Physics in training

[Brazil Mantis]

Dear members,

I would like to know about this issue in your country, since each part of world has own rules... A lot of brazilian instructors of martial arts are so worry about future of these arts in our country.

We have in Brazil, since 1998 a federal law that says about physics education profissional rules. Since that, they created council for teachers that works with physics education activities.

In 2002, this physics education council wrote a resolution which all martial arts instructors, dancing people, yoga and a lot of others diferent areas has to get graduate degree in physic education to teach their arts.

Unfornately physic education universities in Brazil did not teach martial arts or did not "form" students to teach these arts. As we know, at least in Brazil, and I would like to know about others countrys that to "form" a new instructor of martial arts, student will need several years to be ready and it is not commun to have oficial permission to teach from traditional schools in a short time.

Then, what is it the problem? The problem is that with physics education studies, anyone who finish this course will be "able" to teach all martial art, as gongfu, karate, jiu jitsu, judo and so far... I believe this is a big mistake and we will have a lot of problems with quality of martial arts teaching.

Thanks to share how your country organize this question, if possible for you...

Sincerely,

Samuel Mendonça, Brazil

[mantis108]

Well, That's the western overcertification mindset for ya. ;)

I smell a conspirarcy thing going... :(

The funny thing is the "marriage" of Phys Ed and MA would seem like the perfect match. The only problem is no marriage is ever going to be perfect. It is those so called educated educators/scholars idotic ideals that dream up these stuff. Good intentions from the "scholars" but coming into the hands of politicans, you are going to get a load of carpola for sure.

Martial arts at the very core is not about academic pursuit. Martial arts at the very core is to educate a person to become a true human being which isn't something the politicans know or capable of. It is the art of being human and being human IS the art. The true identity and the entirety of knowledge is not or can not be represented by a mere piece of paper. Do I need a piece of paper to tell me that I am a good person worthy of others to listen to? Hell, no! Martial arts survived thousands of years before any form of certification. The real certification is alive and growing within the bossoms of the living teachers whom we are fortunate enough to have studied with. This certification process is much like the communist Chinese government whipping up the Wushu thing. It is about control and balance of power, period.

It does nothing more than to tear apart the communities (Kung Fu, Yoga, etc...). But that's politicians wicked minds for ya. Oh well... I suppose if you believe in pedigrees (pun intended), it would be a great thing.

Sincerely,

Mantis108

[Brazil Mantis]

Dear Mantis108,

in fact this is a political decision ofr my country and I do agree about "It is the art of being human and being human IS the art", as you told. Then, Physics Education (as we have in Brazil) have nothing to "controll" about martial arts. Specially traditional gongfu that we have few instructors...

Thank you for your reply...

Samuel Mendonça

[mantisben]

Originally posted by Brazil Mantis
...
...
In 2002, this physics education council wrote a resolution which all martial arts instructors, dancing people, yoga and a lot of others diferent areas has to get graduate degree in physic education to teach their arts.
...

Your government wants you to be "certified" to teach art? I can't find the WORDS to tell you what an atrocity that is. That is BAD, and it says alot about the people who approved of such a decree. Get those people removed from the positions of authority they hold, if you can.

It is one thing to allow people to be certified to teach martial arts or other arts (dancing, yoga, etc.), but for a GOVERNMENT to make it MANDATORY, is a crime.

I'm from the USA, and I'd like to think that if a law like this was passed here, there would be rioting in the streets. No only because of the attempt of the government to control "art", but the things they're planning to control in the future.

In my country, we had our government-decreed control issues also. For example, in the past, dark-colored people couldn't sh!t in the same toilet as white people, or drink from the same "public" water-fountain. Yeah, we had our issues in the past, and still do.

I wish I could offer some type of advice on how to combat that government art-control nonsense.

My prayers go out to everyone affected by this oppresive law.

[Brazil Mantis]

Dear Mantisben,

Yes, we have a federal law in Brazil number 9696/98 that statment that physics education is recognizing as a profission and to set up council. After this law, physics education people organized their council (CONFEF) to "controll" who got phys ed diploma.

In 2002 this CONFEF (Physics Education Federal Council) created some internal rules, as resolution and one of them talks about what they have to controll: it is funny because they defin as all physics activities will need a phys ed instructor, and then, they says: all martial arts, yoga, dancing, chess (...).

When supervisor from Confef came to my school and told me that I would need a Phys ed instructor to continous teaching praying mantis, then, I asked him: could you tell me what is correct in my sets? Could you give me supervision of my training? In fact, could you teach me praying mantis? He told no, I do not know gongfu, then, I told him okay, if you have no qualification for instruct me or my students, then, no make sense you come here...

We of San Paulo Wushu Federation and Brazilian Wushu Confederation are looking for our rights and looking for justice.

I really believe, as you told, that this is a crime. But I do not say this is a government crime but a CONFEF one, because wrong thing came from CONFEF internal rules...

Thanks to tell me about your country and for your support...

Sincerely,

Samuel Mendonça

[mantisben]

Originally posted by Brazil Mantis
...
In 2002 this CONFEF (Physics Education Federal Council) created some internal rules, as resolution and one of them talks about what they have to controll: it is funny because they defin as all physics activities will need a phys ed instructor, and then, they says: all martial arts, yoga, dancing, chess (...).

Chess? They want to require certification for "Chess"? They're out to control more than just Physics Education, this Federal Council.


When supervisor from Confef came to my school and told me that I would need a Phys ed instructor to continous teaching praying mantis, then, I asked him: could you tell me what is correct in my sets? Could you give me supervision of my training? In fact, could you teach me praying mantis? He told no, I do not know gongfu, then, I told him okay, if you have no qualification for instruct me or my students, then, no make sense you come here...
Excellent choice of words!! You telling him like this, exposes the craziness and utter nonsense of such a law.


We of San Paulo Wushu Federation and Brazilian Wushu Confederation are looking for our rights and looking for justice.
Maybe the art institutions that will be affected by this law can get a petition going as a show of dissatisfaction with the rulings of this Physic Education federation.


I really believe, as you told, that this is a crime. But I do not say this is a government crime but a CONFEF one, because wrong thing came from CONFEF internal rules... Since you said it was a "Federal" law, I concluded the Brazilian government had something to do with approving this law. Maybe I was totally wrong. Still, if the government knows that the majority of people are against such a law, maybe they could do something to help you get the law changed.



Thanks to tell me about your country and for your support...

Sincerely,

Samuel Mendonça You are very welcome. I hope things turn out for the best in this very serious situation.

In the USA, I think if there was a similar being passed, everybody in the ART community would oppose it. This would include musicians, painters, singers, sculptors (?), actors, dancers, etc.. I would go as far as saying that people OUTSIDE of the art community would oppose it also, out of fear that they would be next. It would be viewed as an attack on "Freedom of expression".

Then again, I could be wrong about this...

Sincerely,

Herminio Alvarez, Jr.

[EarthDragon]

Hello guys, hope all is well
Question.......... I have found that I am constantly refferring to physics when I teach. It seems that when I was learing it wasnt so predominate, or maybe it was and I just didnt see it, but whatever the case it seems that no matter what part of a technique you are trying to explian or train you must delve deeper into its origin in order to grasp the full understanding.

So I am asking if anyone has anything to add or pays as much attention to this as I do, without the obivious physics mind you, i.e force, mass, etc etc but more on a deeper level.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

I just had this discussion with BL who ran it by her new " chinese cop friend' and we decided that really , almost all educated and/ or half intelligent adults, generally speaking have some interest in science and their world around them. I guess it's just growing into your humanity. happens to the best of us ;)

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

Physics will always determine the outcome of any interaction between 2 or more physical bodies. Anatomy is what tells you how to apply the physics.

I think eventually everyone that studies MA long enough will reduce it to these levels. It's all about body movement (how it moves, how it doesn't, and how it breaks). Specific techniques are for beginners and intermediate. Advanced deals with concepts (physics) and isn't confined to specific responses.

I think that's where Bruce Lee ended up with his JKD which makes me chuckle when I see people learning it. It's like skipping the basics and going right to the advanced. That road doesn't exist. The only way to get there is over time and through training.

That's why Masters can just pull moves out of the thin air to match any situation. They know how, where and why to move.

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

After thinking a little on it I think the pattern is concept -> technique -> concept. I think it's a circle. Concepts create techniques and techniques define the concepts. You go in circles back and forth until your understanding transcends techniques.

Just my guess.

Anyhow, on the physics thing take a look at this:

E = MC2

energy = mass * acceleration

Now if I wanted to increase the energy imparted into my opponent (force of strike) I need to either increase the mass of my hand or increase the speed of the strike. Since I can't grow my hand bigger I'm left with training to hit faster. Simple physics.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

:eek: :eek: and finally some scientific sense!!! ;) :D :D

[-N-]

Anyhow, on the physics thing take a look at this:
E = MC2

energy = mass * acceleration
That should be:

energy = mass * speed of light squared

This one is for conversion of mass to energy. I've not be able to achieve this myself ;)


Now if I wanted to increase the energy imparted into my opponent (force of strike) I need to either increase the mass of my hand or increase the speed of the strike. The equation that applies here is:

KE = 1/2(MV2)

kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared


Since I can't grow my hand bigger I'm left with training to hit faster. Simple physics. Also a reason why people train to hit with whole body power instead of only arm power.

Sinking increases the mass used for striking. Waist torque converts rotational momentum to linear momentum, increasing the velocity of the strike. Advancing footwork also increases velocity of the strike.

N.

[Three Harmonies]

When you get right down to it, physics is all that is happening with any martial situation. Both of my teachers are constantly talking about body dynamics. The techniques themselves are simple to apply, but it is the set up that is a real b!tch.
Hate to send biased, but I am, but if you want to read two of the very best books that deal with these issues I highly suggest "Effortless Combat Throws" by Tim Cartmell, and "Practical Chin Na" by Zhao Da Yuan, translated by Tim Cartmell. Tim's videos on the Chin Na and Throws are excellent companions. I have yet to see anything better (but I have heard Su Dong Chen's video series is similar in scope and detail!)

Jake

[Quick step]

Does anyone have statistics on hand speed for martial artists in comparison with boxers?

It's my understanding that welterweights have the highest hand speed. According to my high school physics teacher, the momentum is mass x velocity and the kinetic energy is 0.5 x m x v^2. These equations are supposed to mean that a welterweight can do as much damage with a fast punch as a heavyweight can do with a slower, power punch.

But I know that it doesn't work. Can someone explain the physics of it? It has something to do with the body weight.

[SevenStar]

I am reading a VERY unothodox christian novel currently. it is about a special forces soldier that was recruited to a black ops program. anyway, in the story, the man is told that the spaces between atoms are waves of energy. waves can be manipulated, particles cannot, which they explain to him is why many things considered preposterous by regular physics is feasible in quantum physics.

he runs with the idea and finds he is able to manipulate the temperature in his immediate vicinity and other things, like the flight path of a bullet. I know this isn't real, but quantum theory is. do you think it lends itself to proving the existence of qi?

on an interesting side note, I saw a quote by the founder of quantum theory stating something to the effect of all energy or matter that is created must be willed into existence by something else. so, can quantum theory explain god?

[stricker]

take two and pass bro

[PangQuan]

I am reading a VERY unothodox christian novel currently. it is about a special forces soldier that was recruited to a black ops program. anyway, in the story, the man is told that the spaces between atoms are waves of energy. waves can be manipulated, particles cannot, which they explain to him is why many things considered preposterous by regular physics is feasible in quantum physics.

he runs with the idea and finds he is able to manipulate the temperature in his immediate vicinity and other things, like the flight path of a bullet. I know this isn't real, but quantum theory is. do you think it lends itself to proving the existence of qi?

on an interesting side note, I saw a quote by the founder of quantum theory stating something to the effect of all energy or matter that is created must be willed into existence by something else. so, can quantum theory explain god?

totally.

check out a book called "the holographic universe" it deals with darn near the same subject matter, in a sense.

uncharted waters will be the same before and after they are discovered by the consious mind.

i wont put much of my beliefs in this post, but i will say that modern sciences are getting closer and closer and closer to linking a relationship to many unexplainable things and evidence of happenings and the where and why of why many things happen the way they do.

we have new discoveries every year that blow people away, who otherwise would never have believed if factual evidence was not thrown in thier faces.

its all just a matter of time and dedication

[Scott R. Brown]

Simple observation of life will demonstrate that ALL order is created out seeming chaos through an act of will which involves conscious effort.

This may be personally demonstrated by anyone by merely disregarding anything in your life you wish. For example, simply stop cleaning your home, following personal hygiene, ignore your business, ignore your bills, relationships, personal health. Any one of these things will soon deteriorate if you did not attend to it with a persistent self-disciplined act of will.

All order begins as an act of will followed by constant effort. Withdraw the act of will and effort and chaos returns.

[David Jamieson]

In the way we are naturally and have made ourselves "wired" to the universe we are in, we are essentially incapable of moving outside the limits of perception and we tend to define and delineate through standard Cartesian dualism. At this time.

But within the limits of dualism and how it weighs heavily on our shared perception of reality, or at least by consensus what is real and what is not, we can regard the energy/matter and how they each uniquely have specific and equal but different qualities to themselves as we are capable of observing them.

As we grow our technology in order to understand the minutia of our universe, so to speak, so too do we grow ourselves out of being stuck in a high modality of dualistic perception and ergo thought combinations in cognitive states of mind.

*passes*

[mantis108]

I am reading a VERY unothodox christian novel currently. it is about a special forces soldier that was recruited to a black ops program. anyway, in the story, the man is told that the spaces between atoms are waves of energy. waves can be manipulated, particles cannot, which they explain to him is why many things considered preposterous by regular physics is feasible in quantum physics.

he runs with the idea and finds he is able to manipulate the temperature in his immediate vicinity and other things, like the flight path of a bullet. I know this isn't real, but quantum theory is. do you think it lends itself to proving the existence of qi?

on an interesting side note, I saw a quote by the founder of quantum theory stating something to the effect of all energy or matter that is created must be willed into existence by something else. so, can quantum theory explain god?

I think quantum physics is by far one of the closest modern scientific theories in explaining qi. The conventional theory of Qi mainly came from the Yijing (classic of change). There is a remarkable parallel between the worldview of Yijing and that of quantum physics IMHO. I believe the book "Tao of Physics" (Fritjof Capra) has great insights on the subject. One thing of note that the book seems to suggest is that religion and science are not inheritly mutually exculsive. They are essentially quite compatible at the most elemental level which is that they both are about faith and truth. This is the reason that Newton, Eienstien and, Stephen Hwakins, etc all have their own notion of God in their respective scientific fields and works. If you ask me, we can no more say the Pope and the Cardinals of the Catholic Church understood God better than those scientific minds or vice versa. However, we could safely say that their levels of faith in God are different. If we believe the Bible to be truthful and all, we can say the same about Jesus knows pretty much just about the same as everyone else (as illustrated in the events leading up to the crucifixition) , He has as little idea about God's will (essentially mysterious) as anyone of us but He has much much more powerful and extreme strong faith and will in God which turn out to be the dawning of a new world religion. Any discipline, including martial arts, that points to an ordered order (intelligent design) can be a tool to recognize the highly likely existence of a God, Allah, Dao, Superconciousness, or whatever label. The prerequeist is that we have faith in truth.

Just my 2 cents.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[SevenStar]

wow, intelligent discussion...if this is what being high is like, maybe I do need to start firing up :D

[rogue]

And the name of the book is...?

[PangQuan]

"fire it up, fire it up, fire it up"

[SevenStar]

And the name of the book is...?

saint. the author is ted dekker. another book of his, THR3E, was made into a movie that should hit theaters this year. another -house- is also theater bound.

[cjurakpt]

the theory of quantum mechanics "explains" one thing: quantum mechanics

I know everyone gets all fired up when they read Talbot & Kapra, but there are a few things to remember: first off, the reason quantum physics "works" is that it describes the activity of particles in terms of probabilities: that is, at a given moment, the probability that a certain particle is at a certain location is such and such; also, when you get up to the macro-world, quantum theory doesn't quite work anymore - Newtonion on the other hand does just fine: which is why when a bus hits you, it actually hits you, and doesn't pass through you into n alternate probability...

as for "qi", I think the big mistake is to see "qi" as an actual "thing" - that is, some sort of singular phenomennon that can be quantified; I think that it makes much more sense to think of "qi" as a metaphorical description of a set of functional interelationships in the human organism and in the environment within which it lives (e.g. - the observable universe); this is basically yi jing as well: it is an early and very successful attempt to qualify the world in context of both binary logic (yes / no; 1/0; yin/yang) as well as complex systems - that is, trying to derive the net effect of countless numbers of interractions in order to ascertain a likely outcome in a given situation (ie. - using it for divination)

don't get me wrong: obviously quantum theory relates to the biological process of life - but in a somewhat indirect way, and not to the degree that you can break the laws of Newtonian physics in order to manifest qunatum mechanics on a macro scale; so, everything is interelated - it's just that there are "limits" to how these interelationships function, depending on "where" you are along the continuum of scale - at least on earth - perhaps there are regions of space where this barrier breaks down...

as for whether quantum physics speaks at all to the existence of a transcendent signifier (you may wish to call it God): quantum physics, like all areas of science, while perhaps starting with some sort of intuitive leap when developing the initial theory, is predicated on the notion of (relatively) direct observation in order to prove or disprove those theories: until it's observed, it is suspect; if the observations contradict the theoretical predictions, you have to revise the theory; "God" on the other hand, is purely a matter of belief based on one's subjective experience, and can therefore be neither proven or disproven; it can also be changed based on non-scientific parameters: you can have a "spiritual" exerience after fasting in the desert for a month, and come back and proclaim what you have been told - tell it enough, you might start to get a few people beliving in it, and then take it from there; indeed, the idea that something willed something else into being is, BTW, a very linear and limited means of viewing the nature of the underlying fabric of "reality"; current ideas in physics such as String Theory & M-Theory go much further towards "explaining" the nature of the universe's makeup and creation, but not from a logocentric perspective (and, if correct, more or less undermine classical quantum theory in the process - but the jury is still out to certain degrees);

ayway, I know it's not a very romantic perspective, but Ch'an (seeing things for such as they are) isn't really about the romance...

[SaintSage]

I think quantum physics is by far one of the closest modern scientific theories in explaining qi. The conventional theory of Qi mainly came from the Yijing (classic of change). There is a remarkable parallel between the worldview of Yijing and that of quantum physics IMHO. I believe the book "Tao of Physics" (Fritjof Capra) has great insights on the subject. One thing of note that the book seems to suggest is that religion and science are not inheritly mutually exculsive. They are essentially quite compatible at the most elemental level which is that they both are about faith and truth. This is the reason that Newton, Eienstien and, Stephen Hwakins, etc all have their own notion of God in their respective scientific fields and works. If you ask me, we can no more say the Pope and the Cardinals of the Catholic Church understood God better than those scientific minds or vice versa. However, we could safely say that their levels of faith in God are different. If we believe the Bible to be truthful and all, we can say the same about Jesus knows pretty much just about the same as everyone else (as illustrated in the events leading up to the crucifixition) , He has as little idea about God's will (essentially mysterious) as anyone of us but He has much much more powerful and extreme strong faith and will in God which turn out to be the dawning of a new world religion. Any discipline, including martial arts, that points to an ordered order (intelligent design) can be a tool to recognize the highly likely existence of a God, Allah, Dao, Superconciousness, or whatever label. The prerequeist is that we have faith in truth.

Just my 2 cents.

Warm regards

Mantis108

I have to disagree with you on a few points:

First, the Pope and the Cardinals understand God in a way we can only imagine. (Well, most of them. People who perhaps are less faithful than they appear do sometimes slip through the cracks.) You must understand that the transformation of the soul through grace is why they understand God better. Now, that being said, scientists understand the workings of God much more than any theologian. The theologians know more about morality and soul transformation, but in terms of biology, physics, etc. scientists know where it's at. I state my point not to preach, but because you brought up important figures in my religion.

Second, while I understand where you are coming from when speaking of Jesus, you deny Him as Divinity.In my perspective, Christ had full knowledge of what was to come. Remember, the Gospel writers rarely speak of Christ's thoughts, only of his actions. His actions where to set the example of the perfect servant to God.

I do agree with you on:


Any discipline, including martial arts, that points to an ordered order (intelligent design) can be a tool to recognize the highly likely existence of a God, Allah, Dao, Superconciousness, or whatever label. The prerequeist is that we have faith in truth.

The only question is, what is truth?

[PangQuan]

as for "qi", I think the big mistake is to see "qi" as an actual "thing" - that is, some sort of singular phenomennon that can be quantified; I think that it makes much more sense to think of "qi" as a metaphorical description of a set of functional interelationships in the human organism and in the environment within which it lives (e.g. - the observable universe); this is basically yi jing as well: it is an early and very successful attempt to qualify the world in context of both binary logic (yes / no; 1/0; yin/yang) as well as complex systems - that is, trying to derive the net effect of countless numbers of interractions in order to ascertain a likely outcome in a given situation (ie. - using it for divination)

i dont believe i have seen this better put

[SPJ]

god can not be understood by man, since man is not god.

qi exists in all things life or lifeless.

qi exists in air/o2 we breathe in.

qi flows in channels from our internal organs to distal limbs and back.

qi exists in food we eat and we digest and convert it.

qi exist in your furniture and house.

qi is from heaven we conduct it to the earth.

too much or not enough qi is detrimental to health.

qi has yin qi and yang qi.

qi has many grades.

--

oooh. qi is only used to explain many things.

and so is god?!

:confused: :D :eek: :rolleyes: ;) :p

[RAF]

the theory of quantum mechanics "explains" one thing: quantum mechanics

don't get me wrong: obviously quantum theory relates to the biological process of life - but in a somewhat indirect way, and not to the degree that you can break the laws of Newtonian physics in order to manifest qunatum mechanics on a macro scale; so, everything is interelated - it's just that there are "limits" to how these interelationships function, depending on "where" you are along the continuum of scale - at least on earth - perhaps there are regions of space where this barrier breaks down...

as for whether quantum physics speaks at all to the existence of a transcendent signifier (you may wish to call it God): quantum physics, like all areas of science, while perhaps starting with some sort of intuitive leap when developing the initial theory, is predicated on the notion of (relatively) direct observation in order to prove or disprove those theories: until it's observed, it is suspect; if the observations contradict the theoretical predictions, you have to revise the theory; "God" on the other hand, is purely a matter of belief based on one's subjective experience, and can therefore be neither proven or disproven; it can also be changed based on non-scientific parameters: you can have a "spiritual" exerience after fasting in the desert for a month, and come back and proclaim what you have been told - tell it enough, you might start to get a few people beliving in it, and then take it from there; indeed, the idea that something willed something else into being is, BTW, a very linear and limited means of viewing the nature of the underlying fabric of "reality"; current ideas in physics such as String Theory & M-Theory go much further towards "explaining" the nature of the universe's makeup and creation, but not from a logocentric perspective (and, if correct, more or less undermine classical quantum theory in the process - but the jury is still out to certain degrees);

ayway, I know it's not a very romantic perspective, but Ch'an (seeing things for such as they are) isn't really about the romance...

This is a very good post and thanks.

Actually it is about romance:

"God, on the other hand, is purely a matter of belief based on one's subjective experience, and can therefore be neither proven or disproven; . . ."

It's not the God part as much as how we understand the subjective experience.

The subjective experience is an expression of the Universe---we aren't separate from the Universe and indeed are an expression of the Universe---limitations and all. It's the core of mysticism and the essence of our living experience. It's what we are: embodied subjective experience. In a hundred years, the theories cited will all be changed---makes for a helluva interesting, albeit short, time but we didn't come from anywhere and aren't going anywhere--all about change, I guess and we have been contemplating that for a very long time ya old Yi Jing readers! LOL

Thanks for the great post!:D

[Mega-Foot]

Sifu John Takeshi once explained God to me in the only way that makes any sense:

"God is the peanut butter, and we are the jelly. If we put margarine on the bread before we apply the peanut butter, we cannot understand the glory of god. And if we apply the Jiffy to both pieces of bread, and then sandwich the jelly betwixt, we cannot maintain ourselves, and surely shall slip out onto the plate, discarded with the chaff. And lo, should we put both equal measures of peanut butter and jelly on each piece of bread, we shall reach a kind of equilibrium; and so is the glory of god comprehensible to mankind."

[BlueTravesty]

saint. the author is ted dekker. another book of his, THR3E, was made into a movie that should hit theaters this year. another -house- is also theater bound.

as soon as you said "unorthodox Christian novel" and started talking about quantum physics, I knew it had to be Dekker :D

[cjurakpt]

Sifu John Takeshi once explained God to me in the only way that makes any sense:

"God is the peanut butter, and we are the jelly. If we put margarine on the bread before we apply the peanut butter, we cannot understand the glory of god. And if we apply the Jiffy to both pieces of bread, and then sandwich the jelly betwixt, we cannot maintain ourselves, and surely shall slip out onto the plate, discarded with the chaff. And lo, should we put both equal measures of peanut butter and jelly on each piece of bread, we shall reach a kind of equilibrium; and so is the glory of god comprehensible to mankind."

it's about as plausible as any of the other more well-known texts on the subject...

[Jeong]

I regularly get people asking me questions about how quantum mechanics work and does it 'allow' certain strange phenomenon and such (I'm a particle physicist; QM is what I do for a living). I have to admit I haven't really thought about the connection between qi and QM, but here's my two cents:

It's important to remember the first word of quantum mechanics: quantum. While yes, we believe the rules of QM do underly physical law, there is a reason that physics was done for over 2 centuries before any evidence for QM started popping up. The fact of the matter is that QM is extremely important at atomic scales (and sub-atomic too) but as you move up to scales of multiple and hundreds of atoms the weird effects that QM predicts that differ from classical physics become exponentially improbable. There is a reason for example that once you get the energy states of atoms & molecules from QM that's essentially all you need to do chemistry (based on the classical physics of thermodynamics mostly) and from there you can move up to biology where almost all trace of QM is gone. Most biological pathways and metabolic chains and such have no reference to anything related to QM (at least to my knowledge, I'm no biologist).

Secondly it's also important to remember that QM is just a scientific theory. While yes it does seem to work wonderfully well and explains data quite well, it is just a theory. There is no way to know whether the model of quantum mechanics is what is actually happening, or if it just happens to explain the data well. (Some might claim there is no difference, but I would claim they don't really understand physics then.) This being the case any extrapolation of QM too far from it's basic principles (to something like qi for example) is always questionable in it's validity.

Now that all being said I will say that I do think there is such a thing as qi, but I don't see it being rooted in QM. To me it seems far more likely to be based on much more normal things like the level of control we can have over different parts of our bodies in different mental states and such.

I'd love to address the God question, but I'm actually running late for church; lol. I guess that'll have to wait for another day.

[Mega-Foot]

Considering that Quantum Mechanics has predicted results to 99.9999999% accuracy, it is our most successful scientific notion yet. The mathematics are not a theory.

Explaining the math is where the theory begins, and truly takes on abstract proportions.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

We are inundated with beliefs, theories, notions, and the occasional lunatic.. but, we are gifted with simple common sense.. absorb the various descriptions of "how things are", then.. get still, and let your inherent common sense speak to you..

In my stillness i have come to believe that there is likely a force similar to Qi.. that force is the result of integrated energetic systems.. from the sub-particle level, to the active physical processes, to great cosmic processes.. it isn't particularly mystical, except to those marketing it as such for profit..

My desired goals are to live, love and laugh well, with gusto.. if this "Qi" cannot contribute to these goals, what use is it? From my perspective, it has contributed well in some ways, not so much in others.. from a MA perspective Qi has made some quantifiable contributions to my desired MA goals, and.. it has also shown itself to be contrary in some ways, too.. i rely on practical results, use what works, discard what doesn't.. i don't have all the answers, no one does..

I Live, and the first requisite of living is to be practical.. while mental masturbation may bring a certain satisfactory result, to be useful it must be applicable in the Art of Living..

Yes, particle physics indicates a model consistent with the notion of Qi as sometimes romantically discussed.. the question is, are we informed and evolved enough to apply that model to Living well?... identify your needs, identify the processes necessary to fulfill those needs, and see if Qi or Quantum Physics is applicable..

It is not he who has the most that is wealthy, it is he who needs the least..

Be well...

[Flying-Monkey]

I am reading a VERY unothodox christian novel currently. it is about a special forces soldier that was recruited to a black ops program. anyway, in the story, the man is told that the spaces between atoms are waves of energy. waves can be manipulated, particles cannot, which they explain to him is why many things considered preposterous by regular physics is feasible in quantum physics.

he runs with the idea and finds he is able to manipulate the temperature in his immediate vicinity and other things, like the flight path of a bullet. I know this isn't real, but quantum theory is. do you think it lends itself to proving the existence of qi?

on an interesting side note, I saw a quote by the founder of quantum theory stating something to the effect of all energy or matter that is created must be willed into existence by something else. so, can quantum theory explain god?

no. it doesn't explain it.

