Talk:Quantum mysticism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Quantum mysticism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Moving recent addition here for discussion

God, etc

I've deleted a paragraph added today because it sounds too much like and essay and is unsourced. It may violate the policy WP:NOR.

SCIENTISTS will be able to understnad the relation between the mysticism and the Quantum mechanical collapse concept if there is a link established between the Material level and the mind level and even more higher levels, and if there is a hierarchy of who controls who(i.e if physical level or material level is governed by the mind level and mind level by even more higher level aspects of life etc.) then this will help modern scientists understand the relation between quantum physics and the Eastern spiritual thoughts and concepts. Unless you take a full picture of the phenomenon of the world, including the inactive(life less matter) and active aspects(all life including humans) of the world or creation, modern science will never be able to solve the mystery of life. Why is it so, because when you are watching a movie, no matter what happens in the movie, it is all in the movie and the movie will never affect you in reality that is related to yourself. Similarly, modern science by only taking material level aspects of the world and creation, when limited to the illusion of this world, created by the movie coming from the universal counciousness, will never be ble to solve the mysteries that are above the physical world.

I don't think it should be in the article. If included, it would need to be sourced and likely attributed. TimidGuy (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear TimidGuy, I am new to Wikipedia, but here is the explanation of the concept of GOD and creation and I tried to give as much as possible of the material level modern science proof here as possible. More cannot be given, since science is not there yet. A proof that matter level is under the control of the Mind level (and modern scientific physicists cannot solve the mystery of the world only by looking at the material level, but also have to see beyond the material level)is again given for your reference here below: http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2001-02/01-098.html

Please note that Brain(or ultimately nothing but material) is nothing but the physical level host of the Mind, that is above material level.

******************************************

WHAT IS GOD:

Here is a simple explanation and the core of all religions and some religions only told only partial info since there is no point in telling at those times, to general populations, when they are not ready enough to understand the higher aspects of the world. While mere words cannot explain GOD but only self experiences, here is a small try to explain the phenomenon of the world.

Every individual, in the process of regaining the lost universal counciousness state or the STATE OF GOD or ALL PERVADING DIVINITY, will go through the following stages. The reason why its a regaining of divine state, is because this is what the ORIGINAL state is for every individual, the state of infinite hapiness and bliss and that of universal counciousness, of omnipotence and omnipresence. For some reasons, individual SOULS or specks of counciousnesses self-impose the individuality and limitedness under the influence of EGO (or the "I" feeling):

STAGES: Body Counciousness-to-MindCounciousness-to-WillPowerCounciousness-to-SoulCounciousness(or realization of self as nothing but a speck of counciousness)-to-Seeing/Identifying Existing Of UniversalCounciousness OR UniversalPower-to-RealizingSelfAsPartOfUniversalCounciousness-to-Final Realization of self as all pervading UNIVERSAL COUNCIOUSNESS with onmipresence,omnipotence & existing with in the creation & beyond creation.

THE ATTITUDE OF A PERSON CHANGES AS THE PERSONS LEVEL OF ENLIGHTMENT CHANGES FROM ONE STAGE TO OTHER STAGE.

1.Body counciousness or the realization that self is the body (or mere senses). Perceiving the world and acting in the world with this counciousness is the lowest that any one can fall to.

2.Mind counciousness or the realization that self is the mind (or realization of self as the mere mind, still yet one more sense, but is more powerful than mere body senses)at of being more powerful than the bodily senses). Perceiving the world and carrying out actions in the world with this level of realization is a bit better than the previous body level, since Mind is superior than the body or bodily senses. Here is an experiment done recently to prove the control of mind over body: brownDOTeduSLASHAdministrationSLASHNews_BureauSLASH2001-02SLASH01-098DOThtml I could only give modern scientific proof of the phenomenon up to this level, since modern science is still evolving and as of now, it is limited to material level and to some extent mind leveland not beyond that.

3.Will Power Counciousness or the realization that self is the will power.Perceiving the world and acting in the world with this counciousness is higher state than that of previous 2 states. This is because, in truth, Will power is more powerful than the body or mind.

4.Soul counciousness or realization that self is an ever existing entity. Perceiving the world & acting in the world with this counciousness is higher state than that of previous 3 states.It is in this state,that the person sees self as an ever existing entity & not subjected to the cycle of life and death & is not vulnerable to the material & mind level limiting aspects of the creation like indestructibility by materials etc.This state is more powerful than any individual qualities an individual may have possessed. When a person regains access to this state, even for a split second will be able to start perceiving the next states, that are above the individuality & leading to universalness.

5.When an individual realizes self as a speck of counciousness or Soul after coming out of the outer sheaths(steps 1,2&3) of illusion, then the individual starts perceving that self is not alone in this creation,but starts identifying the existing of an unknown power,A POWER THAT IS MUCH BEYOND THE GRASPING power of the self.This is the initial stage of knowing the universalness.Sometimes,when we have developed an affection towards someone,then we would have a realization that there is no difference between that person and self. This means,a persons counciousness or the sphere of awareness or influence (perception or action) is beyond the individual body or mind or will power.This is the starting point towards realizing or regaining the universal counciousness.

6.In the intermediate stages of realization of the universalness, the individual perceives that he/she is actually part and parcel of the universalness.

7.In the final stage of enlightment, the person has no individuality at all, and is fully in tune with the universal counciousness irrespective of time and is Omnipotent and omnipresent. This is the state of GOD or referred to as GOD in various scriptures by the saints of all religions across the world who had realized what is GOD.

Most probably, there is a possibility of a person getting access to the highers states of realization, for a brief periods of time, including getting access to the highest universal counciousness either intentionally or unintentionally, but those who can go into and retain the higher states at their will are the really enlightened ones. A simple example of the above phenomenon is the example of a person watching a movie. When the persons counciousness is fully involved in the movie via the bodily senses and the sense of Mind, the person is tuned to the moods of the movie. When a sad scene comes, the person becomes sad, and when a happier moment comes, the person becomes happy and so on. As long as the person forgets that self is different from the movie and lets the movie(which is nothing but a combination of lighter and darker shades of light) illude, due to self imposed restrition to the movie, the person is tuned by the movie.

But the moment the person realizes or re-remembers or regains counciousness that this is just a movie, then, the person selectively enjoys the movie scenes and is not forced to be affected by the unwanted scenes. Similar is the world. The more a person lets self fall to the pull of the senses, the more the person is binded to the nature and environment, but the more the person realizes that self is above own body or mind or even will power, to that extent the person gets freed from the nature and its environment. If the person realizes even more further above the soul level, then to that extent the person gets free from the external aspects of the creation, and rises above the illusion of the creation, which again is nothing but the ALL PERVADING GOD's power that ultimately is responsible for the drama of the creation.

***********************************

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.70.240.193 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I share a similar world view. But Wikipedia isn't the place for this. The idea behind Wikipedia is to find published sources, to take information from those sources, and to put that information in relevant articles. Wikipedia has criteria for what sources are acceptable. And this Talk page is supposed to be for discussing specific changes to the article based on these published sources. I have to run at the moment, but will post a note to your Talk page later that will guide you to relevant Wikipedia policies. This will help give you a better idea of how to proceed in contributing to Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quantum mysticism" vs. "Consciousness causes collapse"

There seems to be significant differences between this "Quantum mysticism" article and the last "Consciousness causes collapse" article at

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Consciousness_causes_collapse&oldid=193438546

Since the "Interpretation of quantum mechanics" article discusses "Consciousness causes collapse" in a serious manner, how does one recover/reinstate/etc. such useful info? I tried unsuccessfully to BOLDly "undo" the redirection at "Consciousness causes collapse"...

I hope that my mentioning it here doesn't cause the "Interpretation of quantum mechanics" article to get "vandalized"(?)...

Thanks.

I like how the Wikipedia editors can decide that one of the key interpretations of quantum mechanics is 'unscientific' when some of the greatest minds in science are unwilling to rule it out. You should delete all that nonsense about entanglement and magical extra dimensions while your at it, thats just crazy talk. -Wulf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.236.95 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are some of the great scientific minds? The article was merged because it was full of pseudoscience. Go back and dig up the history of the article and you'll see. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I did have a look and I do agree that the most recent form is full of pseudoscience. However this was not always the case, at one point there was a well written and balanced article describing the viewpoint and why the view was justified. The problem I have is the topic being deleted entirely. The pseudoscientific crap should have been moved to an appropriate page and a link to it provided. Instead the scientific view was lumped in with matterial based on the missinterpretation of the scientific view. What the editors have done here is misrepresent matterial that is, at the very least, of historical importance. 65.87.236.95 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Wulf

When I first became aware of this article in December 2006 it was already pretty much in the condition it was in when it was merged. Except for some minor changes, little changed between December 2006 and the merger. I brought up the issue of the article being full of pseudoscience but was rebuffed by someone who defended the pseudoscience. My opinion is that the article was originally created by someone who's agenda was to defend and disseminate mystical concepts. Here is the article as it was when I made my first edit [[1]]. As you can see most of the article isn't even about consciousness collapsing wavefunctions. It's mostly about whether consciousness is affected by quantum mechanical effects, a totally separate subject, and eastern mysticism. It never deals with CCC in a totally scientific manner. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What steps do we need to take to re-create the CCC page so that it can be put together using the serious science behind it instead of the pseudo-science that gets associated with it? One of the important steps of getting the CCC page up correctly, I think, is going to be doing justice to the Hard problem of consciousness, right now it is just a small blurb. As it can be difficult for some to understand the importance and significance of CCC without a firm understand of the hard problem and other serious questions raised by philosophy of the mind, there should probably be a section on how CCC incorporates a phenomenon that every other interpretation of QM fails to. It can also be difficult, without including the question of the hard problem, for some to see where the pseudo-science ends and the real science begins. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a question for Dr. Morbius. Do you agree that it is a valid observation that somehow experience arises, and it, like gravity and strong nuclear forces, needs to be explained by a theory for it to truly claim to correctly explain the nature of the universe, that is, for it to be a theory of everything? 162.18.76.206 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of some complex systems governed by aforementioned fundamental forces. It is no more necessary for a correct description of reality directly to include consciousness than it is for Maxwell's equations to contain a term for the RKKY interaction. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Consciousness being an emergent phenomenon has in no way been proven, hence the Hard problem of consciousness. Secondly, I agree that consciousness on our level of experience is almost certainly he sum of complex systems, hence emergent, however all emergent phenomenon have to be constructible from fundamental properties. The importance of the hard problem to CCC is the understanding that all the fundamental forces that have been currently identified do not have any property that has the potential to generate experience or sensation, therefore there is a fundamental 'force' or property of one of these forces that has yet to be identified. CCC is a general enough interpretation that it leaves wiggle room for what form this property takes, but it does show that with QM there is the possibility that we may some day be able to better characterize it and understand it. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will revise my question to Dr. Morbius to ask if you agree that experiences (sensations), phenomenal consciousness, or whatever we want to call it, requires a fundamental property that has not yet been identified? If not, what is that fundamental property that has the potential to produce complex experiences? 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In regard to recent posts - it's worth noting that the topic of the Hard Problem and related issues have been discussed before on this page, in one of the sections listed below. While I agree that the Hard Problem hasn't been solved (one of the over-long posts below is my own), attempting to persuade others of a particular conception of mind doesn't seem to be what's necessary here. Rather, it seems best to focus on the degree to which something is a live debate within the professional communities dealing with it (physics, philosophy, etc.), because that is what we're responsible for reporting here. Whether we agree or not with any particular side of the debate is beside the point, because we're not supposed to give ourselves such license for judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.124.186 (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair comment. I am arguing why there currently is a debate instead of siting that there is a debate. 67.173.233.79 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a follower of Daniel Dennet's views on consciousness and therefore I agree with Eldereft. I've stated this before but I believe that consciousness is the product of biological and chemical processes in the brain and nothing more. Marvin Minsky's book Society of Mind also provides some insight into likely explanations of how the brain functions. To say that there might be something outside the brain that influences consciousness is to imply that supernatural processes are real. Any claim that consciousness might be the product or byproduct of some known or unknown force of nature is a stretch of the imagination. There have been no scientific studies to back up this claim and I doubt there ever will be. I do agree that there needs to be a more coherent explanation of consciousness rather than all these scattered theories. But I do not agree that a theory of consciousness is necessary to provide an explanation for the nature of the universe. I don't agree that consciousness collapses wave functions. Measurement collapses wavefunctions; see Measurement in quantum mechanics. This has been my problem with CCC from the beginning. Since only human beings have human consciousness a proponent of CCC can always refute any opposing theory by stating that "well, the wavefunction didn't really collapse until a human observed the results of the measurement." And any argument that animals might have consciousness capable of collapsing wavefunctions, as claimed by some in the CCC community, can be refuted by making the same statement. To take this argument to the extreme I can always claim that only my consciousness is capable of collapsing wavefunctions and any experiment done by someone else is invalid. This type of reasoning leads nowhere and explains nothing. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we can state it more strongly than just pointing out that there is no reason to assume anything but materialism. From such experimental effects as the Bell inequality and Quantum eraser, it is evident that "measurement" means "in principle can be known" (viz. it matters into which state a wavefunction collapses). This leads directly to such effects as a "half-collapse" where the wavefunction is perturbed but not collapsed and that neat bit out of École Normale Supérieure last year where they gradually shifted the number of photons in a box from an indeterminate number in superposition to a specific measured number. But this is wandering far and away off the ostensible issue of improving this article. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

History

There is somethign wrong, unclear, uncited or dubious in practically every sentence of this long recent addition. The definition of msyticism in the first sentence does not accord with the wikipedia article on the subject. It doesn't get better. Fix it or pull it? 1Z (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pull it - it's egregious Adambrowne666 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Howdy--- I wrote it, and you can remove it, but the point of that section is to explain why all those people thought that quantum mechanics has anything at all to do with mysticism.

The "definition" of mysticism is not really a definition, its just the mathematical property of quantum mechanics (and any theory of physics really, but its more subtle in classical mechanics) when it tries to describe the experiences of observers. You have a bunch of numbers that describe the physics, and you need an interpretation layer to turn that into experiences. In classical mechanics the intepretation doesn't seem mysterious, but in quantum mechanics it is obviously mysterious. The reason is that in any interpretation, the mathematics of quantum mechanics does not have any variables that correspond directly to classical experiences, it just has wavefunction values. While anyone who knows quantum mechanics understands all that, non-physicists are rarely exposed to these issues, so I thought it would be nice to state them clearly. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I tried my best. It's hard.

As far as "wrong" things being said, It's weird, but that's quantum mechanics. What can you do.Likebox (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not ignorant of QM and I am not saying it is wrong. The 'definition' of mysticism you offered is actually a definition of Cartesian dualism, neither of which has anything to do with the mathematics of QM. 80.4.196.181 1Z (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh--- I didn't mean it to be a statement of dualism. Dualism, as I heard it, posits that the realm of consciouness is made out of separate stuff. I wasn't saying it was separate stuff, I was just saying that within quantum mechanics, you need extra numbers to say what is the experience of observers. You need those numbers to describe classical bowling balls too, at least if someone is looking at them. I'll try to clarify.

Is it better now?Likebox (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(deleted some irrelevant comments)

I tried to avoid the following biases:

declaring that quantum mechanics is categorically not mystical
categorically declaring that the mystical component is Jesus, or the Hindu vedas, or some such thing.
declaring that quantum mechanics is categorically more mysterious than classical mechanics.

None of these philosophical points of view are agreed upon as far as I know. The only thing that everyone agrees on is that quantum mechanics is random for observers, and deterministic for wavefunctions. That conflict is resolved philosophically by an appeal to interpretation, and that appeal can be construed as mystical or as non-mystical.

To reveal my Personal prejudices, so that they are not hidden, I believe that it is mystical, but on the scale of mystical things, its pretty low-grade stuff. It isn't spoon-bending. It isn't ESP. It's just the usual "what is my consciousness in this world made of atoms" kind of thing.Likebox (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You put forward one level of mysticism, one kind of mysticism, and one explanation for it.

1Z (talk)

It's possible-- I don't know all the philosophical literature. But I really was trying to isolate the reason that Wigner (and less explicitly Bohr and Heisenberg and all the rest) thought that quantum mechanics was mystical in some ways. If you could tell me where my description is limited, I can try to fix it.Likebox (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be Wigner's opinion, it needs ot be linked to him by appropriate

citation. And do we need a lengthy disucssion of Wigner's opinion when there are so many others? I think it is best to keep this article short and well-cited, that will help prevent the addition of personal-essay tpye material, as has often happened in the past. 1Z (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's not exactly Wigner's opinion, you would have to quote Wigner. Each founder had a somewhat different interpretation, I tried to describe the differences. But they were all slightly mystical in that the classical limit is not exactly derived from the quantum one. Wigner only pointed out that issue of consciousness is important for wavefunction collapse. There was also Bohr, who refused to say that classical mechanics was the limit of quantum mechanics, and Schrodinger, who I never read but he went on and on about mysticism. But Wigner was definitely the first to flat out say that the nature of consciousness, the mind-body problem, is important in quantum mechanics.

This is unacceptable. You must give an accurate rendition of the views of notable figures, not your own WP:synthesis. 1Z (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to say, these people are representatives of thousands of others. I personally know a few people who started studying Buddhism in response to learning quantum mechanics, so it's not just Wigner.

Modern people who write papers about this stuff usually follow Everett, doing decoherence. Everett modelled consciousness as the memory state of a computer, so as to avoid any philosophical disputes about what constitutes consciousness, and he gave arguments that you can give an interpretation by defining the "relative state" of a wavefunctions, which means relative to states of definite memory of the computers, and then you get a reasonable (but many-worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. So when modern people say that they've identified a decoherence basis for measurement, like Zurek or something, or Gell-Mann, they're working within a many-worlds style framework, extending this idea to try to find the most objective classical states inside a quantum formalism. They differ philosophically on how "real" the many worlds are.

