Quantum physics per an ancient entity

[varwoche]

Who better to learn quantum physics from than a 35,000 year old entity, right?

There's a psuedo documentary film out called What the #$*! Do We Know? which supposedly explains string theory and other mysteries of the universe, starring academy award winning actress Marlee Matlin no less. (I've not seen it.)

The film also features an american lady named JZ Knight. JZ is the middle-aged lady from Yelm*, WA who claims to channel an ancient and powerful entity known as Ramtha. (Oddly and comically, when Ramtha speaks through JZ, he does so with an English accent.)

JZ does more than appear in this film. It was created by several of her followers.

All I have to say about this is, well, thumbs up! I enthusiastically welcome JZ's return to the spotlight. That's because there's no nut like a home state nut, and now I might actually be motivated to read the Ramtha literature that shows up in my mailbox periodically, and excerpt it here. (I signed up on her mailing list an eternity ago, so to speak.)

So stayeth tuned.

Knight looked and talked like the love child of Zsa Zsa Gabor and William Shatner. She couldn't maintain her Ramtha accent, either, and appeared to have had bad plastic surgery—one would think with her money and connections to Atlantis she could have done better. article (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0510/050309_news_mossback.php)

* Only residents of the fine state of WA can appreciate the Yelm aspect. Suffice it to say it's a very mundane place.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by varwoche
Who better to learn quantum physics from than a 35,000 year old entity, right?

Ah, physics professors ain't all bad, though. ;)

Yeah, I wanted to see this film. It sounds unintentionally amusing.

It came out some time last year and we had a few appalled prods at it on these forums then. I'm a bit surprised that it's still hanging around some cinemas and making it into reviews.

Needless to say, the "quantum physics" in the movie seems to take the old woo-woo ideas that came from when the theory was newer and had conceptual problems but these have been removed or clarified now but usually still appear in textbooks and popular science books. Up to date textbooks have yet to really appear, as far as I know.

If someone is talking about the weirdness of quantum theory and never mention either "decoherence" or "realism" and how they fit into the explanations for that weirdness then they shouldn't be making films about it.

And I bet this film doesn't mention those. ;)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by varwoche
* Only residents of the fine state of WA can appreciate the Yelm aspect. Suffice it to say it's a very mundane place.

I thought this was going to be a joke about Ylem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylem), but it's actually real?

Oh well.

[SpaceFluffer]

If anyone claims to use Quantum Mechanics to explain something, just ask them to write down the Schrodinger equation.

It's pretty basic QM, so they should be able to do it, right?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
If anyone claims to use Quantum Mechanics to explain something, just ask them to write down the Schrodinger equation.

It's pretty basic QM, so they should be able to do it, right?

What a great idea! A pons asinorum for pseudoscience.

Someone should ask Lifegazer to write down the Lorentz Transformation.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by wipeout
Needless to say, the "quantum physics" in the movie seems to take the old woo-woo ideas that came from when the theory was newer and had conceptual problems but these have been removed or clarified now but usually still appear in textbooks and popular science books. Up to date textbooks have yet to really appear, as far as I know.

If someone is talking about the weirdness of quantum theory and never mention either "decoherence" or "realism" and how they fit into the explanations for that weirdness then they shouldn't be making films about it.

And I bet this film doesn't mention those. ;)

I feel, ancient sayings can be much more than today's sayings & & that can be a basis of todays ideas & sayings. Forms, languages & presentations can be bit differant, just indicative, indirect etc. Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it. The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel. Every & all basics, seems to be already created & told long back at the begining after any destruction or big-bang, not possible in today's destructive phase. We can just change, mould here & there, change language & forms, re-search, dis-cover, invent...but can't create now....probably.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
I feel, ancient sayings can be much more than today's sayings & & that can be a basis of todays ideas & sayings. Forms, languages & presentations can be bit differant, just indicative, indirect etc. Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it. The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel.
What a load of bull.
Are you one of the "entitled people"?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Kumar
I feel, ancient sayings can be much more than today's sayings & & that can be a basis of todays ideas & sayings. Forms, languages & presentations can be bit differant, just indicative, indirect etc. Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it. The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel.
What.

Ev.

Er.

[Kumar]

Sorry, edited & added.

Probably alike 'old wine in new/new type of bottle.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
Sorry, edited & added.

Probably alike 'old wine in new/new type of bottle.
Still meaningless.

[Kiless]

Thanks, Varwoche! You have inspired me to write a letter to the cinema about their advertising of this film. :)

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kumar
Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it.
I'm assuming you are one of them.
The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel.
Yes they might have. And they also might have been simply talking through their hats. Any evidence that the "ancient mentionings" have verifiable claims hidden somewhere? We'll talk after you have proof.
Every & all basics, seems to be already created & told long back at the begining after any destruction or big-bang, not possible in today's destructive phase. We can just change, mould here & there, change language & forms, re-search, dis-cover, invent...but can't create now....probably.
Kumar, you are here talking about one of the great intellectual cop-outs of Hinduism.

To everyone unacquainted with the concept of "today's destructive phase", here's a little primer about this aspect of Hindu mythology:

According to Hinduism, there are four ages(yugas), out of which the fourth age 'Kaliyuga' is currently in progress. The first three ages were ages of great happiness and knowledge, while the current age is an age of ignorance and evil. It is claimed that a few hundred thousand years or so down the line, the world will be destroyed by Shiva and the cycle of the four yugas will be begun once again - in other words, the universe will undergo a cosmic rebooting.

Of course, as is the bane of all religions, Hindus have accepted these wonderful ficitonal Tolkeinesque literary constructs as depictions of reality. Hence the truly religious ones believe that since this is the 'Kaliyuga', the gods do not manifest themselves to humans anymore and the evil noose of doubt and ignorance strengthens its hold over the populace. Which is why no new knowledge can be obtained any more - we are all stuck in this horrifying dizzy spiral towards destruction, and the study of the sacred texts of the ancients are the only means by which we can achieve salvation.

Gee! What a neat explanation! "The reason why the existence of God can't be proven to you is because you have been born a few hundred thousand years too late. Also, you might want to stop all your experiments into neuroscience and particle physics. The answers are all there in the Vedas and your microscopes and accelerators are worthless."

[Donks]

Originally posted by Vikram
To everyone unacquainted with the concept of "today's destructive phase", here's a little primer about this aspect of Hindu mythology:

According to Hinduism, there are four ages(yugas), out of which the fourth age 'Kaliyuga' is currently in progress. The first three ages were ages of great happiness and knowledge, while the current age is an age of ignorance and evil. It is claimed that a few hundred thousand years or so down the line, the world will be destroyed by Shiva and the cycle of the four yugas will be begun once again - in other words, the universe will undergo a cosmic rebooting.

Of course, as is the bane of all religions, Hindus have accepted these wonderful ficitonal Tolkeinesque literary constructs as depictions of reality. Hence the truly religious ones believe that since this is the 'Kaliyuga', the gods do not manifest themselves to humans anymore and the evil noose of doubt and ignorance strengthens its hold over the populace. Which is why no new knowledge can be obtained any more - we are all stuck in this horrifying dizzy spiral towards destruction, and the study of the sacred texts of the ancients are the only means by which we can achieve salvation.

Gee! What a neat explanation! "The reason why the existence of God can't be proven to you is because you have been born a few hundred thousand years too late. Also, you might want to stop all your experiments into neuroscience and particle physics. The answers are all there in the Vedas and your microscopes and accelerators are worthless."
You know what? That explains Kumar a hell of a lot better than either of the two current leading theories, namely the biggest idiot on the planet, and the most dedicated troll to ever roam the Internet. So he's simply an extreme Hindu fanatic. Yeah, I can buy that.

[Kopji]

(aside)
The name of the movie is pronounced
'What the bleep do you know' and has a website at

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

[Kopji]

A great review:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000083.html

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Donks
You know what? That explains Kumar a hell of a lot better than either of the two current leading theories, namely the biggest idiot on the planet, and the most dedicated troll to ever roam the Internet. So he's simply an extreme Hindu fanatic. Yeah, I can buy that.
I'm personally for locking Kumar and jambo together in a room and letting them sock the religious beliefs out of each other. We can then debate the paranormal with the survivor. Isn't that an efficient way to decimate the woos?

[varwoche]

Ah, the small touches. Speaking of air of authenticity courtesy of an English accent...

Here is JZ's web site (http://www.ramtha.com/). Gotta love that old fashioned font she uses on the navigation menu.

[vbloke]

well, we all know that the Queen's English is synonymous with intelligence... Look at Prince Charles, he must be the cleverest man on the planet...

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Kumar
I feel, ancient sayings can be much more than today's sayings & & that can be a basis of todays ideas & sayings. Forms, languages & presentations can be bit differant, just indicative, indirect etc. Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it. The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel. Every & all basics, seems to be already created & told long back at the begining after any destruction or big-bang, not possible in today's destructive phase. We can just change, mould here & there, change language & forms, re-search, dis-cover, invent...but can't create now....probably.
Let me talk to your mother.

[vbloke]

Originally posted by Kumar
I feel, ancient sayings can be much more than today's sayings & & that can be a basis of todays ideas & sayings. Forms, languages & presentations can be bit differant, just indicative, indirect etc. Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it. The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel. Every & all basics, seems to be already created & told long back at the begining after any destruction or big-bang, not possible in today's destructive phase. We can just change, mould here & there, change language & forms, re-search, dis-cover, invent...but can't create now....probably.

I had to reread that several times.
nope, still makes no sense

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Vikram
I'm assuming you are one of them.

Yes they might have. And they also might have been simply talking through their hats. Any evidence that the "ancient mentionings" have verifiable claims hidden somewhere? We'll talk after you have proof.

Kumar, you are here talking about one of the great intellectual cop-outs of Hinduism.

To everyone unacquainted with the concept of "today's destructive phase", here's a little primer about this aspect of Hindu mythology:

According to Hinduism, there are four ages(yugas), out of which the fourth age 'Kaliyuga' is currently in progress. The first three ages were ages of great happiness and knowledge, while the current age is an age of ignorance and evil. It is claimed that a few hundred thousand years or so down the line, the world will be destroyed by Shiva and the cycle of the four yugas will be begun once again - in other words, the universe will undergo a cosmic rebooting.

Of course, as is the bane of all religions, Hindus have accepted these wonderful ficitonal Tolkeinesque literary constructs as depictions of reality. Hence the truly religious ones believe that since this is the 'Kaliyuga', the gods do not manifest themselves to humans anymore and the evil noose of doubt and ignorance strengthens its hold over the populace. Which is why no new knowledge can be obtained any more - we are all stuck in this horrifying dizzy spiral towards destruction, and the study of the sacred texts of the ancients are the only means by which we can achieve salvation.

Gee! What a neat explanation! "The reason why the existence of God can't be proven to you is because you have been born a few hundred thousand years too late. Also, you might want to stop all your experiments into neuroscience and particle physics. The answers are all there in the Vedas and your microscopes and accelerators are worthless."

Whether Big bang theory is somewhat conversion of this yuga theory?

[BillC]

Originally posted by Kumar
Whether Big bang theory is somewhat conversion of this yuga theory? No.

The Big Bang theory developed from noticing that all galaxies appeared to be moving away from each other and then extrapolating this back to a point in time when they would all be close.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kumar
Whether Big bang theory is somewhat conversion of this yuga theory?
No.

According to the Yuga theory, there are 4 Yugas in every Mahayuga. All four yugas had humans in it. If you decide to equate it with the Big Bang Theory, then that would mean that there were humans existing right from the point of the Big Bang, which is just nonsense. The big bang took place 15-20 billion years ago. Even the most primitive protohumans have not existed for more than 8 million years.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by varwoche
Ah, the small touches. Speaking of air of authenticity courtesy of an English accent...

