i find this subject to be more philosophical than empirical. 'science' itself is mutable, subject to change, and is constantly being reworked, rewritten.

i do not agree with the skeptics who dismiss the idea of the mind existing outside of the brain, and i do believe that there is evidence that this paradigm does exist. but i also think that like any experiment, one finds the results that one is looking for. (looking for a wave, find a wave. looking for a particle, find a particle.) therefore, i can entertain the idea of an operational system where mind and matter are both fluid and light rules the universe. and to be quite honest, i like this paradigm very much. but to say definitively that THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE, i think is just as silly as saying THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE WAY THINGS WORK.

i am open to the idea that the whole system of the universe and everything in it (including us) may be run in such a manner that is completely unfathomable to humankind.

therefore, i think that everything... including science and mathematics, is essentially philosophy. some of us use words, some use numbers, but basically we are all trying to describe the universe and our place in it, and along the way are carving out a set of rules by which we live.

i don't think we'll ever know why things are the way they are.... but that's part of the fun, isn't it?

i find this subject to be more philosophical than empirical. 'science' itself is mutable, subject to change, and is constantly being reworked, rewritten.

i do not agree with the skeptics who dismiss the idea of the mind existing outside of the brain, and i do believe that there is evidence that this paradigm does exist. but i also think that like any experiment, one finds the results that one is looking for. (looking for a wave, find a wave. looking for a particle, find a particle.) therefore, i can entertain the idea of an operational system where mind and matter are both fluid and light rules the universe. and to be quite honest, i like this paradigm very much. but to say definitively that THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE, i think is just as silly as saying THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE WAY THINGS WORK.

i am open to the idea that the whole system of the universe and everything in it (including us) may be run in such a manner that is completely unfathomable to humankind.

therefore, i think that everything... including science and mathematics, is essentially philosophy. some of us use words, some use numbers, but basically we are all trying to describe the universe and our place in it, and along the way are carving out a set of rules by which we live.

i don't think we'll ever know why things are the way they are.... but that's part of the fun, isn't it?

The whole idea of labeling one's self as a skeptic demonstrates a predisposition to being finite minded and limited not open to new discovery and understanding. This demonstrates ignorance not wisdom.

I always thought the wisdom in science was to be open to any possibility; anything is possible it is all a "matter" of probability.

Click my name for solution of possbility for humanity.

Sustainable Infrastructure Communities and adapting to Global Climate Chaos - Extreme Weather Housing

Dear Dr. Chopra:

Unfortunately, there is no way to show "Light" to an avowed skeptic. They cry that common sense is the supreme measure of all phenomena.

Anyone who has experienced the realm of the Mind Field believes. There are so many brilliant minds that have risen above the mere workings of the reasoning mind. Once one has been able to learn of their experiences using the "intelligence of the heart", one is aware of how mankind is limited by not pursuing the ability to know the Unity Consciousness.

The great teachers of the ancient cultures and of today are aware of the Order of the Cosmos.
The ancient masters had an understanding of the metaphysics of existence and knew that the present incarnation is merely a passage.

Aloha Deepak Chopra

I hope your next book is science. I truly love how you are able to explain the unknown in a common sense way. In listening to an interview about Quantum Healing I love how you share about the corulation of non-local reality; a mother's breast fills with milk and the baby cries, twins being miles apart can feel what the other is feeling. Math is just from this realm. The world is inside of us and made up of perceptions. It is connecting those perceptions by remembering we God playing man, not man playing God. We are all blind, till we see through the unknown. Mahalo for taking us there. love patty

Oh, but you do know what will pop up :) That's when the fun begins...

There are few things the so called modern science can't tell, ok as of now.
Science can measure my fever, weight, height, hemoglobin count. But it can't measure my emotions (happiness, sadnes), the reason why heart starts beating as it develops in an infant in womb. It can't tell what I will think next, does space extend till infinity.

Two ways modern science can say:
1. We are trying our best and will find out.
2. Questions are meaning-less as we don't need answers to these live day-2-day life.

For centuries, people have tried their best to look for answers and shared their experiences.

My mind is in my solar plexus.

What a marvelous day today is!
Riding the great WOO wave!
hagin it this mr. chesser cat
and puranti

Having lots of fun dear :| :]
V

This is a great post Deepak!

I especially like the following, which made me laugh,

"You never know what might pop out." ~Deepak

as well as the informational points in your post.

Thank you!

Love, Char

Over the weekend I caught part of a yoga program and they said Sat Nam. We always say Namaste, and I had not realized the similarity. I bought some cedar and hung it in my closet. I went to a.m. yoga and, lo', the teacher gave a reading about Sat Nam. Wow, I thought. Twice in 2 days. During class I got the strongest whiff of cedar twice and nothing I had in class had been in contact with the cedar. Plus, it was etheric smell. There is a difference.

So I go shopping this afternoon and pass a little boy in a shopping cart being pushed by his mom. He was maybe 2-3. He said, "sat nammmmaaaa."

Immortal masters are about. :)

On skeptics ... what we witness here is not skepticism. I believe in many things but I still come across flakes and, thus, I'm skeptic about flakes while believing in some other things as yet unproven.

I worked on this last week. I do not think we witness skeptics on the internet as much as we witness disprovers on missions they have fallen in love with. I often do not see them demonstrate common sense. I often do not see them appear all that intelligent. I see them trying to sound very intelligent. They leave a lot out.

So I worked on this and I think disprovers are a byproduct of a believer's path. There was a Bible verse, "I believe, help my unbelief."

What I mean is I may believe but I really wish I could be believed and the wish for proof is often on a simmering back burner. The disprovers smell the aroma and show up for dinner chat.

So we convene here where Dr. Chopra discusses what science is doing to help people who have experiences feel more comfortable explaining them. It is natural that the 2 sides show up, I guess.

Sat Nam :)
Tapestry

Well Char, yes that was funny of Deepak to bring up.

The feminine energy operating at the quantum level does give rise to many things, including a degree of certainty as to what will “pop out” in specific uncontrolled circumstances related to masculine energies operating at the quantum level, mingling with feminine energies in that dance there in the infinite field, such things then manifesting a change in physical form.

This physical manifestation is looked and felt upon fondly by most of feminine the nature.

Although I have never experienced it some men, suffer from a quantum anomaly and fail to “pop out” as a result of certain quantum level mixings of the feminine and masculine quantum wave form particles. Scientists in their short sightedness try to treat the symptom rather than the cause which I hear can lead to blindeness.

It has also been observation, and experience that the feminine energy operating at the quantum level creates an exponential increase in the “uncertainty principle” that plagues the minds of men in regard to the feminine principle leaving them in a mental quandary as they attempt to understand the greatest mystery in the universe and the birth of the yes and no answer to every question.

In fact I would suspect a failure of the masculine energies to merge with the feminine energies could lead to a skeptical nature.

This leads us to a logical conclusion regarding the disease of skepticism (yes they have a divine purpose) and the solution lies with women and that nurturing, gratifying, love that they can choose to exude.

I would love to experiment with the idea, since my levels of skepticism seem higher than normal today and I would love to research a cure for skepticism with a lady scientist, in the name of science, the divine permitting.

As for beliefs if you read the Lethal Text, lethal to the worlds fictions that is.

We find a future without be(lie)fs since they are not necessary for play, except in the case of pretending in a world of make believe, which is fine until people get serious which leads to war and conflict.

Click my name below to read the lethal text series and free the world from it's bondage to fictions.

Blink on, blink on, blink off.

"Honey! There's a short in the wire and I think we blew a fuse."

.

So...there was this electron who was well aware of his situation.

Here he was spinning around, spinning around...
making no progress whatsoever....same old scene.

If electrons can talk, surely one might think:

"Hey! I'm feeling a bit off center, like I'm empty.
There's never a drive-in burger joint around when you need one.
I guess I will keep living off of the virtual energy all around me.
It's free. I sure wish I was."

"Maybe I'll call my twin and see what he's up to
over yonder on the other side of the Universe."

"I hope he hasn't expired yet, certainly I would know about it by NOW."

"No really, he and I are never on the same page, so to speak."

"When I'm happy, he's sad.
When he's joyous, I'm mad.
When I'm off, he's on.
When he's Joe, I'm John.

When I'm awake, he's asleep.
If he plays farmer, I play sheep.
When I eat, he goes to ----!
When I'm calm, he has a fit.

When I win, he is losing.
When he's dry, I am boozing.
When I'm in love, he's in pain.
When he has sex...I know about it!"

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

~ Albert Einstein

Hi Deepak:

As you have rightly noted, the mainstream science has fragmented the reality in two worlds – the “Commonsense” or the Newtonian cause and effect world of the skeptics or reductionists and the “Un-commonsense” or the paranormal world of the quantum mysticism (QM). At the root of this controversy is the outstanding unresolved Observer’s paradox or the Measurement paradox of QM that relates to the question as to how the commonsense or classical everyday world of things and objects come into being from the quantum world of the particles and waves. In spite of the fact that QM is a well-established discipline of the mainstream science, skeptics have disliked the QM-CRAP (Quantum mysticism, Creationism, and Paranormal) because the inner workings of QM are a mystery (black box). QM’s operating rules are mostly empirical and not mechanistic or physics-based as stated by the QM guru Richard Feynman himself:

Quantum Mechanics: Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988):
“I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.” (Richard Feynman)
“One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.” (Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanics)
“The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So, theoretical physics has given up on that.” (Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanics)
The deficiencies and incompleteness (as Einstein noted) in QM formulations are the root causes that fail quantum mechanics to predict 96% of the universe limiting its successes to only predicting the classical matter (4%). This is also evidenced by the fact that quantum mechanics predictions of the vacuum energy (the cosmological constant) of the empty space are in error by horrendous 120 orders of magnitude. The ugliness of this missing physics in QM raises its head thru the ridiculous, inexperience-able, and unverifiable outcomes (that even beat all paranormal phenomena) of the incomplete QM theories such as the multiple universes, multiple dimensions (beyond 3 dimensions of space and time), early superluminous (faster than the speed of light) expansion (inflation) of the universe, the infamous Observer’s Paradox, multitudes of imaginary and unknown particles and strings, black hole singularities, dark energy, dark matter, and anti-matter etc. etc.

