HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE...would like your opinion!

[Sonja Smedley]

Ehm well, no matter what content they have...so you live your dreams like they were reality in these moments or not?

You wake up when the best moments are to come and then you realize it was only a dream.

What If life here on earth is the same?

One day we wake up ....and then?

 

 

[Ted McGregor]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i'm more than interested enough to check out the theory..but not by watching that mans video..

as i said..he lost my trust pretty fast..i've learned that if i can't trust them right away or feel leery that i need to look elsewhere for the information..

---

Have a look here. I hope you find it interesting as a start, although it is very dry matter, but it is without reference to Stephen Davis or other proponents of spirituality.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Ehm well, no matter what content they have...so you live your dreams like they were reality in these moments or not?

You wake up when the best moments are to come and then you realize it was only a dream.

What If life here on earth is the same?

One day we wake up ....and then?

 

 

---

wouldn't something like that have to be taught?

babies  as soon as they open their eyes are checking stuff out..

 

and yes you can be aware of being in a dream..

it's a way i learned to be able to control nightmares i used to have..it's kind of strange how it happens..but you have to realize it enough  to where you  can control the outcome in them..without waking up..

like if you are running from someone..realise you are and stop and become in control..

had one dream where i was cornered in the barn in a stable and kicked the man through the oak wall into the next stable..then he ran off  then i was at home in my house the next moment lol

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i'm more than interested enough to check out the theory..but not by watching that mans video..

as i said..he lost my trust pretty fast..i've learned that if i can't trust them right away or feel leery that i need to look elsewhere for the information..

---

Have a look

here

. I hope you find it interesting as a start, although it is very dry matter, but it is without reference to Stephen Davis or other proponents of spirituality.

---

oh i'll be into it..this is the stuff i love.. thank you for the link =)

you wanna see some real cool stuff check out fractals in nature..that eats up the clock for me when i'm in the mountains riding.. hehehehe

[Sonja Smedley]

Yes I know this is called lucid dreaming...

It is very interesting.

But the fact is still that we feel real matter in dreams and fear and all this stuff.

So this is my question.

Why do we feel a dream like reality?

 

[Charly Muggins]

Those who have the time and the inclination to investigate similar cosmic theories might wish to look at this site.

David Icke is a former professional footballer, so you might think that he's fairly down to earth.

But he was a goalkeeper.

And it is well known that all goalies are mad.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Ehm well, no matter what content they have...so you live your dreams like they were reality in these moments or not?

You wake up when the best moments are to come and then you realize it was only a dream.

What If life here on earth is the same?

One day we wake up ....and then? 

---

What if, yes

For some time I've considered dreams to be every bit as real for us as when we are awake. Dreams take place in the brain, and they feel perfectly real while they are happening. The awake state also takes place in the brain, and also feels just as real. Of course, in the dream state, being attacked by Death isn't terminal, so there a subtle differences 

Note: In a dream, not many years ago, I saw Death it the bottom of staircase. So I attacked it! The next thing I knew I was on my back on the stairs and his cold clammy handle were around my throat. Then I woke up/ From that experience I can confidently state that, contrary to popular belief, Death does not carry a scythe around

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

Those who have the time and the inclination to investigate similar cosmic theories might wish to

look at this site

.

David Icke is a former professional footballer, so you might think that he's fairly down to earth.

But he was a goalkeeper.

And it is well known that all goalies are mad.

---

David Icke is a bone-fide fruitcake. He was a TV sports presenter until he flipped.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Yes I know this is called lucid dreaming...

It is very interesting.

But the fact is still that we feel real matter in dreams and fear and all this stuff.

So this is my question.

Why do we feel a dream like reality?

 

---

well the difference is that  i could not kick a man through an oak wall and more than likely not be i control of the situation..

and we only sometimes dream like reality.. it's pretty inconsistant..and anything can be manipulated in a dream..

where else can you have a wooden chair melt  like plastic just by thinking about it?

i can't even move a pencil with my mind when i'm awake..

trust me i've tried lol

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

Those who have the time and the inclination to investigate similar cosmic theories might wish to

look at this site

.

David Icke is a former professional footballer, so you might think that he's fairly down to earth.

But he was a goalkeeper.

And it is well known that all goalies are mad.

---

David Icke is a bone-fide fruitcake. He was a TV sports presenter until he flipped.

---

ya that was just some E-peen  attempt  at making fun of people is all..

nothing i'm paying attention to anymore..

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Davvek wrote:

Awesome comments people!!!...I found the series very decent.  Nice to see intellectual content still alive and well.  It's the kinda topic you want to read & research.  Well done Sonja!!!!

---

There's nothing intellectual about this thread, nor is the topic anything worth "researching".  Well, unless one wants to research how the videos are propagating pseudoscience. This is about theoretical physics.

 

 

 

---

I think there's  too much being too rapidly overconcluded here :  the holographic universe - theory is perhaps getting confused with words like 'holistic' .

This is NOT some New Age - propaganda. This is NOT about intelligent design. This is NOT Scientology rewrapped.

It IS about our current perception of real physics and many will have a hard time figuring this out at all.

We are talking about a theory and people here who correctly refuted

Hawking's conclusion about black holes and the preservation of information !

Even Dr. Hawking himself confirmed it. It's a colission of scientific principles which could be as important as quantum physics itself.

 

It's a scientific discussion indeed

,eventhough only theoretical, with more scientific basis and credibility than any statements here in this thread made by anyone ( myself included).

Featuring

 

John Hockenberry

Journalist

  Gerard ’t Hooft

Nobel Laureate, Theoretical Physicist

Leonard Susskind

Theoretical Physicist, Author

Herman Verlinde

Theoretical & String Physicist

Raphael Bousso

Physicist

 

 

Bluntly categorizing this as pseudo-science is just, well,  ... plain ignorant or stupid. Or both ... :robotindifferent:

 

To the OP : You are being , perhaps deliberately, misunderstood. I'm cutting you some slack : I find you raised a good topic . Too bad apparantly many here are just not up to it or confuse you with Lucinda\Boudicca\Leon. :robotfrustrated:

 

 

---

I've not read everybody's response to Sonya, but I've probably been one of the most vocal and elaborate of the dissenters. I have not categorized the Holographic Projection (HP) as pseudoscience (well, I hope not. It's just not germane to the larger ideas proffered by Davis). I have said that the leaps of logic from there to an anthropocentric interpretation are unsupported by evidence. If you listen to the lecture you've linked, you'll see my understanding of HP was flawed, but within the ballpark. The essense of HP is that it produces a world in which information is not lost. When I first heard of HP (on the radio), this was explained as the information that describes the matter that "vanishes" into a black hole as being retained at the event horizon in the strings there. What I may have erroneously recalled there is that this was just a special condition of our ability to detect only four of String Theory's 10-11 dimensions. From what I've read of String Theory, the seven extra dimensions it inhabits are curled into a space of "Planck Size", which puts them beyond our ability to detect (hence making the theory untestable).

What I either misunderstood, or was missing from the explanation I recall, is that the event horizon is a 2D thing which captures all the information of the 3D world that vanished beyone the event horizon. I've yet to read why the event horizon is 2D, but I maybe I can work it from first principles by noting that everything eventually spins. Clouds of gas coalesce into planet and stars, and because of their distribution in space and the laws of gravitation and conservation of energy/momentum, virtually every coalesced system ends up spinning. Around a black hole, which collapses to a "singularity", there is only one spinning shape that works... a circle. There's your 2D surface, which is the last thing you "see" before vanishing into the black hole. That's the "event horizon" we see depicted in movies.

HP says that the information describing the state of the stuff lost into the black hole is contained in the event horizon and, from what I've read elsewhere, it's thought that the Hawking radiation that emits from the event horizon might contain some indication of that information. The EOS600 experiment didn't detect that. That does not mean it doesn't exist.

I don't take issue with that interpretation of HP. It's certainly well above my pay grade, but HP lives only within the realm of Quantum Mechanics (or as they state in the video you linked, perhaps "pre" QM). In this regard, although it may be damned exciting to the QM community, I don't know if it has meaning in the macro world that's any more intriguing than String or Multiverse theory. It's just another strangeness underneath the already bizarre world of QM (or maybe it'll be less strange than QM, as mentioned in the video.)

To explain the problem I have with Davis, go to about the 80 minute mark in your video and listen carefully to the QM scenario proffered by Herman Verlinde, in which two experiments involving the collisions of particles possessing identical states in both experiments can produce two different results. Verlinde asks Hooft if his pre-QM theory will accept the validity of that. Hooft says "yes, within the confines of QM".

And this is a crucial thing to understand. Verlinde's description of two identical experiments producing two different results is a QM level phenomena which pop culture has metamorphosed into ideas like good/evil Captain Kirk and the like. You simply can't make that leap and Hooft recognizes that by limiting his acceptance of the two identical experiments/two different results idea to the QM realm. You'd never get Hooft to allow expansion of the scope to include epigenetics, as Davis does.

What Davis does is, I think, pseudoscience. He takes two concepts that operate on very different levels (QM and epigenetics and perhaps other ideas in parts of the video I didn't watch) and makes the perceptual/logical error of putting them in the same scope. How is this different than thinking that two lines of equal length when they are not, a perceptual error used to convince us that we can't believe what we see, but should believe what Davis says? Davis video is not about HP, it's not about epigenetics, its (from what I've seen) a mashup of uncorrelated ideas into a recipe for anthropocentic enlightenment. I think Davis is as much a victim of his own errors in perception as anyone.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

It's a scientific discussion indeed

 

---

Uh, you seriously do not understand the difference between people sitting around and shooting the **bleep** (discussing) and doing actual science?!  (tries to restrain laughter) 

So, I guess if they were all sitting around at a panel discussion talking about the physics of Superman, that would make that not pretend?   (again..with the laughter)

Or, if they were sitting around discussing how many faeries could dance on the head of a pin, that would make fairies not fantasy?  (ok...outright laughter now....)

Well, at least the ignorance in this thread is consistent and predicable.     (Too bad this has long since ceased to be entertaining, now it's just sad.  Which is why I rarely post on the forums anymore)

[Sonja Smedley]

Why are you so negative?

Why you do not allow people to have their own opinion about things no one can really prove here in this world?

Instead of pushing people down with your sarcastic statements you should be happy that you are in a line with your

point of view.

Everything else should not be important for you.

I accept the way you see the things why you are not able to do the same?

This is a thing I will never understand with people.

You can call me crazy...good and?

This does not change my mind in any way.

I can live with that.It does not bother me at all...why should it?

And who has the right to judge here, when someone is ignorant? You??

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

And who has the right to judge here, when someone is ignorant? You??

---

Don't we all?

...Dres

[Ted McGregor]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

What Davis does is, I think, pseudoscience. He takes two concepts that operate on very different levels (QM and epigenetics and perhaps other ideas in parts of the video I didn't watch) and makes the perceptual/logical error of putting them in the same scope. How is this different than thinking that two lines of equal length when they are not, a perceptual error used to convince us that we can't believe what we see, but should believe what Davis says? Davis video is not about HP, it's not about epigenetics, its (from what I've seen) a mashup of uncorrelated ideas into a recipe for anthropocentic enlightenment. I think Davis is as much a victim of his own errors in perception as anyone.

---

We agree on Davis misinterpretation of HP.  I watched the first video and did notice that Davis' reference to HP is probably a setup to anthropological, spiritual or 'new agey kind of'-connections that simply aren't my kind of bag. I distantiate from anything Davis' has to say on this matter and I already said so to Nyll Bergbahn in her reply to me.

Nevertheless the thread' topic was inviting enough to me to google on HP and what it said about it by theoretical physicists. And what is said about it, at the World Science Festival, is not just some bogus made up by quacks. I found it very interesting to read about it and view the video of the Festival, which was already presented earlier by Leehere Absent ( sorry .. missed that completely ). To write THAT off as pseudoscience is untrue. It IS about science, one can differ on the matter, but it has nothing to do with Davis or his views on life.

Eventhough I would have prefered the OP hadn't mentioned Davis at all and just stuck to the possibility of a holographic universe, I cannot blame her for anything but an open mind to opinion. I cannot say that of some of those barging in here and immediately shooting at anything the OP said and therefore claiming anything said by anybody in that video is total nonsense.

Although Davis took a lot out of context , the context is still there , imo.

 

[Ted McGregor]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Blah ... (tries to restrain laughter) 

Blah ... (again..with the laughter)

Blah ... (ok...outright laughter now....)

---

Your hysteria has been noted. :robotindifferent:

 

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

 (Too bad this has long since ceased to be entertaining, now it's just sad.  Which is why I rarely post on the forums anymore)

---

Shame (surpressed smile).

 

 

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

What Davis does is, I think, pseudoscience. He takes two concepts that operate on very different levels (QM and epigenetics and perhaps other ideas in parts of the video I didn't watch) and makes the perceptual/logical error of putting them in the same scope. How is this different than thinking that two lines of equal length when they are not, a perceptual error used to convince us that we can't believe what we see, but should believe what Davis says? Davis video is not about HP, it's not about epigenetics, its (from what I've seen) a mashup of uncorrelated ideas into a recipe for anthropocentic enlightenment. I think Davis is as much a victim of his own errors in perception as anyone.

---

We agree on Davis misinterpretation of HP.  I watched the first video and did notice that Davis' reference to HP is probably a setup to anthropological, spiritual or 'new agey kind of'-connections that simply aren't my kind of bag. I distantiate from anything Davis' has to say on this matter and I already said so to Nyll Bergbahn in her reply to me.

Nevertheless the thread' topic was inviting enough to me to google on HP and what it said about it by theoretical physicists. And what is said about it, at the World Science Festival, is not just some bogus made up by quacks. I found it very interesting to read about it and view the video of the Festival, which was already

presented earlier by Leehere Absent

( sorry .. missed that completely ). To write THAT off as pseudoscience is untrue. It IS about science, one can differ on the matter, but it has nothing to do with Davis or his views on life.

Eventhough I would have prefered the OP hadn't mentioned Davis at all and just stuck to the possibility of a holographic universe, I cannot blame her for anything but an open mind to opinion. I cannot say that of some of those barging in here and immediately shooting at anything the OP said and therefore claiming anything said by anybody in that video is total nonsense.

Although Davis took a lot out of context , the context is still there , imo.

 

---

Leonard Susskind's "The Black Hole War" is on my reading list. I encountered Susskind in a TED talk about Feynman and became intrigued when I discovered he had done "battle with Stephen Hawking". I love to watch great minds come at each other from different directions, with the goal of figuring something out.

I'm also intrigued by Susskind's debate with Lee Smolin about the "Anthropic Principle", which Susskind defends, even though, like String Theory (so far) it can't yield any falsifiable predictions. Since science can't prove anything right, it can only prove things wrong (you'll hear Feynman say that in the video I linked), scientists get understandably huffy when they see theories that make predictions which can't be proved wrong.

I must say I find the Anthropic Principle alluring, but maybe that's just me looking for an easy answer that's not a god, or a safe corner in which I can't be proved wrong!

;-)

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Why are you so negative?

Why you do not allow people to have their own opinion about

things no one can really prove here in this world

?

Instead of pushing people down with your sarcastic statements you should be happy that you are in a line with your

point of view.

Everything else should not be important for you.

I accept the way you see the things why you are not able to do the same?

This is a thing I will never understand with people.

You can call me crazy...good and?

This does not change my mind in any way.

I can live with that.It does not bother me at all...why should it?

And who has the right to judge here, when someone is ignorant? You??

 

 

 

---

Sonja (I apologize for spelling your name wrong in other posts), it is not possible to prove a theory right, but it is possible to prove a theory wrong. That's how science works. People may choose to ignore proof that conflicts with their beliefs, we've been doing that forever. Nature doesn't care, she'll go on being what she is.

And I'm not terribly concerned about the belief systems other people hold, so long as they don't interfere with my rights and welfare, nor the rights and welfare of others, and in limited circumstances, their own welfare.

The power of positive thinking, even if it's not based in fact, is acknowledged to a degree by the scientific community. I wouldn't deny anyone the benefits of that simply because they believed differently than I do.

While I am able to accept that you see things differently than I do, you cannot expect me to accept things the way you see them. We simply agree to disagree.

We all judge. We judge all the time, often incorrectly. That ability, flawed as it is (you saw just how flawed in Davis' video), works well enough for, and is crucial to, our survival. We're also all ignorant of something. So, the questions are... what do we do with the judgments we make? How do we improve their accuracy? How important is it to reduce our ignorance? How do we do that?

--||-

[Sonja Smedley]

Ok, you said: "it is not possible to prove a theory right, but it is possible to prove a theory wrong"

Then lets take for example the question...is the world build by god or is the evolution theory true?

 

How can people prove that the evolution theory is wrong?I guess there are many scientists who can prove that it is wrong yes, but who can prove that god does not exist?.....no one can

And this comes from a person who does not believe in god...I have no religious confession and I do not know the bible.

But I CANNOT prove that this theory is wrong. Can you?

 

And about ignorance.

Yes it seems we are all ignorance...but I do not force you to see the things the way I do.

Where did I say that?

I started the thread to hear opinions actually from people who are interested in these kind of things.

And I never wanted to convert people to this belief I have.

It changed the view for me...and this was not only cause of this workshop...I was always interested in

such things and I always had the feeling there must be more behind this all.

And it influenced me in a positive way...so no one will thereby suffer harm.

 

[Kenbro Utu]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

How do I do that when I'm dreaming? If I'm aware enough to attempt it, I'm already partly awake, and that'll be the end of it. It's no good. I just can't have those nice dreams that other people seem to have 

Also, I can never go back to sleep and continue a dream where it left off. I'm cursed

---

Lucid dreaming.  You can train yourself to pick up on pre-arranged cues inside of a dream to actually cause your consciousness to "awaken" and realize you are in a dream and exercise varying amounts of free will.  I actually had this naturally happen to me as a child.  As an adult I have to work at it.  

[Ted McGregor]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm also intrigued by Susskind's debate with Lee Smolin about the "

Anthropic Principle

", which Susskind defends, even though, like String Theory (so far) it can't yield any falsifiable predictions. Since science can't prove anything right, it can only prove things wrong (you'll hear Feynman say that in the video I linked), scientists get understandably huffy when they see theories that make predictions which can't be proved wrong.

---

---

I foremost appreciate Susskind, because he's modest about his background yet contributes in an astounding clear manner to science which reminds me of, let's say, a Carl Sagan or Michio Kaku. I love listening to these guys.

Even if they're mistaken or I am for misinterpreting them.

 

I'll check out the debate. Thanks for mentioning it.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

.... a safe corner in which I can't be proved wrong!

;-)

---

 

... but I bet you look mighty cute there in the blue corner .... :robotlol:

 

Ding Ding !!! ( or better : May I have a dance ? )  :robotwink:

[Kenbro Utu]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Ehm well, no matter what content they have...so you live your dreams like they were reality in these moments or not?

You wake up when the best moments are to come and then you realize it was only a dream.

What If life here on earth is the same?

One day we wake up ....and then?

 

 

---

 

and yes you can be aware of being in a dream..

it's a way i learned to be able to control nightmares i used to have..it's kind of strange how it happens..but you have to realize it enough  to where you  can control the outcome in them..without waking up..

like if you are running from someone..realise you are and stop and become in control..

had one dream where i was cornered in the barn in a stable and kicked the man through the oak wall into the next stable..then he ran off  then i was at home in my house the next moment lol

 

---

I have practiced lucid dreaming as an adult, but the first time it happened to me was when I was a child, and it just naturally occurred.  I had recurrent dreams of being chased, caught, beaten, etc.  I became lucid in just such a dream once.  As I realized it was a dream, I mused that I could take control.  I stopped, turned on a group of chasers, and began picking them up over my head and throwing them around.  I have never been chased or been on the losing end of a fight in a dream again in 40 plus years.  I just took it as a something natural, but years later as an adult I heard of the practice of lucid dreaming and found I could trigger them fairly easy.  In my dreams I am a super being!  

 

@ Sonja:  No, I can easily distinguish between reality and dreams.  If I were to find out that this life is just a dream, and all the tears, fears, joys and struggles were an illusion, then "happy " is not an emotion I would imagine feeling...

[Phil Deakins]

Sonja. You haven't understood what Maddy meant by never being able to prove scientific theories, and only ever being able to prove them wrong. If they were provable they'd stop being called theories once they'd been proved, but they don't stop being called theories. The best that can be done is gather observations that support a theory, but at any moment, a piece of evidence can be discovered that actually proves the theory to be wrong. That's what's meant by never being able to prove a theory to be correct. At any moment something can be found that proves it to be wrong, so it can only ever remain a theory. It's commonly understood and nobody in the scientific community disagrees with it.

To the best of my knowledge, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, so they can both be true.

Maddy isn't saying that theories can be proved to be wrong. She's saying that they cannot be proved to be right - they can only be proved to be wrong but only if evidence is found that proves them to be wrong. The absence of such found evidence does not mean that a theory is proved to be right. It only means that it hasn't (yet) been proved to be wrong. As far as theories and proof are concerned, proving to be right isn't on the table, but proving to be wrong is.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Ok, you said: "

it is not possible to prove a theory right, but it is possible to prove a theory wrong

"

Then lets take for example the question...is the world build by god or is the evolution theory true?

 

How can people prove that the evolution theory is wrong?I guess there are many scientists who can prove that it is wrong yes, but who can prove that god does not exist?.....no one can

And this comes from a person who does not believe in god...I have no religious confession and I do not know the bible.

But I CANNOT prove that this theory is wrong. Can you?

 

And about ignorance.

Yes it seems we are all ignorance...but I do not force you to see the things the way I do.

Where did I say that?

I started the thread to hear opinions actually from people who are interested in these kind of things.

And I never wanted to convert people to this belief I have.

It changed the view for me...and this was not only cause of this workshop...I was always interested in

such things and I always had the feeling there must be more behind this all.

And it influenced me in a positive way...so

no one will

thereby

suffer

harm.

 

---

I wasn't saying you are trying to force me to see anything in a certain way. I was (clumsily) differentiating between accepting that different beliefs exist vs. accepting different beliefs. I do not accept Stephen Davis' beliefs, as I think there's evidence to refute him and he's not used sound logic to craft his argument.

You can't prove a negative, so yes, there's no point in attempting to prove there is no god. Science doesn't try. Science doesn't care. But that is much different than theorizing that Evolution is responsible for the myriad forms of life on Earth. That could be proved wrong if evidence appears to contradict the theory. That hasn't happened yet, and I don't expect it will.

But let's imagine we discovered, under the deepest sea floor, an area the size of Australia two kilometers thick, of sedimentary rock in which were embedded a bizarre array of fossilized creatures, with the deepest (oldest) layers containing the most complex creatures, and each succeeding (younger) layer containing less complex creatures. Let's imagine there are creatures in every layer of sediment, no gaps, and that from layer to layer, the DNA is wildly different, the creatures are unrelated to those in other layers. That would be a huge body of evidence entirely at odds with our current fossil record, and would probably topple Evolution... and geology... and archaeology... and...

Regardless of how much evidence we discover in support of the evolutionary theory, we can never declare certain victory. There is always the chance, however microscopic, that something as contrary as that huge chunk of seafloor will someday pop up to crush the theory or at least dent it badly. Science isn't losing sleep over that worry, but scientists do at some level make their peace with the idea that some day they might wake up to discover that everything (or at least a significant part of what) they know is wrong. Scientific theories get toppled or modified all the time. Newton's theory of gravitation lasted some time before being toppled by Einstein. We still use it for those applications where it's accurate enough, but we now know it's not the whole truth. The orbit of Mercury proved it wrong. Don't argue with Mercury.

I share the belief that there is more out there than we perceive. I've proven this to myself during a career in engineering during which I had the great pleasure to measure physical effects well beyond my senses. But nothing in my own experience, nor in my years of reading of the discoveries of others, has led me to believe that I have any special place in all of this, any purpose, nor any connectedness to something greater via some quantum back channel.

But, I'm still having a heck of a time!

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Why are you so negative?

 

---

I'm not negative.  Pointing out reality isn't negative! 

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

 

Why you do not allow people to have their own opinion about things no one can really prove here in this world?

---

 

How is me disagreeing not allowing you to have your opinion?  Your comment makes no sense.

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

 

Instead of pushing people down with your sarcastic statements you should be happy that you are in a line with your

point of view.

---

Pointing out ignorance isn't pushing people down.  It's the key to bringing people out of the dark shadow into the light of knowledge.  I would be doing my fellow man a disservice to not point out their ignorance.

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

 

Everything else should not be important for you.

---

Not so.  Whenever there is pseudoscience, ignorance and superstition it's incumbent upon those who are aware to speak out against it.  This is what keeps humanity from slipping back into the dark ages.

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

 

I accept the way you see the things why you are not able to do the same?

---

Really?  You accept that the videos are complete bunk then?  (You said you accept the way I see thing ; )    Also, see my comment above to understand why I don't accept the way you see things.

 

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

 

This is a thing I will never understand with people.

---

Keep trying!  It's possible you may one day understand! 

 

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

You can call me crazy...good and?

---

I didn't call you crazy. 

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

 

This does not change my mind in any way.

---

Oh, my efforts here aren't for you Sonja, but for those who may be reading that have a grasp of logic and science, but just need some clarification.  

But, I am curious, as to why you're not happy with other people voicing their opinions here. I thought you were accepting of the opinions of others?  You do contradict yourself. 

 

---

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

I can live with that.It does not bother me at all...why should it?

 

---

I agree, why should it?  ; )

 

 

 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

And who has the right to judge here, when someone is ignorant? You??

---

Everyone has the right to judge here.  Yes, me.  : )      

 

 

(You too, as you have just done so in your comments)