# Is "Magic of the Future" unscientific? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646 "2006-02-02T07:02:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/1 "2006-02-02T07:02:42Z")
This is a free ebook called magic of the future… [http://www.hscti.com/magicofthefuture.pdf](http://www.hscti.com/magicofthefuture.pdf) is it a hoax? BTW if you get tense or sweaty when thinking about it, I do too. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/2 "2006-02-02T07:58:03Z")
Here are technological applications of it: [http://www.hscti.com/c\_supermanifestation.html](http://www.hscti.com/c_supermanifestation.html) [http://www.hscti.com/316\_mindcontrol.html](http://www.hscti.com/316_mindcontrol.html) [http://www.hscti.com/317\_attackdefense.html](http://www.hscti.com/317_attackdefense.html) ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/3 "2006-02-02T08:04:18Z")
Did you laminate your Universal Pentacle, as Welz advises on page 54? 'Cause I think that’s cheating, personally. Especially if you’re using store-bought, prelaminated Elemental Polygons, too. In my day, if you dropped your Universal Pentacle into the barbecue sauce, too bad. Venus was going to have to optimize its own aura until you could get to the cleaners. Still, if HKW sells even ten $2000.00 orgone generators and corresponding sets of filter cards, I’m sure he will feel his efforts have not been wasted. This reminds me of a 66-page version of the 3" advertisements you can find in the backs of some less-successful magazines. When I touched my computer screen, the PDF actually smeared. Let’s do it this way: go in the other direction first, and let’s try to prove that the guy is legitimate. Assume magic is possible, and that magic is what HKW says it is. What evidence is there in that article that any of the techniques and gadgets HKW is trying to sell you actually _work_? Cars are real. But a mechanic can know all about cars and still sell his brother-in-law a lemon, or some worthless fuel additive. HKW wants our money. What criteria must be met before we send him a check? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/4 "2006-02-02T08:05:45Z")
Also From the back cover of IEEE internet computing, volume 1, number 2, march-april 1997 [http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg](http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg) (front cover) [http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/6870/netcomputing38ut.jpg](http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/6870/netcomputing38ut.jpg) (I stole that magazine from a mental hospital while I was still in a semi-magic-believing state) I now think that from a materialists POV, the effects of magic always have a simple materialistic explanation like chance or hallucinations. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/5 "2006-02-02T08:09:27Z")
I’m not saying I believe in everything in that ebook… but here are people who do… and some are building devices for themselves… [http://www.xtrememind.com/phpbb/index.php](http://www.xtrememind.com/phpbb/index.php) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/6 "2006-02-02T08:30:08Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > BTW if you get tense or sweaty when thinking about it, I do too. Could you explain exactly why it makes you tense or sweaty; I mean it’s an assemblage of steaming bullshit and this factor alone makes me grind my teeth, but I’m not sure if that’s the same kind of thing you’re describing. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/7 "2006-02-02T09:10:22Z")
**JohnClay** , the habit of treating your thread as a soliloquy with links is impolite, like inviting someone to lunch and then pretending you can’t see or hear them. Get away from your “sources” for a while, they’re not helping anyhow, and interact with others. I would have been perfectly willing to spend some time discussing Magic of the Future with you, and just for fun I even proposed a way to do it that wouldn’t involve the whole dreary “but there is no such thing” problem. But if this thread is a solo, all I can do is apologize for interrupting and leave you to it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/8 "2006-02-02T09:28:48Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > I’m not saying I believe in everything in that ebook Well how about saying whether you are here looking for a debate, or merely witnessing? Because at this point it just looks like you’re witnessing. That’s allowed of course, but it would be polite to let us know if that is your sole intent. > [@](#): > > … but here are people who do… and some are building devices for themselves… Yes, and some people beleive that tinfoil beanies stop Major Legaue Baseball from reading their minds… and some are building devices for themselves… So what is your point? That crackpots who believe build psuedoscientific junk should be taken as evidence? That they shouldn’t be taken as evidence? What? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/9 "2006-02-02T09:48:25Z")
Sorry I shouldn’t have started this thread. I am an on the fence Christian and after reading the ebook it appears to be Satanic. The ebook also talks about animal sacrifices in order to gain the life force… This is an interesting link about cultures that had animal and human sacrifice [http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/demons\_aliens\_clothes.htm](http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/demons_aliens_clothes.htm) When I get involved in discussions I tend to go on for ages. When I wrote this I guess I was thinking I was like tossing you a piece of meat and you’d fight over it. (I’ve got a lot to learn about humility - and also connecting with my fellow man) ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/10 "2006-02-02T09:51:00Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > …So what is your point? That crackpots who believe build psuedoscientific junk should be taken as evidence? That they shouldn’t be taken as evidence? What? Well there were lots stories from people on that messageboard about their experiences with the equipment. It doesn’t prove anything I guess. Well since I’m pretty Christian you shouldn’t be worried about that stuff anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/11 "2006-02-02T10:12:12Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > It doesn’t prove anything I guess. You’re right there at least. > [@](#): > > Well since I’m pretty Christian you shouldn’t be worried about that stuff anyway. I think we can safely say that nobody here is worried about this stuff. Irritated, sure. Bemused, definitely. Amused, probably. Worried, not a chance. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/12 "2006-02-02T12:56:15Z")
To answer the question in the thread title: yes. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/13 "2006-02-02T12:59:15Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > (I’ve got a lot to learn about humility - and also connecting with my fellow man) As do so many of us, right? Let me parse John’s debate in this sense: “Is there any reason to believe the claims made in this book and on the forums connected to it? If not, why not? Is so, why?” Would that do it for you, John? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/14 "2006-02-02T14:19:58Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > “Is there any reason to believe the claims made in this book and on the forums connected to it? If not, why not? Is so, why?” (That forum is from a slick website that isn’t connected to the ebook… it sells NLP persuasion, hypnosis and “psionic/chi power” products. Though they include Karl Welz’s products but so do many other websites.) Well they have a test on the website (and in the ebook) you’d have to try it to see if you can feel it… [http://www.hscti.com/#test](http://www.hscti.com/#test) But if it does work for you or anyone else, I think it is bad for you karma… ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/15 "2006-02-02T14:25:41Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > To answer the question in the thread title: yes. Yeah… well I guess I could have asked if anyone believed in it and put it in the BBQ pit… the ebook makes assertions about the nature of reality. Though the concept of a underlying symbolic reality fit in with the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) quite well [http://www.ctmu.org/](http://www.ctmu.org/) > **[Christopher Langan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe#History)** > > Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher and autodidact who has been reported to score very highly on IQ tests. Langan's IQ was estimated on ABC's 20/20 to be between 195 and 210, and in 1999 he was described by some journalists as "the smartest man in America" or "in the world". > Langan was born in 1952 in San Francisco, California. His mother, Mary Langan-Hansen (née Chappelle, 1932–2014), was the daughter of a wealthy shipping executive but was cut off ... ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/16 "2006-02-02T14:29:37Z")
John, perhaps we should start by asking whether you actually understand what the term ‘scientific’ (and by extension, _un_scientific) means. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/17 "2006-02-02T14:38:43Z")
In discussions over CTMU they’ve also talked about karma (google search for ctmu karma) CTMU is discussed by people in a group with IQ’s that are at least 164. [http://www.megafoundation.org/Ultranet/index.html](http://www.megafoundation.org/Ultranet/index.html) That of course doesn’t prove that the material world has a symbolic basis (where related symbols could be entangled or whatever in order to tweak reality). But it’s about the best I can do since I think that from a materialist’s point of view, any kind of non-physical phenomena always seems like chance or hallucination… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/18 "2006-02-02T14:50:59Z")
Perhaps, then, before we move on to ‘scientific’, we could enquire whether you understand the term ‘dialogue’? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/19 "2006-02-02T15:11:35Z")
BTW I found a discussion board for CTMU… [http://www.megafoundation.net/~ctmu/login](http://www.megafoundation.net/~ctmu/login) > [@Mangetout](#): > > Perhaps, then, before we move on to ‘scientific’, we could enquire whether you understand the term ‘dialogue’? Well I wasn’t sure how to respond to the witty remarks that seemed a bit negative (though I guess I deserved it) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/20 "2006-02-02T15:16:18Z")
Sorry, if they were a bit tongue-in-cheek, anyway, the linked material is _anything but_ scientific, for several reasons, including: -It does not appear to be at all interested in empirical observations, instead relying on highly subjective ‘feely’ tests. -It does not appear to be at all interested in modifying its own hypotheses on the basis of observation; it’s merely about trying to prove itself by any and every method. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646.md?page=2)