The mainstream science has gracefully failed to advertise these embarrassing failures of quantum mechanics and have been able to hide them under the beautiful rug of its successes in the domain of matter and particles on local scales, and in electronic gadgetry and toys mesmerizing the common folks. Unfortunately, these material successes fail badly to explain consciousness and mind concepts needed for describing the so-called Un-commonsense or the paranormal world. In spite of the frequent use of the quantum mechanics probabilistic observations by the mystics to explain the paranormal phenomena, it is not a credible and convincing argument to use a mystery or black box to explain another bigger mystery. The only thing common between the paranormal and QM is that both are mystical and illusory to the common sense, and that is hardly a basis to convince the skeptics. Hence, the battle between the skeptics and the believers in quantum mysticism goes on and on with no convergence in sight.

Using QM to explain consciousness is like using blindness to explain light. The Quantum Observer or Measurement paradox assures the blindness of QM to the extent that it even makes the existence of the universe an unexplained mystery or myth in itself.

However, all hope is not lost. The paradoxes and issues between the commonsense world and the mystical quantum world have been resolved via the approach of the Holistic Relativity as described in my ongoing posts related to the scientific understanding of the beyond-material reality. The so-called paranormal or the phenomena of the small can be physically explained in terms of mass-energy-space-time dilation via mathematical formulations of Holistic Relativity that demonstrates that a more consistent scientific basis of consciousness and free will is shown to be the spontaneous decay of the particles or masses via converting to the zero-point energy wherein the space-time dilates to zero. This new innovative approach to consciousness, defined herein as the Holistic Relativity, is also shown to resolve the current paradoxes of science and cosmology including the Observer’s paradox of quantum mechanics via providing a mathematical relationship between the classical and quantum reality. Unfortunately, the mainstream science is too overwhelmed in brushing up the shattered fragments (myriad of unknown speculative particles and strings) of its materialistic mainstream theories and not ready as yet to take on consciousness and open up to such a new innovative out-of-the-box approach (so much for the so-called objective peer review of the mainstream science).

Love & Regards

Avtar

None of this stuff is required to enjoy hot apple pie and ice cream, thank God.

Yet, I am concerned about scientists, and factory farmers that thought they could improve on nature and produced awful tasting produce that looks good. The reason they thought they could improve on nature is that faulty premise that everything was an accident.

So you all see before us the consequences of bad pseudo science, which created all sorts of disease, complications, and a messed up environment and losses to our freedoms and privacy.

Okay so there are some good things scientists made possible like roller coasters, airplanes, the world wide web and pretty pictures of deep space, so we won't order their heads cut off, yet...

No one should be surprised to find "what pops out" is a return to a simpler way of life. A renaissance wherein we find love and reverence for all life.

Bonnie

Your article was great!, it mad me laf! ( out loud )

I even forgot that it was science related, for a minute there.
Love
V

Yep, those skeptics need to get some woo woo and have that universal oneness experience. Maybe they should get Deepak's Kama Sutra book and test it out in the name of science and discover that area just inside of her Twilight Zone, a happy one. :) When their happy the whole world is happy.

What I am saying is science needs a feminine energy infusion it's been dominated by men for to long, well so has society for that matter. I guess it's getting better.

That Bonobos tribe sure seems to have the right approach, even skeptics agree.

This Chopra article is liberally filled with strawmen. In fact, that is pretty much all it is. If you are going to read it, don't smoke or approach it with a naked flame.

Skeptics ignore science? Skeptics ignore quantam physics? Skeptics aren't needed?

It's also contradictory as well as just plain wrong in many places. For instance, he starts the post saying:
In a series of recent posts I've been offering evidence of the possibility that the mind exists outside the brain.

But then a few paragraphs later we have:
Still less do they care about the mysterious connection between mind and body.

Hang on, are they connected or not? Is it mysterious or not? And it's a strawman to boot.

And then he says skeptics are not interested in the enigma of creation.

Really? So all those arguments between skeptics and creationists just don't exist then?

I have a test I propose for Chopra or any of his followers. Let us remove your brain and we'll see how your mind works then. I will refrain from the obvious continuation of this point.

There is I believe at least one strawman in each paragraph of the article. I tried to count them but gave up after the second paragraph.

The science content is flawed.

He makes an ad hominem about crude skeptics, then complains about skeptics making ad hominems.

This is the first time I've bothered to read anything by Chopra and I have one question.

Do people really believe this idoit?

Posted by: Jimmy_Blue
skeptico.blogs.com

Yes, it's a straw-man argument. Theoretical physicists and the skeptics to your posts don't advocate a Newtonian-only existence. I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from.

It's also correct to point out that QM doesn't explain consciousness, and as the Feynman quotes show, really just add more mystery to the Existence.

My conjecture (not being a scientist - disclaimer here), is that the reason our world appears physical to us is because our senses are set up to perceive certain ranges of vibrations as being (more or less) solid.

