Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. The problem is loose (not to say sloppy) thinking, which can lead to confusing one concept with another if not deliberate equivocation. Of course we are part of the universe and the universe works through the 'mechanics' of physics, so we do, too and are doing what the universe does, broadly. But that is so broad as to be actually misleading. Each entity with characteristics that look to us like it is distinct from other components does what it does, using the same mechanics but doing it somewhat differently from other similar entities (e.g, galaxies and humans) and quite differently from different categories of entities.
Yes it's very loose and arbitrary speak. Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided.
It resembles the documentary What the Bleep do we Know?
Here are some interesting reviews on the film.
Quote:
Bernie Hobbs, a science writer with ABC Science Online, explains why the movie is wrong about quantum physics and reality: "The observer effect of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles... this only applies to sub-atomic particles—a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." Hobbs also discusses Hagelin's experiment with Transcendental Meditation and the Washington DC rate of violent crime, saying that "the number of murders actually went up". Hobbs also disputed the film's use of the ten percent of the brain myth.
Quote:
David Albert, a philosopher of physics who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics is linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. These issues relate to the so-called Quantum mind-body problem.
Quote:
Lisa Randall refers to the film as "the bane of scientists". Amongst the assertions in the film that have been challenged are that water molecules can be influenced by thought (as popularized by Masaru Emoto), that meditation can reduce violent crime rates, and that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the ground of all being."
Quote:
Simon Singh called it pseudoscience and said the suggestion "that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics" was "ridiculous balderdash".
Quote:
The American Chemical Society's review criticizes the film as a "pseudoscientific docudrama", saying "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought."
Quote:
According to João Magueijo, professor in theoretical physics at Imperial College, the film deliberately misquotes science.
Quote:
According to Margaret Wertheim, "History abounds with religious enthusiasts who have read spiritual portent into the arrangement of the planets, the vacuum of space, electromagnetic waves and the big bang. But no scientific discovery has proved so ripe for spiritual projection as the theories of quantum physics, replete with their quixotic qualities of uncertainty, simultaneity and parallelism." Wertheim continues that the movie "abandons itself entirely to the ecstasies of quantum mysticism, finding in this aleatory description of nature the key to spiritual transformation. As one of the film’s characters gushes early in the proceedings, 'The moment we acknowledge the quantum self, we say that somebody has become enlightened'. A moment in which 'the mathematical formalism's of quantum mechanics [...] are stripped of all empirical content and reduced to a set of syrupy nostrums'."
This is my all time favorite comment!
Quote:
Professor Clive Greated wrote that "thinking on neurology and addiction are covered in some detail but, unfortunately, early references in the film to quantum physics are not followed through, leading to a confused message". Despite his caveats, he recommends that people see the movie, stating: "I hope it develops into a cult movie in the UK as it has in the US. Science and engineering are important for our future, and anything that engages the public can only be a good thing."
Trying to compare us to the Universe as far as "what we do vs. what the Universe does" makes zero sense.
I certainly would love to be able to pop into and out of thin air as well as travel the speed of light but alas I'm just a human on a tiny pale blue planet located somewhere in that vast Universe much of which is very mysterious and unknown to us.
no, it addresses everything you said, You just don't like the answer.
lamo, yes, it makes zero sense to you. I get it. For communication reason we talk like we do this and nature does that. that's not really true. Everything we do is done by nature. its just the facts, it doesn't matter what you want them to be.
Just make the measurement please. enough of the whoo whoo train. I get you're in awe of this big mysterious place we live in and we are soooo small. I only what we have in front of us to measure.
Compare (measure) the interactions in the biosphere to a standard.
to interactions of things we call life,
to interactions of things we call non life,
to interactions of things we call tweeners, like viruses.
what is your reading?
what does it match up best with?
record results and take it to more people.
Exactly. The problem is loose (not to say sloppy) thinking, which can lead to confusing one concept with another if not deliberate equivocation. Of course we are part of the universe and the universe works through the 'mechanics' of physics, so we do, too and are doing what the universe does, broadly. But that is so broad as to be actually misleading. Each entity with characteristics that look to us like it is distinct from other components does what it does, using the same mechanics but doing it somewhat differently from other similar entities (e.g, galaxies and humans) and quite differently from different categories of entities.
lmao, you mean sloppy in that we don't care what anti religion rant you get on? we only do facts. Your are confusing "process" with what defines what an object is. An object is defined by its interactions with it surroundings. all objects on earth use the same rules.
Yes it's very loose and arbitrary speak. Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided.
It resembles the documentary What the Bleep do we Know?
Here are some interesting reviews on the film.
This is my all time favorite comment!
And people say I need to learn how to quote. This is what your quotes look like at the other end.
Quote:
Professor Clive Greated wrote that "thinking on neurology and addiction are covered in some detail but, unfortunately, early references in the film to quantum physics are not followed through, leading to a confused message". Despite his caveats, he recommends that people see the movie, stating: "I hope it develops into a cult movie in the UK as it has in the US. Science and engineering are important for our future, and anything that engages the public can only be a good thing."
Nothing in this world "can only be a good thing." Nor can anything only be a bad thing. Everything in existence has a good and bad purpose. Even poison and nuclear energy.
Honestly in terms of the future, I would trust increases in farming, water, and energy than a blanket commitment to work more on science and engineering.
It is possible to waste massive resources on patently stupid science (such as "do people get more stressed from social media?" Sorry, but I was under the impression the actual purpose of study was to benefit humanity in some way. This doesn't appear to have relevance to any improvement in human life). It is also possible to engineer something egregiously bad (a KilloBot 4000, for example). There are some definite pluses of the two (just as there are definite minuses on what I mentioned), but saying it can "only be a good thing" seems a bit much.
Are we behaving like Black Holes?
Can we travel at the speed of light?
Can we personally explode into a Super Nova?
Can we become a vacuum?
Are we personally expanding?
Are we a part of the Cosmic Background Radiation?
Can we exist for 14 Billion Years?
Were we Dinosaurs on Earth Millions of years ago?
Do we personally create stars, planets or galaxies?
Do we fully Understand the Universe?
Not a chance!
::Sigh::. Is the universe doing these things? When we talk about the universe does that include us??? Then the only way to separate us from what the universe is doing is to think egocentrically.
no, it addresses everything you said, You just don't like the answer.
Instead of assuming what you think I like and don't like, instead simply answering the question would be much more productive.
I have no feelings whatsoever about your answer with respect to liking or disliking them. I only see them as not making sense and simply asked you to provide examples, which you failed to provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
lamo, yes, it makes zero sense to you. I get it.
It's clear you don't get it or else you would answer the question verses launching side jabbing insults.
This is your typical behavior so I am not surprised in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
For communication reason we talk like we do this and nature does that. that's not really true.
This is nonsensical...I suggest you rephrase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Everything we do is done by nature.
LOL sure nature just hops on my motorcycle, starts it up and splits lanes here in CA during rush hour traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
its just the facts, it doesn't matter what you want them to be.
Ascribing positions to others that they don't hold is your weakness, it's why you fail to be productive in forum discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Just make the measurement please. enough of the whoo whoo train. I get you're in awe of this big mysterious place we live in and we are soooo small. I only what we have in front of us to measure.
This is so nonsensical that I can't even attempt to address it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Compare (measure) the interactions in the biosphere to a standard.
to interactions of things we call life,
to interactions of things we call non life,
to interactions of things we call tweeners, like viruses.
what is your reading?
what does it match up best with?
record results and take it to more people.
PLEASE try to communicate in a manner that other's can understand. Nothing you have posted makes sense. There is no way a person can address or respond to your posts when they are written with gibberish.
::Sigh::. Is the universe doing these things? When we talk about the universe does that include us??? Then the only way to separate us from what the universe is doing is to think egocentrically.
Let's start by talking about what you mean we are doing what the Universe does?
We are humans that exist in a Universe.
We are not doing what the Universe does.
We don't make Stars, Planets, Galaxies or even Solar Systems. We don't generate Black Holes.
::Sigh::. Is the universe doing these things? When we talk about the universe does that include us??? Then the only way to separate us from what the universe is doing is to think egocentrically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Let's start by talking about what you mean we are doing what the Universe does?
We are humans that exist in a Universe.
We are not doing what the Universe does.
We don't make Stars, Planets, Galaxies or even Solar Systems. We don't generate Black Holes.
So what exactly are you talking about?
I see the problem. Let me rephrase it so you see the context. "What we are doing is an integral part of what the Universe does."
I see the problem. Let me rephrase it so you see the context. "What we are doing is an integral part of what the Universe does."
This still makes no sense. The Universe does not care if we exist or not. Just like it did not care that the Dinosaurs existed. It does not care that our Sun will burn out or that another major mass extinction event will occur on this planet.
It does not care that humans are harming this planet and all other lifeforms that exist with us. It will not provide us with a nice new planet to go to. In fact most of the Universe cannot support life as we know it to be here.
To think the Universe cares about us is the true definition of being egocentric is it not?
The Universe will go on without us as it's currently going on without any care for us. We have no influence on the Universe but it most certainly has influence on us.
Last edited by Matadora; 12-23-2016 at 11:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
