Evidence will always trump faith, evidence is what keeps this world moving, evidence is what keeps you and I alive. You would not be reading this post if evidence were replaced by faith, because the human race would cease to exist
One comment in this video says it all, thats when David says; “Common sense and not say mystical revelation is indeed the right way to fix your toaster” In other words, you employ scientific fact (evidence) based methodologies to get your toaster fixed, you dont on the other hand invoke a spiritual entity or get on your kness and pray that your toaster will be fixed.
Is he contrasting (quantum mechanics vs. mysticism) or (general scientific method vs. mysticism)? I seem to recall in organic chemistry the discovery of the carbon ring actually came to the chemist in the form of a dream. Why can't the two be compatible? It seems to me having one without the other is like missing some tools in your tool box. In other words the chemist was stumped by his conscious problem and the solution was revealed by the subconscious. Just an example I thought I'd mention.
there is an article called Quantum physics says goodbye to reality from physicsworld that deal with an experiment in Austria and the nature of reality, whether or not its around us. Is it? Is it there when we look away? Is energy more than condensed waves? If mc2 is energy, is consciousness the same? What are the pigments they've observed, and the filaments in space. I've been researching the difference in quantum mechanics and quantum mysticism and see alot of opinions by experts.
@Mysti99 i mean i see opinions versus proof even amongst the experts, and some that act like gatekeepers or boundaries. science should not have that boundary or even a perimeter, its merely a process of asking questions and seeing if they can be tested, and as one builds some knowledge you ask more. So far, there is a lot more connection between quantum mechanics and quantum mysticism than Steven Hawkins, for example, likes to promote.
@Mysti99 Quantum mechanics is a mathematical model that explains things we observe. I have yet to meet a "quantum" mystic who understands the first thing about the model, or a single mystical pronouncement about QM that has been experimentally substantiated.
He's comparing the dispute between the Vatican and Galileo to the ideas in What the Bleep? It's not really the same. The people in the film are are experts in their respective fields that have a hypothesis that's unproven. That's a lot different than a bunch of priests believing in something because God told them that. The scientists are just thinking "holistically" about the implications of science. There's nothing wrong with that. The filmmakers shouldn't be making it out to be proof.
Dr. Albert offers an extremely organized set of arguments to dilute the spiritual position of interpreting the discoveries of quantum mechanics with a vein of spiritual optimism. Yet, in all of his aspirations of looking at life with "cold, clear eyes", he still demonstrates the same egotistical and selfish approach @4:14 that he claims is at the root of the "Vatican/Victorian" position. He says "our job is to..."
I'm confused. "Our job"? Assuming we have any job at all is an act of faith, sir.
Ah, from the comments, it seems that Dr Albert has unsettled the woo-lovers. Who now seem to believe they have the right to appropriate quantum theory and twist it to fit whatever ideas of consciousness they happen to prefer
His evident erritation and hostility towards anything that questions his aristotelian-ptolemaic epistemology is symptomatic. to say that science is getting as further and further from religion and mystic traditions is at the very best a vulgar display of science fundamentalism and epistemological sectarism! If I would have to define this guy I'd have to call him an epistemological sectarian at the service of science and with a faith for science on steroids.
I agree, OOGGA BOOGA. He is incorrect because all life sprang from the god of life. OOOOGGGA BOOOOOGA. if you wear round your neck a dead chicken then for protection from evil spirits. OOOOGA BOOOGA
I can see there is a lot of emotions going on here. You are missing out on some aspects here: First of all - you can't speak of fundamentalism when refering to science: SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION. There is a lot of people who apparently believes this. Second, it seems to me like you have made up your mind on a subject, and in your mind your own opinions are made facts. This is not a good go at grasping the face of reality.
Here is my tip for you: Start approaching life with logic and evidence.
The problem with skeptics like David Albert is that are too attached to this dialectic cartesian view of the world, because they were brought up to structure their perception that way... And therefore believe that science is the only form of epistemology that strives for serious common sense usage in cognition. This is an arrogant mistake... As if the "mystic Sages" had something to learn from people like him, about common sense.
As it is a mistake to say deduction and intuition shouldn't mix.
I cant watch this jerk simply because he is sooo condescending. At least he should be more respectful of other peoples pov. And less judgemental when he says himself there is more to it than he understands. Otherwise he would offer his confidence in a better theory. Some scientists are more caring in considering humanity as important individuals.
Yeah, his real problem is the level of certainty he's exhibiting for the strictly mechanistic and materialist inerpretation of physics through his words and demeanor; as a scientist, he should know better. It's fine if he wants to go by that interpretation, but because science has NOT truly said anything about it either way YET, he needs to stop looking down his nose at those who support the consciousness interpretation. Where's the bias in science, skeptics? Right there.
He is not looking down on them. It's just that if you have invested some time in learning the theories of QP, then you realize that the people talking about human consciousness are completely of their rocker: they have either a) misunderstood the consept completely in the process of learning (not so likely), og b) have no knowledge regarding the subject whatsoever (most likely).
@Cidr0n I've been investING time in learning the theories of QP, Cidr0n, and thus far I do not agree that the 'consciousness' crowd are all that off their rocker. For one thing, none of the "theories" including theirs have proven themselves to be definitively true over the others, so objectively I do not know that the C-crowd theory is true. But as a matter of belief, I'm sorry, but I am persuaded by the C-crowd theory and it's not just because of the movie from which this video clip came.
Therapy is different thing to everyone, each person has there own type of theraoy. His is obviously getting this therapy from his own contra perception. He seems very satisfied with pointing the finger at the vatican. His therapy is belittling the rest of the world.
This is an excellent refutation of the quantum-infused new age cancer by a sympathetic man who obviously understands why people want to believe "the consciousness creates reality" mythology.
What is clear from his account is that the classical/Einsteinian physics presumed a "Gods Eye view" and that dream in physics is now dead. What has entered science is a recognition that the more systematic science becomes, the more the human element enters into the picture
There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" Max Planck Nobel winning physicist
David Albert sounds like a very disciplined, cold and sharply focused scientist. Very impressive in what he said about the distinction between the focus of science and the other approaches with presumed biases. Very impressed with his presentation.
The two are fundamentally incompatible, since god (whatever it is/isnt) definitely is neither a force nor a particle and cannot be observed by any objective method known to man.
Given the sum of repeatable scientific evidence and its explanatory and predictive power, I see no reason to even postulate wether this 'god' non-thing exists or not.
Anyway when I figure out what 'to exist' really means I might think about it again. Until then ~ whatever :)
zendigo bro...if an ancient book claimed to be God's words tells you about scientific facts that only known recently...will you feel humble and submit to the "God"?
Yes, there is because it is the part in brain that seduced the person concerned in the verse to commit sin, the part which is responsible for taking the decision to commit the sin the two important adjectives ( lying and sinful ) by which this part in the brain is described emphasize the same fact. It is the center in which lies and sins are decided.
The frontal lope, being the most important part in brain, another specialized site says:
If the brain had a White House it would be here. It is the true center for command and control in your body. The Frontal lobe is responsible for functions such as reasoning, problem solving, judgment, impulse control.
...that is one example, which part of science interest you the most?
Well since god has to be the most unique particle in the universe, a bit of statistical thinking reveals that the word 'god' in the ancient book is more likely to be a mistranslation of a word originally meaning a previous human or even an alien race, than an actual reference to the entity people these days imagine when reading the word 'god' in its modern meaning and context... (if such a meaning can actually even be stated)
Yes, I agree, we understand God by looking at the entire creations...or whatever we can see or study.
Science is nothing but a study of creations. Science is not necessary facts as it evolves over time...that is good in a way. Only God Almighty knows absolute truths.
Your statement said nothing about humility or humanity, it referred specifically to absolute TRUTH, and implied only GOD can KNOW absolute truth.
I am simply pointing out that the statement cannot be an absolute truth otherwise only GOD would know it, and you my friend are not GOD, so you could not know it.
Incidentally another implication of the statement is that when GOD shares a peice of ABSOLUTE TRUTH (whatever that is) with anyone else it changes to just plain old TRUTH, because....
if anyone else but GOD, KNOWS this chunk of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, it cannot be ABSOLUTE TRUTH because, only GOD knows ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Therefore, your premise as worded is faulty, OR in the act of giving any other being any shred of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, GOD must automatically promote such a being to the status of GOD, in order that this peice of TRUTH be known... however, since you also hold GOD is absolutely unique, there cannot be 2 GODS.
Therefore, your statement implies that GOD can only tell lies.
Ok... Just what we needed. The finger of fundamentalist religion pointed at our noses.
What are you going to say next? That the proof that Christianity is the only valid religion is that it says so in the Bible?
Throughout history, all religions suffered evolutions themselves. I'm not against the idea of a supreme creational force (May call it G-O-D) but the concept you have of this needs to be less dogmatic.
Oh please, stop whining all you Hagelin, Consciousness, Star Wars, Tolkien, etc... Fans. This man is so right. Stop confusing reality with fantasy by grabbing on to serious scientific theories in such a vulgarly lunatic way!
I can't keep track of this guy, like I can with John Hagelin, I can listen to that guy all day long! not saying this guys info is bad, it's just John is more clear, interesting sounding, and engaging
Either I'm experiencing ultradium rythym, or this guy is boring to listen to, I said it okay, he's boring to listen to, a good guy I'm sure, lol
the problem with quantum physics in relation to Religo is still the attempt to find proof. What if that what they want to prove never proves itself. Then they will ever find what they are searching for. This is the moment when the sake bits its own tail.
I have nothing more than a feeling that his statement about "we don't know if this and that" is ironically and therefor - in my opinion - probably wrong, that John Hagelin has a different opinion; he believes what David says is not proven ("we don't know that"), yet who is the greatest contributor of the Unified Field so far, that David addresses as something fundamental (since he claims that universal consciousness and so on, should not be mixed with the Unified Field).. I think this is ironic.
We are always finding a way to fill a belief, in that way many mix theories or ideas to give a kind of a true to such beliefs, and that's what is wrong about human kind especially when we try to explain our nature.
Evidence will always trump faith, evidence is what keeps this world moving, evidence is what keeps you and I alive. You would not be reading this post if evidence were replaced by faith, because the human race would cease to exist
neilmcintosh5150 2 days ago
One comment in this video says it all, thats when David says; “Common sense and not say mystical revelation is indeed the right way to fix your toaster” In other words, you employ scientific fact (evidence) based methodologies to get your toaster fixed, you dont on the other hand invoke a spiritual entity or get on your kness and pray that your toaster will be fixed.
neilmcintosh5150 2 days ago
What is great about his discussion is how he relates science and scientific method with history and the human experience.
paulcarrola 3 weeks ago
Is he contrasting (quantum mechanics vs. mysticism) or (general scientific method vs. mysticism)? I seem to recall in organic chemistry the discovery of the carbon ring actually came to the chemist in the form of a dream. Why can't the two be compatible? It seems to me having one without the other is like missing some tools in your tool box. In other words the chemist was stumped by his conscious problem and the solution was revealed by the subconscious. Just an example I thought I'd mention.
asalamulekum 1 month ago
very articulate and easily understandable; thank you!
1wisdomseeker 4 months ago
Very, very cleverly sidestepping the primary issue.
JonMcIntyre68 11 months ago
Hey nice video I like it, I think, good job!
xIndca 1 year ago
there is an article called Quantum physics says goodbye to reality from physicsworld that deal with an experiment in Austria and the nature of reality, whether or not its around us. Is it? Is it there when we look away? Is energy more than condensed waves? If mc2 is energy, is consciousness the same? What are the pigments they've observed, and the filaments in space. I've been researching the difference in quantum mechanics and quantum mysticism and see alot of opinions by experts.
Mysti99 1 year ago
@Mysti99 i mean i see opinions versus proof even amongst the experts, and some that act like gatekeepers or boundaries. science should not have that boundary or even a perimeter, its merely a process of asking questions and seeing if they can be tested, and as one builds some knowledge you ask more. So far, there is a lot more connection between quantum mechanics and quantum mysticism than Steven Hawkins, for example, likes to promote.
Mysti99 1 year ago
@Mysti99 Quantum mechanics is a mathematical model that explains things we observe. I have yet to meet a "quantum" mystic who understands the first thing about the model, or a single mystical pronouncement about QM that has been experimentally substantiated.
acr08807 5 months ago
He's comparing the dispute between the Vatican and Galileo to the ideas in What the Bleep? It's not really the same. The people in the film are are experts in their respective fields that have a hypothesis that's unproven. That's a lot different than a bunch of priests believing in something because God told them that. The scientists are just thinking "holistically" about the implications of science. There's nothing wrong with that. The filmmakers shouldn't be making it out to be proof.
AndyO1987 1 year ago
Dr. Albert offers an extremely organized set of arguments to dilute the spiritual position of interpreting the discoveries of quantum mechanics with a vein of spiritual optimism. Yet, in all of his aspirations of looking at life with "cold, clear eyes", he still demonstrates the same egotistical and selfish approach @4:14 that he claims is at the root of the "Vatican/Victorian" position. He says "our job is to..."
I'm confused. "Our job"? Assuming we have any job at all is an act of faith, sir.
admiralebay 1 year ago
@admiralebay Nobody wants you to use this stuff to enhance yourself, because then it all falls apart!
tiecuando 1 year ago
Ah, from the comments, it seems that Dr Albert has unsettled the woo-lovers. Who now seem to believe they have the right to appropriate quantum theory and twist it to fit whatever ideas of consciousness they happen to prefer
TheBobathon 1 year ago 4
His evident erritation and hostility towards anything that questions his aristotelian-ptolemaic epistemology is symptomatic. to say that science is getting as further and further from religion and mystic traditions is at the very best a vulgar display of science fundamentalism and epistemological sectarism! If I would have to define this guy I'd have to call him an epistemological sectarian at the service of science and with a faith for science on steroids.
mikungfu 2 years ago
yes we should have a witch doctor make a video debunking this.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
No we shouldn't!... That's overkill! For a cartesian guy such as this, John Hagelin Ph.D or Thomas Campbell would be more than enough...
This man is thick as a brick!
mikungfu 2 years ago
I agree, OOGGA BOOGA. He is incorrect because all life sprang from the god of life. OOOOGGGA BOOOOOGA. if you wear round your neck a dead chicken then for protection from evil spirits. OOOOGA BOOOGA
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
He's the one making OOGGA BOOGA here... He speaks with a typical arrogance that only ignorance provides...
mikungfu 2 years ago
Maybe he is a witch that has been possesed by evil spirits!!
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
Not even that, I'm afraid...
mikungfu 2 years ago
I can see there is a lot of emotions going on here. You are missing out on some aspects here: First of all - you can't speak of fundamentalism when refering to science: SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION. There is a lot of people who apparently believes this. Second, it seems to me like you have made up your mind on a subject, and in your mind your own opinions are made facts. This is not a good go at grasping the face of reality.
Here is my tip for you: Start approaching life with logic and evidence.
Cidr0n 1 year ago 8
The problem with skeptics like David Albert is that are too attached to this dialectic cartesian view of the world, because they were brought up to structure their perception that way... And therefore believe that science is the only form of epistemology that strives for serious common sense usage in cognition. This is an arrogant mistake... As if the "mystic Sages" had something to learn from people like him, about common sense.
As it is a mistake to say deduction and intuition shouldn't mix.
mikungfu 2 years ago
I cant watch this jerk simply because he is sooo condescending. At least he should be more respectful of other peoples pov. And less judgemental when he says himself there is more to it than he understands. Otherwise he would offer his confidence in a better theory. Some scientists are more caring in considering humanity as important individuals.
mechanicalvalve 2 years ago
Yeah, his real problem is the level of certainty he's exhibiting for the strictly mechanistic and materialist inerpretation of physics through his words and demeanor; as a scientist, he should know better. It's fine if he wants to go by that interpretation, but because science has NOT truly said anything about it either way YET, he needs to stop looking down his nose at those who support the consciousness interpretation. Where's the bias in science, skeptics? Right there.
TheNeocatZone 2 years ago
He is not looking down on them. It's just that if you have invested some time in learning the theories of QP, then you realize that the people talking about human consciousness are completely of their rocker: they have either a) misunderstood the consept completely in the process of learning (not so likely), og b) have no knowledge regarding the subject whatsoever (most likely).
Cidr0n 1 year ago
@Cidr0n I've been investING time in learning the theories of QP, Cidr0n, and thus far I do not agree that the 'consciousness' crowd are all that off their rocker. For one thing, none of the "theories" including theirs have proven themselves to be definitively true over the others, so objectively I do not know that the C-crowd theory is true. But as a matter of belief, I'm sorry, but I am persuaded by the C-crowd theory and it's not just because of the movie from which this video clip came.
TheNeocatZone 1 year ago
Therapy is different thing to everyone, each person has there own type of theraoy. His is obviously getting this therapy from his own contra perception. He seems very satisfied with pointing the finger at the vatican. His therapy is belittling the rest of the world.
mechanicalvalve 2 years ago
He too animated to be focused. But cold I agree with.
mechanicalvalve 2 years ago
This is an excellent refutation of the quantum-infused new age cancer by a sympathetic man who obviously understands why people want to believe "the consciousness creates reality" mythology.
MarcusCMarcellus 2 years ago
What is clear from his account is that the classical/Einsteinian physics presumed a "Gods Eye view" and that dream in physics is now dead. What has entered science is a recognition that the more systematic science becomes, the more the human element enters into the picture
fizywig 2 years ago
There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" Max Planck Nobel winning physicist
WARSTRIKE1 2 years ago
David Albert sounds like a very disciplined, cold and sharply focused scientist. Very impressive in what he said about the distinction between the focus of science and the other approaches with presumed biases. Very impressed with his presentation.
stargen5 2 years ago
i don't see how that was related to quantum physics at all. it was all about religion vs. science
davydawgdawg 2 years ago
The two are fundamentally incompatible, since god (whatever it is/isnt) definitely is neither a force nor a particle and cannot be observed by any objective method known to man.
Given the sum of repeatable scientific evidence and its explanatory and predictive power, I see no reason to even postulate wether this 'god' non-thing exists or not.
Anyway when I figure out what 'to exist' really means I might think about it again. Until then ~ whatever :)
simonodell 2 years ago
this guy is a fucking genious, what a great speaker
zxcvmjg 2 years ago
I'll try not to. My belief in science sometime borders on religious though.
zendingo 2 years ago
how can i understand God without looking at the world honestly?? I believe in God, science helps with that.
zendingo 2 years ago
zendigo bro...if an ancient book claimed to be God's words tells you about scientific facts that only known recently...will you feel humble and submit to the "God"?
alphamain 2 years ago
give me an example of that
zendingo 2 years ago
Try this one for size.
God says " We will drag him by the forelock,- (15) A lying, sinful forelock!" (96:16)
The forelock in the holy verse stands for frontal interlope.
Is there any significance in dragging this sinner by his forelock?
alphamain 2 years ago
Yes, there is because it is the part in brain that seduced the person concerned in the verse to commit sin, the part which is responsible for taking the decision to commit the sin the two important adjectives ( lying and sinful ) by which this part in the brain is described emphasize the same fact. It is the center in which lies and sins are decided.
alphamain 2 years ago
The frontal lope, being the most important part in brain, another specialized site says:
If the brain had a White House it would be here. It is the true center for command and control in your body. The Frontal lobe is responsible for functions such as reasoning, problem solving, judgment, impulse control.
...that is one example, which part of science interest you the most?
alphamain 2 years ago
Well since god has to be the most unique particle in the universe, a bit of statistical thinking reveals that the word 'god' in the ancient book is more likely to be a mistranslation of a word originally meaning a previous human or even an alien race, than an actual reference to the entity people these days imagine when reading the word 'god' in its modern meaning and context... (if such a meaning can actually even be stated)
simonodell 2 years ago
First of all, I believe God Almighty is not a particle...yet He is unique.
Some people call anything supernatural/unexplainable as god...who can blame them...everyone agrees that they are some idiots among us.
alphamain 2 years ago
there is no god!
ad2894 2 years ago
"there is no god!" Yes there is I just copied and pasted one from your own post ;)
zendingo 2 years ago
Yes, I agree, we understand God by looking at the entire creations...or whatever we can see or study.
Science is nothing but a study of creations. Science is not necessary facts as it evolves over time...that is good in a way. Only God Almighty knows absolute truths.
alphamain 2 years ago
Surely the statement "Only God Almighty knows absolute truths" would itself constitute an absolute truth if the statement was indeed TRUE.
If that were the case, then you could not know that unless your god. So since Im pretty sure your not god, I can only assume your premise is flawed.
Rethinking it seems advisable. (friendly tone)
simonodell 2 years ago
...fyi,that statement simply means that we are humble human beings...we put our trust 100% in God Almighty.
God Almighty have spoken through His prophets and books...thus we follow His guidance for He knows best.
Your rambling is right if God never communicated with us - no prophet no book etc. Peace bro.
alphamain 2 years ago
Your statement said nothing about humility or humanity, it referred specifically to absolute TRUTH, and implied only GOD can KNOW absolute truth.
I am simply pointing out that the statement cannot be an absolute truth otherwise only GOD would know it, and you my friend are not GOD, so you could not know it.
Incidentally another implication of the statement is that when GOD shares a peice of ABSOLUTE TRUTH (whatever that is) with anyone else it changes to just plain old TRUTH, because....
simonodell 2 years ago
if anyone else but GOD, KNOWS this chunk of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, it cannot be ABSOLUTE TRUTH because, only GOD knows ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Therefore, your premise as worded is faulty, OR in the act of giving any other being any shred of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, GOD must automatically promote such a being to the status of GOD, in order that this peice of TRUTH be known... however, since you also hold GOD is absolutely unique, there cannot be 2 GODS.
Therefore, your statement implies that GOD can only tell lies.
simonodell 2 years ago
Ok... Just what we needed. The finger of fundamentalist religion pointed at our noses.
What are you going to say next? That the proof that Christianity is the only valid religion is that it says so in the Bible?
Throughout history, all religions suffered evolutions themselves. I'm not against the idea of a supreme creational force (May call it G-O-D) but the concept you have of this needs to be less dogmatic.
mikungfu 2 years ago
Oh please, stop whining all you Hagelin, Consciousness, Star Wars, Tolkien, etc... Fans. This man is so right. Stop confusing reality with fantasy by grabbing on to serious scientific theories in such a vulgarly lunatic way!
Torrriate 2 years ago
Totally disagree with what he's saying. Especially the last half of this, hes got it flipped.
THEREALghostlaced 2 years ago
I can't keep track of this guy, like I can with John Hagelin, I can listen to that guy all day long! not saying this guys info is bad, it's just John is more clear, interesting sounding, and engaging
Either I'm experiencing ultradium rythym, or this guy is boring to listen to, I said it okay, he's boring to listen to, a good guy I'm sure, lol
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
Even when I tried to focus, I couldn't, with John I can hang on every word. anyways, not sure why this is even important enough to comment on, lol
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
the problem with quantum physics in relation to Religo is still the attempt to find proof. What if that what they want to prove never proves itself. Then they will ever find what they are searching for. This is the moment when the sake bits its own tail.
Foolsaeon 3 years ago
I have nothing more than a feeling that his statement about "we don't know if this and that" is ironically and therefor - in my opinion - probably wrong, that John Hagelin has a different opinion; he believes what David says is not proven ("we don't know that"), yet who is the greatest contributor of the Unified Field so far, that David addresses as something fundamental (since he claims that universal consciousness and so on, should not be mixed with the Unified Field).. I think this is ironic.
mads18 3 years ago
We are always finding a way to fill a belief, in that way many mix theories or ideas to give a kind of a true to such beliefs, and that's what is wrong about human kind especially when we try to explain our nature.
nalcow 4 years ago
good video..
nalcow 4 years ago 11