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.
Did not have time to watch the whole thing, though it is fascinating - especially when narrated by Morgan Freeman.
However, even the subunits of matter have mass - even if at some point the mass becomes so small we have difficulty measuring it. They are still matter.
As to whether an object exists if I am not looking at it, I expect to find my car in the garage where I parked it last night. I cannot move it to the driveway just by looking at the driveway.
So I think matter is made out of matter, not unicorns and pleasant music.
The video is about the idea that matter, and energy, is made out of information, which is what I believe. The idea is sometimes called digital physics, and it considers the universe to be mental, not ultimately "physical."
Some people still have a naive view of physics, in which there is some as yet undiscovered ultimate particle.
And some people have no business posing as an expert, or equal to qualified medical doctors, psychiatrists or scientists. Their lack of knowledge or what the definition of what a 'fact' is, or ability to cite anything other than "no one knows" is an obvious giveaway to others.
The video is about the idea that matter, and energy, is made out of information, which is what I believe. The idea is sometimes called digital physics, and it considers the universe to be mental, not ultimately "physical."
Some people still have a naive view of physics, in which there is some as yet undiscovered ultimate particle.
I do not see any description of digital physics that indicates that the universe is mental. It is just a different explanation of the physical world.
By the way, the ideas in this video are not new. Fredkin (who is in the video) thought of digital physics in the early days of computer science, in the 1960s.
Other scientific ideas are also integrated in the video, which were developed decades ago.
But the video adds more recent ideas and research. I have been interested in these ideas all along, and it seems that more scientists are beginning to think they make sense.
I mentioned Dawkins because he is typical. I could have listed everyone I could think of who expresses similar ideas.
Chances are, if your ideas are similar to the New Atheists, you were influenced by someone who Dawkins got ideas from, or who got ideas from Dawkins.
People don't make up their ideas out of thin air.
New Atheism is a particular kind of atheism, mostly based on a mid 20th century interpretation of Darwinism.
Chances are even better that you're wrong.
Where do you think the 'first' proponents of anything got their ideas when there were no sources to influence them?
However, if mindfulness exercises are helpful even in the absence of a belief in a higher power, that would suggest that belief in a higher power is not necessary. Religion certainly uses psychology, even if it does not specifically admit it.
Every single group of people functioning in community, relifiously-themed or otherwise, inherently "uses psychology."
As far as whether belief in [higher power, God, many gods, theory of mind, whatever] is helpful or beneficial, that depends greatly on the individual and their wants, needs, and preferences.
My point isn't whether or not participation in religion is necessary for achievement of personal wellbeing. There is no one answer to that. My point is simply to dispute the claim that psychology and religion are not compatible.
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.