They will get the money when they hear about the challenge.

God · 3rd November 2005, 09:04 AM

Im starting this thread to remind you all of the claims of "chaos magick".

To begin with, their approach is to disregard the mass complexities of rituals and rules established by others as unnecessary, and focusing on "RESULTS". They are a "RESULTS" oriented society. Here is something on their theory written by Josh Wetzel, an adept with the I.O.T. a new and improved spinoff of the Golden Dawn and the O.T.O. (http://iota.goetia.net/info/CMT.htm) In this article the author explains that they can do magick with "CONTROLLED RESULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS".

With this in mind, the JREF better get ready to lose the money, because as soon as the Chaos magicians find out about the million dollar challenge, their gonna take that money with no problem as their able to perform "CONTROLLED RESULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS".

Upchurch · 3rd November 2005, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by God

With this in mind, the JREF better get ready to lose the money, because as soon as the Chaos magicians find out about the million dollar challenge, their gonna take that money with no problem as their able to perform "CONTROLLED RESULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS".

I do certainly hope they hear about it soon then. Do you know anyone you could suggest taking the challenge to?

God · 3rd November 2005, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Do you know anyone you could suggest taking the challenge to?

Thats what i just did, and i gave you a link.

Upchurch · 3rd November 2005, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by God

Thats what i just did, and i gave you a link.

Well, let us know what they say.

kmortis · 3rd November 2005, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I do certainly hope they hear about it soon then. Do you know anyone you could suggest taking the challenge to?

Tzmon would be my first choice.

Starthinker · 3rd November 2005, 09:40 AM

I doubt these folks could fill out an application.

After skimming that page, I'm almost sure of it.

God · 3rd November 2005, 09:40 AM

do you think im the only one that can contact these people? any of you can, yes even you.

Upchurch · 3rd November 2005, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by kmortis

Tzmon would be my first choice.

Well, someone should let this person know about the challenge. If these folks concentrate on results, they would be perfect for the challenge.

Been skimming the website and I've seen very little in the way of what those results actually are...

Upchurch · 3rd November 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by God

do you think im the only one that can contact these people? any of you can, yes even you.

I never said I couldn't, but you said you just did. Besides, I don't have the confidence in them that you seem to.

God · 3rd November 2005, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I never said I couldn't, but you said you just did. Besides, I don't have the confidence in them that you seem to.

thats my point! they already know about the challenge, and they wont try!
cuz they cant do it! duh.....

Upchurch · 3rd November 2005, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by God

thats my point! they already know about the challenge, and they wont try!
cuz they cant do it! duh.....

Ah. Sarcasm. I missed that.

ChaosEngineer · 3rd November 2005, 10:30 AM

Well, I skimmed the whole thing, and here's the relevant bit. The equation for getting an effect is:

Quote:

M = G x L(1-A)(1-R)

[...]

M equals the force of your magic. Which is dependent upon your G (Gnosis) and L (magical Link) multiplied by two negative factors. (Things working against you).Your conscious awareness of the desired result (1-A) and your subconscious resistance to doing magic (1-R) -i.e. "Mommy told me magick doesn't work."

If you're thinking about the desired result, then "1-A" is zero and your spell is guaranteed to fail.

If you believe in magic, then "1-R" is non-zero and then one of your spells might eventually do something, but not what you're expecting or when you're expecting it. Also, "M" is a probability multiplier, so it can't trigger a genuine miracle; it just takes possible events and makes them somewhat more likely to happen.

This equation is compatible with our current understanding of physics, with the caveat that we seem to live in a special-case universe where L=0. Proving that L is non-zero would probably be good enough to win the challenge.

Except that the million dollars plays havoc with that "1-A" factor. In order to win the million dollars, we must first learn to not-want the million dollars.

Oh, well.

delphi_ote · 3rd November 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by ChaosEngineer

In order to win the million dollars, we must first learn to not-want the million dollars.

There is no spoon.

De_Bunk · 3rd November 2005, 11:07 AM

Idiot Troll....

DB

God · 3rd November 2005, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Been skimming the website and I've seen very little in the way of what those results actually are...

Exactly!...Thats my beef with them and many other writers. In case you all hav'nt noticed... It's generally tabboo to blatantly ask what they have ever done successfully. Probably cause they've never done a dam thing successfully and they know many of us would experiment with what we were told to compare results. So to avoid that question, they drowned us in their endless babbling theory, and sell as many books as they can so we can "gain knowledge and understanding". (yea...right) $$$$$$$$

kmortis · 3rd November 2005, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by God

Exactly!...Thats my beef with them and many other writers. In case you all hav'nt noticed... It's generally tabboo to blatantly ask what they have ever done successfully. Probably cause they've never done a dam thing successfully and they know many of us would experiment with what we were told to compare results. So to avoid that question, they drowned us in their endless babbling theory, and sell as many books as they can so we can "gain knowledge and understanding". (yea...right) $$$$$$$$

Speaking as a former Chaos Mage (you really should see my woo resume); they would welcome those kinds of questions; at least the ones I knew when I was in it would. Peter Carroll, Phil Hine, Tzmon Ylaster etc. all were rather stand up, if not deluded, guys. I do believe that Tzmon has moved on to tantra. One of the keys of Chaos Magic is that results count. The IOT requires all memeber to keep a journal. The honest ones (like me) generally end up leaving becuse the results DON'T exceed random chance.

God · 3rd November 2005, 02:38 PM

So kmortis...do you agree with my attitude? is what im saying true? Or am i being to judgmental while not knowing there whole history?

kmortis · 3rd November 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by God

So kmortis...do you agree with my attitude? is what im saying true? Or am i being to judgmental while not knowing there whole history?

About most ppl wanting to hide behind ignorance and booksales? Oh yeah, I'm enough of a PT Barnumesque cynic to believe that. And, some of the IOT will give you just that. Pete Carroll...maybe not, what I've read from and about him says that he's a True Believer. Phil Hine seems to be a touch more worldly and able to seperate fact from fiction. On my agnostic days, I lay him (highly against) money that Phil could win the Challenge. Then the drugs wear off....

ETA: One of my favorite quotes comes from Phil: "A god denied is a demon born"

Ducky · 3rd November 2005, 02:59 PM

Man that site is....

...."interesting."

But as Kramer says:

Bring it on.

I hope they apply.

kmortis · 3rd November 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by fowlsound

Man that site is....

...."interesting."

But as Kramer says:

Bring it on.

I hope they apply.

I'm with ye on that Fowlsound. If for no other reason than if any single "Magic" organization would have the moxie to try, it'd be the IOT.

LordoftheLeftHand · 3rd November 2005, 06:06 PM

I had a few minutes to kill today so I decided to check out that chaos magic site. I happened to spot another formula (actually it is right next to the one that was posted earlier).
Their second "formula" is:

Pm = P - P x M 1/(1/-p)
(All factors are between 0 and 1)

Disregarding the woo portion of it (what the numbers are supposed to actually represent) I decided to just look at the equation. It has been an awfully long time since I took algebra but this "equation" looked overly complex. Five minutes with a piece of scratch paper and I had come up with:

Where P is greater than 0

Pm= P + (P^2)M

Anyone willing to waste some valuable time and check my "woo math"?

LLH

Pedro Gomes · 3rd November 2005, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

.... Anyone willing to waste some valuable time and check my "woo math"?

A few insomnia minutes to spare here. You presumed P and p to be the same thing, but apparently they represent different... well, things: "P equals the chance the event you desire occurs by itself; (1/(1/-p)) equals the chance that the result you desire will not occur." But I think you're very right in saying the equation is overly complex. At least back in my college days, inverting a real number twice resulted in the said real number, so I wonder what made them write (1/(1/-p)) instead of simply -p. Hence, Pm = P - P.M.(-p) = P.(1 + M.p). (Unless I totally misunderstood their notation.)

LordoftheLeftHand · 3rd November 2005, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Pedro Gomes

A few insomnia minutes to spare here. You presumed P and p to be the same thing, but apparently they represent different... well, things: "P equals the chance the event you desire occurs by itself; (1/(1/-p)) equals the chance that the result you desire will not occur." But I think you're very right in saying the equation is overly complex. At least back in my college days, inverting a real number twice resulted in the said real number, so I wonder what made them write (1/(1/-p)) instead of simply -p. Hence, Pm = P - P.M.(-p) = P.(1 + M.p). (Unless I totally misunderstood their notation.)

Thanks, I didn't catch that second small "p". Your version (which appears correct) is still simpler than theirs.

You would think that anyone serious about this chaos magic stuff would have crunched these numbers enough times to notice...

LLH

Pedro Gomes · 3rd November 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

.... You would think that anyone serious about this chaos magic stuff would have crunched these numbers enough times to notice...

