Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Quantum Quackery/Quantum Mysticism

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Quantum Quackery/Quantum Mysticism

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Victor J. Stenger

Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory developed early in the century to account for the anomalous behavior of light and atoms, are being misconstrued so as to imply that only thoughts are real and that the physical universe is the product of a cosmic mind to which the human mind is linked throughout space and time. This interpretation has provided an ostensibly scientific basis for various mind-over-matter claims, from ESP to alternative medicine. "Quantum mysticism" also forms part of the intellectual backdrop for the postmodern assertion that science has no claim on objective reality. The word "quantum" appears frequently in New Age and modern mystical literature. For example, physician Deepak Chopra (1989) has successfully promoted a notion he calls quantum healing, which suggests we can cure all our ills by the application of sufficient mental power.

According to Chopra, this profound conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics, which he says has demonstrated that "the physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as we create the experience of our world" (Chopra 1993, 5). Chopra also asserts that "beliefs, thoughts, and emotions create the chemical reactions that uphold life in every cell," and "the world you live in, including the experience of your body, is completely dictated by how you learn to perceive it" (Chopra 1993, 6). Thus illness and aging are an illusion and we can achieve what Chopra calls "ageless body, timeless mind" by the sheer force of consciousness.

Amit Goswami, in The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World, argues that the existence of paranormal phenomena is supported by quantum mechanics: [INDENT] . . . psychic phenomena, such as distant viewing and out-of-body experiences, are examples of the nonlocal operation of consciousness . . . . Quantum mechanics undergirds such a theory by providing crucial support for the case of nonlocality of consciousness. (Goswami 1993, 136) [/INDENT]Since no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has been found, despite 150 years of effort, this is a flimsy basis indeed for quantum consciousness. Although mysticism is said to exist in the writings of many of the early century's prominent physicists (Wilber 1984), the current fad of mystical physics began in earnest with the publication in 1975 of Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics (Capra 1975). There Capra asserted that quantum theory has confirmed the traditional teaching of Eastern mystics: that human consciousness and the universe form an interconnected, irreducible whole. An example:
[INDENT] To the enlightened man . . . whose consciousness embraces the universe, to him the universe becomes his "body," while the physical body becomes a manifestation of the Universal Mind, his inner vision an expression of the highest reality, and his speech an expression of eternal truth and mantric power [/INDENT]Lama Anagarika
Govinda Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism3
(Capra 1975, 305) Capra's book was an inspiration for the New Age, and "quantum" became a buzzword used to buttress the trendy, pseudoscientific spirituality that characterizes this movement.

Wave-Particle Duality

Quantum mechanics is thought, even by many physicists, to be suffused with mysteries and paradoxes. Mystics seize upon these to support their views. The source of most of these claims can be traced to the so-called wave-particle duality of quantum physics: Physical objects, at the quantum level, seem to possess both local, reductionist particle and nonlocal, holistic wave properties that become manifest depending on whether the position or wavelength of the object is measured. The two types of properties, wave and particle, are said to be incompatible. Measurement of one quantity will in general affect the value the other quantity will have in a future measurement. Furthermore, the value to be obtained in the future measurement is undetermined; that is, it is unpredictable-although the statistical distribution of an ensemble of similar measurements remains predictable. In this way, quantum mechanics obtains its indeterministic quality, usually expressed in terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In general, the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics can only predict statistical distributions.

Despite wave-particle duality, the particle picture is maintained in most quantum mechanical applications. Atoms, nuclei, electrons, and quarks are all regarded as particles at some level. At the same time, classical "waves" such as those of light and sound are replaced by localized photons and phonons, respectively, when quantum effects must be considered.
In conventional quantum mechanics, the wave properties of particles are formally represented by a mathematical quantity called the wave function, used to compute the probability that the particle will be found at a particular position. When a measurement is made, and its position is then known with greater accuracy, the wave function is said to "collapse," as illustrated in Figure 1.

You can read the rest here:
Quantum Physics Quackery (Skeptical Inquirer January 1997)

@hue-man,

hue-man;45758 wrote:

Quantum Physics Quackery (Skeptical Inquirer January 1997)

Biased, but thats fine as there are many interpretations of QM, and more all the time.
They didn't seem to agree that there can be any other interpretation than their own, rather 'fundamentalist' it seems... that explains the 'bias' to materialism. They don't present anything new and interesting, unless you're a materialist seeking validation.
They toss the baby with the bathwater while their head's in the suds.

SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM

@hue-man,

I cohabited with a guy in Tanzania for a few weeks. He was a 'personal trainer', but not in just the fitness sense: he also trained people's spirits. He told me (not knowing I was a physicist) that his philosophy was based on quantum mechanics. I digged a little deeper and it turned out that quantum mechanics was thus:

1. Everything is energy.
2. Energy is divided into positive and negative energy.
3. If you bring positive and negative energy together, you get love.

What could I say to that?!?

@Bones-O,

Bones-O!;45786 wrote:

I cohabited with a guy in Tanzania for a few weeks. He was a 'personal trainer', but not in just the fitness sense: he also trained people's spirits. He told me (not knowing I was a physicist) that his philosophy was based on quantum mechanics. I digged a little deeper and it turned out that quantum mechanics was thus:

1. Everything is energy.
2. Energy is divided into positive and negative energy.
3. If you bring positive and negative energy together, you get love.

What could I say to that?!?

Not much. Whatever works for him and his clients, works! There is even a place in medicine for placebo... Perhaps his understanding of quantum is such that if he understood a bit better, he might lose his magical powers...
Seriously, though, quantum is a large enough elephant to allow many Perspectives; there is no 'one true all encompassing' Perspective.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Not much. Whatever works for him and his clients, works! There is even a place in medicine for placebo... Perhaps his understanding of quantum is such that if he understood a bit better, he might lose his magical powers...
Seriously, though, quantum is a large enough elephant to allow many Perspectives; there is no 'one true all encompassing' Perspective.

Mmm. There are many things that might be quantum mechanics, but there are infinitely more that aren't. Saying it's about ESP or love is no different to saying it's a recipe for blueberry pancakes or the mating rituals of hummingbirds. I'd actually like to see the guy sued. He's selling something with a claimed endorsement from some of the greatest scientists the world has known. It's unethical.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Biased, but thats fine as there are many interpretations of QM, and more all the time.
They didn't seem to agree that there can be any other interpretation than their own, rather 'fundamentalist' it seems... that explains the 'bias' to materialism. They don't present anything new and interesting, unless you're a materialist seeking validation.
They toss the baby with the bathwater while their head's in the suds.

SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM

Well, Victor Stenger is a physicist, so I guess that makes him biased. However, his interpretation is no more biased than a mystic's interpretation. The mere fact that the article is responding to mysticism's interpretation is a recognition of the interpretation's existence.

Stenger is simply saying that there is no need for any mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, because it can easily be explained in naturalist terms. He is not skeptical about the nature of quantum mechanics. He is skeptical about the mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Questioning the validity of a claim is never a bad thing.

@Bones-O,

TO BONES:

What is your take on Bohmian Mechanics.
Bohmian Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

it is said that it: "realizes Einstein's dream of a hidden variable theory, restoring determinism and definiteness to micro-reality"

I would like to know what causes random collapse of the wave function. There has to be something that causes it. once that is found out can it then be used to complete the arguement for determinism?

@click here,

This just reminds me of the massive failure of 'What the Bleep' that is insanely glorified by the lay people.

@click here,

click here wrote:

TO BONES:

What is your take on Bohmian Mechanics.
Bohmian Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

it is said that it: "realizes Einstein's dream of a hidden variable theory, restoring determinism and definiteness to micro-reality"

Bohmian mechanics has never fared well under the eyes of standard QMers. And as much as I come to the defense of Bohmian mechanics in principle, I have to say I think of it more as a mathematical achievement than a reasonable theory and in truth side with the naysayers. A particle that undergoes diffraction and interference exactly as a wave does is, in my mind, a wave and there's nothing to gain by trying to make it anything else. Perhaps Bohm could not let go of classical ideas. Perhaps his theory was merely to counter the dogmatism of QM which Bohm then became a victim of. Perhaps he just had a lot of time on his hands. Who knows?

click here wrote:

I would like to know what causes random collapse of the wave function. There has to be something that causes it. once that is found out can it then be used to complete the arguement for determinism?

You and me both. In standard QM it occurs spontaneously and probabilistically. This view has been staunchly defended however the measurement process is pretty much always neglected or grossly simplified.

There are intriguing possibilities other than deterministic collapse, though. Wavefunctions have to obey boundary conditions: for instance, a photon in a box with 100% reflective inner walls has an amplitude of zero outside the box, and it must be zero inside too. It is possible, for instance, that these boundary conditions must equally met in the time dimension too. It is known that the vast majority of fundamental physical processes appear to be time-reversible: that is, if a process can occur, it can also occur backwards. Feynman was a champion of the view that some real phenomena we see are nothing more than other phenomena occuring backwards in time. This totally upsets causality, since the effect may be as much the cause and vice versa. In such a view, two collapse events could be considered temporal boundary conditions. The problem then is that we can never model deterministic collapse without both boundaries which, in the real world, we never know until after the measurement - i.e. it has no predictive power. But the particle 'knows', because it's future is equally its past. It's a difficult concept to get a handle on because our minds work causally. However, I suspect Feynman had exactly this in mind when he developed his much-revered path integral formalism, where instead of looking at the starting conditions and then predicting results, he considered both the starting conditions and the results and demonstrated the paths taken by the system in between which in turn gave the probability for the final event.

The one problem, of course, of a temporal boundary approach is the few time-irreversible processes that mess this up.:brickwall:

@hue-man,

hue-man;45841 wrote:

Well, Victor Stenger is a physicist, so I guess that makes him biased.

Don't straw-man me. I never said that merely being a physicist = bias.

Quote:

Stenger is simply saying that there is no need for any mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, because it can easily be explained in naturalist terms.

It seems that Nobel Prize winning co founder of quantum physics bongo playing genius Richard Feynman disagrees with your Stenger (Nobel winner genius also?). Perhaps QM can be explained in naturalistic terms for him, but not to anyone who has penetrated to any depth. 'Materialism' is so long dead it a joke already. What an obsolescence.

Quote:

He is not skeptical about the nature of quantum mechanics. He is skeptical about the mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Questioning the validity of a claim is never a bad thing.

The blind question the necessity and validity of sight.
To a materialist, the universe is a (sad) machine that somehow seems to fit his tools of observation/examination. To those capable of wider and deeper Perspective, the world is a 'wider and deeper' place...
His opinion and Perspective has been noted and long ago scientifically refuted.

You have to come armed with more and better than 'that' to refute Feynman (and millennia of mystical experience/enlightenment; 'now one hears of 'scientific enlightenment'...) so blythely! Hasn't happened yet.

@click here,

click here;45854 wrote:

I would like to know what causes random collapse of the wave function.

Observation by Conscious Perspective.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

There are intriguing possibilities other than deterministic collapse, though. Wavefunctions have to obey boundary conditions: for instance, a photon in a box with 100% reflective inner walls has an amplitude of zero outside the box, and it must be zero inside too. It is possible, for instance, that these boundary conditions must equally met in the time dimension too. It is known that the vast majority of fundamental physical processes appear to be time-reversible: that is, if a process can occur, it can also occur backwards. Feynman was a champion of the view that some real phenomena we see are nothing more than other phenomena occuring backwards in time. This totally upsets causality, since the effect may be as much the cause and vice versa. In such a view, two collapse events could be considered temporal boundary conditions. The problem then is that we can never model deterministic collapse without both boundaries which, in the real world, we never know until after the measurement - i.e. it has no predictive power. But the particle 'knows', because it's future is equally its past. It's a difficult concept to get a handle on because our minds work causally. However, I suspect Feynman had exactly this in mind when he developed his much-revered path integral formalism, where instead of looking at the starting conditions and then predicting results, he considered both the starting conditions and the results and demonstrated the paths taken by the system in between which in turn gave the probability for the final event.

The one problem, of course, of a temporal boundary approach is the few time-irreversible processes that mess this up.:brickwall:

So we don't yet have the ability to calculate it but that doesn't mean that we won't. I don't see how one can knock off determinism just because they have a theory about something that doesn't act deterministically yet when it very possibly could be completely deterministic.

You also say that the electron 'knows' what gives it the ability to 'know'. Once we could find that out then we could put that into a deterministic argument could we not?

@click here,

click here wrote:

So we don't yet have the ability to calculate it but that doesn't mean that we won't.

Good point

Because we don't know something is not to say it's not knowable. I think its a bit egotistical to assert that if I don't know why something is, that knowledge is therefore beyond our reach... forever.

@nameless,

Calm down, I'm not trying to straw man you. I just said that since he is a physicist I guess that makes him biased in some way, because he looks at things in a naturalistic way. If that's not the reason why you said that he was biased then what is?

nameless wrote:

It seems that Nobel Prize winning co founder of quantum physics bongo playing genius Richard Feynman disagrees with your Stenger (Nobel winner genius also?). Perhaps QM can be explained in naturalistic terms for him, but not to anyone who has penetrated to any depth. 'Materialism' is so long dead it a joke already. What an obsolescence.

The more I read your response the more biased you sound. You sound like you have some longing for a mystical worldview. Materialism is not long dead, but the terminology is a bit limiting. Most philosophers use the term physicalism now, because it encompasses all of the observations of physics.

Are you keeping track of academics philosophy, because it is idealism and dualism that have become the jokes? The mind is continuing to be explained in physical, funtionalist terms. Some lay philosophers still hold on to idealism or dualism for dear life, but that is what happens when you have a longing to see reality in a way other than the way it is seen. The fact of the matter is that wave function collapse can be explained in naturalist terms and Stenger explains this very well in the article.

The academic debate over quantum mechanics does not center around mysticism, but the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. The seemingly indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics is still being worked out by scientific theories, but it is mostly seen as an epistemic limitation rather than an indication of ontological indeterminacy at this point.

@click here,

click here wrote:

So we don't yet have the ability to calculate it but that doesn't mean that we won't. I don't see how one can knock off determinism just because they have a theory about something that doesn't act deterministically yet when it very possibly could be completely deterministic.

Quite right. Like I said, there are people looking into deterministic wavefunction collapse. It is possible they will find it. It is also possible they will find its absence. Whatever is found, people who are looking for a different answer will be upset, but it's only a model.

click here wrote:

You also say that the electron 'knows' what gives it the ability to 'know'. Once we could find that out then we could put that into a deterministic argument could we not?

The electron 'knows' where it's headed for because it has, equally truly, come from there already in the opposite direction in time. Since those conditions don't exist yet in our chronology, no we could not use them for predictions beyond the probabilistic model. But it does remove the spontaneous, probabilistic collapse. It'sh a comprimishe, I shuppose.

@hue-man,

Honestly, it seems to me that if there were some difference between any two types of monism, one would be demonstrably wrong. There is nothing in physicalism nor in idealism that is mutually exclusive if proper room is allowed for reconsideration. Russell's neutralism is a pretty nice synthesis, but there is no reason why you cannot formulate everything in the idealists view as something in the physicalists view and vice versa. Types of minsim differ only in langbage.

Considering an object to be a mental construct does nothing to the nature of the object, it just adjusts the language we use to speak of it with. If I consider all objects to be physical and of the same nature, how is that different from considering all objects to be mental projections? Clearly I could simply say that physics is a product of the mind, and that all things are products of the mind. There would still be consequeces for any action and everything would have the same relational patterns of interaction and being, so what is the difference?

The mystic ritual is not science, it does not evolve like science through trial and error; what these New Age mystics have done is taken old rituals that they have probably misinterpreted(or fabricated entirely) and justified them with Coast to Coast mystic psuedo-physics which is derived from a misunderstanding of what the mathematical systems/models are and how they work. You often hear crazies saying things such as 'Its amazing that we have known these ancient secrets for years, yet quantum mechainics is only now justifying them!' They are all either con-men feeding off of the ignorance and desperation of people with problems or nutters or simply fools. If the rituals does work, it is not because the ritual performers understand what is happening and if it doesn't they do not adapt the ritual.

That being said, science works by trial and error, and there is always a level beyond which no questions can be answered about a process, so one could technically turn around and say of scientists and doctors that they do not understand what is happening, that they have simply developed a ritual which responds to a given situation. The difference is ideally the room for adaptation and the removal of unessecary mysticism and dogmatism; of course modern science still has its troubles concerning dogmatism and an overabundance of faith in established proceedures, however the process is significantly more exploratory than the $80 an hour mumbo jumbo sold by Quantum Healers.

An aside; I don't see how it could be possible that we could establish determinism conclusively, at least to the point that we develop a theory of everything. If mathematics itself is struggling so much with its own cohesiveness, how could we possibly explain mathematics entirely using mathematical language nonetheless? Another problem might be along the lines of creating a theory that is self explanatory, as a theory of everything would necessarily be.

@hue-man,

hue-man;46006 wrote:

Calm down, I'm not trying to straw man you. I just said that since he is a physicist I guess that makes him biased in some way, because he looks at things in a naturalistic way. If that's not the reason why you said that he was biased then what is?

Many physisists have many varying Perspectives. That I one rason that I 'denied' your remark. Also, I simply did not say that.
So many examples of bias, one;
"Since no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has been found, despite 150 years of effort, this is a flimsy basis indeed for quantum consciousness."
This erroneous statement implies that 'empiricism' is an applicable tool for the exploration and examination of all phenomena. Not only has 'empiricism' been so refuted, but his blythe dismissal reflects the rest of the misapplied 'empirical method' used to 'refute the experience and thoughts and beliefs of 'theists' as well as all the evidence, both anecdotal and witnessed/evidentiary. It is quantum itself that put the coffin nail into empiricism as a 'god' and, frankly, into all the so called 'universal laws' that we so desperately build upon. A=A? Not always. And at the same time!
The unAmazing Randi used this as his means to never have to pay his 'previously offered' prize money. He knew that his empiric parameters were guaranteed no 'positive results'; "If you can weigh this rock using this microscope, solely, you win the prize!! Rocks are weightless, as the microscopic failure evidences!"
I can argue, almost line for line; here's another;
"Capra's book was an inspiration for the New Age, and "quantum" became a buzzword used to buttress the trendy, pseudoscientific spirituality that characterizes this movement"
Unbiased? Every bolded term is both biased and not any sort of any sort of scientific or rational rebuttal/refutal. It is 'dismissal by ridicule', the only 'weapon' in many 'cognitive arsenals'!
And also the first stage to accepting the truth;
1) Ridicule
2) Ad hom Attack
3) "I knew it all along!"

Quote:

nameless wrote:
"It seems that Nobel Prize winning co founder of quantum physics bongo playing genius Richard Feynman disagrees with your Stenger (Nobel winner genius also?). Perhaps QM can be explained in naturalistic terms for him, but not to anyone who has penetrated to any depth. 'Materialism' is so long dead it a joke already. What an obsolescence."

The more I read your response the more biased you sound. You sound like you have some longing for a mystical worldview.

The attempt to derail fails. This isn't about 'me'.
First, even if I am so totally biased as to be completely delusional (whatever you might think that it means), that in no way refutes my assertion that he is presenting biased, by his terminology (at least), as just evidenced, for one.
Typical of symptomatic 'beliefs' is that one of the first 'weapons of defense' is ridicule, then comes the attack...
Shall we ignore your meaningless and vague personal attack and stick with the evidence, and rational discourse.

Quote:

Materialism is not long dead,

Depends on the limitations of youPerspective. As a viable scientific world-view, it is dead but for a few invested and emotionally needy 'believers'. But 'belief' is as unavailable to critical thoughtfully rational discourse as 'mental phenomena (esp, prognostication, telepathy, empathy...) are to 'empiricism'.

Quote:

but the terminology is a bit limiting.

Because it's obsolete and more so every day.

Quote:

Most philosophers use the term physicalism now,

I challenge that assertion.
Wiggle and more wiggle, but not 'wiggles' of growth; spasms of death!

Quote:

because it encompasses all of the observations of physics.

And this is unadulterated hooey! Feel free to 'prove' your assertions, both.
When you say 'physics' are you speaking of 'classical physics' that has become obsolete unless it has been critically updated by the findings of quantum theory?
You certainly ain't talking of quantum.

Quote:

Are you keeping track of academics philosophy,

No, I'm quite capable of independent critical thought, thank you.
Perhaps if senility strikes... nah, not even then is such tripe worthy of serious consideration.
I have no need of the common crap flowing from such 'hallowed halls'; I know too much about it; the cutting edge of 'thought' rarely flows from such mouldy orfices.

Quote:

The mind is continuing to be explained in physical, funtionalist terms.

As well it should be! And every other 'terms' as well!
Time will tell what 'hypotheses' and 'theories and such 'attempted explanations' fall by the wayside...

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that wave function collapse can be explained in naturalist terms and Stenger explains this very well in the article.

He's entitled to his opinion. I have yet to see his 'revelation' screaming "eureka" from the Science Journals or any other 'reputable' source, as 'the answer'!
There are many, obciously, who disagree with him.
His stuff attracts materialists, go figure.
Time will tell.

Quote:

The academic debate over quantum mechanics does not center around mysticism,

No it doesn't, it leads one, inexorably, in that direction, though. Those desiring 'truth' rather than 'validation of their beliefs', anyway!

"Quantum mechanics comes on as so off the wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries!" - 'Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman'

"Any branch of knowledge, whether geology or astronomy, strikes mysticism as soon as it reaches any depth."

It seems reasonable that those lacking the 'tools' to reach those depths, imagine the completeness of that which they can understand. If all you can see are apples, you will live in an apple reality and argue with anytone who posits peach. Ego.
A 'different' world-view; not 'lesser', but less attributable to 'science' for justification, not 'modern' science, anyway.
What is 'material' about 'information waves'?? You ignore questions like this and continue to state opinion sans real support or evidence. Sounds like a 'belief' has been threatened. I do not care what you believe, but attributing it to 'science' is disingenuous at best and 'delusional' at worst.
Skeptics, as I have demonstrated, can be a 'fundamentalist' lot, with heads all full of 'beliefs' (and the psychological/pathological mechanisms associated with such 'beliefs'), as has also been demonstrated.

Lets give it a couple hundred years and see what happens.
I wont't 'argue' with a Xtian about 'Jesus', or 'argue' with any 'believer' about his 'beliefs', whether in 'materialism' or 'empiricism' or 'naive realism' or the 'flatness of the earth'... Nor can I be evangelized for 'Jeeesus' or 'materialism/physicality'; I seem to have the ability for critical thought, and exercise it regularly.
Peace

@nameless,

Man, this is a long response, lol. I really don't feel like typing this or getting into a long debate, but let's try and come full circle with this, shall we?

First, my statement was not meant as a personal attack, but I can see how you took it that way. It's just that you complained that Stenger's response was biased, but your response to me seemed to be very biased in tone.

nameless wrote:

Many physisists have many varying Perspectives. That I one rason that I 'denied' your remark.

Actually, many physicists do not see quantum mechanics in mystical terms.

nameless wrote:

Depends on the limitations of youPerspective. As a viable scientific world-view, it is dead but for a few invested and emotionally needy 'believers'. But 'belief' is as unavailable to critical thoughtfully rational discourse as 'mental phenomena (esp, prognostication, telepathy, empathy...) are to 'empiricism'.

You talked about personal attacks, but just look at how biased this quote sounds in tone. My first response to you showed no biased overtones, and I even agreed with you to some extent, but the tone of your response was what caused me to respond the way I did.

What emotional need does physicalism or functionalism serve? I can tell you personally that those epistemic positions do not lend to emotion. Mysticism on the other hand does lend to emotion, because it is a reflection of some humans' deep rooted desire to see the universe in a different way than it is presented. We live in a entropic, apathetic universe that doesn't have us in mind and that is not easy for some of us to live with, especially at this point in our history. Boy, I wish I could just make reality with my mind, what a universe that would be. Let's just try and leave all of the personal stuff alone like you said, because I don't want to do this forever.

nameless wrote:

Because it's obsolete and more so every day.

Uh yeah, that's basically what I said. The term materialism is limiting, and therefore it has almost become obsolete. That's why most philosophers use the term physicalism instead, including me. It doesn't just provide a little wiggle room, as you stated. Physicalism encompasses everything, and any metaphysical concept that is other than physical is an idea and nothing more. Idealism is dead, and we have killed it, all of us.

nameless wrote:

No, I'm quite capable of independent critical thought, thank you.
Perhaps if senility strikes... nah, not even then is such tripe worthy of serious consideration.
I have no need of the common crap flowing from such 'hallowed halls'; I know too much about it; the cutting edge of 'thought' rarely flows from such mouldy orfices.

You keep missing the point of what I'm saying. You stated that materialism has become a joke, as if such a proposition is recognized as a joke by most thinkers. I asked if you were keeping up with academic philosophy because your statement was false. It was more of a rhetorical question, because I could see that you were not up to date, no offense.

nameless wrote:

As well it should be! And every other 'terms' as well!
Time will tell what 'hypotheses' and 'theories and such 'attempted explanations' fall by the wayside...

I'm sorry, but why are we having this debate then? If you believe that the mind should continue to be explained in physical, functional terms, then why are you trying to use mysticism to explain it? Are you just being a smart ass or are you genuinely confused? I'm not trying to offend you, please just clarify yourself?

nameless wrote:

He's entitled to his opinion. I have yet to see his 'revelation' screaming "eureka" from the Science Journals or any other 'reputable' source, as 'the
There are many, obciously, who disagree with him.
His stuff attracts materialists, go figure.
Time will tell.

Well, Richard Feyman is entitled to his opinion as well, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a very defensible opinion. [/quote]

Please stop using the term materialist? As I've told you, I agree that it is obsolete at this point. The more proper and more viable term is physicalist.

The problem here is the observance of wave partical collapse. While it can be explained in naturalistic terms, mystics want to believe it reveals some type of universal mind, and that it reveals that idealism is true, and that we really can create reality with our minds. That is pseudo-scientific nonsense. Even if we couldn't explain wave particle collapse, a mystery doesn't equal an answer.

Here's some more information on the nature of wave particle collapse:

Wave?particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ending the Mystery of Wave / Particle Duality

@hue-man,

lol hue-man it was only a few days ago you said you didn't wish to get into any more debates.

@nameless,

Quote:

According to Chopra, this profound conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics, which he says has demonstrated that "the physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as we create the experience of our world" (Chopra 1993, 5). Chopra also asserts that "beliefs, thoughts, and emotions create the chemical reactions that uphold life in every cell," and "the world you live in, including the experience of your body, is completely dictated by how you learn to perceive it" (Chopra 1993, 6). Thus illness and aging are an illusion and we can achieve what Chopra calls "ageless body, timeless mind" by the sheer force of consciousness.

I think that is true, we do create our world, *but* not all creations are possible. That is the important point. We can only generate this interpetation of ours, not another one. Everything is not possible. There is a legitimate debate as to 'what' limits us in this way; obviously western science says, 'the objectively evident physical world.' Chopra is right in the sense that 'our bodies' is a phenomena that we experience. For example, psychosomatic disorders. If he made no claims about the existance of a reak external reality, there would be no problem, but it seems like he is saying there is such a world, and that it can literally, 'really' be changed by thought.

Zetetic wrote:

Considering an object to be a mental construct does nothing to the nature of the object, it just adjusts the language we use to speak of it with. If I consider all objects to be physical and of the same nature, how is that different from considering all objects to be mental projections? Clearly I could simply say that physics is a product of the mind, and that all things are products of the mind. There would still be consequeces for any action and everything would have the same relational patterns of interaction and being, so what is the difference?

Exactly. Its all a 'language game' as Wittgenstein would say. We are a bunch of silly primates.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Quantum Quackery/Quantum Mysticism

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Quantum Quackery/Quantum Mysticism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know