What the &*%# (bleep) do we know?

by Navigator 46 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  drwtsn32

  I'm not defending the movie, although it was more right than it was wrong. I'm explaining or defending the quantum physics paradigm of reality. .... snip ..... science observes while agreeing with relativity which also proves to be accurate.

  Couldn't agree more with everything you said here.

  The grim reality is that many quantum physicist are also on the edge of scientific philosophy as well as mysticism. Unfortunately, what they are dealing with and explaining is very much compatible with what the mystics have been saying for thousands of years. The two mixing a little is evitable.

  Can you give a specific example or two? Or provide a link for me to research?
• 

  Markfromcali

  Well it seems at this point we're really discussing more general ideas than the movie in particular so I will make one observation. One thing I've noticed is there is often a failure to distinguish between thought-actualization and self-actualization. What I'm calling thought-actualization is basically that mind over matter stuff, not unlike Kevin Smith trying to do the Jedi mind trick as Silent Bob in the movie Mallrats. Self-actualization on the other hand is simply to fulfill your potential, and a bunch of other specific stuff I don't remember from psych. The point though is it's not about being able to create brownies out of thin air or something, but the principle is a matter of being yourself, the best you can be. It's also not the same as telling yourself nice things, (see Stuart Smalley's positive affirmation) there isn't this kind of split between a positive thinking part of yourself and one with low self esteem. It kind of has a sense of you are just who you are, doing whatever it is you do. What ends up happening when you take it as thought-actualization though is you have beliefs, whereas self-actualization has nothing to do with that. For example there's a big difference between thinking about self-acceptance and actually having it happen. When it's actually there you don't sit around thinking about it TRYING to make it happen, it's a non-issue - a given.
• 

  ESTEE

  Self-actualization on the other hand is simply to fulfill your potential ... The point though is it's not about being able to create brownies out of thin air or something, but the principle is a matter of being yourself, the best you can be.

  Well put, Mark! My sense is that concepts like self-actualization has been bastardized by the jws. Simply because they don't want their members using their own minds on matters and becoming more than they currently are ... brainwashed. The dubs want their members to be robotic, how else could they be controlled and used the way they are? I say let's be open to self-improvement and self-actualization and fulfill our potential. Try new things and new beliefs about ourselves and the universe. Leave the dubisms at the kh! We are more than that ... now!!!

  Love,

  ESTEE
• 

  Navigator

  Any "science" that relies solely on what can be observed with our human senses is likely to be proved erroneous because, as been amply demonstrated over and over again, our human senses are not very reliable. Our brains tend to translate the images our eyes "see" in terms of our prior experience. Hence the Hawaians seeing Captain Cook on "floating islands". There used to be a museum in New York that had an exhibit demonstrating how easy it was to fool the six senses. Science is not all that precise. Typically, they come up with(postulate) theorems and then experiment to see if the theorem is correct. The problem is that the observer of the experiment affects the outcome of the experiment. The classic example is that of light energy. Is it a particle motion or a wave motion? Experimentation has demonstated that it is both. Numerous demonstations on the power of prayer have been conducted where one group of cancer patients was being prayed for, but the other was not. Neither group was made aware of the experiment so as not to affect the outcome. The group being "prayed for" did much better that the control group. The experiment has been repeated successfully many times. Why does this work? Scientists know that the body can produce powerful healing chemicals when a placebo is ingested and the patient told that it is a powerful healing chemical. Bernie Siegal in his book Love, Medicine and Miracles documents a case where an advanced cancer patient was put into remission by distilled water when told that it was the powerful healing drug Krybiozen (later proved to be worthless). How does this work? Science can observe, but not explain this. Just because they can't explain it doesn't mean there is not a scientific explanation. What if there is only one mind with myriad cells all connected and sharing each others reality? What if that mind is not "local" but only appears to be local. Think of it as a giant movie projector. Instead of processing film, it is processing thoughts. What appears on the movie screen is going to accurately portray what is going through the "projector". As jst2laws says, this is what the mystics have been telling us for 2000 years. The Hindus call it "maya".
• 

  jst2laws

  Navigator,

  Impressive.

  DrWatson,

  I will work something up eventually and post it one day. For now I can give you some references that will explain the New Physics (quantum mechanics).

  Taking the Quantum Leap by Fred Alan Wolf

  The Matter Myth by Paul Davies and John Gribbin

  In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin

  The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra

  All are recognized physicist and Capra makes an extensive and yet very scientific case for the parallels in quantum physics and the Perennial Philosophy (Eastern Mysticism)

  Below is a good summary of Quantum Physics. Under "Copenhagen Interpretation" you will find Bohr quoted as basically saying "nothing is real unless it is observed". Personally I feel that is a little misleading to the average person. The energy processes are there interacting without an observer. But it has no solid, meaningful appearance until we look at it. After all nothing solid has been found in the atom.

  http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html?tqskip1=1

  Please be patient. My internet opportunities have been very erratic lately. I will try to write up something soon.

  Jst2laws
• 

  drwtsn32

  Navigator,

  The problem is that the observer of the experiment affects the outcome of the experiment.

  I couldn't agree with this more. That is why double-blind studies are vital. Science recognizes this fact.

  Numerous demonstrations on the power of prayer have been conducted where one group of cancer patients was being prayed for, but the other was not. Neither group was made aware of the experiment so as not to affect the outcome. The group being "prayed for" did much better that the control group.

  If you are referring to the Columbia University Prayer Study, this has been found to be flawed.

  I will quote from the an article in Skeptical Inquirer (Sept/Oct 2004) dealing with this issue:

  The much-hyped Columbia University prayer study was flawed and suspicious from the start but now has been fatally tainted with fraud. The first-named author doesn't respond to inquiries. The "lead" author said he didn't learn of the study until months after it was completed. And now the mysterious third author, indicted by a federal grand jury, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud. All his previous studies must now be questioned.

  You say this experiment has been repeated successfully several times. Please cite your references.
• 

  drwtsn32

  jst2laws,

  I will take a look at those references. Thank you!