I agree. Also, maybe they actually meant p to be P and just mistyped it. It's hard to say because, even trying the interpret their explanation of the formula, I can't make any sense of it... They're basically saying that "the chance that the result you desire will not occur" is negative! Well, at least I got my sleep back.

Aepervius · 3rd November 2005, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

Pm = P - P x M 1/(1/-p)

Actually are you sure the last / is not a typo ? Because then that would make the formula irreducible :

Pm=P(1-M/(1-p)). But then it could STILL be negative since 0<p<1 then 1-p 0<1-p<1 which then means for specific values of p M/1-p could be greater than 1 in all cases where M>1-p (example M=0.1 but 1-p=0.05 then M/1-p=2).

edited to reverse < to > and edited a second to change p to 1-p

LordoftheLeftHand · 3rd November 2005, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Actually are you sure the last / is not a typo ? Because then that would make the formula irreducible :

Pm=P(1-M/(1-p)). But then it could STILL be negative since 0<p<1 then 1-p 0<1-p<1 which then means for specific values of p M/1-p could be greater than 1 in all cases where M>1-p (example M=0.1 but 1-p=0.05 then M/1-p=2).

edited to reverse < to > and edited a second to change p to 1-p

I considered it, but that part was an actual cut and paste from their site (link is in the beginning of this thread). But who is to say their site is correct. I think it is all non-sense anyway so all we have to go on is their word. I think a better formula would be:

Magic Potential = Your floobie index squared.

LLH

c4ts · 3rd November 2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

M = G x L(1-A)(1-R)

[...]

M equals the force of your magic. Which is dependent upon your G (Gnosis) and L (magical Link) multiplied by two negative factors. (Things working against you).Your conscious awareness of the desired result (1-A) and your subconscious resistance to doing magic (1-R) -i.e. "Mommy told me magick doesn't work."

And which of these numbers is determined by the d20?

Flo · 4th November 2005, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by God

....... they drown(ed) us in their endless babbling theory, and sell as many books as they can ....

What are you complaining about ? That's certainly a result !

kmortis · 4th November 2005, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

I considered it, but that part was an actual cut and paste from their site (link is in the beginning of this thread). But who is to say their site is correct. I think it is all non-sense anyway so all we have to go on is their word. I think a better formula would be:

Magic Potential = Your floobie index squared.

LLH

FYI, the origional Equation of Magic is found in Psychonaut/Liber Null. It is later expanded on in Liber Kaos. Peter Carroll was very fond of this kind of rubbish, Phil Hine dropped it and adopted a more Jungian perspective. If you'd like, when I get home this eve, I can dust off my old copies and make sure the equation is correct, and possibly see if Pete had a better expalination. I doubt it, but you never know.

delphi_ote · 4th November 2005, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by c4ts

And which of these numbers is determined by the d20?

Brilliant, c4ts!

Starthinker · 4th November 2005, 07:00 AM

I see Pm = P - P x M 1/(1/-p) (All factors are between 0 and 1) but what if you did it this way:

Pms = P x M(C/Fx24)-D-h x S^2 Where C=Cars and F=Football and D=Doing the dishes and h=helping with housework and S=the probability of the M (which = Male) will want to have sex at that given time (squared).

God · 4th November 2005, 08:58 AM

Besides the algebra, what do you guys think about the rest of the article? The entire site, and the i.o.t. for that matter?

3rd November 2005, 09:04 AM	#1
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	They will get the money when they hear about the challenge. Im starting this thread to remind you all of the claims of "chaos magick". To begin with, their approach is to disregard the mass complexities of rituals and rules established by others as unnecessary, and focusing on "RESULTS". They are a "RESULTS" oriented society. Here is something on their theory written by Josh Wetzel, an adept with the I.O.T. a new and improved spinoff of the Golden Dawn and the O.T.O. (http://iota.goetia.net/info/CMT.htm) In this article the author explains that they can do magick with "CONTROLLED RESULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS". With this in mind, the JREF better get ready to lose the money, because as soon as the Chaos magicians find out about the million dollar challenge, their gonna take that money with no problem as their able to perform "CONTROLLED RESULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS".
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	__________________ Yes i have a computer to. I created the world did'nt I? Now....continue to love me with all your heart, or i'll fry your ass in hell! Last edited by God; 3rd November 2005 at 09:06 AM.

3rd November 2005, 09:28 AM	#3
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	Originally Posted by Upchurch Do you know anyone you could suggest taking the challenge to? Thats what i just did, and i gave you a link.
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	__________________ Yes i have a computer to. I created the world did'nt I? Now....continue to love me with all your heart, or i'll fry your ass in hell!

