The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Deepak, Deepak, Deepak....

Once again, Chopra steps in it over at the odious HuffPo (no, I will not link to them because their ludicrous anti-vaccine writings are helping to kill kids). He has opined about the nature of creation and uses the word "quantum" seven thousand times. Allow me to go through his piece and insert my words as needed:
The modern world is willing to throw out any number of beliefs about God if the facts don't fit. Science isn't willing to throw out a single piece of data, however, to satisfy an article of faith.
Well, sir, "science" doesn't throw out data without cause and "faith" is defined, at least in part, as: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust. Scientists require proof, evidence, data, in order for an established idea or theory to be overturned or discarded. Faith, by definition, isn't going to provide what scientists require to "throw out" data. I would think someone who was a medical doctor and talks about what he refers to as "quantum mechanics" would know that.

Or, maybe he's using "quantum" as a metaphor...
I love that he uses the, "Science has become so arrogant in its premise that it has all the answers in the mechanistic approach...." horsepucky. As Dara O'Briain would refute, "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop."
Hawking's statement that a Creator is unnecessary is nothing less than a metaphysical statement.
Really? It was my understanding that Dr. Hawking was speaking about the theoretical physics that show that there had to be a universe from "nothing" because of the understanding of actual quantum mechanics which anyone can watch in this lecture by Dr. Lawerence Krauss. Fairly layman-friendly and highly recommended if you haven't seen it already and have an hour to learn some cool stuff.
They (scientists) want a unified model based on mathematical certainty, not a shrug of the shoulders. They already know that time and space emerged from the quantum void, but this nothingness has to be explained.
Scientists don't "want" anything but to understand. Science is all about trying to learn about the world around us by looking at evidence, making testable predictions, and subjecting findings to their peers (among other things). Some scientists are seeking a "
Theory of Everything", but it will come - if it does - from data, experiment, etc...not from vague notions of "nothingness", "proto-consciousness", or "quantum levels".
Religionists are trying to rethink God in light of quantum mechanics; scientists are looking to spiritual traditions for glimpses into the realm that transcends the five senses.
Religionists are trying to put their misunderstanding of physics into the realm of science where they, like Chopra, look silly to anyone who actually has a grasp on the facts. Both Sam Harris and Leonard Mlodinow did this on the ABC debate (see clip below).
A new creation story is trying to be are the new founding principles that currently vie for acceptance: (number two) The universe may contain more than information. It could be imbued with proto-consciousness. That is, the raw ingredients of mind may be inherent in Nature at the quantum level.
Really? This is an explanation trying to "vie for acceptance"? Who is advancing this idea?
(number six) The observer is also a participant in creation. The universe we look upon is a perfect home for human beings because our minds are entangled with the laws and processes that create mind. To explain how the universe came about, you first must explain what the mind is. The two cannot be separated. There is no reality "out there" independent of the observer.
Let's start with, "The a perfect home for human beings...". Watch the first three minutes or so of this video (or all of it, if you want to):

Yeah, so, not exactly a "perfect home". Now, can we talk for a second about the idea that there's no, "reality 'out there' independent from the observer"? Is Chopra really saying that the moon isn't there when I'm not looking at it? That's certainly what it sounds like. If I'm the observer and I'm not observing, say, the garden in my front yard, is it still there objectively/in reality? Does my paper just magically show up when I open the door or does the paper girl (is she even "real"?) bring it? He's a crazy person spouting pseudo-spiritual nonsense with enough knowledge of horse-shit that he can argue with science-based people and talk around them. The ABC debate is a prime example of this where Sam Harris, primarily, tries to pin him down to a point and he just blathers on and on about subjectivity and the brain. It's painful. is evident that quantum physics has probably reached its theoretical limit, even though not every physicist -- or most physicists -- realize it.
It's "evident", is it? And Chopra knows this from his vast understanding of the subject - or at least his understanding of the metaphorical area he refers to as "quantum mechanics", which has nothing to do with the actual science. I love how Chopra just decrees that a subject he has limited knowledge of is at its limit. That would be like me, the massage therapist with the English degree, saying that it is obvious that cell biology is at its limit. Who the hell would take me seriously?
The limit to any system occurs when its accepted foundation comes into question. In this case, advanced thinkers are asking questions that were unheard of in the past: What is mathematics? What is gravity? What is a natural law?
Yeah. No one ever asked those questions before. I mean, "What is gravity"? That's deep, man. I'm fairly certain that Chopra considers himself among the "advanced thinkers", although I could be wrong. But likely not.
...the nothingness that Hawking has peered into remains dark, inert, and empty. Yet we know it cannot be empty. Our brains are the product of DNA. DNA is the product of information arranged in a chemical code. Chemicals are the result of quantum interactions at the subatomic level. Quantum interactions wink in and out of the quantum vacuum. Moving backwards, that's as far as the modern creation story goes. Whatever step it takes next will have to be a step into the void.
Chopra just knows it can't be empty, and that is so much more powerful than, you know, data.

Just keep saying that word, Chopra. If you say "quantum" enough times, it'll sell books, but it won't give you credibility.

2 Barbaric Yawps:

At 13/10/10 10:22 am, Anonymous L.Long said...

His Pseudo-science BS is so deep and wide that to address even a small part would be like taking on the infinite(what ever that is). But it think he is trying to tie g0d into a math type concept.
Having a discussion with him is like trying to gather up soft jello.

At 13/10/10 12:40 pm, Anonymous Yojimbo said...

Deep Chops - the Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest


Post a Comment

<< Home