>>9671 First you need to understand how you move your limbs, how you make your own thoughts and how you perceive reality. Once you understand the root cause of everything, magic will make complete sense. Until that everything is a weird maze of concepts and speculation.

>>9672 I've been making things happen with magic for more than 10 years. I was an armchair magician on and off for almost 10 before that. My life is full of magic, and basically exactly how I want it to be. To the point that the thing that occupies my thoughts the most is knowing how it works as precisely as possible. I don't want to come across as a magusitis case, but I want the context of my experience to be clear. And please, if you have actual practical experience with using magic to alter reality, do contribute. No need to be specific about your personal experience of course. Let's also throw data points into the thread. I've noticed that synchronicities seem to pile up just before manifestation of the desired goal is about to happen or be revealed. Is this your experience?

I didn't know if it was necessary to explicitly say this, but in this thread, let's treat nothing as truth unless we have data that directly proves it, and disproves an alternative explanation within reason. Let's be scientific in our approach.

>>9674 >if it was necessary to explicitly say this, but in this thread, let's treat nothing as truth unless we have data that directly proves it Can you post the "data" that "proves" the magic you did for "more than 10 years"? I feel whatever I would post will be unable to meet the criteria of your personal conceptual framework. >Let's be scientific in our approach. For that I would need independent observers who can verify what I did or at least an unedited video of my magic. Being "scientific" while talking about magic is like trying to impregnate someone with a chastity cage on. Not impossible but extremely uncomfortable. If you want a "scientific discussion" please provide a frame of reference with your own magical practice, so others can know how to format their experience. >My life is full of magic, and basically exactly how I want it to be. Then why do you need "data" if it is exactly how you want it to be. I am not trying to nitpick here. I just feel that whatever I would write would be ridiculed as "unscientific". There is some abhorrently shit energy going around on this entire website for the past week and I am unsure if it is just me or others feel it too. I am not sure if this thread wants to perpetuate that energy or it can serve as a way to clear it up. Prove your worth if you want others to share their deepest secrets. I will not share a single secret of mine for the sole reason it can be ridiculed by people who are poisoned by the "scientific mental framework".

Although I think you are mostly right in your structural understanding in the OP, I think it may be very difficult to test this under any controlled conditions, for reasons I'll try to explain in as vague terms as possible: What we call magic, or PSI is very common in the world. "Everyone" does it, and the research you are taking up here, has probably been done before, by someone else, whose interests are different from your own. Someone has already faced the difficulties you face in grasping it, and in as far as they had results, which motivated the research being started, they would also be willing to invest real money in this research. This means, they value the results they get, and they won't share it, because it was performed by private entities. Science as we know it, is treated as "collective knowledge" and works by the current paradigm of thought. This kind of science is what is studied at public institutions, and you face peer reviews and a demand to prove your thesis in laboratory or other kinds of controlled settings. This creates a tendency towards only being able to research things which can be performed in such settings. For example, someone claims to be able to look through physical objects. Fine, we can test this. But if you claim to be able to effect changes in social trends, this is not something you can test at a university. If you could actually do it, the research would very likely cause many entities in society to become upset, as they already invested money and effort into whatever the current social trend is. So you face politics, the moment you step outside the laboratory. And therein lies the issue here. It turns into the same thing as Schrödinger's cat, or the double slit experiment; as long as you don't prove the magic is real, you can work mostly freely, in terms of not getting interfered with by common actors. But the moment you were to conduct experiments such as any kind of social manipulation, it may likely cause outrage if successful, both by those being manipulated, and those who invested into a different direction. So it's like the cat in the box, as long as we aren't looking at it, it may be dead or alive. But the moment we open the box, it's dead.

>>9675 I don't want your deepest secrets. I want to have a joint effort because I thought it would be more fun that way. You are trying to turn this into a personal conflict, but I have no interest in that. Feel free to keep trying. You seem to have a small fixation with this, so I'll spell it out: I'm not questioning the validity or reality of magic. To expand on the conundrum I hinted at in the OP, let's go over the three principles I laid out: >retrocausality In order to disprove magic involves retrocausality we would need a way to manifest something without the past changing, but experience shows that sometimes it looks like it changes, so we would need a way to prove what looks like retrocausality is something else. This I think is the most difficult one. >probability tweaking I think this one could be proven or disproven by manifesting something utterly improvable. Real time magic like pulling out an object out of thin air. There are accounts of this happening, but I have never done it, so I don't know how to approach this experimentally. >collective subconscious This could be tackled by designing an experiment that did not include any sentient beings in the process of manifestation, or that would only work with their participation. The difficulty here is that everything in the universe seems to be sentient to a certain degree, and even then, the question of spirits (what are they) should be properly established first in order to have a solid foundation and not rely on any assumptions. As you can see, approaching magic with the scientific method is not easy. Most practices are built on an edifice of assumptions and dogma. The Theosophists and people like Crowley tried to be more systematic. But even then, it could very well be that what I'm asking is impossible. That's why I decided to make this thread.

>>9677 You raise an important concern. I thought about that, too (hence my reference in the OP pic, since is somewhat similar to what time travel research problems are described in that series). But I refuse to succumb to pessimism, for the time being.

>>9679 >You are trying to turn this into a personal conflict No. I just know proving things can be only done by establishing your authority. "Proof" happens when people stop questioning what you are doing. >probability tweaking >I think this one could be proven or disproven by manifesting something utterly improvable. You can do it by chaining through several improbabilities one after another. Like manipulating a random number generator to get specific numbers in a row. I am unable to do this reliably. My mind becomes one with the machine and i start freaking out once I lose myself >Real time magic like pulling out an object out of thin air. There are accounts of this happening, but I have never done it, so I don't know how to approach this experimentally. I did this but for it to happen I had to go completely insane in the process and only did it because the "object" was part of a greater ritual that I did with several greater spirits. I cannot replicate that on my current level nor I am willing to "prove it". It takes less effort to completely mindcontrol a mundane than to casually move object between the worlds. It requires an extremely stable mindset and you have to forget how everything is "solid". Objects just blend in an out. Like hot cocoa melting an icecube but reverse so the hot cocoa gives birth to that icecube. >But even then, it could very well be that what I'm asking is impossible. It is not. But first we need to establish a common framework for reference. That is why I asked what you did so far and what can you show as "proof". Most of my magic was not mere party trick. Like when I finally managed to do TK reliably then it turned out that it is not TK but warping the fabric of reality around the object with my mind alone. Which allowed a bunch of entropic spirits enter my mind. Made me aware how the layers create the illusion of "reality" and as long as you are not aware of the layers I don't think I can explain it to anyone in any meaningful way at all. And you cannot "prove" timeline manipulation beyond weird mandela effects. Because it causes anxiety and confusion for the average mind if the continuum breaks. It's better to forget that anything happened at all. If you like the change accept it if not then change it further. This is not my personal conflict. I think my post will not reach the requirement of your thread.

>>9682 I'll give an example which summarizes both what you say and what I said here >>9677 If I claim that I wanted to help Trump escape prosecution and made it so that the folders in his residence marked as "top secret" suddenly became empty in the process of them being moved from there to the FBI or whoever took them for investigation; how do I prove it, and if it could be proven, what are the results of this? I got involved in the political affairs of a major world power to change the turn of events in a way which possibly seriously upset the outcome which we are now seeing. Let this be a hypothetical use of "manifestation" or "remote manipulation" no matter how it happened. Consider the consequences of proving this, if possible. This is why it can't be done.

>>9691 By this I'm not criticising the effort of starting the thread, or even its aim, which I consider a possible good thing. I'm just trying to be rational here. Going by why I would use magic and for what, there is little chance of presenting evidence in a non-controversial way, simply because there is no way to "practice" this in a non-live situation. Let's say you want to test your new weapon design. You can do so at a shooting range, even for heavier weapons, and that's needed for the technical integrity of the design. But how useful is is in war? What complications may arise from its continued use in moist, dusty or otherwise trying environments? And how well does it work with other systems already present? The only way to know, is to start a war and test it. Now you may not have a reason to do so, but you still want to do this, so maybe you'd talk to someone about it, and there is already some war going on somewhere, and then you can perhaps provide one part with your new weapon system and gather test data from actual use. I believe this is how it's normally done with things like that. But isn't that quite unethical, and if found out, could be bad for business. So you need to market yourself as a helper of the weak, and the enemy which the weapon is used against must be demonized. Maybe you can also get the government to fund your testing by making them buy the weapon. Best way to get there would be lobbying for whoever buys weapons, and maybe bribe them. See where this is going? But you need that test data. Is this "science"? Yes, but you wouldn't wanna talk about it like that.

>>9671 I like more the psychonaut thread for these things you know. the problem with science it's pure materialistic. magic or magick or easter-western ritualism magic is in more with energies, vitalism, astrology, mind things and a lot of thing that science cannot prove bacause there's any proof that's work than more the personal, placebo-nocebo or own core dogma-ideas bacause science call it Magical thinking >Also I take with little effort any approach to explain magic or ritualism with science technicism (like sci-fi mystical quantum technobabble) bacause they'say shit about science and do nothing about in any topic about magic and science or magic bacause it's a personal way. Chaoist sometimes use technobabble with this but these'guys sometimes have some science field on the background SOMETIMES, and sometimes speak shit. So, magic or ritualism it's more like a Personal Empirical Subjetive thing than a Scientific in a modern concept, take it's like old Epistemology with old greek-chamanistic ideas of what the fuck is happening around universe ignoring modern physics and etc. >You're materalistc asshole No, i dont like mix science with magic bacause is a shit in my opinion. talking about altered states of mind or something inefable is among mystic thing too away from science for now, the first thing maybe not.

>>9714 >the problem with science it's pure materialistic That's a perversion of the term. Anything that follows the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, repeat, form theory) is technically science. That is, approaching learning systematically.

Understand first that everything is magic. Mundanes are constantly doing magic. Brands are sigils. Computer codes are spells. Science is Alchemy. In practice, when we say magic here, we mean to say we want to do something that is not recognized by the collective unconscious, that is we want to exercise our will without following the proper social rules. So you must understand, the contemporary system will fight you back. To work hermetic magic, you must not share or leak your process, because as soon as you do mundanes will debunk it and stop it from working.

>>9727 I hate how several of you just rushed to explain your dogma, completely ignoring or failing to understand the point of my making this thread. I guess I'll be doing this alone if at all.

>>9759 You gave up quite fast. Typical Air element behavior. >>9673 >My life is full of magic, and basically exactly how I want it to be. Did you want this thread to be this way too? I have a feeling you just weasel out of confrontations and decide this is how you wanted it. If you look at the history of scientific development you will see many people arguing throwing old and new ideas into each other's face and refusing to change until they reach a collective paradigm shift where they will have a collective Oooohh I get it realization. Science is not where everyone agrees on everything from the get go. It's quite the opposite. They didn't force their dogma upon you. They explained where they stand on this issue. If you want to drive the conversation forward then expand upon your views. You shared your hypothesis so far. You didn't share your experiments nor how you repeated your findings. Personally when I make a theory how my magic works it breaks down. That is why I avoid this mentality for a while. >I guess I'll be doing this alone if at all. Will you post your findings in this thread at least? Maybe that will help people to understand what this thread is about. Leading by example is always a great way to start a thread.

>>9671 ok, ok, but please explain in very easy to digest infographic pictures, please.

>>9715 Try explain magic or ritualism in a non-materialistic way (that not end sound like technobabble quantum physics-metaphysics bullshit that have 0 effort interact with other science fields fucking the method) or in a material way (that's not end into psychology-sociology, any other mind field related to material soteriology, call it positivism but you still cannot made up a new science field on "magick" than not end on the topic of placebo or self-deception bacause "energies" cannot be proved and your own mind do the "changes" on material thing "maybe" if you believe that) You (and me, in a material way) just cant that the problem. That's why in my example i like more Psychonautics (and psychology) bacause they try to explain own mind phenomena (Yes, like old philosophy with Phenomenology) and altered states of mind... in their way tring to interact with other science fields. and not, it's not like deepak chopra, Bing chiling Wue Xi Li Pao Pai or Weed Sadh-Gurue-Killing-Wife bullshit or some crank magnets like that that just mindfuck and brainwash newbies bacause they'know a shit about own mind and magic and just say thing on fake clouds. Same with scientifics bacause they dont own the monopoly of knowledge on mind. >Also Buddhist do this from i dont know what century in their papers, sutras and etc. Same other mystics did the same (Christians, Islam, Taoist... etc) but that more personal than explainable in a science field bacause our knowledge on mind and altered stated of consciusness it's not like that shit of freud of ego and that, any way to stigmatize human mind is hard bacause human mind is infinite and a artificial mental construct made up into a simple structure it's just a oversimplification of our own mind. Even the neuronological studies do oversimplification on nature of mind (or more precise on brain) maybe for now (bacause we need more tech) That's why magic is more into metaphysics and own experiece than a general and shareable science field. Why? I dont know, my own experience say reality is personal and subjetive (own or yourself perspective) that we made on our own path to live in a way. >Also Or we're going to turn magic into materialistic phenomena turning non-material things into the material field? this is sad, maybe tomorrow we're going to make magic less esoteric and more exoteric and science path guided... maybe chaoist do they thing with their postmodernist less exoteric ideas

>>9782 Instead of writing long ramblings with lingo like "technobabble" and a salad of nonsensical references where you fail to make any point at all, I suggest we do something actually scientific, in the manner of the vampire researcher Stephen Kaplan who went about his work by >gathering materials >organizing the material >presenting the material and not trying to start a new field and a new method. His book was posted here >>1104 and you can see for yourself how an odd topic can be handled. I propose doing the same: Start by gathering material in an objective manner where you interview people who claim to have experienced magic where you let them simply give a testimony in their own words. After you have a number of such interviews, you can start looking for patterns, common themes and other things, which is how you would conduct an actual scientific research project.

>>9784 >End in positivism but just doing paranormal anecdote like typical Parapsychology field. Great. >Stephen Kaplan >American paranormal investigator, vampirologist, and founder/director of the Vampire Research Center... >Parapsychology Hall of Fame, 1982 KEK >Amityville Horror Conspiracy Yeah, very Scientific.

>>9862 You're stuck in your smug-superior Atheist self-confirmation loop.

>>9863 says the touhoumancer

>>9761 >Did you want this thread to be this way too? I didn't say I was omnipotent. I work within the limitations I have. That said, you know effects involving other people (especially people who practice to any extent) is more difficult. But I didn't even try, to be honest. >Will you post your findings in this thread at least? Yeah, if there's anything worth reporting, I will. >Personally when I make a theory how my magic works it breaks down This hasn't been my experience. As for the experiments, the point is I haven't been able to come up with good ones that can prove or disprove what I explained in the OP. I do spells involving thoughtforms, and they work, but I don't have a way to isolate the mechanisms at work. For example, I recently experimenting with intensely visualizing an object. The next day, someone I met gave me several instances of that object because they didn't know what to do with them. The thing is, this was already going to happen days before, although I didn't know it (retrocausality). Did the spell influence this person's thinking (collective unconscious)? I didn't want the thread to turn into us just throwing our beliefs or intuitions around, because that's what we always do. I want us to design experimental spells that teach us where our beliefs and intuitions are right, and where they are wrong.

There's other aspects of magic we could focus on. For example, lust for results. We all think we know why lust for results ruins results. But what if we designed experiments that proved or disproved what we think we know? I remember doing this years ago when I was told sigils had to be forgotten in order to work. They don't. As long as you fully detach yourself from the desire for them to work, they work. I have proved this experimentally many times. There are instances, however, where it's easier forgetting about the spell than detaching yourself from the outcome. I concluded that the attachment itself acts as a counter-spell because when it comes down to it, the feeling of want (lack) feels very much like an involuntary spell.

>>9871 I've drawn the conclusion that things rarely work for the reason we believe them to work, unless it's something very specific with a clear goal. Example of this would be something like >my application for [something] is taking too long and I do a thorough divination to find out the reason for it, then push on the thing that's causing the issue. In these cases it my be that the person who was to handle my request is on holiday, is ill, or there's a pile of work causing my stuff to be delayed. Then I have something to work with, and a combination of asking various spiritual or alien entities for help along with contacting the office(or what it may be) through multiple channels to get things moving again, may result in a quick solution. The other situation is when there is a lack of information but you have a clear goal in mind. That's when the approach chosen will have to contain a few element to work, in my experience: >force >multiple avenues of effect If you throw enough energy into something, you will get an effect. And if you include enough symbolism with a large number of connections, you will get an effect. This poses another issue, which is that the aim may be very off when the effect shows. However, it may still work out, because it symbolically does the job, and end up where you wanted it to in the end. An example of this strange working of intent, which may not seem magical, I found when watching documentaries about the Vietnam war. The tet offensive was generally seen as successful by historians because of the attack on the American embassy in Saigon which was broadcast over the world, and it caused public opinion to sway, which contributed to the Americans pulling out from Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive_attack_on_the_United_States_embassy However, the actual military campaign was a huge failure, where a mass of infantry and soviet tanks died for no real benefit on the ground, as they became victims to American bombings. The one little thing that worked was the attack on the embassy, performed by a dozen infiltrators who snuck in as the main offensive was taking place. So as a military campaign the goal was achieved, it was maybe the most successful mission the Vietnamese carried out in the war. But it wasn't successful for the reasons they may have thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive

>>9671 I feel like if you are doing this , you should be mindful that just separating mechanism , doesn't necessarily give you what you need. when I try to do stuff like this I mostly try to be mindful of different mindsets and which one fits better with this , not to suck my own dick to much, I have a problem with discovering a lot of things but being kind of shallow with them. but what I am getting at is that , while the scientific method probably still works , it is not guarantied to be that great , in a case by case thing. I think the first thing that you need to do , is try to retrace the steps , of the people who invented the fundation that you are using. for more exoteric wizards , one could argue they can ignore this step, but you surely can not. but do be carefull , people seem to get stuck at the first step of this , and you might need to repeat this proccess multiple times.

Next time I'll ask Grok to assume what is said is true and try to explain it scientifically la~

>>10660 Has anyone made progress with making the Philosopher's stone. I wonder what happened to the author. Also, has anyone been able to follow Thoth's advice and enter the Giza pyramid sarcophagus after fasting 3 days, and/or enter the hidden Halls of Amenti below the Great Pyramid. I wonder what exactly is the Flower of Amenti la~?

>>10665 I come bearing gifts la~

>>10666 I seek to transcend the number of a man, the cure to 666 is 999 la~

>>10667 666 represents the dark (fallen) star Saturn (also known as Satan). By the way, will mankind survive the transition to the Silver Age? The evil (anti-live) forces control the currency and therefore the technology, will only a direct jump to the Golden Age save mankind on this world la~?

>>10668 Saturn was the sun of this world in the previous Golden Age, when God(desse)s dwelt with immortal (wo)men, (Atlantis was one of two powers on Gaia during the past Silver Age) the sublimation from the previous dark age to a new Golden age will be dramatic and explosive and require the purging of the worst yet most powerful of the dark age, butt it is the only path for man to survive on this world now that darkness is so powerful (control over emerging Silver age technology), only the rays of divine light can purge this world for the new transcendent man seeking the path to God(hood) la~

>>10667 Hi Voxxe 😘 put on a flag so you don't look like a n00b. >More just below the post window. It took me a moment to connect where the ~lah came from, butt...

>>10680 Hello, anonymous mage did you know that the Magi of Persia (from whom we have the word 'magic') received their knowledge from the Priests of Egypt who were originally taught by Thoth the Atlantean himself), I will choose the Heremtic flag since, it is the closest to the path I was drawn to even before knowing about it although my political sympathies lie somewhat paradoxically in both National Socialism (Sparta/Animus/Yang) and Libertarianism (Athens/Anima/Yin) la~

>>10765 I want to dedicate far more time to things that are less mundane, but my lack of success in mundane investment (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in many cases) means that I still live with my elderly mother who is a firm believer in the false; impure; dark light found in the book called 'bible' as well as the importance of being 'normal' despite adhering to her anchor and 'rock' her 'bible' that puts her firmly in the weird category for most of the (especially post-Constantine the Greater Fool) history of the cult called 'christ-ianity'... anyway as such she wants me to find a regular job which will mean of course that I will have very little time for deeper pursuits. Alas. if only my mother could be like Elf Mamako and/or if only I could be la~

>>10770 Of course the two snakes of the Hermetic staff represent both DNA and the eugenic ascent to transcendence as well as the two energies (anima and animus) that run along the spine. If all chakras or 'vortex terminals' are open and harmonized, energy can flow through each ultimately reaching the apex of the head and above where the golden flower of life can blossom granting us enlightenment and wings of light. I have struggled all my life with my throat chakra due to self-censorship to avoid conflict (that has now became a trauma or curse) and I'm almost certain that the polarity is reversed. If only I had a space of my own I could begin the process of healing... regardless I will continue to struggle against the darkness that seeks to suffocate me, although without my own space this has resulted in conflict and even more angst as I rise and fall. If I had my own space, the blockages of others would not drag me down in the same way and I could buiild more momentum to climb the spiral path... I hope and pray to achieve transcendence in this life la~

>>10770 >>10776 The progression to perfection through the purging of impurities; it is interesting how I was always drawn to my mother (who for her part has spent her life ignoring and rejecting me), this piousness would be honored as righteous by the Magi who, most notably among those claiming to surpass the mundane, said that the Greatest Magi were born of xvaetvadatha the sexual union between a mother and her son. The balance of forces within the body are said to impart permanence (immortality). The sexual union of mother & son could be symbolized by the ouroboros, enabling greater energy balancing and preservation. The natural practice of this union also would result in negative traits being bred out over time as the dysgenic offspring would die without breeding leaving only the eugenic offspring with manifest adaptive yet submissive traits (this also describes Whites as a whole in broad terms). Eventually only eugenic offspring true to type would be born, a new pureblood lineage. Of course, doing this in nature (historically involving the practice of exposure) could be considered cruel butt with contemporary genetic technology eugenic pureblood lineages can be artificially created without the suffering. Ah~ I had another though butt it has fled from me at this point... oh yes, while the balancing of forces within a body results in permanence, from empty space that is really full, by creating an imbalance of forces it is possible to manifest from empty space la~

Another thread completely derailed and turned into endless armchair navel gazing.

>>10801 I don't disagree but is endless complaining and defeatism any better?

>>10801 >>10814 This thread was dead before I posted, have a nice day la~

>>10819 Thanks, I will

>>10814 >endless complaining and defeatism CIA-kun doesn't know how to write something else, because this is all which lives in his heart. Should he try, it would all come out as fake to him, strengthening his despair to levels even the cocaine delivered to him by communist guerrillas isn't enough to keep his mind alive.

>>10820 Remember to visit >>>/voxxe/ la~ >>10821 Yes, when you are a slave to a harsh mistress your creativity and will suffer, since you are denying your desires, I myself continue to struggle with my lack of sovereignty la~

>>10830 >literal pornography-worship

>>10814 No, but at least I saged politely.

https://boards.4chan.org/x/thread/40336402 I'm not sure if this would fit in this thread, but here goes. This guy have been posting invites to a "mind temple" he created which people can visit in dreams. When made to elaborate, he clarified that it's more of a pre-existing location which came to him over a period of years, which he's created an entry point for in the form of a hotel lobby. I've taken part in this, and it definitely works. Beyond expectations even, as I had an actual 1st person dream of being at the hotel bar, as intended, and I was rational through the entire experience, with no dream-fuckery going on, it was just a visit to a regular location in the dream. I'd recommend anyone here to try it, even if linking back to /x/ may seem a backwards way of working.

Here you go. https://youtube.com/watch?v=5IiTMXl9-Uo

>>10898 It's rather unfortunate that this hotel is only open for a few nights before the OP disappears. It's mostly uncharted, so beware about going into the unknown.

>>11237 The place appears to be a pre-existing egregore which represents some form of public space, it's just secluded under normal circumstances. I tried going there when it wasn't officially open, and found a thick darkness in the hotel lobby. Forcing my way in, I found that the bar was still available by the far end, along with a bar maid. OP from the thread only created the hotel lobby as a connection point, so if you're persistent you can go there even when he hasn't posted an invite. After some work on this, I wanted to try if it's possible to create a new connection point, so I did some work on this. Same location, but it's just the bar that's open. I'll go for the time slot of 6PM to 2AM, adapted to your own time zone, and not restricted to being asleep, but going into trance should also work. I'll go for the name Midnight Morsel in the context of this thread. The procedure should be similar, but not restricted to anything in specific, as the place is public and I just added a way for contact here.

Assume there exists a force which prevents publicly verifiable exercise of magic. This would make verifying magic difficult. However, assume this force, Consensus, is limited and we can do local operations without its knowledge or interference. If the demonstration is to extract information that should not be known at the time, we can use cryptography to make the task of Consensus more difficult. What we want is a cryptographic commitment scheme. This is a way to verifiably commit to a message without revealing any information about that message. Later, the message and a particular witness value, which together verify that the commitment was created for that message only, can be revealed. A simple commitment scheme can be implemented with a cryptographic hash function. The commitment is the hash of the message along with a random nonce which will be the witness. Given the message and witness, the commitment can be verified by recomputing the hash and comparing. The simplest way to do this on a computer is to write the message to a text file. Then add a long keymash or hardware generated randomness to the end of the file. This will be the nonce. Use a tool like sha256sum to hash the file, and publish the hash as the commitment. To reveal, simply publish the file containing both the message and nonce. Assuming the computer on which this is done is not visible to Consensus, this likely reveals exactly zero information about the content of the message if the nonce is long and random enough. Even if Consensus has unlimited effective computing power, inverting the hash function still leaves all messages equally probable if the nonce is truly random. It is possible that there exist messages and commitments for which no witness exists (even for a computationally unlimited adversary - given known public computational capacity there may only be a witness if the commitment was of that message). In that case the hash function would leak a small amount of information with a low probability. So if you are paranoid you may prefer schemes like c = H(n3||H(n1||m||n2)||n4). Unfortunately, this requires having a computer protected from inspection by Consensus. If this cannot be done are there other simpler schemes which can be implemented mentally? A multi-party scheme perhaps?

>>13080 I don't think Consensus cares about the hashed message being separated from the key, as it could just apply them and see it. I recall watching a vid which explained the double slit experiment's observer effect on the result, where they used a technical system with randomization to determine if the specific burst of particles would be recorded on a tape or not, for later observation by a researcher, or something. I'm bad at explaining this. The point was that the projected image "knew" which of the particle bursts were being recorded and which ones weren't, indicating that it's a "system" which disregards time -even if no one watched it in real time, the intent to observe via the recording was enough to change the outcome. However, as magic is possible to use in ways which breaks consensus, there is then something in the abstract concept awareness of the brain which is "unsolvable" by Consensus, to use your wording. It means the intent to observe cannot be derived from the procedure, and it remains in the state where we can't know if Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead. That's where magic is effective.

>>13084 >I don't think Consensus cares about the hashed message being separated from the key, as it could just apply them and see it. Yes, if Consensus can see the original message before the time it should be revealed, it can respond. This can be either because it can ignore a spatial or temporal separation. Either one cannot make a protected space to do the computation and store the message, or Consensus can retrocausally observe the message revealed in the future. >The point was that the projected image "knew" which of the particle bursts were being recorded and which ones weren't, indicating that it's a "system" which disregards time -even if no one watched it in real time, the intent to observe via the recording was enough to change the outcome. The observer effect is real but is generally believed to not be retrocausal. The experiment is probably the delayed-choice quantum eraser. >It means the intent to observe cannot be derived from the procedure, and it remains in the state where we can't know if Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead. That's where magic is effective. But if the observation is made, you do see the cat alive or dead. And things generally don't remain unobserved forever. What I've tried to hint at with this is a method to approach magic. From a scientific perspective the strangest thing about magic is that it connects consciousness to the world in ways other than how consciousness appears to be embedded, in a body. It seems that in order for magic to function, there must be an unknown mediating agent or agents (in the technical sense of agent, a goal-directed system which takes percepts and produces actions) that maps imprecise conscious intentions in magic to detailed effects on the world (or the reverse). This holds even if idealism is true since something still needs to generate the appearance of the material world. The mediators are also not necessarily separate from from the self and could be part of the subconscious, but we consider them separate for this approach. What then is the natural scientific way to study magic, is to find the boundaries, constraints, capacities, and goals of these mediating agents. This can be difficult as they may adaptively conceal themselves. But through systematic experiment, such possibilities can be restricted. Now in the case of one such supposed agent, Consensus, the goal is not to unconditionally enable public verification, but to construct an experiment that ideally constrains the kinds of Consensus that can interfere with it to those that are omniscient, omnipotent, etc.. If Consensus cannot extract some human intentions, can a commitment scheme be hidden in the human mind? If Consensus can observe the future, how far ahead? In how much detail? How many times can it retry to reach a desired outcome? What parts of the world can it influence? Stronger experiments in this case are those that require a more powerful Consensus to interfere with them. From this view OP's possible mechanisms correspond to: >Retro-causation: it was going to happen anyway, but only if the spell is cast. This opens up another line of research (timelines, etc.). Mediators map future events to magical intentions, or "cause" both from an acausal position outside time. >Probability influence: it was probable enough, or far enough in the future for a sort of butterfly effect to make it happen from whatever state the world was in when the spell was cast. Mediators are local, connecting the magician's intent to specific outcomes, which then propagate effects mostly conventionally. >Collective unconscious communication: similar to probability influence, but only actions mediated by people or living beings change, with their subconscious cooperation. I'll extend this beyond a special case of mind-mind probability influence. Consider a primarily idealist world, composed more of mind than matter. In this world, magic (even that which appears to affect matter) is mostly just unconventional mental states and channels, and the translation to material effects only needs to occur at the "display level". The mediators doing the translation here would likely be global or less related to the context of the specific magical act. At least that's the approach I favor with more knowledge of science than magic. Now if only someone would find strong proof of magical effects but thread's dead.