That's the problem with this stuff. There's no real coherent narrative, and the number of philosphical views is about equal to the number of people writing about it. So I made a mishmash of a bunch of related ideas that I tried to cram in so that people will get a flavor of what people were thinking. I don't think I did a very good job, as I said, it's hard to do. I wrote it only to get rid of the bias in this article that only pseudo-scientific people thought that there was something strange about consciousness in quantum mechanics.Likebox (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is biased. Earlier versions were less so. But citation is crucial. It is no good one editor vaguely saying that some scientists think there is something funny about consciousness, you will just get people coming along and adding material to the effect that some unspecified scientists think the Quantum Field Is Brahma or some such. There is huge confusion about this subject. This article is a bullshit magnet. If it attracts another accumulation of bnullshit, it will just end up getting deleted again. A highly discplined approach is necessary. 1Z (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I agree with you completely, and this is why I think it is very difficult to write about stuff like this. The question is what is the appropriate version of disciplined writing one should use? Wikipedia guidelines work well when there are some well-accepted mainstream views, which everyone knows. Then dissenting views are listed, in order of mainstream acceptance. Unfortunately in this case, there isn't a well-isolated mainstream view. Each author has a slightly different view.

So what's the solution? Is it to make a list of all the authorities and their opinions in random order? Then you would get a list of 20 authors saying "Quantum mechanics is mystical", and an opposing list of twenty authorities which say "Quantum mechanics is not mystical". This might be the right way to deal with contentious subjects in articles on the humanities, where the consensus process is entirely political, but in this case we are talking about a subject related to physics. I believe (and of course I might be totally wrong) that when one is talking about physics, there is a certain core subset of more or less impartial stuff which everyone agrees on, and a superlayer of philosophical questions which are the subject of dispute.

So I thought the right solution is to discuss the mathematical and physical aspects first, the stuff that is well agreed upon, so that the mathematical and physical issues are made clear before any detailed discussion of the philosophy. Then to follow this discussion with a discussion of the different points of view. That's what I tried to do. But I don't think I succeeded. Some problems:

The question of mind/body problem in classical mechanics, which is what all the quantum stuff comes from, is already a sore point. The Hofstadter/Dennett stuff in "the mind/body problem in classical mechanics" is already a bunch of philosophy. I tried to state their point in a way that is was as impartial as I could manage, to just state the problem they bring up, without giving a solution. But just by stating a philosophical problem, you reveal biases.
It is not clear that you can coherently talk about the wavefunction of the universe in a Copenhagen interpretation--- to be able to do that was one of Everett's original motivations. So when the article talks about different philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, it automatically assumes you know how to translate between them. But some notions, like the wavefunction of the universe, don't necessarily make sense in Copenhagen interpretations. But nowadays, physicists talk about the wavefunction of the universe all the time, automatically assuming the reader has some machinery to deal with the concept.

So what are the agreed upon things? I have a hard time isolating them, so perhaps there aren't any. But I thought it was these:

Quantum mechanics is random for observers, deterministic for wavefunctions.
Wavefunctions are not probabilities, they do not have an obvious interpretion as a model of our ignorance about hidden variables.
The fact that we don't ever "feel" superposed is not necessarily a strike against quantum mechanics, because what an experience "feels like" to an observer is not obvious from a mathematical description of the atoms which make up the observer.
Within decoherent/many-worlds interpretations, the extra data which describes experience of observers specifies which of the many "worlds" the observer is in, that is, which observer you are talking about. Within a Copenhagen interpretation, the extra data is called the results of observation. The two approaches are equivalent modulo philosophy.
That the reason that people brought up "mysticism" is because the translation between the quantum mechanical description of the world and the experience of observers is not obvious.

That is what I tried to write, not very well. This is followed by the disputed points, as I saw them:

What is the correct intepretation of quantum mechanics?
Is the problem of consciousness worse in quantum mechanics than in classical mechanics, or just more obvious?
Does the interpretation problem mean that quantum mechanics is wrong? Should it be modified into an objective collapse theory or seen as a limit of a deterministic theory?
What is consciousness?

Maybe this is not the right separation. Maybe I didn't do a good job describing the questions. Maybe there is no separation between facts and opinions here. But I tried my best. I just thought would be good if this article was informative rather than just descriptive.71.127.190.120 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Likebox; I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but the stuff you added is far too long winded and there are no citations - I feel this is a case of less is more - despite your arguments above, I vote to revert to the version previous to your additions unless you can fix it in the next week or so. Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The section is accurate and fully sourced, and has been edited by others. The best reference for the mystical part is Squires, and the book "Quantum mechanics without reduction".Likebox (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Passively Sexist Language

What is Wikipedia policy on using "he" to mean "he or she"? It's really grating to my ears, personally, but I know it isn't grating to everybody. It didn't use to, but now it distracts the reader by putting focus on irrelevant gender issues. Is there a more recent quote which can substitute which is more conscious of passive gender-bias?Likebox (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexism involves intent. If the person who wrote the text which you consider to be sexist did not intend to be sexist then there is no sexism. They probably wrote it that way for convenience and readability and they did not in any way intend to be sexist. I find the use of "he/she" to be stupid and inconvenient. If I want to make certain that the reader understands that what I'm writing about is gender neutral then I'll use "they" or "you" etc. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned, using "he" to mean "he or she" is a violation of WP:NPOV and should be corrected. For historical quotes, though, we just have to live with the culture of the times. We could replace "he" with "[he or she]" or "[s/he]" or some other equally unwieldy solution, but I would recommend against it. We could also remove the direct quote in favor of paraphrasing. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To Dr. Morbius--- no accusation of sexism was implied--- I know that the poor fellow didn't mean to be sexist. It's just annoying to the modern ear.Likebox (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that kluge looks every bit as ungainly as I feared. How about if we just summarize the major points of the first part of that statement without directly quoting? The second part contains only the epicene "one's", and is pretty neat language. Proposed section to replace current text beginning with Wim De Muynck through the end of his quote:

Wim De Muynck comments that human observers are no more necessary in quantum mechanics than in classical mechanics. Modern experimenters typically do not interface directly with the microscopic reality of experiments. Instead, they observe tables and graphs generated by a computer to which data from the measuring apparatus is sent without any human interference. For a human observer to collapse the wave function of a microscopic object by the mere act of observation "would be equally miraculous as killing a fly by just looking at ones fly swatter."

It might also be possible just to go back to the source for another pithy summary without offending pronouns. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was written using "he" then it should be quoted that way. I object to editing anything just to make it more appealing to "modern sensibilities". If that's the way it was written that's the way it should be in the article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why include this particular quote at all? The observation is not particularly new to the guy.Likebox (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Misdescription of Quantum Mechanics

Well, I thought I understood it! Seriously, though, the sentence just says that measurement is described by a non-unitary projection of the wavefunction while time evolution is described by a unitary operation. This is not an issue of debate, as far as I know.Likebox (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you still feel the need to revert, delete the sentence, becuase I added a reference too.Likebox (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"[Quantum mysticism] is descended from the measurement problem--- the apparent conflict between the unitary time evolution and the nonunitary effect of observation"

This sentence is getting deleted multiple times. I don't understand why this is so. Quantum mechanics treats a measurement as a random event which leaves behind a projection of the wavefunction, while any physical process which does not involve a measurement is described by unitary time evolution. Projection is not unitary. Neither is randomness. So observation is different.

Nobody, as far as I know, disputes this. What people dispute is whether this problem is only apparent, whether a multi-observer point of view can resolve the difficulties. But the previous delete said that the sentence was "opaque" and "required multiple citations". As far as opaque, I tried a different wording. But for citations, I feel stupid citing anybody--- this is such well known stuff. I will cite a random textbook if this is absolutely essential, but I can't understand why there are objections.Likebox (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New section needs discussion

I'm moving a new section here that was inserted in the Parodies section in the article. I haven't looked into this to see whether this book is indeed a parody, but the style of this addition is a little off -- such as the use of first person and person-essay-like style.

===Quantumism===
"Quarks, Chaos & Christianity: Questions to Science And Religion"
Worship Quarks not dieties...
I can not get past the complete oddity and utter dull drum of all that is not in this book. The belief that God is a statistician and that through prayer and meditation one or more people can produce a desirable outcome in a random universe thereby inducing a quantum of influence in an otherwise absurd existence. Quantumism rejects the insertion of an active interventionist deity but a subtle quantum statistical cosmic mechanic. The belief that a force set the physical system in motion and does not adjust the system whimsically but allows the system to be manipulated through quantum prayer at the whimsy of the systems own evolutionary dynamics.
The belief that any outcome is possible but highly improbable if it does not fall in line with the current state of energy and mass in any particular moment. These tenet makes it a more palatable system in a futile effort to satisfy both a deep inner desire to accommodate the traditional grandiose deity and the modernistic scientific explanations of the natural world.
Quantumism's growth remains, for the most part undocumented as it is more of a sub-particle of todays modern religions, and any religion or faction that has tried to measure it has cease to exist almost instantaneously. Leading to the primary paradox that believing in something and practicing it are inherently difficult. Which is believed to be the birth place of the saying "Practice what you preach", the "I told you so" retort.
Quantumism has a long history and came into existence due to the letters between Bohr and Einstien and the many discussions about the ramifications of new realities, relationships and discoveries in the field of physics and impact on society and religion. The belief system has not been well documented or debated like nihilism or existentialism because of the spin. No one is certain of quantumism exact location on the ism scale due to the lack of instrumentations but though it may have a low profile it could simply be due to its existence not being percieved in this dimensional plane.
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein) I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Which brings another great epiphany.....Quantumism has been linked to another belief system based on massism. Spawned from the theory of relativity. The massism movement is the belief that nothing exists but energy. Time and Mass are simply a result of forms of energy like forms of water. The foundation of the belief is that "God is Mass" and the more massive something is the more godly. As entropy increases the universe cools, and god will reveal himself. Everyday becoming more and more apparent, as no one can miss that much mass. (i.e. recent polls showing a religious appetite of Americans becoming more godly at the waist line could result in an alteration of Earths spin. As the planet begins to wobble on its axis creating a warping effect in the julian calendar unless a new adjustment variable is added to the already queer formula. The Earths wobble affect is believed to act as a butterfly effect on the whole solar system creating a ripple, the ripple growing into a wave pushing on the whole galaxy. At current estimates and todays weight growth rate in approximately 33.333 billion years (without calendar adjustments) this solar system will act on the entire milky way galaxy moving it out of the way of another galaxy today on a collision course with the milky way therefore avoiding a cosmic disaster.

And by the way, in glancing over this article, I'm astonished at how much it has been improved. I really really appreciate that work that's gone on here. TimidGuy (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, after my initial misgivings and grumpiness come of having to defend it for so long, I must agree - it's improved out of sight. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That essay above is kind of a fun read (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Quantum decoherence

The last paragraph in the Consciousness Causes Collapse section talks about quantum decoherence. But since quantum decoherence does not shine any light or tell us anything for or against the Consciousness Causes Collapse speculation, is there any reason we are keeping this paragraph?

I vote it be removed. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness causes collapse is not a speculation, it is a philosophical position. There are no unambiguous testable differences between the way in which you describe the world in ccc or in copenhagen or in many worlds. In fact, many worlds includes ccc as an unspoken assumption (collapse is always relative to an observer's mental state), so many-worlds is probably best thought of as a mechanistic realistic version of ccc. The only difference between these three interpretations is the philosophical framework. Copenhagen is positivist, many-worlds is realist, ccc is Machian (by which I mean the philosophical position that conscious sense-impressions are primitive and irreducible elements of reality).

The point of the paragraph you wish to delete is this--- quantum decoherence is not all by itself a way of making sense of conciousness in QM without additional philosophy. Since quantum decoherence is the mathematical content of the statement that many-worlds is consistent with observations, many people just use decoherence as a polite synonym for many-worlds. Then whenever they want to make a point about the realist philosophy of many worlds, they just substitute the word "decoherence".

These people will then say stuff like, "decoherence means that consciousness is no different than other physical phenomenon", when they actually mean "decoherence means many-worlds is consistent with observation. I am a realist, and I therefore accept many-worlds as the correct interpretation of QM. In many-worlds consciousness is no different than anything else".

I am one of those people. But I also like to separate philosophy from physics. Decoherence is physics, and it allows you to adopt a many-worlds philosophy. In the many-worlds philosophy, the problem of consciousness is no worse in quantum mechanics than it is in classical mechanics.Likebox (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Worst article/irrelevant opinion/biased ideologies

This article is a tough one, because it is hard to explain why a physical theory should be thought of as mystical in any reasonably objective way. You always need a lengthy discussion of philosophy, with all the ambiguities and differences of opinion that such a discussion entails. Since not everyone thinks that QM is mystical, and even those that do disagree on exactly what mysticism means, and they don't even agree about what quantum mechanics means exactly, the discussion, no matter how it is written, is going to rub somebody the wrong way. Having said that, the article tries to give a reasonable summary, with some entry points into the physical literature on the subject. But there might be big gaps, and maybe its biased. It's really hard to write about this objectively.

It would be helpful for the critics to say exactly what is biased. The mystical stuff is really about measurement, and the mind/body problem identified by Wigner, and (in the opinion of some, perhaps partially) solved by Everett/decoherence.

But there is a lot of secondary literature which tries to make a connection between the quantum mechanics laws and self-help or mystical healing literature or ESP or some other such thing. This type of literature is not useful in trying to understand the physical issues, and it is not widely accepted. So I think that it should probably be left out, except perhaps for a list of sources for the reader interested in what ideas are being pushed by who.Likebox (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Research recommendation (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC) WORST ARTICLE/IRRELEVANT OPINION/BIASED IDEOLOGIES:

It is not difficult to write about or understand - all it takes is an open mind and some homework. You are approaching the subject from a non mystical view instead accurately portraying both. The page is heavily weighted toward the non mystical. May I remind the editors to read the title of this page once more - 'Quantum Mysticsim', should integrate both. Yet, Likebox says she likes to seperate philosophy from physics. That is not an objective 'objective', nor the point of this page. You really should cite additional sources for Mysticism other than Depok Chopra. Very limited. You should add something from world renowned scientist and philosopher Irvin Lazlo. Here is a small excerpt from his book 'Science and the Akashic Field' and I'll add a link to his organization The Club of Budapest. I'm sure Depok is acquainted with his work:

"Mystics and sages have long maintained that there exists an interconnecting cosmic field at the roots of reality that conserves and conveys information, a field known as the Akashic record. Recent discoveries in vacuum physics show that this Akashic Field is real and has its equivalent in science’s zero-point field that underlies space itself. This field consists of a subtle sea of fluctuating energies from which all things arise: atoms and galaxies, stars and planets, living beings, and even consciousness. This zero-point Akashic Field is the constant and enduring memory of the universe. It holds the record of all that has happened on Earth and in the cosmos and relates it to all that is yet to happen."

In Science and the Akashic Field, philosopher and scientist Ervin Laszlo conveys the essential element of this information field in language that is accessible and clear. From the world of science he confirms our deepest intuitions of the oneness of creation in the Integral Theory of Everything. We discover that, as philosopher William James stated, “We are like islands in the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep.”

Check out the reviews. You really should have Lazlo's work as part of the Quantum Mysticsm page.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Akashic-Field-Integral-Everything/dp/1594770425

Here is Lazlo's orginaztion: The Club of Budapest. Not a page to link to here, but FYI:

http://www.clubofbudapest.org/

Please research Lazlo and add his work either as Further Reading or External link. I still would like to have Mystical Physicists added as Further Reading - but ONE editor panned it so it was not accepted. If your looking for important publishers or credentials - then you cannot refuse my Lazlo suggestion. A link to Mystical Physicists would be an important research addition. If the students at Berkley think enough of it to add to their bookstore, then it should be good enough for wiki. It is the wiki editors who appear to be limited. Research recommendation (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That I find the article wincingly biased toward the mystical side of things as you find it biased the other way, Research recommendation, suggests it has found a middle ground; although we're both a bit discomfited with it, we should probably be happy with it as it stands. Adambrowne666 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't claim Irvin Lazlo's work is middle ground. What I said was this wiki page is heavily weighted toward the non mystical - and Lazlo's work would lend some much needed balance. I look forward to a final determination from the editors. Research recommendation (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are right about this article being biased against mysticism. Other readers who have a more scientific materialistic point of view have objected that this article is too charitable to the mystical point of view. The point of "separating physics from philosophy" is to separate min the physics literature from the philosophy literature. The philosophy literature was often written by people who didn't have a clue about quantum mechanics, and is often embarassing to read.Likebox (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. The point of research into Quantum Mysticism is to INTEGRATE the two, not seperate them. You should be demonstrating how they are integrated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article contains more information about seperating them.

Research recommendation (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lazlo's work INTEGRATES the two, so does Mystical Physcists. That's the balance I'm talking about - that is lacking on this page. Research recommendation (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get it--- Lazlo is integrating mysticism with quantum mechanics. This page is just to discuss the history of the idea, and who wrote about it when. Lazlo is working now, I presume, and with less recognition, so it is less pressing to preserve his work.Likebox (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to additons for the External Links and Further Reading categories. Lazlo's work is 2005. What the Bleep - 2004, and Lazlo's work is recognized at least as much as Michael Shermer's Quantum Quackery - 2005.

But with respect to history and the main body of the article - under the heading Observation and Quantum Mechanics, you really should include the 1982 work of Alain Aspect and the Bell test experiments (he set a precedent), yes/no? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alain_Aspect Research recommendation (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah--- Aspect probably should be there. But I don't know the experimental literature at all.Likebox (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of places that link through to the Bell Test Experiments in The Observations section - but it is obscured and you have to hunt for it. I think mentioning the Bell Test Experiments with a direct link within the body of this article is warranted. Aspect set a precedent - Bohm, Michael Talbot and several others based their work on his findings.

Research recommendation (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)