Comments on: The Blue Screen of Nonsense http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:03:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: tyler http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43691 tyler Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:47:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43691 you're all missing the really funny part here. Which is that the "I'm a PC" ads were all built on Macs. The original files posted, I think, on the MS website, had that information in their metadata. I'm too lazy to google the link for you. I work on a Vista Ultimate machine that functions fine because it was set up by a superb IT guy who installed all the right drivers and turned off the nagware; and also in a bash shell on our network, which is a high end *nix concoction. I use the same bash shell at home, in terminal on my personal Mac which as noted above is really "BSD+best desktop UI yet developed." Each is appropriate and works great in its own domain. Ideology and propaganda are always stupid, including here. That being said, the Mac ads are generally funny, while the new PC ones succeed in a Sarah Palin debate type way, simply by not being as terrible as the last thing you saw. you’re all missing the really funny part here.

Which is that the “I’m a PC” ads were all built on Macs. The original files posted, I think, on the MS website, had that information in their metadata. I’m too lazy to google the link for you.

I work on a Vista Ultimate machine that functions fine because it was set up by a superb IT guy who installed all the right drivers and turned off the nagware; and also in a bash shell on our network, which is a high end *nix concoction. I use the same bash shell at home, in terminal on my personal Mac which as noted above is really “BSD+best desktop UI yet developed.”

Each is appropriate and works great in its own domain. Ideology and propaganda are always stupid, including here. That being said, the Mac ads are generally funny, while the new PC ones succeed in a Sarah Palin debate type way, simply by not being as terrible as the last thing you saw.

]]> By: Speedy Gonzalez http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43717 Speedy Gonzalez Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:01:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43717 Arun, you are right on the "testable" issue, but I think you have forgotten the last word - today. This fact doesn't give Deepak Chopra carte blanche for his (<em>never testable</em>) "mysterious" business. The goal for Deepak Chopra is not to produce mathematical and testable theories, because this will not be doable. Just imagine a "Chopra-equation": E=M<strong>C</strong>2 (<em>Where the "Chopra-<strong>C</strong>" would stand for <strong>Consciousness</strong>, instead of the speed of light in a vacuum</em>) Can this kind of crackpottery be regarded as ever testable? Real scientists have a quest to <strong><em>understand</em></strong> the world, not to produce "mysterious theories" built on "holy powers". Sean expresses this very neat on Bloggingheads.tv: <em>"What if I had a Black Box, and this Black Box had a feature that if you wrote a question about the behavior of the physical universe on a piece of paper, and you stuck it in to the Black Box, the Black Box would spit out the correct answer, every single time. Would that count as the final answer to all the laws of physics? Would that be all you wanted? And the answer is: Off course not! Because it doesn't tell you anything, it doesn't give you any understanding of what is happening, it's just telling you the answers! The ultimate thing that science is after is an appreciation for what is the underlying mechanism for what is going on."</em> (<em>Shortened by me, here's the original</em>) <a href="http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9433?in=41:12&out=54:45" rel="nofollow">Cosmological multiverse theories: are they completely nuts? (13:33)</a> If Deepak Chopra had this Black Box in his hands, he would most certainly be satisfied with the situation. He would just call it "The Holy Quantum Black Box", and make big business! Arun, you are right on the “testable” issue, but I think you have forgotten the last word – today.

This fact doesn’t give Deepak Chopra carte blanche for his (never testable) “mysterious” business. The goal for Deepak Chopra is not to produce mathematical and testable theories, because this will not be doable. Just imagine a “Chopra-equation”:

E=MC2

(Where the “Chopra-C” would stand for Consciousness, instead of the speed of light in a vacuum)

Can this kind of crackpottery be regarded as ever testable?

Real scientists have a quest to understand the world, not to produce “mysterious theories” built on “holy powers”. Sean expresses this very neat on Bloggingheads.tv:

“What if I had a Black Box, and this Black Box had a feature that if you wrote a question about the behavior of the physical universe on a piece of paper, and you stuck it in to the Black Box, the Black Box would spit out the correct answer, every single time. Would that count as the final answer to all the laws of physics? Would that be all you wanted? And the answer is: Off course not! Because it doesn’t tell you anything, it doesn’t give you any understanding of what is happening, it’s just telling you the answers! The ultimate thing that science is after is an appreciation for what is the underlying mechanism for what is going on.”

(Shortened by me, here’s the original)
Cosmological multiverse theories: are they completely nuts? (13:33)

If Deepak Chopra had this Black Box in his hands, he would most certainly be satisfied with the situation. He would just call it “The Holy Quantum Black Box”, and make big business!

]]> By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43690 Arun Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:01:14 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43690 <I>No serious scientist will ever refer to "mysterious phenomenon" or "holy things" (that simple humans never will understand completely) in their struggle to formulate new testable theories about how nature works. Because that would not be science, it would be religion and mysticism.</I> Well, there's the rub. There are plenty of arguments on how a whole lot of current particle physics research is nowhere near testable. No serious scientist will ever refer to “mysterious phenomenon” or “holy things” (that simple humans never will understand completely) in their struggle to formulate new testable theories about how nature works. Because that would not be science, it would be religion and mysticism.

Well, there’s the rub. There are plenty of arguments on how a whole lot of current particle physics research is nowhere near testable.

]]> By: The Almighty Bob http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43716 The Almighty Bob Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:06:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43716 Well, OS X is BSD with added shiny... (",) Well, OS X is BSD with added shiny…
(“,)

]]> By: Speedy Gonzalez http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43684 Speedy Gonzalez Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:00:17 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43684 David, I completely agree. If you just want to breathe fresh air - go by a Big Mac. If you want to taste a real burger - pick the parts and build it yourself. The free world is fantastic! (<em>I know this "fight" is silly, but fun</em> ;) ) David, I completely agree. If you just want to breathe fresh air – go by a Big Mac. If you want to taste a real burger – pick the parts and build it yourself.

The free world is fantastic!

(I know this “fight” is silly, but fun ;) )

]]> By: David McMahon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43715 David McMahon Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:53:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43715 After buying a laptop with Windows Vista installed, I was almost forced to buy a Mac. I finally did last April and I haven't looked back since. Now I can't imagine going back to a PC, although I'm forced to use one at work. Windows has always sucked, but Vista was a complete disaster. I had to format the hard drive twice after continuous crashes. A Mac is like a breath of fresh air. If you're not using a Mac, please do yourself a favor and get yourself one. After buying a laptop with Windows Vista installed, I was almost forced to buy a Mac. I finally did last April and I haven’t looked back since. Now I can’t imagine going back to a PC, although I’m forced to use one at work. Windows has always sucked, but Vista was a complete disaster. I had to format the hard drive twice after continuous crashes. A Mac is like a breath of fresh air. If you’re not using a Mac, please do yourself a favor and get yourself one.

]]> By: Count Iblis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43714 Count Iblis Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:42:50 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43714 <blockquote>But inventing an entire alternate reality in the form of multiverses that can’t be proven and has no contact with experiment, as the direction modern physics has moved in, is surely no better than what Deepak is doing.</blockquote> Physicists debate these and other subjects in a very critical way. Has Deepak submitted any of his theories on quantum healing to peer reviewed journals?

But inventing an entire alternate reality in the form of multiverses that can’t be proven and has no contact with experiment, as the direction modern physics has moved in, is surely no better than what Deepak is doing.

Physicists debate these and other subjects in a very critical way. Has Deepak submitted any of his theories on quantum healing to peer reviewed journals?

]]> By: Speedy Gonzalez http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43713 Speedy Gonzalez Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:21:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43713 Eric, I do think I know what you're trying to pinpoint here. In fact I have been thinking in similar ways: <em>Well well, these smart physicists. Now they have got really scared by the completely unexplainable initial conditions and that hugely gross number identifying all possible states that our universe could have been born with. And they can't let the Christian Right Fundamentalist win the fight on T.K.O. So what do they do? Easy - just invent a hugely gross number of parallel universes and the problem is gone!</em> If you think that's what really happened, then your "egg face" & "milk mustache" do makes sense. But if you think again, you realize that many very intelligent and bright men have been questioning new science and classifying it as more or less crackpottery, for example Albert Einstein and quantum mechanics. So what then? What's the difference between "egg face" & "milk mustache", and "Multiverse" & "Quantum Healing"? I say a lot. No serious scientist will ever refer to "mysterious phenomenon" or "holy things" (<em>that simple humans never will understand completely</em>) in their struggle to formulate new testable theories about how nature works. Because that would not be science, it would be religion and mysticism. Charlatans like Deepak Chopra, on the other hand, have no problem what so ever referring to "mysterious phenomenon". In fact it seems like it's a great deal of the whole business. Who can mistrust a "holy law" from a supreme mysterious being? (<em>that's if you believe the guy</em>) If you still think I'm wrong, let's put the last nail in the "Charlatan Coffin". I strongly recommend you to spend 13 minutes watching this most entertaining and intelligent video chat between John Horgan and Sean Carroll. Maybe it will change your life. John takes your position and tries to demolish Sean's arguments for new physics: <a href="http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9433?in=41:12&out=54:45" rel="nofollow">Cosmological multiverse theories: are they completely nuts? (13:33)</a> If you want to watch the whole <strong>Science Saturday: Cosmic Bull Session</strong> (66:32) at <strong>Bloggingheads.tv</strong> the link is: <a href="http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9433" rel="nofollow">http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9433</a> (<em>It's bright and fun</em>) Eric, I do think I know what you’re trying to pinpoint here. In fact I have been thinking in similar ways:

Well well, these smart physicists. Now they have got really scared by the completely unexplainable initial conditions and that hugely gross number identifying all possible states that our universe could have been born with. And they can’t let the Christian Right Fundamentalist win the fight on T.K.O. So what do they do? Easy – just invent a hugely gross number of parallel universes and the problem is gone!

If you think that’s what really happened, then your “egg face” & “milk mustache” do makes sense.

But if you think again, you realize that many very intelligent and bright men have been questioning new science and classifying it as more or less crackpottery, for example Albert Einstein and quantum mechanics.

So what then? What’s the difference between “egg face” & “milk mustache”, and “Multiverse” & “Quantum Healing”?

I say a lot. No serious scientist will ever refer to “mysterious phenomenon” or “holy things” (that simple humans never will understand completely) in their struggle to formulate new testable theories about how nature works. Because that would not be science, it would be religion and mysticism.

Charlatans like Deepak Chopra, on the other hand, have no problem what so ever referring to “mysterious phenomenon”. In fact it seems like it’s a great deal of the whole business. Who can mistrust a “holy law” from a supreme mysterious being? (that’s if you believe the guy)

If you still think I’m wrong, let’s put the last nail in the “Charlatan Coffin”. I strongly recommend you to spend 13 minutes watching this most entertaining and intelligent video chat between John Horgan and Sean Carroll. Maybe it will change your life. John takes your position and tries to demolish Sean’s arguments for new physics:

Cosmological multiverse theories: are they completely nuts? (13:33)

If you want to watch the whole Science Saturday: Cosmic Bull Session (66:32) at Bloggingheads.tv the link is:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9433

(It’s bright and fun)

]]> By: Lawrence B. Crowell http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43712 Lawrence B. Crowell Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:45:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43712 Virtual particles exist --- well virtually :-) Real particles are called on-shell, their amplitudes carry their actual mass-energy. In Feynman diagrams these are depicted as lines which have an endpoint. Lines which connect at vertices are termed virtual particles, and are off shell. The heuristic is that they have a mass-energy which is variable or different from what they would have as an on-shell particle. Because of this their momenta often contribute to amplitudes as integration variables. Between two fermions with some "charge," such as electric charge, these particles can have off-shell mass energy that exchanges momentum between them. How this happens involves something called gauge theory, where momentum is gauge covariant P = p + ieA, and the vector potential term A, or amplitudes thereof, gives virtual photons. Do these suckers exist? HelliffIno, and in fact I would say that maybe we might best see these as mathematical devices, which in a perturbative scheme we interpret as "virtual particles." Don't worry about whether they exist, just do the calculation! Lawrence B. Crowell Virtual particles exist — well virtually :-) Real particles are called on-shell, their amplitudes carry their actual mass-energy. In Feynman diagrams these are depicted as lines which have an endpoint. Lines which connect at vertices are termed virtual particles, and are off shell. The heuristic is that they have a mass-energy which is variable or different from what they would have as an on-shell particle. Because of this their momenta often contribute to amplitudes as integration variables. Between two fermions with some “charge,” such as electric charge, these particles can have off-shell mass energy that exchanges momentum between them. How this happens involves something called gauge theory, where momentum is gauge covariant P = p + ieA, and the vector potential term A, or amplitudes thereof, gives virtual photons.

Do these suckers exist? HelliffIno, and in fact I would say that maybe we might best see these as mathematical devices, which in a perturbative scheme we interpret as “virtual particles.” Don’t worry about whether they exist, just do the calculation!

Lawrence B. Crowell

]]> By: Sili http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43711 Sili Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:15:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43711 I'm not sure I've ever actually seen the Mac/PC ads, but the <em>slash</em> is pretty good. I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen the Mac/PC ads, but the slash is pretty good.

]]> By: Eric Habegger http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43685 Eric Habegger Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:28:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43685 "I also think your comparison of people who discuss the multiverse in the context of a well-developed, well-motivated theory to the nonsense that comes out of Deepak Chopra’s mouth is complete crackpottery." I think that rather than labeling the "connection" between the multiverse and Deepak Chopra's ideas as crackpottery it would be wiser to label the ideas themselves as crackpottery. If you did that then I would no longer feel inclined to defend Deepak based on unfairness. It's the illusion of difference that I'm attacking. You and the rest of the science community better face up to it one of these days. “I also think your comparison of people who discuss the multiverse in the context of a well-developed, well-motivated theory to the nonsense that comes out of Deepak Chopra’s mouth is complete crackpottery.”

I think that rather than labeling the “connection” between the multiverse and Deepak Chopra’s ideas as crackpottery it would be wiser to label the ideas themselves as crackpottery. If you did that then I would no longer feel inclined to defend Deepak based on unfairness. It’s the illusion of difference that I’m attacking. You and the rest of the science community better face up to it one of these days.

]]> By: Mark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43710 Mark Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:43:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43710 Eric, I also think your comparison of people who discuss the multiverse in the context of a well-developed, well-motivated theory to the nonsense that comes out of Deepak Chopra's mouth is complete crackpottery. That you're not conceding about virtual particles doesn't help your case. Bye. Eric, I also think your comparison of people who discuss the multiverse in the context of a well-developed, well-motivated theory to the nonsense that comes out of Deepak Chopra’s mouth is complete crackpottery.

That you’re not conceding about virtual particles doesn’t help your case. Bye.

]]> By: Eric Habegger http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43709 Eric Habegger Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:04:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43709 Mark, It's typical of modern physicists to pick out one thing to argue about so as to ignore the entire thesis of my argument. I'm not conceding about virtual particles and your accusation of crackpottery ignores everything else I was saying. What about the rest of what I was saying. Is that too threatening to you to argue about? Everyone here can see what you are ignoring and the philosophical hypocracy. Mark,
It’s typical of modern physicists to pick out one thing to argue about so as to ignore the entire thesis of my argument. I’m not conceding about virtual particles and your accusation of crackpottery ignores everything else I was saying. What about the rest of what I was saying. Is that too threatening to you to argue about? Everyone here can see what you are ignoring and the philosophical hypocracy.

]]> By: Mark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43708 Mark Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:52:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43708 Eric, if you think physicists don't know precisely what they mean by "virtual particle", you're completely wrong - the idea is in no way even speculative. That you're ranting about it is a form of crackpottery and will fall under our no-crackpots clause in future. Eric, if you think physicists don’t know precisely what they mean by “virtual particle”, you’re completely wrong – the idea is in no way even speculative. That you’re ranting about it is a form of crackpottery and will fall under our no-crackpots clause in future.

]]> By: Eric Habegger http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43707 Eric Habegger Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:40:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43707 Speedy, I'm not even a fan of Deepak and have read no books by him. But my antenna goes up when I spot hypocracy. There has been so much quackery in physics for the last 50 years that its ridiculous. People will willfully use illogic, such as many worlds , or in a more literal way - multiverses, to explain things that can't be easily explained in our universe. It even goes to the idea of something as simple as a virtual particle. What the hell is a "virtual" particle except an excuse to invent a new definition for something you don't understand. There has been this huge overuse of labeling in physics to give one the feeling that one now understands it. "Oh, its a virtual particle. That explains it!" Life is about struggling with the unexplainable and incomprehensible. Everyone must find their own way of doing it. But inventing an entire alternate reality in the form of multiverses that can't be proven and has no contact with experiment, as the direction modern physics has moved in, is surely no better than what Deepak is doing. This is not about invoking a supreme deity, or an organized religion, or a new age philosophy. Its about having egg all over one's face and laughing at the other guy with a milk mustache. It's ignorant and its dishonest, and its smug. But most of all, its too easy. Speedy,
I’m not even a fan of Deepak and have read no books by him. But my antenna goes up when I spot hypocracy. There has been so much quackery in physics for the last 50 years that its ridiculous. People will willfully use illogic, such as many worlds , or in a more literal way – multiverses, to explain things that can’t be easily explained in our universe. It even goes to the idea of something as simple as a virtual particle. What the hell is a “virtual” particle except an excuse to invent a new definition for something you don’t understand. There has been this huge overuse of labeling in physics to give one the feeling that one now understands it. “Oh, its a virtual particle. That explains it!”

Life is about struggling with the unexplainable and incomprehensible. Everyone must find their own way of doing it. But inventing an entire alternate reality in the form of multiverses that can’t be proven and has no contact with experiment, as the direction modern physics has moved in, is surely no better than what Deepak is doing.

This is not about invoking a supreme deity, or an organized religion, or a new age philosophy. Its about having egg all over one’s face and laughing at the other guy with a milk mustache. It’s ignorant and its dishonest, and its smug. But most of all, its too easy.

]]> By: Speedy Gonzalez http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43706 Speedy Gonzalez Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:30:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43706 Eric Habegger, sorry if I offended you in any way. My experience though, is that people that can't take a joke may not be the most confident among us. (<em>Sean will probably grumble that we are going off-topic here, but what the heck.</em>) Doctor Deepak Chopra is for sure smarter than I am, and knows a whole lot more, but he is using his knowledge in a dangerous and wrong way. I my eyes he is nothing more than a charlatan. Why? Well, if you write books titled "Quantum Healing", examining the mysterious phenomenon of spontaneous healing of cancer, any hillbilly-amateur-physicist like me can be absolutely sure that this is <strong>NOT</strong> science. My mother had colorectal cancer and if she had turned to Doctor Deepak Chopra for some "Quantum Healing" she wouldn't be alive today. Now, she is perfectly cured by real doctors with the help off latest technology and real science. It's <strong>NOT</strong> up to <em>real</em> science to decide if there is meaning to our lives and the universe, or not. It's <strong>NOT</strong> up to <em>real</em> science to decide if there is a God, or not. No <em>real</em> scientist will ever write an equation proving this. It's helpless and utterly out of topics of <em>real</em> science. So, charlatans turning glitters into gold, just have to accept that hip kids make fun of them in the name of real science. Eric Habegger, sorry if I offended you in any way. My experience though, is that people that can’t take a joke may not be the most confident among us.

(Sean will probably grumble that we are going off-topic here, but what the heck.)

Doctor Deepak Chopra is for sure smarter than I am, and knows a whole lot more, but he is using his knowledge in a dangerous and wrong way. I my eyes he is nothing more than a charlatan.

Why? Well, if you write books titled “Quantum Healing”, examining the mysterious phenomenon of spontaneous healing of cancer, any hillbilly-amateur-physicist like me can be absolutely sure that this is NOT science. My mother had colorectal cancer and if she had turned to Doctor Deepak Chopra for some “Quantum Healing” she wouldn’t be alive today. Now, she is perfectly cured by real doctors with the help off latest technology and real science.

It’s NOT up to real science to decide if there is meaning to our lives and the universe, or not. It’s NOT up to real science to decide if there is a God, or not. No real scientist will ever write an equation proving this. It’s helpless and utterly out of topics of real science.

So, charlatans turning glitters into gold, just have to accept that hip kids make fun of them in the name of real science.

]]> By: Eric Habegger http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43705 Eric Habegger Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:56:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43705 I wish you guys could see yourselves and your reaction to Deepak as I see you. You remind me of my days in school surrounded by too hip by half kids, kids who all too quickly learned everything required to get an "A" in a class, but never learned the reasons behind equations. Most scientists, and especially physicists, think of the universe mechanistically and find the idea of multiverses more satisfying than that our universe has some intrinsic meaning behind it. Maybe you find Deepak's philosophy shallow, but I marvel at your derision. If there's one thing I've found its that aggressive derision against someone who has done no harm to them is usually a sign of insecurity. As an aside, any physicist who has speculated about alternative universes, and treated it as a "scientific" endeavor is in my opinion far more "new agey" that Deepak. Its a sad excuse for the fear that the universe might have some meaning to it that is separate from pure probability. What a sad thing to require other universes to escape meaning within out own. I wish you guys could see yourselves and your reaction to Deepak as I see you.
You remind me of my days in school surrounded by too hip by half kids, kids who all too quickly learned everything required to get an “A” in a class, but never learned the reasons behind equations. Most scientists, and especially physicists, think of the universe mechanistically and find the idea of multiverses more satisfying than that our universe has some intrinsic meaning behind it.

Maybe you find Deepak’s philosophy shallow, but I marvel at your derision. If there’s one thing I’ve found its that aggressive derision against someone who has done no harm to them is usually a sign of insecurity. As an aside, any physicist who has speculated about alternative universes, and treated it as a “scientific” endeavor is in my opinion far more “new agey” that Deepak. Its a sad excuse for the fear that the universe might have some meaning to it that is separate from pure probability. What a sad thing to require other universes to escape meaning within out own.

]]> By: chemicalscum http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43689 chemicalscum Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:57:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43689 As a Linux user all I can think of to describe the problem is to ask the question - Many Worlds or Many Nerds? As a Linux user all I can think of to describe the problem is to ask the question – Many Worlds or Many Nerds?

]]> By: Ellipsis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43704 Ellipsis Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:39:14 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43704 I'm solidly Mac, but I'm getting concerned that the continued weakness of the competition does not help Mac in motivating it to continue to improve its products. Macs could still use a lot of improvement in battery lifetime, and in being more solidly built (more able to withstand cold and a little bit more bumps and bangs without covers coming off etc.) What's going to motivate them to improve when the "competition" is just putting out garbage like this? I’m solidly Mac, but I’m getting concerned that the continued weakness of the competition does not help Mac in motivating it to continue to improve its products. Macs could still use a lot of improvement in battery lifetime, and in being more solidly built (more able to withstand cold and a little bit more bumps and bangs without covers coming off etc.) What’s going to motivate them to improve when the “competition” is just putting out garbage like this?

]]> By: Speedy Gonzalez http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-43688 Speedy Gonzalez Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:49:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/the-blue-screen-of-nonsense/#comment-43688 Just by thinking (<em>and thereby altering quantum fluctuations</em>), Deepak Chopra has created a spiritual wavefunction and a bhagavan wormhole connecting to a specific parallel universe, where things are different. Very different. The name of the parallel universe is <strong>Kabbalah-blabla</strong>. In Kabbalah-blabla the other guys won WW2 and they have no problems using software. Intelligent design prohibits software bugs (<em>=eliminate the developer immediately</em>) and all other crap. They also have no problems choosing – there is only one company in the universe. Business, mysticism and dictatorship are the same thing in Kabbalah-blabla universe (<em>pretty much as in our</em>). COB <strong>Tupac Chopper</strong> (<em>Deepak’s quantum brother</em>) runs business together with CEO <strong>Adolf Ballmer</strong>. Please, enjoy this enlightening video that Deepak Chopra managed to get through the bhagavan wormhole: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XdOl5YtLg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XdOl5YtLg</a> (<em>Confession: Yes, I love my PC and Vista is honestly making my life easier, and Ballmer is not bullying me to say this!</em> ;) Just by thinking (and thereby altering quantum fluctuations), Deepak Chopra has created a spiritual wavefunction and a bhagavan wormhole connecting to a specific parallel universe, where things are different. Very different. The name of the parallel universe is Kabbalah-blabla.

In Kabbalah-blabla the other guys won WW2 and they have no problems using software. Intelligent design prohibits software bugs (=eliminate the developer immediately) and all other crap. They also have no problems choosing – there is only one company in the universe. Business, mysticism and dictatorship are the same thing in Kabbalah-blabla universe (pretty much as in our).

COB Tupac Chopper (Deepak’s quantum brother) runs business together with CEO Adolf Ballmer. Please, enjoy this enlightening video that Deepak Chopra managed to get through the bhagavan wormhole:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XdOl5YtLg

(Confession: Yes, I love my PC and Vista is honestly making my life easier, and Ballmer is not bullying me to say this! ;)

]]>