[Sang Feng Fan]

At best the idea of a quantum universe allows for all possibilities, at it's worst it lays more ground to the idea that time is an illusion.

Granted plenty of people, myself included, still embrace the idea of the older Newtonian notions.

[Shaolin Wookie]

At best the idea of a quantum universe allows for all possibilities, at it's worst it lays more ground to the idea that time is an illusion.

Granted plenty of people, myself included, still embrace the idea of the older Newtonian notions.

Well, I'm back. And just in time to save us from the spiritualization of subatomic scientific rambling.

It's a good thing that you still embrace the older Newtonian notions. Even though I love Niels Bohr and Heisenberg. Clauser pretty much proved John Bell (that the action of a subatomic particle here can cause an almost instantaneous reaction in a subatomic particle in Betelgeuse [which defies belief, since if nothing moves faster than the speed of light, how could the information travel so quickly?]), and Einstein created this whole dilemma, quite to his chagrin. He plotted a more accurate orbit for Mercury (which for 200 years or so confounded astronomers. The elliptical orbit seemed to drag too much at the suns perhelion, which Einstein explained using general relativity [how photons can lose energy clawing their way out of the sun's gravitational field, causing a redshift which makes the orbit look longer than it actually is---to put it in simplistic terms you might comprehend easily]). Nevertheless, even Einstein maintained the precept of classical physics--that there is a tangible real world behind the quantum curtain. Despite the fact Bohr whooped his ass in several debates saying that there wasn't (althought, the classicists would argue it was a stalemate). But the fact remains, he was debating einstien behind a lectern, so what the **** was the world in which he was living, despite his subatomic correctness? A classical one.

Still, the world functions in a classically continuous way on a macroscopic scale. The quantum mystery, on a human level, is ridiculous. At the most simplistic level of existence, billions upon billions of times smaller than the human scale, things act strangely. But as it goes with quantum physics, as that scale climbs up into order, order heaps upon itself more order to create a very Newtonian universe--the one we experience daily. By the time we reach the human scale, the world acts in a continuous manner. Debating the fundamental material existence of our computers, at this level, is pointless. You can reach out and touch it, or even sense it with your perhipheral senses. Hell, even a bat could verify the existence of your computer using sonar.

So, for the most part, quantum physics explains subatomic particle behavior, and nothing more. (Although I've always loved the fact that every 8 years all of the atoms in my body will have passed out into the world and been replaced by entirely new atoms from other sources, creating a kind of matter exchange between all sentient beings and insentient things). More than anything, quantum physics, when used theologically, disproves God. John Wheeler once described this universe as a Higgeldy-Piggeldy universe, where things are absolutely absurd and ridiculous. This doesn't sound like anything an Alpha and Omega would create--especially the Judaic Am I?.....er, I mean....I AM. If you want to talk proving gods, you'd have more luck with Loki--a deceptive trickster.


We've all see fantastical qi demos put forward by qigong showmen, but none of us see anything divine in those. They're mere quackery. "Alternative medicine" such as acupuncture and the lot--they're called alternative for a reason. It's PC keywords, nothing more. "Alternative medicine" means "non-medical medicine." Snake-oil and Bumbaklat. "But wait!" You say. "I've seen chi at work when my tai chi teacher pushes me super far and exercises breath control!" Sorry, says I. It's just body mechanics and breath control. When I see a bodybuilder press a **** truck, I don't say: "Wow, that blighter's got mad chi!" I say: "Dude is strong!" He exercises breath control and dynamic tension. It isn't chi, unless you're a down-to-earth guy like myself and don't think chi is anything more than dynamic tension and breath control, used to help the body move more efficiently in exercise. But as for moving chi and holding it in certain areas, I'm going to have to let you guys puff and pass. I just say no to duds. You can will yourself to believe just about anything if you put your mind to it (or, in cases of persons like myself, take our minds away from it). Hell, just look at Scientology (man, I hate those bastaretards).

The fundamental (loses its meaning in this context) nature of an atom is in duality. It acts as a particle and a wave (complementarity). This does nothing to explain God.

One such ontological argument might go something like this:

1. A God is something that exists, is the predicate of all values, and creates or wills all things into existence.

2. Atoms exist.

3. Atoms act as particles.

4. Atoms act as waves.

5. Atoms act as particles and waves at the same time, but you can only measure one or the other at any moment, and hte measurement of momentum means that you cannot, under any circumstances, measure teh location of that atom at that time due to the complementary relation of its manifestation.

6. God created atoms.

7. God is the predicated value of all things he creates.

8. Atoms are unpredictable.

9. The predicate of unpredictable is incomprehesible.

10. God is incomprehensible.

11. We are attempting to comprehend god in this argument.

12. God cannot be comprehended at all, under any circumstances, especially this onotological argument.

13. Therefore, God cannot be known or comprehended.

14. But God created atoms and atoms exist.

15. Atoms exist, but exist in duality.

16. The nature of atoms before measurement is in a kind of unpredictable duality (as particle and wave), and therefore doesn't exist with any certainty (per Schrodinger).

17. God created atoms, which don't exist with any certainty until measured.

18. God creates things which must be measured in order to exist.

19. Humans measure these things.

20. God creates things which must be measured by humans or other sentient creatures (perhaps even protozoa) in order to be said to exist.

21. Humans are integral to the measurement of god's works.

22. God does not exist without outside verification. And even with verification, he is incomprehensible. He has become subject to an outside force. He has thereby lost his power over all things, including logic and this ontological argument.

23. Humans cannot comprehend the god they verify through the measurement of god's works, which negates the fact that they are god's works without a hefty dosage of unwarranted and gross presumption.

24. God cannot exist. And any god we can comprehend is surely a figment of our wishfully thinking imaginations.



Hmm.......

For those of you puffing, don't break the cypha!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

Thank you for saving us from the spiritualization of quantum physics, but who will save us from you?

Your comments concerning God are senseless. You presume to criticize others while understanding very little of that which you criticize. Your ontological argument is no argument, it is non-sense. Stick to your knowledge base, which apparently may be physics or some other science, and leave spiritual things to those who study them.

I am not commenting here concerning physics. That is apparently your purview. However, you have made a few presumptions about God/The Absolute that demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject. It is understandable because you have taken the popular culturally based views and assumed them rather than thoroughly investigated the subject.

Concerning your ontological argument:

7. God is the predicated value of all things he creates.

8. Atoms are unpredictable.

9. The predicate of unpredictable is incomprehensible.

10. God is incomprehensible.

You assume that God cannot be comprehended because the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted? This is a leap of fantasy! The primary flaw here is rather basic, but may not appear obvious to those not schooled in the subject.

First, just because an atom’s behavior “at this time” cannot be “rationally” predicted/comprehended does not mean it is “forever” unpredictable/incomprehensible. Only that, “at this time” to the scientific community it is “rationally” unpredictable/incomprehensible. At one time aerodynamics was not understood, but now it is. At one time gravity was not understood, but now it is. At one time micro-organisms were unknown and the cause of sickness was attributed to evil spirits. Now we understand that these micro-organisms play a role in illness as well as evil spirits. Here we must understand that the “evil spirits” are unhealthy mental attitudes that contribute to a weakened immune system thus giving the opportunity for micro-organisms to multiply to the level of dis-ease.

Secondly, to understand the “Creator” is not predicated upon understanding the “Created”, you have this backwards. Understanding the “Created” is predicated upon understanding the “Creator”.

Understanding/comprehension, in the scientific sense, is founded upon reason. Your argument states, “God is the predicated value of all things”. Therefore, God is a predicated value of reason/logic. This means that reason/logic is a subset of a quality of God. Since reason/logic is a subset of God, God supercedes reason; “supercedes” means: “to be placed in a higher position”. This means that God is BEYOND reason and therefore God cannot be comprehensively understood using reason; one cannot demonstrate God completely or describe God completely using reason. To understand/comprehend God, God must be directly experienced. To try to use reason/logic to understand/comprehend what is beyond rational comprehension is foolishness. There are many phenomena that are beyond rational comprehension/demonstration. These phenomena are accepted as real even though they may not be measured accurately using the scientific method.

There is a form of understanding that is not rationally based. It is so common to our experience that we do not consider it. We take it for granted and therefore do not recognize it. It is the understanding of direct experience. Direct experience of phenomena cannot be accurately measured as physical matter and physical phenomena may be measured. It is tangentially measured through reports of those who have had the experience previously. In some cases the effects of the experience may be measured, however the measurement of effects are NOT the experience itself and therefore do not PROVE the experience; they merely indicate it may have occurred.

For example, happiness is an experience that exists. I may state I am happy, but you will only understand what I mean because you have experienced happiness yourself. If you had never experienced happiness you would have no idea what I mean. To you happiness would not exist because you have no knowledge of it directly. If you never have the experience of happiness it will never exist for you. The fact that it never exists for you does not demonstrate it is not a “REAL” experience, only that you are incapable of experiencing it.

If I state to you that my happiness on a scale of 1 to 10 is 9, I cannot prove to you that my happiness is in fact a 9 because the scale has no inherent meaning and you are unable to experience what I experience. You cannot KNOW “rationally/logically” how I really feel even if you have experienced happiness because I cannot PROVE to you just how happy I am. You may only accept or disregard my statement of fact. Your acceptance or disregard of my experience does not negate my experience in anyway. It merely reflects your state of belief. I may only communicate what the feeling is LIKE and you must take my word for it. My description of my state of happiness will only have meaning to one who has been happy, but it still does not PROVE what I am feeling is happiness. You must take my word for it as you contrast my description with your own experience. The fact I cannot PROVE to you my happiness is a 9 on a scale of 1-10 does not demonstrate I am not that happy either.

Happiness is a condition of being. It cannot be PROVEN to another and no one will understand this condition of being who has not had the direct experience themselves. The fact it cannot be proven does NOT demonstrate happiness does not exist. It is proven by the direct experience of it. God is a condition of being that supercedes reason and logic. The fact that God cannot be proven in a scientific sense does not demonstrate God does not exist only the limitations of science.

[SevenStar]

as soon as you said "unorthodox Christian novel" and started talking about quantum physics, I knew it had to be Dekker :D

I'm glad I stumbled on that book - he's a great writer.

[SevenStar]

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

Thank you for saving us from the spiritualization of quantum physics, but who will save us from you?

Your comments concerning God are senseless. You presume to criticize others while understanding very little of that which you criticize. Your ontological argument is no argument, it is non-sense. Stick to your knowledge base, which apparently may be physics or some other science, and leave spiritual things to those who study them.

I am not commenting here concerning physics. That is apparently your purview. However, you have made a few presumptions about God/The Absolute that demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject. It is understandable because you have taken the popular culturally based views and assumed them rather than thoroughly investigated the subject.

Concerning your ontological argument:

7. God is the predicated value of all things he creates.

8. Atoms are unpredictable.

9. The predicate of unpredictable is incomprehensible.

10. God is incomprehensible.

You assume that God cannot be comprehended because the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted? This is a leap of fantasy! The primary flaw here is rather basic, but may not appear obvious to those not schooled in the subject.

First, just because an atom’s behavior “at this time” cannot be “rationally” predicted/comprehended does not mean it is “forever” unpredictable/incomprehensible. Only that, “at this time” to the scientific community it is “rationally” unpredictable/incomprehensible. At one time aerodynamics was not understood, but now it is. At one time gravity was not understood, but now it is. At one time micro-organisms were unknown and the cause of sickness was attributed to evil spirits. Now we understand that these micro-organisms play a role in illness as well as evil spirits. Here we must understand that the “evil spirits” are unhealthy mental attitudes that contribute to a weakened immune system thus giving the opportunity for micro-organisms to multiply to the level of dis-ease.

Secondly, to understand the “Creator” is not predicated upon understanding the “Created”, you have this backwards. Understanding the “Created” is predicated upon understanding the “Creator”.

Understanding/comprehension, in the scientific sense, is founded upon reason. Your argument states, “God is the predicated value of all things”. Therefore, God is a predicated value of reason/logic. This means that reason/logic is a subset of a quality of God. Since reason/logic is a subset of God, God supercedes reason; “supercedes” means: “to be placed in a higher position”. This means that God is BEYOND reason and therefore God cannot be comprehensively understood using reason; one cannot demonstrate God completely or describe God completely using reason. To understand/comprehend God, God must be directly experienced. To try to use reason/logic to understand/comprehend what is beyond rational comprehension is foolishness. There are many phenomena that are beyond rational comprehension/demonstration. These phenomena are accepted as real even though they may not be measured accurately using the scientific method.

There is a form of understanding that is not rationally based. It is so common to our experience that we do not consider it. We take it for granted and therefore do not recognize it. It is the understanding of direct experience. Direct experience of phenomena cannot be accurately measured as physical matter and physical phenomena may be measured. It is tangentially measured through reports of those who have had the experience previously. In some cases the effects of the experience may be measured, however the measurement of effects are NOT the experience itself and therefore do not PROVE the experience; they merely indicate it may have occurred.

For example, happiness is an experience that exists. I may state I am happy, but you will only understand what I mean because you have experienced happiness yourself. If you had never experienced happiness you would have no idea what I mean. To you happiness would not exist because you have no knowledge of it directly. If you never have the experience of happiness it will never exist for you. The fact that it never exists for you does not demonstrate it is not a “REAL” experience, only that you are incapable of experiencing it.

If I state to you that my happiness on a scale of 1 to 10 is 9, I cannot prove to you that my happiness is in fact a 9 because the scale has no inherent meaning and you are unable to experience what I experience. You cannot KNOW “rationally/logically” how I really feel even if you have experienced happiness because I cannot PROVE to you just how happy I am. You may only accept or disregard my statement of fact. Your acceptance or disregard of my experience does not negate my experience in anyway. It merely reflects your state of belief. I may only communicate what the feeling is LIKE and you must take my word for it. My description of my state of happiness will only have meaning to one who has been happy, but it still does not PROVE what I am feeling is happiness. You must take my word for it as you contrast my description with your own experience. The fact I cannot PROVE to you my happiness is a 9 on a scale of 1-10 does not demonstrate I am not that happy either.

Happiness is a condition of being. It cannot be PROVEN to another and no one will understand this condition of being who has not had the direct experience themselves. The fact it cannot be proven does NOT demonstrate happiness does not exist. It is proven by the direct experience of it. God is a condition of being that supercedes reason and logic. The fact that God cannot be proven in a scientific sense does not demonstrate God does not exist only the limitations of science.

as you said, you have to experience something in order to relate to someone else's experience of it. You can say god is real; you can say you have expereinced god. But how do you know that is what you experienced? As he is not somewhere we can see and touch him, you really have no idea what you experienced. you only know that others may have had that experience, and like you, they BELIEVE it was god. that is a faith issue. there is no way to prove whether he exists or not; you simply choose to believe that he does.

[Becca]

oooh. qi is only used to explain many things.

and so is god?!

:confused: :D :eek: :rolleyes: ;) :p

Good point. Even an Atheist believes in something.




For my two cents:

I believe Qi is an abstract consept. How does a bee know the difference between the smoke from a BBQ grill and a real fire, but doesn't know when it's a smoke can? How can a dog know the difference between his master's blood pressure spiking due to stress vs due to stroke? I don't know. But the consept that we, all things both sentiant or not, alive or not, are interconected by a currently undefine energy does seem to make sence. Calling it Qi is fine by me.

I'm not going to annoy anyone by stating mu oppinions on religion at this time, though.

[cjurakpt]

as I've argued elsewhere, i believe that, based on my personal study of the topic through books and direct experience, that "qi" is a metaphorical descriptor of the net effect of functional interelationships that exist in the human organism and in the environement within which it operates (the universe); it is not a separate thing that can be measured per se, although aspects of it - heat, electromagnetic force, kinetic energy, etc. - are all things that occur naturally in the human body and in the world around it, and so their function is contained within the descriptor called "qi"

that said, combining "qi" with contemporary scientific principles doesn't make that much sense - they function off of different assumptions, so while they might seem similar at the end, the way in which they arrived there, the processes that underly them are very different both in terms of inception and method

first, as some here have pointed out, if you really understand the roll of quantum physics, you know that at the macro level Newton holds sway - what happens at very small levels happens due to the inherent uniformity at that level so the laws governing it are possible, where as at this level of order and differentiation, you need other types of laws for that structure to hold; that, or you would need tremendous amounts of very discreetly contained energy to allow quantum mechanics to work at a macro level without the macro level falling apart...

so "qi" not being a thing per se, is essentially a subjective experience: I look at someone and tell you about the state of their "qi" based on my experience - there are no norm-referenced tables that rate "qi"; because it is subjective, it does not fall into the range of scientific experimentation and theory, which is what underlies quantum theory; hence, changes to quantum theory occur for very different reasons than my personal subjective sense of "qi"; neither is better than the other necessarily, BTW, but they are different

as for God - this is also a metaphorical construct - the easiest way to explain that is the unbelieveable amount of philosophical / religious writing arguing for God's existence despite the fact that no direct evidence of God's existence can be proven using any aspect of inherent human sensorial capacity: you can't see, smell, touch, hear, even think God - God, by definition, is beyond human comprehension - (yet somehow God's hand works it's way into every aspect of daily life...?); anyway, obviously I espouse an atheistic belief - but this is based on empircal observation, as opposed to a leap of faith (you wouldn't buy a car from me based on that, but you want me to dedicate my life to something based on that? okay...); quantum physics, like atheism, is based on direct observation, predictive theorizing, testing and rejecting / refomulation of hypotheses, etc.; God is based on faith, because there is no amount of logical cause and effect argument that can prove God's existence (if there were, then that would unermine the proposed inherent nature of God as being beyond human reason, which is, after all, the basis for logic; saying it doesn't disprove God doesn't get much traction either - you could say that a Vernicious Knid lives in Oompa Loompa land and I couldn't disprove that either, but you are the one posing it, so burden of proof and all that...)

[Becca]

rrotflmao! You gotta love those threads that manage to combine God, Chi and Vernicious Knids all into one rolling ball of... fluff.:p

[Scott R. Brown]

The superficial socially based constructions of religions are based upon faith, for those who have directly experienced God it is not a matter of faith it is a matter of direct experience.

We must remember that, for the most part, our ideas of God are taught to us and tend towards historical and cultural biases that vary from inaccurate to incomplete. Some religions have a large socially based component; they are designed to control and direct social behaviors. These religions may fairly be called faith based. You trust an assumed authority and therefore have faith in his/its judgment. There is little direct experience of the Absolute found in these religions.

There are those throughout history that have sought to directly experience a phenomena that has been termed Tao, Buddha Nature, God, etc. These individuals are commonly called mystics. Mystics are found in nearly every religion and are a minority. They commonly participate on the outer fringes of the religion because they have understanding that transcends the socially based traditions of the religion. Mystics are individuals that seek to directly experience the Absolute. The reports of mystics concerning their experience tend towards similar descriptions. To be sure there are some differences in the descriptions; however these may be attributed to the historical and cultural environment in which the individual lives as well as individual personality, education and ability to communicate experiences that are, by their nature, beyond description. Experiences of the transcendent must be filtered through the individual’s personality and because the experiences are indescribable the best anyone can do is describe what the experience is LIKE, not what it IS! Descriptions are, at best, a finger pointing to the experience and not the experience itself. The experience must be directly apprehended. An individual artistically oriented may describe his experience through poetry or painting, whatever his media of expression, whereas an intellectually oriented individual may communicate the experience more philosophically. Regardless, there are consistent themes to the descriptions of the direct experience that will allow other individual’s to recognize the experience when they have it for themselves. Faith, for the mystic, is not the blind following of an authority; it is similar to a traveler who trusts a map to lead him to his destination. The goal is to have the direct experience, not to fit into a narrow social construction that many religions encourage.

The concern that mystical writings may not contain objective reporting fails to take into account that there is inherently no such thing as true objectivity. Those who consider themselves objective only fool themselves into thinking they are objective and this demonstrates how they are affected by their own subjectivity. All information is filtered through the mind/personality which interprets information according to preconditioned criteria. Preconditioned criteria are the attitudes and beliefs an individual possesses including trust in one’s objectivity. An objectively trained scientist is just as subject to biases as an individual not trained in objectivity. Even the idea that objectivity is preferable to subjective interpretation is a subjective determination. As humans we are ruled by our subjectivity. To be sure we create criteria designed to limit subjectivity as much as possible, however the criterion are devised according to principles that are subjectively influence and are thus prone to inaccuracies.

One of the methods we use to try to limit inaccurate subjective influence is the repeatable process. A phenomena/process must be repeatable according to a specific context providing similar results to be considered a fact/truth of reality. With the observational sciences, such as the behavioral sciences, observation is the primary source of information. All observation is subjectively influenced. Which characteristics of a phenomenon we notice and what we communicate concerning it are affected by our subjective conditioning. Even individuals trained in objective observation report different information because of their subjective influences.

Effects are observed according to a specific context. When similar effects occur according to that context conclusions are drawn that describe a cause and effect relationship. Mystics report similar experiences with variations in their reporting attributable to cultural/historical influences and the individual’s ability to accurately communicate the experience. These variations may be effectively sifted through by those with direct knowledge and experience with the subject. The experiences reported by mystics occur according a specific context. When the context is understood the information may considered an accurate description of transcendental reality/God/Tao/Buddha Nature, but this is not for the uneducated.

As with all topics everyone may have an opinion but also, as with many topics, most opinions are sorely ill-informed. Many people think they have an understanding of religion or God, but they have done very little investigation into the actual topic. They observe popular cultural displays of a religion, which provides limited information and little to no context or engage in superficial readings supporting or criticizing a specific perspective. Conclusions are drawn from inaccurate, biased and limited information and individuals think they have arrived at an objective opinion. The truth is, since their opinion is based upon limited and inaccurate information combined with their subjective conditioning they have arrived at flawed conclusions.

Would we accept the opinion of a physician who arrived at his expertise through watching ER or SCRUBS?

[cjurakpt]

subjective and objective intetwine into each other imperceptably - we can have more of one or the other, but ultimately there is no separation; neither is inherently preferrable, we need and use both as appropriate to negotiate the here and now (tell someone who is about to get run over by a truck that subjectivity is preferable to objectivity and see what he says a minute later...); the trick is not to confuse the relative with the absolute (like the mystical hippie who is so above earthly concerns that his wife and children go cold and hungry because he is off meditating in a field rather than providing for their immediate needs)

"God" as a construct is indeed seperate from direct experience; but then the direct experience of things such as they are is in and of itself profoundly ordinary; "extraordinary" experiences are such because the mind, out of it's psychotic need for reinforcement of the ego self in the realm of psychological time, makes it so

"God" as conceived of by the vast majority of people is inherently "other", something that, by definition, is outside the possibility of direct experience; direct experience then, cannot ultimately encompass this construct of "God"; however, it is the mind that has set up this dichotomy, creating the construct of the possibility of "outside of direct experience" and then placing "God" there so as to be unassaiable by the faculties of experience - it's the perfect paradox: undeniable because it is unprovable...

mystical experience is no different from so-called ordinary experience, it's just a question of perspective - the danger is that a so-called mystical experience can be categorized by some as "extraordinary", and so it is relegated to a hierarchically superior position, something to be sought after, to be coveted, usually because the individual making this distinction is charismatic on a level that engages other people; however, suchness is unseekable, as it is right there; there are of course different ranges of experience that can be...well, experienced, but none of these are inherently "better" than any other; so it is really what one does beyond the experience itself that makes it better or worse than something else- picking and choosing, one reinforces the armor of the mind, sharpening one's sword in preparation for fighting a dragon...

BTW, I agree about the qualifications of an MD, although if the doctor told me he watched House, that would be ok...;)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi cjurakpt,

Well stated!;)

All things to their appropriate context. Every experience provides valuable information that is evaluated according to personal preference and conditioning.

Having said that, one may also consider getting run over by a truck a subjective experience according to a specific context while it may also be considered an objective experience according to another context. The difference is determined by the value one places upon the quality of their material existence. If life is inherently mind as proposed by Ch'an then there is nothing lost or gained from getting hit by a car. The experience of loss or gain is determined by one's clinging to transient superficial values and phenomena. This example demonstrates that objectivity is actually a subset of subjectivity. In the material world we may choose to consider them Yin and Yang to one and other, but inherently all phenomena are subjectively experienced/determined.

[cjurakpt]

Having said that, one may also consider getting run over by a truck a subjective experience according to a specific context while it may also be considered an objective experience according to another context. The difference is determined by the value one places upon the quality of their material existence. If life is inherently mind as proposed by Ch'an then there is nothing lost or gained from getting hit by a car. The experience of loss or gain is determined by one's clinging to transient superficial values and phenomena. This example demonstrates that objectivity is actually a subset of subjectivity. In the material world we may choose to consider them Yin and Yang to one and other, but inherently all phenomena are subjectively experienced/determined.

good point regarding the truck analogy - it is absolutely a question of value - so for the purposes of my exegesis, I suppose that subjectivity was meant to represent the perspective that, since all things are one, the truck and I are one, hence nothing to fear - and right you are that if one is truly not atached to the illusion of life, then no gain, no loss; but if I choose to believe subjectively that the truck and I are one and that therefore it will not impact my life in any way, well then...

of course, the mind is the ultimate conditioner - it subjects all incoming sensorial data to it's filters, and relegates it accordingly - again, very useful for crossing the street, but less so for moving outside of the mind, from phenommena to noumena - not that we are outside of mind per se, it's just that when experiencing noumenna, we are experiencing phennomena without the filter - objectivity; and hence dispassionate, since true objectivity allows no clinging, no craving; I guess that the real "trick" is to be able to do both, to know when you are doing one versus the other, or perhaps both simultaneously? this results in living life spontaneously, without reliance on previous knowledge in certain instances: not "cross at the green, not inbetween" - this sort of info is not relearned each time - more in terms of how we relate to other people based on the uniqueness of each given situation, and respond accordingly rather than react out f pre-conditioned habit; this is freedom...

[Scott R. Brown]

Yes, exactly!!

Once again everything according to its context.

Change the context and the phenomena will be experienced differently according to the context/filter used.

I like to use computer games as metaphor for life. A game character is limited by the rules of the game, while the game player is not. The player is above the game so to speak. Within the game fire burns, swords cut, bombs blast things to pieces, sometimes people even fly and have other magical abilities. This is because the game creator designed the rules of the game to provide for those specific phenomena to occur. While the game character is directly affected by what occurs within the game, the player remains relatively unaffected according to how much he identifies with a character. If a character suffers the player may suffer emotionally due to his attachment to the character, but this is not a requirement. The suffering is directly proportional to the amount of emotional attachment the player has for the character.

If the character dies, just create a new character and play again...but this time I'll have more mana!!!:D

[Sal Canzonieri]

Excuse me for digressing a minute:

You don't need any religion to experience "God".

Anything real exists, and can be experienced if you interact with it,
regardless of you believing in it or not. Regardless of you existing or not (meaning before you were born and after you die)
Real things don't depend on you believing in them.

Hence, with Qi, if it is real, it exists regardless of you.

In my opinion - the sum total of everything in the universe, since it is everything all at once, is intelligent and dynamic energy, meaning self aware.
And, logically, since it is everything, it can only be positive energy (loving? giving?), because to be negative, as in hateful, you must separate something from yourself, and the universe can't do that, since it is everything at all times and in all places.
People call this positive energy: God (in whatever language they are using).

[RAF]

New York Times

June 5, 2007
Essay
The Universe, Expanding Beyond All Understanding
By DENNIS OVERBYE

When Albert Einstein was starting out on his cosmological quest 100 years ago, the universe was apparently a pretty simple and static place. Common wisdom had it that all creation consisted of an island of stars and nebulae known as the Milky Way surrounded by infinite darkness.

We like to think we’re smarter than that now. We know space is sprinkled from now to forever with galaxies rushing away from one another under the impetus of the Big Bang.

Bask in your knowledge while you can. Our successors, whoever and wherever they are, may have no way of finding out about the Big Bang and the expanding universe, according to one of the more depressing scientific papers I have ever read.

If things keep going the way they are, Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University and Robert J. Scherrer of Vanderbilt University calculate, in 100 billion years the only galaxies left visible in the sky will be the half-dozen or so bound together gravitationally into what is known as the Local Group, which is not expanding and in fact will probably merge into one starry ball.

Unable to see any galaxies flying away, those astronomers will not know the universe is expanding and will think instead that they are back in the static island universe of Einstein. As the authors, who are physicists, write in a paper to be published in The Journal of Relativity and Gravitation, “observers in our ‘island universe’ will be fundamentally incapable of determining the true nature of the universe.”

It is hard to count all the ways in which this is sad. Forget the implied mortality of our species and everything it has or has not accomplished. If you are of a certain science fiction age, like me, you might have grown up with a vague notion of the evolution of the universe as a form of growing self-awareness: the universe coming to know itself, getting smarter and smarter, culminating in some grand understanding, commanding the power to engineer galaxies and redesign local spacetime.

Instead, we have the prospect of a million separate Sisyphean efforts with one species after another pushing the rock up the hill only to have it roll back down and be forgotten.

Worse, it makes you wonder just how smug we should feel about our own knowledge.

“There may be fundamentally important things that determine the universe that we can’t see,” Dr. Krauss said in an interview. “You can have right physics, but the evidence at hand could lead to the wrong conclusion. The same thing could be happening today.”

The proximate culprit here is dark energy, which has been responsible for much of the bad news in physics over the last 10 years. This is the mysterious force, discovered in 1998, that is accelerating the cosmic expansion that is causing the galaxies to rush away faster and faster. The leading candidate to explain that acceleration is a repulsion embedded in space itself, known as the cosmological constant. Einstein postulated the existence of such a force back in 1917 to explain why the universe didn’t collapse into a black hole, and then dropped it when Edwin Hubble discovered that distant galaxies were flying away — the universe was expanding.

If this is Einstein’s constant at work — and some astronomers despair of ever being able to say definitively whether it is or is not — the future is clear and dark. In their paper, Dr. Krauss and Dr. Scherrer extrapolated forward in time what has become a sort of standard model of the universe, 14 billion years old, and composed of a trace of ordinary matter, a lot of dark matter and Einstein’s cosmological constant.

As this universe expands and there is more space, there is more force pushing the galaxies outward faster and faster. As they approach the speed of light, the galaxies will approach a sort of horizon and simply vanish from view, as if they were falling into a black hole, their light shifted to infinitely long wavelengths and dimmed by their great speed. The most distant galaxies disappear first as the horizon slowly shrinks around us like a noose.

A similar cloak of invisibility will befall the afterglow of the Big Bang, an already faint bath of cosmic microwaves, whose wavelengths will be shifted so that they are buried by radio noise in our own galaxy. Another vital clue, the abundance of deuterium, a heavy form of hydrogen manufactured in the Big Bang, in deep space, will become unobservable because to be seen it needs to be backlit from distant quasars, and those quasars, of course, will have disappeared.

Eventually, in the far far future, this runaway dark energy will suck all the energy and life out of the universe. A few years ago, Edward Witten, a prominent theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study, called a universe that is accelerating forever “not very appealing.” Dr. Krauss has called it simply “the worst possible universe.”

But our future cosmologists will be spared this vision, according to the calculations. Instead they will puzzle about why the visible universe seems to consist of six galaxies, Dr. Krauss said. “What is the significance of six? Hundreds of papers will be written on that,” he said.

Those cosmologists may worry instead that their galaxy cloud will collapse into a black hole one day and, like Einstein, propose a cosmic repulsion to prevent it. But they will have no way of knowing if they were right.

Although by then the universe will be mostly dark energy, Dr. Krauss said, it will be undetectable unless astronomers want to follow the course of the occasional star that gets thrown out of the galaxy and is caught up in the dark cosmic current. But it would have to be followed for 10 billion years, he said — an experiment the National Science Foundation would be unlikely to finance.

“This is even weirder,” Dr. Krauss said. “Five billion years ago dark energy was unobservable; 100 billion years from now it will become invisible again.”

It turns out that you don’t actually need dark energy to be this pessimistic about the future, as Dr. Krauss and Dr. Scherrer point out. In 1987, George Ellis, a mathematician and astronomer at the University of Cape Town, in South Africa, and Tony Rothman, currently lecturing at Princeton, wrote a paper showing how even ordinary expansion would gradually carry most galaxies too far away to be seen, setting the stage for cosmic ignorance.

Dark energy speeds up the picture, Dr. Ellis said in an e-mail message, adding that he was glad to see the new paper, which adds many astrophysical details. “It’s an interesting gloss on the far future,” he said.

James Peebles, a Princeton cosmologist, said there were more pressing worries. We might be headed toward a universe that is “asymptotically empty,” he said, “But I have the uneasy feeling that the U.S.A. is headed into asymptotic futility well before that.”

You might object that the inhabitants of the far future will be far more advanced than we are. Maybe they will be able to detect dark energy — or the extra dimensions of string theory, for that matter — in the laboratory. Maybe they will even be us, in some form or other, if the human race manages to get out of the solar system before the Sun blows up in five billion years. But if relativity is right, they won’t be able to build telescopes that can see past the edge of the universe.

It’s not too late to start thinking about sending out the robot probes that could drift down through alien skies eons from now with, if not us or our DNA, at least a few nuggets of wisdom — that the world is made of atoms and that it started with a bang.

The lesson in the meantime is that we don’t know what we don’t know, and we never will — a lesson that extends beyond astronomy.

Einstein once said, “The Lord God is subtle but malicious he is not.”

I wondered in light of this new report whether it might be time to revise that quotation. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me the problem was not malice but human arrogance — a necessary but unfortunate condition for scientific progress.

“We have a tendency to put ourselves at the center of the universe,” he said. “We assume all we see is all there is.”

But, as Dr. Tegmark noted, Big Bang theorists already suppose that basic aspects of the universe are out of sight.

The reason we believe we live in a smooth, orderly universe instead of the chaotic one that is more likely, they say, is that the chaos has been hidden. According to the dominant theory of the Big Bang, known as inflation, an extremely violent version of dark energy blew it up a fraction of a second after time began, stretching and smoothing space and pushing all the wildness and chaos and even perhaps other universes out of the sky, where they will never be seen.

“Inflation tells us we live in a messy universe,” Dr. Tegmark said. Luckily we never have to confront it.

Ignorance is us, or is it bliss?
____________________________________

Enjoy!

[Hendrik]

Well, I start this here, I could be wrong. But hope any physics major can carry further to develop the sport science of WCK.



So, here is my idea if you are interested


Momentum = mass x velocity
Momentum = force x time
Force = mass x acceleration



So, for power generation side , momentum = mass x velocity
For power deliver side , momentum = force x time

And, Power generation side = power deliver side
So, momentum generate = momentum deliver = mass x velocity = force x time



Since mass x velocity = force x time
The mass x velocity you generated with your body = the momentum of delivery = force x time

With the momentum generated hold unchange, one can cut down time to increase force. The result force is an impulse since it is with a short time to satisfy the momentum generated .


Since force = mass x accereation
And one cannot change ones body mass, one control the accereation to cut the time of the equation. Momentum = force x time.


Thus, from the above, these equation tell us,
To generate the source of the inch power, one makes use of one body mass and move it with a certain speed, then at the same time accelerate the delivery of the power to amplify the amplitude of the force.

And, The snap of the wrist or actually all joints or snake body spring is acceleration. The impulse generated on top of the full body momentum based on body mass and moving the body.



It is not exact because things are much complex. But from this simplified equation, we know, it involve body mass, velocity of moving the body, and accereation which is critical because it amplified the magnitude of force by cutting the time, but with the same mount of momentum.


See, how one move the body and then snaps.
Sorry, no qi, no mind power , No complicated belive , no mysterious stuffs but physics .

[Hendrik]

Seriously, some one who does phd degree in physical education major, can do research on the four types of force operation, three WCK force change, five momentum tools, and short power generation.

That will be cool to get WCK into sport science .

If I have a lab as in here at 12.43
will show you all kinds of fun things. Including acceleration, pulse generation, force change flow, iforce projection trajectory....ect.

I wouldn't do it, I show you the process and let them monitor you. It is not about what I can do but what everyone can do.

Let me know if you are doing it in your university.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVkjj8568d8


Btw, since you will have infra red sensory and brainwave monitor, that can expand to monitor the qi distribution and mind state while practicing slt according to the kuen kuit too.


A new WCK era based on modern scienctific and ancient method could surface, and then further proceed with precision scientific handling.

[GlennR]

So what you are finally saying is that ,after all your ranting and raving, is;

- Youve never actually done the "scientific experiments"

- You have no Data

- You form conclusions, in regards to measurable physics, from??

30 Years and you havent done one measured test???

[Hendrik]

How come you are so smart? And always love to imagine ?


So what you are finally saying is that ,after all your ranting and raving, is;

- Youve never actually done the "scientific experiments"

- You have no Data

- You form conclusions, in regards to measurable physics, from??

30 Years and you havent done one measured test???

[GlennR]

How come you are so smart? And always love to imagine ?

What am i imagining?

You are saying all your stuff is supported by physics......... so one would assume you have done measured tests.

So have you done measured tests with data for us to look at?

[lkfmdc]

How come you are so smart?

Now listen Schmendrick,
We got it, you found a highschool physics book in the front yard one morning and you've been reading up, but that doesn't make you an expert

and it certainly doesn't make you smart :rolleyes:

[Hendrik]

Do you know how to use your mind to think properly?
Or you need a mind user manual?




What am i imagining?

You are saying all your stuff is supported by physics......... so one would assume you have done measured tests.

So have you done measured tests with data for us to look at?

[lkfmdc]

Do you know how to use your mind to think properly?


Schmendrick
Where you are concerned, we already have the answer....

why don't you be nice and go play in the traffic, I mean really

[Robinhood]

Schmendrick
Where you are concerned, we already have the answer....

why don't you be nice and go play in the traffic, I mean really


Troll alert !

[lkfmdc]

Troll alert !

yes, YOU ARE....

[poulperadieux]

Two vids I made on one inch or zero inch power :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAX8dEZWJY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JU7rYLMaxQ

[Hendrik]

Great !

Always good to have new blood exploring.



Two vids I made on one inch or zero inch power :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAX8dEZWJY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JU7rYLMaxQ

[thedreamer7]

Like this example?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66woWmnkRiI&feature=youtube_gdata_player&noredirect=1

[poulperadieux]

Great !

Always good to have new blood exploring.


Don't force yourself Jimmy, you shot these videos down when I arrived there not so long ago.

[GlennR]

Do you know how to use your mind to think properly?
Or you need a mind user manual?

Data please Hendrik??


Could we see some gathered DATA to confirm you scientific conclusions???

[GeneChing]

Enter to win KungFuMagazine.com's contest for FIGHT LIKE A PHYSICIST: THE INCREDIBLE SCIENCE BEHIND MARTIAL ARTS (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/sweepstakes-fight-like-a-physicist.php), autographed by Jason Thalken Ph.D! Contest ends 5:30 p.m. PST on 11/12/2015.

[boxerbilly]

Cool Gene.

I also watched the kick clapper video. Man, you get all the fun and chicks it appears. She is a pretty girl to my eyes. Probably even better looking in person. He gets to me Parkers kid. Has Hot chicks throwing kicks at him. Sword champ. Lives life well.

[GeneChing]

That Clapkicker (http://www.martialartsmart.com/10-816n.html) pitcher is my Kung Fu sister, a Kickboxing champ, Ninjastar (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/TOC/index.php?p=article&article=998)champ, and dear friend Jenna Castillo (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?57901-Jenna-Castillo). And she is far more beautiful in person, except when she's got her hair in cornrows and prepping for a fight - then she's downright intimidating. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7MnH94bEOA

Thanks for watching our ad, bb. Those help pay the bills around here.

[GeneChing]

See our Winners-Fight-like-a-physicist-The-incredible-science-behind-martial-arts (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?69096-Winners-Fight-like-a-physicist-The-incredible-science-behind-martial-arts) thread.

[GeneChing]

Monday, December 07, 2015 .
Inside Science Minds
What Physics Can Tell Us About Martial Arts (https://www.insidescience.org/content/what-physics-can-tell-us-about-martial-arts/3461)

https://www.insidescience.org/sites/default/files/martial%20arts_top.jpg
Image credit: Umberto Salvagnin via Flickr | http://bit.ly/1QaHn8t .

A scientific approach can reveal much about combat sports, and football.
Originally published: Dec 7 2015 - 10:45am .
By: Inside Science Editorial Team .
Inside Science Minds presents an ongoing series of guest columnists and personal perspectives presented by scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and others in the science community showcasing some of the most interesting ideas in science today.

https://www.insidescience.org/sites/default/files/Jthalken_0.jpg
(Inside Science) -- Jason Thalken has a Ph.D. in physics and also practices martial arts. He's the author of "Fight Like a Physicist: The Incredible Science Behind Martial Arts." A data scientist who works in industry, he has studied and competed in eight martial arts, and has a black belt in hapkido. His book investigates and discusses how fighters can use science to gain an advantage, why safety equipment can backfire, and why center of mass, pi, and momentum are all important to those who practice martial arts. The book is written to appeal to readers regardless of their scientific background. Fans of other sports, including football, will also be interested to read the chapters on brain injuries and concussions. Readers might not expect a martial arts book to discuss football, but to a physicist like Thalken, exploring the way safety gear, collisions, and technique influence brain injury makes a lot of sense.

Thalken talked to Inside Science's Chris Gorski. The transcript of the interview was edited for length and clarity.

Inside Science: Were you into science first, or martial arts?

Jason Thalken: I've been interested in science since I was a small child. But I didn't really start getting into physics until high school, college. The same thing with martial arts. I started with martial arts back in '95. It's really been a parallel path the whole time.

IS: Do you think that a physics background gives martial artists some kind of extra advantage?

JT: I would say I think a physics background would give an advantage. But it's probably not exactly the way people would think. It's not like drawing lines and making calculations about force and stuff like that are helpful. Perhaps the primary advantage someone like that would have is the understanding of being able to take your training for one thing and applying that into unknown [situations].

IS: In the book, you discuss how an individual can think about their own center of mass and the value of momentum versus energy when they're striking someone or being struck. Could you explain some of those main points?

JT: If you want control over your own stance and your own position then you need your center of mass above both your feet. We have all sorts of ways we can do takedowns, throws and sweeps, but it all boils down to a very simple premise. And that's moving the center of mass away from the supports [usually the athlete's legs], or moving the supports away from the center of mass, and then ensuring that your opponent doesn't make a movement to put their center of mass back above their [supports] and weight. I guess it's a relatively simple concept, but there's all sorts of different variations and different styles.

The range of available human motion is the dictating factor there. It's not the laws of physics that say you have to have either a high momentum or a high energy strike. If you're going to throw a punch you can have your muscles very loose, and in that case your body acts more like a bunch of loosely connected separate objects, but you can move very quickly. That puts very little mass behind it, but it can move very quickly. That ends up being a high energy strike, and it can cause localized tissue damage, something like that. It can hurt, but it's not going to knock anybody back, or rotate anybody's head and knock them out.

On the other end of the spectrum is if you actually tighten your muscles, or selectively tighten them, you can actually be one solid object at the moment of impact, and have a lot of your mass effectively behind that punch. That can knock an opponent back, or rotate their head and knock them out. So you end up with this dichotomy between the two, and those things usually don't end up being head to head, but they are for fighting.


continued next post

[GeneChing]

Fighting, Safety Equipment, and Injuries

IS: And it seems like that kind of theme is carried throughout the book, especially when you talk in depth about the brain injuries.

JT: For a very long time the way we looked at injury and impacts was, we just took things like skull fractures, and said that a concussion is probably that to a lesser extreme, and just went with that. It turns out that that was not a very good idea. So instead, what we've done [with safety gear, including gloves and helmets], is we've reduced the ability to feel sensations of pain, for both football players and fighters. But we've enabled them to take large numbers of hits to the head. Big ones cause large rotations of the head, little ones cause small rotations of the head. There's shear forces applied along the axons [parts of nerve cells] in the brain. That ends up causing injury.

We don't see damage around the edges of the brain. We don't see damage localized to the front and back, we don't see radial patterns of damage. What we see is diffuse damage throughout the brain. We should expect to see [localized damage] if the brain was bouncing off the front and back of the skull, or side to side. And then ultimately, if that was what was going on, then for a boxer a straight punch to the forehead of the opponent, that would knock the brain right into the front of the skull. But that is not the knockout punch. What your knockout punch is, is a hook to the jaw. And it turns out that the jaw is actually the furthest distance from the point of rotation at the base of the skull. So that gives you the most leverage to get the head turning.

IS: The potential exposure, the repetitive exposure to these kinds of injuries is huge if you're fighting competitively, but maybe also sparring very intensely. What kind of things do martial arts leaders need to think about changing in order to try to keep people in the ring and in the sports as long as possible?

JT: There's a lot of things that we can do to try to mitigate that. One big one is actually just changing the way we think about safety gear. We have this notion that wearing gloves is safe, and wearing bigger gloves is even safer. It comes down to the simple fact that that's only safer for superficial injuries. If we really want to protect the brains of our athletes, we should probably take the gloves off altogether. Obviously there's the potential for eye injury and [cuts, bruises, and broken bones], so there's other concerns, but if we're talking about protecting the brain, even if we're not going to make changes to the sports, take the gloves off for boxing and mixed martial arts, just training without the gloves would be a step.

One of the things that boxing gloves and MMA gloves do is they provide a lot of protection for the hands. If you're not able to throw full force punches at your opponent's face and head without personal repercussion, that's a very different, you'll take a very different approach to your fighting style.

Training for the Known and Unknown

IS: In the book you talk about a different approach in training and competition, to try to not injure your training partners. Does training differently than you compete put people at a disadvantage in competition?

JT: There was a concept that was introduced, I think it was in Rory Miller's book, "Meditations on Violence." He said, if you're going to be practicing martial arts, no matter what there is a flaw in your training. And the reason for that is that if there was not a flaw in your training, you would be killing and seriously injuring people that you train with. There has to be an intentional flaw there. That's actually where I get into where you should [approach a problem] like a physicist would approach problems. You're not training for the specific scenario that you're looking at right now, you're training to tackle the unknown later on.

IS: It seems like the whole book is built around what's the evidence we can find and what's the theoretical basis we can find behind the martial arts. How many of the people in the martial arts world are tied up in concepts that cannot be proven, such as the concept of the metaphysical force known as "Qi"?

JT: There's one part of the book where I talk about not throwing away good stuff just because it has a mystical explanation. I think some pressure points are a really good example of this. I've personally been brought to my knees by having a thumb shoved inside of my elbow before. Of course the explanation for that is that my Qi has been affected. Just because the explanation is Qi doesn't mean that that didn't work. I wanted to write the book such that I wasn't just dismissing anything that had to do with Qi, but instead saying some of these things are things that we had to come up with an explanation for before we had the actual science to explain it. So we're not saying that it's all garbage, but we are saying that it's about time for us to come in and figure out what's really going on here.

IS: Is there anything else that you'd like to elaborate on?

JT: A lot of people don't necessarily understand at first why a study of martial arts would lead us to answers about problems with football today. In football, you've got all sorts of different things going on. The actual activity that's causing the brain damage is not the primary activity that's going on. We're trying to get a ball in a certain location. That has nothing to do with brain damage. But, then you look over at boxing and MMA, then the actual goal of the activity is that brain damage. Then we can take a look and we can say, okay, what are these guys doing that's effective at causing that, and what's not? We really should look to a sport that's looking directly at causing what it is we're trying to fix.

Image of Jason Thalken, reproduced with permission from YMAA Publishing Center, Inc. Thalken tweets at @JasonThalken


You gotta respect a PhD with a Mohawk.

[GeneChing]

NFL Worried Concussions May Lead to Bad Press: When Companies Start to take Brain Injuries Seriously, They Will Look to Martial Arts for Answers (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=1285) by Jason Thalken, PhD