He's throwing about words he doesn't actually understand if you ask me, and making an incoherent word salad out of them.
It's about equivalent to saying 'Man, this joint is like... all strings man! Wouldn't that be cosmic! We're all one!' At least that's what I hear when I listen to this caller.
Everybody knows Newtonian Physics is the answer to everything. Don't forget about how much we can trust our senses and experts who teach us at good ol reliable college. Forget the mystics who talk about The Unified Field of Intelligence. Quantum Physics is just a Theory. MTV is more real. At least I can see MTV, therefore it's real. (fecetious)...Fucking Bill Hicks knows more about reality than these guys. Imagine that.
@Sailor231 'just a theory' doesn't discredit quantum mechanics . Gravity is 'just a theory'. Quantum mechanics is very, very real. The atom bomb, price scanners, these all have their functions within QM. I can't remember in which context this is, but apprently you can predict certain with certain accuracy things in QM to an inconceivable preciseness. So to dismiss it is to undermine the scientific method, hence intellectual suicide :)
@lanceawatt The common example is the magnetic moment of the electron, which QM predicts to the same accuracy as throwing a dart at the moon and striking a target the size of an average human face. This at least was Richard Feynman's analogy.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
it's sad to hear matt mistake what scientific theories are. theories don't need to be supported by evidence. any framework that has the capacity to describe a set of phenomena is a theory. some of them happen to be really good, but i could invent a false scientific theory right now.
@rysw19 Pro-tip: if you're going to claim to know what scientific theories are, actually know. There is a great difference between a scientific theory and the way "theory" is used by the layman.
@GregJPreece i know very well the difference, sir (and you apparently don't). but there are true scientific theories and false ones. just look up the phlogiston theory. the difference is their capacity to generalize and describe a set of phenomena, as i said.
@GregJPreece People think a scientific theory is a hypothesis. They think the scientific "law" is what these things need to be in order to be considered proven.
What they frustratingly don't understand, is that in order for a scientific theory to be a considered a theory, it has to be proven with evidence and made up of scientific laws. A theory is the thing that actually explains how a natural phenomenon works.
@GregJPreece what do you mean by that statement, to actually "Know" makes alot of sense when it comes down to all this rhetoric going on around the world today which can and does question what anyone truly knows about anything they think rather than what they have memorized...
@DrFruedienslip You're describing a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory, in scientific terms, *is* supported by observation, experimentation and evidence.
@rysw19 No, it's you that's mistaken. "A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
As for the "false scientific theory" you could invent, that would be a hypothesis.
@PhobicOne i agree with your definition completely, and i'd like to note that it says nothing of the truth or falsity of the claim. just look up phlogiston theory or the geocentric theory. QED.
@rysw19 Well, you know, data's sorta the closest anyone can come to truth in reality.
As for your examples, both are falsely labelled as "theories", as they do NOT conform to available empirical data. They only exist as theories historically.
@PhobicOne data is NOT the closest one can come to truth. raw data is worthless. it's the generalizations that can be made from these data that are meaningful.
and those very well ARE theories. there is a logically consistent way of describing a reality such as our own in geocentric terms; however, it is evidently not the universe that we DO live in.
i am a student of physics, and i know damn well what a scientific theory is. the task of scientists is to find what the BEST theory is.
@rysw19 Theories are to data as psychology is to human behavior; Both are attempts to explain their fields. In that sense, data IS the closest one can come to truth, as barring instrument failure data is the building block upon which all empirical study of the world (including scientific theories) is based.
And no, they are NOT, as they are not "logically consistent ways of describing a reality such as our own". Historically they are entitled theories, like historically Einstein was a student.
@rysw19 Also, beautiful attempt at an appeal to authority. All I can say about your claim to being a student of physics is that your studies are incomplete if you cannot differentiate between a theory and a hypothesis.
@PhobicOne it's not an appeal to an authority. i'm saying that i have studied the matter, and i use the terms regularly. YOU are the one who does not understand the difference.
from wikipedia: A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.
@rysw19 Now, I know you like thinking that being a student of physics you can comment on things that you really should understand despite being obviously misinformed, but I digress. Let's go to English class.
Let's see if you can find a short four-letter-word that can be used as a substitute for "abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties". Here's a hint: It's data.
@PhobicOne are you serious? data are NOT the abstractions. abstractions are made from the generalizations OF data. is the universal law of gravitation DATA? no, it is a generalization OF data. i'm just going to leave it there, because you obviously have a basic misunderstanding.
@PhobicOne are you serious? data are NOT the abstractions. abstractions are made from the generalizations OF data. is the universal law of gravitation DATA? no, it is a generalization OF data. i'm just going to leave it there, because you obviously have a basic misunderstanding.
@PhobicOne No - Matt doesn't really understand what a theory is here. It's possible for a theory to be false, as long as it's a real *theory* and not just a few propositions. It's not like you go from "hypothesis" to "leading hypothesis" to "theory"; a theory is about how thorough your framework is, not how true, provided it conforms with the available evidence. This is why theoretical physics is called such, since it primarily concerns itself with *expanding* the theory, not replacing it.
Islam does NOT deny or rejects evolution, !!! ignorant, illiterate (so called muslims) rejects evolution. Quran mentions "God created everything from water" 21:30 (Miller–Urey experiment) "... and indeed we (God singular) perfected it (living beings) 24:64
@jaddy316 Errr dude? You're quote mining. Surah 21:30 in my Qu'ran says also that the heavens and Earth were joined, then "clove asunder". And given that in 21:32 it refers to the heavens as "a canopy well guarded", this seems to be implying that the stars and Earth were once connected. And you're claiming this as being scientifically consistent? To be honest, do you know what the that section of Surah 21 reads like if you read it in full? The Book of Genesis.
@jaddy316 from water? that's not true. the oldest greek philosophers speculated that the world somehow arose out of water. but you need a lot more than water to make life. you see that's the problem with holy books: they say nonsensical things that accuarately reflect the ignorance of the people of the time. but then some genius starts to re-interpret: well, you need water for l ife, and the first forms of life were in water, that means the holy bookk was right! no it wasn't.
at 4:25, YES YOU CAN use them to communicate information, its a new breakthrough that they've just found recently that you can transfer information from one atom to another regardless of distance, yes its teleporting, and yes it is happens.
At 1:40 have you ever heard of quantum entanglement? It states that yes all things are interconnected, if at one time everything was at the point smaller than an atom, all atoms and energy were interconnected and do retain that connectedness no matter how far apart they get. An entangled atom will react to its polarity regardless of the distance/time separating them.
Some of the scientists quoted in the movie didn't agree with everything that was said, and complained about being taken out of context. The filmmakers then published an extended version, where each speaker was shown uninterrupted making their entire point.
Further, Fred Alan Wolf and Amrit Goswami ARE real physicists, and definitely believe in the entanglement of sentient beings. Physicist Frijtof Kapra wrote The Tao of Physics in the 1970s making the same points in depth.
"I heard this one thing one time about this thing that affects stuff in ways that makes me think that, you know, if we were all locked in this smaller and smaller holographic fractal arm, and you know, conected in a sungularity, that the thing that i heard of doing this makes me think that we are all right about here and now."
When approached by filmmakers scientists should get in the habit of asking to see the treatment, or some reasonably detailed description of the movie and it's purpose, before agreeing to an interview that will appear in the movie. If I were approached for a documentary I would also insist on approval rights to the final edit of my interview. That would solve the problems scientists have gotten into with films like ...Bleep... and Expelled.
I'm going to have to point out that a theory is far more than a guess. The TOE is a fact. We just haven't found it yet. From the moment Maxwell published his Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism, we've been building towards it. All matter is energy. That's pretty unifying. There will always be more questions and that's GOOD! :) I'm not proposing an end to knowledge, just a master code to what we call reality. Knowing E=Mc2 doesn't grant you the ability to understand physics, but it's a good start
If something that's infinate has no beginning or end, then where did the term "infinity" come from? Infinity has no beginning or end, right? So, when did we start using the term to describe it?
@Tarynus To call it a simple question would be to give it too much credit. Someone at sometime enunciated a concept of no beginning and without end, and the word in the English language, derived from Latin, to describe that concept is infinite. Are you implying that to describe a process it must have a beginning and an end before it can be defined? Rhetorical question. Might I add it just came to my attention how appropriate it was for I, with this username, to be addressing this question.
I think it's rather messed up that they totally discount everything that the caller is saying. He's talking about science. He's not talking about metaphysics. I've "read up" on the very same things & I think that they're just frightened of the word "interconnected." We ARE all interconnected. The fact that you buying a cheeseburger affects a guy in Hawai'i who sells his goods to the owner of the burger chain who went there with the money he made off you proves that. It's not a "spiritual" thing
@CrossTheGrigori Nah. This guy's concept of interconnectedness goes beyond both science and the common sense notion of cause/effect that you describe. He himself admits it's a thought-game derived from vague concepts spanning many unrelated fields of science. I think they were right on to point out that the actual science is far more specialized than the vague quotes and concepts popular culture weans from them to create editorials and sci-fi entertainment. It's fun but not accurate.
I can easily agree with what you said, but one of the problems facing the medical field is that general practitioners don't know enough to know what they're seeing on a daily basis. They misdiagnose things or take forever to send you to the right specialist, who will attack the problem from their own field, excluding any other possibilities. These specializations tend to hold back real progress. Not just in medicine, but science as well. The universe doesn't have catagories
Each specialist attempts to diagnose through necessarily limited skills/knowledge. We can IMAGINE a doctor so knowledgeable they are experts in all fields, but even that is limited. In reality you only have increasingly broad specialization of knowledge.
My point: It's an error to assume there is an opposite to specialized knowledge (that there is a unifying knowledge of "everything".) It only exists vaguely, in the imagination.
There is no opposite to specialized knowledge because knowledge is just knowledge, it doesn't have edges or catagories. That isn't what I was saying though. It seems to me that you are saying there is no GUT/TOE. That's awfully presumptious. The limits of present day human knowledge cannot be applied to the universe or to the future of mankind. I was saying that there is ONE giant operating system and we can all be traced back to a single point... that IS a kind of unity.
@CrossTheGrigori No, I'm not referring to "theories of everything" or GUT, which only unify certain things, as I'm sure you are aware. They don't literally unify "everything", but refer to specific phenomenon.
So...what is this single point you are referring to that everything traces back to? Why do you call it a "point"? You aren't referring to a singularity, are you?
I still think this idea of "unity" is at best a vague metaphysical concept, not really all that descriptive or revealing.
The TOE is just that.. a theory of everything. No, not of how to best serve tea with toast.. but of the building "blocks" of everything -& tea. The "singularity" is a buzz word like "big bang" used to describe something quickly. Thats the point Im talking about. Everything came from that. That isn't vague. It's of unparallelled importance. We come from that. Each step back or forward is intrinsically linked to it, including how to serve tea. Whats your definition of "unity?"
@CrossTheGrigori If you are talking physics only, or physical phenomenon, and not all meaning-making or knowledge building, IN THEORY there could one day be a TOE linking all currently observed physical phenomena, I guess. In theory.
2 points. First, this is a theory...an abstraction as of right now based on what we know now. What makes you so certain that by the time it is figured out there won't be new questions regarding physical phenomena that need answering? Second...
It's important to point out that when a scientist gets poetic, people freak. Einstein spoke of god, but he didn't mean the god of ANY religion. Speaking about the unity of everything doesn't mean I want to smoke out & braid hemp necklaces. If you look at the work of Carl Sagan, Einstein or a dozen others, you'll find that they're all talking about a framework of a master design, but not a designer. Everything is the result of the preceeding thing & everything around it
@CrossTheGrigori I'm just unwilling to give the idea of "design" much weight. I believe it is a human characteristic/concept only. "Master design" is a description of perceived order, not a real "thing" behind the scenes actually dictating existence. Existence is what it is and "design" only exists in our heads when we make sense of it.
I guess I feel the same way about "unity" as a concept. It caters to our desire to see order and make connections and comes from us.
Ah. I see. It's basically terminology that we're having a problem with. There is NO designer. I'm sure we can agree on that. So using terms like "god, unity, design" end up turning you off of the idea. I can TOTALLY understand that. I used to hate Tom Petty because he mentioned god in a song... come to find out, he was being sarcastic. The problem with that is that most people don't like dry science, let alone understand it... so someone will always object to the terminology.
@CrossTheGrigori Yea, I think that's right. There is a form of squishy thinking that I'm objecting to that involves taking vague concepts like string theory and TOE and quantum mechanics, and trying to give it all a spiritual aura. I have seen some people go so far as to use quantum mechanics and concepts of underlying unity to argue for the existence of souls, in effect mistaking the perception of unity in the universe with some sort of sci-fi mind/universe melding. This does annoy me.
Ok. Yes, I agree with that. I once read a christian website that explained physics to the layman and it was right on the money until they "wrapped it up" at the end, tying it into biblical nonsense. My point is that science IS the real spirituality. What could be more primal and at the core of our being than the very things that we are made of? It's not magic, it's star stuff. If you can't be romantic about it, it doesn't shake you to your core. Minds die, but atoms live on..
@iridescentsquids I just want to point out that quantum mechanics have proven practical uses in electronics, they are at least functional theory, now TEO, string theory, higgins boson are lovely fairy tails written with numbers and equations as far as functional reality and evidence goes, its a bit like the "god did it thing", you don't know something, so you come up with an hypothesis that proves itself by itself.
I'm with you, let people romanticise, don't let them make baseless assertions.
@kamijisaca Many physicists would agree that some theoretical physics isn't science (yet) because it's not falsifiable. But I don't think calling them "fairy tails" is merited (depends on the theory and degree to which it is tending toward falsifiability). The higgins boson, for example, is testible/falsifiable.
And none of these major forms of theoretical physics you mention are "a bit" like the "god did it" assertion. At all. Very different techniques for forming beliefs. Very different.
@iridescentsquids That yet seams to me to be putting to much "faith" in this Hypothesis. the faery tail par is just because they are beautiful in the way the describe the linking between general relativity and quantum physics, but to this point they are nothing more than exercises in imagination and math
The boson is different but still is nothing more than a hypothetical particle
I disagree with the 2nd part, both are hypothesis to fill a gap in our knowledge, and aren't based on known reality
@kamijisaca Not exactly. Things fall outside the purview of science when they are unfalsifiable. The boson hypothesis is falsifiable, and they are working on that now. It is hoped there will be a definitive answer soon, in fact.
Also, not all unfalsifiable concepts are equally unscientific. I agree with Karl Popper on this point. There are some things that we may not be able to test now, but will be able to in the future, which stand apart from pure fairytales.
@kamijisaca Right. i agree more or less that a hypothesis that has not be tested (I would not say proven true, but at least tested) should not be assumed to be true. But science isn't really positing that anything is absolutely true. It is simply a process to help us better determine what is true based on observations...always tentative and subject to change based on new observations.
@iridescentsquids cont... until they are proven right they are only testament to bad scientific method.
In real science reality fits in the theory not the other way around.
I'm not against trying to prove this hypothesis, I simply say that they are dubious and given to much credit, and by assuming them correct you are making the life of "real" scientist that might produce useless knowledge, and slowing any criticism and possible advance on GR and QPh, because the problem may reside there.
@kamijisaca woah, there...No. I don't agree that until a hypothesis is proven right it is a testament to bad science. The entire process is good science, so long as nothing is deemed absolutely proven. There is not absolute determination for what hypothesis are true or false in good science.
Some of these "dubious" hypothesis are leading hypothesis because they stand up to scrutiny and explain are observations extremely well. You might simply be mistaken regarding the details of the theories.
@iridescentsquids wow you got me wrong, they are not a testament to bad science because they are unproven, being unproven only makes them unacceptable as true. what makes them bad science is the methodology used, I don't know if my english is good enough to explain it but I'll try.
