| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Lawson English" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2007 06:12:10 PM |
| Object: |
Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
While tidying up the John Hagelin Wikipedia entry I found this entry
listed on SLAC, scanned into PDF by someone in Japan, I guess:
http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227
.
|
|
| User: "Matthew LaBarre" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 03:51:39 PM |
|
|
Thank you for this post. I havent had a chance to read it yet but very rare
and I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed listening to Hagelin in What the
Bleep... I think he is brilliant. Thanks again, Matt.
"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:sToFh.11187$qr5.5748@newsfe19.lga...
While tidying up the John Hagelin Wikipedia entry I found this entry
listed on SLAC, scanned into PDF by someone in Japan, I guess:
http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 05:42:46 PM |
|
|
Matthew LaBarre wrote:
Thank you for this post. I havent had a chance to read it yet but very rare
and I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed listening to Hagelin in What the
Bleep... I think he is brilliant. Thanks again, Matt.
"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:sToFh.11187$qr5.5748@newsfe19.lga...
While tidying up the John Hagelin Wikipedia entry I found this entry
listed on SLAC, scanned into PDF by someone in Japan, I guess:
http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227
You are welcome. There's a more philosophical paper that he wrote "Is
Consciousness the Unified Field? A field-theorist's perspective" that
I've been trying to get him or his assistants to post on the web. You
can order it through the TM university bookstore.
http://mum.edu/msvs/articles.html
Some articles of his are available directly as pdf files:
http://mum.edu/pdf/msvs/v04/economics.pdf
http://mum.edu/pdf/msvs/v05/hagelin.pdf
There's also a selection of his lectures with David Lynch available via
Lynch's website or youtube. Dr. Hagelin is director of the Board of
Advisors of the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education
and World Peace.
http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=MaharishiUniversity
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 10:36:14 PM |
|
|
Lawson English wrote:
Matthew LaBarre wrote:
Thank you for this post. I havent had a chance to read it yet but
very rare and I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed listening to
Hagelin in What the Bleep... I think he is brilliant. Thanks again,
Matt.
"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:sToFh.11187$qr5.5748@newsfe19.lga...
While tidying up the John Hagelin Wikipedia entry I found this entry
listed on SLAC, scanned into PDF by someone in Japan, I guess:
http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227
You are welcome. There's a more philosophical paper that he wrote "Is
Consciousness the Unified Field? A field-theorist's perspective" that
I've been trying to get him or his assistants to post on the web. You
can order it through the TM university bookstore.
http://mum.edu/msvs/articles.html
Some articles of his are available directly as pdf files:
http://mum.edu/pdf/msvs/v04/economics.pdf
http://mum.edu/pdf/msvs/v05/hagelin.pdf
There's also a selection of his lectures with David Lynch available via
Lynch's website or youtube. Dr. Hagelin is director of the Board of
Advisors of the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education
and World Peace.
http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=MaharishiUniversity
Review: What the #$*! Do They Know?
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
Reductionism works in principle but not in practice, even though all
the branches of science are interrelated. If you want to perform a
certain chemical reaction, you ask a chemist. You do not ask a
quantum physicist, although, in many instances, the quantum
physicists may have some very helpful things to say on the matter. If
you want to study biological organisms, you do experiments on the
biological scale instead of renting time at the local particle
accelerator. The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common
knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and
Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught
up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain
within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is
indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given
that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics
laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big
questions in life." But now their knowledge of quantum mechanics is
even allowing them to become movie stars and, better still, in a
movie that is changing people's lives!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 04:02:04 PM |
|
|
Matthew LaBarre wrote:
Thank you for this post. I havent had a chance to read it yet but very rare
and I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed listening to Hagelin in What the
Bleep... I think he is brilliant. Thanks again, Matt.
Hagelin (outcast from the science community) actually says nothing about
physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 06:39:15 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Matthew LaBarre wrote:
Thank you for this post. I havent had a chance to read it yet but
very rare and I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed listening to
Hagelin in What the Bleep... I think he is brilliant. Thanks again,
Matt.
Hagelin (outcast from the science community) actually says nothing about
physics.
Who says he is outcast?
He hasn't published in a long time, but he chose to run for President of
the USA 3 times in a row. If you think you can stay "cutting edge" in
theoretical physics while conducting a national political campaign, even
for a minor 3rd party, you are quite stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 07:24:16 PM |
|
|
Lawson English wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Matthew LaBarre wrote:
Thank you for this post. I havent had a chance to read it yet but
very rare and I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed listening to
Hagelin in What the Bleep... I think he is brilliant. Thanks again,
Matt.
Hagelin (outcast from the science community) actually says nothing
about
physics.
Who says he is outcast?
He hasn't published in a long time, but he chose to run for President of
the USA 3 times in a row. If you think you can stay "cutting edge" in
theoretical physics while conducting a national political campaign, even
for a minor 3rd party, you are quite stupid.
John Hagelin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin
Speaker: Dr. John Hagelin is a renowned quantum physicist and public
policy expert and certified crackpot who is featured in the popular
movie What the Bleep Do We Know!? He is Professor of Physics, the
pseudosciences and Director of the University's Institute of Science,
Technology and Public ***** Policy.
In talks to mediators, shows his bogus equation unifying everything.
From Bob Park
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Jul 06 Washington, DC
Two Ph.D. physicists, William Tiller and John Hagelin, who were in
"Bleep," are afflicted with both conditions, and have been in WN in
the past. Just look for them in
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/search.html . In "Bleep," Hagelin
again claimed, as he has countless times, to have reduced violent
crime in Washington, DC in the summer of 1993 by the meditation of
1,000 TM "experts" in unison. I was at the press conference a year
later when he reported that the reduction was 18%. "18% relative to
what" a puzzled reporter asked? "Relative to what it would have been
if they had not been meditating," he replied. In fact the DC murder
rate during that period was the highest ever recorded. More on
Tiller and Ramtha next week.
Review: What the #$*! Do They Know?
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
Reductionism works in principle but not in practice, even though all
the branches of science are interrelated. If you want to perform a
certain chemical reaction, you ask a chemist. You do not ask a
quantum physicist, although, in many instances, the quantum
physicists may have some very helpful things to say on the matter. If
you want to study biological organisms, you do experiments on the
biological scale instead of renting time at the local particle
accelerator. The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common
knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and
Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught
up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain
within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is
indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given
that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics
laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big
questions in life." But now their knowledge of quantum mechanics is
even allowing them to become movie stars and, better still, in a
movie that is changing people's lives!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 09:23:11 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Lawson English wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Matthew LaBarre wrote:
Thank you for this post. I havent had a chance to read it yet but
very rare and I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed listening to
Hagelin in What the Bleep... I think he is brilliant. Thanks
again, Matt.
Hagelin (outcast from the science community) actually says nothing
about
physics.
Who says he is outcast?
He hasn't published in a long time, but he chose to run for President
of the USA 3 times in a row. If you think you can stay "cutting edge"
in theoretical physics while conducting a national political campaign,
even for a minor 3rd party, you are quite stupid.
John Hagelin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin
Speaker: Dr. John Hagelin is a renowned quantum physicist and public
policy expert and certified crackpot who is featured in the popular
movie What the Bleep Do We Know!? He is Professor of Physics, the
pseudosciences and Director of the University's Institute of Science,
Technology and Public ***** Policy.
In talks to mediators, shows his bogus equation unifying everything.
From Bob Park
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Jul 06 Washington, DC
Two Ph.D. physicists, William Tiller and John Hagelin, who were in
"Bleep," are afflicted with both conditions, and have been in WN in
the past. Just look for them in
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/search.html . In "Bleep," Hagelin
again claimed, as he has countless times, to have reduced violent
crime in Washington, DC in the summer of 1993 by the meditation of
1,000 TM "experts" in unison. I was at the press conference a year
later when he reported that the reduction was 18%. "18% relative to
what" a puzzled reporter asked? "Relative to what it would have been
if they had not been meditating," he replied. In fact the DC murder
rate during that period was the highest ever recorded. More on
Tiller and Ramtha next week.
What period are they talking about? The 1 day during which a gang war
killed 11 people?
The murder rate for the year was unchanged. The murder rate for the time
period of the study was up slightly. And in fact, the study acknowledged
that the murder rate had gone up during the study, albeit slightly.
If you're going to quote critics of a published study (yes it was
published in a peer reviewed journal), you have to quote the response of
the authors to the critics, which you did not do.
Wonder why?
And plenty of physicists besides Hagelin have attempted to find
connections between Quantum Mechanics and Physics, including Nanopolous
and Ellis, both of whom co-authored the Flipped SU(5) theory with him,
and dare I mention Roger Penrose and his micro-tubule-based Orch OR
Quantum Mechanics-based theory of how the brain works?
BTW, Ellis is Director of Research at CERN, and Nanopolous is credited
with many things, including coining the term "Theory of Everything."
Review: What the #$*! Do They Know?
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
Reductionism works in principle but not in practice, even though all
the branches of science are interrelated. If you want to perform a
certain chemical reaction, you ask a chemist. You do not ask a
quantum physicist, although, in many instances, the quantum
physicists may have some very helpful things to say on the matter. If
you want to study biological organisms, you do experiments on the
biological scale instead of renting time at the local particle
accelerator. The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common
knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and
Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught
up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain
within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is
indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given
that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics
laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big
questions in life." But now their knowledge of quantum mechanics is
even allowing them to become movie stars and, better still, in a
movie that is changing people's lives!
And reductionism better work, or science-as-a-whole is doomed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 10:32:34 PM |
|
|
Lawson English wrote:
What period are they talking about? The 1 day during which a gang war
killed 11 people?
The murder rate for the year was unchanged. The murder rate for the time
period of the study was up slightly. And in fact, the study acknowledged
that the murder rate had gone up during the study, albeit slightly.
If you're going to quote critics of a published study (yes it was
published in a peer reviewed journal), you have to quote the response of
the authors to the critics, which you did not do.
Wonder why?
If you are really interested in data, you need to look before, during
and after the times claimed by Hagelin, et al, and you will find that
they had *no* statistically significant effect on anything! You can
blindly believe what you like, or you can play the skeptic and dig out
the data from an independent source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
31 Mar 2007 10:47:38 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Lawson English wrote:
What period are they talking about? The 1 day during which a gang war
killed 11 people?
The murder rate for the year was unchanged. The murder rate for the
time period of the study was up slightly. And in fact, the study
acknowledged that the murder rate had gone up during the study, albeit
slightly.
If you're going to quote critics of a published study (yes it was
published in a peer reviewed journal), you have to quote the response
of the authors to the critics, which you did not do.
Wonder why?
If you are really interested in data, you need to look before, during
and after the times claimed by Hagelin, et al, and you will find that
they had *no* statistically significant effect on anything! You can
blindly believe what you like, or you can play the skeptic and dig out
the data from an independent source.
OK, where did you obtain the data that you looked at?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology |
04 Apr 2007 10:59:56 PM |
|
|
Lawson English wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Lawson English wrote:
What period are they talking about? The 1 day during which a gang war
killed 11 people?
The murder rate for the year was unchanged. The murder rate for the
time period of the study was up slightly. And in fact, the study
acknowledged that the murder rate had gone up during the study,
albeit slightly.
If you're going to quote critics of a published study (yes it was
published in a peer reviewed journal), you have to quote the response
of the authors to the critics, which you did not do.
Wonder why?
If you are really interested in data, you need to look before, during
and after the times claimed by Hagelin, et al, and you will find that
they had *no* statistically significant effect on anything! You can
blindly believe what you like, or you can play the skeptic and dig out
the data from an independent source.
OK, where did you obtain the data that you looked at?
Crickets chirping.
It's not like there aren't plenty of interesting criticisms of the study
available. A good place to find references to them would be the webpages
devoted to responding to the criticisms.
No one bothers maintaining webpage responses to critics who obviously
never read the study.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
