Originally posted by Bobathon
What thoughts, exactly?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Some food for thought
I can't believe I watched the whole thing. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, or
just shake my head in amazement at how deep in the woo these guys are. I would tend to associate the vast majority of this material with the output
end of a digestive system, rather than the input end, as it's more worthy of flushing than consuming.
Haramein has every right to entertain such people, so long as we can be honest about it...
He's in good company in woo land with Greg
Braden and Bruce Lipton, a couple of guys who either don't know much about real quantum mechanics and show their ignorance, or if they really do know
it, they intentionally misrepresent it.
...the universe is not an assembly of physical parts as suggested by Newtonian physics but is derived from a holistic entanglement of immaterial
energy waves. Quantum mechanics shockingly reveals that there is no true “physicality” in the universe; atoms are made of focused vortices of
energy-miniature tornados that are constantly popping into and out of existence....
A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the “observer creates the reality. “As observers, we are personally involved
with the creation of our own reality! Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction.
Well that pretty much
resolves the discrepancy between mainstream physics and guys like Haramein, Braden and Lipton, doesn't it?
Haramein's "mental construction" of his universe is just as valid as Liptons "mental construction" of his universe which is just as valid as
Mary's "mental construction" of her universe.
Don't pay any attention to whether any of these mental constructions agree with observation or not, that's simply an annoying impediment to creating
whatever universe you want in your "mental construction", imposed by those stuffy mainstream scientists.
About the only part of that video that didn't seem like total BS to me is the fact that Mandelbrot wrote a book about fractals, but in fact the
definition of a "fractal" has expanded to the point where almost anything can be considered a fractal according to the expanded definition, so
saying "everything is fractal" is not very meaningful when using such a loose definition of a fractal. It's kind of like saying "Everything we see
is from radiation within the visible light spectrum". We've defined visible light to include what we see, so it should be no surprise that the
definition matches. Likewise, we've expanded the definition of fractal to the point where even things that Mandelbrot probably wouldn't call
fractal, are being called "fractal". So of course if you expand the definition of fractal to include everything, then everything is "Fractal
I normally consider "Nature" to be a respectable scientific journal but as this article shows, even Nature managed to publish an article on fractals
which doesn't seem to have much validity:
Pollock & fractals? A hoax.
Taylor & al. replied to Jones-Smith and Mathur's article in Nature, displaying an interesting collection of unscientific arguments. They
say:"Our use of the term 'fractal' is consistent with that by the research community. In dismissing Pollock's fractals, because of their limited
magnification range, Jones-Smith and Mathur would also dismiss half the published investigations of physical fractals."
First unscientific argument, the argument from authority. Indeed I have no problem believing that half of the papers published on "physical
fractals" (whatever it means) are crap.
I've read part of Mandelbrot's fractal book and there's some valid mathematics in it. But people like
Dr' Lipton have distorted fractals the same way they've distorted quantum mechanics: He should have stuck to biology, and even in that field I
don't believe his claim that each one of my cells are sentient, at least not according to my definition of sentience.
If you want to twist and distort the meaning of the word "sentient", you could also claim a rock is "sentient". When you drop it, and it strikes
the ground, it stops falling, so it must be "aware" of the Earth, right?
Now, how do I wash all this woo off my hip waders?