"With all due respect, I have to say that I’m unable to believe in revelation. I mean, you can reveal something to me, but why should I believe you if you don’t persuade me with, at least, suggestive plausibility arguments?
I would take a direct revelation, a direct revelation from the universe to me, very seriously - were I to receive one. But the thing is, I haven’t received one. Unless we count the thought processes and dialogues with my inner voice that have led me to think what I’m thinking as a form of revelation, which is a perfectly plausible idea.
I’m open to the possibility that unseen beings or universal forces, or a cosmic operating system, or Mind at Large, or whatever it is that you call God, could subtly influence our thoughts with suggestions and visions that seem to come from our own inner voice. But then it is us who interpret those visions through the scientific knowledge of our time and cast them in the language of our time."
The second paragraph is key: when you think hard about something, at times you have the very clear impression that the universe is gently (or not so gently) pulling you in a certain direction toward a certain conclusion. I guess this happens to everyone, and it happens to me as well. But you are never going to be able to prove to others or to yourself that the conclusion is the result of a revelation instead of your own thought processes.
Some people, for good or less good reasons, bypass this uncertainty and tell others (and to themselves) that they have received a revelation even if the revelation could well be the result of their own thinking. Others (like me) do the opposite: we tall others that all is the result of our thinking, even if we know that we could well have received a revelation disguised as inner thoughts.
In a related discussion I recently wrote:
"Concerning revelation, which can be “understood as divine disclosure or inner illumination,” I don’t feel the need to disguise my inner illumination as divine disclosure. Of course, I could say that I’ve been visited by an angel or enlightened alien entity who has dictated my book to me (this would be likely to spectacularly boost the sales of my book). But what for? I prefer to respect the intelligence of my readers."
As you see, neither am I trying to mislead readers in saying they need to follow me in pyramid building due to “divine signals”. The field of oracular mechanics is going to be very self-aware. I am bringing up that my pyramid urges could be influenced by various factors, but I don’t know what exactly it is yet. Egyptian spirits combined with an Egyptian past life are my current hypothesis. Regardless, this line of inquiry does not fit into your model of advancing irrational mechanics — you deleted it from your base model because you do not know how to work with a form of (non-linear) revelation that you do not experience.
Re “Regardless, this line of inquiry does not fit into your model of advancing irrational mechanics — you deleted it from your base model…” Right. I would rather say “never added it to” rather than “deleted it from” though.
You evaluated revelation and omitted non-linear forms of it. In the Amazon book summary it even says “not using revelation” or something like that. That is deletion to me :)
Let's agree that revelation is relevant to you, not relevant to me, and the two approaches may well complement each other in the sense that we end up saying the same things in different words and to different audiences. Here's to irrational oracles!
Excerpt from my book about revelation:
"With all due respect, I have to say that I’m unable to believe in revelation. I mean, you can reveal something to me, but why should I believe you if you don’t persuade me with, at least, suggestive plausibility arguments?
I would take a direct revelation, a direct revelation from the universe to me, very seriously - were I to receive one. But the thing is, I haven’t received one. Unless we count the thought processes and dialogues with my inner voice that have led me to think what I’m thinking as a form of revelation, which is a perfectly plausible idea.
I’m open to the possibility that unseen beings or universal forces, or a cosmic operating system, or Mind at Large, or whatever it is that you call God, could subtly influence our thoughts with suggestions and visions that seem to come from our own inner voice. But then it is us who interpret those visions through the scientific knowledge of our time and cast them in the language of our time."
The second paragraph is key: when you think hard about something, at times you have the very clear impression that the universe is gently (or not so gently) pulling you in a certain direction toward a certain conclusion. I guess this happens to everyone, and it happens to me as well. But you are never going to be able to prove to others or to yourself that the conclusion is the result of a revelation instead of your own thought processes.
Some people, for good or less good reasons, bypass this uncertainty and tell others (and to themselves) that they have received a revelation even if the revelation could well be the result of their own thinking. Others (like me) do the opposite: we tall others that all is the result of our thinking, even if we know that we could well have received a revelation disguised as inner thoughts.
In a related discussion I recently wrote:
"Concerning revelation, which can be “understood as divine disclosure or inner illumination,” I don’t feel the need to disguise my inner illumination as divine disclosure. Of course, I could say that I’ve been visited by an angel or enlightened alien entity who has dictated my book to me (this would be likely to spectacularly boost the sales of my book). But what for? I prefer to respect the intelligence of my readers."
As you see, neither am I trying to mislead readers in saying they need to follow me in pyramid building due to “divine signals”. The field of oracular mechanics is going to be very self-aware. I am bringing up that my pyramid urges could be influenced by various factors, but I don’t know what exactly it is yet. Egyptian spirits combined with an Egyptian past life are my current hypothesis. Regardless, this line of inquiry does not fit into your model of advancing irrational mechanics — you deleted it from your base model because you do not know how to work with a form of (non-linear) revelation that you do not experience.
Re “Regardless, this line of inquiry does not fit into your model of advancing irrational mechanics — you deleted it from your base model…” Right. I would rather say “never added it to” rather than “deleted it from” though.
You evaluated revelation and omitted non-linear forms of it. In the Amazon book summary it even says “not using revelation” or something like that. That is deletion to me :)
Let's agree that revelation is relevant to you, not relevant to me, and the two approaches may well complement each other in the sense that we end up saying the same things in different words and to different audiences. Here's to irrational oracles!