3rd November 2005, 09:39 AM	#5
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas Posts: 24,543	Originally Posted by Upchurch I do certainly hope they hear about it soon then. Do you know anyone you could suggest taking the challenge to? Tzmon would be my first choice.
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Monroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm

3rd November 2005, 09:40 AM	#6
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	I doubt these folks could fill out an application. After skimming that page, I'm almost sure of it.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

3rd November 2005, 09:40 AM	#7
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	do you think im the only one that can contact these people? any of you can, yes even you.
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	__________________ Yes i have a computer to. I created the world did'nt I? Now....continue to love me with all your heart, or i'll fry your ass in hell!

3rd November 2005, 09:22 AM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by God With this in mind, the JREF better get ready to lose the money, because as soon as the Chaos magicians find out about the million dollar challenge, their gonna take that money with no problem as their able to perform "CONTROLLED RESULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS". I do certainly hope they hear about it soon then. Do you know anyone you could suggest taking the challenge to?

3rd November 2005, 09:31 AM	#4
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by God Thats what i just did, and i gave you a link. Well, let us know what they say.

3rd November 2005, 09:41 AM	#8
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by kmortis Tzmon would be my first choice. Well, someone should let this person know about the challenge. If these folks concentrate on results, they would be perfect for the challenge. Been skimming the website and I've seen very little in the way of what those results actually are...

3rd November 2005, 09:44 AM	#9
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by God do you think im the only one that can contact these people? any of you can, yes even you. I never said I couldn't, but you said you just did. Besides, I don't have the confidence in them that you seem to.

3rd November 2005, 09:46 AM	#10
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	Originally Posted by Upchurch I never said I couldn't, but you said you just did. Besides, I don't have the confidence in them that you seem to. thats my point! they already know about the challenge, and they wont try! cuz they cant do it! duh.....
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	__________________ Yes i have a computer to. I created the world did'nt I? Now....continue to love me with all your heart, or i'll fry your ass in hell!

3rd November 2005, 09:48 AM	#11
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by God thats my point! they already know about the challenge, and they wont try! cuz they cant do it! duh..... Ah. Sarcasm. I missed that.

3rd November 2005, 10:30 AM	#12
ChaosEngineer Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 49	Well, I skimmed the whole thing, and here's the relevant bit. The equation for getting an effect is: Quote: M = G x L(1-A)(1-R) [...] M equals the force of your magic. Which is dependent upon your G (Gnosis) and L (magical Link) multiplied by two negative factors. (Things working against you).Your conscious awareness of the desired result (1-A) and your subconscious resistance to doing magic (1-R) -i.e. "Mommy told me magick doesn't work." If you're thinking about the desired result, then "1-A" is zero and your spell is guaranteed to fail. If you believe in magic, then "1-R" is non-zero and then one of your spells might eventually do something, but not what you're expecting or when you're expecting it. Also, "M" is a probability multiplier, so it can't trigger a genuine miracle; it just takes possible events and makes them somewhat more likely to happen. This equation is compatible with our current understanding of physics, with the caveat that we seem to live in a special-case universe where L=0. Proving that L is non-zero would probably be good enough to win the challenge. Except that the million dollars plays havoc with that "1-A" factor. In order to win the million dollars, we must first learn to not-want the million dollars. Oh, well.
ChaosEngineer Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 49

3rd November 2005, 10:58 AM	#13
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by ChaosEngineer In order to win the million dollars, we must first learn to not-want the million dollars. There is no spoon.
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

3rd November 2005, 11:07 AM	#14
De_Bunk Scourge of the Believer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,508	Idiot Troll.... DB
	__________________ I've made nearly 20,000 posts on the JREF... Trouble is..over 14,000 have been deleted... And you think you're 'Hardcore'.. (DB)

3rd November 2005, 12:45 PM	#15
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	Originally Posted by Upchurch Been skimming the website and I've seen very little in the way of what those results actually are... Exactly!...Thats my beef with them and many other writers. In case you all hav'nt noticed... It's generally tabboo to blatantly ask what they have ever done successfully. Probably cause they've never done a dam thing successfully and they know many of us would experiment with what we were told to compare results. So to avoid that question, they drowned us in their endless babbling theory, and sell as many books as they can so we can "gain knowledge and understanding". (yea...right) $$$$$$$$
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	__________________ Yes i have a computer to. I created the world did'nt I? Now....continue to love me with all your heart, or i'll fry your ass in hell!

