I don't care to get into a pissing contest with you but there are things that just don't fit the evolutionary thought.

If evolution is the order of the day why would we need to have multiple dimensions. Physicists theorize that there are about 10 or 12.

Where does Quantum physic fit into evolution?

We all believe in the big bang theory but where did all the matter come from? What evolutionary reasoning explains this?

There are stuff out there that just make you stop and think otherwise.

this is so stupid. basically solipsism predicated on a terrible understanding of physics, quantum physics, and particle physics.

It's not a rational discussion just because two people are putting words in order. Chopra is just babbling, and Dawkins is letting him because every badly used 'metaphor' is another inch of rope Chopra is hanging himself with.

Edit: IS HE FUCKING KIDDING US? The "Quantum physics aficionados" have "hijacked" his concept of quantum healing!? Deepak Chutzpah...

I have no reason to doubt your sincerety, I'm willing to believe you've had really wierd and powerful experiences on this drug, experiences that might seem more real than the shared experience we refer to as reality. But however powerful and convincing such experiences might be, they are stil trips and hallucinations. they might be so powerful that you cant believe they are, but there is no reason to think otherwise. Our brains are fallible machines that are rather easily tricked, and this can be done by everything from chemicals to religion to a simple optical illusion. And just because it is a "trick" iow our brains being manipulated to experience things that arent happening in reality, doesnt mean it cant have a major effect on peoples life, ie: give people a new perspective on things. But it is not an "astounding mystery" as such, but of course it would be interesting to research the exact interactions that it causes in our brains, and how exactly it works.

One big tell that these trips are trips, is that they almost always include pop-sciency/cultural stuff of the time. In earlier times it involved exotic or mythical animals, in the 50s or 60s or 70s it was aliens and UFOs and stuff like that, and now its quantum physics and speed of light etc. This is a pretty solid sign that we are dealing with references from our own brain, it is in other words not external or new knowledge that's being obtained or discovered in the trip.

These are comments from someone who clearly has not given this plant a chance. No, it is not quantum physics. I stay in the same room, it is evident by someone observing that I am in fact in the room. But, what I have seen and felt was on a quantum level. I was in fact for some reason flying at the speed of light. It sounds absolutely crazy because it is, that is why it should be studied. Why are so many so afraid to accept that whatever this is, is an astounding mystery?

I say give it a shot and find out for yourself. I was the same way, I thought it was hoopla too, then I found out. I doubt Science, bless its soul, will ever unlock this mystery.

Also, I do not condone the use of this by kids or young adults. This should stay far out of reach of them. Actually, now that I think about it, lol, it is probably not a good idea to promote this thing for this very reason.

Also, I am sorry for getting crazy at you BPM.

Ugh.. "Quantum Physics", theres that buzzword used where it has no place again. you could just as well have said "this is Advanced plumbing come to life", as you clearly have no idea what quantum mechanics is.

Look, its not like scientists just ignore consciousness or the brain, we actually know quite a bit about it in general. We know, for instance that our brains are built with the same carbon, hydrogen, phosphorous,oxygen and other elements that make up the other parts of our bodies, and every other living thing on earth. And we know that these elements adhere to the laws of physics, an there is no reason to expect them to be able to break those laws of physics just because they are put together to form a brain.

This hippie pothead stuff about forgotten magical realms that can be reached through shamanism, if you believe that shit, well, go ahead. But it IS pseudoscience, and nonsense to most people who have an actual interest in actual science. Putting people like that on the same stage as actual scientists and thereby lending them the credibility of a platform that is known for presenting actual science, is not a good idea for that platform if they want to keep their status as promoters of science.

I have no problems with you believing this stuff shagen454, and you are clearly passionate about it. more power to you for it. However, you cannot demand I buy into this or "SHUT MY FUCKING MOUTH", Besides everything else, my only point in my first comment was to correct the idea that TED was "banning" this thing, and I only tried to explain that TED considered it unscientific, and why. Theres no need to get all worked up at me for it. Well, atleast you could have waited til after this comment, where I actually spoke my mind more directly.

Also, notice that I did not tag this as science. Even though doing this is the most scientific and experimental possibility a person could never have imagined. This is quantum physics come to life with your eyes closed. It simply is not studied in depth and it should be, why are more people not studying it? Because it scares them, if all people had this experience it would change the world as we know it for the better.

The only people who are nay sayers are those who do not know, at all. Whom should not be speaking about it.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's the same evidence. There isn't creationist evidence and secular scientist evidence. They're both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it different. And there is plenty of geologic evidence of the flood. Recently, scientists have started to embrace catastrophism over uniformitarian because the evidence of a worldwide disaster is undeniable.

