Thread: The End of Science

quantum physics actually only does not work when applied with relative theory. thats it though, so maybe you should do your homework. This opens a lot of doors for science actually. Science has been proven over god, if the point your trying to make is that science is loosing and god is winning, blah blah blah. But the fact is, is that every church goer out their uses science as a survival instinct, so to say science is irrelevant is the stupidest fucking bullshit have ever heard, and I have heard a lot of bullshit.

Originally Posted by dylanshmai

quantum physics actually only does not work when applied with relative theory. thats it though, so maybe you should do your homework. This opens a lot of doors for science actually. Science has been proven over god, if the point your trying to make is that science is loosing and god is winning, blah blah blah. But the fact is, is that every church goer out their uses science as a survival instinct, so to say science is irrelevant is the stupidest fucking bullshit have ever heard, and I have heard a lot of bullshit.

do all atheists get offensive? that the minute anyone should ever question where science is heading it automatically means they are against science and are supporting some sort of religious doctrine? jeez, you can't even question something scientific without the reason being religion? can't science ever be wrong without religion being involved? just as people question religion and where it has gone, so too must we never stop questioning science - or we have failed ourselves.

I look forward to see science advancing - including the subjective realm

there is nothing about the article, or my post, that says science is irrelevant. my post is about HUMAN BEINGS not recognizing that their own ego can get in the way of interpreting data. information doesn't magically say anything if there is no mind to understand it. the article gives several theories - very wildly different theories - all stemming from the same research. the information didn't magically change. the difference is the human beings looking at the information.

if you read the article it talks about the first definition of science. highlighting that the first definition of science is a subjective human mind looking at objectivity.

I think the article is suggesting, unless we begin to take a deeper look into our own consciousness - we can not advance in science. All too often we forget that science is still a HUMAN PRODUCT. it's not created by nature. we can not forget the human mind creating the science.

read - the - article - before - discussing - or - I - will - just - copy - and - paste - the - whole- damn - thing - ps - my - spelling - has - always - been - bad

A very interesting article. Thanks juroara

I agree that there is an obvious link between consciousness (the observer) and quantum mechanics.

But how are we supposed to study something as subjective as the consciousness in a sensible way...? The scientific method (objective measurements) seems useless in my opinion. Won't we just end up with speculations and philosophic viewpoints...?

I got about a third of the way into the article before finally having to concede that it was mostly going over my head. Sorry.

I agree that there is an obvious link between consciousness (the observer) and quantum mechanics.

lel, going for the old Law of the Minimizing of Mystery are we? The only reason you say that is that quantum physics is weird and consciousness is weird... it doesn't have to be the case that they are two aspects of the same weirdness.

As I just said; neurons are on too large a scale to be affected by quantum activity. The idea has been refuted mathematically.

Originally Posted by Xei

lel, going for the old Law of the Minimizing of Mystery are we? The only reason you say that is that quantum physics is weird and consciousness is weird... it doesn't have to be the case that they are two aspects of the same weirdness.

As I just said; neurons are on too large a scale to be affected by quantum activity. The idea has been refuted mathematically.

I think a lot of the misunderstanding about Quantum Physics has to do with things like the movie What the Bleep do we Know? They have a few short sections that describe in a nutshell some of the more easily grasped and "fun" parts of Quantum Physics, then take those and run into Giant Speculation Land, without warning people that that's where they're heading.

It's fun to speculate, but when you pick only a few principles and ignore the rest, it's best to own up to it.

Oh yeah, that documentary was the biggest pile of nonsense and wee I've ever seen... lots of complaints about it actually, many 'experts' who were uncredited, or statements taken completely out of context to suit the New Age agenda, or often just lies... oh well, such is the way of the world.

That's not to say that quantum consciousness hasn't been seriously considered by some top scientists (I'm currently reading a book by such a scientist, Roger Penrose), but it looks so far to be wrong based on empirical experiments and calculations.