One of the reasons I got into studying quantum stuff was seeing claims like, "Your thoughts affect the outcome of an experiment" type of stuff. A BS and PhD later and I can say that's not true. The reason people like Professor Dave and Professor Me get excitable about stuff like this is that so many armchair philosophers who've never normalized a wavefunction in their lives tell us we're wrong about quantum mechanics and they're right, when we literally teach the classes at universities. Unlike Professor Dave, [I'm assuming], I'm a Buddhist. Pinning your evidence for Buddhism on incorrect information about science delegitimizes Buddhism and perpetuates science illiteracy. It discourages fellow scientists from taking Buddhism seriously when the proponents are using laughably, obviously wrong "science" to support it. When corrections to non-experts misunderstandings are brought up in discussion, they get very defensive as if you're attacking their beliefs. I try to explain that I'm not saying, "Consciousness doesn't create reality," I am just saying, "Quantum mechanics doesn't say that consciousness creates reality." It's difficult being both a Buddhist and a scientist [particularly in the quantum realm] when people on the one side won't take you seriously because they think it's all woo-woo BS and the other side doesn't like being told that their interpretations of science are seriously flawed. Also, Adam Lanza is not a quantum guy. People taking scientists personal beliefs as representative of science is one of the big problems. Science is about data and evidence. I've not yet had one of these "QM says consciousness creates reality" people debate me with data from literature or calculations rather than out-of-context quotes of people like Bohm.
"Your thoughts affect the outcome of an experiment" John Wheeler held this view, and late Hawking & Hertog duo held similar views. This view isn't uncommon. So, it's not just popsci people. In fact, there are bottom-up and top-down ways of looking at physics and cosmology [1]. "QM says consciousness creates reality" is Quantum Bayesianism, also some Quantum Relativist interpretaitions, which are all the rage these days. I guess you should talk to these people, there are many of them. And they go very solipsist, which not many people can agree with, but there are alternatives (i.e. Kafatos). Anyhow, all the things the science ever sees, or observes, are pixels on the screen of conscious experience, to claim that the pixels are more real that the desktop icons is something that I myself cannot accept. Those are merely different ways of looking/representing things, but consciousness is fundamental. 1. physicsworld.com/a/from-the-present-to-the-past/
@@mac1414 Yep, some do, but like I said, a scientist's beliefs does not equal science. As for being uncommon, it's a lot more talked about these days, but still not mainstream to accept such views which are not supported by any experimental evidence. Not long ago, talking about such things at all was a career-killer. QBism and all the other interpretations are just that: interpretations. Quantum theory itself isn't debated; it is the "interpretation" or humans trying to decide what it "means" that is the debated and oft-misrepresented part. The problem with the interpretations is that, at the moment, they make no testable hypotheses that differentiate between them, making the whole debate unscientific by definition. It's quite sad that most scientists don't actually learn much about philosophy of science. It wasn't part of my formal training, but my interest in philosophy, Buddhism, cosmology, neuroscience, and the like got me into it. Your last sentence I agree with and opens a bunch of interesting questions. The one that I try to bring up with the Buddhists that get QM wrong is, why should you even think that the study of the rules of the illusion (physics of the phenomenal world) ever reveal the true nature of reality? It's like expecting your dream characters in your dream to be able to do experiments in your dream that give you information about the real, waking world.
Although I am a former scientist, I have often wondered about the need to underpin Buddhism with science. A lot of what I see in terms of quantum physics an Buddhism seems to involve quite a surface level understanding of the science which, as you say, can easily be picked apart by those who actually study that stuff for a living, or as part of their college course. I totally understand why people are drawn to the more philosophical side of physics, though, as it does ask interesting questions about reality in the same way that Buddhism does. I remember going to an open day at a university physics department and a lecturer telling us that they specialised in material science and looking at thin layers of materials to determine their properties. Admittedly thin equates to nanometers of thickness which is pretty neat but I think it was a hard sell to a bunch of 18 year olds who, like myself, were mostly after the cool quantum stuff and black holes!
With the advent of "science and democracy", to use an old Western propaganda-slogan, in the East, Buddhists felt the urgent need to modernize their believe-system---which it positively is, i.m.o., with some mystic, obscure surplus (or residuum) added. One basic strategy for promoting the Buddhist world-view was, to declare it a "science of consciousness" (if not, when riding the high tides of propaganda with all might, the one and only "really true one"). We can watch the effects of this programatic still today, even if it did ("naturally", one might add) not always work out as originally intended.
Thanks for the talk, Brad, it's something I've had on my mind a lot lately. I greatly appreciate the sciences - heck, I'm using a computer right now - but I think trying to base one's religious/philosophical beliefs on them is a one way ticket to nowheresville. One of the fundamental characteristics of science is that it's always in flux - it has changed and will continue to change. Basing your religious beliefs on science is like basing your religious beliefs on a living person, and if the Buddha would've fundamentally based doctrines on the science of those times, the religion would've been dead within a century. It's the same thing as you see with evangelicals who cling to the science of 200 years ago, back when it 'proved' their beliefs.
There's "mysterious" as in "an interesting thing that isn't fully understood," and "mysterious" as in "revealed spiritual knowledge." Mixing up the two leads to a bad place.
If quanta can be both particles and waves (depending on how we measure them), then surely reality as a whole can be both physical and spiritual (depending on how we look at it). If this is so, asking what role consciousness plays in the laws of physics makes no more sense than asking where an electron is located prior to measuring its position.
I do not know how to comprehend what happens in the double slit experiment even after reading different explanations. Neither did Richard Feynman, so I'm in good company. The results of the experiment appear to be contradictory. The perspective that helps me live with this frustration is well summed up by one of Brad's commenters a while back: contradictions exist only in the human mind.
