Added: 4 years ago
From: monaszy35
Views: 948,586
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (2,346)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • i can relate to many of the things being said in this, but then i created them, so they were bound to be said.

  • Has anyone done any research on this? I don't want to share this if I don't even know what parts aren't accurate.

  • @mysticherpes420 It's a quantum physics thing. Science that can't entirely be explained. It's based on if you believe it or not. And if you don't, you'll never know.

  • 3:40, uh, thank gods, the whole thing is not gonna be in that brain-humping style...

    The rest: this is a little bit boring...

    "The truth is we are all connected" - We are now, thanks to the internet XD

  • I love how this got a million views. People are so sad. With M theory you have to make up 12 dimensions just to make the math come out. Theoretical physicists are stuck on speculation and should not get so much credit as scientists i'm sorry to have to say.

  • My band wrote a song inspired by this sort of thing. Check it out. It's about how we can't get our heads around the universe we live in. it's called "Can't get around it " by Crash Plan

  • search in youtube "Debunked! - What the Bleep Do We Know?" ok?? motherfuckers..

  • @sayroni Hey motherfucker! I watched your movie, and it is true. So I just wanna thank you motherfucker. Now you are my first and second best friend motherfucker. Many thx. >=D

  • @sayroni Idiots who believe the word debunk means to "prove" are a dangerous bunch. All debunking is, is to disagree. It doesn't prove nor disprove anything, moron.

  • @JAGWAH66

    first of all i didn't said anything about the name either i had an opinion on it,i just wrote the name of the video that's all.

    what i'm trying to say is try to be objective and see both sides,both the movie,and the hard critics about it..

    if i insulted you in some way i'm sorry it wasn't my aim...

  • What I have taken from this film is that the truth of our existence, has been distorted by what we've been taught. When we look to our hearts or feelings, there's the dogma, telling us to trivialize emotion, allowing the ego to run the show, judging every experience! Quantum "theory" lends itself to the concept of creating our individual realities, by acknowledging our feelings. Illuminating and replacing the very idea of dualism, to become what we were meant to be. One big happy family!!

  • This is fucking dumb

  • @yoransom To an idiot it would be.

  • Sadly not physics!

    This is an invitation to everyone or anyone to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!

    This theory is based on two postulates

    1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself

    2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

  • @nickharvey7 wtf, you missed the point why the m theory has multiple dimensions

  • whoever is speaking from 7:00 - 7:45, is likely the stupidest fucking moron I have ever heard

  • @odiumhumanigeneri616 you clearly missed her very important point then. please explain to me what is so stupid about that. she is talking about what is clearly our view in the world today, that we are individuals, seperate from everyone else living our own lives in our own little world. this happens everyday. do you not feel as though you are seperate from everyone else? in reality its the complete opposite, we are one. what is essence in you and me is one, we are the same not different.

  • This is hilarious.

  • More pseudoscientific nonsense is what the world really needs.

  • this had so much interesting stuff, but the beginning 8 minutes are shit, those spiritual speculations etc. have no grounds in reality, I am disappointed with this show, I watched clips and thought it was interesting, oh well

  • The title should be: What the fuck do we know? Down the asshole. Slice 1

  • So...these monkeys found something they don't understand and now they want to pray to it. Because thats progressive.

    What a load of New Age tripe.

  • @virtualoctopus No its good. Its just that it doesn't fit in with what you'd like the case to be. Science is digging so deep now that reality is turning from billiard balls into something entirely different. You know that much is true.

  • Comment removed

  • =Q16KpquGsIc

  • In my opinion this movie is an insult. This movie is like stopping, taking a moment to see and smell the flowers... and start philosophizing about "shit" that surrounds you, throwing up some common and obvious knowledge(atoms being very tiny... awesome dude!) and some scientific terms by unlabeled people who dare to say stuff like if it were 2+2=4 when they may actually be saying 2+2=533 but in an unclearer way. If you research the lady J. Z. Knight behind this joke you'll understand.

  • @giorgiomx Oh shoosh. Yes no doubt wotsername is mad as cheese but if she's paying for it then of course she wants to have a go. She's not passing herself off as a scientist; there's plenty of scientists there anyway and they're allowed to postulate. Its not as if the nature of existence is anywhere near being described by science. Some great works been done, yes, but the whole shooting match is wide open to interpretation. Get off your high horse.

  • The is not a SINGLE RECOGNIZED PHYSICIST from a university in this movie with the exeption of DAVID ALBERT who was ENRAGED THAT THEY MISUSED?EDITED HIS IDEAS, HE CLEARLY STATES HE DOES NOT BELEIVE COUNSCOUSNESS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH QM PHYSICS. Its all endocrenologists, spyciatrists and software designers people who have no right in talking about quantum physics. Cmon when the one physicist they quote says that even says they are wrong u have to realize something is crap.

  • "check David Chalmers, Roger Penrose. You can dismiss these ideas all you want, but it will never make you right."

    David chalmers is a philosopher and penrose is a topologist. I can dismiss their ideas and they can dismiss bohm observer independent pilot wave theory, that dosent make them right either. Anyways most physicists consider penrose a qack. There was a debate at harvard and penrose got owned.

  • Bohm Pilot wave theory has been proven! QM physics is observer independent. Particles are not waves they have definite location and speed. Particles move in wave like patterns in the micro world ie the confusion. It has been shown that when wave/PARTICLES are frozen without and observer or stop moving the wave like property disappears because particles move through space in wave like patterns.

  • @thenewdeal38 oh well it looks like we're gonna have to rethink the whole thing anyway now that those darned neutrinos arrived ahead of schedule...looks like stuff is happening that hasn't even been caused yet! Wait - didn't Roger Penrose - the quack - say something like that?

  • @fishybishbash

    Are you reffering to the delayed choice double slit eraser? Because the pilot wave theory perfectly explains that, quantum physics isnt finished yet. The theory of hidden variables is still valid. It has been proven that entangles particles pilot waves spread through space ahead of the particle, and interfered with itself to form the paths along which the particle could travel.

  • @thenewdeal38 No I'm referring to Opera1 and the fact that those damn neutrinos appear to be travelling faster than light. Awkward little fuckers

  • @fishybishbash

    The law of conservation explains entanglment and faster than light travel. However "information" cannot travel faster than the speed of light and even if it could that would not disprove relativity. I personally do beleive in faster than light speeds, but physicist ben nordenberg explains how that is just a extreme vaccum exelaration caused by the laws of conservation.

  • Ah, 240p... My old nemesis...

  • 'No phenomenon is a physical phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.' - John Wheeler.

    By "observed" he means physiclly interacted with. When anything collides into anything it has been "OBSERVED", counsciesness is not part of the description. Physicists use the word "observer" to mean something completley diffrent than the way we layman use it. Things are waves until they bump into other waves that we shoot throught a measuring device (observer) and they arnt waves any more.

  • @thenewdeal38 right, thanks.

  • You wanna play that stupid game? Uncouncious matter made a councious person that made an uncouncous measuring device that uncounsciusly collapsed a wave function. Arguing for quantum councsiesness is like pulling at straws it dosent work that way, look at the world around you it usualy dosent go the way we plan it.

  • Quote from

    John A. Wheeler: "Consciousness" HAS NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with the quantum process. " (Wheeler, 1983).

  • This is not what quantum physicists are saying. Nothing in physics has to do with spirituality. Nothing.

  • @aqouby Depends what you mean when you say spirituality. Consciousness has everything to do with spirituality and physics necessarily has to encompass consciousness in order to move toward a more complete description of the state of existence. You are entirely wrong in your assertion.

  • @fishybishbash Actually I'm not at all. Spirituality is created when trying to explain your existence without using physics or science. Spirituality is philosophical and subjective, and consciousness is the understanding of ones being here. Consciousness creates spirituality if it's just those two around, but physics tells you what is what about what we understand about reality. Spirituality suggests you believe in a spirit, and quantum physics doesn't ever mention anything like that.

