Athene’s Theory of EVERYTHING
Athene has come up with a theory about everything: philosophy, physics, chemistry – both between humans and objects. This is a fascinating theory that draws from numerous fields of study. Worth watching! Review included.
All aspects of science and history are taken into account to forge a new theory to explain how and why the world is the way that it is. Rather than draw on original research this documentary’s strength lies in its original analysis of data that is already out there. Athene is a youtube star with a razor sharp mind. See why. Enjoy.
In the comments below, feel free to talk about whether you agree with Athene’s opinions!
Loading...
When we label things pseudoscience without pointing out any falsities in the presentation or just because the theory is radical or disagrees with current interpretations, we make science into just another dogmatic religion.
no we dont.
however, if we do turn into assholes when we critically analyze a 7 month old personal responses to this video to make ourselves feel smarter,
we make this comment section into a nationalist socialist regime(?)
I was not aware that comments had a statute of limitations.
*national socialist regime*
confirmed for tin-hat
aw man you totally read and correctly interpreted the intent behind my words, you nailed it, good for you. still an ass-hole. don’t like being called out? stop being an ass-hole! :)
I think you might be misunderstanding where the ‘burden of prove’ lies when presenting totally unfounded guff as scientific fact. Despite what you obviously think, the burden of proof doesn’t lie with the scientific community to run around and developed empirical findings to try and disprove the the existence of say; water molecules with memory, magic forest pixies or celestial teapots.
These things are pseudoscience because they are presented as ‘fact’ in the absence of, or in spite of, contrary verified scientific evidence. As for science being ‘another dogmatic religion’, I would like to point out that religion by it’s very definition is belief in the absence of evidence (that’s why they call it faith) while science is belief based on evidence – big difference here!
It’s really no concern of mine if you wish to walk through your life with your head firmly wedged up your ass but please don’t go around trying to infect the rest of society with the idea that they should present whatever mindless pseudoscientific crap they stumble across on the internet as being fact – it better if you leave that to the grown ups ;-)
*water molecules with memory, magic forest pixies, celestial teapots*
Stopped reading here. False analogies and strawman fallacies do not a valid point make.
I’m guessing it’s followed up by a bunch of arrogant ad hominems, but I will never know.
Protip, when we argue, we argue about the thing we’re arguing about. Why not debate his theory rather than inventing some ridiculous false equivalency with fairies and celestial tea pots.
Scientists do indeed make claims without evidence. For example, they claim that the brain is the source of consciousness. But they have no evidence of that. They have evidence that the brain and consciousness are inter-related, but they have no evidence of causation. That lack of evidence does not stop them from claiming that the brain is the cause.
Actually, the criticism is that this documentary presents no evidence supporting the assertions presented. I agree with this criticism.
Being someone who, because of my profession, must try to keep abreast of new research in cognition and brain functioning, I feel that many of the assertions made, are not the only rational interpretations possible when integrating the different findings of past and present research in these areas.
Along with getting the false impression from this video that there is a scientific consensus on what creates the idea or impression of human consciousness or identity, I got the strong impression that this documentary asserts that his so-called scientific interpretations are more self-aware and rational, and therefore more ethical / moral than other theories or interpretations. I personally find this a very dangerous type of reasoning.
I had just come from that stupid Armageddon doc which presented delusions as evidence, so when I pressed play on this I was expecting the worst. Literally, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see two college students in a hot boxxed closet trying to move paper clips with their quantum minds.
What I got instead was an enthralling presentation standing on fairly grounded research yet drawing astoundingly deep and far reaching conclusions about the nature of consciousness and the universe.
For those who want to immediately label this as pseudoscience because its conclusions differ from your textbook or because labeling things as pseudoscience makes you feel more educated, please consider how damaging a culture of intellectual orthodoxy is to science which must change in order to evolve. If you want to disprove the man, more power to you, but simply crowing “psuedoscience!!!” does nothing but show you can’t tell the difference between a genius and Hippie Dave the Quantum Shaman.
testinw
That’s just such an anthropocentric viewpoint.
Not once did I get the impression that he regards man kind as having the highest importance above all. He simply states the significance of consciousness. Can you not say that the ability of matter to come together and be aware of itself is the most fascinating concept? Nowhere does he imply that only the consciousness of humans is important. The consciousness of all living things is amazing, and strikes me as the most complex.
If you don’t like the content, hit the door. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the doc.
This is unsubstantiated shit and presented throughout with a really stupid synthesised V/O that makes it hard to follow or take an interest in. Give it a miss.
I think that it could be called pseudoscience, only because this is (as quoted by the creator multiple times) a SUMMARY of the original author’s ideas. So the ideas are presented without much explanation or evidence as that would make this youtube doco far too long for anyone to ever watch. It’s impossible to argue about this without the author’s own use of bibliography and notes, so we can only view it as a rather entertaining trailer of someone’s ideas which i found pretty interesting to be honest. I kinda hope they’re right, and I hope to hear more.
So yeah, arguing about the truth of something that has no evidence or bibliography is pretty pointless…
Maybe everyone arguing here could just agree to disagree and be civil.. Oh wait we’re human and this is the internet.
And yes this does “rawk” I’m going to need to watch it a few times to fully get all that in my memory.
Consider this. The brain contains about 300 billion neurons. Each one can fire independently so they can be on or off. Just like the bits and bytes in a computer memory. So, are they our memory? Well, we remember things in complete definition (more than hi-def) and 300 billion bytes is about 300 Gb or 25 hours of visual recall.
Is our memory limited in this way? Of course not. Under a given circumstance we can recall years of memory. So, the logical conclusion is that our memory is not held by our neurons. The neurons need only be indicators of memory locations such that the brain can recall them for inspection as required.
Locations where? OUTSIDE of the brain….just like the CPU of this computer accesses external memory sites. The memories are held in another dimension (location). This is the proof and the starting point of our realization that we are multi-dimensional beings and that implies that we are infinite and eternal as well.
Obviously some of the people here cant see the difference between science and religion…
The author wanted to be left alone to do his research and avoid the Media Coverage? Yeah right! Let’s here all about it. Like the Media would ever spend one second with it, even if it were 100% true and correct.
This is an act of ego. There is some excellent info here, but make no mistake, it is a work of ego that wanders off the reservation. Why A’holes like this insist on ruining their message with themselves and clown voice OTT narrators, I will never understand. “Normal” people will check out the first 30 seconds because of it.
Talking down to your audience never gets you anywhere.
Brick Blastfurnace
The man who is reading the text has some problem with his speech that it becomes even more difficult to understand or simply follow the film. BIG DEFECT.
What ever the mind can conceive and believe The mind will achive Roger Rhodes
By Naploen Hill wash the you tube free videos learn the laws of attraction
nEVER GIVES YOU AN INSTANT TO DIGEST WHAT YOU’VE HEARD AND OFF TO ANOTHER ESOTERIC PROCLAMATION.
very intelligent man.
I believe the point of this documentary is a call for viewers to make correlations at all levels of nature using science with a focus on quantum mechanics and it’s correlation with neuropsychology. I think this is why he references several experiments and theories and then tries to relate them to the way we think as individuals or as a society. Ultimately, the idea is simple, there are some repeating patterns in nature that seem to also be expressed in the way we think, behave, and view the universe. And I guess to further paraphrase, our frame of reference is altered by those patterns. I wrote a short story about this when I was 10 years old. No disrespect to the documentary, I found it fascinating. However, without being able to validate everything he says completely, and knowing that some of the correlations are extreme, this may enter the realm of pseudoscience or metaphysics as stated in the comments below. I guess this demonstrates his need to have conflicting ideas. More so, I think it’s an attempt to create discussion. But we all know this is not how science, as we know it, works. With in any frame of reference. Correlations don’t necessarily prove anything, and patterns can falsely be observed where there are none. Let me know what you think. Also, I think you can find some of these concepts in the Qabalah.
Maybe this: When an opportunity surfaces to explore uncharted waters, it seems unreasonable if not unfair, to expect a correct, perfect or right interpretation of the thoughts expressed by those who express them. Likely, it is usually only through the most universal of forums, our internet, that we offer an idea which is sure to draw conjecture. If we, as a civilization, is to succeed in furthering our destinies as our progenitors intended, we should be quick to engage in much of this discourse you see before you. To forfeit the gifts of contributing to an accumulated knowledge base from all who have a thought or viewpoint to share, anything less would forsake all that the process of the exchange of ideas was intended to be.
c-hf
that’s bullshit! it’s not that simple
consciousness = ( the planck constant ) X ( frequency ) ??
i call BULLSHIT !!
What if conscious awareness were a direction (orientation) such that it provides guidance to get to where we are going in terms of the evolutionary process? Thus, consciousness is just the ability to discern and determine how to adjust to situations such that we then get headed in the “right” direction. (Right as in favorable to our evolutionary advancement.) Taken this way, the frequency is just how rapidly cycles (of time, experience etc.) are treated and amplitude is a measure of the magnitude of that ability.
c=hf
that’s bullshit! it’s not that simple
consciousness = ( the planck constant ) X ( frequency ) ??
i call BULLSHIT !!
I truly value this production. Once you check new emergence / findings behind One Unified Quantum Field of Infinite Possibilities in physics, this information rhymes very nicely, I recommend checking Dr Bruce Lipton’s, Jack Canfield you will see why the above holds good and true, especially the first 20 minutes of it (God is in the Neuron)