Quantum Quackery

[Telos]

I'm not trying to stir up trouble with you guys, but it's good to hear the other side once in a while.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

What do you think?

[manuel]

Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light.

No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.

yadda yadda yadda, we are myopic visisioned twits who cannot see beyound our eyes, stay within the fence yadda yadda yawn.

[Nostic]

At this point in time, yes, I do think it's a bit presumptuous to say that quantum physics provides us with proof for any kind of spiritual beliefs. And I can only imagine that that will change when it is "common sense" that science and spirituality are inseparable... which I also assume is an inevitability. For now, it is very much an individual decision weather or not you'd like to connect the 2. While not proof, I do believe that it is certainly evidence. If it helps you on your quest, good, just go with it.

[BillionNamesofGod]

yadda yadda yadda, we are myopic visisioned twits who cannot see beyound our eyes, stay within the fence yadda yadda yawn.

That's right, just for the rest of people, who didn't quite get what that meant, what he actually meant was :

Interesting article but it's firmly planted in skeptical 2D Flatland.

We cannot percieve these multi-dimensions, so we observe lot's of weird goings on. So skeptics, just say, look it's weird s**t!

But absolutely no way would a skeptic link this weird s**t with spiritual or mystical, that's beyond there thinking. If there is no evidence, it's just weird s**t they can't explain, they don't believe in mystical s**t anyway. They'd rather just leave it as "wow look at this weird s**t!"

But they also don't grasp they can never ever ever explain this weird s**t without thinking beyond they can see and prove. Which they won't or can't a skeptic will never step further without evidence, but this time they won't get any - not ever.

It's all neatly explained if you take on board the multi-dimensions.
But it's too whacky for them, it's too way out. Way to way out, infinite parallel dimensions? what's that wierd s**t? why the hell are these scientists who were my friends talking about such whacky s**t? What happened to then? They turned fruitcake?

So the skeptics enter an infinite loop, they can't escape.

And the icing on the cake? The real icing on the cake?

Well they can't stand it that cosmologists suddendly take "scientific" leaps of faith which are *** IDENTICAL *** to leaps of faith taken by buddhists, who didn't need to build particle accelerators, and fiddle with quantum mechanical mathematics, which took them a life time being a student to learn, and really really rather annoyingly but just adding some dimensions, all their infinites disappear and the maths works perfectly, by infinite dimensions, when all this time they didn't do it because it didn't look nice or make sense to them. While it was starting them in the face, they didn't do it, because we live in 3D x,y,z and forward time why the hell would you want more dimensions that that? Boy we have trouble explaining our own bloody universe without creating a infinite amount of them for christs sake!!!

It just winds them up so much that some buddhist sat on a tree doing some freaky inner meditation come ups with the *** IDENTICAL *** conclusion, centuries ago, just by chilling out, and not doing lot's of hard maths at all, and spending lot's of years getting fancy titles. It almost make sa mockery of the scientific process.  And if they got that right, what if they are right about everthing else? No way! It does not compute.  It really annoys them that our universe is perfectly tuned for human life, so now they have to take onboard infinite universes just to get rid of pesky god. But now we have to believe in an infinute number of worlds, and jesus that's just as bad as saying there is a god.  Infact it's bloody easier to say there is a god, least he'd be charge one pesky universe.

Boy this winds up the skeptics up so end, so they go on and on and try to remove all spirutual connection to cosmology and quantum physics.

But they don't notice a small bunch of cosmologists who've reached some kind if nirvana without meditation but by mathematics, talking the same language of ancient buddhists.   They don't like it one bit. Not one bit.  So they start calling god a superintelligence, but still it doesn't work for them. All of a sudden their near scientific world is full of wierd s**t and they are forced to resort to thinking like a load of Buddhists in the east.  They also don't like these new small Elite bunch of smart arse Quantum Cosmologists taking maths, and coming up with the same kind of take as ancient buddhists.  Heck, they have lots of maths and qualifications to boot, so a bit harder to dismiss.. but aha!! they have no proof, so these bunch of smart arse cosmologists who actually know it all, that's them put in their place, and us skeptics rule once again... (drumroll and lot's of skeptics clapping)

So they are extremely annoyed that they don't get it, so write lot's of articles trying to wind people up. I mean these  buddists aren't scientists, what the hell do they know anyway?

Well it doesn't matter....  The rest of us just get on with it.  
Just that cosmologists are awestruck at the conceptual leaps by buddhists, only a few of them like Einstien before them have taken such conceptual seemingly religious leaps, the rest of them like most scientists want to figure out how they can take the credit, without getting the buddhists involved, as my god, they were there first for sure, and plenty of dated documentation in proof they got there first.

While us observers like me just can't stop laughing - look it doesn't matter who get's the credit.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be stuck up a tree chilling out meditating exploring the inner self; rather than hanging out with a bunch of bearded small minded scientists getting extremely confused because they only experience 3D x,y,z and forward time, and decide to build bigger and bigger accelerators, because they can do a bigger bang and hopefully get more evidence, but just end up finding even more weird s**t and getting themselves into a twist and even more confused, not agreeing with each other, and generally not having a good time. Not Fun.

I'd rather be sat next to Everest, have a nice cup of tea, chilling out going deeper - as we already know you won't  find any evidence anyway, so why not chill instead.

[You]

Go Telos! It's your birthday!

I think providing both sides of the fence kicks butt, I love doing it, I just don't have the heart to go looking for articles that contradict mysticism. Very progressive of you.

On the other hand guys, just because the mind doesn't affect and control all reality doesn't mean it can't control some of it. You certainly can control what you perceive if you mess with it enough.

[Leannain]

it is?
congratulations telos.

[Tom]

It is still true that quantum mechanics has only been shown to operate at the level of subatomic particles. Yes, at this point the expectations of the scientists involved always influences the outcome of the experiment. This does not seem to apply to objects large enough to see with even optical microscopes. It does not rule out the possibility that the mind can control or influence everything; it just does not prove it as science. There are no conclusions to draw at this point.

[You]

The theory that we can affect things on larger levels to me seems that by influencing large amounts of subatomic particles (wasn't it quarks?) that we are able to change them.

The thing is, did the scientist's expectations actually change it to what they did or didn't expect? Did the actual thought control it, or did thinking in general just change it?

If we don't even know if the mind of such brilliant men can control such a simple thing as positive or negative, I'm at a loss how such 'gurus' with no understanding of it at all are able to coordinate the unified application of subatomic particles to produced desired methods that are human in concept, not scientific.

Positive or negative is simple. Heal my liver? Your cells might know what health is, but I'm pretty sure your quarks and atoms and molecules do not.

[Telos]

it is?

No, June 27th. ;)

But when it comes I'll have to ask for Roger Penrose's new book, ambitiously named The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe.

The funny thing is, the reviews are saying the book lives up to its name. Especially since it makes people mathematically literate in the theories.

Thanks for the replies, everyone! Don't hold anything back (except, you know, profanities and such).

[BillionNamesofGod]

it is?

No, June 27th.

But when it comes I'll have to ask for Roger Penrose's new book, ambitiously named The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe.

The funny thing is, the reviews are saying the book lives up to its name. Especially since it makes people mathematically literate in the theories.

Thanks for the replies, everyone! Don't hold anything back (except, you know, profanities and such).

Well that's interesting isn't it?  I think you and Roger Penrose Wouldn't get on at all!
He like me believes that your brain is a quantum computer, and everything else I've been going about.

So that's very interesting. If you such a skeptic why are you a fan of Roger Penrose?  Respected Scientist, but also believer in all the quantum tomfoolery, you don't believe in.

Please read the paper:

Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

So far as I'm concerned case closed - not even penrose is a skeptic you are.

QED.   You need to take leaps of faith, like penrose has.

Case Closed.

[BillionNamesofGod]

From the web-site:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind (and later Shadows of the Mind, Oxford Press, 1989 and 1994). Quite famous for his work in relativity, black holes, geometry, gravity and quantum mechanics, Roger Penrose had turned to the problem of consciousness and concluded the mind was more than complex computation. Something else was necessary, and that something, he suggested, was a particular type of quantum computation he was proposing ('objective reduction' - a self-collapse of the quantum wave function due to quantum gravity). He was linking consciousness to a basic process in underlying spacetime geometry - reality itself! Hence, the brain is intimately tied to a quantum level to the universe.

"Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe" -  Freeman Dyson

In recent years I have concluded that such a connection to the basic proto-conscious level of reality where Platonic values are embedded is strikingly similar to Buddhist concepts, and may account for spirituality.


Again, funny how respected scientist are recently just saying what buddhists have been saying all along.

Of course, you won't believe it - you are a skeptic.

[Telos]

BillionNamesofGod, I replied in the other thread.

It's not nice forum etiquette to double-post.

Skepticism is belief in doubt. That's not me.

Try an experiment. Sit in whatever shoes you're wearing and think, "maybe I am the one who is being closed-minded?" I don't think it'll hurt much. Of course, if you don't try that experiment, you might be very closed-minded!