Jump to content

Did anybody hear /read about Dr. Stephen M.Phillips?


Alexander1304
 Share

Recommended Posts

I see the universe as having a necessary geometric principle, not in the complex platonic solids, but a related concept of the spheroidic shape of the original singularity having the universal property of circumference/diameter=PI. I don't see anything "sacred" about any of the "residue" of the algorithm of PI (the universe), as the mathematical object described all subjects. I see the moral neutrality of a long theoretical equation in the early stages of the scenario, until physical evolution became complex enough to allow sentience, and to extrapolate that information into meanings with our particular human "initiative"...

Edited by hoola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the universe as having a necessary geometric principle, not in the complex platonic solids, but a related concept of the spheroidic shape of the original singularity having the universal property of circumference/diameter=PI. I don't see anything "sacred" about any of the "residue" of the algorithm of PI (the universe), as the mathematical object described all subjects. I see the moral neutrality of a long theoretical equation in the early stages of the scenario, until physical evolution became complex enough to allow sentience, and to extrapolate that information into meanings with our particular human "initiative"...

With all due respect, this is as much meaningless drivel as Phillips'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Quite not so. He says he has "proved the existence of a form of knowledge about the nature of space-time, matter, and higher levels of reality that encompasses the Jewish mystical doctrine of Kabbalah, teachings of Theosophy(...)". Do you know what the word "encompass" means?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .....

Gosh, that sounds awfully like an ad hominem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I think it's mind-doodling metaphysical word-salad. One thing you might note is that real scientists with religious sentiments seem to keep their scientific work and faith far apart from each other...in public at least.

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.

Gosh, that sounds awfully like an ad hominem.

 

Well, that about sums up the whole thread, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

For those who may be interested,  there is an article that presents the subject of of Stephen Phillips writings and related matter in context here:  https://theosophy.world/encyclopedia/occult-chemistry

The book "Occult Chemistry" is online at this link and there is a list of a dozen or so related article:  https://theosophy.wiki/en/Occult_Chemistry_(book)

I exchanged a few emails with Stephen Phillips and inquired about the reception that his writings on "Occult Chemistry" received.  He replied as follows:

"My books have never been reviewed in scientific magazines or commented upon by scientists other than a few who are supportive of parapsychology, such as Dr E. Lester Smith, FRS, who isolated B12 vitamin for the first time, and Professor Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, who invited me in 1984 to deliver a seminar on the topic to researchers and Ph.D. students at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University - a lecture that was very well-received. I was not surprised at the lack of response to my books from orthodox science circles. In fact, I drew from it the positive inference that the lack of any criticisms of my conclusions from scientists probably meant that I had succeeded in making my analysis so sound and that I had presented evidence so convincing that no one in the science community was able to refute my conclusion that micro-psi accurately describes the subatomic world. When mainstream scientists cannot find any weakness to enable them to criticize a piece of research that contradicts their ideological assumptions, their response is often to ignore it in the hope that the rest of the world never notices it. This tactic is often quite successful, as it has been with my work, and I no doubt assisted in not bothering to make much effort to publicize it but to let my books speak for themselves to anyone who had ears unbiased enough to listen. So I am undismayed by the silence, and I have gone on to publish in 2009 a fourth book, entitled "The Mathematical Connection between Religion and Science" (Antony Rowe Publishing, England). This refers to my previous work and provides further remarkable, irrefutable evidence that the description of the UPA by Besant & Leadbeater was objective and accurate. My latest book, I believe, gives the definitive solution to the ancient mystery of the meaning of the friezes carved on the world-famous " Gate of the Sun" at Tiwanaku, in Bolivia. This turns out to have a profound bearing on both the two Theosophists' observations and my earlier analysis of them, although my book intentionally does not explicitly state what the connection is. It will get published hopefully when the current coronavirus crisis settles down.

 I hope this answers your question.

 Very sincerely,

 Stephen M. Phillips, Ph.D. physics"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

For those who may be interested,  there is an article that presents the subject of of Stephen Phillips writings and related matter in context

Fortunately, that excludes me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

the lack of any criticisms of my conclusions from scientists probably meant that I had succeeded in making my analysis so sound and that I had presented evidence so convincing that no one in the science community was able to refute my conclusion that micro-psi accurately describes the subatomic world.

Silence from mainstream scientists automatically means that pseudo/non-scientific material is true? That does not sound plausible or logic.

 

From the promotional link above https://th_*_hy.world/encyclopedia/occult-chemistry (emphasis mine)

Quote

Conclusion. Fabrication, hallucination and coincidence are neither viable nor plausible explanations of the huge degree of consistency now demonstrated between thousands of details about fifty-three MPAs, facts of nuclear physics and the well-established theory of quarks. Nor can they account for the striking parallels between observations recorded in Occult Chemistry and aspects of superstring theory and the string model of strong forces. There is no more plausible explanation of this congruity than that Besant and Leadbeater accurately observed the subatomic world with ESP.

I think we need evidence and a model for ESP before it can be used as an explanation for anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Silence from mainstream scientists automatically means that pseudo/non-scientific material is true? That does not sound plausible or logic.

From the promotional link above https://th_*_hy.world/encyclopedia/occult-chemistry (emphasis mine)

I think we need evidence and a model for ESP before it can be used as an explanation for anything?

Silence does not automatically mean truth but I don't think that's a fair characterization of what he wrote.

Calling something pseudo/non-scientific is just "name calling," is a way to easy dismissal and besides:
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/stop-using-the-word-pseudoscience

 

About evidence, I suggest exploring:

 

Selected Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications on Psi Research

A List of 100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers that Offer Scientific Evidence for Psi Phenomena

 Contents A-Z | Psi Encyclopedia

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamesd1 said:

Calling something pseudo/non-scientific is just "name calling,"

... not if it's clearly pseudo science or just non scientific, then it's description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, DrP said:

... not if it's clearly pseudo science or just non scientific, then it's description.

I think you may not be giving enough attention to the description in the links I referenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

In fact, I drew from it the positive inference that the lack of any criticisms of my conclusions from scientists probably meant that I had succeeded in making my analysis so sound and that I had presented evidence so convincing that no one in the science community was able to refute my conclusion that micro-psi accurately describes the subatomic world.

So if I publish a paper on Invisible Pink Unicorns in my back garden, and no one responds to it, then that means my unicorns must be real?
What a ridiculous argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists do not have the time, inclination or duty to refute random nonsense published by crackpots. They are too busy doing real science. 

Anyone with the smallest amount of knowledge and basic critical thinking skills can do that for themselves. The gullible can lap it up. But no one really cared either way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

Silence does not automatically mean truth but I don't think that's a fair characterization of what he wrote.

Calling something pseudo/non-scientific is just "name calling," is a way to easy dismissal and besides:
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/stop-using-the-word-pseudoscience

 

About evidence, I suggest exploring:

 

Selected Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications on Psi Research

A List of 100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers that Offer Scientific Evidence for Psi Phenomena

 Contents A-Z | Psi Encyclopedia

!

Moderator Note

‪ I was not under the impression the psi was being discussed, nor was the general need of rigor in science. These would be topics for other threads.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

So if I publish a paper on Invisible Pink Unicorns in my back garden, and no one responds to it, then that means my unicorns must be real?
What a ridiculous argument.

I don't think an over-the-top analogical exaggeration Is a reasonable response to the physicist writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

‪ I was not under the impression the psi was being discussed, nor was the general need of rigor in science. These would be topics for other threads.

 

PSI is directly related to and integral to Dr. Phillip's writings.  If anyone had actually look at The lnks at provided or did any even a superficial reading of the abstracts of his papers, then that would have been obvious. I'm done here folks. We'll leave the last word to you.

Edited by jamesd1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jamesd1 said:

PSI is directly related to and integral to Dr. Phillip's writings.  If anyone had actually look at The lnks at provided or did any even a superficial reading of the abstracts of his papers, then that would have been obvious. I'm done here folks. We'll leave the last word to you.

