Interconnectedness of all things ?

[Cane_Toad]

**EDIT** >>> And what do you think about the effects of shapes ??1 such as pyramids for example ... ?!

Well, I think you know the answer to pyramid power by now. Have you found any controlled studies that show results? Do the claims follow from proven principles? Are the results measurable, and to what accuracy and precision, or are they open to the interpretation of the individual (i.e. "placebo effect")?

As a bigger question, geometry has great influence on almost all disciplines, architecture, optics, molecular biology, biological structures (fractals, golden ratio), etc. etc.

It's hard to say where the whole pyramid thing really started, though there's an argument that it grew out of people's desire to make big piles of dirt to memorialize their dead. As time went on, it was found that various height to base ratios didn't collapse as much. Eventually, you had rich kings/pharoahs who wanted a really, really big thing to memorialize themselves, and of course the only thing that fit the bill was a pyramid, given the building materials that they had. Then the kings assigned their religion to the structure, since of course it was going to house them in their afterlife, and of course, as kings they were "living gods", and presto, pyramids become magical.

 

[metacristi]

Hi all ..

I have a question please.

Poeple that believe and practice mystical, and paranormal experiences,, claim that there is a scientific evidence that support their experiences.
This evidence, is that according to quantum physics, everything in the universe is interconnected, and according to that sub-atomic particles can exist in many places at once .. and that everything in the universe is interconnected by the universal energy ...

So, is that all real ??! yes or no ??! and why ?!

thank you ... and waiting for your reply ...


Hadeka.

Well there is clearly a huge leap from quantum entanglement till the idea that all minds are interconnected (Bohm's holographic hypothesis for example is very 'far' from experiment) so the answer can be only no, those claims of epistemological privilege are unfounded, at this time at least (not to mention that there are still enough debates regarding the meaning of quantum entanglement and even energy).

But I would certainly not rally to the view that 'there is no place for metaphysics in science, other than as something to be explained away' the mark of scientism...metaphysics could be of help sometimes...indeed as Popper showed well the so called 'metaphysical research programs' had their importance in the shaping of modern science (he even went to say that without some of them certain breakthroughs would have not been possible at the time when they were made)...

Science needs indeed some weak authoritarianism but certainly not dogmatism...some metaphysical ideas (including religious ones) may indeed become part of an extended science of tomorrow (there is no necessity in this of course), seemingly 'metaphysical' assumptions can become very well at least partially justified 'at their time' when other 'background' assumptions are sufficiently prepared for this...Since there is, really, nothing at this time against the idea of universal interconnections I think we should refrain from deriving too strong conclusions, some 'no go' theorems* here and at this time could only hamper scientific progress...

The fundamental error of these new age people (holding that all minds are interconnected) is not the fact that they venture far from the existing scientific methodologies but their dogmatism (they firmly believe that their interpretation - based on their subjective experiences I agree - is the only correct one and that all rational people should hold the same)...or is clear that they should have used their hypothesis as being merely a research program which could be, potentially, promising in the future (that is openly recognizing that it has no epistemological privilege at the moment, preserving a healthy dose of fallibilism)...as Bohm, for example, did...


* automatically I am reminded here by the problem of strong emergence, 'decrees' of some physicists like ''By definition, there are no emergent properties. ‘Emergent’ properties can only appear if interactions are approximated or neglected. The idea of ‘emergent’ properties is a product of minds with restricted horizons, unable to see or admit the richness of consequences that general principles can produce.'' (MotionMountain course pg. 692) cannot, certainly, be of help...(or Motl's cheap rejection of Bohmian mechanics mainly ''because it tries to change physics'' and so on)