BrotherJosh Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Great article by Brian Cox, I thought... This statement received some criticism in scientific circles. Not because it’s wrong, because it isn’t; without this behavior, we wouldn’t be able to explain the bonds that hold molecules together. The problem is that it sounds like woo woo, and quantum theory attracts woo-woo merde-merchants like the pronouncements of New Age mystics attract flies – metaphorically speaking http://blogs.wsj.com...-misunderstood/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Great article. My favorite line: Quantum theory, in other words, describes a counterintuitive world, but not a mystical one. I have friends who can't quite grok the principles, therefore goddidit makes more sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Quantum spirituality" bothers me and it seems to me to cut both ways. It is a misinterpretation of QT and a misunderstanding of the teaching being equated. In some cases, it is just made up to sound like a person knows what they are talking about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I gave you a +1 on that one Rev. Not that you may particularly care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Great article by Brian Cox, I thought... This statement received some criticism in scientific circles. Not because it’s wrong, because it isn’t; without this behavior, we wouldn’t be able to explain the bonds that hold molecules together. The problem is that it sounds like woo woo, and quantum theory attracts woo-woo merde-merchants like the pronouncements of New Age mystics attract flies – metaphorically speaking http://blogs.wsj.com...-misunderstood/ " and our future depends on the widespread acceptance of science as THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE to meet many, if not all, of the great challenges we face. " compare that to “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 Similiar theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 science is such an inadequate tool to describe why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 science is such an inadequate tool to describe why Apparently we have another humanities buff here, who has to express contempt for science in order to bolster his own decision to pursue the humanitites. Kinda sad. The roots of science extend as far back as Aristotle who was all about asking... "why?" Oh, and I enjoy the humanities too. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Science thrives off asking "why". That's what I love about it. You seek and answer and you find it, without having to rely on a big nonexplanation for what happened. Religion/spirituality don't really answer "why", people just like to think that they do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 The roots of science extend as far back as Aristotle who was all about asking... "why?" Nope. How? and Why? are different questions. Don't get em confused now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wester Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Copenhagen Hidden Variables Many Worlds Those are your horses. Place your bets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I was watching a Youtube video with Michio Kaku, whom I highly respect, where he asserts that quantum theory proves free will. The thing about it is, he's forgotten more about quantum theory than I'll ever know, but he fails completely to explain how uncertainty at the quantum level means that we can choose any more freely than if that weren't the case. It's rather disheartening that they go so off the rails with one thing, in order to believe another. Especially considering that in another video, when asked about quantum entanglement and ESP, he explains that the level of entanglement could never build up sufficiently to cause ESP, were it possible, and therefore couldn't explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I was watching a Youtube video with Michio Kaku, whom I highly respect, where he asserts that quantum theory proves free will. The thing about it is, he's forgotten more about quantum theory than I'll ever know, but he fails completely to explain how uncertainty at the quantum level means that we can choose any more freely than if that weren't the case. Agree. If quantum events are unpredictable, then a decision made from an unpredictable condition is nothing but a random choice. It's truly free, but is it a "will" in that case? "Free" and "will" are opposites in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I am skeptical of the little I know of quantum theory. The little I know about says to me, that these people are masturbating and don't have a clue what there talking about. Can't say I have a better explanation then them, but the supposed consensus leaves me a little worried. They can't even get down the basic origins of the universe, so am I going to trust them about quantum theory. Not in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 I am skeptical of the little I know of quantum theory. The little I know about says to me, that these people are masturbating and don't have a clue what there talking about. Can't say I have a better explanation then them, but the supposed consensus leaves me a little worried. They can't even get down the basic origins of the universe, so am I going to trust them about quantum theory. Not in the near future. Actually, it's one of the most tested and verified theories out there. Do you use a USB drive? Those wouldn't exist if it weren't for Quantum Tunneling. Pretty sure those don't work because a physicist masturbated onto your flash drive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I was watching a Youtube video with Michio Kaku, whom I highly respect, where he asserts that quantum theory proves free will. The thing about it is, he's forgotten more about quantum theory than I'll ever know, but he fails completely to explain how uncertainty at the quantum level means that we can choose any more freely than if that weren't the case. It's rather disheartening that they go so off the rails with one thing, in order to believe another. Especially considering that in another video, when asked about quantum entanglement and ESP, he explains that the level of entanglement could never build up sufficiently to cause ESP, were it possible, and therefore couldn't explain it. Michio Kaku is a loon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The roots of science extend as far back as Aristotle who was all about asking... "why?" Nope. How? and Why? are different questions. Don't get em confused now. Noggy, when we ask "why?" and we focus on efficient and formal causes, then how and why are identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The roots of science extend as far back as Aristotle who was all about asking... "why?" Nope. How? and Why? are different questions. Don't get em confused now. Noggy, when we ask "why?" and we focus on efficient and formal causes, then how and why are identical. Science by definition can never give you those efficient and formal causes, though. They can only give you "How?", and then it can only give you "How?" to a point. By definition any scientific approach to anything will be incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The roots of science extend as far back as Aristotle who was all about asking... "why?" Nope. How? and Why? are different questions. Don't get em confused now. Noggy, when we ask "why?" and we focus on efficient and formal causes, then how and why are identical. Science by definition can never give you those efficient and formal causes, though. They can only give you "How?", and then it can only give you "How?" to a point. By definition any scientific approach to anything will be incomplete. Noggy I here direct your attention to this thread... http://www.ex-christ...ral-entailment/ We can there dicuss this if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Michio Kaku is a loon. He's good at explaining certain things, in an easy to understand way. But, in my opinion, he has an over-active imagination. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Michio Kaku rocks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I am skeptical of the little I know of quantum theory. The little I know about says to me, that these people are masturbating and don't have a clue what there talking about. Can't say I have a better explanation then them, but the supposed consensus leaves me a little worried. They can't even get down the basic origins of the universe, so am I going to trust them about quantum theory. Not in the near future. Actually, it's one of the most tested and verified theories out there. Do you use a USB drive? Those wouldn't exist if it weren't for Quantum Tunneling. Pretty sure those don't work because a physicist masturbated onto your flash drive. Well I never said, I couldn't be convinced otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 science is such an inadequate tool to describe why I've always felt that "why" is the wrong question to ask. It implies intention and is thus a form of anthropomorphizing. I am reminded of Douglas Adam's book, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", where they ask they supercomputer "Deep Thought" what the answer to life, the universe and everything is and the computer replies "42". The computer explains that to understand to the answer you have to ask the right question. The right question isn't "why", it's "how". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 science is such an inadequate tool to describe why I've always felt that "why" is the wrong question to ask. It implies intention and is thus a form of anthropomorphizing. I am reminded of Douglas Adam's book, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", where they ask they supercomputer "Deep Thought" what the answer to life, the universe and everything is and the computer replies "42". The computer explains that to understand to the answer you have to ask the right question. The right question isn't "why", it's "how". Assuming there is no intention is an odd thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 science is such an inadequate tool to describe why I've always felt that "why" is the wrong question to ask. It implies intention and is thus a form of anthropomorphizing. I am reminded of Douglas Adam's book, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", where they ask they supercomputer "Deep Thought" what the answer to life, the universe and everything is and the computer replies "42". The computer explains that to understand to the answer you have to ask the right question. The right question isn't "why", it's "how". Assuming there is no intention is an odd thing. How is that odd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I don't understand anything at all about quantum theory. I didn't understand the article, either- I guess it was written with people with a basic understanding of the theory in mind. But I did want to ask about something. Years ago, I read a book called Butterfly Economics by Paul Ormerod. Or maybe I read part of it- I'm not sure now, I was still a teenager when I read it. Anyway, the premise of the book was based on the metaphor that a butterfly flaps its wings on one saide of the world, causing an earthquake/tsunami (it's been a while, remember) on the other side of the world, and it applied this metaphor to modern economics and the impact of globalisation on individual countries. So my question is, this metaphor about the butterfly, is that kind of the idea behind quantum theory? I'm sorry if I've gotten it all mixed up, but it was the closest thing to what I thought the article was talking about that I could think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts