Famous nobel winning Physicist John Wheeler had this to say "The quantum process has nothing to do with counciousness." When physicists use the word "OBSERVER" they are refering to a non counsciess "MEASURING DEVICE" that collides photons against electrons. The collision destroys the exterior waves leaving only the stronger interior waves intact a particle is just the inside uncollapsble strong wave. Way to manipulate/batardize terminology to mean something else completly for your agenda.
Ramtha's claim that every person can learn to create their own reality is itself a philosophical paradox. Julian Baggini, in his book "The pig that wants to be eaten" argues that if everyone was capable of creating their own realities with their minds, it would be problematic as one person could then create a reality in which no one was allowed to create their own realities. For what it's worth. excellent discussion and topics in this film. Don't care for JZ Knight puppets though.
Damn, 2:52 made me jump. Very interesting documentary though. I've been thinking about the nature of reality for a while. E.G. What if my eyes are seeing myself with brown hair and brown eyes and glasses but everyone else's eyes are seeing me as a guy with blonde hair, blue eyes and a hat? There's no way of knowing, I guess.
@LemonZeppelin Yes there is and its very simple. Tell them to draw ur picture, describe u or take a picture. If you mean just coz u percieve it will turn from their to your version, then of course u cant know. But here's the catch - then it doesnt concern u - if its real 4 u that way, then any other way is not applicable, and hence, insignificant 4 u.
To all who hate on these kinds of movies: The film is called "What the !@#$ do we know" for a reason. Are you smarter then the ppl in the film? I bet your not smarter then a fifth grader. Saying this is nonsense when you don't do the knowledge yourself makes you super ignorant. I support this film as I ask you haters, What the !@#$ do you know?!
Yeah..none of it is, its one of the most heavily criticized films, including the "scientists" ( some are private none scientific researchers) in the film, some whom claim they were taken either out of context, or were completely wrong about their data , by all means look it up. This film is laughable rubish.
"Open mind" is synonymous gullible mind, what you want is an "informed mind" that questions.
I'm an open minded persons. Clearly our senses are limited, they are still evolving. Maybe in 10,000 years we'll be able to see 4th Dimensions and see through walls, who knows?! But to say our eyes deceive us doesn't make sense because our senses help us survive and if what is there, isn't then that doesn't help us in our evolutionary path of survival.
L agree with this video. But don't go crazy about it. All things are tainted with a bias. It does seem pretty cool, but who knows. Science could find some new revelation to explain that atoms actually do exist without being observed.
at 1:24 about the editor of the information we recieve through our eyes. This made me think about the possibility of CONSCIOUSLY making ourselves hallucinate- so as to see everything as something it is completely not (according to the relative reality created by the influence of peers). So I'm saying, perhaps, you could look around in a room, and your mind make it out to be somekind of wormhole or whatever. Maybe everyone has their own version of visual reality? What the ! do i know :P
What is enlightenment?Not satisfied what all the chakras and third eye talk?psychic awakening, precognition, mind powers, it all exists.It is time to take the blindfold off, THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM
The happiest and most outgoing people - who present an open mind before an open mouth - naturally follow these principles without even the need for scientific back-up. : )
The happiest and most outgoing people - who present an open mind before an open mouth - naturally follow these principles without even the need for scientific back-up. : )
Do not forget that the world was once thought to be square, we once thought we were the center of the universe in which our sun revolved around us. Do not overlook the simple curio that in the short time since Darwin was around to which many advancements in natural selection are attributed, he thought the cell, was the smallest possible 'block' of life. It wasn't ignorance, it was the crudeness of technology which has undergone refined refinement time and time again. What is normal, is relative.
2:50 - i got scared as shit when she screamed,.. hahaha when you get me thinking about scary thoughts like if my reality and what i perceive is really real please dont have a horror scream right after that hahaha
Science and Religion combined can never answer the question why. The mystery of life can never be concluded. All will eternally remain an opinion, a theory. The surest thing that man will ever know is that he doesn't know anything. But he is not satisfied with this, so, in order to escape the truth, in order to fight the boredom, he just resort to science, religion, or logic. He believes on something he doesn't really know.. absurd.. stupid existence.. man is not free...
@dsbnh "anything" Other thanNOTHING IS CERTAIN.AS i said, had i told you in 1600's there were gamma rays, radiation,atoms,etc,etc,etc.and you would have called me crazy.U act like 2day is the day.We'll never from this day forth find something else we can't comprehend with our senses.Richard Dawkins,renowned scientist that hates religion has even stated "at the current rate of discovery what we know in comparison to all that there is-is about a grain of sand in the empire state building"
@russboone84 Had you told me without any proof I most certainly would have called you crazy. As would any rational man. You need to provide proof of your claims. I don't care if they end up being right later on. You either have proof or you have nothing. That is what you don't seem to comprehend. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should believe anything about our universe without some degree of proof.
@dsbnh You're a follower and someone who never strays from the mainstream.600 yrs ago the earth was supposedly flat and the center of the universe-you would have been in on the majority on that one too.Had i told you that might not be true-that we have little bug like organisms (viruses,etc) crawling all over us-we just can't see them, or that we were made up of orbital little bits-you would have called me crazy then too- Yet history proves over&over that SCIECE that is far too assumptous.
@russboone84 This is pretty much what every nutjob who believes in crazy theories or plays devil's advocate for crazy theories says. I would respond with this simple truth: The fact someone demands evidence in order to "believe" in anything makes me less of a follower than the person who, under the guise of an open mind, suffers fools gladly. Science is more than willing to correct theories when new evidence emerges that contradicts old theories. The thing is... It needs the evidence first.
@dsbnh You continue to contradict yourself you're not seeing the major holes in your logic and never will.You're hopeless.I just proved how science was wrong in the past about reality and will always continue to be and so will religion-that is a fact.What is more verifiable than a 2surgeons and 3 staff confirming what someone has said?A RECORDED MACHINE?that has been fine tuned to only what our senses can percieve?And yet every DAY WE FIND SOMETHING ELSE OUR SENSES DON"T PERCIEVE.I dont "believe
@russboone84 I don't see how I contradicted myself. The fact that individuals doing scientific inquiries in an effort to understand nature have been wrong in the past does not mean these methods are unsound. Scientific inquiry is a process of elimination and favors whichever explanation seems to be the most logical one. The problem is that you insist on making arguments from ignorance and get upset when others point out that there is no reason to make those assumptions yet.
@dsbnh He is still open to many possibilities, including id.You're a man of logic.Out of thousands of dreams and many hallucinations-MAYBE in 2 of them you actually DIED.Logically and statistically-What are the odds of so many ppl having the rarest of dreams/hallucinations when they also happened to be brain dead.mighty big coincidence.And i never said i believed it-just that there was evidence for it as well as against it.You jumped 2 conclusions and now i'm a nut job.plz dont respond ok DRAW
@dsbnh You responded to me if I remember right.Ur just backing out cuz you're in over you're head. I guess if i just got my ass as well as my ideas handed to me- all chewed up I would be timid to engage in logical arguement as well.Wow i've already gotten3 comments from ppl with complements for finally shutting you up.You must always be this agreeable..Btw that rambling earns me 300k a year and thats a fact.The only thing i have2 scientifically prove 2 you is that I could stomp your ass.lol
@russboone84 No, the only one in over your head is you. I am sure you earn a great deal of money, but I am also sure it has nothing to do with your intelligence.
@dsbnh I would bet that some of the 'facts' you believe in have less backing than my case of nde's, yet you believe them2 be facts and would defend them with all you have.I gave you a perfectly logical explanation just as 'Scientifically provable" as anything you've got.And yet you meet me with criticism when I wasted my time to do what i thought was helping you out.WTF bro? I thought you were genuinely asking or else i wouldn't have bothered....
@dsbnh And yet I would bet that some of the truths you believe in have less backing than my case of nde's, yet you believe them2 be facts and would defend them with all you have.I gave you a logical explanation just as 'Scientifically provable" as anything you've got.And yet you meet me with criticism when I wasted my time to do what i thought was helping you out.WTF bro? I thought you were genuinely asking or else i wouldn't have bothered....pwned
@russboone84 I don't think one can have a logical discussion with you. You're very bizarre and I am extremely tired. You're talking nonsense and from what I can tell you're rambling about how reality is subjective and some ridiculous, quasi-philosophical notions. What people are claiming in this film is nonsense. If you can't see that then you either lack a basic education or are simply too stubborn to listen to anything I have to say anyway. Just a tip before I go: One cannot prove a negative.
@dsbnh You haven't tried to have a logical discussion with me.You're quick to ridicule every one else for their ideas but are too scared to put yours on the line. I've said nothing irrational.To be honest i'm a former atheist and I have a strong science background .Not a god freak either.Just open to the notion that we really don't know anything.Its not that i'm babbling i'm merely speaking on another level.You've still never given me proof only excuses. Until then,stalemate it's your move
@russboone84 What proof do you want? You keep going on about proof and rambling about nonsense. Is it proof that the claims in this film aren't real? If so then I think you should know that you can't prove a negative. They must prove their claims are real, not the other way around. I am not claiming we know everything, I am simply saying that this film does not provide any scientific proof behind its claims. It is nonsense that no logical person has reason to believe due to a lack of evidence.
@dsbnh ok last response.I never said this video was right either.You just asked me to prove something and I asked you to do the same.I tried and you criticized me- and yet you make no effort-just like the fan in the crowd that can do better than the athlete.That tends to piss ppl off.I just don't think reality is at all what we think it is,.Just try to be more open and look for points if similarity with your ideas rather than always coming off with where they differ.nuff said now my head hurts
@russboone84 I asked you to prove something that, if correct, should be verifiable. You asked me to prove that something didn't exist. You're a man of science, go ahead and figure out why that request makes no sense. I will be more open to evidence. That's it.
@russboone84 And the fact people claim things like near death experiences and other such nonsense shouldn't be seen as reason to doubt more established theories since that "evidence" is so shaky.
@russboone84 You didn't try at all. I criticized you because there were problems in your logic. You should familiarize yourself with the difference between what is conceivable and what is likely given what we know. You don't think reality is at all what we think it is? Why? Therein lies the problem. You can conceive of reality being something else, but this alone doesn't mean you should think there is any validity to this concept. Your head should hurt given your thought process.
@dsbnh Its not nonsense just because there is a lack of evidence. Science is not infallible. Many times throughout history things we thought were right and scientifically proven was later proven wrong and then amended. We just don't know enough about the quantum world around us for us to say either way.
@DarkRomulus1 Are you familiar with what an argument from ignorance is? This pretense of neutrality is ridiculous when there is no reason to give any of the concepts put forth in this video any consideration. Please, adopt a neutral stance on matters where there is just as much evidence for something as against it. This isn't the case here. More importantly, stop treating science as a monolithic institution. Of course science has been wrong. It is the process of finding the right answers.
@russboone84 What truths I believe in have less backing than NDEs? What have you given me that is just as "scientifically provable" as anything I've got?
@dsbnh your're already half way there. Scientifically prove to me you love your mother.Or that nde's don't exist.Or that I exist.Or that you're not dreaming right now.The only way to prove anything TO ME is is for ME TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, and if i look at what you say with criticism you won't.Now Do You SEE?YOUR reality is shaped by YOUR beliefs.Everyone sees only what they look for. Have a great day
@russboone84 Love is not something which can be proven through traditional means for it is a concept. The way to prove it becomes logic. Electrical stimulation of certain parts of our brain consistently evokes physical reactions and verbal descriptions of emotive experience which match across diverse individuals. If they are faking the electrical stimulation to certain parts of the brain will be substantially different. This assumes it's not induced through drugs, but that is not your question.
your're already half way there. Scientifically prove to me you love your mother.Or that nde's don't exist.Or that I exist.Or that you're not dreaming right now.The only way to prove anything TO ME is is for ME TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, and if i look at what you say with criticism you won't.Now Do You SEE?YOUR reality is shaped by YOUR beliefs.Everyone sees only what they look for. Have a great day
@dsbnh scientifically as is requires vigorous testing and MUST be replicated many times.Each nde is an individual case and CANNOT be replicated.ppl Rarely know ahead of time when they'll be dead and then revived,And once they come back their claims are hard to scientifically back becuz it can never again be replicated..You can't scientifically prove anything non-local.Love 4 example.You can say that you love someone but how would you scientifically prove it to them?Yet we know love exists
@dsbnh the baby had made him aware what was wrong.Obviously the baby couldn't talk but was aware that his arm hurt.The man said he had a heightened insight on everything and was made aware of this.Even if the baby couldnt talk words are only expressions of concepts.Just as if You had never learned spoken language, you'd still think about your arm hurting-just not in words.I'll look for names jsut google verified nde's.They will probably never be scientifically proven because proving something
@dsbnh ok then go ahead prove something to me scientifically.Go ahead anything at all.You CAN"T i can guarantee.You CANT PROVEN ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED "scientifically".With a critical mind anything can be disproven ,you can only gain new insights with an open one.And obviously your're desperately yearning new ones becuz you wouldn been combing youtube for these videos or watching what the bleep.Don't watch these videos going into it with the intention of disproving them and
@russboone84 Logical? There is nothing logical about you. You don't understand the first thing about scientific theories. What is this silliness about not being able to prove something beyond what you have experienced? Do you not believe the law of gravitation applies as we say it does to other planets because you've never been there? I think what you mean to say is that you can't "know" for certain without being there. However, this is a very silly stance to take with many holes.
@dsbnh so the details are vague.Ill try to look for it or look it up.There were many cases of clinically dead ppl giving detailed accounts of things that happened after they died that they couldn't have known otherwise-things that were verified by dr.s and er staff.In one case a man correctly diagnosed a problem with his neighbors baby that had eluded dr.s, It was a newborn and before the man had been clinically dead he hadn't even been told the baby had been born yet. He said that he had floate
@dsbnh so the details are vague. I'll have to look for it or look it up.There are several cases of patients giving detailed accounts while clinically dead that were often verified by dr and er room staff.I forget their names at the moment.In another case a man correctly diagnosed his neighbors baby with a broken arm after they had taken him to dr several times-no one had thought to do an xRay.The thing was the baby had just been born and before he died he didn't know the baby was having problem
Coem check otu Austin based singer songwriter musican Tory Tompkins perform her original song Down the Rabbit Hole. inspired by the ovie What the Bleep do we Know.
Not a silly exploration of scientifically-informed philosophical ideas culturally afloat over the past 50 or so years; nevertheless, so much of what can be said cannot be said simply.
Why are people so hostile towards old ideas? Why is there ice cream on my lap?? Why did my toilet stop speaking to me??? Perhaps it doesn't like burritos...
@chairde There's nothing 'new' about this. Theyre just taking some established scientific concepts, turning it into pseudoscientific nonsense and pandering it to the ignorant masses.
"There are 3 possible answers; from a practical point of view it doesn't make any difference at all. I mean, you still have to go to work and drive your car and do all the rest of it..."
Nu uh. If you let go of everything, your need for prestige, material things, other people, meaning, and your own survival. You're free to do as you please, and thus you may decide those things are not what you want to do. Philosophy has the potential to radically alter the way we live (or end) our lives.
@Paddyllfixit Science has theories for explanations how. experiments are being run in order to proove these theories. If science could not explain how, there wouldn't be any experiments run. Nuff said.
From the looks of it, these 'scientists' are trying to promote the concept that Qauntum Mechanics is 'stranger than any fiction', where in fact our analogical world only makes it that way. One very well could say that the floor is both existant and non-existant until someone 'measures' it. Or, from a purely statistical point of view, on could asign an infinitesimally small probability to the event of 'the floor is not there'. Such a probability is zero, as it has never been a documented case.
@EnemyOfEldar In physics, there is no such thing as zero probability. zero is simply a notion the represents the absence of, anything(s); in this point in time, we've only started going farther, smaller, and deeper into the notion of things being more complex and infinitesimal than once assumed.
How many ppl complaining about this as 'pseudoscience' are actually credible sources? I'm talking ABOVE college-level science (specifically physics) majors at LEAST.
(I thought so.) don't be ignorant, no theory is perfect. keep an open mind, or do not... but please keep immature comments to yourselves. People act like their words are law when you know little, or nothing... certainly not more than some proffesionals featured here.
but whatever...& true or not, I wish you all the best
I know that we only can see or hear a small percentage of what really exist, so just because I can't clearly understand what it is, statistically it is 50/50 chance, I am right to feel connected at a subatomic level or I am wrong. All results for the DV are significant when the only thing that changes is the perception of the IV. The Placebo Effect is further evidence. What are some of you people not understanding and so negative for? I face the true reality that all unseen things are eternal.
The scientists in this video aren't trying to link science and religion, they are trying to say that the impossibilities and unexplainable facts of the subatomic world require a more intangible explanation. If it is unexplainable through empirical means, but it is indeed fact, then it must be something more than empirical means are capable of explaining. Take a note from Sherlock Holmes.
"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."
@coffeedude7 Emphisis on the if in 'if it is unexplainable through emperical means...'. This video assumes we know everything, which is far from the truth.
@coffeedude7 This is the equivalent of throwing your hands up in the air and attributing something to "magic". Basically, it is a more sophisticated version of the popular meme "Scientists don't know how this happened... Christians do... A wizard did it!" If the only explanation available at the moment is no explanation at all then we must continue searching for a real explanation rather than settle on an intangible explanation that is really no explanation at all.
i think all of you are thinking to hard (just my opinion)cuz i think that instead of trying to find an impossible answer to what "IS",you should live the present with freedom of knowing who you are, without trying to pass the present thinking about the "how and why"...
does someone understand?in over all i just mean "feel your way in life and guess things by yourself instead of relying on someone else to guide you ^^(its easier to just "BE" that way ;D)
i havent watched the rest of these videos yet so i cant make a judgment but in reference to this one i dont understand what people are saying about the science being false? Are you saying superposition,the effect of the observer, particle wave duality arent facts? if so you need to go back to high school physics
@menadyo Obviously you're not a very open minded physicist. Many of these views are not even dismissed by stephen hawking. I find it very interesting that the number of provable nde's (unexplainable near death experiences)outweigh the number of provable scientific theory's of how we came into existence. So in comparison which one of these two looks like pseudoscience to you??Being that one was proved through testing and the other one wasn't?
@dsbnh One that I remember right off hand was the case of Pam Reynolds... She had her heart stopped during a brain procedure and was clinically braindead throughout the entire operation...Her Eyes were taped shut and plugs were in her ears...Yet after she was revived she could recall events that occurred during the course of the procedure that were verified by her surgeon-a former athiest. Details of things he says she could not have known otherwise.. I did a paper many yrs ago on nde's so the
Most of these scientists over-analyze the awareness experience. I feel that women and children understand this inherently and have an easier time transitioning into this phase of experience.
lol scientists trying to explain a complex theory in an entertaining way. It's like masturbating with a cheese grater, slightly amusing but mostly painful.
@Escensionify Dormant?? Every one of us utilizes echolocation constantly each day! Close your eyes and spin in a circle while the television is on-- after you stop, can you tell where the television is without looking? That's echolocation, albeit to a lesser degree.
Echolocation: noun. The general method of locating objects by determining the time for an echo to return and the direction from which it returns, as by radar or sonar.
Spinning around while a sound is being emitted from the TV, stopping, and then claiming you know where the TV is because you can hear it is not echolocation... it's hearing. Echolocation requires you to emit a sound and wait for the echo. Fuck.
