• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The 'field'

sat556

Unregistered
S
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
550
A friend of mine just sent me this in an e-mail:

"Have you heard or read a book called “Field” by Lynne McTaggart, it is heavy going but opens up some interesting ideas about everything. The field being the “it “ that controls the hear and the after. It’s also (scientists believe) going to be the answer to the next source of energy when our current fuels run out."

So I had a quick Google and found this:

http://twm.co.nz/McTag_field.htm

It's all a bit over my head, so I have no idea if there is anything at all to what is being claimed or not. Anybody here know what this is about and can help me out please?
 
Oh, and I just found this in that web page which set my alarm bells off:

5. You are better known for your health newsletters and your health campaigning. How did you get involved with a book like this?
This book got started eight years ago when in the course of my work I kept bumping up against solid scientific studies showing good evidence for homeopathy, acupuncture and spiritual healing. But if something like homeopathy or healing worked, I kept thinking, this contradicted everything we believe about our reality.
Click to expand...
 
There is nothing on that page that doesn't 'set my alarm bells off'. If I wanted to convince the world I was a crackpot I'd start with a page like this.

Arthur C. Clarke, Bernie Siegel and Larry Dossey have all hailed The Field as providing a radical new view of the world.
Click to expand...
#2 & #3 both have form for hogwash, I don't believe #1 for a minute.
 
thank you. Is there any way I can claim back those four wasted minutes of my life I spent reading the page? I will accept amazon vouchers.;)
Click to expand...

Aw. Sorry. So there isn't a grain of truth in ANY OF THAT then? I am concerned that there's going to be some actual physics mixed with all the woo. A nasty tactic to confuse the likes of me.
 
Last edited:
sat556 said:
Aw. Sorry. So there isn't a grain of truth in ANY OF THAT then? I am concerned that it's going to be actual physics mixed with woo. A nasty tactic to confuse the likes of me.
Click to expand...

Typical "new age" woo stuff.
Its a typical cut and paste of established scientific theories with woo stuff, in an attempt to reconcile the world of science with woo. Most of the time it is caused by the authors misunderstanding (step forward the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"). However in this case I suspect there is more at work than misunderstanding (how much does the book sell for?).

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html
 
sat556 said:
A friend of mine just sent me this in an e-mail:

"Have you heard or read a book called “Field” by Lynne McTaggart, it is heavy going but opens up some interesting ideas about everything. The field being the “it “ that controls the hear and the after. It’s also (scientists believe) going to be the answer to the next source of energy when our current fuels run out."

So I had a quick Google and found this:

http://twm.co.nz/McTag_field.htm

It's all a bit over my head, so I have no idea if there is anything at all to what is being claimed or not. Anybody here know what this is about and can help me out please?
Click to expand...
I couldn't make it all the way through the article. It seems to be confusing physics and philosophy. The "Field" seems to be everything according to the way the universe looks at everything. The universe doesn't give a damn between an electric fan, a lightbulb, an apple, or an atomic explosion. To the universe "field", everything is just matter and energy (or a combination of such as a "field") that goes about it's way. In that sense, everything simply is what it is. But we don't look at thing like the universe looks at things. We make up or own categories and definitions. So we can say a "chair" is something that you sit on, and electric fan is such-and-such type of thing, and person is defined as this sort of thing, "I" am defined as a person that is defined as "me", and so on.

Once we have these "made-up" categories and definitions of objects (which the universal "field" of matter-time doesn't recognize at all), we can start establishing further made-up relationships between these objects: The fan blows the paper around. I can turn off the fan. The fan can't change me. I can change me.

"I" can change many things. Many things can also change "I". "I" am unique in that "I" can change "I". But, just as an electric fan can only operate within the constructs of how it is made, "I" can only operate within the constructs of how "I" am made. Although these relate back to the ultimate universal matter-time "field", they only operate within their constructs, which are then defined by "us".

This doesn't get us anywhere: The Field (universe) is a matter-energy system that operates in certain ways which we can define and control within the limits of those "certain ways" and can (in a recursive sort of way) define and control definitions and controls within the limits of those definitions and controls...etc.

So, it is a philosopical view of physics. And not one that hasn't been approached before. And, here's the $64,000 question: how can this provide any practical use? Although the universe simply "looks" at everthing as just "stuff" but I may define or recognize something as an "apple" or a "book" or a "person" or as "me", this does not help me (or anyone) in any practical sense. Why not? Because or experiance is not the experiance of the universe. It's like looking at the molecular structure of rubber in order to figure out how to fix a flat tire. ;)
 
I got a little further in the article:

This book got started eight years ago when in the course of my work I kept bumping up against solid scientific studies showing good evidence for homeopathy, acupuncture and spiritual healing. But if something like homeopathy or healing worked, I kept thinking, this contradicted everything we believe about our reality.
Click to expand...

Errrmmm...Yes, it is "possible" that something completely contradictory to our knowledge could happen. The fact that there is a universal structure "field" that we don't completely understand allows for this. But just because we don't understand "everything" doesn't mean we must accept "everything". Sheesh! Sure, homeopathy, acupuncture, and spiritual healing are all possible (because of the "Field") but you still gotta prove it. Within a space-time continum of matter-energy ("The Field), flying green unicorns are possible. That don't mean in no way I believe in them. Perhaps this article was a bit more idiotic than I originally thought. :boggled:
 
Nothing much to add except to say, what a load of cobblers.

However, whilst looking to find if the quote attributed to Arthur C. Clarke was real or not I came across this. :D
 
Thanks for your answers. I think that I'm going to print that article and tear it apart bit by bit. I am anticipating my friend wanting a debate on it. Then I'll have the ammo ready :D
 
chipmunk stew said:
Interesting. This was listed as a "related article".
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the joke where a woman discovered a magic penis - all she had to do was say the word and it would go where it was told to go. One day she was driving down the road when she got a bit ticked off waiting for the lights to change. "Oh, fanny!" she cried out, at which point the penis jumped our of her handbag and got to work.
A passing traffic cop was later checking out the cause of the holdup at the intersection. It seemed to be caused by a woman in a buick who had crashed into the back of the car in front.
"What seems to be the problem, Maam?" he asked.
He recieved a rather stuttered explanation about her being attacked by a magic penis.
"Magic penis!?" he exclaimed. "My ass!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom