"That's my line"
-Scientist
Is Quantum Physics bullshat?
- Thread starter humble Hermit
- Start date
-Scientist
Do not get me started on this fool
link?
you might find this also interesting
Russian DNA Discoveries Proof of 12-Strand DNA Activation Theory? | Whales In Space
Basically, the overall theory I get from all this sacred geometery, consciousness, etc is that humans are evolving, and unlocking things like synchronicity and telepathy, astral projection able to perceive other dimensions, healing through vibrations, etc. Our DNA holds is supposed information that entwines with the universe (look up DNA and the IChing, Terence McKenna).
It kinda implies being able to manipulate light and vibration of our wave/particle universe through knowledge of our DNA, Chakra systems etc.
Apparently 2012 was a restart of a cycle and that's why this knowledge is becoming more and more prevalent in recent years. If it gets me super powers, I'm interested
could all be wrong but still so interesting
Scientists admit they don't know why observation matters with regards to the characteristics of a photon. The theory is a lot less fundamental than the student makes it out to be. Scientists describe quantam mechanics the way that they do because their observations tell them that an unobserved object can be in multiple states at once, but they admit that they don't understand the nature of why observation matters to the physical characteristic of the object. The student acts like scientists are arrogant about an unproven theory, when in reality there just going off what the experiments have told them but their still trying to gain an understanding of quantam mechanics.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GdqC2bVLesQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is a video of four scientists trying to explain their theory of why quantam mechanics works the way it does. It shows that while scientists are in agreement about the dual nature of atomic particles, their still unclear about why the action of observation changes the nature of the particles.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GdqC2bVLesQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is a video of four scientists trying to explain their theory of why quantam mechanics works the way it does. It shows that while scientists are in agreement about the dual nature of atomic particles, their still unclear about why the action of observation changes the nature of the particles.
joeychizzle
光復香港，時代革命
short cliff-notes of what Quantum Physics attempts to demonstrate and prove.
there is at the very basics of all matter atoms right? well Quantum deals with the inner-dimensions and workings of the atom itself. usually being broken down into what is known as strings of little wiggly energy. to resurface back to the easily-understandable, quantum also carries with it the implication that these strings actually have some form of sentience (in official papers, they NEVER out right say this). the observation of something changes it's very fundamentals and nature.
now I can get to posting links to videos and research papers, but it's not needed. you either believe this or don't, if you don't then it's no shame because shyt truly is on some mind blowing science-fiction shyt lol.
there is at the very basics of all matter atoms right? well Quantum deals with the inner-dimensions and workings of the atom itself. usually being broken down into what is known as strings of little wiggly energy. to resurface back to the easily-understandable, quantum also carries with it the implication that these strings actually have some form of sentience (in official papers, they NEVER out right say this). the observation of something changes it's very fundamentals and nature.
now I can get to posting links to videos and research papers, but it's not needed. you either believe this or don't, if you don't then it's no shame because shyt truly is on some mind blowing science-fiction shyt lol.
So logic dictates that atom's function with some form of intelligence not previously assumed.
So logic dictates that atom's function with some form of intelligence not previously assumed.
1. you can't claim intelligence just because you don't understand something and its behavior does not fit into your current paradigm
2. it can't be deemed intelligence secondary to behaving consistent to reproducible circumstances, that is the essence of a submissive machine
1. you can't claim intelligence just because you don't understand something and its behavior does not fit into your current paradigm
2. it can't be deemed intelligence secondary to behaving consistent to reproducible circumstances, that is the essence of a submissive machine
who said I don't understand it, sounds more like you're the one who doesn't understand it so you assume other's don't?
and just because something is a submissive 'machine' make's it less intelligent? man submits to nature on a regular occurrence so are we not intelligent because so?
this is the question
this is the statement
________________________________________________________________________
Depends on the working definition of intelligent
Again depends on the working definition of intelligence
but are you intelligent enough to see whether the working component of this statement
is this
or this
or maybe I should have used "sentient" instead of "intelligence" so as to not leave any casuistic wiggle room
Last edited:
Susskind is the best, bar none, intro to quantum mechanics I've ever seen.
It helps if you've had some linear algebra and some calc, but if you're comfortable with the concepts behind those, you can grasp this series.
I had an intro to quantum class where the professor just said fukk it to the actual textbook and had us read his book instead.
just so we're clear, why don't you give us a credible source of said people saying said claims?