3rd November 2005, 02:14 PM	#16
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas Posts: 24,543	Originally Posted by God Exactly!...Thats my beef with them and many other writers. In case you all hav'nt noticed... It's generally tabboo to blatantly ask what they have ever done successfully. Probably cause they've never done a dam thing successfully and they know many of us would experiment with what we were told to compare results. So to avoid that question, they drowned us in their endless babbling theory, and sell as many books as they can so we can "gain knowledge and understanding". (yea...right) $$$$$$$$ Speaking as a former Chaos Mage (you really should see my woo resume); they would welcome those kinds of questions; at least the ones I knew when I was in it would. Peter Carroll, Phil Hine, Tzmon Ylaster etc. all were rather stand up, if not deluded, guys. I do believe that Tzmon has moved on to tantra. One of the keys of Chaos Magic is that results count. The IOT requires all memeber to keep a journal. The honest ones (like me) generally end up leaving becuse the results DON'T exceed random chance.
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Monroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm

3rd November 2005, 02:38 PM	#17
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	So kmortis...do you agree with my attitude? is what im saying true? Or am i being to judgmental while not knowing there whole history?
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	__________________ Yes i have a computer to. I created the world did'nt I? Now....continue to love me with all your heart, or i'll fry your ass in hell!

3rd November 2005, 02:50 PM	#18
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas Posts: 24,543	Originally Posted by God So kmortis...do you agree with my attitude? is what im saying true? Or am i being to judgmental while not knowing there whole history? About most ppl wanting to hide behind ignorance and booksales? Oh yeah, I'm enough of a PT Barnumesque cynic to believe that. And, some of the IOT will give you just that. Pete Carroll...maybe not, what I've read from and about him says that he's a True Believer. Phil Hine seems to be a touch more worldly and able to seperate fact from fiction. On my agnostic days, I lay him (highly against) money that Phil could win the Challenge. Then the drugs wear off.... ETA: One of my favorite quotes comes from Phil: "A god denied is a demon born"
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Monroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm

3rd November 2005, 02:59 PM	#19
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Man that site is.... ...."interesting." But as Kramer says: Bring it on. I hope they apply.

3rd November 2005, 03:09 PM	#20
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas Posts: 24,543	Originally Posted by fowlsound Man that site is.... ...."interesting." But as Kramer says: Bring it on. I hope they apply. I'm with ye on that Fowlsound. If for no other reason than if any single "Magic" organization would have the moxie to try, it'd be the IOT.
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Monroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm

3rd November 2005, 06:06 PM	#21
LordoftheLeftHand Dominus Sinistrae Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,186	I had a few minutes to kill today so I decided to check out that chaos magic site. I happened to spot another formula (actually it is right next to the one that was posted earlier). Their second "formula" is: Pm = P - P x M 1/(1/-p) (All factors are between 0 and 1) Disregarding the woo portion of it (what the numbers are supposed to actually represent) I decided to just look at the equation. It has been an awfully long time since I took algebra but this "equation" looked overly complex. Five minutes with a piece of scratch paper and I had come up with: Where P is greater than 0 Pm= P + (P^2)M Anyone willing to waste some valuable time and check my "woo math"? LLH

3rd November 2005, 06:34 PM	#22
Pedro Gomes Scholar Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Portugal & UK Posts: 52	Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand .... Anyone willing to waste some valuable time and check my "woo math"? A few insomnia minutes to spare here. You presumed P and p to be the same thing, but apparently they represent different... well, things: "P equals the chance the event you desire occurs by itself; (1/(1/-p)) equals the chance that the result you desire will not occur." But I think you're very right in saying the equation is overly complex. At least back in my college days, inverting a real number twice resulted in the said real number, so I wonder what made them write (1/(1/-p)) instead of simply -p. Hence, Pm = P - P.M.(-p) = P.(1 + M.p). (Unless I totally misunderstood their notation.)

