With Open Minds Forum restored now for almost half a year at it's new location with forumotion.com we can now turn to look at reaching out to OMF's original members who have not yet returned home. OMF's original membership was over 6,000 members strong, prior to the proboards suspension, according to the rolls of the time. We can probably safely assume that some of those accounts were unidentified socks. If we were to assume a reasonable guess of maybe as many as 30% possible sock accounts then that would leave potentially somewhere between 4800 to 4900 possible real members to locate. That is still a substantial number of people.
Who were all these people? Some were average individuals with common interests in ufology, exopolitics, globalism, corruption, earthchanges, science and technology, and a variety of other interests. Some just enjoyed being part of a vibrant and unusually interesting community. Others were representative of various insider groups participating in observation and outreach projects, while still others were bonafide intelligence community personnel. All with stake in the hunt for truth in one fashion or another. Some in support of truth, and communication. Others seeking real disclosure and forms of proof. And others highly skeptical of anything or limited subjects. The smallest division of membership being wholly anti-disclosure oriented.
So where did these members vanish to? They had many options. There are almost innumerable other forums out there on the topics of UFO's or Exopolitics, the Unexplained, and Conspiracy Theory. Did they disappear into the world-wide network of forum inhabitants? Did some go find new homes on chatrooms or individual blogs? Did they participate in ufo conventions or other public events and gatherings? How about those who represented groups in special access? Or IC and military observers? Those with academic affiliations? Where did they all go and what would be the best way to reach out and extend an invitation to return?
And what constitutes a situation deserving of their time and participation? Is the archive enough? How exactly do people within the paradigm most desire to define a community? Is it amenities, humanity or simply population size for exposure? Most of the special guests have been emailed and have expressed that population size for exposure is what most motivates them. But not all. Long-time member Dan Smith has other priorities and values motivating his participation. Should this open opportunities for unattached junior guests who have experience and dialog to contribute to the world? How best to make use of OMF's time, experience and resources?
Many skeptics would like to see the historical guardian of discourse opportunity to just up and disappear; go into permanent stasis. They think that not everyone has a right to speak about their experiences and if there is no proof involved then there can philosophically be no value to discourse. I personally would respectfully disagree with them. Discourse has always been the prelude to meaningful relationships and meaningful mutual relationships have always been the prelude to exchanges of proof. In a contentious social environment with regards to communication vs disclosure how do we best re-establish a haven for those preludes? Is it only the "if we build it they will come" answer? Well considering OMF has been largely fully functional over the last four or five months this line of reasoning is not necessarily true. So what would be the best way re-establish this? Your suggestions are sought. Please comment.
We may INTUITT. That I’m trying to express my elation at rediscover the fountain YOUTH )))))))((())(((((((((( YEAH ()/;,.””’ookjhhnnnn,,,…..%%%%———%%%%
Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation, but the math works.
I think it works because things are predetermined.
That’s a fascinating possibility.
Some philosophers are pushing hard not to discount their work and just focus on the numbers.
I think the age of shut up and calculate is done.
“‘Normal’ determinism — or at least, the way that people normally approach the notion of determinism — in the face of apparently random events is the position that the randomness is due to uncontrolled variables in the influences on the apparently random system, which you are not taking into account. A good example would be the brownian motion of grains of pollen: it's random motion is due not so much to an inherent randomness of the motion of the pollen, as unaccounted-for-impacts on the pollen by molecules. (Notwithstanding the fact that the motion of those molecules is ultimately quantum-mechanical, of course.)
"Super-determinism" is the position that the apparently random behaviour of quantum mechanical systems, following the Born rule, is due to the fact that our own choices of experiments to perform are finely tuned in correlation with the systems we measure, to give rise to these statistics. Not only is our behaviour determined, but it is determined in such a way as to limit what we can see, and specifically to fool us into seeing random behaviour according to a stable statistical rule when the behaviour is in fact perfectly predictable in principle.
So super-determinism is indeed a variety of determinism: but it turns our usual assumptions about apparent randomness on its head — not only is our behaviour determined, but it is determined precisely in such a way as to prevent us from seeing that the world is deterministic.“
Sabine has some vids on determinism explaining non-local observations.
QBism is interesting and maybe a form of participatory realism.
Here's an excerpt from, Dr. Daniel Smith's NYT's obit:
Professor Smith is survived by his wife, Martha, of Portola Valley, Calif.; two daughters, Debra Leighton of Concord, Mass., and Louise Smith Bowman of Livingston, Mont.; a son, Dan Throop Smith Jr., of Towson, Md., and two grandchildren.
Dan Throop jr isn't even as old as President Biden who will be re-elected, if he decides to run again, in the upcoming election. Most likely, he will run again.
Anyway, Dan will be back here again and even though he's still recovering from surgery, we'll be happy to hear from him.
As he hasn't posted in the last couple of days, I'm assuming that the staff at the hospital is keeping a close eye on him.
So please... members of this forum should refrain from making any statements that may rattle Dan's very fragile nerves now.
Give Dan the respect that he deserves no matter what he says and no matter if you agree with him or not.
I'm confident that after the dust settle's a bit, we'll get some of the old Dan back ... however long that takes.
Open Minds Forum v.2 2012 - Current. OMF continues its work on the topics of UFOs, Exopolitics, Extraterrestrial Contact, Conspiracy, Ancient History, Exotic/Cutting-edge Technologies, Cryptozoology, Special Cases, Associated Theories & Philosophies, Whistleblowers, and Sanctioned Communications.
Social bookmarking
Bookmark and share the address of Open Minds Forum on your social bookmarking website
Yesterday at 10:08 pm by U
» Why are we here?
Yesterday at 8:31 pm by Post Eschaton Punk
» The scariest character in all fiction
Yesterday at 6:47 pm by U
» WRATH OF THE GODS/TITANS
Fri Nov 15, 2024 12:16 am by U
» Uanon's Majikal Misery Tour "it's all smiles on the magic school bus"
Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:36 pm by Mr. Janus
» What Music Are You Listening To ?
Sat Nov 09, 2024 12:34 am by U
» Livin Your Best Life
Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:55 am by Post Eschaton Punk
» OMF STATE OF THE UNION
Wed Nov 06, 2024 12:19 am by U
» Baudrillardian hauntology - what are some haunting truths to our reality?
Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:07 pm by dan