Why would anyone waste time reading this nonsense? 

I hope you find a more receptive audience on a non-science forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

A List of 100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers that Offer Scientific Evidence for Psi Phenomena

I would prefer just one paper with a viable model and evidence from supporting observations instead of a list with 100+ papers and unsupported claims. Just for fun I checked one and tracked the references to one Dr Adrian Parker, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, University of Gothenburg (https://psy.gu.se/personal?userId=xparad). As far as I can tell that only shows that there are psychological aspects of various phenomena* that could be investigated scientifically. Which of course may lead to interesting discoveries in physiology and without doubt absolutely zero evidence for Psi Phenomena

Note: I do not question existence peer reviewed papers about psychic powers*. I question existence of peer reviewed paper about psychic powers contains evidence supported by observations repeated by others and a model

 

21 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

Calling something pseudo/non-scientific is just "name calling," is a way to easy dismissal

I consider myself rather open-minded when new models and supporting evidence and observations are presented. In this case I did not have ot spend a lot of time before deciding for a proper name. Nothing presented so far about the works of mr Phillips will change that fact.

I tried to see what a large online book provider's algorithm would suggest as alternatives if I visited mr Philips books. Result: 

Proof of Heaven
A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment
Lessons Learned from the Afterlife
Unity of Consciousness and Existence
Incredible True Stories of Heavenly Encounters and the Afterlife
Real Magic

My opinion:  pseudo/non-scientific is a reasonable name to use.

 

*) Psi Phenomena or other.

Edited by Ghideon
missing part
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

PSI is directly related to and integral to Dr. Phillip's writings.  If anyone had actually look at The lnks at provided or did any even a superficial reading of the abstracts of his papers, then that would have been obvious. I'm done here folks. We'll leave the last word to you.

!

Moderator Note

The OP mentions one topic - “Sacred Geometries”  - which doesn’t seem to include psi. It’s off-topic.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

I don't think an over-the-top analogical exaggeration Is a reasonable response to the physicist writings.

Un-reasonable statements don’t require reasonable responses.
That notwithstanding, I merely applied the author’s very own method of reasoning to a different scenario, in order to highlight the inherent absurdity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2020 at 2:20 AM, Markus Hanke said:

So if I publish a paper on Invisible Pink Unicorns in my back garden, and no one responds to it, then that means my unicorns must be real?
What a ridiculous argument.

Certainly. But you still have to prove they're pink!

We can't just accept your word for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comment on the original topic in the context of later material added by @jamesd1

 

 From Dr. Phillip's writings about sacred geometry:

Quote

By analysing the micro-psi descriptions of the first 20 elements in the periodic table (later extended to 48 elements (9)) in terms of the known protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei and the known types of quarks in them, I proved beyond reasonable doubt that UPAs are constituents of quarks. I also identified these ‘subquarks’ with what physicists call ‘superstrings.’

https://noe-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Article05.pdf

 

In Book ESP of Quarks and Superstrings micro-PSI is defined as some kind of ESP:

_4zYm8RXGg7B4Vla5PpNzykJzHQVcS0SwJBTnbjfL77YWH8UbDyazkjukKbREz6HY8S9Tm2WzUrYRkCeDRuC0kRPWiGx6nYg65fTq0zPHE2leN7lEcjyTwmXVscdwvy0zarpUPjs

XDzc809emrxNkW7rMn7dRHPSduP8ILDL15Zu2yJ2slwjjpsT-zQHRnJ6jU4ps2FQpvLqOWaZGYJT2yBofbyegRpwkNSB-FLprqPcYYXqLnsu0w4DlpQk9u6uYW6MEhPA2yrWx_Gw

(extract available on google books)

 

If the pseudo/unscientific concept of sacred geometry is investigated by, or requires usage of, yet another pseudo/unscientific concept (PSI/ESP) the double use of pseudo/unscientific does not result in science. The result is probably better described as: 

On 5/17/2020 at 10:23 AM, Strange said:

random nonsense published by crackpots

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.