaking in metaphors, they seem to want to use scientific method to approach their questions, and want some scientists there. However, I'm not sure how they plan to accomplish that when they start out with a thread that says science is limited because it only deals with the physical world, which immediately assumes their questions don't have an answer in the physical world even though that's what they claim to be trying to find out.

    Of course, it doesn't bode well when their intro here includes a statement such as:
    Anyway, they don't have anything at all about that on their site, so it looks like it may have been intended to entice readers, though if SelfAdjoint hadn't posted, it was enough for me to completely dismiss them. I can't tell yet if they are open to the idea that they just might disprove that what they call paraphysics really is outside the physical realm. I'm still not even sure what they want to test. There isn't any real discussion there about that stuff, just a lot of posts about changing their name and getting the board started.
  9. Nov 8, 2004 #8
    Thank you for your feedback

    Good Morning,
    We do not intend to us metaphors. Please forgive us and help us make note of everytime we do that.
    We have a challenge to develop a slightly different approach to verbal communication than previously used to bridge the gap where we can not find historical commonalities.

    As you might assume, we are new as a group but certainly not new with the idea to begin serious dialog between the traditonal philosopher and the scientists.

    We do have several scientist in our group even as small and new as we are.

    We did not even begin the group until we had the commitment of these scientists to take this nobel challenge and around them we constructed a supporting technical staff.
    Thank you for your feedback.
    Suzanne Elizabeth Seitz
    The Society for the Investigation of Prescience
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2004
  10. Nov 8, 2004 #9
  11. Nov 8, 2004 #10
    Hi all

    Well, we are trying. I guess it is not surprising to me that the first reaction to our idea is a negative one. First we are assigned a personality which we do not have, since the group is made up of a variety of individuals, and then the personality is dismissed as kook and crank before there is even a cursory glance at the new forum. Humans who feel threatened usually act this way to new stimuli, and who doesn't feel threatened today? I hold no grudge against the responders, but I will ask them to take another look at their own reactions. Were they responding to an idea, or merely reacting to a perceived threat?

    My observation of humans for the past fifty four years has led me to believe that even the most intelligent among us are usually knee-jerk reactionaries. It takes guts to respond to an idea, and frankly, why bother? Curiosity and the love of scientific discourse are not encouraged in today's highly competitive environment. Instead, our 'intellectuals' focus on cocooning themselves into neat cages made of commonly held beliefs masquerading as facts. It is considered a feather in one's cap to destroy someone elses reputation, and the cult of personality has nearly completely eclipsed the search for truth.

    But we came here looking for intelligent discussion of these questions, so I will repeat them. Perhaps someone may yet be able to put aside their fears and their self-serving ego tactics, and enter into a reasonable discussion of the ideas.

    Being, the quality of existence, and its opposite, nothingness, has been a topic of interest to thinkers for thousands of years. Millions if not billions of humans have found meaning and comfort in cherished ideas that have been passed down for generations, reinforced by the commonality of direct perception of "truths." Some of us have found what appears to be a startling correspondence between ancient ideas and the new questions on the frontiers of theoretical physics. Once again, in other words, can modern scientists find anything of value in ancient ideas to guide them in their search for what is beyond the frontier of our current understanding?

    String theory is not accepted by all physicists, nor should it be. After all, it is a theory. But it implies eleven or more dimensions to the physical universe. Some of these dimensions may even be large. Are there any useful correspondences between these dimensions and the higher dimensions which often have been invoked by ancient thinkers to explain their perception of higher truths? This is an innocent question intended to provoke thoughtful dialog, not to promulgate any dogmatic solution. We propose to look for evidence, both in theoretical and experimental physics, and in the traditional wisdoms handed down to us from generations past.

    Vacuum states are a current problem in string theory, and in cosmology. There are too many of them. Inflation, quintessence, brane theory, and the standard big bang model all suffer from a lack of definition of the zero point. Yet the stillness at the center of everything is a common theme in many philosophies. We propose a survey of these ancient ideas of nothingness, with an eye toward finding new directions and methodologies for advancing scientific research.

    I am only one person, but all this seems sensible to me. If it is nonsense, then use your reasoning abilities to discredit the idea, rather than resorting to the pathetic fallacy of personal attack. You claim to be scientists, posting on a scientific forum. Show us the science. We are willing to learn. We will try to show you what we have seen in the old texts and in our personal anecdotal experience. We do not wish to threaten you. We hope to be of some assistance. Science is surely a powerful tool for finding out the truth, but it is not the only tool available to consciousness.

    I have heard it said that a good theory must be falsifiable. We are willing to lay our ideas on the table, and let them be falsified if that is their fate, because we are interested in the truth. Can you say the same?

