Deepak Chopra, Michael Shermer, Chapman University

"Is there an Ultimate Reality?" and if yes, "Can it be accounted for by science such as mathematics, biology and physics?" Hear from Deepak Chopra, Michael Shermer and a panel of scientists address these questions during a recent special event at Chapman University, in the Folino Theater. Available at iTunes U http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/t...

• Category

  Education

[TheCommonS3Nse]

Einstein once said "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I believe this quote applies directly to Deepak. He sounds poetic but in reality he is just making a confusing argument about something he does not fully understand. Watch how Leonard explains non-locality. It is simple and elegant. That is what science strives for, to bring people into the fold of understanding, not to alienate them with poetic "woo woo"

[TheCommonS3Nse]

Deepak is a scientist by default, he does not exercise the scientific method. That's fine to use scientific words poetically, but I have never seen him make any reliable and testable predictions based on what he says. Any true scientist would be humble enough to let others test his theories to show that they are indeed true.

My personal opinion is that Deepak is extremely arrogant in that he claims to know more about Quantum physics than the experts that have dedicated their lives to it.

[John Cullen]

So the moon isn't there when I don't look at it? Shut up, learn some quantum mechanics, sitting in a cave meditating doesn't make you a theoretical physicist.

[FJBRDALLAS]

The Universe is mostly empty space, but we as humans have evolved at a scale in which the fluctuations of quantum particles sum to what we call the material world. Both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct, they deal with the same reality at different scale. If you try to study a particle you will find that it is possible for such quark to be in two places at the same time (there have actually been experiments) But no one in their right mind would propose the same for a cannon ball.

[Nicolas Ciccone]

Excuse me, but you don't know a thing about his scientific work or his level of expertise in the field. Just because it sounds "crazy" doesn't make it incorrect.

You're welcome to be skeptical of his ideas. In fact, he encourages such treatment as a scientist. But if you're just going to say his ideas are at "a level of woo-woo beyond measure", whatever that means, we don't want you around making comments like this. They don't get us anywhere.

[scott williamson]

We are a conscious expression of the universe because we come from it. What could be more amazing and spiritual than that?

[CheddarBob39]

More like practice buddhism. Practice leads to direct experience and thus knowing. That's why some people understand this so called "woo woo" and some people don't.

[CheddarBob39]

I think Deepak and Shermer are right. Deepak is talking about the quantum aspect of reality, Shermer is talking about the reality that we can see with the naked eye. Yes, if you look through a powerful microscope you will see that nothing is solid, but if you look with the naked eye at stuff you will see many things are solid. So, do you say something is solid or not? Yes, it depends on context. What are you talking about? Quantum or not? Both reality though.

[CheddarBob39]

That's nice, you can't refute what he says and therefore you resort to insults. Yeah, that makes him wrong, you insult him.

[CheddarBob39]

I'll ask everybody a question. Do you REALLY think Deepak would continually participate in these debates/discussions if he didn't REALLY believe what he believes? Now, I am not saying he is right or not, I am just saying I don't think he is a scam artist. A scam artist is somebody who knows they are full of crap yet still spouts it to make money. Whether you think Deepak is delusional or not is up to you, but I don't think he is a scam artist. 

[CheddarBob39]

I don't think he plays with words to be "poetic." But because you can only use metaphors for something that is greater than the mind itself and can only be known through direct experience. You can't use the mind for something that is above the mind. Words are only signposts at best. You can't think about the state of "no thought" which gives you direct experience. If you think about "no thought" you are still thinking.

[Tomcat Alexander]

atheists do not believe in things they can't see with their own mind, so if they can not see out of the mind of a Pantheist like myself, they can never see the proof they are looking for.