Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » What The Bleep Do We Know!?
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #216773 is a reply to message #215638] |
Fri, 01 September 2006 22:03 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/6.jpg) |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I got around to downloading the video. Download went really well too, no router glitches or anything. A small miracle.
The video itself was rather lame. I didn't see any scientific merit in it. Half the video seems narrated by that crazy cult woman who has no credibility. The video makes claims about quantum physics that aren't scientific at all. I have issues with the scientific validity of quantum mechanics to begin with, but the video went into a whole new realm of crap. I'm not even sure it's fair to call some of that stuff quantum physics. Probability waves became a part of quantum physics because scientists lacked the ability to accurately test particle waves. It's not a profound way to look at reality, it's a limitation of science.
There was one line in the movie that really caught my attention. It's something along the lines of "What is the only planet in the Milky Way, that has habitation, that is steeped in the enormous subjagation of religion?". How would anyone be able to answer that question? The premise demands we compare civilization on Earth to civilizations on other planets. How the hell could anyone do that? We don't even know if life exists or not. There's no basis for the question to even be asked. I think it's that crazy cult leader posing the question so I guess I shouldn't be suprised at the stupidity of it. Is this the theological premise the the movie makers were following? That religion has made Earth worse than all the other civilizations in the galaxy? As if its credibility wasn't shot to hell already with the claim about natives not seeing ships.
To compound that is the hypocrisy of saying religion is bad because it makes theological claims, and then to turn around and make theological claims. It's almost like those conspiracy videos about the 9/11 Pentagon attack. It violates its own 'ground rules', but hopes the viewer doesn't realize.
Getting past the junk science, the attempts to confuse people about theology, and the crap like natives not seeing ships, the rest of the movie could probably be categorized as "blatantly obvious". What's insightful about changing who you are with conscious effort? Isn't this the premise of self help books? Nothing new there. Overall, this is probably one of the worst things I've watched. The more I think about what was presented, the worse it all seems.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #216848 is a reply to message #216773] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 09:54 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/2.gif) |
Blazer
Messages: 3322 Registered: February 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) Administrator/General |
![639343](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/icq.png)
|
|
NeoSaber wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 01:03 |
The video itself was rather lame. I didn't see any scientific merit in it.
|
Bear in mind that, as HL said, the science is explained in such a way as to attempt to be understandable by people who have no grasp of science already. It's pretty hard to explain subatomic physics to folks who are not used to thinking about things that they cannot see with the naked eye and hold in their hands.
I think this clip of the "double-slit experiement" (it's not something that was in the film you watched), is a good "dumbing down" so that anyone can understand it: http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/DS_sm2.wmv
(EDIT: the clip above is 11.2MB)
That very experiment shows exactly how much we do not know about how subatomic things work, since we learn by observing the behavior of things, its hard for us to figure something out if the results are changed by observing or measuring.
P.S. Even though you were mysteriously somehow able to download the 700MB movie with no problems, your previous experiences you describe still lead me to suggest that you contact your ISP and get them to fix your connection...although you should consider that perhaps it is already fixed, and you just proved it. Maybe since you believed it was broken, you stopped trying to do anything that you thought would fail. Kind of ironic, because one of the themes of the film you watched, was about how people set their own barriers
[Updated on: Sat, 02 September 2006 09:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #216863 is a reply to message #215638] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 10:46 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/135.jpg) |
Scythar
Messages: 580 Registered: February 2003 Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Does anyone know how exactly do they do the observing? A link to some nice info would be appreciated, quantum physics is such a buzzword right now that it's tougher to find answers than I expected.
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #216885 is a reply to message #215638] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 12:07 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/6.jpg) |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 12:54 | Bear in mind that, as HL said, the science is explained in such a way as to attempt to be understandable by people who have no grasp of science already. It's pretty hard to explain subatomic physics to folks who are not used to thinking about things that they cannot see with the naked eye and hold in their hands.
|
Maybe my standards are too high, but the book The Elegant Universe was written for people who don't understand this stuff, yet it still went into decent detail about things like the double slit experiment, probability waves, and the uncertainty principle.
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 12:54 | I think this clip of the "double-slit experiement" (it's not something that was in the film you watched), is a good "dumbing down" so that anyone can understand it: http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/DS_sm2.wmv
(EDIT: the clip above is 11.2MB)
That very experiment shows exactly how much we do not know about how subatomic things work, since we learn by observing the behavior of things, its hard for us to figure something out if the results are changed by observing or measuring.
|
The clip makes a huge leap that is probably the biggest fault in the movie as well. It equates measuring to observing. When you observe, you "take in" your surroundings. When you measure, you go and interfere with your surroundings. An observer doesn't send something at the particle to interfere with it, but if you want to measure it, you have to shoot something back at it in order to mark its position.
On a macroscopic scale, you shine a light on a brick to examine it. On a subatomic scale, what can you shoot at a particle that won't mess it up? The smallest, most delicate object you can shoot at it is another subatomic particle. It's equal in force and disrupts the experiment. That's where the uncertainty principle and probability waves come from. If you leave it alone, you get a wave pattern, but if you interfere with it you get a particle pattern. You can't test what causes wave patterns because the test isn't "delicate" enough. Scientists then rely on probability waves as an untestable explanation of how wave patterns form. That's probably my biggest gripe with quantum physics. If the theory claims to be untestable, then its not science.
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 12:54 | P.S. Even though you were mysteriously somehow able to download the 700MB movie with no problems, your previous experiences you describe still lead me to suggest that you contact your ISP and get them to fix your connection...although you should consider that perhaps it is already fixed, and you just proved it. Maybe since you believed it was broken, you stopped trying to do anything that you thought would fail. Kind of ironic, because one of the themes of the film you watched, was about how people set their own barriers ![Smile](images/smiley_icons/icon_smile.gif)
|
I know my problems are not fixed. I waited for my router to glitch in the morning before downloading it so it would be freshly restarted before I began. You're server must be insanely fast or something because I got the whole file in 35 minutes. Didn't give my router enough to glitch again or my ISP time to cut me off. About an hour later, the router glitched again.
It did seem a little ironic to me though.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #216966 is a reply to message #216885] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 19:44 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/2.gif) |
Blazer
Messages: 3322 Registered: February 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) Administrator/General |
![639343](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/icq.png)
|
|
NeoSaber wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 15:07 |
Maybe my standards are too high, but the book The Elegant Universe was written for people who don't understand this stuff, yet it still went into decent detail about things like the double slit experiment, probability waves, and the uncertainty principle.
|
I used to have that book (strangely, someone stole it), and I agree it is written very well.
NeoSaber wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 15:07 |
The clip makes a huge leap that is probably the biggest fault in the movie as well. It equates measuring to observing. When you observe, you "take in" your surroundings. When you measure, you go and interfere with your surroundings. An observer doesn't send something at the particle to interfere with it, but if you want to measure it, you have to shoot something back at it in order to mark its position.
|
The film specifically says that we do not know how to be an "inside" observer (observe something without affecting it). You don't have to shoot something at a particle to detect it, but you do have to interact with it in some manner, like allowing it to pass through something that has a measurable effect of its passing, etc.
NeoSaber wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 15:07 |
On a macroscopic scale, you shine a light on a brick to examine it. On a subatomic scale, what can you shoot at a particle that won't mess it up? The smallest, most delicate object you can shoot at it is another subatomic particle. It's equal in force and disrupts the experiment. That's where the uncertainty principle and probability waves come from. If you leave it alone, you get a wave pattern, but if you interfere with it you get a particle pattern. You can't test what causes wave patterns because the test isn't "delicate" enough. Scientists then rely on probability waves as an untestable explanation of how wave patterns form.
|
Who says you have to "shoot something" at a particle to detect it? You are basically debunking the double slit experiment because you say they are firing a stream of particles at the single-particle projectiles in order to detect them and thus altering their behavior. Maybe you should publish this in the American Journal of Physics, to let all the other scientists in the world know why they are wrong
I think what you are failing to consider is that when there are NO DETECTORS, and we simply fire a SINGLE PARTICLE at a time through two slits, you get an interference pattern, which begs the question of, what the hell is the single particle interfering with? The only answer we have been able to come up with that works, is "itself", which sounds crazy but don't forget we have proven that a single particle can be in two locations at once.
It may interest you to know that even if they place a detector at only one of the slits, the interference pattern still dissappears. And the experient does not have to be done with the "smallest" particles, it has been demonstrated with neutrons, atoms and molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70. Another interesting experiment shows that there is a similar effect by using slits in time (which can be measured without tampering) instead of space: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/3/1/1?rss=2.0
NeoSaber wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 15:07 |
That's probably my biggest gripe with quantum physics. If the theory claims to be untestable, then its not science.
|
Dude, thats everyones gripe with quantum physics, including the scientists. It is the closest we have come so far to explaining the world...nobody is saying this is how it is and that's that...even if it was 100% provable, measurable, etc, most people still would not believe it, since most people seem to rely upon the biophysical way in which we perceive the world are are unwilling to consider that things they cannot see are real.
Whether you agree with the concepts in the film or not, you have to admit that it at least made you think about things, which was my only goal in exposing people to it.
|
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #216998 is a reply to message #216966] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 21:52 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/6.jpg) |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 22:44 | I used to have that book (strangely, someone stole it)
|
That's a bizarre thing to steal.
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 22:44 | The film specifically says that we do not know how to be an "inside" observer (observe something without affecting it). You don't have to shoot something at a particle to detect it, but you do have to interact with it in some manner, like allowing it to pass through something that has a measurable effect of its passing, etc.
|
"Shooting a particle" was a generic example of how even the smallest measurement is interference at a quantum scale.
The film may say we don't know how to observe, but it offers no evidence of that. What it shows is that we lack the ability to measure and test. That's the opposite of observation.
Observation is passive, and does not interfere with what is being observed. It gets controlled by what it observes. Light bounces off a rock and arrives at my eye. I observe the rock but my observation is completely at the mercy of the light and the way it bounced off the rock. The observer has no control over anything. It merely detects what information is sent to it. The observer is the one who receives information, and the observed is the one controlling that information. The video is getting those points mixed up, and leading to claim that consciousness can be a controlling force by observing things. If anything, all they show is that consciousness is helpless because everything else controls it.
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 22:44 | Whether you agree with the concepts in the film or not, you have to admit that it at least made you think about things, which was my only goal in exposing people to it.
|
I suppose...
Hmm... if I'm an observer of the video, and the people on it are the observed, and I was effected by it, yet they don't even know I exist... does that prove my point? Did the very nature of the video prove them all wrong?
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
[Updated on: Sat, 02 September 2006 22:42] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217005 is a reply to message #216998] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 01:52 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/135.jpg) |
Scythar
Messages: 580 Registered: February 2003 Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
NeoSaber wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 00:52 |
The film may say we don't know how to observe, but it offers no evidence of that. What it shows is that we lack the ability to measure and test. That's the opposite of observation.
Observation is passive, and does not interfere with what is being observed. It gets controlled by what it observes. Light bounces off a rock and arrives at my eye. I observe the rock but my observation is completely at the mercy of the light and the way it bounced off the rock. The observer has no control over anything. It merely detects what information is sent to it. The observer is the one who receives information, and the observed is the one controlling that information. The video is getting those points mixed up, and leading to claim that consciousness can be a controlling force by observing things. If anything, all they show is that consciousness is helpless because everything else controls it.
|
I don't see how measuring is the opposite of observing, it's all about the same thing: sensing the information we receive from the object after a force is applied to it, either directly by us or not. Even if measuring means the part of the process where we apply the force and not the Sun for example (through photons), I still fail to see how it's the opposite. It's the same thing in the end. It's not possible to measure/observe/analyze something without a force affecting the target. We can't even prove the existence of something without there being a force that effects it.
Quote: |
Hmm... if I'm an observer of the video, and the people on it are the observed, and I was effected by it, yet they don't even know I exist... does that prove my point? Did the very nature of the video prove them all wrong?
|
I'm not sure what point you mean, you've had a lot of points in this topic. Can you clarify this one?
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217074 is a reply to message #216966] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 11:16 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
msgtpain
Messages: 663 Registered: March 2003 Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 22:44 | Dude, thats everyones gripe with quantum physics, including the scientists. It is the closest we have come so far to explaining the world...nobody is saying this is how it is and that's that...even if it was 100% provable, measurable, etc, most people still would not believe it, since most people seem to rely upon the biophysical way in which we perceive the world are are unwilling to consider that things they cannot see are real.
|
That's a really interesting "concept", especially when taken in with the other active thread at the moment.. If you can believe quantum physics even though you acknowledge that it is unprovable, unmeasurable and that most people are unwilling to consider that things they cannot see are real... then why the big fuss about "an imaginary person in the sky"...
Ironic, really... I guess we all just choose which imaginary things we want to believe in.
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217090 is a reply to message #217005] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 12:49 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/6.jpg) |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Scythar wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 04:52 | I don't see how measuring is the opposite of observing, it's all about the same thing: sensing the information we receive from the object after a force is applied to it, either directly by us or not. Even if measuring means the part of the process where we apply the force and not the Sun for example (through photons), I still fail to see how it's the opposite. It's the same thing in the end. It's not possible to measure/observe/analyze something without a force affecting the target. We can't even prove the existence of something without there being a force that effects it.
|
Observing and measuring certainly go hand in hand, and everyone is capable of both, but they are opposites of each other. Think of it like the difference between active and passive sonar. Passive sonar, like observing, just hears whatever is sent to it. If nothing is sent, it can't hear. Active sonar, like measuring, sends out a ping to detect things. Then you hear, or observe, the return signal.
Measuring is certainly pointless without observing. However, it is not the act of observing that causes interference, it's the act of measuring. The observer only sees what the observed "allowed" it to see. The observed is the one sending the information back, and has the "control" of reality.
Scythar wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 04:52 | I'm not sure what point you mean, you've had a lot of points in this topic. Can you clarify this one?
|
The video claims that an observer controls reality. I observed the people on the video. However, I didn't change the people, they changed me by making me think they are crazy. Everyone on the video who was observed remains completely unaffected by me. They transmitted information to me, via the video, not the other way around.
My point is that an observer is the helpless pawn of the observed. The nature of a video/movie/etc is that you send information from the observed to the observer. No information is returned, so the observed is the one in control. Since the people claim observers control reality, yet the video itself shows the opposite, they are proven wrong by the means they used to communicate their message.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217111 is a reply to message #217090] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 14:30 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/135.jpg) |
Scythar
Messages: 580 Registered: February 2003 Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
NeoSaber wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 15:49 |
Think of it like the difference between active and passive sonar. Passive sonar, like observing, just hears whatever is sent to it. If nothing is sent, it can't hear. Active sonar, like measuring, sends out a ping to detect things. Then you hear, or observe, the return signal.
|
True, but a passive sonar i.e. the observer, also has had a "ping" sent, just not by the observer itself, but some other entity. There's always a "ping", or in other words, a force that's applied to the observed, before it can be observed.
I think I got your point though, it's of course possible to separate the two, I was just confused by the "opposite" -word, as I consider observed as the opposite of observer....depends of the point of view.
Quote: |
The video claims that an observer controls reality. I observed the people on the video. However, I didn't change the people, they changed me by making me think they are crazy. Everyone on the video who was observed remains completely unaffected by me. They transmitted information to me, via the video, not the other way around.
My point is that an observer is the helpless pawn of the observed. The nature of a video/movie/etc is that you send information from the observed to the observer. No information is returned, so the observed is the one in control. Since the people claim observers control reality, yet the video itself shows the opposite, they are proven wrong by the means they used to communicate their message.
|
Good point. On the other hand, do they *really* have the control over us, the observers of the video? They certainly can't make all of us react in the way they wanted to. In the end, it's us, the observers, who make the choice - consciously or unconsciously - of how we want to react to the video. Isn't it the observer that always gets to say the last word in how it observes the world?
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217127 is a reply to message #217111] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 16:18 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/6.jpg) |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Scythar wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 17:30 | True, but a passive sonar i.e. the observer, also has had a "ping" sent, just not by the observer itself, but some other entity. There's always a "ping", or in other words, a force that's applied to the observed, before it can be observed.
|
If force is applied to the observed, it becomes an observer of that force, and is therefore effected by it. Then it can take control, making itself the observed again, by changing the information being sent from itself. For example, stealth aircraft get "pinged" by radar, but they modify it so the radar tower doesn't see a proper return signal. The stealth aircraft, acting as the observed, manipulates its outgoing "information" to convince a radar tower that it isn't really there. The aircraft has the control because it has better manipulation of outgoing information than the radar tower does. It forces others to believe what it wants them to believe by controlling the way it is observed.
It's also possible for the observed to generate the force itself. If a star explodes, the shock wave it makes will destroy any observers around it. If a light bulb turns on, the light it generates allows observers to see it. Etc, etc.
Scythar wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 17:30 | Good point. On the other hand, do they *really* have the control over us, the observers of the video? They certainly can't make all of us react in the way they wanted to. In the end, it's us, the observers, who make the choice - consciously or unconsciously - of how we want to react to the video. Isn't it the observer that always gets to say the last word in how it observes the world?
|
When I say "control" I mean it a little bit figuratively. As the saying goes "information is power". The observed is the one who gets the chance to modify information. The observer just has to accept the information given. I don't mean accept as in "agree with". I mean it more like "absorb".
The people in the video may not be able to convince us, but only because previous bits of info we've received over our lives leads us to distrust or question the info they have provided. At the same time, we may be convinced because the info we've accumulated over our lives has led us to accept the information received as valid. It's the information we received over the course of our lives that forms our willingness to accept/decline future information. It's the sum of everything we've observed that determines our reactions. We're constantly being effected by everything around us and it influences everything we think. I should probably be working on stuff for RA:APB right now, but you sent out "information" (your post), that made me react to it. You exercised a degree of control over me. Even if I ignored you and didn't respond, the act of ignoring is still a reaction. It's taking me forever to write this because of spell checks and revisions for the sake of clarity. I only do that because previous information I have received indicates that I should take care in what I write.
We might be able to decide how we view the world, but in that case we are being both observed and observer at the same time. As the observed, we send ourself an opinion about the information. As the observer, we accept our opinion. Even then, we're still basing that opinion on the information sent to us over our life.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217131 is a reply to message #216516] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 17:02 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
|
help-linux wrote on Thu, 31 August 2006 16:17 |
Crimson wrote on Thu, 31 August 2006 21:53 | I was a lot smarter than most of my classmates and school went way to slow for me. Whenever I spoke, I was asked things like "How did you know that? How do you remember those things? How can you do that?" and I was also treated like crap for the same reasons -- people thinking I was showing off, or whatever. So I learned to just shut the hell up and quietly finish my coursework.
|
i am the same exact situation, me and the17doctor we are both in the same class in year 10.
it usally was when i answer a question with a little more detail then the teatcher wanted and well all i get then is "shut the fuck up" and "fuckin dickhead". i don't participate in lessons at all now. teachers dont even care.
|
Welcome to my world... (I hate my school)
@ Nightma12:
Interestingly, Linux is mentioned on a poster in my school's ICT (I wrote IRC the first time round, I think it's a sign...) room...
Going back on topic:
It was well presented, the "strange girl" was simply used to illustrate how it affects day to day life I suppose. The average person will probably not care unless it affects their day to day life...
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
![index.php?t=getfile&id=12992&private=0](index.php?t=getfile&id=12992&private=0)
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Sun, 03 September 2006 17:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217232 is a reply to message #217127] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 08:30 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/135.jpg) |
Scythar
Messages: 580 Registered: February 2003 Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
NeoSaber wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 19:18 |
Scythar wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 17:30 | True, but a passive sonar i.e. the observer, also has had a "ping" sent, just not by the observer itself, but some other entity. There's always a "ping", or in other words, a force that's applied to the observed, before it can be observed.
|
If force is applied to the observed, it becomes an observer of that force, and is therefore effected by it. Then it can take control, making itself the observed again, by changing the information being sent from itself. For example, stealth aircraft get "pinged" by radar, but they modify it so the radar tower doesn't see a proper return signal. The stealth aircraft, acting as the observed, manipulates its outgoing "information" to convince a radar tower that it isn't really there. The aircraft has the control because it has better manipulation of outgoing information than the radar tower does. It forces others to believe what it wants them to believe by controlling the way it is observed.
|
The problem I have with that is this: "Then it can take control, making itself the observed again...". The problem is, it *WILL* take control, not "can". It has no choice, it always works in a predictable way, that's what it was built for by humans, it's a machine.
But we're not much different. It's much tougher to predict how human acts, but if we could read a persons memory and past experiences, not from brain alone but also genes, and had the knowledge to process the information, I'm sure we could predict exactly how the person will act in different situations. We could know how a person "decides" to modify the information he receives, after which he, the observed, no longer has control of any kind - he is completely predictable.
In fact, looks like *nothing/nobody* is in control, everything we do is based on the first interaction of observers/observed ones when the universe was created.
Quote: |
It's also possible for the observed to generate the force itself. If a star explodes, the shock wave it makes will destroy any observers around it. If a light bulb turns on, the light it generates allows observers to see it. Etc, etc.
|
And as I explained, you can't say "if" a star explodes. The stars *will* explode. They don't explode spontaneously, there's always a reaction involved (star runs out of fuel), and if you can measure the star and everything that affects it, you can predict when it happens. Light bulbs don't just turn on all of a sudden either. Someone turns them on, and with an unimaginable amount of knowledge and processing power, you could predict when it turns on.Quote: |
Scythar wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 17:30 | Good point. On the other hand, do they *really* have the control over us, the observers of the video? They certainly can't make all of us react in the way they wanted to. In the end, it's us, the observers, who make the choice - consciously or unconsciously - of how we want to react to the video. Isn't it the observer that always gets to say the last word in how it observes the world?
|
When I say "control" I mean it a little bit figuratively. As the saying goes "information is power". The observed is the one who gets the chance to modify information. The observer just has to accept the information given. I don't mean accept as in "agree with". I mean it more like "absorb".
|
And again, the observed doesn't "get a chance". He is bound to modify it or not modify it based on his observations that happened earlier in life.
Quote: |
The people in the video may not be able to convince us, but only because previous bits of info we've received over our lives leads us to distrust or question the info they have provided. At the same time, we may be convinced because the info we've accumulated over our lives has led us to accept the information received as valid. It's the information we received over the course of our lives that forms our willingness to accept/decline future information. It's the sum of everything we've observed that determines our reactions. We're constantly being effected by everything around us and it influences everything we think. I should probably be working on stuff for RA:APB right now, but you sent out "information" (your post), that made me react to it. You exercised a degree of control over me. Even if I ignored you and didn't respond, the act of ignoring is still a reaction. It's taking me forever to write this because of spell checks and revisions for the sake of clarity. I only do that because previous information I have received indicates that I should take care in what I write.
|
And I agree with this part. You didn't have a choice any more than I do now. (actually, I don't know myself well enough to be sure whether or not I'll post this, we'll see in a while I guess)
Quote: |
We might be able to decide how we view the world, but in that case we are being both observed and observer at the same time. As the observed, we send ourself an opinion about the information. As the observer, we accept our opinion. Even then, we're still basing that opinion on the information sent to us over our life.
|
And since we base that opinion on earlier events, it isn't really a "decision", it's a reaction.
So, looks like we agree on this whole thing, causality for the win and all that.... what was the problem after all? ![Very Happy](images/smiley_icons/icon_biggrin.gif)
Oh, and the quotation hell was NOT fun at all. Geez.
More edit. Since we seem to believe everything is based on cause and effect and the lack of a real choice...how about the beginning of the universe? There was a state in there where there had not yet been any causes or effects. Maybe a real choice is only possible in a state like this. Maybe the first something really had a real choice, not an illusion of choice, and so life was born. The question is, is this first something still capable of making real choices? A real choice is when you can decide to be or do anything you ever desire, so isn't that a definition of God? Does God exist? Whoo, check out the way I got God dragged into this again
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
[Updated on: Mon, 04 September 2006 08:40] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217303 is a reply to message #217232] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 13:30 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/6.jpg) |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Scythar wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 11:30 | The problem I have with that is this: "Then it can take control, making itself the observed again...". The problem is, it *WILL* take control, not "can". It has no choice, it always works in a predictable way, that's what it was built for by humans, it's a machine.
|
You're right, "can" was a bad word choice on my part. The observed will modify information. It's not really a conscious act, although if you have consciousness you can probably change the way you modify information... based on the sum total of the information you've received. I've messed with people before by planting careful phrases in what I write, triggering specific thoughts in their head, and directing a debate exactly where I want it to be. However, I can only do that after I receive enough "information" from them to know how they think. Cause and effect again.
(Plus I feel like a manipulative jerk whenever I do that... so I don't do it often.)
Scythar wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 11:30 | More edit. Since we seem to believe everything is based on cause and effect and the lack of a real choice...how about the beginning of the universe? There was a state in there where there had not yet been any causes or effects. Maybe a real choice is only possible in a state like this. Maybe the first something really had a real choice, not an illusion of choice, and so life was born. The question is, is this first something still capable of making real choices? A real choice is when you can decide to be or do anything you ever desire, so isn't that a definition of God? Does God exist? Whoo, check out the way I got God dragged into this again ![Razz](images/smiley_icons/icon_razz.gif)
|
While I was writing my last post, I realized we got to an issue of "First Cause" too... where's Thomas Aquinas when you need him.
Interesting though how one minor change in focus alters so much. By claiming observers control reality, the video concluded "we are all gods" if I remember correctly (I already deleted it). By shifting the focus to say the observer is controlled by reality, we get left with the premise of a supreme being, or first cause. It seems to be the unavoidable conclusion of the concept.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217324 is a reply to message #217074] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 15:03 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/2.gif) |
Blazer
Messages: 3322 Registered: February 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) Administrator/General |
![639343](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/icq.png)
|
|
msgtpain wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 14:16 |
Blazer wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 22:44 | Dude, thats everyones gripe with quantum physics, including the scientists. It is the closest we have come so far to explaining the world...nobody is saying this is how it is and that's that...even if it was 100% provable, measurable, etc, most people still would not believe it, since most people seem to rely upon the biophysical way in which we perceive the world are are unwilling to consider that things they cannot see are real.
|
That's a really interesting "concept", especially when taken in with the other active thread at the moment.. If you can believe quantum physics even though you acknowledge that it is unprovable, unmeasurable and that most people are unwilling to consider that things they cannot see are real... then why the big fuss about "an imaginary person in the sky"...
Ironic, really... I guess we all just choose which imaginary things we want to believe in.
|
Exactly. People can believe in god, which they obviously cannot see or touch, yet they will refuse to believe in an explanation of the universe that involves things they cannot see or touch. It makes me wonder, what sort of explanation WOULD they believe, or expect?
|
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #217382 is a reply to message #215638] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 20:30 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
z310
Messages: 2459 Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
<3
I think I'll watch it in a couple days, though. I can't seem to think straight recently; damn that bud! lol
When I finish watching it, I'm going to try and make posts of what I've observed in the movie.
I wonder if I'll hit pitch black in the rabbit hole.
[Updated on: Mon, 04 September 2006 20:32] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What The Bleep Do We Know!? [message #227605 is a reply to message #217950] |
Sat, 21 October 2006 17:41 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
z310
Messages: 2459 Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
z310 wrote on Thu, 07 September 2006 20:08 | Flubber became sexy. Anyways, I'll watch the movie this weekend - I have too much work at the moment.
|
I apologize for not having watched it yet. I'll get to it as soon as I feel I can; I'm overwhelmed with work and I can't seem to think straight for reasons I don't know. :thumbsdown:
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Aug 17 08:47:24 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01252 seconds
|