It's 4.In reply to this comment by rougy:
@Stormsinger:

So, tell me the last digit in pi.

I'm in agreement with you on most things, just to let you know.

But I think you missed the point of his statement, and that's exactly what I was talking about in my post above.

What is the last digit of pi?

Your video, Physicist Leonard Mlodinow vs. Deepak Chopra, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

WTF? Are you now claiming that pi does have a finite number of digits? Or are you claiming that it's not used by men?

LOTS of numbers have infinite digits in decimal form, dude. As I mentioned before. 1/3, 1/7, 1/9, a vast wave of fractions don't have exact decimal representations. And that's not even getting into the other irrational numbers, NONE of which have precise decimal representations.

And you're still ignoring what I said...if it was metaphor, he should say so, not try to imply that he saying something scientific.

You know what a metaphor based on an error is called? An ERROR. Wrong is wrong, it's really that simple. Would you accept it if I said that 2+2=5 is just a metaphor? I certainly hope not, because it's just wrong.
>> ^rougy:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Stormsinger" title="member since May 19th, 2007" class="profilelink">Stormsinger:
You don't get it.
How can a number that has been used by civilized man to erect a civilization have no end?
You still refuse to admit that you do not know everything.
It's metaphor.


I give up on this stupid broken quoting system. It works 2/3 of the time, then barfs up the rest. I guess I'll just stop quoting at all.

Then, as a professional communicator, he fucking needs to be clear that what he's saying is NOT fact. He does not do that...he tries very hard to present himself and his views as scientific. And that -does- do damage, in the same way and to the same degree that the creationist museum does.

Had he said "Pi is like infinity", or "The irrational nature of pi brings to mind the beauty of the universe" I'd have never said a word. But facts are facts, A is A, and Chopra is flat out wrong (or worse). And he ignores or fails in his duty as a communicator to communicate clearly and honestly.
>> ^peggedbea:

chopra is a snake oil salesman who uses beautiful words and metaphors in a silly nonsensical fashion to bring peace to people's minds. those words are metaphorical, beautiful and symbolic. that exploit a popular lack of mathematical or scientific understanding and a craving for something comforting.
the question is... is it doing any real harm?
i see the beauty in relating pi to the infinite. and the beauty of metaphorical souls. it's gorgeous and symbolic and hopeful and scientifically inaccurate. but is it doing any harm? chopra is not responsible for the failings of math and scientific education. i can appreciate scientific fact and mathematical constants AND spiritual metaphors.
we learn about mythology, fiction and poetry in school too. a humanities education is just as important. we don't have to be so accurate and measured all the time. we need metaphor.
people should just be more aware of when they're hearing facts and when they're hearing symbolism.

>> ^rougy:

I like Chopra.
Yes, he can be much at times, especially when we need real world, "here and now" answers, but I have yet to hear Chopra say anything that didn't ring true, that didn't compliment or magnify my own observations.
I also admire and respect the pragmatic, empirical discipline of scientists and mathematicians, but I sometimes tire of their apparent inability to to look beyond their equations and formulas.
I just don't think that the two need be at odds all of the time.


You didn't hear him say that Pi refers to infinity? If that rings true to you, you need a refresher course in basic mathematics. It's rather beside your point, I know, but it does serve as evidence to the fact that he -is- a scientific and mathematical illiterate, who works very hard to claim the authority of an "expert" without actually being one, without in fact, even understanding the subject.

When he redefines the words of quantum physics, and then tries to "educate" an actual physicist on the "truth" using this vocabulary of quackery, then the two definitely -do- need to be at odds.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'deepak chopra leonard mlodinow stephen hawking quantum physics science' to 'deepak chopra, leonard mlodinow, stephen hawking, quantum physics, science' - edited by shuac

It's funny, I've never been a fan of Deepak Chopra but in this debate he was by far the most sane/rational.

In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins questions the credentials of anyone who is called a theologian... what does that say about the credentials of someone who founded "Hookers for Jesus"?