At least to my layman knowledge of ST (TOE are so many and continually discredited that I don't bother with them) is a model that basically tries to make every thing fit in it, that's it's major appeal...cont
@kamijisaca I think I know what you are getting at. I am all for skepticism with regards to theories, like ST, that are simply unfalsifiable in the near future.
These are very sketchy, as intriguing as they are.
However, aside from the occasional inaccurate science program on TV, I don't think anybody is running around proclaiming these to be true. Are they? Just wild ideas that are very interesting. And which we hope some day to be testable. But until then...just interesting.
@iridescentsquids I would say more they are beautiful, elegant and a great testament to human creativity and abstract thinking.
But the term Theory caries great weight in science, and for the moment they are hypothesis nothing more and should be call accordingly.
I disagree with them not being proclaimed as true, most knowledge available to the layman about this subjects gives a clear idea that this is scientific fact, also you can see this in cosmology (don't get me started on dark....cont
And of course a some of this people don't have any ethical problem spreading this as fact because it is good for their career, and in case of Michio Kaku to sustain their delusions of grandeur.
I personally think that this kind of "scientific" work is getting to much attention and respect in the community, diverting founds and attention of better more important work.
Also IMHO it corrupts the scientific method...cont
@iridescentsquids cont... it's not testable repeatedly or is a working model beyond the math.
And its even more dubious because it arises from a need to link two theories, not to describe a natural event.
I personally only trust science that has been use for practical means (civil engineer), and I know that you need a lot of work to produce something useful, and models are always changing because error have a big price in the real world.
@CrossTheGrigori (con't) the caller is not limiting his concept of unity to physical phenomena. He is hinting at a kind of unity of meaning-making... a kind of be all and end all of knowledge. Which I thought we were also talking about.
I kindof see your point that it is obvious that all physical things are related (i'm not sure unified is the right word), but I would argue that this "fact" is just a concept and not a practical, physical observation. Like the concept of infinity.
Well I see the guys on here don't respond however, I'll leave my 2 widow's mites anyway. How can these men say that the info will not transfer? Do they have any understanding of our human bodies and how info transfers there? Since we live in Jesus body after the event horizon that is his resurrection, it stands to reason from an extra sensory logical perspective that info does pass from the vastly separated particles.
@wordword31 Okay, but you're making a premise that is essentially nonsensical. You say that you live in Jesus' body, yet your physical location hasn't changed. You don't live inside anyone else's body, at least not since you were a fetus. From a scientific standpoint, nothing has changed about you since your conversion other than your opinion on something.
@TheOmegajuice how is that ridiculous? it takes a higher level of thinking to understand that than you obviously have. think about it. what do you know? You "know" thru your senses, which are completely different among people and other animals.
so you dont really "know" anything. You sense what you think is real
@stitchmorg You are saying that you KNOW that you DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
That sentence is necessarily false because if you don't know anything then you cannot know that you don't know anything because that itself is knowing something.
Also, don't be condescending to me. You haven't shown an ability to have a 'higher level of understanding' than me especially since your very first claim is inherently contradictory
@TheOmegajuice obviously i do have an understanding that you dont. This is what im saying: "you dont know anything, what you "know" is what you acquired thru your senses".
Thats pretty straight foward. If you dont understand that, then yes you are not up to that level of thinking. Its only contradictary if your a dipshit. which in this case, you clearly are
@stitchmorg OK so 'I know X' is different to 'I "know" X'.
It appears you are saying that "know" means 'think you know, but you don't'. Well that's fine, you can use that definition however the problem is that you are implying that your knowledge that "we know nothing" is more than simply a belief you have gained from your senses etc. So how have you come to that knowledge. How do you know that you know nothing, rather than "know" you know nothing.
@TheOmegajuice its obvious. thats why people set up religions. This is not an arguement kid. its cut and dry. you get it or you dont. Replace the word "know" with think and youve got the point.
@stitchmorg I agree that it's not an argument. The statement 'I don't know anything' is necessarily false (which is implied when you said 'we don't know anything'.
You appear to believe that it's certainly true ('cut and dry' as it were) but it isn't, in fact if it true we could not know it. As it turns out it is demonstrably false, there are plenty of things were it's falsity is self-contradictory therefore it's truth is certain and known, not known.
@stitchmorg I understand what you are doing, you are talking an infuriating 'postmodernist' approach to truth so that you can say. I believe this, you believe that, both of us have just as much justification so lets just not argue. NO there are things that we know, and there are things we are probable (we don't know them for certain but they we are well justified in believing them) and then there are unjustified beliefs...
@stitchmorg There is a hierarchy of beliefs and claims that we can roughly sort out based upon their level of rational justification and objective evidence. Religious beliefs and claims are at the bottom of this hierarchy, they have little or no justification.
@stitchmorg Also, don't fucking patronise me. Being an idiot who fails to understand elementary epistemology is one thing, but attempting to eleveate yourself to some 'high level of understanding' while doing so makes you doubly foolish, and it makes you an obnoxious c***.
@TheOmegajuice when an online coversation bothers you this much, you need to go seek help. I dont have to elevate myself. Thats what both of my degrees are for
@TheOmegajuice its not even an argument. you just expanded on it. really we agree with each other, but you want to define it more. which is fine, but harder to do while typing because we cant understand it as well as spoken language.
@stitchmorg It's also worth saying that there are plenty of things that I consider myself to KNOW that have nothing at all to do with experience. There are some things that can be known by pure logic.
Sure we're all connected by many things... quantum entanglement, we all are immersed in the gravitational field, we share the structure of the universe by perceiving the same universe.
"woahhhhh maaaaaaan....it's like we're all like...connected bro..." according to science. don't think of connected as locked up, more like interrelated or a seeing everything as whole in it's entirety [also all has a common origin/ ancestry]. the fact your mocking statement got so many thumbs up shows most staunch atheists are juvenile and superficial [like many in cults potentially are]
just because someone's not a self proclaimed staunch black and white pov atheist, doesn't automatically make them a religious person or Xtian, etc. the problem with atheism or theism imo is they are both extreme sides of the spectrum [commonly absent of Inspiration], can be influenced by groupthink and regularly want to pass their version of the world to everyone else through being intimidating or shit talking, instead of being centered or balanced.
If people want to feel connected to the universe & their fellow human beings, they need to look no further than the fact, all the non-man made elements came from stars, & therefore we came from stars. Also, all humans share a common biology, a similar sociology, & psychology. We all share cultures, emotions, etc, they vary from society to society, but we all experience them. It is through understanding ourselves & what it means to be human, that we can find a connection, rather than 4 God(s).
Did you know that if you write "I love you" on a label and stick it to a cup of water and then place that cup of water in the freezer, it will affect the symmetry of the ice crystals that form?
@SSJ3Ulcer it's more if one projects positive loving speech or thoughts upon the water affects it's makeup after it's frozen [better symmetry and "beauty" shapes], not so much superficially putting a note on it haphazardly. This was a scientific experiment by Masaru Emoto
@SSJ3Ulcer the way you initially described the experiment was partial; the notes and words on the different water was meant for various people to project the energy and emotion and feeling that those notes and words evoked, toward the water. the patterns of the then frozen crystals were later reviewed, similar to Cymatics and sound frequency vibrations changing shapes, the frozen water crystals had different patterns and shapes, depending on the emotional thought vibratory energetic patterns.
@Harizl Yeah i agree, some people are immune to aids, what im saying is not that some ( FEW FEW ) people have an advantage over others, some do yes indeed.
But it would be foolish to suggest that you cannot understand quantum physics as well as anyone els IF you dont put the highest possible time and effort in trying to understand it, like they do.
Nobody is born with a knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, but we can all learn it.
Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were goofy as hell! I have scrutinized 125, 481 authors of religious bibles in the world and 19 from other planetary systems. Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were the sanest!
"If you explore things that interest you, no mater how time wasting or silly they might seem to somebody else, if you arent obsessing it will turn out better".
one of the greatest wisdoms in the bible. I feel better about my fungus farm now :)
The call was basically says, "..and the universe and, like, we're all interconnected man, and, like, it's all a infinite fractal, and like that's deep man." What an idiot.
@TheOptimistPrime - As for the pseudo spiritual sci-fi ... There's no substance to what you're saying . Grabbing phrases from two subjects (science & religion) & mashing them together in some flowery poetic way just doesn't pass the muster of truth or scientific fact . Take a physics class . Hell, take a carpentry class . Then your words will be infinately more useful .
@MaitreyaRocket I have observed this in most atheists I encountered. Why do you guys always have to be so angry and hostile? Why do you have to throw personal insults? Even if they were not directed towards me (yet)... If your attitudes were better, perhaps dialogues can be much more constructive because both parties would learn something...
@nowayout001 - Anger is a byproduct of frustration. Frustration comes when you throw a book into someone's face & they'll deny they were just hit because it was a science book. I don't see anything personal about it . What is it you seen as a personal affront? One's attitude has no bearing on the veracity of their statements. If you're looking at attitude in accessing truth, you're doing it wrong. Atheism isn't a big part of my life. I'm far more militant about sex, music, surfing , & sleeping.
@MaitreyaRocket " Frustration comes when you throw a book into someone's face & they'll deny they were just hit because it was a science book. I don't see anything personal about it ." poor analogy, if I hit you in the face with a science book, you'd still be frustrated even if you acknowledged it's a science book. Atheism and theism becomes problematic when it becomes so much a part of someone's life that they are biased, bullying and enforce their point of view onto others as if it's absolute.
@JNdigital - A lot of people who miss the point of something are apt to say it was poor point ... The point was, they would deny being hit because it was a science book, not the fact that were hit. Theism is problematic because it has to be a huge part of someone's life at the expense of reality.
@MaitreyaRocket ok you're potentially correct; however, I'm fairly certain I got the point indirectly. Yet, if someone's hit in the face with a book, whether it's a science book or a bible, is equally disrespectful by the person who hit them. even believing oneself to be accurate does not give anyone the right to "hit" someone in the face or treat them like they need to be beaten over the head with a "version" of reality. Staunch cultists will filter out "reality", from fear & 2b bossy 2 others.
@MaitreyaRocket I respect Atheists speaking out against oppressive, manipulative religions, trust me on that. as someone who is more into Inspiration than religion [re legion], I do not appreciate any groupthink, cultish, brainwashed, blinding arrogance. I disrespect atheists who take on some of the same biased, "know it all", us vs. them, with us or against us shunning and inflated ego symptoms of cults and groupthink phenomenon
@TheOptimistPrime - I'm an atheist ... I don't spend my life arguing against Medieval Xtianity ... I don't know of a single one that does . Atheists don't waste time with literal interpretations. It doesn't bother with any interpretations . You're confused about what atheism is & isn't ... It's not not concerned with Xtianity at all. Atheism is the absence of a belief in a deity . Any deity be it from Judaism, Xtianity, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism or Scientology .
@TheOptimistPrime - Atheism has NOTHING to do with medival Christianity . Please, explain what you mean by an "infinite intelligence by way of quantum physics" . It seems to be nonsensical blather .
I can see where he was coming from. I've heard a theory that any particle is everywhere at any time at once (think it's the super-string theory) so in that sense all particles must be the same. But I've probably completely misinterpreted that
My only real issue with Jeff's description of QE is saying we can't instead of not yet.
ADADEL1 3 weeks ago
This guy has NO idea what he's talking about.
He's throwing about words he doesn't actually understand if you ask me, and making an incoherent word salad out of them.
It's about equivalent to saying 'Man, this joint is like... all strings man! Wouldn't that be cosmic! We're all one!' At least that's what I hear when I listen to this caller.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
from playing the angel album,- suffer well
casablanca4381 1 month ago
theme song is from depeche mode!!!
casablanca4381 1 month ago
They're talking about quantum entanglement. All matter seems to be connected.
derman077 2 months ago
@rysw "...abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties."
If you're looking for truth/falsity of a theory, that's the point where you'll find it. Note the key words *observable* and *quantifiable*.
And while you may be a *student* of physics, I am an actual physicist. Please don't tarnish our field with your sophomoric crap.
Yudovitch 2 months ago
There's a St. Charles, Michigan as well.
micometer 4 months ago
Everybody knows Newtonian Physics is the answer to everything. Don't forget about how much we can trust our senses and experts who teach us at good ol reliable college. Forget the mystics who talk about The Unified Field of Intelligence. Quantum Physics is just a Theory. MTV is more real. At least I can see MTV, therefore it's real. (fecetious)...Fucking Bill Hicks knows more about reality than these guys. Imagine that.
Sailor231 4 months ago
@Sailor231 'just a theory' doesn't discredit quantum mechanics . Gravity is 'just a theory'. Quantum mechanics is very, very real. The atom bomb, price scanners, these all have their functions within QM. I can't remember in which context this is, but apprently you can predict certain with certain accuracy things in QM to an inconceivable preciseness. So to dismiss it is to undermine the scientific method, hence intellectual suicide :)
lanceawatt 2 months ago
@lanceawatt The common example is the magnetic moment of the electron, which QM predicts to the same accuracy as throwing a dart at the moon and striking a target the size of an average human face. This at least was Richard Feynman's analogy.
Yudovitch 2 months ago
@Yudovitch great, thanks, I need to freshen up on my knowledge a bit though lol =)
lanceawatt 2 months ago
I couldn't watch more than a minute of this video. All of this talk of singularity and interconnectedness put my brain to sleep.
Draginvry2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
@lightandbeautiful what social agenda is that? please do tell.
xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx 1 month ago
I like to pretend the spaghetti monster is debating at 0:41.
Scissorbelly 4 months ago
it's sad to hear matt mistake what scientific theories are. theories don't need to be supported by evidence. any framework that has the capacity to describe a set of phenomena is a theory. some of them happen to be really good, but i could invent a false scientific theory right now.
rysw19 5 months ago
Comment removed
GregJPreece 5 months ago
@rysw19 Pro-tip: if you're going to claim to know what scientific theories are, actually know. There is a great difference between a scientific theory and the way "theory" is used by the layman.
GregJPreece 5 months ago 14
@GregJPreece yes there is, and i described it precisely. i am a physics student at a top scientific university.
rysw19 4 months ago
@GregJPreece i know very well the difference, sir (and you apparently don't). but there are true scientific theories and false ones. just look up the phlogiston theory. the difference is their capacity to generalize and describe a set of phenomena, as i said.
rysw19 4 months ago
@GregJPreece People think a scientific theory is a hypothesis. They think the scientific "law" is what these things need to be in order to be considered proven.
What they frustratingly don't understand, is that in order for a scientific theory to be a considered a theory, it has to be proven with evidence and made up of scientific laws. A theory is the thing that actually explains how a natural phenomenon works.
sk8tafrnk 3 months ago
@GregJPreece what do you mean by that statement, to actually "Know" makes alot of sense when it comes down to all this rhetoric going on around the world today which can and does question what anyone truly knows about anything they think rather than what they have memorized...
DrFruedienslip 2 months ago
@DrFruedienslip You're describing a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory, in scientific terms, *is* supported by observation, experimentation and evidence.
GregJPreece 2 months ago
@GregJPreece Thanks, I think I know what you mean.
DrFruedienslip 2 months ago
@rysw19 No, it's you that's mistaken. "A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
As for the "false scientific theory" you could invent, that would be a hypothesis.
PhobicOne 4 months ago 5
@PhobicOne i agree with your definition completely, and i'd like to note that it says nothing of the truth or falsity of the claim. just look up phlogiston theory or the geocentric theory. QED.
rysw19 4 months ago
@rysw19 Well, you know, data's sorta the closest anyone can come to truth in reality.
As for your examples, both are falsely labelled as "theories", as they do NOT conform to available empirical data. They only exist as theories historically.
PhobicOne 4 months ago
@PhobicOne data is NOT the closest one can come to truth. raw data is worthless. it's the generalizations that can be made from these data that are meaningful.
and those very well ARE theories. there is a logically consistent way of describing a reality such as our own in geocentric terms; however, it is evidently not the universe that we DO live in.
i am a student of physics, and i know damn well what a scientific theory is. the task of scientists is to find what the BEST theory is.
rysw19 4 months ago
@rysw19 Theories are to data as psychology is to human behavior; Both are attempts to explain their fields. In that sense, data IS the closest one can come to truth, as barring instrument failure data is the building block upon which all empirical study of the world (including scientific theories) is based.
And no, they are NOT, as they are not "logically consistent ways of describing a reality such as our own". Historically they are entitled theories, like historically Einstein was a student.
PhobicOne 4 months ago
@rysw19 Also, beautiful attempt at an appeal to authority. All I can say about your claim to being a student of physics is that your studies are incomplete if you cannot differentiate between a theory and a hypothesis.
PhobicOne 4 months ago
@PhobicOne it's not an appeal to an authority. i'm saying that i have studied the matter, and i use the terms regularly. YOU are the one who does not understand the difference.
from wikipedia: A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.
notice it says nothing of truth or falsity.
rysw19 4 months ago
@rysw19 Now, I know you like thinking that being a student of physics you can comment on things that you really should understand despite being obviously misinformed, but I digress. Let's go to English class.
Let's see if you can find a short four-letter-word that can be used as a substitute for "abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties". Here's a hint: It's data.
PhobicOne 4 months ago
@PhobicOne are you serious? data are NOT the abstractions. abstractions are made from the generalizations OF data. is the universal law of gravitation DATA? no, it is a generalization OF data. i'm just going to leave it there, because you obviously have a basic misunderstanding.
rysw19 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhobicOne are you serious? data are NOT the abstractions. abstractions are made from the generalizations OF data. is the universal law of gravitation DATA? no, it is a generalization OF data. i'm just going to leave it there, because you obviously have a basic misunderstanding.
rysw19 4 months ago
Comment removed
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhobicOne No - Matt doesn't really understand what a theory is here. It's possible for a theory to be false, as long as it's a real *theory* and not just a few propositions. It's not like you go from "hypothesis" to "leading hypothesis" to "theory"; a theory is about how thorough your framework is, not how true, provided it conforms with the available evidence. This is why theoretical physics is called such, since it primarily concerns itself with *expanding* the theory, not replacing it.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
Islam does NOT deny or rejects evolution, !!! ignorant, illiterate (so called muslims) rejects evolution. Quran mentions "God created everything from water" 21:30 (Miller–Urey experiment) "... and indeed we (God singular) perfected it (living beings) 24:64
jaddy316 5 months ago
@jaddy316 Errr dude? You're quote mining. Surah 21:30 in my Qu'ran says also that the heavens and Earth were joined, then "clove asunder". And given that in 21:32 it refers to the heavens as "a canopy well guarded", this seems to be implying that the stars and Earth were once connected. And you're claiming this as being scientifically consistent? To be honest, do you know what the that section of Surah 21 reads like if you read it in full? The Book of Genesis.
GregJPreece 5 months ago
@jaddy316 I think your other attempt at a quote mine is just plain wrong, as 24:64 says nothing of the sort.
GregJPreece 5 months ago
@jaddy316 from water? that's not true. the oldest greek philosophers speculated that the world somehow arose out of water. but you need a lot more than water to make life. you see that's the problem with holy books: they say nonsensical things that accuarately reflect the ignorance of the people of the time. but then some genius starts to re-interpret: well, you need water for l ife, and the first forms of life were in water, that means the holy bookk was right! no it wasn't.
topperheartramada 4 months ago
Lol These guys<Science
Budney420 5 months ago
at 4:25, YES YOU CAN use them to communicate information, its a new breakthrough that they've just found recently that you can transfer information from one atom to another regardless of distance, yes its teleporting, and yes it is happens.
Budney420 5 months ago
At 1:40 have you ever heard of quantum entanglement? It states that yes all things are interconnected, if at one time everything was at the point smaller than an atom, all atoms and energy were interconnected and do retain that connectedness no matter how far apart they get. An entangled atom will react to its polarity regardless of the distance/time separating them.
Budney420 5 months ago
Some of the scientists quoted in the movie didn't agree with everything that was said, and complained about being taken out of context. The filmmakers then published an extended version, where each speaker was shown uninterrupted making their entire point.
Further, Fred Alan Wolf and Amrit Goswami ARE real physicists, and definitely believe in the entanglement of sentient beings. Physicist Frijtof Kapra wrote The Tao of Physics in the 1970s making the same points in depth.
Tanfeliz 5 months ago
Entangled!
lozleigh 6 months ago
@lozleigh cocked locked and ready to roll
JNdigital 6 months ago
@lozleigh that would be the word he couldn't think of
stalkingcat123 6 months ago
"I heard this one thing one time about this thing that affects stuff in ways that makes me think that, you know, if we were all locked in this smaller and smaller holographic fractal arm, and you know, conected in a sungularity, that the thing that i heard of doing this makes me think that we are all right about here and now."
Please pass the bong.
swimrski 6 months ago
Comment removed
JNdigital 6 months ago
@swimrski I am know thing and no. 1
JNdigital 6 months ago
@swimrski u used the word "locked" instead of interrelated, that's why I didn't use the term "entangled" I prefer interrelated affect energetically
JNdigital 6 months ago
@swimrski here and now = nowhere. keep talking shit if u like eating shit
JNdigital 6 months ago
In the begining God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Zwemer100 6 months ago
@Zwemer100 Prove it
Ironsharp 6 months ago in playlist d
@Zwemer100
In the beginning Gaia created the Earth - Greek mythology
In the beginning Terra created the Earth - Roman mythology
In the beginning Brahma created the Earth - Hindu mythology
Yours has no more proof than theirs at the moment.
JMUDoc 5 months ago
When approached by filmmakers scientists should get in the habit of asking to see the treatment, or some reasonably detailed description of the movie and it's purpose, before agreeing to an interview that will appear in the movie. If I were approached for a documentary I would also insist on approval rights to the final edit of my interview. That would solve the problems scientists have gotten into with films like ...Bleep... and Expelled.
Kailoa36 6 months ago
Quantum Entanglement is what they are talking about at about 3:50.
Kailoa36 6 months ago
The most appropriate title for a video from TAE I have seen.
pompousprick 6 months ago
I'm so glad Christianity and Religion exists. If it didn't we wouldn't have this awesome show.
Sikoa2617 7 months ago
@Sikoa2617 looking on the bright side. this is opposing side of the spectrum of group mentality, basically
JNdigital 6 months ago
I'm going to have to point out that a theory is far more than a guess. The TOE is a fact. We just haven't found it yet. From the moment Maxwell published his Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism, we've been building towards it. All matter is energy. That's pretty unifying. There will always be more questions and that's GOOD! :) I'm not proposing an end to knowledge, just a master code to what we call reality. Knowing E=Mc2 doesn't grant you the ability to understand physics, but it's a good start
CrossTheGrigori 7 months ago
Quantum entanglement.
Kailoa36 8 months ago
This guy doesn't understand the holographic principle.
brogin 8 months ago
If something that's infinate has no beginning or end, then where did the term "infinity" come from? Infinity has no beginning or end, right? So, when did we start using the term to describe it?
Tarynus 8 months ago
@Tarynus You're an intellectual powerhouse.
InfiniteConqueror 8 months ago
@InfiniteConqueror It's just a simple question, really XD
Tarynus 8 months ago
@Tarynus To call it a simple question would be to give it too much credit. Someone at sometime enunciated a concept of no beginning and without end, and the word in the English language, derived from Latin, to describe that concept is infinite. Are you implying that to describe a process it must have a beginning and an end before it can be defined? Rhetorical question. Might I add it just came to my attention how appropriate it was for I, with this username, to be addressing this question.
InfiniteConqueror 8 months ago
@InfiniteConqueror Touché, good sir
Tarynus 8 months ago
I think it's rather messed up that they totally discount everything that the caller is saying. He's talking about science. He's not talking about metaphysics. I've "read up" on the very same things & I think that they're just frightened of the word "interconnected." We ARE all interconnected. The fact that you buying a cheeseburger affects a guy in Hawai'i who sells his goods to the owner of the burger chain who went there with the money he made off you proves that. It's not a "spiritual" thing
CrossTheGrigori 8 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori Nah. This guy's concept of interconnectedness goes beyond both science and the common sense notion of cause/effect that you describe. He himself admits it's a thought-game derived from vague concepts spanning many unrelated fields of science. I think they were right on to point out that the actual science is far more specialized than the vague quotes and concepts popular culture weans from them to create editorials and sci-fi entertainment. It's fun but not accurate.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids
I can easily agree with what you said, but one of the problems facing the medical field is that general practitioners don't know enough to know what they're seeing on a daily basis. They misdiagnose things or take forever to send you to the right specialist, who will attack the problem from their own field, excluding any other possibilities. These specializations tend to hold back real progress. Not just in medicine, but science as well. The universe doesn't have catagories
CrossTheGrigori 7 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori Your analogy exposes the same error, though.
Each specialist attempts to diagnose through necessarily limited skills/knowledge. We can IMAGINE a doctor so knowledgeable they are experts in all fields, but even that is limited. In reality you only have increasingly broad specialization of knowledge.
My point: It's an error to assume there is an opposite to specialized knowledge (that there is a unifying knowledge of "everything".) It only exists vaguely, in the imagination.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids
There is no opposite to specialized knowledge because knowledge is just knowledge, it doesn't have edges or catagories. That isn't what I was saying though. It seems to me that you are saying there is no GUT/TOE. That's awfully presumptious. The limits of present day human knowledge cannot be applied to the universe or to the future of mankind. I was saying that there is ONE giant operating system and we can all be traced back to a single point... that IS a kind of unity.
CrossTheGrigori 7 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori No, I'm not referring to "theories of everything" or GUT, which only unify certain things, as I'm sure you are aware. They don't literally unify "everything", but refer to specific phenomenon.
So...what is this single point you are referring to that everything traces back to? Why do you call it a "point"? You aren't referring to a singularity, are you?
I still think this idea of "unity" is at best a vague metaphysical concept, not really all that descriptive or revealing.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids
The TOE is just that.. a theory of everything. No, not of how to best serve tea with toast.. but of the building "blocks" of everything -& tea. The "singularity" is a buzz word like "big bang" used to describe something quickly. Thats the point Im talking about. Everything came from that. That isn't vague. It's of unparallelled importance. We come from that. Each step back or forward is intrinsically linked to it, including how to serve tea. Whats your definition of "unity?"
CrossTheGrigori 7 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori If you are talking physics only, or physical phenomenon, and not all meaning-making or knowledge building, IN THEORY there could one day be a TOE linking all currently observed physical phenomena, I guess. In theory.
2 points. First, this is a theory...an abstraction as of right now based on what we know now. What makes you so certain that by the time it is figured out there won't be new questions regarding physical phenomena that need answering? Second...
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids
(cont)
It's important to point out that when a scientist gets poetic, people freak. Einstein spoke of god, but he didn't mean the god of ANY religion. Speaking about the unity of everything doesn't mean I want to smoke out & braid hemp necklaces. If you look at the work of Carl Sagan, Einstein or a dozen others, you'll find that they're all talking about a framework of a master design, but not a designer. Everything is the result of the preceeding thing & everything around it
CrossTheGrigori 7 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori I'm just unwilling to give the idea of "design" much weight. I believe it is a human characteristic/concept only. "Master design" is a description of perceived order, not a real "thing" behind the scenes actually dictating existence. Existence is what it is and "design" only exists in our heads when we make sense of it.
I guess I feel the same way about "unity" as a concept. It caters to our desire to see order and make connections and comes from us.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids
Ah. I see. It's basically terminology that we're having a problem with. There is NO designer. I'm sure we can agree on that. So using terms like "god, unity, design" end up turning you off of the idea. I can TOTALLY understand that. I used to hate Tom Petty because he mentioned god in a song... come to find out, he was being sarcastic. The problem with that is that most people don't like dry science, let alone understand it... so someone will always object to the terminology.
CrossTheGrigori 7 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori Yea, I think that's right. There is a form of squishy thinking that I'm objecting to that involves taking vague concepts like string theory and TOE and quantum mechanics, and trying to give it all a spiritual aura. I have seen some people go so far as to use quantum mechanics and concepts of underlying unity to argue for the existence of souls, in effect mistaking the perception of unity in the universe with some sort of sci-fi mind/universe melding. This does annoy me.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids
Ok. Yes, I agree with that. I once read a christian website that explained physics to the layman and it was right on the money until they "wrapped it up" at the end, tying it into biblical nonsense. My point is that science IS the real spirituality. What could be more primal and at the core of our being than the very things that we are made of? It's not magic, it's star stuff. If you can't be romantic about it, it doesn't shake you to your core. Minds die, but atoms live on..
CrossTheGrigori 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids I just want to point out that quantum mechanics have proven practical uses in electronics, they are at least functional theory, now TEO, string theory, higgins boson are lovely fairy tails written with numbers and equations as far as functional reality and evidence goes, its a bit like the "god did it thing", you don't know something, so you come up with an hypothesis that proves itself by itself.
I'm with you, let people romanticise, don't let them make baseless assertions.
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@kamijisaca Many physicists would agree that some theoretical physics isn't science (yet) because it's not falsifiable. But I don't think calling them "fairy tails" is merited (depends on the theory and degree to which it is tending toward falsifiability). The higgins boson, for example, is testible/falsifiable.
And none of these major forms of theoretical physics you mention are "a bit" like the "god did it" assertion. At all. Very different techniques for forming beliefs. Very different.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids That yet seams to me to be putting to much "faith" in this Hypothesis. the faery tail par is just because they are beautiful in the way the describe the linking between general relativity and quantum physics, but to this point they are nothing more than exercises in imagination and math
The boson is different but still is nothing more than a hypothetical particle
I disagree with the 2nd part, both are hypothesis to fill a gap in our knowledge, and aren't based on known reality
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@kamijisaca Not exactly. Things fall outside the purview of science when they are unfalsifiable. The boson hypothesis is falsifiable, and they are working on that now. It is hoped there will be a definitive answer soon, in fact.
Also, not all unfalsifiable concepts are equally unscientific. I agree with Karl Popper on this point. There are some things that we may not be able to test now, but will be able to in the future, which stand apart from pure fairytales.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids the faery tail was a metaphor basically saying that its beautiful and appealing but its not part of functional reality.
Not every claim is equally unscientific, but before they are proven right, neither credits any belief.
On the higgins boson, the same is true, if they prove it right ok until then its nothing more them an hypothesis.
Yes in the future they may be proven right, or more likely wrong, that doesn't mean you should assume them to be true...cont
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@kamijisaca Right. i agree more or less that a hypothesis that has not be tested (I would not say proven true, but at least tested) should not be assumed to be true. But science isn't really positing that anything is absolutely true. It is simply a process to help us better determine what is true based on observations...always tentative and subject to change based on new observations.
I think basically we agree.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids cont... until they are proven right they are only testament to bad scientific method.
In real science reality fits in the theory not the other way around.
I'm not against trying to prove this hypothesis, I simply say that they are dubious and given to much credit, and by assuming them correct you are making the life of "real" scientist that might produce useless knowledge, and slowing any criticism and possible advance on GR and QPh, because the problem may reside there.
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@kamijisaca woah, there...No. I don't agree that until a hypothesis is proven right it is a testament to bad science. The entire process is good science, so long as nothing is deemed absolutely proven. There is not absolute determination for what hypothesis are true or false in good science.
Some of these "dubious" hypothesis are leading hypothesis because they stand up to scrutiny and explain are observations extremely well. You might simply be mistaken regarding the details of the theories.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids wow you got me wrong, they are not a testament to bad science because they are unproven, being unproven only makes them unacceptable as true. what makes them bad science is the methodology used, I don't know if my english is good enough to explain it but I'll try.
At least to my layman knowledge of ST (TOE are so many and continually discredited that I don't bother with them) is a model that basically tries to make every thing fit in it, that's it's major appeal...cont
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@kamijisaca I think I know what you are getting at. I am all for skepticism with regards to theories, like ST, that are simply unfalsifiable in the near future.
These are very sketchy, as intriguing as they are.
However, aside from the occasional inaccurate science program on TV, I don't think anybody is running around proclaiming these to be true. Are they? Just wild ideas that are very interesting. And which we hope some day to be testable. But until then...just interesting.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids I would say more they are beautiful, elegant and a great testament to human creativity and abstract thinking.
But the term Theory caries great weight in science, and for the moment they are hypothesis nothing more and should be call accordingly.
I disagree with them not being proclaimed as true, most knowledge available to the layman about this subjects gives a clear idea that this is scientific fact, also you can see this in cosmology (don't get me started on dark....cont
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids cont... matter and the open universe).
And of course a some of this people don't have any ethical problem spreading this as fact because it is good for their career, and in case of Michio Kaku to sustain their delusions of grandeur.
I personally think that this kind of "scientific" work is getting to much attention and respect in the community, diverting founds and attention of better more important work.
Also IMHO it corrupts the scientific method...cont
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids cont... ,perverts its virtues, and may be an impediment for other people to do more serious work.
to finish I would like to thank you for the best discussion I had in a long time in youtube, I think i learned a bit and it was very enjoyable.
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids cont... it's not testable repeatedly or is a working model beyond the math.
And its even more dubious because it arises from a need to link two theories, not to describe a natural event.
I personally only trust science that has been use for practical means (civil engineer), and I know that you need a lot of work to produce something useful, and models are always changing because error have a big price in the real world.
kamijisaca 7 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori (con't) the caller is not limiting his concept of unity to physical phenomena. He is hinting at a kind of unity of meaning-making... a kind of be all and end all of knowledge. Which I thought we were also talking about.
I kindof see your point that it is obvious that all physical things are related (i'm not sure unified is the right word), but I would argue that this "fact" is just a concept and not a practical, physical observation. Like the concept of infinity.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
proof of athiest = NO RAPTURE!!
HA!!
Mikeybetts 8 months ago
why do some people try to make are existence have way more meaning than it really does? they just can't accept not being special.
k0rps3gynd3r 8 months ago
Well I see the guys on here don't respond however, I'll leave my 2 widow's mites anyway. How can these men say that the info will not transfer? Do they have any understanding of our human bodies and how info transfers there? Since we live in Jesus body after the event horizon that is his resurrection, it stands to reason from an extra sensory logical perspective that info does pass from the vastly separated particles.
wordword31 9 months ago
@wordword31 Okay, but you're making a premise that is essentially nonsensical. You say that you live in Jesus' body, yet your physical location hasn't changed. You don't live inside anyone else's body, at least not since you were a fetus. From a scientific standpoint, nothing has changed about you since your conversion other than your opinion on something.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
we really dont know anything, our existence is marked by trying to figure out truths that we will never know.
The bible is not a bad book, it is a great teacher on how not to spread disease and how to live
stitchmorg 9 months ago
@stitchmorg 'We don't know anything'
Do you know that?
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@TheOmegajuice yes i do know that. dont come to a philosphical convo with stupid shit. bring something good to the table kid
stitchmorg 8 months ago
@stitchmorg So you know that you don't know anything...
Do you not see why that is ridiculous?
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@TheOmegajuice how is that ridiculous? it takes a higher level of thinking to understand that than you obviously have. think about it. what do you know? You "know" thru your senses, which are completely different among people and other animals.
so you dont really "know" anything. You sense what you think is real
stitchmorg 8 months ago
@stitchmorg You are saying that you KNOW that you DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
That sentence is necessarily false because if you don't know anything then you cannot know that you don't know anything because that itself is knowing something.
Also, don't be condescending to me. You haven't shown an ability to have a 'higher level of understanding' than me especially since your very first claim is inherently contradictory
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@TheOmegajuice obviously i do have an understanding that you dont. This is what im saying: "you dont know anything, what you "know" is what you acquired thru your senses".
Thats pretty straight foward. If you dont understand that, then yes you are not up to that level of thinking. Its only contradictary if your a dipshit. which in this case, you clearly are
stitchmorg 8 months ago
@stitchmorg OK so 'I know X' is different to 'I "know" X'.
It appears you are saying that "know" means 'think you know, but you don't'. Well that's fine, you can use that definition however the problem is that you are implying that your knowledge that "we know nothing" is more than simply a belief you have gained from your senses etc. So how have you come to that knowledge. How do you know that you know nothing, rather than "know" you know nothing.
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@TheOmegajuice its obvious. thats why people set up religions. This is not an arguement kid. its cut and dry. you get it or you dont. Replace the word "know" with think and youve got the point.
stitchmorg 8 months ago
@stitchmorg I agree that it's not an argument. The statement 'I don't know anything' is necessarily false (which is implied when you said 'we don't know anything'.
You appear to believe that it's certainly true ('cut and dry' as it were) but it isn't, in fact if it true we could not know it. As it turns out it is demonstrably false, there are plenty of things were it's falsity is self-contradictory therefore it's truth is certain and known, not known.
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@stitchmorg I understand what you are doing, you are talking an infuriating 'postmodernist' approach to truth so that you can say. I believe this, you believe that, both of us have just as much justification so lets just not argue. NO there are things that we know, and there are things we are probable (we don't know them for certain but they we are well justified in believing them) and then there are unjustified beliefs...
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@stitchmorg There is a hierarchy of beliefs and claims that we can roughly sort out based upon their level of rational justification and objective evidence. Religious beliefs and claims are at the bottom of this hierarchy, they have little or no justification.
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@stitchmorg Also, don't fucking patronise me. Being an idiot who fails to understand elementary epistemology is one thing, but attempting to eleveate yourself to some 'high level of understanding' while doing so makes you doubly foolish, and it makes you an obnoxious c***.
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@TheOmegajuice when an online coversation bothers you this much, you need to go seek help. I dont have to elevate myself. Thats what both of my degrees are for
stitchmorg 8 months ago
@stitchmorg The argument itself is fine I just don't like the way you are addressing me. I'm not especially bothered by it I just want you to stop.
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@TheOmegajuice its not even an argument. you just expanded on it. really we agree with each other, but you want to define it more. which is fine, but harder to do while typing because we cant understand it as well as spoken language.
stitchmorg 8 months ago
@stitchmorg It's also worth saying that there are plenty of things that I consider myself to KNOW that have nothing at all to do with experience. There are some things that can be known by pure logic.
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago
@TheOmegajuice such as what?
stitchmorg 8 months ago
Sure we're all connected by many things... quantum entanglement, we all are immersed in the gravitational field, we share the structure of the universe by perceiving the same universe.
TaterGumfries 9 months ago
Would someone be so good as to identify the song that plays at the beginning of this? I would like to track it down.
DrakeDun 9 months ago
XD the EPR paradox!!!!!!!!!
konohanominato 9 months ago
hello old friend...
monsterdemon25 9 months ago
what's the song being used at the beginning? anyone know?
mutley2209 10 months ago
@mutley2209 If you'd searched through the comments with Ctrl+F you would've found it to be Depeche Mode – Suffer Well :)
CirkusBolgen 10 months ago
@CirkusBolgen cool that's two things i didn't know lol gunna get my rock on then! |m|(^^,)
mutley2209 10 months ago
@jcoll83 "other than we are all made of matter" and energetically, also all has a common origin commonality
JNdigital 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"woahhhhh maaaaaaan....it's like we're all like...connected bro..." according to science. don't think of connected as locked up, more like interrelated or a seeing everything as whole in it's entirety [also all has a common origin/ ancestry]. the fact your mocking statement got so many thumbs up shows most staunch atheists are juvenile and superficial [like many in cults potentially are]
JNdigital 10 months ago
just because someone's not a self proclaimed staunch black and white pov atheist, doesn't automatically make them a religious person or Xtian, etc. the problem with atheism or theism imo is they are both extreme sides of the spectrum [commonly absent of Inspiration], can be influenced by groupthink and regularly want to pass their version of the world to everyone else through being intimidating or shit talking, instead of being centered or balanced.
atheism = too dismal
theism = too oppressive
JNdigital 10 months ago
that guys trippin!
pf37rss 10 months ago
@pf37rss you talking about Matt and Jen
JNdigital 10 months ago
If people want to feel connected to the universe & their fellow human beings, they need to look no further than the fact, all the non-man made elements came from stars, & therefore we came from stars. Also, all humans share a common biology, a similar sociology, & psychology. We all share cultures, emotions, etc, they vary from society to society, but we all experience them. It is through understanding ourselves & what it means to be human, that we can find a connection, rather than 4 God(s).
ernestmac13 10 months ago
mark 73 is correct ,its called quantum entangelment , and it will work over any distance ,
sentinelxr 10 months ago
The term he can't think of is "quantum entanglement".
Mark73 10 months ago
I think the caller has been reading Gregg Braden.
HIMOG93 11 months ago
I think 'entanglement' is the word Jeff was looking for.
roont 11 months ago
Did you know that if you write "I love you" on a label and stick it to a cup of water and then place that cup of water in the freezer, it will affect the symmetry of the ice crystals that form?
Yeah, right.
SSJ3Ulcer 11 months ago
@SSJ3Ulcer it's more if one projects positive loving speech or thoughts upon the water affects it's makeup after it's frozen [better symmetry and "beauty" shapes], not so much superficially putting a note on it haphazardly. This was a scientific experiment by Masaru Emoto
JNdigital 10 months ago
@JNdigital Yeah. Very scientific.
SSJ3Ulcer 10 months ago
Comment removed
JNdigital 10 months ago
@SSJ3Ulcer the way you initially described the experiment was partial; the notes and words on the different water was meant for various people to project the energy and emotion and feeling that those notes and words evoked, toward the water. the patterns of the then frozen crystals were later reviewed, similar to Cymatics and sound frequency vibrations changing shapes, the frozen water crystals had different patterns and shapes, depending on the emotional thought vibratory energetic patterns.
JNdigital 10 months ago
@Harizl Yeah i agree, some people are immune to aids, what im saying is not that some ( FEW FEW ) people have an advantage over others, some do yes indeed.
But it would be foolish to suggest that you cannot understand quantum physics as well as anyone els IF you dont put the highest possible time and effort in trying to understand it, like they do.
Nobody is born with a knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, but we can all learn it.
This is going in circles BTw xD
JollSSteR 11 months ago
Guy isn't very coherent.
Deadboltt 11 months ago
0:40
I want a Flying Spaghetti Monster plushie!
SinnFein4ever 11 months ago
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman
Mattm1986 11 months ago
"the large HALON collidor" lol! not exactly but nice try =)
sailorstarrr 11 months ago
@sailorstarrr I think watching this video made me dumber... just realized I spelled collider wrong =P
sailorstarrr 11 months ago
I have got to get me one of those spagetti monsters!
talover30 1 year ago
Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were goofy as hell! I have scrutinized 125, 481 authors of religious bibles in the world and 19 from other planetary systems. Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were the sanest!
Zeeeeek 1 year ago
"If you explore things that interest you, no mater how time wasting or silly they might seem to somebody else, if you arent obsessing it will turn out better".
one of the greatest wisdoms in the bible. I feel better about my fungus farm now :)
mijav2 1 year ago
The call was basically says, "..and the universe and, like, we're all interconnected man, and, like, it's all a infinite fractal, and like that's deep man." What an idiot.
tron81 1 year ago
We are all energy that has been transformed into matter. That energy uses out brain to be conscious. That energy came from the big bang.
GTRrocker666 1 year ago
well we are all made of the the same stuff from the big bang; is that what he meant?
nailo1 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime - As for the pseudo spiritual sci-fi ... There's no substance to what you're saying . Grabbing phrases from two subjects (science & religion) & mashing them together in some flowery poetic way just doesn't pass the muster of truth or scientific fact . Take a physics class . Hell, take a carpentry class . Then your words will be infinately more useful .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket I have observed this in most atheists I encountered. Why do you guys always have to be so angry and hostile? Why do you have to throw personal insults? Even if they were not directed towards me (yet)... If your attitudes were better, perhaps dialogues can be much more constructive because both parties would learn something...
nowayout001 1 year ago
@nowayout001 - Anger is a byproduct of frustration. Frustration comes when you throw a book into someone's face & they'll deny they were just hit because it was a science book. I don't see anything personal about it . What is it you seen as a personal affront? One's attitude has no bearing on the veracity of their statements. If you're looking at attitude in accessing truth, you're doing it wrong. Atheism isn't a big part of my life. I'm far more militant about sex, music, surfing , & sleeping.
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago 13
Comment removed
JNdigital 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket " Frustration comes when you throw a book into someone's face & they'll deny they were just hit because it was a science book. I don't see anything personal about it ." poor analogy, if I hit you in the face with a science book, you'd still be frustrated even if you acknowledged it's a science book. Atheism and theism becomes problematic when it becomes so much a part of someone's life that they are biased, bullying and enforce their point of view onto others as if it's absolute.
JNdigital 10 months ago
@JNdigital - A lot of people who miss the point of something are apt to say it was poor point ... The point was, they would deny being hit because it was a science book, not the fact that were hit. Theism is problematic because it has to be a huge part of someone's life at the expense of reality.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket ok you're potentially correct; however, I'm fairly certain I got the point indirectly. Yet, if someone's hit in the face with a book, whether it's a science book or a bible, is equally disrespectful by the person who hit them. even believing oneself to be accurate does not give anyone the right to "hit" someone in the face or treat them like they need to be beaten over the head with a "version" of reality. Staunch cultists will filter out "reality", from fear & 2b bossy 2 others.
JNdigital 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket I respect Atheists speaking out against oppressive, manipulative religions, trust me on that. as someone who is more into Inspiration than religion [re legion], I do not appreciate any groupthink, cultish, brainwashed, blinding arrogance. I disrespect atheists who take on some of the same biased, "know it all", us vs. them, with us or against us shunning and inflated ego symptoms of cults and groupthink phenomenon
JNdigital 10 months ago 2
@JNdigital well said
TheNorsePagan 9 months ago
@TheNorsePagan thank you
JNdigital 9 months ago
Comment removed
PTurchan1 8 months ago
@TheOptimistPrime - I'm an atheist ... I don't spend my life arguing against Medieval Xtianity ... I don't know of a single one that does . Atheists don't waste time with literal interpretations. It doesn't bother with any interpretations . You're confused about what atheism is & isn't ... It's not not concerned with Xtianity at all. Atheism is the absence of a belief in a deity . Any deity be it from Judaism, Xtianity, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism or Scientology .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime - Atheism has NOTHING to do with medival Christianity . Please, explain what you mean by an "infinite intelligence by way of quantum physics" . It seems to be nonsensical blather .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
LoL, the Large Hydron Collider (LHC) is based in Geneva, Switzerland and not Sweden. It's funny how americans tend to confuse Sweden and Switzerland.
leechmasterb 1 year ago
Groovy, man.
KokotTheMonkey 1 year ago
I can see where he was coming from. I've heard a theory that any particle is everywhere at any time at once (think it's the super-string theory) so in that sense all particles must be the same. But I've probably completely misinterpreted that
M3t4lManiac 1 year ago
I would love to hear what they think on spiritual teachers like eckhart tolle, if anyone can point me to a video where they talk about that?
Kelhibbert 1 year ago
i love when the caller first says "science & reason" it's a close up of TFSM
Polum824545201 1 year ago