Despite it's title, if my memory serves , there is no mention of the word "God", just a bunch of neuroscience
Right... neuroscience mixed with pop science, but I think his intent is good, to popularize some ideas about brain function that are not well known. Also, as far as I could tell, he's careful to draw from facts, like he knows he's on the hairy edge of psudeoscience ...
In fact, it's not clear why he used that word in the title after all...maybe he was actually hoping to draw in the religious folks, to really open them up to science. If so, then I like this guy.
As for the "if anyone...", I am an example. In fact I watched this entire clip before posting here for someone to question on it since if this theory is really make sense, then why I cannot find any reviews of it in any .edu or .gov sites?
I saw a review on the side panel and I actually watched it too. It was by (a professor in communication?), and that guy was interesting too. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK9-KQZbnHQ
When I watched the video, everything sounds valid until at 43:01 where he started putting up the Cnow=hf. Although it sounds logical that conscious has a wave nature IF consciousness is really a result of the collective interactions of neurons, i found this rather strange as IMO consciousness does not feel as physical as light or particles, thus how can you say there is a wave nature associate with it?
I was OK with his idea except for the equals sign. That really needed peer review before investing in the nifty graphics.
After this part I noticed he frequently use the word "De brogue" (I have no prior knowledge of de brogue equation, thus I cannot judge the accuracy) and started mentioning the "arrow of Cnow is opposite to the arrow of distance" and "C and anti C" claiming to be based on GR and SR (which again I cannot judge as my understanding of relativity is preliminary, although it sound questionable).
I believe he was referring to De Broglie, who, among other things, connects the mass-energy equivalence of energy with the wavelength version (E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] and E=h$$\lambda$$). Put them together and mass is equivalent to vibration, straight-up hippie-speak. I also think this section needed peer review. He's obviously appealing to a broad crowd, drawing in this level of connection that science fans would appreciate. But the C and anti C went off in left field, so yeah, I agree with you on that.
At the point when he mention that mesons tend to oscillate to antimatter form, I pause the clip and google for .edu or fermilab resources, and that confirms that my memory is wrong on the behavior of mesons (I thought it oscillate more frequently into the matter form (as in B mesons) rather than antimatter form)
I forgot about this until you mentioned it. I lumped that whole idea into the flipping in and out of reality by virtual particles and particle decay in general, although he may have been talking around string theory or the Higgs or force mediating effects, or even the wavefunction in general. I was having some attention span problems by then.
I sort of lost when he started bringing out the vectors, as my knowledge of quantum mechanics is preliminary, thus again I cannot judge whether he is making pseudoscientific claim or not.
I don't remember this. I think he could clean it up a lot by giving it to reviewers, but what may have happened is that he did, he just didn't want to take all the advice he was given.
My skepticism peaked when I heard him saying big bang is a misconception and spacetime is not 4 dimensional (I expect him might be saying something like 11 dimensional later but he did not, suggest he disregard string theory (my understanding of string theory is preliminary and is mainly read from michio kaku's hyperspace). As for these points, he did not mention in detail how are they wrong based on his "theory"
You read string theory? Wow. OK. Yes I barely remember the rationale behind 11D manifolds, but it seemed OK to me when I read it years ago. I could almost agree with him on spacetime not being 4D if he had tried to soften his approach and explain it better. I would definitely clean that part up, too.
I do agree one thing (minus the undeniable facts) that he said at the end, that we should analyze our world with openess and skepticism and should not become too emotionally attached to our beliefs in order to see things more clearly and work closer to the truth.
Yeah he had a lot of good universals in there like that. I remember thinking at that point that it looks like he got the idea to do this project from participating in forums where folks tend to get up on a soapbox (I do it all the time) so I immediately wondered if he'd ever been in SciForums
In conclusion, the first half of the video is quite valid while the 2nd half is controversial. As my scientific knowledge may not be sufficient enough, I cannot judge whether he is talking pseudoscience or not.
Yeah, that second half appealed to me from his attempt to make a fusion with a few ideas from physics, but as you've pointed out, it needed some toning down. Just putting a few equations up there appealed to me, and I sensed that that was his purpose which also made me think he was little obvious if he was just manipulating the viewer's opinion by echoing certain ideas we all sympathize with.
Aqueous, which of those 100 points you think are interesting/questionable?
Wow. Really, honestly - you could pause it at random and I would probably say - oh yeah, let's talk about that. It's almost like a compendium of every thread discussion I would either kibbutz at or either participate in. And that's more fuel for he reason I'm thinking he got this idea from forum participation.