3rd November 2005, 07:03 PM	#23
LordoftheLeftHand Dominus Sinistrae Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,186	Originally Posted by Pedro Gomes A few insomnia minutes to spare here. You presumed P and p to be the same thing, but apparently they represent different... well, things: "P equals the chance the event you desire occurs by itself; (1/(1/-p)) equals the chance that the result you desire will not occur." But I think you're very right in saying the equation is overly complex. At least back in my college days, inverting a real number twice resulted in the said real number, so I wonder what made them write (1/(1/-p)) instead of simply -p. Hence, Pm = P - P.M.(-p) = P.(1 + M.p). (Unless I totally misunderstood their notation.) Thanks, I didn't catch that second small "p". Your version (which appears correct) is still simpler than theirs. You would think that anyone serious about this chaos magic stuff would have crunched these numbers enough times to notice... LLH

3rd November 2005, 07:28 PM	#24
Pedro Gomes Scholar Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Portugal & UK Posts: 52	Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand .... You would think that anyone serious about this chaos magic stuff would have crunched these numbers enough times to notice... I agree. Also, maybe they actually meant p to be P and just mistyped it. It's hard to say because, even trying the interpret their explanation of the formula, I can't make any sense of it... They're basically saying that "the chance that the result you desire will not occur" is negative! Well, at least I got my sleep back.

3rd November 2005, 08:53 PM	#25
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,732	Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand Pm = P - P x M 1/(1/-p) Actually are you sure the last / is not a typo ? Because then that would make the formula irreducible : Pm=P(1-M/(1-p)). But then it could STILL be negative since 0<p<1 then 1-p 0<1-p<1 which then means for specific values of p M/1-p could be greater than 1 in all cases where M>1-p (example M=0.1 but 1-p=0.05 then M/1-p=2). edited to reverse < to > and edited a second to change p to 1-p
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

3rd November 2005, 10:04 PM	#26
LordoftheLeftHand Dominus Sinistrae Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,186	Originally Posted by Aepervius Actually are you sure the last / is not a typo ? Because then that would make the formula irreducible : Pm=P(1-M/(1-p)). But then it could STILL be negative since 0<p<1 then 1-p 0<1-p<1 which then means for specific values of p M/1-p could be greater than 1 in all cases where M>1-p (example M=0.1 but 1-p=0.05 then M/1-p=2). edited to reverse < to > and edited a second to change p to 1-p I considered it, but that part was an actual cut and paste from their site (link is in the beginning of this thread). But who is to say their site is correct. I think it is all non-sense anyway so all we have to go on is their word. I think a better formula would be: Magic Potential = Your floobie index squared. LLH

3rd November 2005, 10:38 PM	#27
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: M = G x L(1-A)(1-R) [...] M equals the force of your magic. Which is dependent upon your G (Gnosis) and L (magical Link) multiplied by two negative factors. (Things working against you).Your conscious awareness of the desired result (1-A) and your subconscious resistance to doing magic (1-R) -i.e. "Mommy told me magick doesn't work." And which of these numbers is determined by the d20?
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

4th November 2005, 01:08 AM	#28
Flo Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Massongy, France Posts: 2,793	Originally Posted by God ....... they drown(ed) us in their endless babbling theory, and sell as many books as they can .... What are you complaining about ? That's certainly a result !
	__________________ "Let me explain the order of things for you. There's the aristocracy, the upper class, middle class, working class, dumb animals, waiters, creeping things, head lice, people who eat packet soup, and then you." (Chef)

4th November 2005, 05:31 AM	#29
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas Posts: 24,543	Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand I considered it, but that part was an actual cut and paste from their site (link is in the beginning of this thread). But who is to say their site is correct. I think it is all non-sense anyway so all we have to go on is their word. I think a better formula would be: Magic Potential = Your floobie index squared. LLH FYI, the origional Equation of Magic is found in Psychonaut/Liber Null. It is later expanded on in Liber Kaos. Peter Carroll was very fond of this kind of rubbish, Phil Hine dropped it and adopted a more Jungian perspective. If you'd like, when I get home this eve, I can dust off my old copies and make sure the equation is correct, and possibly see if Pete had a better expalination. I doubt it, but you never know.
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Monroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm

4th November 2005, 06:27 AM	#30
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by c4ts And which of these numbers is determined by the d20? Brilliant, c4ts!
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

4th November 2005, 07:00 AM	#31
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	I see Pm = P - P x M 1/(1/-p) (All factors are between 0 and 1) but what if you did it this way: Pms = P x M(C/Fx24)-D-h x S^2 Where C=Cars and F=Football and D=Doing the dishes and h=helping with housework and S=the probability of the M (which = Male) will want to have sex at that given time (squared).
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

4th November 2005, 08:58 AM	#32
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	Besides the algebra, what do you guys think about the rest of the article? The entire site, and the i.o.t. for that matter?
God Student Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25	__________________ Yes i have a computer to. I created the world did'nt I? Now....continue to love me with all your heart, or i'll fry your ass in hell!