Oh my fucksticks. Um sweetiepie? That is the single most gobsmackingly scientifically moronic / clueless comment that I have ever borne witness to anywhere on the entire world wide interwebs.....Ever. It is PAINFULLY obvious that you haven't the slightest clue as to how scientific inquiry actually functions and your sciency buzzword bingo game betrays such an incredible depth of fuzzyheaded woo that it made my eyes water. Deepak Chopra is that YOUUU??! lol. Seriously someone get this man 50cc's of Carl Sagan, STAT!

Pollan expands on the same idea that generated a healthy discussion in this post. It was mentioned that academia has moved on from Cartesian thinking, but Pollan shows that it still permeates our thinking in myriad ways.

>> ^MINK:
>> wtf? "there's no evidence" lol. he said trees make oxygen. no evidence for that?


he said "if you didn't breathe the tree wouldn't breathe". my point was he just comes out with rubbish.


>> ^MINK:
>> commenters on that clip you linked to seemed to be saying the video was edited to make chopra look bad...


if it is edited it's to point out the rubbish he's coming out with. if it was based on facts you couldn't make him look bad...

he probably has good intentions (albeit involving money-making), but i'm just saying don't listen to him because the vast majority of what he says isn't true.

>> ^Fade:
Deepak is a fraud. He's just a new age hippy with a laymans grasp of quantum mechanics and genetics and as such tends to spout a load of spiritualist vomit. He is the equivelant of an astrologer. Not worthy of the paper he spreads his turds on.

While I agree with some of those facts, I reach entirely different conclusions. Chopra is both a philosopher and a spiritual leader. His expertise is not in the natural sciences, nor have I heard him claim it to be.

I chose this clip for the specific reason that he doesn't invoke pseudoscience to explain the mind-body problem, arguably the most fundamental problem in philosophy. In other cases, yes, I agree that he has adopted the language of science without an accompanied understanding of the concepts behind the words.

I am a huge fan of Deepak Chopra's work, he is an eschatologist, a philosopher and a teacher. You can find some podcasts of lectures by the man here:

http://www.matrixmasters.com/podcasts/

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
this guy is full of crap. there's no evidence for anything he says.
please watch this short clip if you think this guy is worth listening to - http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/08/enemies_of_reas_2.html

wtf? "there's no evidence" lol.

he said trees make oxygen. no evidence for that?

commenters on that clip you linked to seemed to be saying the video was edited to make chopra look bad. how scientific is that? lol.

his main point is that if we see the world as discrete units, we end up wasting a lot of time trying to figure out where the boundaries are. I agree with that.

After being bashed by good ol' Glu for announcing that I use homeopathics (back in a Randi thread), I was conscious of the fact that posting anything with Deepak Chopra or some kind of alternative healing would basically be an invitation for his attack.

It was a relief when he left. You know what it's like when 5 minutes after you post something, the same person leaves the same kind of comments to the same kind of posts? Here are some of my favourites:

quantum flapdoodle
woo woo new age

I'm actually pretty grateful for his consistency in attacking my posts. It helped me learn to take things less personally, if even only a little bit.

I'm still glad he's gone.

Deepak Chopra is a flimflam artist like so many other woo-woo new-age spiritualists who use what physicist Murray Gell-Mann aptly calls "quantum flapdoodle". Throw in a few complicated sounding terms from quantum physics, stir in a couple 'spiritual one-ness with the universe' phrases, add a dash of 'love is the mind experiencing conscious creation' and bam, you have a best selling tome of intelligent sounding yet totally vacuous and empty rubbish that the masses, uninitiated in critical thinking skills as they are, lap up like so many $7 lattes. His simplistic denunciations of rationalism and science as 'merely another fundamentalism' betray a near perfect ignorance about how science actually works and simultaneously resonate with an audience desperate to be absolved from the burden of having to analyze the complexities of the real world in any logical fashion. And so for frilly appeals to the cessation of reason and rational thought such as this, I downvote. Fashionable nonsense is an immature impulse which intelligent modern societies shouldn't have to suffer gladly anymore.