Leonard Mlodinow destroys Deepak Chopra

I love this video. Deepak Chopra, one of the biggest charlatans in the world, gets smacked around with incredible ease by Leonard Mlodinow, co-author of The Grand Design.

Advertisements

13 Responses

  1. Holy crap that man talks shit!

  2. This is an old video. Chopra just spews a word salad of terms out and his sentences are quite meaningless.

  3. Mlodinow’s M theory with its gazillion phoney universes and multitude of hypothetical dimensions is way more woo-woo than anything Deepak has ever said. Its a fairy tale.

  4. Mlodinow’s views fit the evidence. Chopra makes it up as he goes along, abusing terms and lying.

  5. What evidence does Mlodinow’s view fit exactly? Seriously.

    What terms are Chopra abusing? What is he supposedly lying about?

  6. Mlodinow’s view fits with what the evidence says is necessary of the Universe. Chopra, on the other hand, uses words like “quantum” to mean anything he can’t explain – which includes a lot of stuff.

  7. The evidence to which you presumably refer is that the 22 or so constants which describe the universe (mass of electron, charge of proton etc etc etc) are precisely what are necessary to have a universe with stars, life and consciousness. Our universe with life and consciousness is a one in a gazillion possibiiity. The question of how/why we have these precise conditions is known as the Anthropic principle. Paul Davies wrote a book about it called The Goldilocks principle. There are two basic possible explanations.

    One is that there is intelligence/consciousness guiding the formation of the universe (Deepak).

    The other (Leonard) is that there are a gazillion other universes and we happen to be in the one and only one which is just right for consciousness. To support this possibility, physicists came up with M theory which posits precisely that – a gazillion universes. But there is absolutely no evidence for other universes, and no way to test for them. M theory is not even a theory, as Roger Penrose says.

    On the other hand Deepaks contention that intelligence/consciousness is intrinsic to quantum spacetime geometry is testable. He has a theory, or at least he refers to Penrose-Hameroff theory which is consistent with Vedic philosophy. Mlodinow doesnt even have a theory.

  8. No.

    First off, the so- called 22 or so constants which describe the universe are not so exactly aligned. It has been shown that many of these can be changed together and there are many sets of possibilities.

    Second, Mlodinow’s science (not view) comes from the mathematics of string theory and M-theory. It is true that none of it has been verified, but the mathematics holds up by itself.

    Chopak is nothing but a charlatan who speaks in word salad mode and makes thins up, just like his consciousness crap. He has no evidence to back up anything he says. His nonsense has been shown to be just that many times.

  9. The constants which define the universe are constants. They’ve not been changed. When you say ‘it has been shown’…what are you talking about? By whom? How??

    String theory and M theory are contrived, and thus far completely useless. Mathematical elegance doesnt prove anything.They require all these fabricated universes and made-up dimensions.On top of that, they don’t provide the background spacetime in which the strings supposedly vibrate. Quantum geometry, loop quantum gravity, twistor theory are alternatives which DO give the background. String theory/M theory is like phlogiston – some made-up baloney. And you attack Deepak for no evidence??!!! Shame on you.

    And as far as your silly ad hominem attacks against Deepak, take me on. Ive got his back. Penrose-Hameroff theory and its related topics provide a framework that is both scientifically plausible and testable, and consistent with Deepaks Vedic philosophy.

    See http://www.quantumconsciousness.org
    If you want to talk science and consciousness, bring it on.

  10. The constants which define the universe are constants. They’ve not been changed. When you say ‘it has been shown’…what are you talking about? By whom? How??

    Certain constants are dependent upon each other; change one constant and you’ve inherently changed another.

    String theory and M theory are contrived, and thus far completely useless. Mathematical elegance doesnt prove anything.

    It’s unclear how something is both contrived and elegant at the same time.

    They require all these fabricated universes and made-up dimensions.On top of that, they don’t provide the background spacetime in which the strings supposedly vibrate. Quantum geometry, loop quantum gravity, twistor theory are alternatives which DO give the background. String theory/M theory is like phlogiston – some made-up baloney. And you attack Deepak for no evidence??!!! Shame on you

    M-theory is consistent with the evidence; Chopra just uses science-y words to make a buck.

  11. “Change one constant and you’ve inherently changed another”.

    In this universe? Are you serious? Are you playing God? Constants are constants. And you criticize Chopra for not making sense?

    “It’s unclear how something is both contrived and elegant at the same time.”

    Any decent fantasy qualifies, including M theory/string theory.

    “M-theory is consistent with the evidence; Chopra just uses science-y words to make a buck.”

    What evidence? How could you even test for these gazillion universes?
    What science qualifications do you have? I havent seen an intelligent word out of you yet.

  12. n this universe? Are you serious? Are you playing God? Constants are constants. And you criticize Chopra for not making sense?

    *sigh* What I find really annoying about this is that I had to go dig up an old book, search through its various chapters, and now I have to type up one of the relevant excerpts.

    Let me mention one parameter where the answer to the claim of fine-tuning is ridiculously simple. The masses of neutrinos are supposedly fine-tuned since their gravitational effects would be too big or too small if they were different and this would adversely affect the formation of stars and galaxies. But that assumes that the number of neutrinos in the universe is fixed. It is not. It is determined by their masses. If heavier, there would be fewer. If lighter, there would be more. Whatever the masses, the gravitational effects of neutrinos would be the same. (Victor Stenger, “New Atheism”)

    Change their mass and you change their numbers.

    What evidence? How could you even test for these gazillion universes?

    *sigh*

    The theory we describe in this chapter is testable. In the prior examples we emphasized that the relative probability amplitudes for radically different universes, such as those with a different number of large space dimensions, don’t matter. The relative probability amplitudes for neighboring (i.e., similar) universes, however, are important. The no-boundary condition implies that the probability amplitude is highest for histories in which the universe starts out completely smooth. The amplitude is reduced for universes that are more irregular. This means that the early universe would have been almost smooth, but with small irregularities. As we’ve noted, we can observe these irregularities as small variations in the microwaves coming from different directions in the sky. They have been found to agree exactly with the general demands of inflation theory; however, more precise measurements are needed to fully differentiate the top-down theory from others, and to either support or refute it. These may well be carried out by satellites in the future. (“The Grand Design”)

    Did you even bother to read the book?

    What science qualifications do you have?

    Honesty.

  13. Your reply is regurgitating Victor Stenger. OK.
    As an appeal to authority, your choice is pretty lame.

    Regarding fine tuning and the neutrino mass, he’s assuming the net mass of all neutrinos is relevant, and unknown. But Max Tegmark (another multiverse-ian) points out the net mass of the three types of neutrinos is constant, and selected anthropically.

    Stenger’s contention that fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, or its propagation through space, is even potential evidence for multiple universes is silly. We know such fluctuations are due to granularity in Planck scale geometry. If such granularity is non-random, then we have evidence for what I’m saying – a possible intelligence in the universe.

    More recently Craig Hogan has observed that so-called noise in gravity wave detection repeats at various scales, suggesting a holographic organization of the universe (still only one universe), showing how Planck scale information can conceivably influence biological systems.

    And as far as Inflation, see Paola Zizzi’s work on consciousness in the early universe (the ‘Big Wow’ theory). Its way more credible than Stenger and a gazillion universes, all contrived to make this one appear random.

    I confess I havent read Stenger’s book(s) in entirety, just excerpts which were so silly and ill-informed (and negative toward my ideas) i invited him to debate at a conference last year. He declined. I’m for open discussion and debate, not trashing people based on ignorance and sound bites. Thats dishonest.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: