Omnimancy and our world

[Britt]

The ability to control traffic lights and get preferred seating at a busy restaurant sounds wonderful but...

I'm curious to know if teachers and students are working to figure out ways to help our world through Omnimancy. If so what are you doing? Is Omnimancy the means to self power? Are the objectives purely selfish in nature? Or are you working as a collaborative to figure out ways to help our communities, cities and world?

Thanks
Britt

[LordArt]

Omnimancy is a means to self power. It is up to the individuals what they wish to do with the power they attain. Omnimancy as an organisation doesn't have a stance one way or the other upon "Helping the World(tm)". We teach responsibilty for one's actions and the concequences of actions to understand the risks. Omnimancy tries to stay away from poliltical agendas as an organisation because the organisation is about magic, not politics.

That being said, some individuals have in the past (and often) helped in such ways to varying degrees. It's rather common for people within the group to ask for help for individuals they care about or even larger projects(the latter less so).

[dolotous]

I know this was answered already. But I'd like to say this, because its getting on my nerves how often I see this:
It would take quite a bit of time before you can do the lights....
Traffic lights are run on a computer based system, and are not NOT randomized, they are planned out. So you'd have to be able to manipulate a computer without killing it. Or basically learn to hack using magic.

Thus being said. Traffic lights, most likely you wont ever do it.

[LordArt]

Thus being said. Traffic lights, most likely you wont ever do it.

It REALLY depends on your approach how easily or hard it is to do. If you approach it from the angle that your are controlling the computer, then yes, it gets hard (although computers can be more influenced than one might think, but that just might be personal bias).

In anycase, it isn't a matter that one is influencing the computer, the point is one is influencing reality and therefore by proxy the computer. The computer will always be on it's schedule, and if you back trace the timing on the computer itself, it always was. However, one can either control the timing of oneself APPROACHING the light, so the end effect is that it changes "upon command", or shift the installed sequence so now the timing always was it would turn green upon your command. With magic, one has to think outside the system, not within the system's aparent limits. Basically, if you think of the past shifting to meet your requirements, you'll find things work a lot easier (although I guess from an outside perspective, that might be even harder to wrap one's mind around)

[dolotous]

The problem with altering reality is that to change the present, the past must change. And as we all know, A left instead of a forward can mean a world of difference for the outcome of things.

In other words, how do you know that altering the reality for your light wont alter something more important. Maybe it changes a light somewhere else and causes an accident, etc.

This is why I was using the theory of going through the computers. Altering reality has some devastating changes on other things, if not done right.

[LordArt]

Yes, altering reality DOES make the past change. However, fortunately, that doesn't mean that only a SINGLE thing changes which causes an unpredicted cascade, and therefore the situation you are refering to. On the contrary, my experience with it is that reality takes the current status quo and re-alters itself to what the current "snap shot" is. Meaning, you wish to change when the traffic light changes to green for your convienience. That is the only change to the status quo, so reality alters to allow that to be true as if it always was, but ALSO changes to keep everything else intact to maintain the status quo (barring your end effect). So the traffic accident possibility wouldn't happen unless it already had/was going to anyways.

Now, I'm not saying that one can't do rather destructive magics via this method, but then that's the intent, not the side effect. However, if you don't do it right (ie. you go at it with the concept of changing one thing in the past and not considering past that) then yes, you can have the effects you are refering. I've found that magic has a tendency of working the way the practioner pre-conceives it, and therefore uses his/her bias to fill in the blanks (which can be unfortunate in certain respects and helpful in others).

[dolotous]

*nods* In that case, that the user's intent is fully deployed and the side effect wont happen, then you are correct. Altering the reality of the situation is a much easier method.

[indigoblade]

In anycase, it isn't a matter that one is influencing the computer, the point is one is influencing reality and therefore by proxy the computer. The computer will always be on it's schedule, and if you back trace the timing on the computer itself, it always was. However, one can either control the timing of oneself APPROACHING the light, so the end effect is that it changes "upon command", or shift the installed sequence so now the timing always was it would turn green upon your command. With magic, one has to think outside the system, not within the system's aparent limits. Basically, if you think of the past shifting to meet your requirements, you'll find things work a lot easier (although I guess from an outside perspective, that might be even harder to wrap one's mind around)

In other words do you mean that you are actually using the theory of a thougt provoked universe? I can see many ways of accomplishing the said journy.

[LordArt]

In other words do you mean that you are actually using the theory of a thougt provoked universe? I can see many ways of accomplishing the said journy.

You'd have to define a "thought provoked universe" before I would agree. I wouldn't want to make assumptions of what you meant. But there is no doubt there are many ways to accomplish any particular task.

[O....]

I think the meaning is within the fact that design means that intellect is implicit.

Ofcouse, what is viewed as conscious is debatable outsdie of the bounds of our frames and vectors of reference.

Enclosed intelligences working within "innerspaces" and higher level "immaterial" intellegences, which apply will, are also implied by the complexity and interconnectedness that bring the sensed and that which possesses sense.

[Bob_stew]

O..., it would be appreciated if you could word yourself a bit clearer. It just doesn't seem very coherent to me, so a lot of the meaning of your posts is lost before it reaches me. "The complexity and interconnectedness that bring the sensed" in particular seemed really ambiguous, and apart from that, it seems like you're arguing in favor of Intelligent Design? I can't quite tie it to the topic of discussion.

"The fact that design implies intelligence contains the meaning behind indigoblade's use of the term 'thought provoked universe'"? (Or were you talking about something else?)

"It is undoubtedly true that the definition of consciousness is debated even among those who don't share our limited understanding"? Where are you going with this?

"Complexity implies the existence of intelligences that apply will"? Which intelligent, sentient beings don't? Or do you mean something more specific when you talk about applying will?

[indigoblade]

as far as this whole topic is going with the subject...i just believe that if you utilize the bonewits laws of magick you can't fail with mapping it out

[O....]

Bob_Stew... It's not at all vague. Indeed, some generalisations are rather specific, outside of the bounds and including time and space and interactions as relatively sensed and subjectively explained. Symbols for our measurables are not separated form our symbols for infinites.They interlock conceptually giving us something to measure consciousness against,(then to interaction.) no?Logic is fine for application of measurement systems, however this brings us no closer to commonality of sense. Such seeming vagueries are the foundation of empirically driven sciences. For example, Quantum theory and Hermetic theory are full of these. We could mince words... But we are using previously known concepts and tested interactions as we know them to reach 'meta-pseudopods' into the negative spaces in and about the yet to be discovered. What seems evident theirin crystalises into bridges to new theory. Though attmitedly, jargon serves it's purpose.*fingerclasped*
But only when it serves a purpose.

What do you think?

[Kiynethe]

What do you think?

I think that either you're doing this on purpose, or that you need to learn that part of being intelligent is being able to express your ideas in ways that others can understand them.

[indigoblade]

chuckles...yeah o...., ye can be a little vague at times