I'm from /x/. I don't want to bother you guys if you're busy building the historical model of imaginary-symbolic scientific reason. But I do think there's room for truth in science, which is why I'm here.
>>11906151Divination is not synchronicity, merely a function of intuition. Synchronicity cannot occur under objective causal contracts, such as intuited knowledge of the future, as the divine does not work within the mortal and profane.
>>11906342Coincidence is just an acausal juncture of meaning unfathomable to the individual.
>The issue is that you can't measure a phenomenon without interfering with it, and this becomes a non-negligible problem at the quantum level.That's exactly the point I was making above. That's why I don't do /sci/, the vast majority is restricted to the Imaginary-Symbolic in complete neglect The Real. But that is due to scientific subjectivities with an infantile dependence upon symbolic evidence. Pop-scientists, you know? I'm clearly jaded. I'm willing to be vulnerable and intimate in order to share understanding, and have been hurt enough to cause resentment. "Show me evidence. Prove it." It's called reason, bitch. Logos. Nous. Not just sense, but good sense. Not just eyes and ears, but eyes which can see and ears which can hear. Evidence of God? EVERYWHERE. FUCKING LOOK AROUND.
I know the people I'm bitching about actually have nothing to do with science. They're just scientific subjectivities and trapped within it's historical framework, having no actual understanding of it. Thanks for helping me get that out.
>>11906642Paranormal refers to a branch of normalcy, though I do consider that distinction to be unnecessary.
>>11906646In my experience concepts like God, magic, miracles, demons, mysticism, etc. all fit perfectly in a naturalist framework.
While I'm here, what does /sci/ think of Alfred North Whitehead?
