It's a nice fiction movie, but I'm very sad it's gained such mass popularity, because people buy in to absurdities too easily.
First, anyone who needs a movie to tell them that their thoughts create things because of their nervous system's interaction with the rest of their body (e.g., you think about moving your hand and your hand moves, but you think about the Sears Tower vanishing and it obviously doesn't)--well, let's hope that doesn't apply to anyone.
However, the real dreariness is, for example, a conversation with a person I had the other day. She actually believes "thoughts have frequencies"* (which is a meaningless statement, but sounds spiffy when it comes from the mouth of someone who's good at shamming), "the law of attraction is a law just like gravity"**, and I would like to say "more pseudo-scientific humbug," but the truth is it isn't even scientific in the most crude and unwelcome definition of "science".
I apologize for the tirade, but as you see, it is quite marvelous (not in a pleasant way) people can construe such hilarious propositions in the 21st century. Then again, most everyone is really still as informed about the world as most everyone of millenia ago; only those who raise their consciousness about the information we (those who raised their consciousness in the past) have already discovered (e.g., scientists, perhaps some ambitious laymen) will understand the ludicrousness. It's as if someone made a movie about Santa Claus, and now everyone is running off to find him, without realizing the whole thing was symbolical (if that) fiction.
* Frequency? Are you kidding me? Look up what frequency means. "Frequency is the measurement of the number of occurrences of a repeated event per unit of time." A thought is apparently a chronologically recurrent event? Well, then, that is completely insignificant since a pendulum moving back and forth has a frequency but so what? Unless you mean the frequency of an emittent electromagnetic wave, in which case it would be no problem at all to measure it, since radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays, regular light rays, and countless of other waves pass through us every second and we can measure all of them through easy principles like Compton scattering. And even if our brain emitted some kind of electromagnetic waves, that is still irrelevant, since it is ridiculously minor and blends into the background noise, not to mention has no capability of actually affecting anything tangible. Besides, the bonobo ape's brain is very similar to a homo sapien's brain, so why are we discriminating that this (false) principle applies to just humans?
** No. It most definitely isn't. Just because you feel at liberty to use the word "law" (so did Moore), does not mean you could form an exact scientific hypothesis and verify the results with predictions to match every single time (that's the definition of a "law"). Newton's laws of motion are a law because it mathematically describes motion of classical objects (and experimental observations match theoretical predictions every single time). Einstein's theory of relativity is a law because it mathematically describes the structure of spacetime (and experimental observations match theoretical predictions every single time). Quantum mechanical results such as Schrodinger's equation, the De Broglie energy transformations, and the Pauli spin matrices' effect on particle spin are all laws because they mathematically describe the interactions and structures of subatomic particles and forces (and experimental observations match theoretical predictions every single time). The "Law of Attraction," any way you state it, is not a law. Obviously, if one places a greater effort to achieve something (i.e., "puts one's mind to it"), there is a higher probability of it occurring. However, that occurrence is still guided by one's mechanical, physical, body motions.
EDIT: And regarding that conversation earlier, she tried to assert "people such as Newton, Galileo, and Einstein have used this law." She's probably just jealous that there are people smarter than her, and tries to justify that with meaningless poetry (i.e., words that sound nice).
Last edited by TechnoGuyRob : 02-11-2007 at 10:25 PM.
| 
02-09-2007, 12:20 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads