Telekinesis is possible. Im 100% sure of this and probably so are most of you. So Why not flying? Why should we not be able to lift our bodies in the air and float around? Since telekinesis is possible I truly belive it is a reality to be able to fly...It might not be easy but its possible. There are no rules in telekinesis on what you can and cant lift, it all depends purely on skill. So say someone is able to some couple hundred pounds or so, do you think flying is a possibility? why or why not?
wtf! does that party levitaion work? thats pretty cool
i just dont get though how if 4 people can lift a person with just one finger, why cant we just make a breakthrough and be able to do it ourselves?
some saints and preists back in the day could levitate. i read that some of them would get a whiteish glow around them and then let out a yell/scream and then they would be able to float a few feet in the air. however it would take them like 30 minutes of "gathering" their strength before they could do it. anybody have any info on that?
Their have been documented reports of obeah or whatever they were levitating in Africa.
this is the whole reason im practicing PK. I want ot be able to fly, i always have very lucid dreams about this and i cant stop trying as long as im having these dreams.
Psychomantis: Please take a more friendly approach when criticising our members' point of view.
But, I do agree with you. Psychokinesis, like all other phenomenon, such as gravity, has "rules". *Theoretically*, it is possible to lift oneself into the air using psychokinesis. Do we have the time on earth, or most likely the mental capacity? no.
[quote="metalforever"]
Psychomantis: Please take a more friendly approach when criticising our members' point of view.
But, I do agree with you. Psychokinesis, like all other phenomenon, such as gravity, has "rules". *Theoretically*, it is possible to lift oneself into the air using psychokinesis. Do we have the time on earth, or most likely the mental capacity? no.
[/quote]
Limitations are based upon overall contingency on that necessary condition. For example, how much weight I can lift is contingent upon my physical strength, because my physical strength is the necessary thing in that lifting. In science, necessary conditions are notated by empirical constants generally called intrinsic properties in which things are dependent on that intrinsic/intensive property are called extrinsic/extensive. An example of this is the Earth's gravitational field, density, temperature, etc. These are properties which, typically, are invariant within themselves and set up the relationship for something to be dependent on it.
Take, for example, a physical object. Let us take a solid such as a pencil. The state of being a pencil is dependent on the state of being a pencil. Without being a solid, the object can not be a pencil because a pencil is a solid. A solid is not a pencil. Take, for example, the state of being human. You can have blue eyes, green eyes, blond hair, etc, but they are all contingent upon the state of being a human. Without the human, those things would not exists.
Rules, as you put it, are tied to necessary and contingent intensive and extensive relationships. When one discusses time and space, one must keep in mind that temporal distance creates spatial distance by default. For example, take a point in the United states at 10.00 PM in 2010. Say, a retail store is sitting in a space in that time period. At 10:00 PM say in 1400 there is a series of trees standing in that same space. Spatially, there is no distance between the two points due to them standing in the SAME place, but they are not in the same space, though, because they are not in the same time. No matter how far up, down, right, or left, I will never move backwards to 1400 from 2010, because we exists in two totally different times. Since the spaces are contained within different times, crossing over into either one, non casually, will mean that space is not a factor since the crossing was non spatial, thus, a non locality in time also means a non locality in space.
This throws a total kink in concepts of energy, variance, distance, time, weight, etc. since all of those are contingent properties, in themselves. If one has a limitation, the limitation would have to be contingent upon something. Typically, one could utilize physical theories to set these up, but psychic phenomena ostensibly seems to be invariant to those, thus, one can not use such things as grounds to set up limitations. Even with your phrasing of mental capacity, there is no way to measure such a capacity to begin with.
Creating limitations, arbitrarily, based upon intuition is awfully fallacious.
Oh, also, concepts of natural law are epistemological and not ontological. Taking a strictly ontological view of such things goes into the domain of metaphysics. Metaphysical laws are ontological, in themselves, and are intuitive. What I mean by ontological is being considered strict things within themselves. The laws of nature are tied to our understanding of the universe. Our understanding of the universe does not make up these laws of nature, thus, all of our theories must reflect this and not the other way around. Creating a definitive model based upon intuition is more metaphysical in nature than scientific.
All that being said, you can not deny the possibility of something happening under rules that don't apply due to the fact that it does not fit in with your intuition.
Add new comment