Here is JZ's web site (http://www.ramtha.com/). Gotta love that old fashioned font she uses on the navigation menu.

Urgh! :o The music is fighting with Rage Against the Machine's Bombtrack I'm listening to. :D

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Vikram
No.

According to the Yuga theory, there are 4 Yugas in every Mahayuga. All four yugas had humans in it. If you decide to equate it with the Big Bang Theory, then that would mean that there were humans existing right from the point of the Big Bang, which is just nonsense. The big bang took place 15-20 billion years ago. Even the most primitive protohumans have not existed for more than 8 million years.

Yuga's can be in-between stages of two Big bangs. Moreover, what was there in the begining of first yuga, is not very clear. Anyway, what about "Pralaya" by Lord Shiva in this respect?

This Sanskrit term, from great (Skt., maha) and dissolution (Skt., pralaya), hints at the eventual breakdown of the universe and death of all its inhabitants - more or less anvisioned as a collapse into a black hole from which, with a big bang, a new one will arise destined to go through the same cycles of becoming and being and dissolving once more.

http://www.yoniversum.nl/dakini/yugas.html
http://www.namaste.it/kundalini/kundalini_eng/yuga.html

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kumar
Yuga's can be in-between stages of two Big bangs. Moreover, what was there in the begining of first yuga, is not very clear. Anyway, what about "Pralaya" by Lord Shiva in this respect?
Your own link says that a single cycle of yugas is 4.5 million years. Are you trying to say that there's a big bang every 4.5 million years? Are you trying to say that the last big bang must have taken place less than 4.5 million years ago? If you are, let me tell you that all fossil records and geological evidence show that you're wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present Kumar, the Hindu Creationist!

[clarsct]

Why Oh Why do people believe that just because someone said something a long time ago that it is true? Does our understanding not progress with the ages? What does 'ancient' have to do with 'veracity'? People used to believe that frogs were made spontaneously out of water and mud. Should we believe this because it's older than biology? What about Philogeston Chemistry? Are our periodic tables false because they are newer than the 'four humors' the Greeks believed in? I'm sorry...I just don't get it.

[Correa Neto]

OK, lets play with this...

Lets suppose there is some sort of cataclysm each 4.5ma...

Ooops, there´s absolutely no evidences in the fossil record of the presence of Homo sapiens 4.5ma, 9ma, 13.5ma, 18ma ... 450 ma ... regression continues untill earliest (microscopic) fossil records.

BTW, how can one be sure that there were other "big bangs - big crunches" cycles before? Probably I am not update with cosmology, but I read a couple of articles suggesting that there will be no "big crunch", just a slow fading...

Oh, the great absolute wisdom of the Ancient Ones...

The Earth is flat...
Subterranean winds create volcanoes...
Giant salamanders or catfishes moving in the underground cause earthquakes...
There are four elements...
Quartz is old ice that no longer melts...
[add your example here]

Oh, yes, they were practical people, democratically kept knoweledge away from the average commoner...

[Lisa Simpson]

For those in America, "What the bleep do we know?" is out on DVD.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006UEVQ8/qid=1112107691/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl74/102-1975342-2659338?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846

They kept advertising it during a science program I was watching this weekend.

[sackett]

A word in defense of Hindu cosmology. (Vikram will keep me straight here; Kumar will post something incomprehensible.)

Those guys working as long ago as 1200 BC did pretty well to posit a cyclical universe. They were working almost without facts, certainly without sophisticated observations, and yet they came up with an Explanation for Everything that's plausible enough to deserve serious consideration to this day. (If there's enough matter in the universe it will eventually collapse, and after zero elapsed time - because time will have come to an end - a new expansion can begin.) Their notion of recurring yugas is in keeping with the general Hindu assumption that everything happens repeatedly. Probably no other thinkers in the world at that time would have come up with the notion of the death and rebirth of the universe. They thought the universe came out of a cosmic egg; we think it came out of a singularity. Not bad, old pandits!

I like to think that if they were around today they could get up to speed pretty quickly. They were trying their damnedst not to be woowoos.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Vikram
Your own link says that a single cycle of yugas is 4.5 million years. Are you trying to say that there's a big bang every 4.5 million years? Are you trying to say that the last big bang must have taken place less than 4.5 million years ago? If you are, let me tell you that all fossil records and geological evidence show that you're wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present Kumar, the Hindu Creationist!

Just try to calculate again.

Take help from;

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/rounds.htm

"By human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration
of Brahma's one day. And such also is the duration of his night."

A yuga is 4,320,000 solar years so one of Lord Brahma's days is
4,320,000,000 years! He also, like us lives for about 100 years so
you can calculate the life-span of the universe. It's a long time.
His planet is situated in such a way that during this 4,320,000,000
year period there is continual daylight. At the end of his day
there is a partial devistation of the universe. This takes the form
of an inundation. The whole lower and middle planetary systems are
flooded leaving only the upper planets (where Lord Brahma and the
other demigods live) untouched. As the sun is situated in the
middle of the universe it is also covered with water and everything
in the universe becomes dark. That's the end of Brahma's day. As
the waters gradually subside the sun starts to shine again and
morning comes for Lord Brahma and he, and the other demigods wake
up to clean up the mess and set the ball rolling for another
thousand yuga's.

There are also two other types of pralaya's (devistations). One
occurs at the death of Brahma, called the maha pralaya (great
devistation), and that is the end of this universe. The other
occurs (sometimes or always depending on the commentators-It's not
completly agreed upon) at the end of the life of Manu. Manu is the
chief progenator (person in charge of generating population) in the
universe so he is called "the father of mankind". Undoubtedly the
word "man" has been derived from "Manu".

