Quote (Muppers @ Jan 10 2012 02:18pm)
Still interesting if you didn't know this stuff prior, mr. intellectual.
But yeah, agree.
People consider Emoto to be full of it, and he has yet to demonstrate otherwise. None of his experiments have been scientifically controlled. The quotes by scientists were ambiguous (such as Bohr's) and did nothing to support his thesis (that consciousness creates the world around us). The other quotes were by random people such as Dr. Wayne Dyer (his doctorate is in Education, and he writes self-help books) or unattributed. All he said about the REG experiment is that, "the participants in the study were clearly able to influence the outcome and manipulate the mathematical probability of generating the result they intended to achieve." Does that really sound like a fact that can be trusted? I tried to research that further, and I couldn't really find anything. I don't know what that experiments are called, so I don't even know where to begin. I therefore tend to remain skeptical. The Global Consciousness Project claims to build on these experiments as well. Furthermore, I tend to be skeptical because they're using statistics to justify something without using random selection of data. Also, a quote from The Global Consciousness Project's website, "It is important to keep in mind that we have only a tiny statistical effect, so that it is always hard to distinguish signal from noise. This means that every "success" might be largely driven by chance." It goes on to say, "a real effect can be identified only by patiently accumulating replications of similar analyses." I don't think they're going to be replicating 9/11 anytime soon. This drastically limits the credibility in this video. It demonstrates that its creator has little knowledge on the topic, and potentially makes faulty extrapolations from ideas.
I won't say whether or not he is wrong about the quantum mechanics claims. I'm not well-versed enough in the ideas. To my knowledge, superposition refers to probabilities of states occurring. It doesn't state that everything happens at once. It's like Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger's Cat isn't both alive AND dead. It's impossible to determine whether or not the cat is alive or dead because statistically speaking it could be either. Schrodinger used this thought experiment to express why quantum mechanics cannot be extrapolated into macroscopic events (which, for what it's worth, is what the creator of this video is doing). Furthermore, his reference to matter's position constantly changing (until we observe it) seems to be an extrapolation from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. However, this principle states merely that you cannot deterministically know where a particle is at any given point in time. It states you cannot know its position and its momentum with 100% accuracy simultaneously. In other words, if you know where it is, you can't predict where it will be. Finally, on the topic of the double slit experiment: this experiment is conducted at extremely low energy levels. The processes by which you observe things involves adding energy to the system. Remember that when you look at something, you're looking at the light it has reflected or emitted.
So is he wrong about his claims on quantum mechanics? I'll wait for someone with more knowledge on the topic to weigh in, but as it stands, I'm tipping towards him being wrong.
This post was edited by Derkaderk on Jan 10 2012 02:58pm