What the bleep do we know 1 & 2

[Catanduva]

@aussie, i don't have nothing to add here because i think everything is said by jacob and i agree with him.

I think what you are stating here, this thing you believe, is like any other modern new age beliefs. You can't dress it with some science jargons and make it credible.

I am attracted to this things too, they have a big appeal. But i am sceptic and i don't really believe in this.

You can believe it, but doesn't make it true.

[Hoplite]

If there is a connection between spiritual beliefs and the physical sciences, I would expect spriritual beliefs, given their long history, to have helped correctly explain scientific principles or phenomena, rather than the other way around. It's certainly possible but I can't think of any instances.
The dispute is more about the term "pseudoscience" than about quantum woo in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
The article attempts to separate the two, but there are still critics: "Larry Laudan has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us."
In the list of pseudosciences, I noted that MBTI typing was included

[Haplo]

@Hoplite: And I would totally agree about MBTI, too ;P. Of course, I'd also add the DSM-IV right along with it, but psychiatrists don't like being told that they're all full of crap.

[jacob]

A physicist's reaction to quantum woo. I say he took it well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU

[jennypenny]

Boy, it doesn't take much to set you physicists off.

I have a question about something he said though. Moriarty made a point of saying that quantum physics doesn't require an observer. It's been a while since I read Brian Greene, but I thought Greene said that some things at that level exist in several states/places at once, and only become fixed when they are observed. Am I just remembering that incorrectly?

[jacob]

That's two different contexts.

What Moriarty talks about is that reality is not brought into existence by observing it. The moon still exists even if no one is looking. This implies that "The Secret" doesn't work---that you can not manifest reality by wishing it forth.

What Greene talks about is that the functions which behavior is described by quantum physics incorporate several different measurement outcomes before they are measured and only one after the measurement (the vernacular is that the function collapses). Compare to classical physics, where the pre-state only has one signle measurement outcome all the way through from before the measurement to after the measurement.

"Collapse" suggests images like a house collapsing but all it is taking out some of the dimensions mathematically, like collapsing a matrix to a number by taking the determinant.

[workathome]

So why haven't you physicists bothered inventing a warp drive yet? I mean, come on. Vulcans and Klingons and stuff.

[jacob]

You gotta ask GE about that one.

[jennypenny]

@jacob--Thanks.

I think it's time to re-read Greene. I never got around to reading The Hidden Reality, so maybe I'll start with that.

[jacob]

Read this instead
http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Int ... 674843924/

[Ego]

The New Yorker has an interesting article about the new book by the author of The Secret. The article is called The Powerless of Positive Thinking....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... nking.html

“Ceaseless optimism about the future only makes for a greater shock when things go wrong; by fighting to maintain only positive beliefs about the future, the positive thinker ends up being less prepared, and more acutely distressed, when things eventually happen that he can’t persuade himself to believe are good.”

and

I asked Kappes why fantasies hamper progress, and she told me that they dull the will to succeed: “Imagining a positive outcome conveys the sense that you’re approaching your goals, which takes the edge off the need to achieve.”

[jennypenny]

Ever since jacob posted that video of Moriarity, I've had the line "But quantum mechanics must answer 'tough shit'" stuck in my head. I couldn't shake it, so I found the old poem it comes from so I could read it again. I hadn't read it in 20 years. Still funny.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -epic-poem

[The Old Man]

“Even having a basic understanding of quantum mechanics requires a working knowledge of differential, integral, multivariable, complex, vector and tensor calculus, differential equations, linear and abstract algebra, classic Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism.” – RationalWiki

It should be remembered that many Americans have difficulty with fractions.

[Ian]

I've disliked this movie ever since I was made to watch it in college, then got online and immediately discovered the physicists involved complaining about how they had been edited. When I saw a four page thread I'll admit I was worried, but I'm glad people have already presented the skeptical side.

[jacob]

@jennypenny - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znby3t3AS5s ... try to get this one out of your head then.

[jennypenny]

Did anyone else notice the "Learn the Law of Attraction" ad appearing at the bottom of the forum now?

I wonder if this thread triggered it.