Cholem Yesodeth

You miss the point about Phillips' research. He has revealed the existence of a form of knowledge that is both religious/mystical and scientific. THAT's why, as a scientist, he is no longer separating faith and science. The whole point he is making (which you totally missed) is that there exists a form of mathematical knowledge where the distinction between religion and science no longer exists because it is not longer "theory" or "belief" but universal truth that embodies religious and scientific ideas, yet transcends them at the same time. Well, that about sums up the whole thread, doesn't it?

pwagen: "I'd be interested to hear your definition of Theosophist, if not one who believes he has proven the very concept of Theosophy." A Theosophist is one who accepts as true all the teachings of Theosophy. On the other hand, Stephen Phillips claims that he has proved just one of these teachings. Except to those who cannot think logically, this does not imply that Stephen Phillips is a Theosophist. If you had read his research, you would know that he has rejected some of the beliefs of Theosophists like Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, whilst his books has proved some of their claims. The tactic of discrediting someone's work by mislabelling or misrepresenting him is a common practice of the debunker. pwagen: "If the material on his website is his own, why would anybody not use it to find out more about him?" Because it should be evident that the material on his website does not contain autobiographical details. Instead, it is about mystical and scientific ideas and their mathematical connections. But none of you seem to be able to evaluate them. But, then, the last resort of the debunker or the intellectually lazy is to discredit research by hopefully finding things about someone that can generate ad hominems.Hence, your obsession with the man rather than his work ......

Pwagen, please do not make non sequiturs. Proving the existence of a form of knowledge that encompasses some of the teachings of Theosophy does not make Phillips a Theosophist. It was a matter not of finding more about him but of turning the lack of knowledge into a pathetic excuse for finding fault with his work. It does not wash.

Alexander1304 et al, Dr Stephen Phillips is not a Theosophist. Just because he has researched into the remote viewing research of two Theosophists and has written articles and books about their ideas does not make him a Theosophist! So please try using some logic. After all, you are supposed to be students of science (sigh!). Also, if one or two of you had read correctly the preface of his book Extra-sensory Perception of Quarks, you would not have made the error of reporting that he had obtained his doctorate from the University of Cambridge. His statement: "an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space" can be proven. But the proof is too technical to be included in a website designed for scientific laypeople and for those not expert in superstring theory, such as yourself. Actually, a simplified version of this proof appeared on page 10 of Article 2. But I guess you did not understand it. Of course Phillips' theory is falsifiable. His books provide a plethora of observations made by Besant & Leadbeater that serve as stringent tests of his basic hypotheses. Perhaps you should read them first before cherry-picking some minor statement in one of his research articles. It is not very scientific to resort to ad hominem criticisms just because you can find so little else of significance to fault. It is also not very scientific that you should allow your deep prejudice towards the concept of shadow matter to distort your appraisal. Rather than make inaccurate speculations about his academic background and totally vacuous comments about the material in his website, why not learn from the man himself by attending his week-end seminar in November this year? Preliminary details at http://smphillips.8m.com/contact.html.