|
|
|
|
captaincalvert
Level 0
Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 322
|
I cannot fault Mr Chek's commitment or results. However I also can't let this cliched version of physics slide by without comment:
"This fact is objectively borne out in Schr�?�¶dinger's cat experiment, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and The Copenhagen Interpretation in quantum physics, all of which imply that "consciousness directed at any given result influences outcome.""
1. Schroedinger's cat is a thought experiment that is meant to suggest that the Copenhagen Interpretation is "wrong" by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. It has never been conducted.
2. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not mystical, it's just simple understanding of how particles interact. To get the momentum of a particle, you must interact with it. That changes its position in an uncertain way. Likewise you can find the position, but that will change its momentum. The uncertainty principle isn't something mystical, it's just common sense applied at the particular level of physics.
3. The Copenhagen Interpretation is only *one* of *many* mathematically equivalent interpretations of quantum physics. As yet physicists cannot distinguish them, so they are each contenders for the true prize. Saying that a "fact is objectively born out" by a single theory in a family of equivalent, competing theories is just silly hand-waving.
If Mr Chek is relying on quantum physics to support his case, then he will need how to explain how his argument fits with all the other formally equivalent interpretations. He can find a list to work from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...antum_mechanics
You are so right.
For some reason it's common among new agers to use Heisenberg as an argument for monism and the illusory nature of existence. They obviously know very little about particle physics. Still they have no qualms about using simplistic misinterpretations of complex theories to support their own unscientific beliefs. How they claim to have science on their side, is clearly one of their most annoying traits. If someone believes in something, and there really is no rational basis for doing so, then that's fine by me, but at least they should be decent enough to admit that the belief is based on pure faith and nothing else. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
 |
|
|
usctrojansfan
Level 3
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 708
|
captaincalvert wrote:
I cannot fault Mr Chek's commitment or results. However I also can't let this cliched version of physics slide by without comment:
"This fact is objectively borne out in Schr�?????�????�???�??�?�¶dinger's cat experiment, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and The Copenhagen Interpretation in quantum physics, all of which imply that "consciousness directed at any given result influences outcome.""
1. Schroedinger's cat is a thought experiment that is meant to suggest that the Copenhagen Interpretation is "wrong" by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. It has never been conducted.
2. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not mystical, it's just simple understanding of how particles interact. To get the momentum of a particle, you must interact with it. That changes its position in an uncertain way. Likewise you can find the position, but that will change its momentum. The uncertainty principle isn't something mystical, it's just common sense applied at the particular level of physics.
3. The Copenhagen Interpretation is only *one* of *many* mathematically equivalent interpretations of quantum physics. As yet physicists cannot distinguish them, so they are each contenders for the true prize. Saying that a "fact is objectively born out" by a single theory in a family of equivalent, competing theories is just silly hand-waving.
If Mr Chek is relying on quantum physics to support his case, then he will need how to explain how his argument fits with all the other formally equivalent interpretations. He can find a list to work from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...antum_mechanics
You are so right.
For some reason it's common among new agers to use Heisenberg as an argument for monism and the illusory nature of existence. They obviously know very little about particle physics. Still they have no qualms about using simplistic misinterpretations of complex theories to support their own unscientific beliefs. How they claim to have science on their side, is clearly one of their most annoying traits. If someone believes in something, and there really is no rational basis for doing so, then that's fine by me, but at least they should be decent enough to admit that the belief is based on pure faith and nothing else.
LOL.... stop reading wikipedia boys.
It's funny how many American on here rely on Wikipedia as a source they don't even have a clue as to what NASA and other great sources have been using for the past few decades.
Does anyone here really know what kind of technology the Government's of this world have? They are using technology we won't see for another forty to fifty years. You can only imagine what kind of scientific research we aren't able to see just yet.
You guys do realize there is a world outside of the internet?
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Perpalicious
Level 0
Join date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 58
|
|
usctrojansfan wrote:
You guys do realize there is a world outside of the internet?
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! Honestly, I read somewhere that the drop-out rate in post-secondary education increased because they called the young generation "wikipedia kids." I definitely didn't word that all that well, but you get the idea. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
captaincalvert
Level 0
Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 322
|
|
LOL.... stop reading wikipedia boys.
It's funny how many American on here rely on Wikipedia as a source they don't even have a clue as to what NASA and other great sources have been using for the past few decades.
Does anyone here really know what kind of technology the Government's of this world have? They are using technology we won't see for another forty to fifty years. You can only imagine what kind of scientific research we aren't able to see just yet.
You guys do realize there is a world outside of the internet?
Er...Not sure what you are getting at here. Can you point out something specific that is wrong with the article? It has a pretty long list of non-internet references, and the level of quality checking is much more thorough these days than at the start of the wikipedia project. But either way I think our arguments are valid even if some details in that article might be open for discussion. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
usctrojansfan
Level 3
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 708
|
captaincalvert wrote:
LOL.... stop reading wikipedia boys.
It's funny how many American on here rely on Wikipedia as a source they don't even have a clue as to what NASA and other great sources have been using for the past few decades.
Does anyone here really know what kind of technology the Government's of this world have? They are using technology we won't see for another forty to fifty years. You can only imagine what kind of scientific research we aren't able to see just yet.
You guys do realize there is a world outside of the internet?
Er...Not sure what you are getting at here. Can you point out something specific that is wrong with the article? It has a pretty long list of non-internet references, and the level of quality checking is much more thorough these days than at the start of the wikipedia project. But either way I think our arguments are valid even if some details in that article might be open for discussion.
The best stuff you can possibly find on quantum physics is never to be found for a very long time or maybe within a few years. But I think stefanogym said it best..he really did... be like water....we think in dense forms....not loose like water and energy. Fuck it... I'll let the other posters chime in and let this thread dissolve into tmuscle history. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Perpalicious
Level 0
Join date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 58
|
captaincalvert wrote:
LOL.... stop reading wikipedia boys.
It's funny how many American on here rely on Wikipedia as a source they don't even have a clue as to what NASA and other great sources have been using for the past few decades.
Does anyone here really know what kind of technology the Government's of this world have? They are using technology we won't see for another forty to fifty years. You can only imagine what kind of scientific research we aren't able to see just yet.
You guys do realize there is a world outside of the internet?
Er...Not sure what you are getting at here. Can you point out something specific that is wrong with the article? It has a pretty long list of non-internet references, and the level of quality checking is much more thorough these days than at the start of the wikipedia project. But either way I think our arguments are valid even if some details in that article might be open for discussion.
Someone, as a reference, used Wikipedia. USC's issue is that people reference wikipedia and that there are better sources. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
giacs
Level 0
Join date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
|
|
First off great article, really refreshing change of pace!
Secondly, i must of totally misread this article because i did not see him bashing science and research i only saw him bashing dodgy research which has been funded by organizations with an agenda. I do believe he said he has a library worth $1.5 mill of books etc. and he subscribes to a bunch of medical and science journals.
I really don't like guys whom try to push their beliefs on you, something that i really got from Chek (not saying i dont agree with his stuff).
Personally i have moved into a form of 'holisitic' training, this has been more of a progression for me. When i first started lifting it was for pure vanity, now i have come to be more about mind as well as the body. I have been striving to become healthier and happier as well as trying to look good nekid. So alot of his stuff rings true with me, however i do believe he is misinterpreted by the way he comes across. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
el_presidente
Level 0
Join date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
|
|
Perpalicious wrote:
Someone, as a reference, used Wikipedia. USC's issue is that people reference wikipedia and that there are better sources.
No, it apparently seems to be that USC's issue is that NASA and other government agencies have SUPAH SEKKRIT QUANTUM TECH that they're not sharing with peons like the Journal of Quantum Physics. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
usctrojansfan
Level 3
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 708
|
el_presidente wrote:
Perpalicious wrote:
Someone, as a reference, used Wikipedia. USC's issue is that people reference wikipedia and that there are better sources.
No, it apparently seems to be that USC's issue is that NASA and other government agencies have SUPAH SEKKRIT QUANTUM TECH that they're not sharing with peons like the Journal of Quantum Physics.
You can really tell that most of the understanding of this side of physics is used to dominate rather than evolve. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
entheogens
Level 2
Join date: Aug 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 1781
|
|
Nuts and seeds have phytic acid in their coating, which is a known mineral and enzyme blocker and is broken down in the sprouting process
This is maybe THE BEST interview I've seen here on T-Nation. About nuts, this absolutely fits into what I know and have experienced. A few years ago, I was eating large quantities of nuts. I finally got GERD, acid reflux and didn't know why. I pin-pointed the problem after some research and cut out the nuts.
I also had to take other measures that I have described elsewhere on T-Nation (taking HCL was part of the solution). Anyway, if you want to eat nuts, one way to make them digestible is to sprout them. You can soak them in water overnight. That should do the trick. For my part, I avoid all nuts and nut oils, save Macadamia nut oil. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
skipdog172
Level 4
Join date: Dec 2008
Location:
Posts: 13
|
el_presidente wrote:
usctrojansfan wrote:
Most people in this article discussion are just showing signs of fear and resistance just like Chek said. People are afraid to die and this guy above is proving his point on that fact alone.... the mind is imbalanced.
As it happens I practice, poorly, vipassana meditation, which is about migrating to the quiet or still mind. The "no mind". I found the insight that the conscious mind is like a wagon full of ceaselessly jabbering madmen to be striking.
Having gotten the standard dick-waving and identity-carding out of the way, let me get to the point.
Chek wants to borrow the imprimatur of physics to lend weight to his argument. But physics does not support his points in the way he thinks. Chek is ignorant of the truth; as an open-minded person he should want to seek it. I don't mean to use ignorance in pejorative way, but in a technical way. He's misunderstood the meaning of the three things he named (perhaps he got the garbled account from Deepak Chopra, who tends to come up with similar stuff).
Probably the key misunderstanding is the word "observation". Physicists do not use this to mean "eyeballs swivel and consciousness focuses". They mean "particle A interacts with particle B". Particle A is *observing* particle B. No consciousness required. The world continues to exist without sight -- just ask blind people.
If anything, Mr Chek is projecting onto physics his own preconceptions of it -- which is what he was complaining about vis a vis discussing spirituality with his clients.
So true...was waiting for somebody to point this out.
Lots of people are quick to defend him here and that is fine as there are a COUPLE posts that are a bit prejudiced. Lots of us though are using critical thinking and the previous example explaining how he essentially created his own definitions of words and does not explain them is another really good point.
I think all the criticism is pretty fair. I don't think anybody is disputing his abilities as a trainer, but some of these theories are flat out wrong and to me, seem to be there just to be "different" than other trainers. I am sure plenty of people go for it too. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
usctrojansfan
Level 3
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 708
|
skipdog172 wrote:
el_presidente wrote:
usctrojansfan wrote:
Most people in this article discussion are just showing signs of fear and resistance just like Chek said. People are afraid to die and this guy above is proving his point on that fact alone.... the mind is imbalanced.
As it happens I practice, poorly, vipassana meditation, which is about migrating to the quiet or still mind. The "no mind". I found the insight that the conscious mind is like a wagon full of ceaselessly jabbering madmen to be striking.
Having gotten the standard dick-waving and identity-carding out of the way, let me get to the point.
Chek wants to borrow the imprimatur of physics to lend weight to his argument. But physics does not support his points in the way he thinks. Chek is ignorant of the truth; as an open-minded person he should want to seek it. I don't mean to use ignorance in pejorative way, but in a technical way. He's misunderstood the meaning of the three things he named (perhaps he got the garbled account from Deepak Chopra, who tends to come up with similar stuff).
Probably the key misunderstanding is the word "observation". Physicists do not use this to mean "eyeballs swivel and consciousness focuses". They mean "particle A interacts with particle B". Particle A is *observing* particle B. No consciousness required. The world continues to exist without sight -- just ask blind people.
If anything, Mr Chek is projecting onto physics his own preconceptions of it -- which is what he was complaining about vis a vis discussing spirituality with his clients.
So true...was waiting for somebody to point this out.
Lots of people are quick to defend him here and that is fine as there are a COUPLE posts that are a bit prejudiced. Lots of us though are using critical thinking and the previous example explaining how he essentially created his own definitions of words and does not explain them is another really good point.
