The grand illusion

What do you think?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William Tiller
• John Hagelin
• quantum physics
• Dr. Amit Goswami
• David Lynch
• Fred Alan Wolf
• consciousness
• David Icke
• Max Plank
• atoms
• unified field of consciousness
• happiness
• empathy
• joy
• bliss
• evolution
• creation
• god
• intelligence
• lfc
• mufc
• chelsea
• arsenal
• man city
• premier league
• cup final
• John Terry

[adparker314]

sorienor is correct.

This is from "What the Bleep do we know?!" Which abuses real quantum physics by distorting and layering over it with layers of mystical new age wooberish.

They use:

Scientific terminology while talking gibberish

Edit interviews to appear to be saying more than they are.

Distorting real science, annoying their authors no end.

Claiming pseudo-science as if the real thing...

Look for this video for one example of debunking:

"Debunked! - What the Bleep Do We Know?"

[2010FuckUTube]

Ok, so you have a very small understanding of quantum physics. Now you must understand then, the principals of the atom, how they react when an observer is observing them/it... What is it giving its information, were does it get its intelligence from?.You know, the same intelligence which is given to the "rain drop" as it forms into a snow flake, take into consideration, no two snowflakes are the same, and what intelligence froms complex shapes to form the flake?

Intelligence is the key to life!

[automaticSOM]

I disagree. Atom's dont act the way that they do because they are intelligent. They act according to well defined laws.

You cannot really say that no too snowdrops are the same. What you can say is that it is highly unlikely that too snow drops will have the exact same properties.

Besides, even if the world is an illusion. The animals in my illusion evolved from a common ancester.

[2010FuckUTube]

@automaticSOM Atoms do not behave to well defining laws, have you seen "the double slit" experiment?...Feel free to watch. watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

And its true, its the same as finger prints, no two are the same. EVER!...Well non that humans know of. "fingerprints or snowflakes"

Yes, yes, yes... that is the way the illusion works, within this illusion we need faith, even if its to give substance to "reality". Humans think we are clever, and we are, when we limit ourselves to five senses.

[2010FuckUTube]

....but when we think outside of the box, beyond our five senses, then that is the next step in evolution, but not evolution of matter, as matter is only give substance through the observation.

Frequency's are evolving. Look into cymatics and see the intelligence for yourself, it really is amazing. It is this that gives the raindrop its information. Frequency's carry "intent".

[automaticSOM]

Yes I have seen the two slit experiment but that doesnt change the fact that atoms adhere to certain laws. Even the uncertainty principle is in itself a law.

I dont see how you can interpret quantum mechanics how you do.

[2010FuckUTube]

@automaticSOM It is because my thinking is not on the particle itself, its on the environment, this is full of potential...This is were the intelligence is...Unified field of consciousness...The fundamental roots of all intelligence. This is not hocus pocus, it is science..

[jimmyboyG485]

Reading through the Uploader Comments section, I've come to the conclusion that OP is so full of shit I'd be better educated listening to my toilet.

[samarafoundation]

‎"Remember to stay in the heart where the impossible is possible" Tony Samara

[MrJay21121990]

@2010FuckUTube no, this is talking without actually saying anything.

The double split experiment do not show that atoms don´t behave to well defining laws. It shows that sub-atomic particles (like photons, neutrinos...) behave differently from what classical randomness would suggest. But you can predict their behavior with the laws of quantum physics. And atoms obey those laws.

The observations you´re doing are science, but the conclusions you are making are, in fact, madly wrong

[ROBECABAL]

HOW COME THE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SCREEN IN THE BRAIN A FEW CUBIC CENTIMETERS,NEVER SEEN THAT PART OF THE BRAIN IN PICTURES AS PART OF THE

BRAIN, AND HOW COME THE PICTURE INSIDE THE BRAIN HAS TO BE INVERTED, DO NOT WE HAVE A TRANSFORMER TO STRAIGHT THIS IMAGE RIGHT, CAUSE WE SEE EVERYTHING RIGHT.PLEASE ANSWER.

[NixonAre]

@adparker314 this i can appreciate. I finde you intresting to discuss with my friend, have a nice day :)

[adparker314]

@NixonAre Sure, the world and or understanding of it moves on.

Films like this try to capitalise on this in order to push their woo as if it was "the future" when in fact it is mystical mumbo jumbo abusing the work of real science to further their own delusional beliefs.

It's not like I dismiss the message of the film out of hand (I even brought the extended edition to give it a fair shake) I dismiss it because it distorts not furthers, understanding, undermines progress not aids it.

[NixonAre]

@adparker314 my example of a man saying the world is round. was not an atempt of validating this movie or its content. my point was that we base our view of the world on things we learn at school see inn the media or books. how do we know any of it is as it seems? todays cuting edge science is tomorows we used to beleve that.

[adparker314]

@NixonAre Know how everything works? No, why do you ask? The film from which this video is taken is a dishonest misrepresentation conflating a cult's doctrine with real science.

Your made up example of a man saying the world is round in no way suggests any validity to the silly claims in the film. "Once a man said that the world came out of a giant universal egg, should we accept that as true as well? No, that is not how reason works; You Make the claim, you back it up with evidence.

[NixonAre]

@adparker314 Do you know how every thing works, or are you just saying what you interpret this video as? ones a man sad the world is round. he was redeculed. but he vas proven to be rigth. so the understanding of quantum physics that the human race has now. may be proven rigth or wrong in the future.