big facts
3mon 18d ago by lemmy.world/u/kali_fornication in science_memes@mander.xyz
"It's funny how people will believe in Newton's laws of motion but still think the Force from Star Wars is mythical nonsense."
But the Force is Mass times Acceleration!
No, it's the Force so it has to be the Mass times the Acceleration.
No it can't be then The Force will be equal to The²(Mass times Acceleration)
Its either The mass times acceleration or mass times the acceleration
Where we're going we don't need commutative multiplication.
Doc, you can't just put cocaine in the frunk of a CyberTruck and call it a DeLorean!
the Mass times the Acceleration will equal the2 Force.
You forgot the Lorenz factor. The Falcon flies FTL. That's where the midichlorians fit in.
Missa times acceleration
fuck me, you got me good I'm mad I laughed as long as I did
I do believe gorilla piss exists.
I do not believe drinking gorilla piss would grant you gorilla strength (citation needed).
well yeah, obviously! You have to dilute it 1000 times for it to have any effect.
well you eyedrop it into your butthole and then expose your butthole to the sun so the positive solar energy modifies it primally because we're all made of starlight and that's just how it works
This is why nudist colonies are so vibrant. Easy as.
Dicks out for Harambe. 😔
i think i'm gonna need a demonstration kautau
Not with that attitude.
Where would we find the citation you say is needed, for what you do not believe?
"believe in wi-fi"
I peraonally belief in a really thin cable, but big tech is trying to tell us its waves and stuff. But you have your opinion, I have mine. Nobody can be sure wich one is really true.
It's actually a really REALLY fat cable. We spend our entire time inside it.
data goes in, data goes out. you can't explain that.
If you don't believe wi-fi exists, you'd be a fool.
i don't believe in wifi, just like i don't believe in trees. i know they're there. that requires no belief.
The belief would be that your senses aren't being actively deceived. Also, that you're not a Boltzmann brain hallucinating in the void.
I personally believe all the axioms of science apply. It's still fun to poke at them.
the atheist says "i will not believe". the agnostic says "i can not believe". one is as dogmatic as the beliefs they purport to refute, the other lacks the capacity for dogma, as belief for them is simply not possible.
Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.
Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.
That doesn't mean I don't try disproving the null hypothesis.
I don't think reasonable is even it for me, it's just a helpful assumption.
If they are doing a perfect job at a Truman show type situation, there's nothing you can do, so you might as well assume they're not and play your role.
It's more reasonable via Occam's razor (more complexity is less reasonable, when everything else is equal). However it is still just a belief axiom. You have to assume 1 holds.
Too many cut themselves on Occam's razor, incorrectly presuming all else equal.
If things are not all equal, then we can slice off a section of the axiom, and start dissecting it, via science. The axiom only applies if things are exactly equal.
E.g. Gravity wave detectors have found oddities, just above the noise floor. These are likely equipment artifacts. They are also consistent with us being in a simulation, and us touching close to the resolution limit. If true (quite unlikely) then it would prove the axiom false.
If you believe in pragmatism, that's just semantics. A statement is reasonable or valid to the extent that it is useful.
a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.
It's an assumption, not an extrapolation. Assumptions, without evidence are beliefs.
We assume several unprovable axioms to allow science to function. A lot of work has also been done to collapse them down to the core minimum. What is left is still built on belief.
The fact that the results are useful back validates those beliefs. It doesn't prove them however.
we're comparing it to a system where none of that has been done. it's sort of a "god of the gaps" situation but the gaps are shaped exactly like pieces in a puzzle. we can extrapolate the form of the proof even if we can't show it. the same is not true of the other camp.
You say that, but, if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains. (There would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains, but only a finite number of humans)
I personally believe I am not, and the universe actually exists, rather than a sensory/memory ghost.
surely if the universe has an infinite lifespan there could be an infinite number of humans? for whatever passes as a human at any given time. the two concepts may even overlap.
not that it matters for the day-to-day, anyway.
The logic is that the universe of big bang matter has a limited lifespan. This sets a hard limit on the number of humans via "normal" means.
Boltzmann brains are due to a quirk of quantum mechanics. Matter can come into existence spontaneously. The rate is proportional to the amount (technically the energy content). Given enough time and space, something that would fit the definition of human could spontaneously appear. The odds of this are unbelievably long, but, so long as it's finitely large, in a true infinite universe it will happen an infinite number of times. It's a bit of infinity Vs very large number weirdness.
End result is that there will be a large but finite number of "normal" humans, but an infinite number of Boltzmann brain humans. Therefore, the chances of being an actual "normal" human is effectively infinitesimal.
Agreed about it not mattering, day to day. It's one of those things that is of interest to theoretical physicists, since it might tell us something interesting about the nature of our universe.
it is very interesting, but it's also one of those topics that makes anything else in the conversation not matter.
also do note that i said nothing about thinking sensory inputs are illusory, just that belief is not required for things to exist.
It seems more likely in a universe that is infinitely large that brains would come into existence through simpler deterministic processes like they did on earth than random fluctuations no?
Our best ideas on the big bang put the universe as huge, but finite in space. (Way bigger than the observable universe) The question is time. If time is infinite then Boltzmann brains win.
Matter has a finite life, energy differentials run out. Stars run out of fuel. Black holes evaporate. Even protons eventually fall apart to energy. Then there is endless emptiness.
That emptiness would be finite in space, but infinite in time. Without that last boundary, weird things happen to maths.
If you appeal to heat death then you cannot say brains pop back into existence either because "matter has a finite life," and so it is self-defeating. If brains can pop back into existence due to random fluctuations then surely planets and stars could as well given enough time.
The energy to spontaneously create a planet is vastly more than a brain. Then again, with the weird maths of infinities, it might play out.
Though to recreate the full illusion would require something closer to the big bang itself.
It's well into the "here he dragons" realms of science however. Speculating well beyond reliable evidence.
if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains
Sounds like presuming some place further along in an infinite set. We may still be in an early iteration at the start, as plain as it seems.
Honestly? Without evidence, they're both equally probable. And believing, or refusing to believe in a god or something, are both faith of equal measure.
It's just whether someone thinks their version is faith is more realistic than the opposite.
When the results are inseparable, then complexity is the only element, it doesn't prove anything, but it does bias.
Also, most gods don't fall into this debate. Most gods would be quite happy interfering. This is (in principle) distinguishable from the null. It was aimed primarily at the simulation hypothesis. A perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a base reality.
I'm willing to accept Atheism, 'I do not believe in God', as somewhat dogmatic, but as others have said, it's the null hypothesis and they have Occam's razor going for them. Pragmatically it is a useful stance in light of the societal harm religion does.
I am however unwilling to conflate Agnosticism with 'I can not believe', always been "I'm waiting for evidence one way or the other" to me, so perhaps the more scientific point of view.
It's not 3 points, but 4.
Atheist==>Theist Agnostic==>gnostic
There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren't really talking about god.
if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that's the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there's proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require "belief", i.e. unfounded assumptions.
as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.
No, the pragmatic stance is to pick the side that is more helpful and useful. That may or may not be neutral.
No.
Oh, you're a solipsist? You believe reality is an illusion and trees don't really exist? I'm somewhat similar, I'm an antirealist. I recognise that reality is an illusion, but I still choose to believe in it until it can be overthrown. If we teach enough people how to reshape their beliefs and perceptions, then we can decide for ourselves whether trees exist. But at present, I need to believe in trees in order to inhabit consensus reality and communicate efficiently with the people who live here. It's cool that you don't believe in trees, though!
no
I'm happier with non-belief, than squirming through the exercise of deciding what to believe and disbelieve under the unchecked presumption that we must believe something.
Even more so for the distinct "believing in" something.
I only believe in my own wifi. My wifi is the one true wifi.
They also seem to believe wi-fi "powers everything"? What a loon.
Introducing POW (power over wlan)! By broadcasting a constant small gamma wave, small electronic devices can use the latent energy to power electronic components.
Though I imagine he paid more attention to the cymatic cromulence.
Through the modial interaction of magnetoreluctance and capacitive diractance... https://youtu.be/Ac7G7xOG2Ag
Just if the Hulk comics were released sooner.
I think you're probably joking, but this actually is a thing. e.g. https://scitechdaily.com/engineers-harvest-energy-from-wifi-signals-to-power-small-electronics/
Yaayyyy, constant gamma radiation!!!
Shout out to my broken coworker who brought his crystals in to work one day to fix our negative energy. After carefully placing each stone according to universal leylines of good vibes, extraordinarily pleased with himself, immediately saw me slice through a package and into my fingers. I needed eleven stitches.
That's just how the magic stones remove the negative energy from your body, through bloodletting
It all makes sense now. The universe balanced my humors.
Negative energy can never be removed, only transferred. He obviously didn't like you, the skeptic, so he transferred all the negative energy into you from your other co-workers. /s
Aw, but I supported him. Magic is stupid but I like cool rocks.
Crystals do fix negative energy in a very simple way ! Feeling negative ? Just look at a crystal, crystals are pretty. Now you feel less negative, ta-dah !
I have multiple salt lamps for this reason. The magic of being a very pretty glowing crystal works wonders on me when I feel down x)
I absolutely believe in energy, frequency, and vibration. My wifi vibrates at a frequency of 2.4 and 5 GHz and in order to do that it needs to use energy.
Like, I'm down with hippie woo energy work, it's really useful meditation. I use it to keep my anxiety under control. But your religion can't cure diseases, it can only provide comfort
Meditation is awesome and useful. But it doesn't need to be mystical and magical to be great, and I wish more people realized that.
God has not once healed an amputee. What does he have against them?
No longer made in his image?
jealousy that we can keep rocking our body image after losing part of it.
That's how I feel about astrology. A horoscope is just a prompt for self reflection. But it's fun when something feels woo woo or predictive or relatable because... its fun, idk. Its spooOoOoOoKy, it's fun, it's cute. Star charts are a skill you have to learn, it's a hobby, it makes your brain work.
yup. i like tarot. it gives me a prompt from which to examine my own thoughts.
Well that begs the question though, why do some people find it fun and cute? Because they want to believe there's a lazy easy way to figure things out without doing the hard work of the scientific process.
From that perspective i find astrology to be harmful and dangerous, although unfortunately ive had no success convincing anyone of that. I suppose some humans just like harmful and dangerous things and perhaps evolutionarily our species evolved to have a large number of those people.
The irony of finding two other woo-tolerant Lemmites in this comm.
Once I learned that astrology points to themes of influence on a time frame, it made a lot more sense. Taking it literally and thinking everything is confirmation bias is how people dismiss it. There's more than a few people that have correctly nailed a lot of big events, it's more about technique it seems. Nick Dagen Best published a book I think in 2013 or 2016 that is hitting hard right now - totally called Trump 2 and stuck to his guns on that.
three
Four
I like maps. I like puzzles. Astrology's both.
First got intrigued when in my ignorant militant atheism dogma phase, and someone managed to discern my sun sign, just by my appearance and behaviours. I have since gone on to do the same to others, typically with as much world-view-changing astonishment in them as I experienced.
Can't be bunk if that can be done.
The observable profiling reality of it, does open minds to wondering about what's the astrological weather like.
To put on my obnoxious skeptic hat, it sounds like you are analyzing how the historical conditions of people's upbringing affects each generations' behaviors and mannerisms. Just, with an astrological chart rather than with a calendar.
it sounds like you are analyzing how the historical conditions of people’s upbringing affects each generations’ behaviors and mannerisms.
I do not know how it sounds like that to you. Seems a strong non sequitur. Maybe I'm missing something. Care to elaborate how you made this leap?
People who grew up around the same time and geography have the same historical pressures on what behaviors they learn. Obviously outcome varies a lot individual to individual, but it creates broad trends among large groups. Sorting chronologically brings those trends to the forefront.
Maybe can cure some diseases.
Even just via the comfort provided. Comfort enough, to get into a parasympathetic dominant mode long enough for the body to heal itself.
I kinda don't believe in Energy, in the sense that I find it a useful conserved quantity to calculate stuff. Energy, or other physical quantities like fields "existing" though, is a philosophical question
Alopatic medicine cures some stuff but what does most is treat symptoms cause what it wants is to make money not to cure disease, I'm quite sure companies making billions off insuline and chemotherapy aren't going to even bother trying to cure something they are profiting off, in fact is much probable that they actively try to sabotage research that could end their golden goose disease treatments...
Allopathic?
Meditation has a lot of science behind it, it's not a religious thing, at least not any more so than reading and writing is a religious thing.
You can map out the inside of a building and figure out where objects are, and when and where movement occurs, with WiFi.
You cannot do this with magic woo woo nonsense that equivocates and conflates terms across different domain specific meanings, and then attempts to build a world view out of confused, meaningless/contradictory gibberish.
I can't say I tune with your vibes, but I am grooving to your aura.
Must be a Pisces. Classic Pisces vibes lol
fuck. pisceses always make me want sushi.
my piceses, my piceses!
goblin monches on raw wriggling fish
I still ain't got no sushi dammit. I blame past me. They were, well, occupied by board games.
No sushi and no garlic coffee
DAMMIT i swear on my not so dead mother's grave I keep remembering at 230 and if I have too late, you know?
You got this, king!
I have bigger fish to fry but this one is on the list
Batman taught me this.
I... am not entirely certain whether or not the tech actually existed, when the Dark Night came out, to build the hyper spy system...
But it definitely exists now, to at least some extent.
Fortunately, the Antichrist Peter Thiel is probably more or less in charge of it, so, all good!
Some of the more storied and out there reports of what happened with the remote viewing program in the 80s and 90s pretty much get close to this.
You've obviously never been ghost hunting.
I mean, I have certainly wandered through many an abandonded, functionally cursed place when I was homeless for about 2 years.
And I could have just brought a portable radio and randomly dialed through FM/AM stations, pausing for a few second on something stable, then going back to static.
... but I didn't need a radio to see the echoes of what had happened at the places I'd been.
'Environmental Storytelling' isn't just a thing in video games.
Heard some conspiracy folks mention negative frequencies from 5G and the like. It's just a phase I guess..
Negative frequency is a concept in signal processing, and many other domains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_frequency
Phase could be the thing, beats me, it's been a while. Negative resistance is also another one of those concepts that pop up now and then, specifically negative differential resistance.
I mean, the signs* are right there in the article
*something something sines
Oh god, it’s been a long time since I took Vibrations and Waves, but I still remember filling notebook after notebook with Fourier transform equations.
They aren't "powering everything". JFC go lick a wall outlet, that's what powers many things. WiFi is information, and indeed, they try to make it use less and less power.
It could power stuff. Tesla was working on it, and there have been a few small companies over the years that have done it.
Just turns out that it's not very practical compared to a wall socket.
You guys, energy, frequency and vibration are all obviously fake. Nobody has ever observed vibration in real life. Go on and try measuring one of those "frequencies", I'll wait. Where are you even supposed to find those? "A faucet dripping"? "Your literal heartbeat"? Don't make me laugh!
Tuning forks are big fake
have you tried to find a tuning fork lately? they're little fake now. i just got an application across my desk asking for a grant for money to put tuning forks in weird places because there's not enough woo and i'm gonna reject it because it's a good idea and i want to do it.
Big Tuning Fork are lying to us!
Some of them are also small fake
I'll show you some nice vibrations ;-)
NO, put down the taser!
So many layers to unpack here.
Specifically OSI layers 1 and 2!
Dammit.
Bravo.
Trying to legitimize bullshit by using big words out of context and meaning
I don't need to believe in Wi-Fi I just need to see that my phone is connected to the internet. The existence of Wi-Fi can be inferred by me having access to YouTube.
I only saw the top part of the picture at first, and I was very confused: "Why is this in Science Memes?"
I do subscribe to a small comfort belief that our consciousness isn't just encoded in our neurons but has a radiative component that constructively/destructively interferes with the environment on some small level we atttibute to random events, and that when we die, we sever only the somatic component of our consciousness but our radiative part lives on encoded into a wider network of ambient thought.