I think all the criticism is pretty fair. I don't think anybody is disputing his abilities as a trainer, but some of these theories are flat out wrong and to me, seem to be there just to be "different" than other trainers. I am sure plenty of people go for it too.
el_presidente is sorta onto something. Of course you can't find conscienceness inside the eye ball or inside the brain. It's NON-LOCAL. It doesn't exist in space or time. It is not in a form or solid. I'm not even sure where Paul Chek says otherwise. Most people who combine spirituality and quantum physics wants the mass to understand, your particles of experiences is just a mirror image of the perspective and expectations inside your mind (brain in action). LOL I've become unsure of what the arguments are for since it's been a few days since reading the article. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
TrollSlayer
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2010
Location: England
Posts: 53
|
|
"I got guys on my treatment table in their 20's who can't get it up. They're barely out of their teens and need fucking Viagara. I tell them, I'm 48; you'd better keep your girlfriend away from me"
These guys need to meet Dr Horny.
Awesome thread, thank you T-Nation for that. I really enjoyed what paul Chek had to say. He sounds like a very intelligent man and some of his stuff actually makes sense to me.
My father always told me that the mind is the strongest thing a man has.Mind over matter.
"Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power" |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Omega_Red
Level 1
Join date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 197
|
buckrice wrote:
Omega_Red wrote:
I fully agree with him in that I believe it is almost impossible to have objective studies. IMO, it really is.
Agreed, which is why one should be skeptical but not necessarily discount everything as false.
Indeed. But the great irony is that in many cases, the study we choose to believe usually comes to to an act of faith; that is to trust and believe whoever conducted the study did so with as little subjectivity as possible.
That is quite an irony. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
benjo
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2010
Location:
Posts: 2
|
|
I can't believe some posters are calling others close minded simply because they are questioning him. Being able to critically evaluate whether a statement is true is a requirement for discerning truth. If Paul's arguments are so easily defeated, is he really worth listening to? If you cannot produce a coherent, logical and error free argument, do you really understand what you are talking about?
Quantum physics.
Mysticism.
Anti-science.
Comparing oneself with Einstein.
Reliance on anecdote over data.
Paul's always had a problem with understanding science, and from what I can tell it's down to his inability to understand statistics. I would venture that Paul has never run a reputable study before. His problem is exemplified by his statements about the joints:
"Sure, look at the vast majority of research on core function. There's no acknowledgement of organ or joint health. This is completely useless, as the body does not operate in such an independent fashion. The body is a cybernetic system, which is a system of systems."
This entire statement was meaningless. What information did you gain from reading this? And is there *a shred* of evidence to back him up? And he obviously hasn't been following statistical methods at all!
"But my point is, you never see a core study that qualifies for normal orthopedic function. I bring this point up with researchers all the time and they often will tell me that they agree with me, but that science just can't manage this many variables at a given time. So they publish research of musculoskeletal function or core function independent of organ health. They publish half-truths at best!"
Go to any lab worth their salt, and they will come up with a way to test *any* of his theories. Given how large the differences Paul claims there are it would be trivial to experimentally verify.
If Paul believes in a certain hypothesis of his he would put his money where his mouth is and fund the research himself. He's had over 10,000 people to his courses, surely he can afford it.
But like every other guy out there who runs a cult (poliquin, davies et al) they won't. They don't need to prove it - they *know* it. And they keep on utilising placebo effect like the mystics before them, deluded that their explanations for the phenomena they see is the one true answer to everything. Delusions of grandeur. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
bobbeh
Level 4
Join date: Aug 2008
Location:
Posts: 53
|
|
benjo wrote:
Quantum physics.
Mysticism.
Anti-science.
Comparing oneself with Einstein.
Reliance on anecdote over data.
Hes using quantum physics to show a point that you are missing... open mindness and not having any pre conceived ideas
For mysticism... see above^^^
he's not anti science, he just doesn't take science for a god like some of you do
again, hes not comparing himself to Einstein, hes trying to make you understand a point that you are missing
"It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you.â??Tony Benn"
You won't find a single Pro bodybuilder or powerlifter that is scientific, whats the first mistake newbies do when they start lifting weight?? over thinking and over reading. Is 5/3/1 Scientific?? no, but it work well. If you go to the gym with the idea of "doing micro tears in your muscles" you will mostly hurt yourself and over work yourself. But im talking from my own experience, which isnt scientific, so it must be wrong.
