so you think I am stupid? I really don't find IT persons to be the sharpest knives in the drawer. Your ability to grasp theoretical concepts is generally non-existent. In nuclear engineering we also have idiot acronyms - but we spell ours properly. If you want to compare CV's or intellects then by all means throw down. Because right now you sound like a pompous blowhard.

@kauva As do you.

@TristanNuvo so IT responds with the "I know you are but what am I" defense? I'm through with this. You're not worth my time.

@kauva Yet you reply every time. And with more nonesense to boot.

@TristanNuvo oh yeah, thats the ticket. there's your winner. the old damned if I answer/damned if I don't strategy. But in the midst of all this BS I notice you have yet to offer a single substantive argument. In short - you don't know anything. Get an education.

if you're going to attempt to deny something with videos then at least use videos that apply to this subject. nothing you put up there has anything to do with a single issue I stated or referred to other than one spot where Chopra said we were all a universal consciousness and that audience questioner was also one just pretending to be a physicist. Now I wouldnt have said it that way because it's not an insult. What he was saying is we are all part of this field of consciousness and he individually was that same field in a "John Doe" (or whatever his name was) suit. Nothing else there related to this. It is secular. There's no deity or the like. I am simply stating we are all part of one big consciousness and the personal view of self is an illusion as the consciousness views and created reality in our own John Doe suits. Nothing you have posted or even hinted at above denies that or even mentions it for that matter. Why don't you open your mind up a bit and think instead of immediately circling the wagons and engaging in attacks?

@kauva In other words, you don't except my pointing out that the vid you posted, ans what you have said in comments, is all a bunch of woo woo.

@TristanNuvo First, please type or speak in a language others can understand. It facilitates for better communication.
Second - why don't you actually address the subject in whichever videos you select? I suspect you have no clue about the subject matter and merely hide behind the juvenile words "woo woo" whatever that means.

Either way if you wish to engage further then do us all the favor of at least staying on topic. Right now you're just being rude.

I doubt you know more than Sir Roger Penrose - unless you were also Stephen Hawkings adviser for his PhD. were you?

It’s been over 10 years since I watched that piece of crap, but as I recall it it they took snippets of quotes from respected scientists out of context to make it appear that they agreed with the film’s arguments. There’s a pretty thorough refutation of the film floating around the web if you care to look it up.

@jerry99 Agreed.

@jerry99 if you happen to run across it I'd love to see it or read it. My beliefs in it are based solely on the double slit and UK consciousness experiments. I couldnt care less about the string theory. Thats not the issue here. But I'd love to check out the rest if you remember it or happen to find it. thanks! namaste

nope but I will certainly check that out. thank you!

loosely? what was loose about Sir Penrose's views?

@kauva I said the book was loosely based on qm not that there was anything wrong with the physics itself. Is that a legitimate question or an attempt to distort my comment?

@JimG no, I want to know where you thought it was inaccurate. I am seeking truth and all for listening to either side provided it isn't just reluctance to hear something new.

@kauva I don't remember specific claims, but after reading the book, I fact checked many. They indicated that many phenomena that are theoretically possible on the quantum level can actually occur on the macro scale.

They also made a preposterous claim about people who could look at someone's face and be unable to see the nose, but instead recalled it as they'd previously seen it. There's nothing documented anywhere to substantiate that.

@JimG I don't know what book you're talking about. I am speaking of the double slit experiments and the UK mass consciousness trials. If you're talking about string theory I have no place for that as well. I black box that whole issue. But if you can think of the issue I'd be happy to read it. As for not recognizing faces it's probably some random reference they made to organic damage others have had to areas of the brain. who knows. I pretty much stick with Norman Doidge and Stuart Hameroff when it comes to the neurology. Doidge wrote an excellent book on neuroplasticity (The Brain that Changes) and Hameroff discusses the microtubule theories of probability placement held in neurons post-mortem.

@kauva. Okay. This is the book that was based on the video. I have a little better recall of it now. It was basically new age tripe similar to the "law of attraction" concept. It's not science in any way.

[amazon.com]

@JimG well ... I don't know what to tell you. theoretical physics is most certainly science and the double slit experiment has been confirmed by many as has multi-placement so there is empirical proof of observation deciding/declaring probability. How is that not science? The key concept is finding the bridge for cartesian dualism. Now as I said before if your complaint is about a unifying theory then I don't disagree. I blackbox that understanding - but I don't need string theory to validate the bridge. Awareness decides quantum probabilities. It's a fact.

According to a couple of reviewers of the book it is different than the movie so maybe thats the deal. One says it is like a supplement so maybe it doesnt have the best material. idk

@kauva I was under the impression the book was basically transcribed from the movie. My review is based solely on that shitty book. I assure you it's a entirely new age woo.

Yes, sorry 7 minutes of that movie made me nauseous. They completely misapplied every scientific theory they cited. Quantum physics is called quantum physics because it applies to subatomic scales. I don't have the time to explain the statistics, but if it's remotely possible for a subatomic particle to tunnel through a solid wall, given a large enough number of particles and a sufficient amount of time, it will happen. However, for every particle in even your finger to simultaneously pass through that wall would require more time than the universe could exist. It doesn't matter who much navel-gazing you do to make it happen.

@JimG well, first of all the word "woo" doesn't tell me anything. I am actually trying to be objective here. Second according to others who have seen the movie the book was different. Further the works of Dr. Masaru Emoto, Dr. Amit Goswami, Sir Roger Penrose, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, Robert Wright, and the double slit experiments are actual empirical data that has withstood peer review and other scrutiny so unless you're a theoretical physicist with some other argument than the word "woo" maybe you should rethink that position?

@kauva those scientific principles are legitimate, but not in the context the movie is presenting them. The two slit experiment, doesn't mean you can manifest a pile of gold in your basement. Yes, that experiment demonstrates a link between observation and reality, but correlation is not causation.

@kauva I don't care to waste any more time when you dishonestly misrepresent what I post. I have to assume your either incredibly dishonest or incredibly obtuse. Believe what you want, but quantum mechanics is still not magic.

@JimG no one said anything about manifesting gold in your basement. where did that come from? the experiment most certainly shows a link between observation and change from wave to particle. until we actually know the unifying theory then we can only call it post hoc ergo propter hoc but there are also about a dozen different variations that reach the same result. so if thats your only argument (that we don't know why yet) then I'd say we also don't know what the pineal gland does or how bumblebees fly. but we can predict the result which make the empirical data good - unlike the string theory ideas. if you're arguing against the double slit experiment you're gonna lose in most circles because those results are accepted widely now.

@JimG misrepresent? you're the one misrepresenting here. why do you have to turn negative when you have no other argument? you have offered absolutely no substantial argument and you accuse ME of being shifty? L2debate.

@kauva I've made it pretty clear that I am aware of the validity of the double slit experiment, yet you continue to assume that I am refuting it.

The gold was a euphemism for the "Law of Attraction" concepts of this video. It's not the best, but it's not literal.

Finally, the book which is based on the movie attempts to prove some mystic connection of everything based on an unrelated phenomena.

Woo is the magical thinking this video presents.

@JimG all you've said is the book sucks therefore the video, which you havent seen, is wrong. I said the book didnt use the same material and you were unresponsive. No clue about this gold law of attraction thing you cite. I don't even remember that from the movie. They showed how persistence in thought processes will rewire neuron dendritic connections up to the point of even creating superneurons. ??? woo ... there's no magical thinking here. these are all valid concepts. maybe you need to update your physics knowledge? the flashlight's not a magic fire stick.

Insults don't support your argument at all. You initially ask for opinions. You have mine. There's nothing spiritual in the universe. Your new age mystic movie quotes valid science and then takes great leaps of faith to support its spiritual fantasies. That's my opinion take it or leave it. I don't care.