The evidence that was initially advanced for long ages by Charles Lyell was based on either misinterpretation or outright fraud. He claimed that Niagra Falls was eroding at the rate of one foot per year. He then made the leap that since the gorge was 35,000 feet long it was 35,000 years old. Very scientific. It has been confirmed however that the gorge erodes at 4 to 5 feet per year which means it is most likely under 7 thousand years old.

The "evidence" is obtained by making assumptions about the past that can't be proven, and you can't date the rocks without these assumptions. If you change the assumptions then you come up with much different dates.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

Everyone who studies it does not come to that conclusion. The hard evidence you have for quantum physics does not exist for deep time. You can test quantum physics; you can't test deep time. All there is a pile of circumstantial evidence all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Every time they measure the age of the rocks they get a range of dates, and then they discard the ones that don't agree with their assumptions as "anomalous". I think I've said this before..bif the evidence were there I would believe it. I used to believe it, but when I found out the extremely flimsy and weaknature of the evidence and realized I would have to put more faith in the scientists than I would the bible, so I decided to believe the bible instead. The whole thing stinks to high heaven but this is a religious proposition to many people. To them, they are satisfied with its explanation of reality and use it as an excuse to deny God. Take note of the awe and reverence and love people pay to the Cosmos and "mother Earth" because it is a religious experience you are witnessing They are seeing Gods glory in creation but they make naturalism their religion instead of acknowledging Him, and worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Psalm 19:1-2


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Words are far removed from reality. You don't give me enough for me to know how much of my thinking you understand. You have to take all that I wrote as a whole to get somewhat close to what I am thinking. Picking out a word or sentence that I wrote tells me that you have no interest in understanding me but I don't know that for sure because you aren't giving me anything to go on to let me understand what you are thinking.

I am saying that if quantum theory is correct then evolution has to be correct as well.

"The big bang proves humans" seems to be a wholly different kind of statement that means one event in time proves another event in time.

I am saying that quantum physics and evolution are in essence describing the same process, the same truth, the same idea. People use slightly different words in these two areas but in essence: the interactions shape the whole and the whole shapes the interactions. Nothing is fixed, everything is constantly moving and changing so you cannot simply create a flower by itself nor an atom by itself. Atoms exist (in the sense we think of existence) because of quantum effects interacting and the flower exists because of all the interactions at its scales of time and size.

Calling part of what I wrote about fractals a separate argument seems to indicate exactly what the problem is. It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing or separate arguments. It is about using abstractions (words, sentences) to dance around a big idea in order to communicate that big idea. No one abstraction can describe the whole. at best we can circle around the edges and make the connections which will be a different process for you than for me.

Also I find it weird to be compared to intelligent design. I have never read anything nor seen any videos about intelligent design where their evidence supported their conclusions. It seems that they always present really good reasons why, for example, an eye has to have evolved over time from simple light-sensitive cells to current more complex structures but they present those reasons as evidence that evolution didn't happen but the eye was created whole as we know it now. Same thing with the flagellum thing. Everything they say about those structures tells me they have to have evolved from simpler structures in an ever evolving environment but the conclusion that they say they support is the opposite. In other words, I hope you don't think of me as dumb.

Philosophically speaking I am open to the idea that to an eternal mind the time from the big bang to today is like a flash. What to us would be a thought of an elephant that appears and disappears in a flash in our minds might be similar to the universe as we know it in the mind of the All. Even so, quantum physics and evolution is how that thought process would appear to us.
>> ^lampishthing:

As I said, quantum mechanics provides the mechanism for evolution.
I only object to your use of "proof". I will whole-heartedly agree with "Quantum physics supports evolution", I will not agree with "Quantum physics proves evolution." The argument about the beauty of the fractal nature of interactions progressing scale is akin to an argument used for intelligent design. Argument from beauty
>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^lampishthing:
Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.


Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.
If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.
Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

As I said, quantum mechanics provides the mechanism for evolution.

I only object to your use of "proof". I will whole-heartedly agree with "Quantum physics supports evolution", I will not agree with "Quantum physics proves evolution." The argument about the beauty of the fractal nature of interactions progressing scale is akin to an argument used for intelligent design. Argument from beauty
>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^lampishthing:
Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.


Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.
If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.
Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

>> ^lampishthing:

Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.



Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.

If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.

Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:

Quantum physics also proves evolution.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Quantum physics also proves evolution.


Uh, what?

evidence?>> ^swedishfriend:

Quantum physics also proves evolution.