For instance, "...the brain processes 400 Billion bits of information per second, but we are only aware of 2000 bits. That means reality is tapping into the brain all the time." - ... Or maybe the brain is tapping into reality? Unless you eliminate subject/object, I don't think you can ever describe the processes of reality entirely. The 2000 bits are relevant to the subject and their current focus/aim, the other bits are ignored. This is really nothing mind-bending.
i am getting really tired of people talking about the people that failed to get the million dollar prize, they failed due to being under pressure, telekinesis takes total concentration to complete no person focusing on money is going to get the prize, plus people don't want to show they're ability due to being put under by the government
@mymothersmeatloaf "telekinesis takes total concentration to complete no person focusing on money is going to get the prize, plus people don't want to show they're ability due to being put under by the government"
hey, this isn't science, honestly, its more philosophy. what the scientists in this movie are doing is linking science and philosophy together. and the conclusion is that you can change the way you perceive things and in turn change the way those things affect you. they aren't saying "everything we say in this is completely true and 100% scientifical!"
mute, dumb and dumber, on the med, doesnt get laid enough. No wonder she's into this shit.
aaqucnaona94 3 months ago
how mayn times do these people have to repeat themselves?! although i guess for entry-level quantum phys its pretty sweet.
tgmnewman 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Famous nobel winning Physicist John Wheeler had this to say "The quantum process has nothing to do with counciousness." When physicists use the word "OBSERVER" they are refering to a non counsciess "MEASURING DEVICE" that collides photons against electrons. The collision destroys the exterior waves leaving only the stronger interior waves intact a particle is just the inside uncollapsble strong wave. Way to manipulate/batardize terminology to mean something else completly for your agenda.
thenewdeal38 3 months ago
Ramtha's claim that every person can learn to create their own reality is itself a philosophical paradox. Julian Baggini, in his book "The pig that wants to be eaten" argues that if everyone was capable of creating their own realities with their minds, it would be problematic as one person could then create a reality in which no one was allowed to create their own realities. For what it's worth. excellent discussion and topics in this film. Don't care for JZ Knight puppets though.
TheEleventhIndian 3 months ago
Tehe, he said organismic :3c
spartan117ak 3 months ago
mah pills are fine, okay? thank you!
Grabbin pills!
sprayframe 5 months ago
Damn, 2:52 made me jump. Very interesting documentary though. I've been thinking about the nature of reality for a while. E.G. What if my eyes are seeing myself with brown hair and brown eyes and glasses but everyone else's eyes are seeing me as a guy with blonde hair, blue eyes and a hat? There's no way of knowing, I guess.
LemonZeppelin 5 months ago
@LemonZeppelin Yes there is and its very simple. Tell them to draw ur picture, describe u or take a picture. If you mean just coz u percieve it will turn from their to your version, then of course u cant know. But here's the catch - then it doesnt concern u - if its real 4 u that way, then any other way is not applicable, and hence, insignificant 4 u.
aaqucnaona94 3 months ago
To all who hate on these kinds of movies: The film is called "What the !@#$ do we know" for a reason. Are you smarter then the ppl in the film? I bet your not smarter then a fifth grader. Saying this is nonsense when you don't do the knowledge yourself makes you super ignorant. I support this film as I ask you haters, What the !@#$ do you know?!
daemon714 5 months ago in playlist movies 2
@daemon714 to answer your question; i know that the seperateness of science and religion does'nt cause all the problems in the world.
Nilaikx 4 months ago in playlist More videos from monaszy35
Yeah..none of it is, its one of the most heavily criticized films, including the "scientists" ( some are private none scientific researchers) in the film, some whom claim they were taken either out of context, or were completely wrong about their data , by all means look it up. This film is laughable rubish.
"Open mind" is synonymous gullible mind, what you want is an "informed mind" that questions.
LYTHBAND 6 months ago
what is wrong with you, this movie is rubish propaganda by the occult leader JZ knight.
LYTHBAND 6 months ago
@LYTHBAND Only the stuff she says. Alot of this is backed by science though. Go in with an open mind. Those scientists arent in her cult ya'know :D
directedworld2 6 months ago
i know white these white ppl dont wanna tell you!
GregsLife365 6 months ago
@ 5:12 does she say, "Oh my god, I'm a pathetic asshole"?
coolero80 7 months ago
Amanda needs to lighten the hell up! haha.
coolero80 7 months ago
ppl are afraid of change...but change is inevitable:)
13CIRCLE 7 months ago
I'm an open minded persons. Clearly our senses are limited, they are still evolving. Maybe in 10,000 years we'll be able to see 4th Dimensions and see through walls, who knows?! But to say our eyes deceive us doesn't make sense because our senses help us survive and if what is there, isn't then that doesn't help us in our evolutionary path of survival.
miashalala 8 months ago
L agree with this video. But don't go crazy about it. All things are tainted with a bias. It does seem pretty cool, but who knows. Science could find some new revelation to explain that atoms actually do exist without being observed.
jediobishawnkenobi 8 months ago
This movie talks about all the possibilities when we take drugs
gmanericg 8 months ago
can't you people understand how important this is? A revolution in front you you. PLEASE TAKE THIS KNOWLEDGE AND SHARE IT
Doubleshot98 9 months ago
Comment removed
dsbnh 9 months ago
at 1:24 about the editor of the information we recieve through our eyes. This made me think about the possibility of CONSCIOUSLY making ourselves hallucinate- so as to see everything as something it is completely not (according to the relative reality created by the influence of peers). So I'm saying, perhaps, you could look around in a room, and your mind make it out to be somekind of wormhole or whatever. Maybe everyone has their own version of visual reality? What the ! do i know :P
ftkmnm 9 months ago
What is enlightenment?Not satisfied what all the chakras and third eye talk?psychic awakening, precognition, mind powers, it all exists.It is time to take the blindfold off, THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM
theMerrillWally 9 months ago
The happiest and most outgoing people - who present an open mind before an open mouth - naturally follow these principles without even the need for scientific back-up. : )
arkusspartacus 9 months ago
The happiest and most outgoing people - who present an open mind before an open mouth - naturally follow these principles without even the need for scientific back-up. : )
arkusspartacus 9 months ago
Why is he standing in the middle of a desert?
Zanmatt2g 10 months ago
Do not forget that the world was once thought to be square, we once thought we were the center of the universe in which our sun revolved around us. Do not overlook the simple curio that in the short time since Darwin was around to which many advancements in natural selection are attributed, he thought the cell, was the smallest possible 'block' of life. It wasn't ignorance, it was the crudeness of technology which has undergone refined refinement time and time again. What is normal, is relative.
FranthonyZarcoza 10 months ago
Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure the two early in the video make an awesome lesbian couple! No laws required!haha
qifasuineg 10 months ago
This ain't science.
