yeah, like make an informative video about quantum physics. here comes a million views!!

>> ^chilaxe:

@bamdrew @peggedbea
"Did you hear about the pretty Muslim woman who came out of a party and was stoned? She didn't survive."
Comedians can think of jokes about anything that has presence in the culture, even quantum physics, so even if you only want friendly jokes, comedians can provide that if they want to. He doesn't want to or he's not smart enough to, so he said something that isn't true.


If that's what passes for Muslim humour, I can see why he doesn't do it.

@bamdrew @peggedbea

"Did you hear about the pretty Muslim woman who came out of a party and was stoned? She didn't survive."

Comedians can think of jokes about anything that has presence in the culture, even quantum physics, so even if you only want friendly jokes, comedians can provide that if they want to. He doesn't want to or he's not smart enough to, so he said something that isn't true.

first let me thank both BRM and ryjkyj for reading my novella.very cool of both of you.i kinda put myself out there and you both didnt just outright laugh..i thank you both.
@BRM
i understand.
the reason why i wrote that short novella was to put forth an alternative idea of god,not to push any form of ideology upon you.while it may be an ancient concept,it is not exactly a popular one.the people who attempted to make a community based on that ideology were wiped out.
hopefully it accomplished two things:
1.not every idea of god is based on theology.
2.that i do not pretend to hold secret knowledge,nor am i somehow more special than you due to my faith.
my faith is not based on a book nor a old white dude with a beard who watches from afar judging us all.
my ultimate goal was to paint a picture where those i converse with on the sift could know that i have no religion to offend.i wont take some slight against my ideas as some attack on my god based solely on dogma.
because i adhere to no dogma.

consciousness is one of my favorite discussions and something i have spent a great deal of time thinking about since i was a teen.
what is consciousness?
this is an ongoing question and one i feel is vitally important.we are still learning and the subject fascinates me.
i find this discussion more engrossing and challenging with atheists and other seekers.fundamentalists tend to be quite boring with this subject for obvious reasons.

@Ryjkyj
i was just pointing out the literal translation but i understand why you would reject agnostic in a literal sense.as i stated.it does not really matter,i understand your point and desire for your position to not be confused in any way.
i am totally ok with that.

as for my thesis on god and the edict to "create".
you mention nuclear weapons.
good example.
let me add:murder,torture,domination,genocide.we could go all day.
conversely we could talk about:love,compassion,understanding,forgiveness.
my point was that the creator regards all these as the same,it is WE who deem them "good" or "evil".
that god experiences its own creation subjectively through us..all of us..while we experience gods creation every minute of everyday.
you being aware of this is not necessary because you do it naturally and is one of the main reasons why i would have been burned at the stake (and those that DID postulate this idea centuries ago were executed).religion becomes irrelevant with my scenario.
you are god..god is you and we are all connected.

we understand and relate to the universe through only FIVE sense...thats it..five.
our consciousness interacts with this universe using those senses.with the advent of more and more complicated tools which allow us to perceive the universe in a much more grand scale we have found that the universe keeps getting bigger,richer and far more poetic than any theology could EVER put forth.
evolution has more poetry and beauty then the book of genesis could ever think to muster.
(genesis is actually a metaphorical representation of kabballah)

i love science.
i am not particularly good at say bio-chem or the math of quantum physics (that math is beyond me)but i find each discovery a revelation concerning my faith.
to me science is the slow pulling back of the veil by way of exploration,curiosity and eventual understanding by way of testing physical evidence and/or repeatable,testable results.
these results tend to conflict with religious doctrine but totally coincide with my understanding of a creator.

consciousness is not a closed chapter but something we are still discussing,probing and attempting to understand.so when i use the term to describe god i do so in that light,not with any secret understanding.
so..according to my way of looking at things.if god created the universe from itself it would reside both outside time/space and also WITHIN time/space.
proveable? not a chance...hence=faith
we are talking about a consciousness that is literally the entire universe.a concept that would be hard for anybody to wrap their head around.
i do not pretend to understand this consciousness.how could i?
but i do know i see this consciousness manifesting all around me and it is constant.

i understand that both of you reject this ideology and i am totally ok with that.
in my eyes conversations such as these are more about sharing ideas than being right..or righteous.
my conclusions are my own and they are always changing as more information becomes available.
but i have to say that since i was a teen nothing i have read or learned has changed my position,in fact,it has strengthened it.

thank you both for being so kind and respectful towards my ideas.
i tend to avoid putting things like this out there because i get whacked by both sides..atheists AND religious.
you both have been very kind.
and i thank you.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I feel like it wouldn't work on me- because I'm such a cynical bastard.>> ^entr0py:

>> ^dag:
I really wish I could get a placebo prescribed for general well-being. But it's like quantum physics - the very act of knowing about the placebo negates its efficacy.
There must be some kind of mind-hack to fix this.

Incredibly, a recent study showed that placebos can work even when you're completely aware that you're taking a placebo. So give it a shot.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/27/placebos-work-e
ven-if-you-know-theyre-fake-but-how/

>> ^dag:

I really wish I could get a placebo prescribed for general well-being. But it's like quantum physics - the very act of knowing about the placebo negates its efficacy.
There must be some kind of mind-hack to fix this.


Incredibly, a recent study showed that placebos can work even when you're completely aware that you're taking a placebo. So give it a shot.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/27/placebos-work-even-if-you-know-theyre-fake-but-how/

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I really wish I could get a placebo prescribed for general well-being. But it's like quantum physics - the very act of knowing about the placebo negates its efficacy.

There must be some kind of mind-hack to fix this.

@Bidouleroux, I think you might be projecting your own personal need to pick a side onto others. I really don't have a belief about Universe-level consciousness. It might exist, it might not. I won't pick odds, because that is absurd to do for something that has no evidence pro or con. I am comfortable not knowing.

I will say, however, that if it does exist, it is probably something so different from what we experience in normal life that it is incompressible to our little minds. I will also say that I do hope something like that exists, and that it is tied to our own consciousness somehow so that we don't just "disappear" when we die.

But hoping does not make something so. I understand that, and so I do not count it as evidence pro or con.

I'm not really into quantum physics or neuroscience, but if you have any interesting articles that apply, I'll be happy to read them and maybe they'll influence my "belief". So far I've seen nothing but unsupported theory and conjecture.

@MaxWilder "But until it affects my life directly in one way or another, I have no reason to believe it either. I am neutral on the subject."

But what if I ask you directly : Does something like a Universe-level consciousness exists? Even if you answer that you don't have an opinion about it, you must believe in something: that the chances for its existence are 50-50, etc. And then, if you are an astronomer and must construct a theory on the workings of the Universe, then you MUST be believing either that the Universe forms a consciousness or that it doesn't since either theory imply many things as to the functioning of the Universe. Of course, it all depends on the definitions of "consciousness" and "Universe",etc. but if you don't like the definitions, tell us yours and whether you thus believe that the "Universe" is "conscious" or not. You may cry foul and go to quantum physics, but the brain is not a quantum computer. Your brain has a belief about a Universe-level consciousness, in one form or another, you simply just don't admit it.

Anyway, what I was trying to say is that there is nothing wrong in believing that God doesn't exist. Believing that the act of believing itself is wrong is already conceding to the theists' argument that belief is somehow strictly part of the religious phenomenon. "Beliefs" are a mental shortcut we humans have and need to function efficiently. Belief in something does not imply blindness to the shortcomings of beliefs. Thinking there are shortcomings to beliefs is a belief in itself. What I am saying is that there is no problem with beliefs, only problems with certain kinds of beliefs.

Beliefs are more general than you think, and this may be why you believe you can have a "no belief" about something. What you must understand is that a belief is not an opinion, nor is it a logical or statistical argument.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Heisenberg principle, wave function, particle, carbon life' to 'Heisenberg principle, wave function, particle, carbon life, quantum physics' - edited by kulpims

>> ^RFlagg:

Upvote as it amused me so. I loved the straight forward answer. Of course I probably would have come back with a "but how do we know it moves air to make a sound? It gets to the old Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment, and Schrödinger's cat, the very act of observing may be changing the results."


What a shitty comeback. It has nothing to do with that. Sound waves in the air is not a quantum phenomenon. Hence Schrodinger's cat and the double-slit experiment don't apply.

Upvote as it amused me so. I loved the straight forward answer. Of course I probably would have come back with a "but how do we know it moves air to make a sound? It gets to the old Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment, and Schrödinger's cat, the very act of observing may be changing the results."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sixtysymbols, quantum physics, scotch tape, nanocomputing' to 'nobel, chemistry, graphene, carbon, hexagon, nanocomputing, physics, transistor, quantum' - edited by BoneRemake

[redacted]

What I was calling out was the specific scientific stuff such as the thing retards keep doing where they use string thery and missunderstanding of quantum physics to justify mystic mumbojumbo.


I will quite hapily listen to sumone just make philasophical claims or generaly just talk about something , so long as its logically sound.

its just meditating when people dont get basic science correct and then put there incorect interpritation of it into a vidoe.


>> ^enoch:

>> ^westy:
>> ^enoch:
interesting comment westy.
your main point addresses a small fraction of the videos content,contesting a point the video was only indirectly talking about and then turn around and basically agree with what this video is saying..semantics aside.
maybe you are bi-polar my friend.

my issue is that sum one is not going to have much creditability in philosophical arguments if they haven't understood fairly obvious things in science.
anny thing that he says in the video that is true is pretty obvious but presented in an overly complicated way.
the video in gneral is convoluted.

i would not call philosophy a science but rather a system of pushing and pressing boundaries by way of questioning and examination and attempting to understand the confines of this reality and how we..as humanity..fit in that context.
i would tend to agree with you that this mans presentation may be a tad verbose but when you understand that he is also infusing a lot of eastern philosophy in conflation with west.since most here are familiar..even if they dont realize it..with western philosophy..what he proposes may appear to be total gibberish.
i may not agree with everything this man puts forth but i admire his efforts to explain the battle between the ego and the soul.something which western philosophy utterly fails to do but eastern philosophy addresses often and is actually a prime tenant.
the thing that bothers me about western psychology is the prevalence of administering psychotropic drugs after only an hour long session to diagnose.this video and others like it offer a different path for those who may suffer or experience bi-polar/mania/depression by way of self exploration and awareness of oneself.
ones true self.
now i am of the belief we are spirit,you may not but this video can still be helpful to those who do not believe in spirit by simply understanding and addressing their ego.because once you understand and have identified what the ego is is you can now begin the process of dealing with it.
not all healing can be found in medication.