A challenge/request to anyone interested in scientifc theory

[Blue_turnip]

Did you just read the mathmatics page or did you also read how he developed the pattern and backing for the mathmatics? You can't really understand what any of this is about unless you look at the I Ching or atleast watch the videos.

Don't be lazy, either explain youself more clearly with backing of your viewpoint or don't post at all please. I don't quite understand what you mean by "This topic/thread is a world of fail" The theory isn't in question, and I shouldn't even call it a theory due to absolutely no scientific basis.

Okay so apparently we're not discussing this theory? Then what are we discussing? I looked back to the OP to make sure we weren't meant to be discussing something else:

I was starting to study evolution and came across this theory called timewave zero and have become very interested in it. I dont necessarily believe in this yet, mainly because I don't know enough about math/ don't have enough spare time to do the calculations. But the calculations I did check seemed to be very percise and I was wondering if anyone who thinks that they are smart enough could look into this theory with a great deal of depth and let me know what they think about this theory with an in depth response. It is not really a theory on evolution but a theory on space , time and the evolution of the universe based on the king wen sequence of the I ching.
To get started I sugest you google video search timewave zero part 1.
there are 5 parts to this video in which terence Mckenna explains his theory to his fellow scientists, each video is about 10 minutes long.

And you admitted it has absolutely no scientific basis. So I really don't know what we're discussing here. You said you wanted someone to look into this theory and tell you what they think about it. Well as I said the maths doesn't tie into the theory at all. And the theory is absolute bullshit because as you said, it has no scientific grounding.

I am sorry for wasting your time but I learned a little more about the though process of others and myself which was my origional intention

If your original intention was merely to learn more about the thought processes of others, then please don't use such a shitty medium.

[fatbagger]

I realized I made a mistake someware along the line, looked back and found it was in making this topic at all. I should have named it, A theory that has no scientific basis but is still intersting. I would have still been able to get the same info but I decided to attempt to decieve certian people on this forum into viewing this topic.

And you admitted it has absolutely no scientific basis. So I really don't know what we're discussing here.

The discussion was meant to be about his translation of the King Wen sequence of the I Ching into a linear graph but it never got there.

Well as I said the maths doesn't tie into the theory at all.

I used the word theory many times when I shouldn't have and your right, the theory has nothing to do with math. His translation of the I Ching into a linear graph does have to do with math though and I should have made that clear but instead I repeatedly made myself into fool.

If your original intention was merely to learn more about the thought processes of others, then please don't use such a shitty medium.

It was more than just that. I was and still am interested in others opinions of his translation of the I Ching.

Thanks for posting your opposition to what I have said and refrainig from simply just calling it shit. And once again I appologize for wasting your time, my foolishness and the deceptiveness of this topic.

[Jeremy]

I don't think you have anything to apologise for, although I'm a little confused as to what is going on this topic, so maybe you do


While I was obviously strongly in disagreement with the proposed theory, I also think that by far the most effective manner of developing ideas and opinions is to have them attacked, or to attack them. Possibly humans biggest flaw is just how difficult it is for us to change our minds about beliefs by ourselves - we almost always need external stimulus (evidence or well reasoned arguments) to do so.

It's almost certain that all of us hold some beliefs that are actually wrong and it's also almost certain that we won't discover our mistakes unless we have those beliefs challenged.

You putting forward this topic certainly challenged my beliefs, although in this case, didn't change them in the slightest. Never the less, I would hardly view the time spent watching and reading parts of the stuff about this and responding in the topic as "wasted." It encouraged me to think critically about a possible theory and it probably helped me to articulate arguments I wouldn't have otherwise thought about. That's all a good thing.

[C-Fan]

I dunno I just keep getting reminded of Lisa selling Homer a rock that she sarcastically suggested kept tigers away. Classic correlation != causation spot.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[Jeremy]

Hey check it out, some real science to explain part of this video (maybe )

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/hummingearth/

Anyway it's kind of related and interesting!