  • @aqouby 'Spirituality is created when trying to explain your existence without using physics or science.'

    No. Spirituality refers to your subjective experience of existence which at present science has no way of describing. Erecting an imaginary boundary between subjective consciousness and scientific objectivity is counter productive.

  • @fishybishbash Pretending that there is no difference between the two creates much greater problems. Ever hear of Deepak Chopera? Spirituality does refer to subjective experiences and it does not rely on science. Science DOES rely on objective reasoning and will not allow subjective nonsense because it gets us nowhere. There IS a wall between the 2.

  • @aqouby Until science can correctly describe how subjective consciousness arises then it has fallen short of a description of existence - we are nowhere near that, but at least the implication of QM that at root the universe is non-material is a start. Chopra is a clown. check David Chalmers, Roger Penrose. You can dismiss these ideas all you want, but it will never make you right.

  • @fishybishbash You're trying to claim things are right and a part of science when all it is are a persons beliefs. Roger Penrose is an amazing physicist and I study much of his work, but I do not hold true his Beliefs on spirituality as I do the Facts that he has uncovered about our Universe. I believe these people as being intelligent and trustworthy because they follow the rules of science, which is to not bring beliefs into it. Do the maths, study the facts, try to disprove your hypothesis.

  • @fishybishbash And what do you mean non-material? QM studies energies at small levels, there's nothing non-material about it. We use virtual particles in our work, which aren't a real particle, but it allows us to equate it to our macroscopic reality. I just don't get how you can be so ignorant to something you think you might understand.

  • @aqouby What do I mean non-material? "particles are probablity waves when unobserved' to quote your friend. That equates to non-material no? It seems quite plain English

  • @fishybishbash lol, no, it doesn't equal to non-material. It just means we have to take 'position' with a grain of sand when it's at the quantum scale. There's no lack of energy(mass) there.

  • @aqouby You're saying the wave function, pre collapse, has mass?

  • @fishybishbash I'm saying that's what mass is on the smallest scale. When you say wave, what wave are you thinking of? What is waving? It's energy, and if you know anything about it then you'll know that it's mass that you can also represent it by. Where there is no wave, there is no mass or energy-- but there's not really a place like that in the Universe.

    I'm saying that a wave function has energy (in the subject of which we're talking).

  • @aqouby You're saying then that the wave function 'consists of' or is composed of energy? My understanding is that only at the point at which wave function is collapsed can energy be brought into the equation as such. Until that point it can really only be thought of as potential. You're saying thats incorrect?

  • @fishybishbash No, the wave function itself incorporates the energy of the particle. When they say that a particle takes every possible path, it's just synonymous with a wave equation. The most likely path is the wave at its highest and vice versa. If the macroscopic world acted like the quantum world then we would be spread out like a wave and gather at the places where the wave is most built up at that moment. That's why particles don't really move, they jump from potentials. Cleared up?

  • @aqouby "That's why particles don't really move, they jump from potentials. Cleared up?" So before they 'jump from potentials' they are particles? Or not? Sorry but I would love to clarify this.

  • @fishybishbash Don't think of point particles, that's your problem. It's the compression of waves that create the particle we study. Actually, the problem is that you are taking this video as something scientific when it isn't. Study physics and learn to understand concepts.

  • @aqouby So its the compression of waves that create the particles we're talking about? What are the waves made of? Why do you say I should learn to understand concepts? No doubt the maths is complex but the idea seems straightforward conceptually speaking -

  • @fishybishbash It's not about science. It's about random mutations. Its like the bible, Genesis was written about the beginning, but it wasn't supposed to be about the beginning. At a fundamental level the waves connect us to the universe that create all of the problems in the world.

  • @CautionCU I'm sorry but that statement sounds like random nonsense.

  • @fishybishbash Probably cause it is!

  • @fishybishbash Waves are energy, the low point is a low energy density and therefore probability of it being there is low. Inversely with the high point. You can think of quantum waves as water ripples-- but that's for only if you don't know the maths and you want to think of subatomic particles like a baby would. Understand that they do not act like water waves in the same way as you would expect without a physics background. It's based in the realm of the Uncertainty Principle and other messes

  • Comment removed

  • @fishybishbash Everything these people are saying has nothing to do with quantum mechanics! That's the problem! They say that since we're all made out of the same kind of stuff that is connected through forces, that it implies some sort of existential or metaphysical truth. It doesn't. When people hear about quantum mechanics without any thorough inspection into the subject, that's when they start spouting nonsense that does not at all relate to anything but philosophy.

  • @fishybishbash Yes, everything I've said has been proven through experiments done throughout the past 70 years, or else I wouldn't be saying it. Derp.

  • @aqouby What was that Feynman said about no-one understanding quantum physics? that includes you, Sheldon.

  • @fishybishbash Well that really shows that you are one of the people I'm talking about. Quantum mechanics is well understood or else it wouldn't of been able to come up with the conclusions it has. When Feynman said that he doesn't even understand it, he meant that he doesn't understand why these mechanics are and why they're so fundamentally different from the ones we see in our ordinary experiences. How about you back down or admit you don't know squat.

  • @aqouby Absolutely not Sheldon, You're the one who's bullshitting here.

  • @aqouby You see what you absolutely detest is the suggestion that quantum effects like the measurement problem might have any ramifications beyond the laboratory. You suggest that because behaviour of particles and matter has to be ordered in a different way for different levels, that the microscopic and macroscopic are not related or relevant to each other, whereas it is perfectly reasonable to postulate this. Its just that you dont like the idea, so you pour scorn on those that suggest it.

  • @fishybishbash I didn't say microscopic and macroscopic. I can only assume that they act just about the same mechanically. You must not understand when uncertainty comes into play as a characteristic of matter. Did I say that I detest the idea of quantum effects that can be measured macroscopically? No, I didn't. I'd appreciate if you didn't put uneducated words into my mouth. If you've ever heard of BEC or have any knowledge on EM, then you'd know that I indeed would not claim this. So...I win?

  • @fishybishbash i like it when people type "quantum"

  • @aqouby Exactly. Subjective may be good for experiencing life but it will never put us on Mars. I understand that subjective stuff like art is an important human endeavour, but this stuff in this vid [and indeed all of new age] is philosophy - the problem is that it uses our 21st century obsession with science to back up their claims.

  • Evidence please.

  • @aaqucnaona94 for what

  • @fishybishbash For the totally unrealistic interpretation of Qm. U got to say why something is the way u say it is, what supports u and how do u explain the things that dont seem to support u. These guys say I think, and IMO and got to be and so on... thats not evidence at all - they expect us to believe the OPINION of a lady who supposedly channels a 35,000 yr old guy from atlantis and doesnt know ANYTHING about QM? This is a promo [really - google it] for her RSE [academy for new ager crap].

  • @aaqucnaona94 There's plenty of evidence that support the idea that classical physics does not accurately describe the nature of matter. This is what the measurement problem is all about (google it) - these are results that have been verified and repeated under laboratory conditions, evidence, in other words, that the physical universe is at root an entirely different construct to the Newtonian model. Dont let your own prejudices get in the way of the facts.

  • @fishybishbash FTW? I know QM is correct and newtonian physics all break down on the atomic scale. I mean consiousness and observer effect are not related. Similarly entanglement and universal oneness is unrelated. So is wave particle duality unrealted to all is energy type new age stuff. This set of correlations is an interpretation of QM just as Copenhagen's view is now a accepted interpretaion. An interpretaion either has to prove its views or accept them to be just an opinion.

  • How the BLEEP did i get here!

  • 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 On the contrary. The observer effect clearly implies that there is no phenomena without observation, the act of which, by any accepted definition, is facilitated by 'consciousness'. There would be no measuring device were it not for consciousness.

    'No phenomenon is a physical phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.' - John Wheeler.

  • @fishybishbash No - what the observer effect is that particles are probablity waves when unobserved and observation [due to energy transference] collapses the wave into a point particle. The Entity in its dual nature exists without a observer. Consciouness isnt necessary, an INTERACTION is. Another atom's electron is just as good as a person with a particle accelerator. Ps. Have u actually studied QM? TTC has an simple audio course on modern science [torrented], it will dispel your "Gree Gree".

  • @aaqucnaona94 BAAAMMMMMMM-- lol sorry but that was awesome. I study QM and it sickens me to see people making videos like this and believing such crazy shit. "We're all one wave" etc. *sigh*

  • @aqouby Whats really amazing is u have two extreme examples of very very horrible science - quantum mysticism and Creationism aka ID. I was a new ager once and read the secret, and the lynn mctaggart series and was completely into noetics. What dispelled it? Simple study of logic, reasoning, scientific skepticism and a study of biology and classical and modern physics [all sudio lecs and shamelessly pirated]. The want to believe convinces us that what we think is real is really real.

  • @aaqucnaona94 Yeah? I know I know... It's futile to try to argue with people who believe in this stuff... I'll keep trying to push science thought :D

  • @aaqucnaona94 lol thanks for the 'heads up'. You agree at least that consciousness exists? Or is it a figment of someones imagination? If QM can shed any light at all on the nature of consciousness, which I think it does, then we should consider the proposition seriously. You presumably think you are doggedly sticking to the facts and your cold hard logical mindset trumps any notion of subjective experience. Its not the case. 'Real' is a movable feast.

  • @fishybishbash No really, have u studied QM? Conssciousness is the emergent property of neurons like a mount is the result of termites. Qm can shed a light on this is ur OPINION and is valid in philosophy but not in science. Unless the relation of Qm and neurology can be proven, this is just a proposition. Real is moveble, but being subjective means all views are equal - again, valid in philosophy but not in science - whatever ur subjective experience, u will fall due to gravity.

  • @aaqucnaona94 Consciousness being an emergent phenomenon is totally a proposition! There's no proof of that whatsoever. Subjective does not mean that all views are equal, merely the only way of experiencing the universe is from your apparently personal point of view. You may not like it but science has to surmount this barrier. You cant explain existence on a blackboard, sorry.

  • @fishybishbash I agree that its a proposition, but it is the current hypothesis in nuerology. All subjective views share some common grounds - like gravity, color of a phenotype in roses, charge of a electron, etc. These are the only things science can work with and the only things that can be proven to any extent. So unless consciousness can be explained by science and any relation to Qm established, until then, the statements in this video are just personal opinions, with no scientific value.

  • @fishybishbash Cont... A very hypocritical thing i see is that spiritualists and religious people say science is dogmatic and unmoving - but thats what they actuall are. What science is, is that it is open to ideas but only if u prove them - speculation doesnt work. A cold hard logical mindset may not be philosophically 'best' but it put us on the moon, while the opposite put young women in fires.

  • @aaqucnaona94 I'm an advocate of science. I dont go to church, never been christened, dont chant mantras and view the established religion with the disdain it deserves. But if you're really committed to sticking to the TRUTH, then you have to allow that the boundaries may not be where you think they are, no matter how preposterous that may turn out to be.

  • @fishybishbash K. Sorry for stereotyping. I see we have been talking at crosspurposes. U do know the science and arent a new ager crackpot, so what exactly is ur position?

  • Fuel Cells could have worked, nanotechnology, everything

  • it's a tragedy that people educate themselves with this film. 

  • @009SoundVEVO VEVO? Wow, It seems wierd to think of vevo as a person rather than a commercial entity. Btw, I like that u support the critical thinking and no mysticism view.

  • Population is the key concern for the future leading into 2016-2020, futuristic energy sources

  • Poseidon isnt the god of irrigation...... hes the god of the sea, which is kind of very different considering the sea is salt water, something you wouldnt want for irrigation.

  • ppl who come back from near death experiences tell of a place were time is abcent. and being in a constant state of knowing. perhaps the question to ask is what does our theoretical universe look like from their drawing boards?- that is to say; time there IS theoretical.

  • my brain is shitting itself as i watch this

  • We have no sense of reality eh? Uh we do it's call being critical thinkers and a higher stage of psychological development which happens at late adolescence. Wow, what profound knowledge.

    Is it a coincidence that the studio that made this garbage also produces garbage movies for Vince Mcmahon? Not surprising at all.

  • So, did you find any scientific flaws. It is a pretty good doc.

  • Fuck that, Religion should always be separate from the State. Science and state, religion = private.

  • Darwin believed in God. The idea that you cannot believe in a diety while at the same time believing in natural selection is a provincial, idiotic view,

  • Using scientific terminology dishonestly, with no understanding of what words mean, is what idiots do to impress idiots.

    Science is WAAAAAY harder than just making grand assertions with no reason or evidence to back you up. Science requires actual study, which continues for a lifetime. You can either learn science or learn to intimidate idiots with scientific terminology you don't understand.

    This movie is a case of the latter. Reality is WAY cooler and more complex than this crap.

  • @sleepcity Yes thats right mate Science is REALLY hard and only people with your IQ and commitment could ever possibly come to any valid conclusion about what the subject is telling us. Come off it. Its like saying only Beethoven could appreciate good music.

  • @fishybishbash "Its like saying only Beethoven could appreciate good music." You know what though? I didn't say that. You did. "...only people with your IQ and commitment could ever possibly come to any valid conclusion about what the subject is telling us" Once again, I didn't say that. You did. Straw-man much?

  • @sleepcity yeh and you. What you said was presumptuous and patronising.

    "Science is WAAAAAY harder than just making grand assertions with no reason or evidence to back you up." You're saying that none of them have any scientific credentials whatsoever and you're saying that not because its true, but because you disapprove of the tone of the piece. Straw man my arse

  • @fishybishbash

    Not a single ONE is a PHYSCISIST at a university. They are sphycologists, endocronologists software desginers, they have no right to pretend like they know anything about quantum physics.

  • If you watch this film and think it has any value then good luck with your life.

  • One of the most relevant films of our time. Thanks for posting. Please check out our short film about science, universal energy and ancient wisdom on our channel.

  • You should watch this documentary if you feel like you don't get to roll your eyes enough.

  • Lots of pseudoscience bullshit and conjecture.

  • @zavatone That's why it's called pseudoscience. Now if you're referring to quantum physics or psychology, then I suggest you check your reality.

  • @AinurOlorin Huh? Pseudoscience means it doesn't stand up to rigor. Conjecture is unproven opinion based on an improper understanding of the situations. Anyway, I have a day job. Don't have time to follow up on this.

  • whether we learn or not. whether we go down the rabbit hole or not. at the end of the day. we as a people mean NOTHING to the void that is the universe we live.

  • @Jwallermusic We do not live in the universe.. We ARE the universe... So we mean everything.

  • @AnnoyingXboxer No man. Even if all life on earth were to magically vanish, it would make no difference, the unvierse will the same as it was b4. We are a tiny branch on a massive tree of life on a single planet around a tiny star in a corner of our galaxy. Our galaxy itself isnt even 0.1% of all that exists in the universe. We LITERALLY are nothing.

  • A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite.

  • @arzoyan too bad that possibility is impossible

  • @timson88 Nothing is impossible and the need to share the EARTH IN COOPERATION is the only sane alternative to this outdated,dehumanising,destruct­ive MARKET MECHANISM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and MANIPULATION for the private gain of a tiny criminal elite. Empower your humanity in negating tyranny .

  • @arzoyan Lots of shit is impossible. That is why you are not a millionaire surrounded by horny strippers right now.

  • @zavatone  Your Owners have turned you upside down .

  • @arzoyan Hahaha. How is the view from inside your own asshole? Pseudo science is bullshit until it can be proven. 'Till that, it's pure conjecture. If you doubt me, look up the definitions for the words.

    Hope you enjoy the air in there. It looks like you love it. Just inhale deeply and keep on dreamin'!

  • @zavatone

    I don't get it. You say that's physically impossible...?

  • @arzoyan

    I respect your ambition

  • @arzoyan All systems are flawed, because some humans don't give a fuck.

  • @Quartrez For human nature and nurture dichotomy watch the Zeitgeist Moving Forward.

  • @arzoyan venus project?

  • @koesalagoepagoep EXACTLY but IT CAN COME ABOUT THROUGH MAJORITY DEOMCRATIC POLITICAL ACTION

  • I read the comments

    I learned nothing

    Avoid them to save annoyance for something more annoying (and less annoying at the same time)

  • @SlipAllCityToy thanks for the advice!!

    :)

  • This hypothesis sounds like metaphysical solipsism. The QM element looks like an analogy to describe the the relationship between the conscious( The observer) and the unconscious ( the superposition) and with thought we can choose the end state. My problem now is knowing if I am a part of the producers' reality or are they a part of mine?

  • Terence McKenna, DMT.

  • The absolute truth is the interdependence of life, the entanglement of all and everything in the language of quantum physics. Capitalism is the historic process of PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP OF ALIENATION,EXPLOITATION AND SUFFERING OF HUMANITY in a modality of commodity production with the sole motive of profit . A WORLD MARKET MECHANISM of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY,, DISTORTION AND DESTRUCTION. The emergent realisation of limits and obsolete nature of Capitalism is on.

  • A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite.

  • Many of these speakers appear misunderstand Science. It does not say that the rise and evolution of life is based on mistakes and randomness. If the natural world were random, we'd have no uniformity whatsoever, no repeatability, laws - nothing. There's nothing random about compatible molecules finding one another. Nor is the adaptation of behaviour and form, in order to better survive, random or mistaken. & there's nothing more connected than to be part of an ecosystem in the continuum of time.

  • @UberNoodleX the questions WHY would like molecules WANT for anything at all, is there a critical mass were this happens?

  • (5:00) If there is a religion that would have no qualms with Science and the implications of its findings, it would be Buddhism. Did I mishear this man? Case in point: Buddhism has had no trouble co-existing and even entwining with other beliefs, such as Shinto and Confucianism. And while there's an original Buddha, all beings are able to reach his state. The means to get there are also not dogmatically defined, unlike in the fundamentally rigid doctrines and values of Abrahamic traditions.

  • Why they try to marry science and religion? They use science to justify their arbitrary religious beliefs. Disgusting.

  • @mtpylkka11 I doubt that's what they're doing. I wasn't able to make it through the video but I still doubt it.

  • Turn off OLD television devices, the TV device, not neccessarily montiors..

    Network cable, especially wireless, turn it off, remove from the home.. Unplug from the wall. Then you will notice this stuff everyday, in a few weeks. Turn it off, trust me or study TV, light, Electromagnetics and brainwaves and you will soon understand why it must be shut off.

  • Yes.

  • lol this has been a topic of philosophy for a long time. Oh duality, how you keep resurfacing and then being shut down by other philosophers who make logical arguments against you :D.

  • This documentary starts fine, really excellent but ends up being a fake. It is just religion speech hiden behind a courtain of science. Please do not get confused by this nonsense. It is not science, they just use quatum theory as a way to back what is purely religion.

    again, this is not science!

  • I totally agree with the warning in the intro title. The woman who talks about evolution from 3 minutes onward is uneducated about it.

    I think it should be a crime to pose as being educated about a subject and then talk about it under the guise of a teacher. Shame on her!

  • @Marktheshtfgenius I agree, if it were a crime, creationists would go into hiding. Kent Hovind is fortunately already in jail for something unrelated, they should just add to his sentence for deliberately propagating misinformation.

  • 02:20- 02:35

    It says that we are "random mutations" But we are NOT random mutations.

    That is, according to Richard Dawkins, the most misunderstood thing about evolution.

    It isn't random.

    .

    .

    .

    Spread the word in order to defeat this misinformation

  • HORRIBLE strawman arguments throughout.

    -"little machines running in a predictable machine universe"? since when is science only compatible in a deterministic universe? scientific advancement has NOTHING to do with the philosophical ideas of determinism. poorly made strawman arguments

    -the theory of evolution is not nihilistic. again, strawman arguments. learn evolution before criticizing it

    -"scientists told us that were some sort of genetic mistake..." um, no? no they did not.

    terrible video

  • i didn't know that you can only see things that you've seen already. beliefs are fun, facts are boring and probably not true

  • 03.45 If you want to skip the stupid irritating introduction.

  • haha, i love how much this movie got debunked! 

  • The people who were closest to achieving this in Western history were the Minoans of ancient Crete---sexy, good humored, incredibly inventive and curious, with their world's highest AVERAGE living standards...and an amazing conception of the cycles of life....ANCIENT LIGHTS dot o-r-g

  • To share the Earth in cooperation for all generations to come, A MONEYLESS,CLASSLESS,STATELESS communities of humanity expressing our multitude of creative energies in harmony and wisdom, The current world socio-economic minority imposition is the negation and alienation of our common humanity Capitalism in corporate or state modality is the tyranical rule of RULING ELITE . The awakening is inevitable, the revolution a must

  • Evolution isn't a fact by any means. That's not cool how this video just accepts it as a truth. We could have evolved I'm not saying that we didn't I'm opened to evolution. I want it to be proven, but it is not a proven science... yet. However we can't say it is if it isn't. That's dangerous. Because in the 1% chance it isn't true, It would take us longer to find that truth with our minds already made up.

  • @uppercutter21 The genetics proves the evolution, the fossils prove the evolution, the social heirarchy and everything in nature proves the laws of evolution. You just have to read and understand the theory better.

  • @albana86 No genetics don't prove anything except some genes of chimps are very similar to mans. Similar doesn't mean anything but that. You are the people who take the next step and say that's proof we share a common ancestor. We might, but genes don't prove anything except similarities. Many Fossils are an anomaly and not a perfect science. There are fossilized trees that go through (supposed) millions of years of rock layers. Fossilized human footprints form 100's millions of years ago.

  • @uppercutter21 Where is this foot print from "100 million years ago" that deny the evolution theory? The evolution dont happen in a seconde. It's a process. Anyway the genetics has the strongest proves. What do you think the bacterial resistance to antibiotics is? A 100% prove of a bacterial evolution. The evolution is as true as the gravity.

  • @uppercutter21 Only some fanatic religious people trys to confuse the people who dont have enough information about it or haven't understand the theory. In this century there is no more space for this debate. The evolution is a natural process. Read more about it, open your minde and try to undrestand it.

  • @uppercutter21 "No genetics don't prove anything except some genes of chimps are very similar to mans. Similar doesn't mean anything but that."

    When someone asserts that genetics prove evolution, we are not only talking about genetic similarites. What they are talking about is a method of DNA hybridization among other things. I won't explain DNA hybridization, because it takes too much time. Also, you are presumably an ID proponent, why do we have the genes for a fully functional tail?

  • @uppercutter21 Why do whales have the genes for fully functional legs and other limbs? How do you explain the the biogeographical distribution of all life on Earth? How do you explain our ability to collect data and insert that data into phylogenetic trees? Are 99.8% of all biologists wrong, and someone like you with no understanding of biology correct? Are you aware that your Intelligent Design hypothesis is an argument fom ignorance and unfalsifiable, therefore rendering it unscientific?

  • @uppercutter21 "There are fossilized trees that go through (supposed) millions of years of rock layers."

    You should really avoid creationists websites that launch these easily refutable attacks towards evolution. These tree do in fact exist. Perhaps you should read a book, or get your information from legitimate sources. The trees are fossilized vertically because of natural events such as mudslides or floods, usually these trees are present in areas that were once valleys.