Its easy to prove something wrong when you don't understand any of it |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
pmg123
Level 1
Join date: Jan 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 37
|
|
benjo wrote:
I can't believe some posters are calling others close minded simply because they are questioning him. Being able to critically evaluate whether a statement is true is a requirement for discerning truth. If Paul's arguments are so easily defeated, is he really worth listening to? If you cannot produce a coherent, logical and error free argument, do you really understand what you are talking about?
Quantum physics.
Mysticism.
Anti-science.
Comparing oneself with Einstein.
Reliance on anecdote over data.
Paul's always had a problem with understanding science, and from what I can tell it's down to his inability to understand statistics. I would venture that Paul has never run a reputable study before. His problem is exemplified by his statements about the joints:
"Sure, look at the vast majority of research on core function. There's no acknowledgement of organ or joint health. This is completely useless, as the body does not operate in such an independent fashion. The body is a cybernetic system, which is a system of systems."
This entire statement was meaningless. What information did you gain from reading this? And is there *a shred* of evidence to back him up? And he obviously hasn't been following statistical methods at all!
"But my point is, you never see a core study that qualifies for normal orthopedic function. I bring this point up with researchers all the time and they often will tell me that they agree with me, but that science just can't manage this many variables at a given time. So they publish research of musculoskeletal function or core function independent of organ health. They publish half-truths at best!"
Go to any lab worth their salt, and they will come up with a way to test *any* of his theories. Given how large the differences Paul claims there are it would be trivial to experimentally verify.
If Paul believes in a certain hypothesis of his he would put his money where his mouth is and fund the research himself. He's had over 10,000 people to his courses, surely he can afford it.
But like every other guy out there who runs a cult (poliquin, davies et al) they won't. They don't need to prove it - they *know* it. And they keep on utilising placebo effect like the mystics before them, deluded that their explanations for the phenomena they see is the one true answer to everything. Delusions of grandeur.
I have never thought Chek had a problem understanding studies or statistics. He never he said he's anti research, what is he opposed to is research in which clear conflicts of interest are present. For example research done for profit at major corporations |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
benjo
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2010
Location:
Posts: 2
|
bobbeh wrote:
benjo wrote:
Quantum physics.
Mysticism.
Anti-science.
Comparing oneself with Einstein.
Reliance on anecdote over data.
Hes using quantum physics to show a point that you are missing... open mindness and not having any pre conceived ideas
For mysticism... see above^^^
he's not anti science, he just doesn't take science for a god like some of you do
again, hes not comparing himself to Einstein, hes trying to make you understand a point that you are missing
"It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you.â??Tony Benn"
You won't find a single Pro bodybuilder or powerlifter that is scientific, whats the first mistake newbies do when they start lifting weight?? over thinking and over reading. Is 5/3/1 Scientific?? no, but it work well. If you go to the gym with the idea of "doing micro tears in your muscles" you will mostly hurt yourself and over work yourself. But im talking from my own experience, which isnt scientific, so it must be wrong.
Its easy to prove something wrong when you don't understand any of it
Don't be so open minded your brain falls out. There are many writers who expand on this available, feel free to "open your mind":
http://www.theness.com/...oo-open-minded/
Summary: Being open minded doesn't mean you just accept what people tell you, no matter the source. If that's your definition, why didn't you accept mine?
"You won't find a single Pro bodybuilder or powerlifter that is scientific"
Sources please? I know of *many* that are extremely scientific and know that the vast majority of professional athletes use sports science extensively through their support staff. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Wayland
Level 0
Join date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Posts: 623
|
|
benjo wrote:
But like every other guy out there who runs a cult (poliquin, davies et al) they won't. They don't need to prove it - they *know* it. And they keep on utilising placebo effect like the mystics before them, deluded that their explanations for the phenomena they see is the one true answer to everything. Delusions of grandeur.
Beautiful benjo
The self assured priggish nature of some these people is what makes me suspicious in the first instance. the rebbutals of critisms seem to consist of "they know because they just know and your just a nobody" |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is no longer open to replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.
|
Article Discussions