To add on to that many things in quantum mechanics don’t make sense. They are weird and don’t do the things you expect them to do. But just because it doesn’t make sense does it mean that it is wrong. It doesn’t have to make sense or do the things you want it to do
- I think it odd that spiritual people are turned off by a mechanistic model of the universe, but are attracted by quantum models that involve uncertainty. They don’t seem to understand the impact of complexity, even on a deterministic model of nature. - I just don’t see Bodhidharma, Zhiyi, Huineng, Mazu, Zongmi, Shitou, Dongshan, Hongzhi, or Dogen putting a lot of mental energy into studying Dirac’s equation (although Nagarjuna might have appreciated it). - The thing that annoys me about the popular press is that it serves up a lot of material relating mystical insight to modern physics, rather than modern psychology. Clearly the ancients were applying their mind to come to terms with the mind itself. I would recommend a close examination of the relation of James J. Gibson’s “Ecological Approach to Visual Perception” to Buddhist theory. Gibson described perception as direct, the same terminology found in many books on Zen. He originated the term ‘Affordance’ to indicate that we understand the value/use/threat of an object as we perceive it, well before becoming consciously aware of its use to us. This fits well with Buddhas idea (involving the skandhas) that we ‘sense’ weather an object is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral before we recognize and label it. Which in turn shows how deeply the ‘four noble truths’ are embedded within our perception of the world. My favorite quote from Gibson is: “the invariant structure separates off best when the frozen perspective structure begins to flow.” An ‘invariant’ is a constant aspect of something undergoing a given transformation. That which changes is ‘variant’ (impermanent). In terms of Zen this relates to that which moves or remains still in the mind, and to the ideas involving Li (host) and Shi (guest).
Two short remarks: 1) Reality proofs that situations can be misjudged (and become re-evaluated), so the first "natural, spontane" impression is not necessarily the "truest" one (and there is free space for learning). 2) The dyade "lî" (reason, principle, structure) and "shí" (phenomenon, fruit/form, function) seems more symmetrical in the sense of a primordial polarity (=> Neo-Ruist schematics) than that one of "zhû" (host, [primordial] subject-pole) and "kè" (guest, [manifest, partly consciousness-transcendental] object-pole), where "zhû" seems more to point towards some primordial-transcendental (Buddha-)nature.
@@gunterappoldt3037 You find a lot of cross-over of the use of the terms (Guest & Shi) and (Host & Li) in the voluminous writings about Dongshan Liangjie’s “Five Ranks”. Look for example at the list of words under the heading of “Interplay of Absolute and Relative” on the Wikipedia page for “Five Ranks”. Here’s where I derive my primary interpretation of ‘Guest’ & ‘Host’ from: {“My deduction is that the one who does not stay is the guest and the one who does stay is the host. Therefore, a thing is foreign when it does not stay. Again in a clear sky, when the sun rises and sunlight enters (the house) through an opening, the dust is seen moving in the ray of light whereas the empty space is unmoving. Therefore, that which is still is voidness and that which moves is dust.' Foreign dust illustrates false thinking, and voidness illustrates self-nature, that is the permanent host who does not follow the guest in the latter's coming and going. This serves to illustrate the eternal (unmoving) self-nature which does not follow false thinking in its sudden rise and fall.”} - Lu K'uan Yii [Charles Luk] (1960) Ch'an and Zen Teaching. Part I: Master Hsu Yuns Discourses and Dharma Words. p. 36 In general, I associate Li with the word ‘Principle’ as a rule that shows how a variety of specific phenomena are all demonstrating the same underlying operation, e.g., gravity shaping the trajectories of different objects. Thus, a principle exhibits an underlying constancy, or invariant of experience. While Shi are the many phenomena themselves. It’s just a matter of choosing to emphasize the similarities or differences between the two pairs of concepts. Personally, I think they're both pointing at the same, very important, characteristic of the way the mind functions.
@@JimTempleman, in general, Sinitic thinking used to adhere to the paradigmatics that Joseph Needham called "organic naturalism". One of it´s effects is that epistemology and ontology tend to fuse: Thinking thinks being, being makes thinking. In Daoism, it meant the parallel development, e.g., of so called "inner" and "outer alchemy", both based on structural-functional analogies regarding "vital space-time". What regards methodology, Sinitic religio-philosophic thinking seldom did neat defining work. Therefore, we find a lot of equivocations even in key-concepts, like the two classic, pre-Buddhist ones of "li" (理) and "shì" (事). The unfolding of the dyade zhû-kè (主客) may be a result of the anthropogene turn brought about by the "new schools" (starting with the Táng-dynasty, maturing during Sòng), and namely the Chán-school. What also might worth considering in this context is the Sino-mahâyânic juxtaposing of the paradigms: (a) "Reasons/rules/structures------phenomena/actions/movements[-----time/times/timespaces: these go] mutually unhindered[---from the holistic perspective, that is]" (lî-shì-wú-ài/理事无碍, shì-shì-wú-ài/事事无碍[, shí-shí-wú-ài/时时无碍]) This one, implicitly, addresses the "reality principle", which may be formulated this way: (b) "Reasons/rules/structures-----phenomena/actions/movements[-----time/times/timespaces] exclude/obstruct/obscure each other". Herewith, we find some pillars of a complex pre-modern standard world-design, which sometimes becomes "pictured" in form of the "ozean-seal" (海印) (as an important item of Huáyán-symbolism).
@@gunterappoldt3037 You make a lot of good points. I trust everything you said. But there are three issues that concern me. (1) The Chan Masters seem to have a tendency to ‘play with words’. (Dogen being a prime example.) (2) When the post Huayan Chan Masters looked back at the earlier Sutras & ‘Songs’/Gathas they picked up some ‘contamination’ from the earlier ways in which the words were used. And (3) I wonder if the way an enlightened person uses words is somehow different from the way a modern rational person would. I get the impression that they ‘think’ more intuitively, stressing associations & relations over a carefully laid out lexical framework, adding another layer to the uncertainty of interpretation. Given this I tend to lean towards the more general (nebulous) interpretations, albeit at the cost of the precision that developed later: 72. “Heaven's net casts wide. Through its meshes are coarse, nothing slips through.” (Maybe I’m just rationalizing being too lazy to track the evolution of the lexicon through the different stages. In the ideal world, the more recent texts would provide the most complete and accurate description of the Way. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.)
@@JimTempleman , thanks! Let`s look at the matter, at first, from a linguistic standpoint: (1) The Chán-texts handed down to us, like the famous collections of Kôans (公案), are written in a kind of semi-vernacular (báihùa/白话). And they stay, so my impression, very much in the traditional "frame", which has been pre-established and developed since the early times of the Classics of the Six Schools, which flourished during the times of the Warring-States Period (475-221 BCE). What is markedly special, is the Buddhist terminology interspersed into the text-flow, resp. used in a more concentrated form in Gathas. What regards religio-philosophical expressions: Many could already be taken over, resp. borrowed from the pre-Buddhist Daoist Classics. An especially strong influence seem to have had the two books "Dàodéjing", attributed to Master Lâo, and the book of "Master Zhuang", which set important literal standards, one with concise,albeit sometimes rather obscure formulas, one with a very poetic style, rich in allusions---whereby the effect is strenghtened by some features of the Sinitic ideogrammatic system. (2) My impression is, furthermore, that the old Chán-Masters saw themselves as standing in the tradition of their "ancestor-lineage", yet also as here-and-now realizers of the "truth", meant to have been somehow,---that is, in differing qualities according to general/individual circumstances---handed down through the generations. Yet, Master Zhuang already had pointed out: Tradition is, out of natural necessity, also always a re-invention. This idea also finds some more general, abstract underpinnings via certain concepts of time-timeliness-timebeing, which Joseph Needham typisized as the old-sinitic, pre-modern time-concept of "boxed time". (3) According to the traditional Sinitic world-design, at least some aspects of "truth", resp. of the "Dào" (still recommendable older Western introductions into Daoism, e.g.: Max Kaltenmarck, Kristoffer Schipper, Livia Kohn), are not cummulative, so to say. Furthermore, to speak of forms of learning, some insights/skills presuppose, in order to be authentically/fully understandable/practicable, some personal "natural dispositions", as well as they require some "cultivation", which can be attained/done, in principle, via practices, like: quiet sitting, wall-meditation, shadow-boxing, and Gongfu/Kungfu (功夫), the latter standing, summararily, for a whole "ecology of practices" (as John Vervaeke might call it). I hope this could help for some clarifications.
@@osip7315 I enjoyed Chaos although read it nearly 30 years ago when I was an undergraduate scientist. The principle idea of chaos theory, as I understand it, is that simple non-linear systems such that are involved with weather, work in a way that a small change in initial conditions can massively change the outcome. As such, they are very hard to predict as we can almost never precisely know initial conditions. The often repeated line is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Chicago can produce a storm in LA (although I doubtless have the placenames wrong). The interesting thing is that it does not take a complex equation to produce complex results. Chaos also speaks about fractals which are self-similar shapes with a non-integer dimension (so rather than being one dimensional or two dimensional they are somewhere in-between). The non-integer dimension part is less comprehensible without further explanation but the interesting thing about fractals is how a simple repeating pattern at different scales can produce complex shapes that are often found in nature e.g. ferns, tree branches, coastlines. I seem to remember the tagline of the book being 'order out of chaos' and the central idea seems to be that although life looks complicated, that chaos can come out of pretty simple natural rules/laws. I guess the same could be said for human life, especially as view by Buddhism in which much of human behaviour comes down to greed, anger and delusion.
@@zenaudio108 damn, i did along reply and lost it and have now lost interest in going through it again, suffice to say i agreed with practically nothing you wrote my sentiments might be summed as chaos is a rich literary and colloquial use word way more vast than the limited notions of the mathematical "chaos theory" another way of looking at it is "real chaos" is necessarily going to escape theory or efforts to contain it and descriptions always look a bit thin to me
@@osip7315 Oh, absolutely. Chaos theory would be better described as the theory of non-linear dynamical systems. My comment was completely about the scientific theory rather than actual chaos, and the main point was merely that complexity can arise from simple conditions. Did you have disagreements based on my presentation of the theory and popular science book that brought it to public consciousness?
Some good points here. The 'quantum mysticism is stupid' also has some valid points to make. People like Deepak Chopra and associates such as Joe Dispenza & Jean Houston and some others are detrimental to understanding such connections precisely because they over-extend connections into the realm of the absurd for their own nefarious purposes, they are basically New-Age grifters making a living from misleading people. BUT - on the other hand this does not mean that significant connections do not exist between the metaphysics implied by quantum phenomena and the metaphysics of Buddhism for example. I have researched this area for years and in my researches (math degree, physics at 1st year Uni, mathematics / physics / philosophy teacher) into quantum physics and Buddhist philosophy and have shown clear deep connections. For example, if one takes two core Buddhist metaphysical traditions - Madhyamaka and Yogacara, these can be shown to have significant connections with quantum metaphysics. The Madhyamaka view of emptiness - not-existent, not-non-existent, not both and not neither - can be shown to be the existential configuration of a quantum field. The Yogacara concept of the alayavijnana can be shown to correspond to the functioning of the quantum wavefunction as presented by physicists David Bohm, Henry Stapp and Michael Mensky. But this does mean people can walk through walls, cure cancer with their minds, and so on. The situation is far more subtle - ruclips.net/video/vd2LKAxo69g/видео.html
As an enthusiast of both zen and physics (which is not to say an expert in either, I can't do differential equations and because of mental imbalances sitting can be a TERRIFYING ordeal) I can understand the need to decry the misuse of BOTH disciplines to justify certain attitudes about life that are more personal than objective. More importantly though, I recognize that getting upset about some woo woo nonsense being directed at you by somebody else is not some destructive demon erupting from the face of some random passer by, but a mind simply settling into the path of least resistance. Nothing has disproved to them their assumptions, nor can they in any real sense. This is including the frustration of being indigent and having some rather priveleged individuals suggest that one is suffering because they haven't discovered 'the secret' and not simply getting the crap end of the stick in life. Tl:dr, yeah, the Chopra Set can be frustrating, but they can't hurt you. They can just say some unintentionally hurtful things because their assumptions come from a vastly different place.
When we burn a log we see that matter can be energy. Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav wrote excellent books in the 70s about the new paradigm offered by Quantum Physics (Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li masters) which were fascinating - However, after pondering their own amazement, their follow up books a decade later concluded that we should communicate with dolphins and indulge in spiritual healing.
I can't count how many times in my life, after a decade or so of reflection, that I've arrived at the same conclusion: we SHOULD communicate with dolphins and INDULGE in spiritual healing!🐬
"What was I saying?" I believe you were criticizing a museum depicting humans and dinosaurs living together while wearing a shirt depicting humans and dinosaurs living together. 😂
I’m really enjoying this video and really glad that it’s here so that I don’t have to watch dude shit on mysticism for an hour. I’d like to mention in passing that at 2700 some views, this video has had 5x more pick up than the first Minor Threat 7 inch when it came out so never sell yourself short. What I think is even more criminal and impactful than Deepak Chopra‘s snake oil is the snake oil of scientism, which is just as theological at some level. But your point about getting into Buddhism b/c “science says so” is super on point. And as you said, anyone who presents as though they “know” what’s going on with the double-slit measurement problem or basically anything else in quantum mechanics is talking out of their ass. My impression is that fundamentally nothing has changed since Richard Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Anyway, I appreciate this video and by way of thanks I wanted to recommend a book by a scientist with real rigor and a deeply philosophical approach, Lee Smolin “Time Reborn.” There’s also plenty of RUclips videos by him some of which are highly technical and beyond me but so far I found all of them are worth giving a chance. L’chaim.
Imagine you want to know the location of something and you do this by bouncing a golf ball off it. Bounce it off the house, you know where the house is. Bounce it off a car, you know where the car is. Bounce it off a marble...oh, wait. Where's the marble...? This is the fundamental issue. We can only see things if a photon bounces off of them and we are trying to see things smaller than photons! It's not that observation creates the system; measurement affects the system. The marble was there. The house was there. The car was there. We just didn't know the properties until we bounced the golf ball off them. In short, our tools are too big for what we want to learn about the universe, relative to the size of thing we want to manipulate. We evolved to work and perceive at a different scale. And, we also evolved to perceive and interact in 4 dimensions and so many things that appear "magical" in 4 dimensions are not in 7.
"Starwave" - Fred Alan Wolf, an oldie but a goodie. I understood quantum mechanics after I read it and I'm an idiot. Little bit of depth psychology in the mix as well.
There is nothing in Zen that is incompatible with science. They are both empirical practices, or methods. A lot of people however seem to make the mistake of conflating science with the metaphysics of materialism.
If you couldn't heal yourself with your mind then it wouldn't have happened in countless placebo experiments. What about all those, are we just conveniently forgetting those?
Full disclosure, I actually enjoy Professor Dave, and did watch the video reviewed, although most of his other content is.waaaay over my thick head. And he has a great point, that a lot of charlatans use Quantum Mysticism for the easy buck. Still, having experienced supernatural and paranormal events all my life, I enjoy toying with various mystical ideas as a spring board to my own edification. Yep, a reek of confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy.... But heck! It makes life much more fun! What else would thrill seekers do?! And I can appreciate Dogen and other teachers more fully. Thanks for this discussion. See ya! 🤙
Like that guy said in one of his points, the problem with Quantum Mysticism is that it is almost always used to justify some crackpot New Age nonesense (now that I think wrongly labelling certain things as being "Zen" as you often hilariously illustrate with examples you post on your Instagram seems to do the same thing for corporate marketing bs).
Although he brings forward some good arguments (like: examples for magic, suggestive morphing of word-meanings to forward ideosyncratic standpoints), he also transports, i.m.o., some scientificist lobby-propaganda, as if sciences, techniques, and their institutions, were "infallible" (and are even justified to use inquisitative measures), what makes me a bit suspicious about the hidden agenda behind this anti-anti-propaganda, so to speak. I´d rather listen to people like Bernardo Kastrup (who also has a solid scientific background), which use a more sensitive argumentation regarding the tribulations intrinsic to the human condition.
@@xClunky yeah, there were just these days two long talks between Bernardo Kastrup and John Vervaeke on "Theories of everything with Curt Jaimungal" (RUclips).
Spiritual leaders such as Deepak Chopra use quantum physics to illustrate the illusion of our perspectives, but that is not magic but hard science. Many of the worlds brightest physicists have said the same things. Here are a few quotes, and there are many more: Sir Arthur Eddington: “The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.” Max Planck: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter". Albert Einstein: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Edwin Schrodinger: “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Spiritual leaders who refer to the mystical underpinning of science do so in conjunction with many of the brightest and most creative of the scientists themselves.
Its literally not weird though, its relatively new which makes it still strange to the laymen. This is a fundamental part of the universe and its been this way since forever, so by definition not weird.
I get why Dave gets upset about people joining cults and foregoing medical treatment for pseudoscience. He's an teacher; he spends his time making RUclips video lessons about math and science. For him to see , even in the modern age of technology - where information can be accessed at the blink of an eye, that fringe pseudoscientific beliefs can still propagate must be incredibly frustrating to him. It figuratively seeks to undo what scholars, educators and intellectuals have sought to provide to human accomplishment. The fact that people still don't understand the scientific method or basic epistemological arguments, and commit logical fallacies is a shame with how accessible this information is and how advanced we are.
Not another stupid response to Daves video, skipped the first minutes of it, cuz u take longer than Dave to get to the point. 4:12 argument from incredulity.
6:50 No nobody who understands it says it, thats a tiny amount of authorities in quantum physics, only 5% of physicists are idealists, Majority are materialist. The conscious observer is irrelevant to a quantum mechanics observer in the experiment
The science- religion dichotomy seems to be uniquely Christian. Muslims in the Arab golden age had an explosion of religious and scientific development, they were seen as one in the same. They managed to synthesize a super developed theological school between Islam and Greek philosophy on top of developing math and chemistry
Science was broken away from Christianity after churches began censoring findings too much. Muslims were busy with science and theory of public administration much before the translation movement came. In fact, whatever of their tafseers left seems to show they were using Quran to understand how evolution worked.
The universe is magic enough as it is.
No easy answers. Wouldn't have it any other way.
As a physicist and Zen practicionner I couldn't agree more with your conclusion at the end.
Indeed, let's donate to Brad not going there :-)
One of the reasons I got into studying quantum stuff was seeing claims like, "Your thoughts affect the outcome of an experiment" type of stuff. A BS and PhD later and I can say that's not true. The reason people like Professor Dave and Professor Me get excitable about stuff like this is that so many armchair philosophers who've never normalized a wavefunction in their lives tell us we're wrong about quantum mechanics and they're right, when we literally teach the classes at universities. Unlike Professor Dave, [I'm assuming], I'm a Buddhist. Pinning your evidence for Buddhism on incorrect information about science delegitimizes Buddhism and perpetuates science illiteracy. It discourages fellow scientists from taking Buddhism seriously when the proponents are using laughably, obviously wrong "science" to support it.
When corrections to non-experts misunderstandings are brought up in discussion, they get very defensive as if you're attacking their beliefs. I try to explain that I'm not saying, "Consciousness doesn't create reality," I am just saying, "Quantum mechanics doesn't say that consciousness creates reality."
It's difficult being both a Buddhist and a scientist [particularly in the quantum realm] when people on the one side won't take you seriously because they think it's all woo-woo BS and the other side doesn't like being told that their interpretations of science are seriously flawed. Also, Adam Lanza is not a quantum guy. People taking scientists personal beliefs as representative of science is one of the big problems. Science is about data and evidence. I've not yet had one of these "QM says consciousness creates reality" people debate me with data from literature or calculations rather than out-of-context quotes of people like Bohm.
Thank you for your input. (That's what SHE said!)
"Your thoughts affect the outcome of an experiment" John Wheeler held this view, and late Hawking & Hertog duo held similar views. This view isn't uncommon. So, it's not just popsci people. In fact, there are bottom-up and top-down ways of looking at physics and cosmology [1].
"QM says consciousness creates reality" is Quantum Bayesianism, also some Quantum Relativist interpretaitions, which are all the rage these days. I guess you should talk to these people, there are many of them. And they go very solipsist, which not many people can agree with, but there are alternatives (i.e. Kafatos).
Anyhow, all the things the science ever sees, or observes, are pixels on the screen of conscious experience, to claim that the pixels are more real that the desktop icons is something that I myself cannot accept. Those are merely different ways of looking/representing things, but consciousness is fundamental.
1. physicsworld.com/a/from-the-present-to-the-past/
@@mac1414 Yep, some do, but like I said, a scientist's beliefs does not equal science. As for being uncommon, it's a lot more talked about these days, but still not mainstream to accept such views which are not supported by any experimental evidence. Not long ago, talking about such things at all was a career-killer.
QBism and all the other interpretations are just that: interpretations. Quantum theory itself isn't debated; it is the "interpretation" or humans trying to decide what it "means" that is the debated and oft-misrepresented part. The problem with the interpretations is that, at the moment, they make no testable hypotheses that differentiate between them, making the whole debate unscientific by definition. It's quite sad that most scientists don't actually learn much about philosophy of science. It wasn't part of my formal training, but my interest in philosophy, Buddhism, cosmology, neuroscience, and the like got me into it.
Your last sentence I agree with and opens a bunch of interesting questions. The one that I try to bring up with the Buddhists that get QM wrong is, why should you even think that the study of the rules of the illusion (physics of the phenomenal world) ever reveal the true nature of reality? It's like expecting your dream characters in your dream to be able to do experiments in your dream that give you information about the real, waking world.
Although I am a former scientist, I have often wondered about the need to underpin Buddhism with science. A lot of what I see in terms of quantum physics an Buddhism seems to involve quite a surface level understanding of the science which, as you say, can easily be picked apart by those who actually study that stuff for a living, or as part of their college course.
I totally understand why people are drawn to the more philosophical side of physics, though, as it does ask interesting questions about reality in the same way that Buddhism does. I remember going to an open day at a university physics department and a lecturer telling us that they specialised in material science and looking at thin layers of materials to determine their properties. Admittedly thin equates to nanometers of thickness which is pretty neat but I think it was a hard sell to a bunch of 18 year olds who, like myself, were mostly after the cool quantum stuff and black holes!
With the advent of "science and democracy", to use an old Western propaganda-slogan, in the East, Buddhists felt the urgent need to modernize their believe-system---which it positively is, i.m.o., with some mystic, obscure surplus (or residuum) added. One basic strategy for promoting the Buddhist world-view was, to declare it a "science of consciousness" (if not, when riding the high tides of propaganda with all might, the one and only "really true one"). We can watch the effects of this programatic still today, even if it did ("naturally", one might add) not always work out as originally intended.
Does a quantum doggy have the Buddha nature? 🤔
Woof!
Muon
@@colophon100 top kek
Thanks for the talk, Brad, it's something I've had on my mind a lot lately. I greatly appreciate the sciences - heck, I'm using a computer right now - but I think trying to base one's religious/philosophical beliefs on them is a one way ticket to nowheresville. One of the fundamental characteristics of science is that it's always in flux - it has changed and will continue to change. Basing your religious beliefs on science is like basing your religious beliefs on a living person, and if the Buddha would've fundamentally based doctrines on the science of those times, the religion would've been dead within a century. It's the same thing as you see with evangelicals who cling to the science of 200 years ago, back when it 'proved' their beliefs.
There's "mysterious" as in "an interesting thing that isn't fully understood," and "mysterious" as in "revealed spiritual knowledge."
Mixing up the two leads to a bad place.
If quanta can be both particles and waves (depending on how we measure them), then surely reality as a whole can be both physical and spiritual (depending on how we look at it). If this is so, asking what role consciousness plays in the laws of physics makes no more sense than asking where an electron is located prior to measuring its position.
Non sequitur
Argument from analogy
If M&Ms can be chocolate and candy coated...
If fish sticks are neither fish nor sticks...
I do not know how to comprehend what happens in the double slit experiment even after reading different explanations. Neither did Richard Feynman, so I'm in good company. The results of the experiment appear to be contradictory. The perspective that helps me live with this frustration is well summed up by one of Brad's commenters a while back: contradictions exist only in the human mind.
Confusion is dependant on presuppositions
To add on to that many things in quantum mechanics don’t make sense. They are weird and don’t do the things you expect them to do. But just because it doesn’t make sense does it mean that it is wrong. It doesn’t have to make sense or do the things you want it to do
- I think it odd that spiritual people are turned off by a mechanistic model of the universe, but are attracted by quantum models that involve uncertainty. They don’t seem to understand the impact of complexity, even on a deterministic model of nature.
- I just don’t see Bodhidharma, Zhiyi, Huineng, Mazu, Zongmi, Shitou, Dongshan, Hongzhi, or Dogen putting a lot of mental energy into studying Dirac’s equation (although Nagarjuna might have appreciated it).
- The thing that annoys me about the popular press is that it serves up a lot of material relating mystical insight to modern physics, rather than modern psychology. Clearly the ancients were applying their mind to come to terms with the mind itself. I would recommend a close examination of the relation of James J. Gibson’s “Ecological Approach to Visual Perception” to Buddhist theory. Gibson described perception as direct, the same terminology found in many books on Zen. He originated the term ‘Affordance’ to indicate that we understand the value/use/threat of an object as we perceive it, well before becoming consciously aware of its use to us. This fits well with Buddhas idea (involving the skandhas) that we ‘sense’ weather an object is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral before we recognize and label it. Which in turn shows how deeply the ‘four noble truths’ are embedded within our perception of the world.
My favorite quote from Gibson is: “the invariant structure separates off best when the frozen perspective structure begins to flow.” An ‘invariant’ is a constant aspect of something undergoing a given transformation. That which changes is ‘variant’ (impermanent). In terms of Zen this relates to that which moves or remains still in the mind, and to the ideas involving Li (host) and Shi (guest).
Two short remarks: 1) Reality proofs that situations can be misjudged (and become re-evaluated), so the first "natural, spontane" impression is not necessarily the "truest" one (and there is free space for learning).
2) The dyade "lî" (reason, principle, structure) and "shí" (phenomenon, fruit/form, function) seems more symmetrical in the sense of a primordial polarity (=> Neo-Ruist schematics) than that one of "zhû" (host, [primordial] subject-pole) and "kè" (guest, [manifest, partly consciousness-transcendental] object-pole), where "zhû" seems more to point towards some primordial-transcendental (Buddha-)nature.
@@gunterappoldt3037
You find a lot of cross-over of the use of the terms (Guest & Shi) and (Host & Li) in the voluminous writings about Dongshan Liangjie’s “Five Ranks”. Look for example at the list of words under the heading of “Interplay of Absolute and Relative” on the Wikipedia page for “Five Ranks”.
Here’s where I derive my primary interpretation of ‘Guest’ & ‘Host’ from:
{“My deduction is that the one who does not stay is the guest and the one who does stay is the host. Therefore, a thing is foreign when it does not stay. Again in a clear sky, when the sun rises and sunlight enters (the house) through an opening, the dust is seen moving in the ray of light whereas the empty space is unmoving. Therefore, that which is still is voidness and that which moves is dust.'
Foreign dust illustrates false thinking, and voidness illustrates self-nature, that is the permanent host who does not follow the guest in the latter's coming and going. This serves to illustrate the eternal (unmoving) self-nature which does not follow false thinking in its sudden rise and fall.”} - Lu K'uan Yii [Charles Luk] (1960) Ch'an and Zen Teaching. Part I: Master Hsu Yuns Discourses and Dharma Words. p. 36
In general, I associate Li with the word ‘Principle’ as a rule that shows how a variety of specific phenomena are all demonstrating the same underlying operation, e.g., gravity shaping the trajectories of different objects. Thus, a principle exhibits an underlying constancy, or invariant of experience. While Shi are the many phenomena themselves.
It’s just a matter of choosing to emphasize the similarities or differences between the two pairs of concepts. Personally, I think they're both pointing at the same, very important, characteristic of the way the mind functions.
@@JimTempleman, in general, Sinitic thinking used to adhere to the paradigmatics that Joseph Needham called "organic naturalism". One of it´s effects is that epistemology and ontology tend to fuse: Thinking thinks being, being makes thinking. In Daoism, it meant the parallel development, e.g., of so called "inner" and "outer alchemy", both based on structural-functional analogies regarding "vital space-time".
What regards methodology, Sinitic religio-philosophic thinking seldom did neat defining work. Therefore, we find a lot of equivocations even in key-concepts, like the two classic, pre-Buddhist ones of "li" (理) and "shì" (事).
The unfolding of the dyade zhû-kè (主客) may be a result of the anthropogene turn brought about by the "new schools" (starting with the Táng-dynasty, maturing during Sòng), and namely the Chán-school.
What also might worth considering in this context is the Sino-mahâyânic juxtaposing of the paradigms:
(a) "Reasons/rules/structures------phenomena/actions/movements[-----time/times/timespaces: these go] mutually unhindered[---from the holistic perspective, that is]" (lî-shì-wú-ài/理事无碍, shì-shì-wú-ài/事事无碍[, shí-shí-wú-ài/时时无碍])
This one, implicitly, addresses the "reality principle", which may be formulated this way:
(b) "Reasons/rules/structures-----phenomena/actions/movements[-----time/times/timespaces] exclude/obstruct/obscure each other".
Herewith, we find some pillars of a complex pre-modern standard world-design, which sometimes becomes "pictured" in form of the "ozean-seal" (海印) (as an important item of Huáyán-symbolism).
@@gunterappoldt3037
You make a lot of good points. I trust everything you said. But there are three issues that concern me. (1) The Chan Masters seem to have a tendency to ‘play with words’. (Dogen being a prime example.) (2) When the post Huayan Chan Masters looked back at the earlier Sutras & ‘Songs’/Gathas they picked up some ‘contamination’ from the earlier ways in which the words were used. And (3) I wonder if the way an enlightened person uses words is somehow different from the way a modern rational person would. I get the impression that they ‘think’ more intuitively, stressing associations & relations over a carefully laid out lexical framework, adding another layer to the uncertainty of interpretation.
Given this I tend to lean towards the more general (nebulous) interpretations, albeit at the cost of the precision that developed later:
72. “Heaven's net casts wide.
Through its meshes are coarse, nothing slips through.”
(Maybe I’m just rationalizing being too lazy to track the evolution of the lexicon through the different stages. In the ideal world, the more recent texts would provide the most complete and accurate description of the Way. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.)
@@JimTempleman , thanks! Let`s look at the matter, at first, from a linguistic standpoint:
(1) The Chán-texts handed down to us, like the famous collections of Kôans (公案), are written in a kind of semi-vernacular (báihùa/白话). And they stay, so my impression, very much in the traditional "frame", which has been pre-established and developed since the early times of the Classics of the Six Schools, which flourished during the times of the Warring-States Period (475-221 BCE).
What is markedly special, is the Buddhist terminology interspersed into the text-flow, resp. used in a more concentrated form in Gathas.
What regards religio-philosophical expressions: Many could already be taken over, resp. borrowed from the pre-Buddhist Daoist Classics. An especially strong influence seem to have had the two books "Dàodéjing", attributed to Master Lâo, and the book of "Master Zhuang", which set important literal standards, one with concise,albeit sometimes rather obscure formulas, one with a very poetic style, rich in allusions---whereby the effect is strenghtened by some features of the Sinitic ideogrammatic system.
(2) My impression is, furthermore, that the old Chán-Masters saw themselves as standing in the tradition of their "ancestor-lineage", yet also as here-and-now realizers of the "truth", meant to have been somehow,---that is, in differing qualities according to general/individual circumstances---handed down through the generations.
Yet, Master Zhuang already had pointed out: Tradition is, out of natural necessity, also always a re-invention. This idea also finds some more general, abstract underpinnings via certain concepts of time-timeliness-timebeing, which Joseph Needham typisized as the old-sinitic, pre-modern time-concept of "boxed time".
(3) According to the traditional Sinitic world-design, at least some aspects of "truth", resp. of the "Dào" (still recommendable older Western introductions into Daoism, e.g.: Max Kaltenmarck, Kristoffer Schipper, Livia Kohn), are not cummulative, so to say.
Furthermore, to speak of forms of learning, some insights/skills presuppose, in order to be authentically/fully understandable/practicable, some personal "natural dispositions", as well as they require some "cultivation", which can be attained/done, in principle, via practices, like: quiet sitting, wall-meditation, shadow-boxing, and Gongfu/Kungfu (功夫), the latter standing, summararily, for a whole "ecology of practices" (as John Vervaeke might call it).
I hope this could help for some clarifications.
I feel like zen tradition is very good for Americans and western people
Im from north Africa and I love zen culture and your videos 🙏☸️📿
Thx a lot 🙏🙏🙏
Read "Chaos" by Gleick. You'll love it.
claim
what sticks out is that despite reading it you are unable to provide a short summary
@@osip7315 I enjoyed Chaos although read it nearly 30 years ago when I was an undergraduate scientist.
The principle idea of chaos theory, as I understand it, is that simple non-linear systems such that are involved with weather, work in a way that a small change in initial conditions can massively change the outcome. As such, they are very hard to predict as we can almost never precisely know initial conditions. The often repeated line is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Chicago can produce a storm in LA (although I doubtless have the placenames wrong). The interesting thing is that it does not take a complex equation to produce complex results.
Chaos also speaks about fractals which are self-similar shapes with a non-integer dimension (so rather than being one dimensional or two dimensional they are somewhere in-between). The non-integer dimension part is less comprehensible without further explanation but the interesting thing about fractals is how a simple repeating pattern at different scales can produce complex shapes that are often found in nature e.g. ferns, tree branches, coastlines.
I seem to remember the tagline of the book being 'order out of chaos' and the central idea seems to be that although life looks complicated, that chaos can come out of pretty simple natural rules/laws. I guess the same could be said for human life, especially as view by Buddhism in which much of human behaviour comes down to greed, anger and delusion.
@@zenaudio108 damn, i did along reply and lost it and have now lost interest in going through it again, suffice to say i agreed with practically nothing you wrote
my sentiments might be summed as
chaos is a rich literary and colloquial use word way more vast than the limited notions of the mathematical "chaos theory"
another way of looking at it is "real chaos" is necessarily going to escape theory or efforts to contain it and descriptions always look a bit thin to me
@@osip7315 Oh, absolutely. Chaos theory would be better described as the theory of non-linear dynamical systems.
My comment was completely about the scientific theory rather than actual chaos, and the main point was merely that complexity can arise from simple conditions.
Did you have disagreements based on my presentation of the theory and popular science book that brought it to public consciousness?
@@osip7315 this ain't a book review channel, I just recommended a book, no further words needed
Some good points here. The 'quantum mysticism is stupid' also has some valid points to make. People like Deepak Chopra and associates such as Joe Dispenza & Jean Houston and some others are detrimental to understanding such connections precisely because they over-extend connections into the realm of the absurd for their own nefarious purposes, they are basically New-Age grifters making a living from misleading people. BUT - on the other hand this does not mean that significant connections do not exist between the metaphysics implied by quantum phenomena and the metaphysics of Buddhism for example. I have researched this area for years and in my researches (math degree, physics at 1st year Uni, mathematics / physics / philosophy teacher) into quantum physics and Buddhist philosophy and have shown clear deep connections. For example, if one takes two core Buddhist metaphysical traditions - Madhyamaka and Yogacara, these can be shown to have significant connections with quantum metaphysics. The Madhyamaka view of emptiness - not-existent, not-non-existent, not both and not neither - can be shown to be the existential configuration of a quantum field. The Yogacara concept of the alayavijnana can be shown to correspond to the functioning of the quantum wavefunction as presented by physicists David Bohm, Henry Stapp and Michael Mensky. But this does mean people can walk through walls, cure cancer with their minds, and so on. The situation is far more subtle - ruclips.net/video/vd2LKAxo69g/видео.html
As an enthusiast of both zen and physics (which is not to say an expert in either, I can't do differential equations and because of mental imbalances sitting can be a TERRIFYING ordeal) I can understand the need to decry the misuse of BOTH disciplines to justify certain attitudes about life that are more personal than objective.
More importantly though, I recognize that getting upset about some woo woo nonsense being directed at you by somebody else is not some destructive demon erupting from the face of some random passer by, but a mind simply settling into the path of least resistance. Nothing has disproved to them their assumptions, nor can they in any real sense.
This is including the frustration of being indigent and having some rather priveleged individuals suggest that one is suffering because they haven't discovered 'the secret' and not simply getting the crap end of the stick in life.
Tl:dr, yeah, the Chopra Set can be frustrating, but they can't hurt you. They can just say some unintentionally hurtful things because their assumptions come from a vastly different place.
When we burn a log we see that matter can be energy. Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav wrote excellent books in the 70s about the new paradigm offered by Quantum Physics (Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li masters) which were fascinating - However, after pondering their own amazement, their follow up books a decade later concluded that we should communicate with dolphins and indulge in spiritual healing.
Oh! Talking to dolphins sounds cool!
I can't count how many times in my life, after a decade or so of reflection, that I've arrived at the same conclusion: we SHOULD communicate with dolphins and INDULGE in spiritual healing!🐬
So long and thanks for all the fish 🐬
"What was I saying?" I believe you were criticizing a museum depicting humans and dinosaurs living together while wearing a shirt depicting humans and dinosaurs living together. 😂
I’m really enjoying this video and really glad that it’s here so that I don’t have to watch dude shit on mysticism for an hour. I’d like to mention in passing that at 2700 some views, this video has had 5x more pick up than the first Minor Threat 7 inch when it came out so never sell yourself short.
What I think is even more criminal and impactful than Deepak Chopra‘s snake oil is the snake oil of scientism, which is just as theological at some level.
But your point about getting into Buddhism b/c “science says so” is super on point.
And as you said, anyone who presents as though they “know” what’s going on with the double-slit measurement problem or basically anything else in quantum mechanics is talking out of their ass. My impression is that fundamentally nothing has changed since Richard Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
Anyway, I appreciate this video and by way of thanks I wanted to recommend a book by a scientist with real rigor and a deeply philosophical approach, Lee Smolin “Time Reborn.” There’s also plenty of RUclips videos by him some of which are highly technical and beyond me but so far I found all of them are worth giving a chance. L’chaim.
Imagine you want to know the location of something and you do this by bouncing a golf ball off it. Bounce it off the house, you know where the house is. Bounce it off a car, you know where the car is. Bounce it off a marble...oh, wait. Where's the marble...? This is the fundamental issue. We can only see things if a photon bounces off of them and we are trying to see things smaller than photons! It's not that observation creates the system; measurement affects the system. The marble was there. The house was there. The car was there. We just didn't know the properties until we bounced the golf ball off them. In short, our tools are too big for what we want to learn about the universe, relative to the size of thing we want to manipulate. We evolved to work and perceive at a different scale. And, we also evolved to perceive and interact in 4 dimensions and so many things that appear "magical" in 4 dimensions are not in 7.
Great explanation!
Also, does this mean Rick and Morty is true?????
@@HardcoreZen Yes, all of it.
"Starwave" - Fred Alan Wolf, an oldie but a goodie. I understood quantum mechanics after I read it and I'm an idiot. Little bit of depth psychology in the mix as well.
There is nothing in Zen that is incompatible with science. They are both empirical practices, or methods. A lot of people however seem to make the mistake of conflating science with the metaphysics of materialism.
If you couldn't heal yourself with your mind then it wouldn't have happened in countless placebo experiments. What about all those, are we just conveniently forgetting those?
Full disclosure, I actually enjoy Professor Dave, and did watch the video reviewed, although most of his other content is.waaaay over my thick head.
And he has a great point, that a lot of charlatans use Quantum Mysticism for the easy buck.
Still, having experienced supernatural and paranormal events all my life, I enjoy toying with various mystical ideas as a spring board to my own edification.
Yep, a reek of confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy....
But heck! It makes life much more fun! What else would thrill seekers do?!
And I can appreciate Dogen and other teachers more fully.
Thanks for this discussion. See ya! 🤙
quantum of solace?
Reality is consensus perception within a community or kinship network.
Like that guy said in one of his points, the problem with Quantum Mysticism is that it is almost always used to justify some crackpot New Age nonesense (now that I think wrongly labelling certain things as being "Zen" as you often hilariously illustrate with examples you post on your Instagram seems to do the same thing for corporate marketing bs).
Although he brings forward some good arguments (like: examples for magic, suggestive morphing of word-meanings to forward ideosyncratic standpoints), he also transports, i.m.o., some scientificist lobby-propaganda, as if sciences, techniques, and their institutions, were "infallible" (and are even justified to use inquisitative measures), what makes me a bit suspicious about the hidden agenda behind this anti-anti-propaganda, so to speak.
I´d rather listen to people like Bernardo Kastrup (who also has a solid scientific background), which use a more sensitive argumentation regarding the tribulations intrinsic to the human condition.
@@gunterappoldt3037 Agreed, Bernardo Kastrup has some interesting stuff to say.
@@xClunky yeah, there were just these days two long talks between Bernardo Kastrup and John Vervaeke on "Theories of everything with Curt Jaimungal" (RUclips).
Spiritual leaders such as Deepak Chopra use quantum physics to illustrate the illusion of our perspectives, but that is not magic but hard science. Many of the worlds brightest physicists have said the same things. Here are a few quotes, and there are many more:
Sir Arthur Eddington:
“The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”
Max Planck:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter".
Albert Einstein:
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Edwin Schrodinger:
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
Spiritual leaders who refer to the mystical underpinning of science do so in conjunction with many of the brightest and most creative of the scientists themselves.
All of these guys are turning in their graves right now
Its literally not weird though, its relatively new which makes it still strange to the laymen.
This is a fundamental part of the universe and its been this way since forever, so by definition not weird.
I get why Dave gets upset about people joining cults and foregoing medical treatment for pseudoscience. He's an teacher; he spends his time making RUclips video lessons about math and science. For him to see , even in the modern age of technology - where information can be accessed at the blink of an eye, that fringe pseudoscientific beliefs can still propagate must be incredibly frustrating to him. It figuratively seeks to undo what scholars, educators and intellectuals have sought to provide to human accomplishment. The fact that people still don't understand the scientific method or basic epistemological arguments, and commit logical fallacies is a shame with how accessible this information is and how advanced we are.
I always like to see an alien craft passing overhead!
Something tugging at your sleeve 🧙
Not another stupid response to Daves video, skipped the first minutes of it, cuz u take longer than Dave to get to the point. 4:12 argument from incredulity.
It not a pointless rant he is just correcting you guys on ur ideologies dumb take on energy that you guys conflate with the scientific meaning
6:50 No nobody who understands it says it, thats a tiny amount of authorities in quantum physics, only 5% of physicists are idealists, Majority are materialist. The conscious observer is irrelevant to a quantum mechanics observer in the experiment
14:45 #dogreveal Finally! :D
What do you mean qm is stupid
I bought a book about it once and I believe I can morph into quantum ranger by quantum power!
Flintstones t-shirt, cool!!!
The science- religion dichotomy seems to be uniquely Christian. Muslims in the Arab golden age had an explosion of religious and scientific development, they were seen as one in the same. They managed to synthesize a super developed theological school between Islam and Greek philosophy on top of developing math and chemistry
Science was broken away from Christianity after churches began censoring findings too much. Muslims were busy with science and theory of public administration much before the translation movement came. In fact, whatever of their tafseers left seems to show they were using Quran to understand how evolution worked.
可能92了的四 酥皮特么热力国内四 你那个
Another rabbit hole...
Too much distractions lately
Praise the Lord and pass the Adderall. God is on our side.