That is to say, a mesh with holes in it 1/4 inch in diameter is solid as far as a block which is one meter square is concerned.

We may be mostly empty (infinite?) space, but the space between the atoms of a brick wall are more tightly packed, so we can't pass through it (even though it, too, is mostly empty space).

So, that the world appears physical to us is not some great mystery, I don't think. It's a matter of corresponding vibrational frequencies.

What else? Oh yeah, you wrote this:

"When anyone proposes that there might be an information field at the quantum level, and that this field is the source of mind, the skeptical response is, ironically enough, mindless."

Leaving aside the name-calling of your detractors as "mindless" for now, the other problem with this is that it misreads their issue.

No one has a problem with you making any proposals or speculations. The objection is that they are demanding you provide some kind of scientifically acceptable proof for the proposal.

I don't blame you for not having the proof; I don't either, and frankly, it looks to me darn-near, if not impossible, to prove.

The objection is not to the actual proposal that a field exists which may have certain properties, but to the fact that you are asking the premise to be accepted on faith.

That moves it outside the realm of science.

Maybe such exists. Maybe Avtar has the equations. If so, give the skeptics some red meat. Give them some scientifically rigorous proof they can chomp on.

Einstein believed in God, and he believed God does not play dice. Great, good for him. But he still gave the scientific community lots of good scientifically constructed arguments and proofs to chew on for the rest of the century.

From what I have seen here, you guys are proposing a shift in perspective on a scale similar to the way Einstein rocked everyone’s boat.

But you haven't come through with the scientifically testable proofs yet.

And the scientific community is not going to respond to "take it on faith" because that's not how science is pursued, even if the scientist himself believes in God.

There are certain journals of science, and certain circles of theoretical physicists that would love to be able to analyze serious theorems demonstrating what you are asserting.

So why not give it to them?

Otherwise it remains in the realm of faith and eastern mysticism. Which is fine. Eastern mysticism has long accepted that existence is "play of consciousness".

But then, alas, you are still only preaching to the already-converted.

I think it's great you post on Huff- Po and other places that are outside the usual new-consciousness circles.

But you have to be able to see what their real objections are and deal with them. Straw-men and ad-hominem put-downs aren't going to do it.

I await the day when Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku analyzes your theorems and comes out saying there's a lot of good stuff there.

But you haven't given them the level of material they need in order to do that yet.

Dear Deepak,
Skeptics and non-skeptics alike, I would be very interested in what you think of this interview with Vernon Woolff and his approach:-

http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/vwoolf.htm

Why should we be fighting over the same bone-marrow?

Sincerely,
Ed.

The problem as I see it, is that objective proof is not available, in the same way that I am unable to show you the content of my thoughts or dreams. They happen entirely in the field of consciousness. The field of consciousness can only be accessed on a subjective level. All any Mystic ever tells you is "try it and see". But the skeptic or "scientific" approach, as outlined earlier by Hyp, has as its manifesto to take any assertion and determine to disprove it. To prove it wrong.

The problem that now arises is the ultimate paradox. The Cosmos is Intelligent and is always trying to cooperate (this is a simplification of Tao) within its own laws and limitations (cause & effect, conflicting demands etc) so that if you want to prove something, you can, and if you want to disprove it, you can.

That is why the Intelligence of Water can be both proved and disproved. The influence of the observer is all important.

If you have it, it is given you.
If you have it not, it is taken away.

Taomaster

1. The classification of an argument as belonging to one category or another in any given tautology of "kinds of arguments" is not, in and of itself, a refutation of the argument.
To refute an argument, one must actually address its content and speak to that.
The statement, for example, that "Godzilla is a monster" would qualify as an ad hominem. That doesn't mean its not true.
Classifying an argument can suggest an appraoch to trying to refute it, but it is frequently resorted to here as a method to dismiss something without actually having bothered to try and understand, or in some cases even read, the content.
2. Misrepresentation. I invite all readers to re-examine Deepak's post above and then to read comment #23. I trust most of you to be of sound enough mind to easily identify the numerous misrepresentations and false interpretations of his statements in that comment without any elaboration. There is no room for misrepresentation in an honest discussion.
3. Deepak, I think the "woo" thing is actually kinda cool...perhaps you could consider embracing it by inclusion in the title of some future publication.
4. I have found the really good idea I have been looking for to make stuff with and will probably be increasingly busy with that in the near future and, consequently, less active with the comments on this site.
It has been both an honor and a priveledge for me to have shared with ALL of the participants here this part of the journey, and I thank you all for your presence on this site.
In this life, the only thing we can have for sure is the journey thru it, and the only good thing one can do with life is to give the stuff of it away. If what I have offered here at any time in the past was offensive to anyone, I ask for your forgiveness and patience, for I am still a work in progress.
Shine On.
the woo-squid.

Dear Deepak

I thought your point "...To keep the common-sense world intact, these mysteries are dismissed as anomalies..." was the most important thing you said. It's always been the few scientists who faced, rather than ignored, anomalies, who did the work required to develop new theories and prove them.

Generally, I think those who put reason, proofs, and rules before everything else and view the rest with skepticism, are disillusioned and looking for reassurance, and much more at the mercy of their egos than they'd admit. It's not an accident that the sciences are highly competitive professional fields. The need for peer review is a case in point: If scientists were as highly-intelligent, clear-thinking, rigorously objective, truthful, and egoless as they think they are, there'd be no need for the auditing process that peer review really is.

love, Heath

Leaving aside your charade against the role of skeptics... your other points about the quantum reality and the enigma of time, space and cosmological origin, don’t make any sense at the common sense level or at the quantum mechanical level.

On the contrary to your depiction whatever progress we have in the fields of Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology is due to the deep rooted skepticism and the scientific method. As humans scientists and skeptics are fallible and have their own flaws in character but Quantum Mechanics and other branches of science are objective in the sense anyone can challenge the theories proposed by anyone. Quantum phenomena like entanglement (non-locality of space or spooky action at a distance) were observed in laboratories and explained efficiently by QM. While in cosmology observations are made through telescope and data are analyzed with the models.

Skeptics and Theoretical physicists are fully aware of the boundary between quantum reality and the everyday reality. We don’t see the moon in the sky here and also there in sky like particles at quantum level. Physicists are trying to find the answers… they try to figure out the deeper reality of space, time and cosmos with theory, observations, math, experiment and creativity. The remarkable insights from string theory and other unified theories are indicators of this progress.

The biggest fallacy you bring into your arguments is this:

You propose quantum reality in the commonsense human experiences. For example, in your proposal for the existence of mind-fields and experiences of the paranormal. At the same time you see common sense in the Quantum Mechanics (which is counter-intuitive) by stating that particles ‘talk’ as if particles are human. The quantum entanglement phenomenon doesn’t violate the special theory of relativity as you claim. That is a common misconception. What it does suggest is that by virtue of their past, objects that are in vastly different regions of universe can be part of a quantum mechanically entangled whole. Even though widely separated, such objects are committed to behaving in a random but coordinate manner. Two things can be separated by an enormous amount of space and yet not have a fully independent existence. A quantum connection can unite them making properties of each contingent on the properties of the other. Space doesn’t distinguish such entangled objects. Space cannot overcome their interconnectedness. Space, even a huge amount of space, doesn’t weaken their quantum mechanical interdependence.

Some people like you have interpreted it as Quantum Mysticism. Basically saying “everything is connected to everything else” or that “quantum mechanics entangle us in one universal whole”. After all the reasoning goes, our cosmological origin is from one place, we believe, all places we now think as different were the same place way back in the beginning. And since, like two photons emerging from a single atom are quantum entangled, as has been observed in the laboratory, everything emerging from the same something in the beginning, everything has to be quantum entangled with everything else.

While such sentiment is common sense and likeable, such gushy talk is loose an overstated. The quantum connections between two photons emerging from a single atom as observed in a laboratory are there, certainly, but they are extremely delicate. When Aspect and others carried out their experiments they did it in pristine laboratory environments where there is not interaction with the environment as the photons traveled over a distance before they are detected at two ends of laboratory. If it had a minute interaction with the environment, one collision with an air molecule, for all intent and purpose the original interaction between the two photons would have been erased.

To claim that the boundary is expanding between quantum reality and common sense world is wishful. The boundary is there and it doesn’t expand at your will. There is a consensus growing among the physicists regarding the explanation for a complete solution to ten single most conundrums in QM the quantum measurement problem; the act of observation compels a particle to take a certain characteristic from an infinite possible histories and potentialities. The explanation is “dechoherence”, the way the particles interact with the environment which could be anything, atoms, photons, electrons, or the equipment we use to observe. The implications are that the human awareness is not special. The moon will still out there even if you observe it or not. A tree can call in the forest even if there is no one to hear the sound. Wave functions collapse even if all humans die in a nuclear catastrophe or a comet collision.

Q-0ne

0-0 :|
woo
v

“No one could explain why the electrons whirling around the nucleus of an atom didn't eventually lose momentum and fall into the nucleus. Planet Earth is gradually losing momentum as it orbits around the sun, and if the sun doesn't expand to swallow us up first, our planet will fall into the sun given enough time. A physical law known as entropy guarantees this result. But electrons don't fall into the nucleus, no matter how much time elapses; they don't even nudge closer by a millionth of a degree.”

Entropy is not a ‘law’. The second law of thermodynamics states that physical systems tend to evolve towards states of higher entropy. The basis of the law is a simple statistical reasoning: there are more ways for a system to have higher entropy and more ways means it is more likely that a system evolves towards one of these high-entropy configurations. The second law is NOT a law in the conventional sense since, although such events are rare and unlikely, something can go from a state of high entropy to one of lower entropy. When you toss a jumbled stack of pages into air and gather them into a neat pile, they ‘can’ turn out to be in perfect numerical order. You don’t want to put your money on it but it is possible. We see eggs breaking but we don’t see broken eggs unsplatter. We see CO2 coming out but never see gas compressing back into a coke bottle as you open it.

With more certainty than death and taxes we can count on systems with many constituents evolving towards disorder. The second law seems to give us an arrow of time, one that emerges when psychical systems have a large number of constituents.
The key fact t to notice is that the second law is derivative: it is merely a consequence of probabilistic reasoning plied to Newton’s laws. This leads to an astounding point: Since Newton’s laws of physics have a u\built in temporal orientation, all of the reasoning we have use to argue that systems will evolve from lower to higher temporal order towards th future works equally well when applied to the past. Again, since the underlying laws of physics are time-reversal symmetric, there is no way fro them to even to distinguish between what we call the past and what we call the future. Just as there are no signposts in the deep darkness of empty space that declares this direction up this direction down, there is nothing in the laws of physics that say this direction is I time future and this direction is time past. The laws offer no temporal orientation; And since laws of motion are responsible for know things change – both toward what we call future and what we call past – the statistical/probabilistic reasoning behind second law of thermodynamics applies equally well in both temporal directions. Not only there is an overwhelming probability that the entropy of a physical system will be higher in what we call the future, but there is the same overwhelming probability that it was higher in what we call the past. This is deceptively subtle. The second law actually says that if at any given moment of interest, the physical system happens not to possess the maximum possible entropy, it is extraordinarily likely that the physical system will subsequently have and previously had more entropy.

With laws that are blind to past-versus future distinction, time symmetry is inevitable. If you think in concrete terms what this implies, it tells you that if on a warm day you see partially melted ice cubes in a glass of water, you have full confidence that half and hour later the cubes will be more melted, since more melted they are more entropy they have. But you should have exactly the same confidence that half an hour earlier they were also more melted, since exactly seam statistical reasoning implies that entropy should increase towards the past. The same conclusions apply to countless examples we observe every day.

The troubling thing is that half of these conclusions seem to be flat out wrong. Entropic reasoning yields accurate and sensible conclusions when applied to what we call future but give ridiculous conclusions when applied to what we call past. Eggs don’t generally start our splattered and then coalesce into a pristine whole egg, only to splatter some time latter.

Or do they?

Centuries of scientific investigation has shown that mathematics provides a powerful and incisive language for analyzing the universe. Indeed, history of modern science is replete with examples I which math made predictions that seemed counter to both intuition and experience but which experiments were ultimately able to confirm.

So, when a mathematical analysis of nature’s laws shows that entropy should be higher towards the future and past at any given moment, physicist don’t dismiss this out of hand. Instead, something akin to physicist’s Hippocratic oath impels researchers to maintain a deep and healthy skepticism of the apparent truth of human experience and, with the same skeptical attitude, diligently follow the math and see where it leads. Only then can we properly assess and interpret any remaining mismatch between physical law and common sense.

By suspending disbelief and diligently following the laws of physics and the mathematics of entropy – concepts which in combination tell us that it overwhelmingly likely that disorder will increase both words past and towards future in any given moment. This is sounds completely absurd because we can no longer trust our memories and records or our every day experiences. If you follow the story of a low-entropy fully formed egg right to its beginning you wild find some interesting insights.

As emphasize most forcefully by English mathematician and theoretical physicist Roger Penrose the chicken-and –egg story actually teaches us something deep and leads us somewhere definite. To make the long story short, our most refined cosmological theories tell us that the big bang started the universe off in a state of low entropy,(that’s were the low entropy stable atoms formed from electrons and quarks when the early universe cooled down to a precise degree.) and that state appears to be the source of the order(including life, humans and brains) we currently see. The splattering egg tells us something deep about the early universe. It tells us that big bang gave rise to an extraordinarily ordered cosmos. The highly ordered origin of universe is the explanation for the order we see. The highly ordered creations of machines, computers and gadgets are possible because the engineers who designed them are also highly ordered and their order can be traced back to the highly ordered origin of the universe. The time’s arrow ha sits origin in the low-entropy early universe and future is the direction of increasing entropy. This doesn’t tell us why our universe was highly ordered in the initial stages. There are cosmological theories which explain why this could be so.

The “Woos” love Carl Jung and his “woo woo” (A guest comment by Skeptisch)

Jung believed in astrology, spiritualism, telepathy, telekinesis (the ability to bend and move objects with ones mind) , clairvoyance and ESP. In addition to believing in a number of occult and paranormal notions, Jung contributed two new ones: synchronicity and the collective unconscious.

Collective unconscious? Like collectively unconscious?

Spiritualism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium.

“The mediums demonstrated every variety of psychic power from clairvoyance and clairaudience to telekinesis (the ability to bend and move objects with ones mind) and telepathy. Repeated charges of fraud did little to stop the spiritualist movement until the 1920's when magicians such as Houdini exposed the techniques and methods of deceit used by mediums to fool even the wisest and holiest of men and women.”

1920 is one year before Albert Einstein travelled to the United States for the first time. When asked where he got his scientific ideas, Einstein explained that he believed scientific work best proceeds from an examination of physical reality and a search for underlying axioms, with consistent explanations that apply in all instances and avoid contradicting each other.

