Tags for this video have been changed from 'similarity, motion, leopard, domestic cat, duality' to 'similarity, motion, leopard, domestic cat, duality, nine inch nails' - edited by xxovercastxx

Think about the stuff George Carlin used to bring up in his acts that were always funny....but could often leave you thinking about how utterly stupid the whole situation is once you thought about it.

Think about how traumatic rape has to be for someone, and then think about all the people who have fetishes built around it. It's a situation where if you can't laugh about how twisted people are when it comes to something like that....you're never going to really know someone (or yourself) because of that duality people have in regards to a whole lot of subjects.

IE The black and white idea of people being gay or straight, instead of being somewhere on the scale in grey territory and being miserable trying to conform to one side or the other.

Morality, honesty, faithfulness, etc. A different definition for each person that changes under different circumstances...like when dealing with their parents, their children, their friends, strangers, etc.

So, rape is bad, but a whole lot of people spend time romanticizing it...that in and of itself is a joke.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It does not "confirm" it exactly, but the Scout referred to the Pyro as a male. "Is HE here?" Again - that is not a 100% lock, but it is pretty close. The tone of the voice, the structure of the body, and the Scout's reference. The Pyro is a dude.


I caught that too. Should have used "they", which keeps gender-neutral, but also suggests a duality of personality, which helps the mystique.


Oh, and I DO believe in magic.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Without revealing too much, there is serious.... shall we say, duality.... to the philosophy of this film. Too be honest, the lines blurred to a degree where I can not be completely sure what the author intended it all to mean. A great film all the same. I should probably read the book.


My recollection is that the film is better than the book, although it has been ... hang on.... (sweet monkey jesus!) 10 years since I read/watched it last.

That is depressing.

Without revealing too much, there is serious.... shall we say, duality.... to the philosophy of this film. Too be honest, the lines blurred to a degree where I can not be completely sure what the author intended it all to mean. A great film all the same. I should probably read the book.

My sister just passed her GSCE maths. Grade C. She always struggled, I spent many an hour doing my best to help her revise and boy did she work hard at it. She clearly doesn't care for the subject or find it interesting so for her this pass is a great relief and I'm proud of her. Will she do any more maths? Not a chance.

I think if you want to get kids into maths I really think you have to get them early. People always say that they don't have a maths brain, and while I don't doubt that some people find it harder than others I just don't buy that we all pop out of the womb preprogammed to be good/bad at specific school subjects. If it is as Tyson says, that the learning of maths actually lays down the nuerons required for problem solving then perhaps poor tuition early on in a kids education can effectively stunt their ability to learn more. That was always the feeling with my sister, the foundations on which they were building the new knowledge either didn't exist or were weak, and its difficult to go back to basics without being insulting. I think the fact her interests have diverged away from Science/Maths towards the arts (she's a keen photographer) is because she was struggling with the Sciences rather than the fact she struggles with the Sciences because she is more artistically inclined. (And I think this Science vs Art is a false duality, but thats another matter )

Anyway, just my thoughts/ramblings.

I accidentally responded to GF on his profile so if anyone is interested in that, thats where that is.

But I just also wanted to say is that no - what you are describing is not faith. Scientific theories are constantly and rigorously tested; if they fail tests, they are discarded or altered accordingly.

Faith doesn't allow the possibility of being wrong; that's why it's faith.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.

To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.
I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.


To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.

I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

>> ^enoch:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
btw that's not "Breathe" it's "Narayan"

what are you talking about?

Assuming he means the title of the song, but not sure where someone mentioned "Breathe" ...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

btw that's not "Breathe" it's "Narayan"


what are you talking about?

>> ^dannym3141:

I thought it was from the same one of the double slit experiment with wave particle duality.


It is...like I said, the movie takes actual legit science and tries to force it into the world view they are pushing on those watching.

Its mind-cancer, pay no attention to it.

I thought it was from the same one of the double slit experiment with wave particle duality.

A short course in neurobiology teaches us all of what Deepak is saying is rubbish. We experience emotion due to various combinations of neurotransmitter release and physiological changes in the body.

What he seems to be trying to do is use the theory of quantum fluctuation and the wave/particle duality of electrons to justify his own theory that if it can't be measured or explained properly/precisely then it must lie outside the realm of our physical entity. Where is argument falls short is that what we perceive as physical matter IS made up of all this weirdness that physics is only just beginning to explain.

So I guess my point is that he's indicating that some weird stuff is going on, perhaps even outside what would currently be defined as our physical bodies. I don't disagree with this, but my point is that it is the definition of a physical body that needs to be altered, and this will improve as our understanding of physics improves. So we should be looking to physics for answers, not for mind/body dualism.

I think lots of people believe "high level science" consists of 3 or 4 ideas:

1. In Schrodinger's thought experiment, a cat in a box could be seen as both alive and dead until an observer collapses the waveform
2. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says you can't know both the exact position and momentum of a particle
3. General relativity states time slows and mass increases for objects at relative high velocity
4. Light's behavior exhibits a wave/particle duality, as demonstrated by interference experiments

Know those 4 things? Have you watched Star Wars once? Good, you're now equipped to understand pretty much all "oh wow that guy's a crazy brainiac nerd" humor. Somehow if you reference things like that, you get a pass to do a comedy routine without any jokes. You're stroking people's ego enough that they don't care you're not funny.

I think people would just get pissed off if he left the "nerd humor" script, though. People don't want to be challenged, or hear pop culture references they don't know. Anyone who's the tiniest, tiniest bit interested in Greek mythology knows Pandora opened a jar, not a box - but nobody wants to hear a joke involving Pandora's jar. They want the same reference that 1000 previous pop cultural references have prepared them for. They want affirmation that they're part of the special club that knows about stuff.

So, to do "nerd" humor the plan is to avoid anything actually nerdy. Stick to the most often recycled bits of pop culture and pop science, mix in some clumsy, senseless double entendres so that people know when to laugh, and you're good to go.

There are many models which have their own proofs. Without wave-particle duality, there would be not electron microscopes. One definition of a wave is the probability of a particle being at a certain time t. This is one topic where Einstein disagrees with de Broglie, who also disagrees with Feynman, and so on, hence the Copenhagen interpretation. They all agree on the differential equations behind the wave-particle model, but their interpretations of the equations are all in violent disagreement. Great topic though

>> ^offsetSammy:

According to Feynman's QED, there's no such thing as "wave-particle duality", it's just all particles. The behavior of the particles, however, is very strange, and that's what accounts for their wave-like characteristics. QED came after Dirac and Schrodinger (it was a refinement of their theories), so I'm not sure why it doesn't get acknowledged in these kinds of discussions.
QED also predicts exactly the results of things like the double slit experiment without ever resorting to the "well the wave collapses into a particle when we observer it" kind of thing.