    Richard, the nightcleaner
  12. Nov 8, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What attracted me to this program, and I am not a member, nor do I plan to become one, is that it selects a restricted question, the relation of extra dimensions to traditional notions of paraconsciousness, and proposes to investigate it scientifically. We can wish them luck, whatever our own opinions on the matter are.
  13. Nov 8, 2004 #12
    I wish them all the luck in the world. I've wasted countless hours on projects doomed to fail, so I'm not going to begrudge them the freedom to do the same. I hope their experiments are fun, because I think the only result they will get from them will be a way to pass the time. Oh and I'll keep rewarding them with these bread crusts.
  14. Nov 8, 2004 #13
    Thank you!
    And we like popcorn Too!
    Freedom to BE a duck!
    Ducks Rule!
    Ducks also work their tails off...
    so that's all the fun for now..
  15. Nov 8, 2004 #14
    LOL! You sure you have the temperment to carry on these types of experiments.
    I must say though you have taught me something. I never knew ducks are one of the worker species. Sure I knew about the beaver and the honeybee, but not the duck. Perhaps the duck works hard, psychicly, neurons firing like mad. I always wondered about an animal that would gobble up a burning cigarette butt just as quickly as a Ritz Cracker, but I'm sure the duck had a deeper plan. Good luck on your prescience ducky. And watch that temper, you know it runs in the family eg Donald. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
  16. Nov 8, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can't speak for everyone, but I was reacting to the content of the initial post, which sounded, well, flaky. Peruse some of the locked threads and the sites they link to around here and you'll see how that reaction has developed.

    [quote}Humans who feel threatened usually act this way to new stimuli, and who doesn't feel threatened today? I hold no grudge against the responders, but I will ask them to take another look at their own reactions. Were they responding to an idea, or merely reacting to a perceived threat?[/quote]

    What makes you think we perceive this as a threat? I'm not accustomed to running into many (or any) people willing to apply scientific method to what they consider paraphysics studies, usually because it already implies an assumption that you've a priori rejected physical explanations to say it is paraphysics.

    Why do you think it takes guts to respond to an idea? I think it takes time. The "why bother" part is that I'm not overly interested in bothering to reply if I think the person I'm responding to isn't going to listen anyway. Now that Shoshana has returned, with friends, I'm at least certain you're paying attention to the replies here, whether or not you'll accept them as valid or not.

    Quite the opposite in my experience. You can't be competitive without curiousity and willingness to take a few risks, albeit, calculated risks. Afterall, most basic science is government funded, so we have to be careful with what we do with the taxpayer's money.

    Please cite a few examples, otherwise this just sounds like a snide remark rather than a valid criticism. If you give examples, then we would have the opportunity to refute them.

    You're kidding, right?! You think scientists are out to destroy others' reputations? I don't even know what to say to that other than you're wrong.

    Seriously, the only ego-serving tactics here are yours. You come here and insult scientists, tell us we're locked up in cages of beliefs, that you're ideas are somehow important enough to make us feel threatened, that we'll stab each other in the back to don a feather in our cap for ruining someone's reputation, and that we discourage curiousity and the love of science, yet tell us we're the ones who need to keep an open mind?

    An example or two would be helpful here. What ancient ideas? Which new questions? If you don't give examples of what ideas you think are related, how can we possibly make any sense out of that statement?

    Again, you need to give some examples of how these ancient thinkers described these dimensions in order for us to know if it's relevant or not.

    I don't know enough about these theories to comment. I'll leave it up to the physicists here to discuss this point.

    What other tool do you propose?

    Okay, so here's the deal, if you want to encourage dialog and to really find out the truth of whether your ideas have any validity or not, you have to give specific details. Talking in vague generalities about ancient wisdom and truth and higher dimensions, which may or may not mean the same as physical dimensions, makes it impossible to support or refute your claims.
  17. Nov 8, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'd have to concur that a statement like :
    ...makes me skeptical of the venture.
  18. Nov 8, 2004 #17
    YA! Your right about that tendency to gobble up burning cigarette butts. We do indeed pay for it in the END...if ya know what I mean. Perhaps that's why we have bad tempers.
    Spose I have one thing to say about all this feather fun...We, meaning the duck family always have to be on the look out not to be fooled into thinking a decoy is really a fellow quack!
  19. Nov 8, 2004 #18

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hi Suzanne,

    I suspect I might not be alone in the dark about what you are specifically referring to with:

    1. the practices of ancient traditional experienced-based systems

    2. sacred geometry

    3. the higher dimensions found by intuition
  20. Nov 8, 2004 #19
    I have seen the geometry that nightcleaner, Richard is talking about and it is indeed consistent with text written thousands of years ago. When he showed it to me the week he was staying in our guest apartment to attend ISACP, I went running for the text I just happened to have a translation of in english.

    I do not have that book any more as it returned home with Richard so I can not quote you from the book. But not only had Richard developed a geometry consistent with cutting edge work being done in astroparticle physics, but he had even made some amazing advances.
    Again, I am only the ducky secretary of this group but I am a ducky little secretary with the degree to comfirm that Richard is on to something that elegently closes the spaces with mathematics. YA! mathematics.

    This is not the place to argue the work we are doing.
    We are working 24/7 trying to keep up with the business of the group.
    We appreciate your interest in giving us constructive suggestions but I do not think this announcement however it may have appealed or NOT appealed to people was meant to begin a time consuming dialog on this forum.
    We hope to find an environment more suitable for people to dare to take chances in their thinking and the eventual science application. The announcement was meant for people who were inclined towards this investigaion to join us, some privately, to do what we hope will be some good work.
  21. Nov 8, 2004 #20

    Hello Les Sleeth,
    I have noted this question of 3 points. Please understand I am on this forum alone this evening as a member from our team and I would like to give you more than my personal opinion on these topics. The group has taken these topics as research subjects and after so short a time, we certianly DO NOT have anything prepared.

    Thank you
    I'm sure someone will get back to you who is more qualified than myself to answer your questions.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: The Society for the Investigaion of Prescience, SIP
  1. Of Society: (Replies: 4)

  2. Honor Society (Replies: 19)

  3. Contributing to society (Replies: 11)

  4. Sexism in society (Replies: 61)