Sort of like ghosts/an afterlife, but less moaning and chain rattling and more general vibing the emotion of a park bench from the overlapped thought networks that ever intersected it
Might be in the wrong sub...
I think consciousness is more than just our neurons, it's an active waveform riding and guided by them.
Unfortunately, I don't think it survives death. Without the underlying structure, it collapses to noise.
Interestingly, our brains have special circuits, design to emulate others. In effect, our consciousness imprints onto theirs. It's not the full pattern, and imperfect, but a part of us lives on in the consciousness of everyone who knows us.
Like ripples in a pond. The water of the initial wave is no longer involved, but it has passed to others.
Interestingly, our brains have special circuits, design to emulate others. In effect, our consciousness imprints onto theirs. It’s not the full pattern, and imperfect, but a part of us lives on in the consciousness of everyone who knows us.
I think this is a far better explained version of what I'm yammering on about. Echoes of yourself living on in other conscious beings, fragmented 1000fold into the general aether of all those you've interacted with
It's useful to understand the mechanisms, it helps you to understand both what it can do, and its limitations. E.g. they can only mirror the parts they see or talk about. The parts of yourself that you hide away will be lost from their imperfect model.
For more info, it generally falls under "mirror neurons". They help us empathise with others. E.g. when we smile, certain mirror neurons start firing. When we see someone smile, the same ones fire. We feel the appropriate emotions because of this. They also fire preemptively. E.g. when you hear your mother yelling about the mess, even though you've lived alone for a decade.
Ah right. I guess I'm sort of implying that the hidden parts are also imprinted somehow too, through a vague hand-wavey mechanism that I've yet to define
I think you had the better version straight out of the gate.
What you are describing maps quite well to the Quantum Memory Model (accessible explanation here) of Physics. Certainly considering information a fundamental quantity that can neither be created nor destroyed is becoming a popular concept.
Sounds a bit like if we die, we retreat into the human noosphere and become a concept instead of a person
what
They conscript themselves unto a diminutive solace tenet that our noetic essence is not merely inscribed within our cerebral neurons but encompasses a resplendent effulgence that constructively/destructively commingles with the circumambient firmament upon some infinitesimal stratum we ascribe to capricious vicissitudes, and that upon our demise, we sunder solely the corporeal partition of our noetic essence whilst our effulgent essence endures, enscrolled within a vaster concatenation of ambient cogitation.
Somewhat reminiscent of phantasms/an empyrean continuance, yet less plaintive wailing and clanking of fetters and more ethereal attunement to the affective emanation of a park bench amid the interlaced noetic filigrees that have ever impinged upon it.
They might be in the wrong comm though...
Lo verrily, I thank thee kind gentleman scholar to the spirit of thine timely repose of which mine gedankenings give flight to the fanciness of bees. May the everlasting illumination of others through proxy prose continue to be a boon to those who entreat upon it!
oh yeah that makes sense
Cool, so you have evidence for this? Or do you routinely believe in outrageous things with zero evidence?
The latter, with a 's/routinely/rare/'
I also have some curious thoughts about higher dimensional beings as well as some murmurs about what the rustling of trees might be a proxy for if you need the extra fodder, or just a fun drink in a pub somewhere
WiFi IS real. "Auras", "Vibes" and "Crystal Energy" is magical nonsense.
That's just what big WiFi wants you to think so they can sell you more WiFi
Open your eyes sheeple! And also remember to buy my $499 online course on how to make the vibrations of your aura more positive or something
Can you teach me to vibrate into alternate universes like The Flash? 'Cause I don't like this one that much.
Absolutely! But that's not covered until the Level 2 course, which is an in-person retreat.
What if you vibrate into an alternate universe, but the Earth isn't in the same place?
The only real magic is friendship.
And magnets.
That shit interacts unlike any other object we normally encounter.
Purple sparkle and the color gang approves this message.
Thats why you scream 'oh god!' when climaxing.
well so does your mom (ive witnessed it)
You got to dissapoint her too, huh?
I have to charge my phone. What is your wifi password?
Destructive dunking is not a constructive way to spread the word of the lord science
Tech lets people play games with their thoughts
https://www.futurity.org/brain-computer-interface-games-3200662-2/
WiFi uses all three. (Yes, even vibration, AFAIK the clocks inside both computers use piezoelectric quartz crystals)
To be fair I very much don't believe in wifi. I use it, but I still think it doesn't have what it takes.
Mkultra
To be honest... electric field you are surrounded by every day most likely affects you more than position of Saturn on the night sky... But people who claim that new tech is causing medical issues are considered crackpots.
Believing in astrology is much safer.
Maybe you just don't understand how I use them?
If you assume I'm using them nonsensically, then yes, I suppose they would seem nonsensical to you...
Okay but some rocks do have an energy and vibe. This is scientifically proven, the energy is radiation and the vibe is hatred. Pretty fucken useful for a variety of things though, like antique glow in the dark plates.
I do believe that people operate at different vibrational frequencies...like you know the person who comes in the room and there's just a creepy dark energy? It happens. Its not voodoo weird stuff but there's definitely a 6th sense about people that's present.
It's more likely a collection of more mundane unconscious observations using all of your more normal senses that get very quickly consolidated in to one intuitive sense of dubious reliability but which in the absence of better information keeps you a bit safer.
World appears to be solid/stable at first but on closer inspection is actually vibratory.
It's ok to have points of agreement. You don't have to mock and bicker 100% of the time.
People who believe in "auras" and actually think that thinking good thoughts in relation to a specific thing will affect it on any way are deserving of mockery.
It's religion for people who don't like organized religion.
https://scienceinsights.org/do-humans-glow-the-science-of-our-bodys-invisible-light/
The answer to whether humans glow is a definitive yes. Our bodies continuously emit a faint, steady light, a phenomenon known as Ultraweak Photon Emission (UPE), or biophotons. This glow is a byproduct of our fundamental biological processes, rendering it completely invisible to the naked eye. Unlike the dramatic, visible light produced by fireflies (bioluminescence), this subtle radiance provides scientists with a novel way to peer into the inner workings of cellular health and metabolism.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/06/four-ways-human-mind-shapes-reality
It might sound like a pseudoscientific fantasy, but the mind can shape health, behavior and maybe even society as a whole. Stanford researchers are bridging disciplines to understand what our minds can do and how they do it.
what we expect, believe, and even feel profoundly alters how we experience the world. Put differently, the mind is not a passive observer. It is a predictive, generative, reality-filtering system—one that continually constructs the lens through which we live our daily experiences.
How does it feel to be confidently wrong?
He wasn't.
You can't see the biophotons.
Humans have no way of detecting, experiencing them, without complex instruments.
They do not factor in to any decision making activity in our brain, because we have no senses capable of receiving them as input.
Read your own source.
The way that people colloquially use 'aura' is as if they have some kind of magical ability to see things other people can't, that indicate things about that aura-haver's emotional or mental or spiritual state.
They can't, biophotons do none of that, they're just a nearly undetectable form of light that's emmitted by essentially anything that has an active metabolism, ie, is not dead.
They're just using a made-up concept to describe internal herusitics in their mind, ie, their intuition.
Sure, they've used their mind in the way that your last two sources sort of hint at, but its a delusion, its failing to understand their own mind giving rise to a psuedo religious concept.
The only reality, the only power in 'auras' as a concept is sociological, indirect, as a reference with no referent.
Auras being a thing be people can see and use... that's on the same level of 'real' as 'Christ died for our sins'.
If you mean to use a different definition of aura, as in just a glow of light, then sure, technically all living matter has an imperceptible aura.
Could these UPEs play some kind of way into extremely short distance cellular interactions? Yes!
But thats... not what people mean, 95% of the time, when they're talking about a person's aura.
This is the whole problem of using woo woo terms.
You can't conflate two different meanings of words and then act like that is not what you are doing.
You also should specify what you mean, in cases where a word has different meanings in different domains.
The whole thing about auras is that they're not visibly perceptible either. Some people claim to be able to see them, but that's a completely separate argument from the much more common belief that they exist.
And according to science, they do exist. They can be detected with certain instruments and even reveal data about health and metabolism.
Biophotons are an imperceptible glow of light that surround living organisms. Auras are an imperceptible glow of light that surround living organisms. Therefore, biophotons are auras.
You can call bullshit on someone claiming to be able to see auras, but if you're saying auras don't exist because science calls them something different, then you're simply wrong.
If you mean to use a different definition of aura, as in just a glow of light, then sure, technically all living matter has an imperceptible aura.
Could these UPEs play some kind of way into extremely short distance cellular interactions? Yes!
But thats... not what people mean, 95% of the time, when they're talking about a person's aura.
This is the whole problem of using woo woo terms.
You can't conflate two different meanings of words and then act like that is not what you are doing.
You also should specify what you mean, in cases where a word has different meanings in different domains.
- Myself, from the comment you replied to.
So you decided to monopolize the meaning of the term as strictly something that you can point to as obviously wrong, and when I point out that that's a mischaracterization you cite... yourself... as corroborating evidence.
You go champ.
There's more and more evidence that we are affected by and emit light in various ways. Did you also know that there is a flash of light when a sperm meets an egg?
Since light is a kind of radiant energy and we evolved alongside the sun for so long, it's not actually that far a leap that our biology would make use of it in some way, if you think about it.
That's really cool, I didn't know that.
There are people who deny Reality is made of vibrations. They are absolutely deserving of kind & respectful correction, because it's a wrong view.
You're changing the subject to auras and telekinesis: not what was being discussed.
What will the mockery get for you?
Hopefully the people mocked will adapt to social pressure and change their beliefs in order to fit in better. Bullying generally does work, even if it sucks. The only alternative is to simply murder the ones you disagree with and that sucks even more for multiple reasons, chiefly that right now numbers are against us.
Do you know this first-hand? Give us an example of a belief you hold primarily because of bullying.
I'd say every belief in the entirety of my socialization as a child was formed through bullying of some sort. You try something, people laugh, mock, beat, harass, it feels bad, your social brain says that was bad, you remember it because it feels bad, you adjust and don't repeat to avoid feeling bad again.
That's how human communities select for behaviour.
As an adult I'd say whether I like it or not I've become increasingly more tolerant of conservatives because of them shoving their shit down our throats everywhere. Things I'd consider so absurd they're not worth the time of day are now ideas that seem almost sensible enough to warrant a rebuttal. I don't like it, but they hold all the cards and make the rules and it works well for them, imo.
I have no reason to take your truth-claims seriously if you admit that they're not actually truth-claims.
my truth-claims?
This is what I don't like about the top meme, though. Like, yes, energy, frequency, and vibration are all things. Obviously. But the top meme is implying that everyone should believe that those things work in the specific ways that the woo practitioners say they do, and that's a very different demand. More, it's implying that people who doubt those effects are ignoring obvious evidence, when in fact the people who doubt those effects do so because nobody has been able to demonstrate reliable evidence for them. It has a nasty gaslighting overtone to it.
There's not enough information in the top meme to know what theories it's about.
Things vibrate in a way that isn't obvious to an unexamined view. If I look at a pebble, it appears to be non-vibratory, still. But a mystic or scientist who has really investigated it closely, exposed it to close analysis, can tell you that the reality of the pebble is vibration, not stillness.
I mean, it's talking about people thinking that "energy, frequency and vibration are just mystical nonsense." People don't think that if you talk about an FM station broadcasting on a particular frequency, or about the frequency of light absorbed by particular atomic orbitals. They think that if you're explaining that you've slept much better since you placed jasper and amethyst on the ley lines near your bed to absorb the negative frequencies.
The implication in the meme that anyone who is using these terms cannot be indulging in mystical nonsense, because these terms can also apply to real things. In fact, though, mystic cranks have been coopting scientific terms for ages, and they show no signs of slowing down. It's a real problem that people confuse crap with science.
I've lost interest 🥱