-Skeptisch

And in 2007 that is still how scientists go about their business investigating the world that exists, including quantum mechanics

"Over the years it has shocked me how many renowned skeptics, up to and including the highly publicized Richard Dawkins, evince a complete lack of interest in science post Einstein." Deepak Chopra

Reason vs. Uncommon sense.( A guest comment by Skeptisch)

Over the years it has shocked Deepak Chopra how many renowned skeptics, up to and including the highly publicized Richard Dawkins (DC’s bigot), show a complete lack of interest in science post Einstein.

Well, here is some of that complete lack of interest shown by the scientific community in post-Einsteinian science.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

beyondbelief2006.org/watch/

One wonders why Chopra’s ability to bend spoons with his mind never came up in these conferences? Is that because it is post-Einsteinian?

Trying to reason with those who don’t want to be reasoned with, those who deny the very possibility of objective truth, those so-called relativists who see no reason to prefer scientific views over aboriginal myths about the world, is very hard.

Hypocrite, Seeker, Scott, Ron and others, you are guided by reason and are very much appreciated, at least by some.

Poet Ravi is very much appreciated also, he too at least by some. With his poems is always trying to be truthful to the truth. A long way from the pretenders who tell us about bending metal with ones mind, or see ghosts through keyholes, or appear to be telling us that Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan believed in a supernatural god.

One of the gurus says, ”Skeptics are people who demand that you believe them when they don't believe in anything.” Hypocrisy, intellectual bankruptcy, unfairness, ignorance etc. come to mind after that. We all know that scientists and skeptics believe in and investigate things that really exist, while the gurus muddle in the supernatural and pseudo worlds, believe in them and then have faith they exist and magically become the truth.

Now we are back to the delightful crackpot Rupert Sheldrake and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) labs. PEAR has been an embarrassment to Princeton alumni since day one and had to close their doors for misleading the public. Our watchdogs Scott and Hypocrite and others have reported this last year.

Why are so many looking for the “ultimate truth” here at IB, when, right in front of our eyes, we are inundated with so many untruths? The same crap has to be debunked time and again because the contributors do not have the courtesy to check for facts. They cannot admit that they were or are wrong, or more likely, just don’t care. It is publicity that counts!

Deepak Chopra about Dawkins and his book The God Delusion:

“Sadly, the media often follow his lead, erasing the truth, which is that many scientists are religious and many of the greatest scientists (including Newton and Einstein) probed deep into the existence of God.”

Here is the “real” truth. Albert Einstein said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

He also said:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what EXISTS, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Carl Sagan said:

“….if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

In the realm of God, religion, and the gurus’ new age stuff, faith is a virtue, never mind evidence! It is good to have blind faith. It is good not to be skeptical. It is good to be positive.

But, it is one thing to be positive, it is quite another to be positively delusional. Why do so many believe they can skip the scientific truth and instantly arrive at ultimate truth, whatever that may be? The scientific truth EXISTS but the jury is still out on that other thing. Why not give science and the scientific truth a chance, they are real, true and have an added bonus, they EXIST!

Start with evolution and astronomy and you may never have to chase the ultimate truth again.

Why? Because you may have found it!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M&mode=related&search=

Dear Deepak

It is the Skepticism of the physicists who questioned the common sense explanations of the observed data which paved the way to develope Quantum Mechanics, Cosmological theories of Origin and the concepts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy that you have suggested in your article.

Therefore your argument that skeptics are stuck in common sense explanations has no basis other than a desperate attempt to hit out at your detractors who debunk the evidence you provided for your claims about mind-fields.(Quantum Mechanics with all its weirdness is a physical theory which continues to predict the observations to a high degree of accuracy.)

Dear Deepak

In post #31 by 0-0/ Q-one makes an interesting observation about Skepticism, common sense and intuition, and how it helps the progress of science of QM and Cosmology.

"Centuries of scientific investigation has shown that mathematics provides a powerful and incisive language for analyzing the universe. Indeed, history of modern science is replete with examples I which math made predictions that seemed counter to both intuition and experience but which experiments were ultimately able to confirm.

So, when a mathematical analysis of nature’s laws shows that entropy should be higher towards the future and past at any given moment, physicist don’t dismiss this out of hand. Instead, something akin to physicist’s Hippocratic oath impels researchers to maintain a deep and healthy skepticism of the apparent truth of human experience and, with the same skeptical attitude, diligently follow the math and see where it leads. Only then can we properly assess and interpret any remaining mismatch between physical law and common sense."

It just goes back and forth. Two extremes. Two polar opposites reflecting eachother's dogmatism. A dualistic pattern locked in a dance of opposite forces.

For me there is little difference between the blind faith of religion and the blind faith of the type of scientific determinism I witness here whenever I pop in.

Richard Thomas:

"None of this stuff is required to enjoy hot apple pie and ice cream..."

That was my favourite post on this page. LOL!!

"For me there is little difference between the blind faith of religion and the blind faith of the type of scientific determinism I witness here whenever I pop in."

Scientific determinism?

That is a straw-man. Einstein envisioned such determinism. The Bohr - EPR debates were a case in point. What you witness here is due to the lack of critical thinking and an inability to understand the criticism by Q-One and others, and the basic understanding of Scientific Determinism and Quantum Mechanics.

From Answers.com

Scientific Determinism:

Physicists have sometimes used the term "determinism" in a special way that people such as Karl Popper and Stephen Hawking have called Scientific Determinism.

Popper insisted that the term "scientific" can only be applied to statements that are falsifiable. Popper's book The Open Universe: An Argument For Indeterminism defines scientific determinism as the claim that ...any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past events, together with all the laws of nature, a notion that Popper asserted was both falsifiable and adequately falsified by modern scientific knowledge.

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking claims that predictability is required for "scientific determinism" (start of chapter 4). He defines "scientific determinism" as meaning: "something that will happen in the future can be predicted."

Since many limitations on predictability are now known (for a partial list see: quantum indeterminacy), most people who argue for determinism do not argue in favor of a strong version of scientific determinism. For example, a weaker type of determinism is one that only implies a unique, mechanical course for the universe with future events being caused by past events.

Hawking admits that even the uncertainty principle does not absolutely rule-out a kind of determinism "in principle", and says that quantum mechanics may very well allow the universe to be deterministic. He wrote:

"These quantum theories are deterministic in the sense that they give laws for the evolution of the wave with time. Thus if one knows the wave at one time, one can calculate it at any other time. The unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe this is our mistake: maybe there are no positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability." (conclusions section of A Brief History Of Time)

One thing many woos are fond of calling us is 'pseudoskeptic' in an effort to make us look like denialists, rather than people who seek out evidence. Interestingly enough, this tends to come up when the skeptics are doing exactly what skeptics should do: Ask for evidence, point out fallacies, and gripe about gaping holes in experimental protocols.

One factor that probably contributes a great deal to this is that a woo doesn't know what a skeptic is. That's likely one reason why so many of them can attempt to fashion themselves as being skeptics. The proper way to deal with the whole thing is to ask for evidence (or presenting when asked), point out fallacies, and gripe about gaping holes in experimental protocols: In other words, doing exactly what skeptics should do.

If you're doing a double take, yes, that line was repeated. Logic works the same way, regardless of whether you're debating a woo, a skeptic, or a reverse-woo. Name-calling doesn't work (though it can supposedly be therapeutic), but pointing out logical fallacies and such is always a legitimate strategy.

The Bronze blog
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/

Dear Hyp, thank you for taking the time to acknowledge that I am not that tree that fell in the woods. I was beginning to wonder.

There are many defenitions of determinism far too verbose to cut and paste here. Thank you for adding Mr Hawking's to the collection I am too foolish to understand.

Namaste'

"In a series of recent posts I've been offering evidence of the possibility that the mind exists outside the brain..... "

The Modus Tollens Exception

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

You've probably heard this line many times before, and you've probably heard it abused almost all of those times. It's a particular favorite of people who want to leave open the possibility of their pet supernatural (or just unconventional) belief which has absolutely no evidence supporting it. However, there are a few problems with this line of reasoning.

This statement contains within it a common linguistic assumption which has indirectly led to many logical errors and misconceptions. The statement can more clearly and accurately be stated as "Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence." This should be contrasted with the meaning of "Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence." The dropping of "necessarily" from the initial (true) statement changes both its denotational and connotational meaning, but it's something that happens in casual speach, especially when dropping it leaves a line that's much catchier.

The reason it's crucial to leave in "necessarily" is that the statement has a big exception to it. This exception is for when you've actually looked for evidence - something that's actually happened in most cases where this mantra is being used to defend someone's belief, thus making their use of it fallacious. When you've appropriately looked for evidence for a claim and didn't find any, you can put this into the Modus Tollens argument form (slightly modified) to use this as evidence that the claim is false.

The basic form of Modus Tollens is:

If A, then C.
Not C.
Therefore, not A.

In this case, we modify it to turn A into a union of A and B, getting the form:

If A and B, then C.
B and not C.
Therefore, not both A and B.
Therefore, not A.

In this case, we're using A as some claim, B as a means of investigating that claim, and C as possible evidence that could be found to support that claim.

Let's go through an example to illustrate how this works, such as the claim that there's a full-size rhinoceros in the room. Now, we'll normally have no evidence that there is a rhinoceros in the room, and it's actually quite simple to extend this into evidence that there is no rhinoceros in the room:

If there is a full-size rhinoceros in the room (A) and I look around the room in every area large enough to hold a rhinoceros (B), then I will see a rhinoceros in one of these areas (C).

I looked around the room in every area large enough to hold a rhinoceros (B), and I did not see a rhinoceros in any of them (not C).

Therefore, either I did not look thoroughly enough, or there is no rhinoceros in the room (not both A and B).

However, since I did look thoroughly enough (B), there is no rhinoceros in the room (not A).

This principle is quite powerful, and it in fact lies beneath one of the fundamental properties of science: Falsification. Putting arguments into this form is exactly what allows us to test and possibly falsify them. If we assume that absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense, then we've thrown the possibility of falsifying almost anything right out the window.

http://infophilia.blogspot.com/