Immuuni 10 months ago
2:50 - i got scared as shit when she screamed,.. hahaha when you get me thinking about scary thoughts like if my reality and what i perceive is really real please dont have a horror scream right after that hahaha
jjunit207 10 months ago
Science and Religion combined can never answer the question why. The mystery of life can never be concluded. All will eternally remain an opinion, a theory. The surest thing that man will ever know is that he doesn't know anything. But he is not satisfied with this, so, in order to escape the truth, in order to fight the boredom, he just resort to science, religion, or logic. He believes on something he doesn't really know.. absurd.. stupid existence.. man is not free...
psykiem 11 months ago
Why can the deaf lady respond to the other girl's questions?
8arry94 11 months ago
why is there a retarted chick?
633aaron 11 months ago
@633aaron what a dick...hehe I was just wondering where I've seen that deaf chick...looks very familiar....anyone know where this chick is from?
Dracenfelz 11 months ago
@Dracenfelz I think she is an actress named marlee matlin (children of a lesser god is one movie can't think of others right now)
PsalmsNmyrrh 11 months ago
@PsalmsNmyrrh ok thanks i knew i've seen her elsewhere. Curious name PsalmsNmyrrh...what is the signification?
Dracenfelz 11 months ago
@Dracenfelz hi ....i used to like reading psalms while burning frankincense and myrrh. so I just merged the two.
PsalmsNmyrrh 10 months ago
whats the name of the movie in this clip!!
DARRENMCGERTY 11 months ago
What Quantum Physics proves without doubt is that none of the men in this film have ever felt a bird's tits.
SuperZubz 1 year ago
have a ball
DanOlooney 1 year ago
@dsbnh "anything" Other thanNOTHING IS CERTAIN.AS i said, had i told you in 1600's there were gamma rays, radiation,atoms,etc,etc,etc.and you would have called me crazy.U act like 2day is the day.We'll never from this day forth find something else we can't comprehend with our senses.Richard Dawkins,renowned scientist that hates religion has even stated "at the current rate of discovery what we know in comparison to all that there is-is about a grain of sand in the empire state building"
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 Had you told me without any proof I most certainly would have called you crazy. As would any rational man. You need to provide proof of your claims. I don't care if they end up being right later on. You either have proof or you have nothing. That is what you don't seem to comprehend. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should believe anything about our universe without some degree of proof.
dsbnh 1 year ago
Comment removed
russboone84 1 year ago
@dsbnh You're a follower and someone who never strays from the mainstream.600 yrs ago the earth was supposedly flat and the center of the universe-you would have been in on the majority on that one too.Had i told you that might not be true-that we have little bug like organisms (viruses,etc) crawling all over us-we just can't see them, or that we were made up of orbital little bits-you would have called me crazy then too- Yet history proves over&over that SCIECE that is far too assumptous.
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 This is pretty much what every nutjob who believes in crazy theories or plays devil's advocate for crazy theories says. I would respond with this simple truth: The fact someone demands evidence in order to "believe" in anything makes me less of a follower than the person who, under the guise of an open mind, suffers fools gladly. Science is more than willing to correct theories when new evidence emerges that contradicts old theories. The thing is... It needs the evidence first.
dsbnh 1 year ago
@dsbnh You continue to contradict yourself you're not seeing the major holes in your logic and never will.You're hopeless.I just proved how science was wrong in the past about reality and will always continue to be and so will religion-that is a fact.What is more verifiable than a 2surgeons and 3 staff confirming what someone has said?A RECORDED MACHINE?that has been fine tuned to only what our senses can percieve?And yet every DAY WE FIND SOMETHING ELSE OUR SENSES DON"T PERCIEVE.I dont "believe
russboone84 1 year ago
Comment removed
dsbnh 9 months ago
Comment removed
dsbnh 9 months ago
@russboone84 I don't see how I contradicted myself. The fact that individuals doing scientific inquiries in an effort to understand nature have been wrong in the past does not mean these methods are unsound. Scientific inquiry is a process of elimination and favors whichever explanation seems to be the most logical one. The problem is that you insist on making arguments from ignorance and get upset when others point out that there is no reason to make those assumptions yet.
dsbnh 9 months ago
@dsbnh He is still open to many possibilities, including id.You're a man of logic.Out of thousands of dreams and many hallucinations-MAYBE in 2 of them you actually DIED.Logically and statistically-What are the odds of so many ppl having the rarest of dreams/hallucinations when they also happened to be brain dead.mighty big coincidence.And i never said i believed it-just that there was evidence for it as well as against it.You jumped 2 conclusions and now i'm a nut job.plz dont respond ok DRAW
russboone84 1 year ago
@dsbnh You responded to me if I remember right.Ur just backing out cuz you're in over you're head. I guess if i just got my ass as well as my ideas handed to me- all chewed up I would be timid to engage in logical arguement as well.Wow i've already gotten3 comments from ppl with complements for finally shutting you up.You must always be this agreeable..Btw that rambling earns me 300k a year and thats a fact.The only thing i have2 scientifically prove 2 you is that I could stomp your ass.lol
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 No, the only one in over your head is you. I am sure you earn a great deal of money, but I am also sure it has nothing to do with your intelligence.
dsbnh 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsbnh I would bet that some of the 'facts' you believe in have less backing than my case of nde's, yet you believe them2 be facts and would defend them with all you have.I gave you a perfectly logical explanation just as 'Scientifically provable" as anything you've got.And yet you meet me with criticism when I wasted my time to do what i thought was helping you out.WTF bro? I thought you were genuinely asking or else i wouldn't have bothered....
russboone84 1 year ago
@dsbnh And yet I would bet that some of the truths you believe in have less backing than my case of nde's, yet you believe them2 be facts and would defend them with all you have.I gave you a logical explanation just as 'Scientifically provable" as anything you've got.And yet you meet me with criticism when I wasted my time to do what i thought was helping you out.WTF bro? I thought you were genuinely asking or else i wouldn't have bothered....pwned
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 I don't think one can have a logical discussion with you. You're very bizarre and I am extremely tired. You're talking nonsense and from what I can tell you're rambling about how reality is subjective and some ridiculous, quasi-philosophical notions. What people are claiming in this film is nonsense. If you can't see that then you either lack a basic education or are simply too stubborn to listen to anything I have to say anyway. Just a tip before I go: One cannot prove a negative.
dsbnh 1 year ago
@dsbnh You haven't tried to have a logical discussion with me.You're quick to ridicule every one else for their ideas but are too scared to put yours on the line. I've said nothing irrational.To be honest i'm a former atheist and I have a strong science background .Not a god freak either.Just open to the notion that we really don't know anything.Its not that i'm babbling i'm merely speaking on another level.You've still never given me proof only excuses. Until then,stalemate it's your move
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 What proof do you want? You keep going on about proof and rambling about nonsense. Is it proof that the claims in this film aren't real? If so then I think you should know that you can't prove a negative. They must prove their claims are real, not the other way around. I am not claiming we know everything, I am simply saying that this film does not provide any scientific proof behind its claims. It is nonsense that no logical person has reason to believe due to a lack of evidence.
dsbnh 1 year ago
@dsbnh ok last response.I never said this video was right either.You just asked me to prove something and I asked you to do the same.I tried and you criticized me- and yet you make no effort-just like the fan in the crowd that can do better than the athlete.That tends to piss ppl off.I just don't think reality is at all what we think it is,.Just try to be more open and look for points if similarity with your ideas rather than always coming off with where they differ.nuff said now my head hurts
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 I asked you to prove something that, if correct, should be verifiable. You asked me to prove that something didn't exist. You're a man of science, go ahead and figure out why that request makes no sense. I will be more open to evidence. That's it.
dsbnh 1 year ago
Comment removed
dsbnh 9 months ago
@russboone84 And the fact people claim things like near death experiences and other such nonsense shouldn't be seen as reason to doubt more established theories since that "evidence" is so shaky.
dsbnh 9 months ago
Comment removed
dsbnh 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@russboone84 You didn't try at all. I criticized you because there were problems in your logic. You should familiarize yourself with the difference between what is conceivable and what is likely given what we know. You don't think reality is at all what we think it is? Why? Therein lies the problem. You can conceive of reality being something else, but this alone doesn't mean you should think there is any validity to this concept. Your head should hurt given your thought process.
dsbnh 9 months ago
@dsbnh Its not nonsense just because there is a lack of evidence. Science is not infallible. Many times throughout history things we thought were right and scientifically proven was later proven wrong and then amended. We just don't know enough about the quantum world around us for us to say either way.
DarkRomulus1 7 months ago
@DarkRomulus1 Are you familiar with what an argument from ignorance is? This pretense of neutrality is ridiculous when there is no reason to give any of the concepts put forth in this video any consideration. Please, adopt a neutral stance on matters where there is just as much evidence for something as against it. This isn't the case here. More importantly, stop treating science as a monolithic institution. Of course science has been wrong. It is the process of finding the right answers.
dsbnh 7 months ago
@dsbnh yes!
JLXOutlaw 7 months ago
@russboone84 What truths I believe in have less backing than NDEs? What have you given me that is just as "scientifically provable" as anything I've got?
dsbnh 9 months ago
@dsbnh your're already half way there. Scientifically prove to me you love your mother.Or that nde's don't exist.Or that I exist.Or that you're not dreaming right now.The only way to prove anything TO ME is is for ME TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, and if i look at what you say with criticism you won't.Now Do You SEE?YOUR reality is shaped by YOUR beliefs.Everyone sees only what they look for. Have a great day
russboone84 1 year ago
Comment removed
dsbnh 9 months ago
@russboone84 Love is not something which can be proven through traditional means for it is a concept. The way to prove it becomes logic. Electrical stimulation of certain parts of our brain consistently evokes physical reactions and verbal descriptions of emotive experience which match across diverse individuals. If they are faking the electrical stimulation to certain parts of the brain will be substantially different. This assumes it's not induced through drugs, but that is not your question.
dsbnh 9 months ago
your're already half way there. Scientifically prove to me you love your mother.Or that nde's don't exist.Or that I exist.Or that you're not dreaming right now.The only way to prove anything TO ME is is for ME TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, and if i look at what you say with criticism you won't.Now Do You SEE?YOUR reality is shaped by YOUR beliefs.Everyone sees only what they look for. Have a great day
russboone84 1 year ago
@dsbnh scientifically as is requires vigorous testing and MUST be replicated many times.Each nde is an individual case and CANNOT be replicated.ppl Rarely know ahead of time when they'll be dead and then revived,And once they come back their claims are hard to scientifically back becuz it can never again be replicated..You can't scientifically prove anything non-local.Love 4 example.You can say that you love someone but how would you scientifically prove it to them?Yet we know love exists
russboone84 1 year ago
@dsbnh the baby had made him aware what was wrong.Obviously the baby couldn't talk but was aware that his arm hurt.The man said he had a heightened insight on everything and was made aware of this.Even if the baby couldnt talk words are only expressions of concepts.Just as if You had never learned spoken language, you'd still think about your arm hurting-just not in words.I'll look for names jsut google verified nde's.They will probably never be scientifically proven because proving something
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 This is all useless he said/she said.
dsbnh 1 year ago
@dsbnh ok then go ahead prove something to me scientifically.Go ahead anything at all.You CAN"T i can guarantee.You CANT PROVEN ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED "scientifically".With a critical mind anything can be disproven ,you can only gain new insights with an open one.And obviously your're desperately yearning new ones becuz you wouldn been combing youtube for these videos or watching what the bleep.Don't watch these videos going into it with the intention of disproving them and
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 You're an idiot. Stop replying to me you rambling buffoon.
dsbnh 1 year ago
@dsbnh THATS WHAT I THOUGHT...dare not have a logical debate...PWNED
russboone84 1 year ago
Comment removed
dsbnh 9 months ago
@russboone84 Logical? There is nothing logical about you. You don't understand the first thing about scientific theories. What is this silliness about not being able to prove something beyond what you have experienced? Do you not believe the law of gravitation applies as we say it does to other planets because you've never been there? I think what you mean to say is that you can't "know" for certain without being there. However, this is a very silly stance to take with many holes.
dsbnh 9 months ago
@dsbnh so the details are vague.Ill try to look for it or look it up.There were many cases of clinically dead ppl giving detailed accounts of things that happened after they died that they couldn't have known otherwise-things that were verified by dr.s and er staff.In one case a man correctly diagnosed a problem with his neighbors baby that had eluded dr.s, It was a newborn and before the man had been clinically dead he hadn't even been told the baby had been born yet. He said that he had floate
russboone84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsbnh so the details are vague. I'll have to look for it or look it up.There are several cases of patients giving detailed accounts while clinically dead that were often verified by dr and er room staff.I forget their names at the moment.In another case a man correctly diagnosed his neighbors baby with a broken arm after they had taken him to dr several times-no one had thought to do an xRay.The thing was the baby had just been born and before he died he didn't know the baby was having problem
russboone84 1 year ago
Comment removed
russboone84 1 year ago
... and what comes next after knowing the truth? hmm.
psykiem 1 year ago
Is the hypothesizing happening subconsciously... I need clarification
kurdt40894 1 year ago
Coem check otu Austin based singer songwriter musican Tory Tompkins perform her original song Down the Rabbit Hole. inspired by the ovie What the Bleep do we Know.
torytompkins 1 year ago
something sounds familier about some of these theories....hmmm...Anybody read Descartes? the "I think therefore I am" guy...
zerofaktor007 1 year ago
@zerofaktor007 well yeah, this mess is a dualist s wet dream.
TheJayTrain 1 year ago
Should we fear metaphorical language that doesn't acknowledge it's metaphorical?
zaynzaynzayn 1 year ago
Not a silly exploration of scientifically-informed philosophical ideas culturally afloat over the past 50 or so years; nevertheless, so much of what can be said cannot be said simply.
zaynzaynzayn 1 year ago
@ whomever ...likes it =the Master Weavers Plan that is!:)
jeanakay1969 1 year ago
TURN THE F&*#ING MUSIC DOWN!
mijmijrm 1 year ago
Let me sum this up for everything: Quantum Mechanics means for no reason, anything can happen at any time.
LapisGarter 1 year ago
Why are people so hostile towards new ideas?
chairde 1 year ago 28
@chairde
Why are people so hostile towards old ideas? Why is there ice cream on my lap?? Why did my toilet stop speaking to me??? Perhaps it doesn't like burritos...
hootiepaladin 1 year ago
@chairde New means change. Change means effort. Humans want to do things that require the least effort.
MinotaurDancer 11 months ago
@MinotaurDancer I would also add fear to that equation.
chairde 11 months ago
@chairde because they are close-minded, its that simple.
ElijahGreenThumb 9 months ago
@ElijahGreenThumb Right. It probably has nothing to do with these ideas being utterly moronic.
rjs01007 9 months ago
@chairde fear
startwiththeballs 9 months ago
@chairde These ideas are not new, they're an old abuse of physics.
AmokBR 9 months ago
@chairde There's nothing 'new' about this. Theyre just taking some established scientific concepts, turning it into pseudoscientific nonsense and pandering it to the ignorant masses.
seblasian 9 months ago
@chairde
Because they're scared of it. Thing you don't know, you scared of it, simple. In state of anxiety, we do a lot of crazy stuff. :)
MrAngel999 8 months ago
@chairde Because new ideas are just as often wrong as old ideas, and our civilization is built on a near-infinity of wrong ideas :)?
GronTheMighty 8 months ago
@GronTheMighty "Near -infinity of wroing ideas." I love that line. Hahahaha
chairde 8 months ago
@chairde - Hostility to new ideas means they'll have to rearrange their mental furniture which has been comfortable to them so far.
goldie0800 7 months ago 9
@chairde ...New ideas gain acceptance only through time!! Or we just wait for the Ol' Schooler's to die!!
superkay72 7 months ago 6
@superkay72 the thing is though, some of those Ol' Schooler's used to be like us :/
GulliverFoyleWon 5 months ago
"There are 3 possible answers; from a practical point of view it doesn't make any difference at all. I mean, you still have to go to work and drive your car and do all the rest of it..."
Nu uh. If you let go of everything, your need for prestige, material things, other people, meaning, and your own survival. You're free to do as you please, and thus you may decide those things are not what you want to do. Philosophy has the potential to radically alter the way we live (or end) our lives.
BlueBerryWizard 1 year ago
we all know that gravity works, yet science cannot explain how. nuff said.
Paddyllfixit 1 year ago
@Paddyllfixit Science has theories for explanations how. experiments are being run in order to proove these theories. If science could not explain how, there wouldn't be any experiments run. Nuff said.
flait7 1 year ago
@flait7 "If science could not explain how, there wouldn't be any experiments run". yeah, that makes loadsa sense. Nuff said.
Paddyllfixit 1 year ago
nice camera
loujolly 1 year ago
To the highest rated comments: Whatever it is it is very interesting.
carmz0r 1 year ago
I can't wait to watch Dr. Masaru Emoto's live webcast this month! Its on October 21st on esoguru.com!
esomikej 1 year ago
From the looks of it, these 'scientists' are trying to promote the concept that Qauntum Mechanics is 'stranger than any fiction', where in fact our analogical world only makes it that way. One very well could say that the floor is both existant and non-existant until someone 'measures' it. Or, from a purely statistical point of view, on could asign an infinitesimally small probability to the event of 'the floor is not there'. Such a probability is zero, as it has never been a documented case.
EnemyOfEldar 1 year ago
@EnemyOfEldar In physics, there is no such thing as zero probability. zero is simply a notion the represents the absence of, anything(s); in this point in time, we've only started going farther, smaller, and deeper into the notion of things being more complex and infinitesimal than once assumed.
FranthonyZarcoza 10 months ago
So, in a sense, the floor only exists because we tell ourselves it exists? Reality only exists when we create that reality with our thoughts?
impressionsbysimon 1 year ago
pretty frivolous
kingdasarulez 1 year ago
How many ppl complaining about this as 'pseudoscience' are actually credible sources? I'm talking ABOVE college-level science (specifically physics) majors at LEAST.
(I thought so.) don't be ignorant, no theory is perfect. keep an open mind, or do not... but please keep immature comments to yourselves. People act like their words are law when you know little, or nothing... certainly not more than some proffesionals featured here.
but whatever...& true or not, I wish you all the best
CiipherZer0 1 year ago
I thought this program was for kids, but they have swearing in it! Awesome.
Galacticavatar 1 year ago
I know that we only can see or hear a small percentage of what really exist, so just because I can't clearly understand what it is, statistically it is 50/50 chance, I am right to feel connected at a subatomic level or I am wrong. All results for the DV are significant when the only thing that changes is the perception of the IV. The Placebo Effect is further evidence. What are some of you people not understanding and so negative for? I face the true reality that all unseen things are eternal.
brandyrubyredlips 1 year ago
The scientists in this video aren't trying to link science and religion, they are trying to say that the impossibilities and unexplainable facts of the subatomic world require a more intangible explanation. If it is unexplainable through empirical means, but it is indeed fact, then it must be something more than empirical means are capable of explaining. Take a note from Sherlock Holmes.
"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."
coffeedude7 1 year ago 20
@coffeedude7 Emphisis on the if in 'if it is unexplainable through emperical means...'. This video assumes we know everything, which is far from the truth.
EnemyOfEldar 1 year ago
@coffeedude7 Genius :)
onesweetguy 1 year ago
@onesweetguy why thank you good sir
coffeedude7 1 year ago
@coffeedude7 This is the equivalent of throwing your hands up in the air and attributing something to "magic". Basically, it is a more sophisticated version of the popular meme "Scientists don't know how this happened... Christians do... A wizard did it!" If the only explanation available at the moment is no explanation at all then we must continue searching for a real explanation rather than settle on an intangible explanation that is really no explanation at all.
dsbnh 1 year ago
@coffeedude7 I agree with you. unfortunately some creationists have been using ideas in this movie to show science proves god....... so stupid
Heliosvector 11 months ago
i think all of you are thinking to hard (just my opinion)cuz i think that instead of trying to find an impossible answer to what "IS",you should live the present with freedom of knowing who you are, without trying to pass the present thinking about the "how and why"...
does someone understand?in over all i just mean "feel your way in life and guess things by yourself instead of relying on someone else to guide you ^^(its easier to just "BE" that way ;D)
briannamaner 1 year ago
For the record, I believe this movie is complete bullshit.
GliTCH11 1 year ago
@GliTCH11 for the record, i know ur a complete jackass
TheLuckymann 1 year ago
Comment removed
winterflower40 1 year ago
Comment removed
winterflower40 1 year ago
Comment removed
winterflower40 1 year ago
What a load of bullshit. Pseudoscience at its best.
CosmicSeaman 1 year ago
@CosmicSeaman eat shit
TheLuckymann 1 year ago
@menadyo, If you cannot concede the points in this video, you will never be a very good physicist.
jmac5742 1 year ago
Crackpot Ramsters made bundle of money with this nonsense, PT Barnum would have been proud of them.
nergvol 1 year ago
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah. Hahah. Heeeeeeh.
boredman443 1 year ago
So many ignorant commenters.
menroflkuk 1 year ago
i havent watched the rest of these videos yet so i cant make a judgment but in reference to this one i dont understand what people are saying about the science being false? Are you saying superposition,the effect of the observer, particle wave duality arent facts? if so you need to go back to high school physics
actionjessie 1 year ago
Anyone know the guys name at 7:41? He seems cool haha
KelferMookie 1 year ago
god amana, you a thuch an athhole
carpedium281 1 year ago
I've watched this, and I am a Physicist. I have never seen anything that misinterprets science as much as this. Please do not believe it.
And its use of quantum mechanics in order to try and explain things on the macroscopic scale is completely false.
menadyo 1 year ago
@menadyo I had a bad feeling about this. I'll stop watching now, lol.
NickRoeder 1 year ago
@menadyo Obviously you're not a very open minded physicist. Many of these views are not even dismissed by stephen hawking. I find it very interesting that the number of provable nde's (unexplainable near death experiences)outweigh the number of provable scientific theory's of how we came into existence. So in comparison which one of these two looks like pseudoscience to you??Being that one was proved through testing and the other one wasn't?
russboone84 1 year ago 4
@russboone84 I am sorry, which one was proven through testing? And how?
dsbnh 1 year ago
@dsbnh One that I remember right off hand was the case of Pam Reynolds... She had her heart stopped during a brain procedure and was clinically braindead throughout the entire operation...Her Eyes were taped shut and plugs were in her ears...Yet after she was revived she could recall events that occurred during the course of the procedure that were verified by her surgeon-a former athiest. Details of things he says she could not have known otherwise.. I did a paper many yrs ago on nde's so the
russboone84 1 year ago
what a frustrating slow-moving going-fucking-nowhere-as-far-as-i-can-make-out load of shit.
grundgemonster 1 year ago
Most of these scientists over-analyze the awareness experience. I feel that women and children understand this inherently and have an easier time transitioning into this phase of experience.
jse216 1 year ago
EYES WIDE OPEN !!!!!.. LISTEN TO YOUR HEART!!.. NOT THESE.. PLEASE RESEARCH .. DO YOUR HOMEWORK :)))
Eirexeyes 1 year ago
what does a person with hearing disorders have to do with quantum physics????
someone933 1 year ago 2
@someone933 ahoj
dimi0074545 1 year ago
@someone933 mental perceptions. affect all the senses no matter even if one of your senses are malfunctioning.
monsterrun 1 year ago
@someone933 Your a horrible person...
catboy239 1 year ago
lol scientists trying to explain a complex theory in an entertaining way. It's like masturbating with a cheese grater, slightly amusing but mostly painful.
DougieG75 1 year ago
@Escensionify Dormant?? Every one of us utilizes echolocation constantly each day! Close your eyes and spin in a circle while the television is on-- after you stop, can you tell where the television is without looking? That's echolocation, albeit to a lesser degree.
dashpowers22 1 year ago
@dashpowers22 I hope you're a troll, I really do.
Echolocation: noun. The general method of locating objects by determining the time for an echo to return and the direction from which it returns, as by radar or sonar.
Spinning around while a sound is being emitted from the TV, stopping, and then claiming you know where the TV is because you can hear it is not echolocation... it's hearing. Echolocation requires you to emit a sound and wait for the echo. Fuck.
ParagateLatte 1 year ago
This is complete rubbish.
For instance, "...the brain processes 400 Billion bits of information per second, but we are only aware of 2000 bits. That means reality is tapping into the brain all the time." - ... Or maybe the brain is tapping into reality? Unless you eliminate subject/object, I don't think you can ever describe the processes of reality entirely. The 2000 bits are relevant to the subject and their current focus/aim, the other bits are ignored. This is really nothing mind-bending.
Norm1011616 1 year ago
i am getting really tired of people talking about the people that failed to get the million dollar prize, they failed due to being under pressure, telekinesis takes total concentration to complete no person focusing on money is going to get the prize, plus people don't want to show they're ability due to being put under by the government
mymothersmeatloaf 1 year ago
@mymothersmeatloaf "telekinesis takes total concentration to complete no person focusing on money is going to get the prize, plus people don't want to show they're ability due to being put under by the government"
Sounds like someone is rationalizing :)
dashpowers22 1 year ago
Reality - now that is HD quality =P
00Avenger17 1 year ago
Marlee Matlin is sweet.
firejack007 1 year ago
they couldn't of got someone who could speak?
qwerty5764 1 year ago
The future of human evolution is going to be phenomenal. We can become amazing beings. Unless we destroy ourselves before we can reach enlightenment.
lil0egy0kid 1 year ago
this is a load of bleeping shit
thesacrament77 1 year ago
@thesacrament77 Then do not watch it....
Sprafikk 1 year ago
Comment removed
DogsinSpace1 1 year ago
Comment removed
DogsinSpace1 1 year ago
@thesacrament77 are you sure about that?
DogsinSpace1 1 year ago
@DogsinSpace1 err no i honestly believe all of this lol
they are mixing quantum physics up with sprituality , which makes people believe that this has some scientific facts to back this sh*t up.
thesacrament77 1 year ago
Marlee Matlin, she still looks awesome. What a woman! Even more so for doing this movie.
PracticalTheorist 1 year ago
They are both so beautiful lol I gotta get out more. I'm turning weird like "L" from death note to chicks... haha
SuperHappyCakesHehe 1 year ago
Reality is a flow of information, not bits and pieces.
bbburton 1 year ago
hey, this isn't science, honestly, its more philosophy. what the scientists in this movie are doing is linking science and philosophy together. and the conclusion is that you can change the way you perceive things and in turn change the way those things affect you. they aren't saying "everything we say in this is completely true and 100% scientifical!"
JEVentrillon 1 year ago 16