There was a point, two infact, responding to previous posts but I was a bit drunk and went off on one - apologies.
First point --- a reflection on myself; I am egotistical, especially I want to be thought of as clever, I noticed I often posted in such a vein. That set me thinking about science, and especially about the language of science, and the language and points made in postings. My conclusion was that I was not alone, people like to seem clever, so they use language no one can understand, I cited "recursive system", language is for communication, but Science does not communicate well, it uses specialist terms. Scientists use them to sound good, cleverer - I know I do, I felt I was an arse for doing so, unfortunately it dawned on me after a few pints and I expressed it poorly and in a rather nasty way --- apologies if you read it.
The second point was about Aliester Crowley as a scientist, basically it just doesn't hold up. I have read a lot of Crowley, and about his life. I feel quite stronly that he is a charlatan. I tried to explain in rambling way how his system of magick can be seen as a result of psychological pressures. I cited his early years when he was raised cruely by fundamentalist Christian Brethren - it was his mother who callled him the Beast 666 for instance. I cited his sexuality. I suggested his Magick was the result of an intelligent mind to fuse his religious upbringing with his sexual and psychological needs. The outcome of his system preserved the fundamental ideas of God (see below) having a purpose for us, of love thy neighbour, and following one true path. His Magick was the outcome of experiences he where he dabbled in drugs, engaged in sexual practices, and sought mystical knowledge. The fusing of these, his reformulation of religion, I suggest is due to his nature. I also pointed out that his followers had a pretty bad time, suicide, drug addiction, broken marriages, nervous breakdowns and abandonded children. His attraction remains strong, so I think it is valid to comment (But not in the way I did). I think it is valid to suggest that modern day followers see in him a path, an idol, and a system. But that system is flawed, and certainly not based on science. I think Crowley himself viewed his followers with some disdain, he at least found his own path, he suggested others do too. He certainly held the OTO in some degree of contempt. He argued in court with Mcgreggor Mathers and others of the Golden Dawn, Leah Hirsig denounced him, Norman Mudd committted suicide, Victor Neuberg had a nervous breakdown and Crowley himself died a drug addict. Not the great messiah. I also pointed out Crowleys tendency to self agrandise, he was a great wordsmith, knowledgeable and charismatic. But in the end he didn't really leave anything new. His Tarot Deck is beautiful, but he didn't invent Tarot. His poetry was OK, but rarely reached the heights. If you actually read the book of the Law, it's frankly awful. The power of Crowley is in his iconic status.
So as far as science is concerned I don't see Crowley figures much. He knew about it - he knew the maths of his time, but his use is as an analogy, he does not deduce anything. He wrote a fair piece on ontology, about zero divided by zero - again essentially analogy - relating it to a creation myth. Crowley borrows the authority of science to promote himself and his ideas, he is not scientific.
Well that puts it in a much more sober light, again apologies if you read the rant.
(Explanatory note on Crowley's God) --- Crowley suggested that the path is to attain what he called conversation with one's Holy Guardian Angel. He had his with an entity he called Aiwass in Egypt, when he had the book of the Law dictated to him. He used two phrases to encaputlate this law.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "Love is the law, love under will"
But he does not mean do what you like, he means follow the directions given to you by your holy guardian angel, and your first step is to attain such conversation by magickal practice. The will -- or Thelma -- is I suggest not different to following the word of God, reached not through prayer, but by magick. The wording of his commadments can then be understood as essentially "Do God's will with love" --- Hardly the Great Beast. The other quote he often used was "Every man and Every woman is a star." This he explained meant that if a man or woman followed their true will, then like a star in the heavens it's path predermined will be followed and to do otherwise is wrong, and that we should respect that in others. I think in effect it boils down to love thy neighbour as thyself. The language he uses in his statements is King James Bible language. So I suggest Crowley's Will, and law is not that far from the bible's God and Jesus's Law. OK it's a simplification, there is a sexual permissiveness, but again I suggest the source for this is Crowley's psychological make up, not devine knowledge.