The Manu's don't reign for as long as Lord Brahma. There are
fourteen Manu's in every day of Brahma's life and a manvantara is
the period in which one Manu rules. Each Manu's period last
seventy-two yugas (72 * 4,320,000). Manu is the author of the
"Manu-samhita", the codes or laws meant to be obeyed by mankind.

As a matter of interest the current Manu is Vaivasvata Manu, he is
the seventh Manu in the current day of Lord Brahma. So Brahma is
now about 50 or half-way through his life.
http://krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/msg00040.html

[sackett]

Didn't I say incomprehensible?

[Correa Neto]

Yes, everything makes sense now...:cs:

Water flooded the space eons ago. Now folks, remember that in EP II "seismic charges" were used in space combat. Since Star Wars happened a long, long time ago, there was water left in space, hence the use of the charges!:cs:

Amanita matutina tea anyone?

Where are the fossil remains of such long-term existence?

Lets add to the Ancient Wisdom list that the Sun is at the centre of the universe. Ovious an error, since *I* am at the centre of the universe. Actually *I AM* the centre of the universe.

[edited to add]
Sackett:

I remember reading that cosmologists think, based on present data, that the expansion rate is too big to allow a "big crunch", even when dark matter is taken in to account. There were also issues related to the cosmological constant. Am I so outdated?:(

And yes, incomprehensible...

[Vikram]

Originally posted by sackett
A word in defense of Hindu cosmology. (Vikram will keep me straight here; Kumar will post something incomprehensible.)

Those guys working as long ago as 1200 BC did pretty well to posit a cyclical universe. They were working almost without facts, certainly without sophisticated observations, and yet they came up with an Explanation for Everything that's plausible enough to deserve serious consideration to this day. (If there's enough matter in the universe it will eventually collapse, and after zero elapsed time - because time will have come to an end - a new expansion can begin.) Their notion of recurring yugas is in keeping with the general Hindu assumption that everything happens repeatedly. Probably no other thinkers in the world at that time would have come up with the notion of the death and rebirth of the universe. They thought the universe came out of a cosmic egg; we think it came out of a singularity. Not bad, old pandits!

I like to think that if they were around today they could get up to speed pretty quickly. They were trying their damnedst not to be woowoos.
You're quite right here. I always keep on telling people that accepting the writings of the ancients at face value without examining them under the microscope of current scientific knowledge is the greatest insult possible to their intellectual spirit.

[Kumar]

I am not absolute, but it looks many ideas as of now, can be taken/stolen & re-arranged fully, partly or differantly in today's language/s from ancient idications.

Just tell me, suppose a person meditate & concentrate(alike hypnotism learning) very very deeply & dedicated for very very long time in good atmosphere with prolonged age, how much can he enhance & improve the capacity of his senses?

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kumar
Just try to calculate again.
You know what - why don't YOU do the calculations and present them to us?

Remember to support any conclusions you reach with correlative evidence from the little thing we call REALITY!

[varwoche]

I signed up on JZ's mailing list, as the OP says, an eternity ago. (Thank you, next week I'll be appearing at the Yelm Comedy Club.) I estimate eternity at ~ 4 years, during which time I have regularly received mailings.

I started this thread a couple of weeks ago, and have received my first Ramtha correspondence since that time, from Audrey at Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.
RSE is in the process of cleaning up computer records and we would like to know if you would like to remain on our mailing list for the Newsletter and any other mailers.

Please call 1-800-347-0439 or email audreyw@ramtha.com. If we do not hear from you by April 30th, your name will be removed. Is this payback time? Did Ramtha peer into my depraved soul and order this purge?

Stayeth tuned.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Vikram
You know what - why don't YOU do the calculations and present them to us?

Remember to support any conclusions you reach with correlative evidence from the little thing we call REALITY!

You might have heard about "Divya Dristhi"--said as indefinite or extreme visual/feeling power. Could our ancient learned ones, had seen by this DD even the quantum states & described/indicated accordingly?

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kumar
You might have heard about "Divya Dristhi"--said as indefinite or extreme visual/feeling power. Could our ancient learned ones, had seen by this DD even the quantum states & described/indicated accordingly?
No.

If they had seen anything real, then it would be very easy for you to give proof. But you haven't been able to give any proof.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I just saw the movie. It was not as bad as I thought regarding this thread. I couldnt see any reference to this ramtha character. True, it might be just a way to "soflty" introduce "ramanthism" to the viewers, but thats about it.

Yes, there are misrepresented things in the movie (I dont want to write spoilers), and the general view might not be the "standard" academical view, but it is not that bad.

As for this woman, the ramtha channeler, I understand why she has some followers, she seems have what is called "charisma", she appear to speak with authority and, to say the truth, I think it would be nice to talk to her.

I never saw a reference about this "ramtha entity" giving her teachings in QM, but of course, as I dont know anything about the movement, I can be wrong, maybe this "entity" is "really" talking about QM?? Oh well, I would expect such and old "entity" to talk about something we dont know, like QM if she were living in the 17 century or so.

In any case, of course this ramtha thing is 100% wooism, and many of the views in the movie just plain naive, or distorted, but, you all have to consider, that this might be the only approach some people will have to QM and science in general! Who knows? maybe this will attract some of them to real science. :p
_______
EDIT:

I just saw the ramtha site, total and complete woo. She is charismatic, like any sect or religion founder, and Im always astonished by the power this kind of people can have among some humans. It is an interesting phenomena.

[varwoche]

Piggy-backing on the fact that the movie is opening in Britian this week, here's some exerpts from JZ's bio (http://www.ramtha.com/html/aboutus/about-jz.stm#chronology) (per JZ)... 1946: JZ was born on March 16, 1946 at the General Hospital, Roswell, New Mexico Hmm, interesting already. ;) Her religious education and desire to know more about God had a strong influence on her character Clearly. She made an unsuccessful attempt to go to college in 1965, leading her to choose marriage instead. This is her version mind you. A real romantic. Judith [JZ] moved her small family to Roswell, New Mexico Wonder what Ramtha has to say about this aspect. Judith acquired the nickname of "Zebra" (giving rise to the nickname JZ), due to her ability to make clean-cut, black-and-white decisions. Working her way up the corporate ladder, JZ became a very successful businesswoman. She succeeded in obtaining important cable television contracts in Seattle, Bremerton, and Tacoma There is no such thing as an important television contract in Bremerton, WA! :) On February 7, 1977, a Sunday afternoon, JZ had her first encounter with Ramtha the Enlightened One.
...
Ramtha requested his desire to JZ to change the format of the Dialogue seminars and found Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, the School of Ancient Wisdom. I suspect that "changed format" meant charging more money. Ramtha taught for the first time a dynamic discipline of manifestation he called Consciousness & Energyâ„¢. He also introduced the study of quantum physics to the curriculum of the school and the challenging task of bridging science and spirituality. Like the subject says... JZ agreed to subject herself, and the unusual phenomenon of channeling Ramtha, to serious and professional scientific scrutiny by a group of scholars over the course of a year. The scientific research culminated in the conference In Search of the Self: The Role of Consciousness in the Construction of Reality, a Conference on Contemporary Spirituality. February 8-9, 1997, Yelm, Washington. Some of the results produced by the scientific research showed that JZ Knight, and some of the students who were tested, displayed a significant and unusual psychic and mental ability. Ya sure.

[varwoche]

I omitted this gem... 1997: On April 22, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled that JZ Knight is the only person who has the right to channel Ramtha. This ruling was the conclusion of the lawsuit against Julie Ravel from Berlin who claimed to be the true channel of Ramtha since 1992.Don't Ramtha's wishes count?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by wipeout


Needless to say, the "quantum physics" in the movie seems to take the old woo-woo ideas that came from when the theory was newer and had conceptual problems



Only if you're a realist.





but these have been removed or clarified now but usually still appear in textbooks and popular science books. Up to date textbooks have yet to really appear, as far as I know.



There never were any conceptual problems. We just need to abandon this facile notion of a mind-independent reality.




If someone is talking about the weirdness of quantum theory and never mention either "decoherence" or "realism" and how they fit into the explanations for that weirdness then they shouldn't be making films about it.



They don't fit. Realism is nonsensical. Decoherence? Isn't that just they idea that a macroscopic object cannot in practice be in a quantum state for any appreciable period of time because they cannot be wholly isolated from the rest of their environment? Well, that says absolutely nothing about whether macroscopic objects are subject to a quantum mechanical explanation, and it seems to me it has absolutely no metaphysical implications. Certainly it does not save realism.



And I bet this film doesn't mention those. ;)

Well, not decohernece it didn't. It was very simplistic and decoherence doesn't have any relevance to anything so far as I am able to understand.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Only if you're a realist.
In what sense are you using the term 'realist' and how are you relating that to wipeout's statement?
Are you referring to a Classical Realist? A Quantum Realist?

And what position are you taking instead that would render wipeout's statements incorrect?

There never were any conceptual problems. We just need to abandon this facile notion of a mind-independent reality.
And now Incredibly Arrogant Ian completely dismisses all current research and thinking about Quantum Physics.
He can't constructively criticise the comment so he makes sweeping unfounded assertations, that don't actually have anything to do with the commment.

Wipeout is saying that what you believe about Quantum Mechanics are actually outdated and superseded beliefs.
But you don't seem to like that, and in the absence of any knowledge on the subject you criticise the mindsets that might say such a thing.
Of course it has no impact on the reality of the theories or the validity of wipeout's comments.

Another meaningless comment.

It's like a parent grounding a child for being naughty and the child saying "Oh you're such a bourgeouis fascist!"
Not constructive, not intelligent, not a clever counter-argument, just foot-stamping petulance.

They don't fit. Realism is nonsensical. Decoherence? Isn't that just they idea that a macroscopic object cannot in practice be in a quantum state for any appreciable period of time because they cannot be wholly isolated from the rest of their environment?
Well as far as I can tell that is a part of decoherence. But there appears to be a lot more to it.
It's quite a crucial aspect of QM, and as wipeout says anyone talking about QM and not mentioning it probably doesn't really know anything about QM.

Well, that says absolutely nothing about whether macroscopic objects are subject to a quantum mechanical explanation, and it seems to me it has absolutely no metaphysical implications. Certainly it does not save realism.
Yes, it has no metaphysical implications.
Why do you imagine realism need saving? What do you actually mean by realism?
Now you are bizarely stating facts which we are all agreeing on, then apparently claiming this supports some point of yours about realism, although it isn't clear what.

Well, not decohernece it didn't. It was very simplistic and decoherence doesn't have any relevance to anything so far as I am able to understand.
Decoherence "is a consequence of quantum theory that affects virtually all physical systems", "arises from unavoidable interaction of these systems with their natural environment " and "explains why macroscopic systems seem to possess their familiar classical properties".

It's actually the closest thing to what you were talking about in regard to linking Quantum and Classical physical laws. (See this site (http://www.decoherence.de/)).
And yet you dismiss it as irrelevant?

Agin this shows how much more you need to know about this field before starting to attempt to generate your own theories involving QM, or criticising current theories as wrong.

[naughtyrasputin]

Hello all ,
Quantum physics.... the simultaneous vibration of particles over any distance. ( my definition).


Paul Carey.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by naughtyrasputin
Quantum physics.... the simultaneous vibration of particles over any distance. ( my definition).

Does your definition have anything in common with the subject of quantum physics as it's taught at Cambridge or MIT?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Vikram
I'm personally for locking Kumar and jambo together in a room and letting them sock the religious beliefs out of each other. We can then debate the paranormal with the survivor. Isn't that an efficient way to decimate the woos?

The most efficient way to decimate trolls is to STOP FEEDING THEM!

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The most efficient way to decimate trolls is to STOP FEEDING THEM!
Sometimes it's hard not to respond, but in the case of Paul Carey I agree completely.

It's actually now become quite depressing to watch what scraps of attention he will feed off.

Nobody likes to watch a person become so pathetic.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles


Wipeout is saying that what you believe about Quantum Mechanics are actually outdated and superseded beliefs.


If he is saying this then let him argue for it. I have no idea what classical realism or quantum realism are. I was talking about scientific realism i.e the notion that science is telling us about a world independent of consciousness, and indeed independent of our observations.

If Wipeout is arguing that quantum mechanics has characterised such a reality, then let him say what it is like. Better still, since you seem to be convinced that QM is wholly compatible with realism, then you explain what it is like.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If he is saying this then let him argue for it. I have no idea what classical realism or quantum realism are. I was talking about scientific realism i.e the notion that science is telling us about a world independent of consciousness, and indeed independent of our observations.

If Wipeout is arguing that quantum mechanics has characterised such a reality, then let him say what it is like. Better still, since you seem to be convinced that QM is wholly compatible with realism, then you explain what it is like.
Or, best of all, you go away, do a little bit of reading about QM, and then you can come back with, to start with at least, an understanding of the terms involved.

Until you at least do that then debating Quantum Mechanics with you is utterly pointless.
And for you to attempt to utilise it in your theories is just ridiculous.

Why should anyone (certainly not me as my understanding of the subject is tiny) act as teacher to you when all the information is freely available?

'Realism' actually means specific things in terms of Quantum Theory.

Or is reading about a subject irrelevant to you as you already know how it all works?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Or, best of all, you go away, do a little bit of reading about QM, and then you can come back with, to start with at least, an understanding of the terms involved.

Until you at least do that then debating Quantum Mechanics with you is utterly pointless.
And for you to attempt to utilise it in your theories is just ridiculous.


{sighs} Do you suggest I only utilise Newtonian mechanics then?? I'm sorry but it's no good supposing that Newtonian Mechanics completely describes reality when it doesn't! Much as you might whine about it I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world Ashless.

Listen and try to get it through to your head. My hypotheses have to be consistent with what science tells us about the world. My hypothesis regarding free will and its origin does that. Or if you deny this then fire ahead and tell me what is wrong with my hypothesis.

Like it or not it would seem that QM, chaos theory, and the existence of micropsychokinesis can conceivably explain free will. You have no competing hypothesis for the existence of free will (or if you have then spit it out). Moreover we know that we necessarily have free will (and I can produce my proof should you desire me to do so).

So until you or anyone else can either falsify my hypothesis, or render it prima facie unlikely, I shall hold on to it.

I suggest you deal with it.

[Correa Neto]

Have you managed to obtain some equations backing the claim that "QM, chaos theory, and the existence of micropsychokinesis can conceivably explain free will"? And could you please explain us how?

Ian, Newtonian mechanics perfectly describes a large set of phenomena untill a certain scale. Very fast speeds, very massive bodies and you enter in the "Relativity realm". Too small scale and you enter in the "QM domain". But at most "normal" situations, Newtonian mechanics is quite good. It can be used to put a spacecraft in Saturn, describe the orbits of planets, etc. Don´t forget also thermodynamics, another gift from Newton. So, Newton´s equations do accurately describe the world, for most usual situations, and you´ll have to deal with that.

To say that "Einsten prove that Newton was wrong", "QM shows that Einsten was wrong" is not correct.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

{sighs} Do you suggest I only utilise Newtonian mechanics then??

{sighs}

Quite obviously, he is suggesting nothing of the sort. He is suggesting that you stop talking out your rear about QM. If you want to use it to support your hypothesis, then learn enough about it to do so.

You've notably failed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Have you managed to obtain some equations backing the claim that "QM, chaos theory, and the existence of micropsychokinesis can conceivably explain free will"? And could you please explain us how?



You think peoples' behaviour can be captured by equations?



Ian, Newtonian mechanics perfectly describes a large set of phenomena untill a certain scale. Very fast speeds, very massive bodies and you enter in the "Relativity realm". Too small scale and you enter in the "QM domain". But at most "normal" situations, Newtonian mechanics is quite good. It can be used to put a spacecraft in Saturn, describe the orbits of planets, etc. Don´t forget also thermodynamics, another gift from Newton. So, Newton´s equations do accurately describe the world, for most usual situations, and you´ll have to deal with that.



Of course. I have no idea why you imagine I'm denying the foregoing.



To say that "Einsten prove that Newton was wrong", "QM shows that Einsten was wrong" is not correct.

Where did I say that?

PS You need to read this post at the top of this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870907176#post1870907176) page to see what Ashless and I were referring to.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
{sighs}

Quite obviously, he is suggesting nothing of the sort. He is suggesting that you stop talking out your rear about QM. If you want to use it to support your hypothesis, then learn enough about it to do so.

You've notably failed.

I know enough about it to know that our current knowledge allows for this possibility. The only way I'm utilizing QM is when I mention that QM renders the future indeterminate, and where the pertinent quantum events occur in a chaotic system (like our brains), wholly unpredictable too.

One might as well claim that I cannot hypothesise that dropping a wallnut on a hard surface might possibly crack the nut open unless I have a thorough comprehensive knowledge of Newtonian mechanics.

Now if you can show my hypothesis is false, or even just simply implausible, then go ahead.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My hypotheses have to be consistent with what science tells us about the world.

That would be nice, yes.

I would feel more confident that that is possible if you actually had any understanding of what science tells us about the world.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by new drkitten
That would be nice, yes.

I would feel more confident that that is possible if you actually had any understanding of what science tells us about the world.

I see that you still don't have anything intelligent to offer.

Make a worthwhile post, or be ignored.

[Garrette]

Oh, pish tosh, Ian. You think you know enough to show that. Others have demonstrated your misapplication, particularly regarding Schrodinger's cat.

And you have done more than just claim that it applies because QM renders the future indeterminate and the bit about the brain as a chaotic system. You spent most of your time talking about superposition and decoherence, and you misapplied that as the bit with Schrodinger's cat demonstrated.

[Correa Neto]

Nowdays it can´t, AFAIK. But can you be sure that people´s behavior can not (or will not) be described by equations? Not even statistics?

And you wrote "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world ", and that´s why I wrote about the spectrum of scales described by each mechanics.

And regarding whats being discussed, I am aware. Including that you -as well as most people who try to connect QM and paranormal phenomena- fail to acknoweledge the correct scale where QM "works". And it is stated at the place you linked.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
Oh, pish tosh, Ian. You think you know enough to show that. Others have demonstrated your misapplication, particularly regarding Schrodinger's cat.

And you have done more than just claim that it applies because QM renders the future indeterminate and the bit about the brain as a chaotic system. You spent most of your time talking about superposition and decoherence, and you misapplied that as the bit with Schrodinger's cat demonstrated.

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with Schroedinger's cat. Nor does it have anything to do with whether macroscopic objects can be in a superposition. But on this topic, where have I misapplied QM regarding Shroedinger's cat??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Nowdays it can´t, AFAIK. But can you be sure that people´s behavior can not (or will not) be described by equations? Not even statistics?



A particular individual before they act? Maybe their behaviour can be but that would literally be an equation describing freely chosen behaviour. There is a distinction between this and all non-sentient physical existents in the Universe. For example the equations describing the orbits of the planets around the Sun would not be normally thought of as equations describing the freely chosen behaviour of the planets. The behaviour of sentient beings has a differing origin from non-sentient things.




And you wrote "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world ", and that´s why I wrote about the spectrum of scales described by each mechanics.



My statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world " is not equivalent to the statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe any part or aspect of the world".



And regarding whats being discussed, I am aware. Including that you -as well as most people who try to connect QM and paranormal phenomena- fail to acknoweledge the correct scale where QM "works". And it is stated at the place you linked. [/B]

But we know that very slight effects can have unlimited consequences. Have you not heard of Chaos theory? The butterfly effect?

[wipeout]

Interesting Ian,

I should make my use of realism clear. "Realism" here is the idea that properties exist for microscopic quantum particles in the way that we think of them existing for macroscopic objects. An example of that is for a macroscopic object like a spinning basketball we are able to measure one property (like rotation to the left or the right) or another property (like rotation upwards or downwards), both properties exist simultaneously and they can be used together in a consistent description (like the object is rotating to the right and upwards). That kind of realism is fine for classical physics. Quantum physics lacks this kind of realism for microscopic particle properties in significant ways. Just because we can choose between measuring different particle properties and we would get a value for either property doesn't mean that the unmeasured property has values which exist in the way they would for macroscopic objects. Properties lack the "realism" of classical physics. It's important to know about this lack of realism as otherwise, for example, it makes it seem as if EPR experiments involve faster-than-light influences between particles and it will allow people to reach many other unjustified conclusions like those.

This is the kind of realism that the people involved in the film needed to know about and needed to be talking about because the usual woo-friendly ideas about the universe being "all interconnected and instantaneously influencing itself at any distance" fall flat on their noses when the lack of realism in quantum physics is appreciated.

As to decoherence, yes, your description is a fine summary of the basic idea as how it's usually put across. Actually, at the moment, I'm trying to understand how much of decoherence is actually just a mathematical way of looking at things and how much is actually physical. I've got some way to go on that.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by wipeout
[B]Interesting Ian,

I should make my use of realism clear. "Realism" here is the idea that properties exist for microscopic quantum particles in the way that we think of them existing for macroscopic objects. An example of that is for a macroscopic object like a spinning basketball we are able to measure one property (like rotation to the left or the right) or another property (like rotation upwards or downwards), both properties exist simultaneously and they can be used together in a consistent description (like the object is rotating to the right and upwards). That kind of realism is fine for classical physics. Quantum physics lacks this kind of realism for microscopic particle properties in significant ways. Just because we can choose between measuring different particle properties and we would get a value for either property doesn't mean that the unmeasured property has values which exist in the way they would for macroscopic objects.



I see absolutely no difference in the reality we should bestow for the properties of electrons and basketballs. Both are described by QM. Besides, what could it possibly mean to describe a property as unreal? It's complete and total nonsense.



Properties lack the "realism" of classical physics.



A vacuous assertion.





It's important to know about this lack of realism as otherwise, for example, it makes it seem as if EPR experiments involve faster-than-light influences between particles and it will allow people to reach many other unjustified conclusions like those.



Eh? The particles are entangled. Measuring the property of one electron, its spin or whatever, determines the spin of the other. So the moment of measurement determines the properties. Is that "influencing"? I don't know what you mean by "influence". There is no mechanism connecting the particles.



This is the kind of realism that the people involved in the film needed to know about and needed to be talking about because the usual woo-friendly ideas about the universe being "all interconnected and instantaneously influencing itself at any distance" fall flat on their noses when the lack of realism in quantum physics is appreciated.


Sorry, but QM destroys the mechanical philosophy. And you have given no indication what you could possibly mean by an 'unreal property'. The world does not entirely operate on mechanical principles. If that makes it "woo" {shrugs} then so be it.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A particular individual before they act? Maybe their behaviour can be but that would literally be an equation describing freely chosen behaviour. There is a distinction between this and all non-sentient physical existents in the Universe. For example the equations describing the orbits of the planets around the Sun would not be normally thought of as equations describing the freely chosen behaviour of the planets. The behaviour of sentient beings has a differing origin from non-sentient things.

But note that an (empirical and based in statistical data) equation that predicts the behavior of an individual could be taken as evidence that the behavior is controlled by a certain set of "laws".

An analogy- quite often we can predict, based on statistical data, the behavior of a number of complex natural phenomena. Distribution of elements within an ore deposit or a region are the examples that come in to my mind, since thats the sort of stuff I´m familiar with. However, to create a mathematical model that can simulate say, the formation of the observed pattern, is much more difficult, given the number of variables and different proccesses involved. We know, however, what are the processes and controls involved, but we can´t -yet- simulate the actual formation of the pattern. Actually, nowdays people are starting to model the genesis of a number of deposits, with good results, but its not -yet- a widely used tool.

All the above is just to say that behavior predictability may be an evidence for control by a given set of rules or laws, thus creating problems for some free will concepts.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world " is not equivalent to the statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe any part or aspect of the world".

OK, but the fact is that Newtonian mechanics (and its developments, as well as electromagnetism, for example) can accurately predict and describe the behavior of macroscopic systems such as planets and human beings. QM and relativity are not the correct tools for these scales.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But we know that very slight effects can have unlimited consequences. Have you not heard of Chaos theory? The butterfly effect?

Yes, I have heard. A number of geological (like the ones I reffered about above) and meteorological systems can be seen as fractal systems. And I also have heard the many flawed assertions that were generated by misundertanding of it. The butterfly effect actually is about the initial conditions of a complex system.

To use the standard "butterfly effect example", small pressure or temperature changes within an atmospheric system may cause it to evolve to light rain, tropical storm or hurricane. The keys here are the words small (What can be considered small?) and may (Its a just a possibility, after all).

Also key is the fact that we can correlate pressure and temperature on a number of ways to the processes and variables controlling the atmospheric system. Can any QM set of processes, equations, etc. be applied to counsioussness or to paranormal phenomena? I mean not just vague sentences on non-determinism, but a mechanism that provides some predictability.

Please note that I am not demanding this from you specifically. It may come from any person who studies these fields and thinks that QM is somehow linked with it.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I just saw the movie. It was not as bad as I thought regarding this thread. I couldnt see any reference to this ramtha character. That's because the talking heads weren't introduced until after the end of the film. See this screenshot:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/ramthawebpic_2.jpg

Taken from this skeptical review of What The (Bleep) Do We Know!? (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html)

[Sanamas]

You guys have all missed out on the most hilarious part of the movie. They introduced the work of Dr. Emoto, a Japanese scientist who shows that emotions can affect the physical world by taping the word "happy" to a flask of water, freezing it, then looking at the ice under a microscope for a crystal that shows happiness.

The whole movie, rather than teaching much of anything about science, is instead pushing the idea that the mind creates or at least directly influences reality.

[BPScooter]

Geez, this thread got away from me... sorry I'm not up on all the particulars of QM but seems to me like some are protesting too much.

I used to live in Seattle and had a friend in the landscaping business and told me some barely-memorable stories about his jobs down in Yelm for Ramtha's proxy back in the good old days. Sounds like Ramtha has now run out of money/power and needed another go around. Enjoy the film, buy the latest Microsoft product, etc.

[Jas]

Originally posted by Sanamas
You guys have all missed out on the most hilarious part of the movie. They introduced the work of Dr. Emoto, a Japanese scientist who shows that emotions can affect the physical world by taping the word "happy" to a flask of water, freezing it, then looking at the ice under a microscope for a crystal that shows happiness.


I think this might be the guy my neighbor was talking about, when she was talking about proof for homeopathy...something about pictures of she saw on the internet of ice-crystals or something. does anyone know if his 'work' is in any way used to authenticate homeopathy?

[Sanamas]

This week's commentary mentions him, and http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html has a more in depth look at the guy.

Here's a link from the Emoto's site about homeopathy: http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/etruth.html#6

Since then, I have studied homeopathy, and I have found that it is the only therapy in line with Hado theory, out of all the therapeutic treatments acknowledged as medicine.

[DavoMan]

I'm sorry come again. William Shatner???

I think I know why she picked William Shatner. Everyone knows Captain Kirk makes out with every hot alien chick he sees.:D

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But we know that very slight effects can have unlimited consequences. Have you not heard of Chaos theory? The butterfly effect?
Originally posted by Correa Neto
To use the standard "butterfly effect example", small pressure or temperature changes within an atmospheric system may cause it to evolve to light rain, tropical storm or hurricane. The keys here are the words small (What can be considered small?) and may (Its a just a possibility, after all).

A very slight influence at a point of critical instability within a system can have pervasive effects. Most butterflies have absolutly no effect on the weather.

For example:
-- A tiny crack in a piston in your car'e engine can cause very large and unpredictable events.
-- A tiny crack on your car's fender is something you are unlikely to notice. Ever.

And I hate Michael Crichton for writing that [rule 8] book and making that [rule 8] movie and popularizing such a rediculously [rule 8] wrong interpretation on chaos theory!!!!!!!!! (even though the dinosaurs were pretty cool)

Die, Ian Malcom!!! Die! Die!!!

[RSLancastr]

Well, I finally saw this thing. Or at least about the first half of it, which was all I could take.

The fact that this thing has gotten as much attention as it has is extremely sad.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Well, I finally saw this thing. Or at least about the first half of it, which was all I could take.

The fact that this thing has gotten as much attention as it has is extremely sad.

I feel the precise opposite. It's great to make people think about reality.

[Irish Murdoch]

Originally posted by Kumar
I feel, ancient sayings can be much more than today's sayings & & that can be a basis of todays ideas & sayings. Forms, languages & presentations can be bit differant, just indicative, indirect etc. Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it. The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel. Every & all basics, seems to be already created & told long back at the begining after any destruction or big-bang, not possible in today's destructive phase. We can just change, mould here & there, change language & forms, re-search, dis-cover, invent...but can't create now....probably.

Sounds reasonable ...