Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:39, 18 August 2009

Paranormal Start‑class

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic / Religion / Eastern Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy

"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://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 Misplaced Pages 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 ]. 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)

Unnecessary Commentary

there is so much POV in this article I could cut it with a knife —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.27.47 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut it with a knife, then - be bold Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness causes collapse merger

I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of consciousness causes collapse on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Consciousness causes collapse/Archive 1 (posts from November 2005 through October 2007) may have some of what you meant by "the original discussion." — Athaenara ✉ 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TO underline the point measurement in quantum mechanics includes a link to consciousness causes collapse which now redirects the reader to this article, which contains no information on the relationship between consciousness and measurement at all.1Z (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to pick up the slack and actually do the merger. What happened to all those people who were defending CCC during the merger discussion? Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1Z is right that the merger didn't take place correctly, but in the current WP climate, there is nothing to be done. Too many POV editors about. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CCC is nonsense. There was no POV involved in having that article removed. The POV occurred when the article was first created. The fact that CCC was full of references to articles that are nothing but Quantum Mysticism was proof that the merger was correct. The CCC article might have stood a chance of surviving if there had been no references to junk like "What the Bleep do we know" and "The secret" and other religious metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. If the CCC article had been originally created with a purely scientific foundation it might have survived. Dr. Morbius (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If the articles aren't labelled as Mysticism, they can't be held up as evidence that CCC is mysticsm. You are just appealing to your POV to support your POV edits Dr "I do not practice NPOV when it comes to scientific issues". 1Z (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's your POV. We were talking about the manner of the merge. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1Z referred to the merger as "censorship" Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no meger.1Z (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you CCC proponents actually merge the content from the CCC article into this one? Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it does not belong in Quantum Mysticism, putting it under this section would falsely gives the impression that it is not based on sound logic. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not. CCC only works if you assume that consciousness is somehow not a product of biochemical processes in the brain. That means that it would have to be supernatural and that's just nonsense. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you?1Z (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good quote from Quantum mind where David Chalmers states the most promising interactionist interpretation of quantum mechanics is what we were calling CCC. "The most promising version of such an interpretation allows conscious states to be correlated with the total quantum state of a system, with the extra constraint that conscious states (unlike physical states) can never be superposed. In a conscious physical system such as a brain, the physical and phenomenal states of the system will be correlated in a (nonsuperposed) quantum state. Upon observation of a superposed external system, Schrödinger evolution at the moment of observation would cause the observed system to become correlated with the brain, yielding a resulting superposition of brain states and so (by psychophysical correlation) a superposition of conscious states. But such a superposition cannot occur, so one of the potential resulting conscious states is somehow selected (presumably by a nondeterministic dynamic principle at the phenomenal level). The result is that (by psychophysical correlation) a definite brain state and a definite state of the observed object are also selected".

I wish that I had a better sense of how one goes about editing/affecting things here, so apologies if this is unhelpful. Dr. Morbius' arguments here unfortunately show a very thin understanding of the history of philosophy, but since he claims to worship evidence, we'll put it this way: 1. Those who study errors in cognitive processes acknowledge that trained philosophers do reliably better at logic than those who are not so trained (including practicing scientists); 2. Trained philosophers believe that there are real questions involved about the nature of mind, even if they disagree. By his own principles, then, Dr. Morbius faces a very heavy burden of proof in demonstrating that viewpoints held by trained philosophers like David Chalmers and others, and repeatedly published in top philosophy journals edited by other such trained philosophers, are mere New Age nonsense. Before feeling fit to demolish this, Dr. Morbius ought to take the time to understand what is at stake. (Science, after all, does not entail the jumping to half-assed conclusions based purely on dogmatic presuppositions.) There is lots of mystic nonsense in the world, and it seems fair to mark it as such. When the trained experts in any given field regard something as a plausible and open question, however, it is deeply problematic to simply reject this as irrational and unconsidered on a priori grounds.

The normal article on consciousness-causes-collapse should be reinstated. If it is not reinstated, it should be removed entirely as a link, so that those interested in how others have presented these issues are not subjected to "quantum mysticism" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.110.35 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(Although, as a supplement to what I just said above, it does seem likely that some of the linked articles from the original site should be removed, and perhaps others added, to give a better sense of what the academic debate here looks like. The original article is, then, not as solid as one would hope. But this certainly is no reason for the current unhelpful merging.)

First of all philosophy is not science and secondly not all philosophical viewpoints are new age nonsense just some of them. Anyone who claims that consciousness is separate from the brain is implying that supernatural processes are real. The burden of proof of whether consciousness is affected by quantum mechanical effects lies with those who make that claim not with those who oppose it. So far all of the proponents who claim that QM is responsible for consciousness have failed to do so. And anyways the CCC article went way beyond claiming that QM affected consciousness. It implied that consciousness was somehow separate from the brain. This is typical of pseudoscientists. They take a legitimate scientific question and go off on a wild tangent making all sorts of preposterous claims. This is no different from the UFO believers who will take some strange unexplained natural occurrence and claim that it must have been the result of an alien spaceship rather than a simple natural process. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Dr. Morbius responded in helpful ways to what I said (just above), and since my original post was a bit personalistic and unnecessarily aggressive, I appreciate the restraint. At stake is indeed the question of whether consciousness is separable from the brain, but not quite in the way it sounds.

Although this is somewhat off the necessary track, I don't think it's reasonable to hold that all plausible explanations of mind must say that it's reducible to brain functions. The standard argument for reducing mind to brain functions is a familiar one - science only deals with what we can study, and all of what we can study is physical: therefore mind must similarly be reduced to physical processes. The limit of this conclusion is that we *as consciousnesses* are in fact the ones who are studying things. Given certainty of one's own existence, it's logically possible that we're entirely wrong about the outside character of the universe (for reasons familiar from Descartes, or from brain-in-a-vat thought experiments, or the Matrix movies, and so on). Perhaps this isn't *likely*, but it doesn't qualify as nonsense. The problem is that the mind/brain relationship seems by its nature to be untestable by scientific means (thus the Hard Problem, as David Chalmers has laid it out). It might not serve as a conception that's useful for scientists to adopt (because it says that certain problems can't be resolved, and therefore might slow down research that may yield other benefits), but that's not what's generally meant by pseudo-science. So, I think one needs to be wary here - as was rightly pointed out above, philosophy isn't science, but neither does the scientific method serve as an epistemic tool for resolving all issues. So, claiming that consciousness is separate from the brain, contrary to what's suggested above, is not a disreputable position if done carefully. Thus I think the language of "supernatural" here is being used unhelpfully: people who claim that ghosts exist are not doing this as a way of grappling with a real problem in the character of the experiential data available to us (including among this data the subset of sensory data on which ordinary science works), while people who suggest a real gap between brain and mind are trying to do something careful and serious. Again, people who see this gap between brain and mind as irresolvable are in a minority. They're aren't, however, in enough of a minority position to make it reasonable to dismiss everything they say from the realm of legitimate intellectual space. Those who want to look at what the debate in academic philosophy has looked like in this regard, and to see its scope, might explore some of the papers here: http://consc.net/mindpapers/

In short, what I'm saying with the above is that David Chamlers, Thomas Nagel, and others who think the gap between mind and brain is real should not be lumped together with the likes of Deepak Chopra in an article. It is plausible to say that those like Daniel Dennett who focus only on the brain may be right; it is not plausible to say that those they oppose are all unworthy of being considered carefully. (Dennett, at least, has realized this in his work, and has struggled to engage the Hard Problem in consciousness, albeit without a lot of progress).

Even those who reject a hard mind/brain divide, however, acknowledge that some process of emergence seems to go on in the link between them - that is, features of mind somehow come about in a unique way that creates something essentially new. Even if mind is nothing but a *product* of brain, it seems to be a product that would not be easily expected from knowing all the constituent parts, and therefore something that we acknowledge to involve missing steps that we don't currently know how to think about usefully. (Chalmbers, by the way, takes this mainstream emergence position to be itself illogical and ad hoc, which leads him to weird notions of pan-psychism - Occam's Razor can cut in odd directions.) So the mainstream position in philosophy, that of emergence, says that something weird and unexplained goes on when the brain starts to process information, and that this *somehow* (but we don't know how) leads to experience as we know it.

As I understand the academic argument for thinking about consciousness-causes-collapse, it's something like this: we don't have a good explanation for consciousness, and since quantum phenomena seem to be oddly effected by observation, we should think of these together as potentially linked mysteries rather than separate ones. One doesn't have to believe that consciousness is created through quantum phenomena to believe this (contra Dr. Morbius's suggestion above). It could be instead that the series of causes goes: brain > mind > particular quantum outcomes after observation. (Those who reject this position may want to fall back on brain > particular quantum outcomes, but it's not clear that this position gains much either.) It may be that this is simply a mistaken theory. It may also be that it is not a helpful one for working scientists to adopt, because it doesn't yield a sufficient number of testable implications at the moment (and perhaps never will). But this is not the same as pseudo-science, which is characterized by no serious effort to comprehend the world as it is, and lots of wishful thinking about how one wishes it would be. This is a serious debate among intellectually careful people, and I think it deserves to be treated as such.

I think, then, that this is a place where the otherwise-admirable desire to root out nonsense is lumping together too many different things without sufficient attention to the details of the differences. I think the present merging of the two articles does a serious disservice to those, particularly undergraduate students, who may want to get an overview of a very complex set of debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.110.35 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above this one. Dr. Morbius is attempting to force his opinion on the discussion under review. By the definition of the National Science Foundation (WP reference) the paranormal is 'something which cannot be explained by science.' The physicalist perspective states that mind is entirely reducible to physical activity of the brain. How does this happen? Science cannot explain (nor can it explain dualism). The theory is therefore 'paranormal.' NSF does not accept the paranormal, therefore mind, which it cannot explain, does not exist.

I further object to the hijack of the CCC link to the quantum mysticism link and do not think the two articles should be merged for the reasons mentioned by the above post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.129.186 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not forcing my opinion on anybody. Opinion has nothing to do with it. I'm just demanding that any claims be backed up with solid evidence and not just a lot of hand waving and semantics. Just because something can't be explained now doesn't mean it will never be explained. You're assuming that science will never be able to explain consciousness and therefore you have to jump to conclusions and accept paranormal explanations. I, on the other hand, accept that the way the mind works is currently difficult to explain due to our current level of understanding and leave it at that. I'm going to wait until we acquire more information and then come up with an explanation rather than resorting to the paranormal. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of this don't you get Dr. Morbius. Calling the speculation of CCC, which if ever proved true would put the study of consciousness directly in the hands of physicist, resorting to the paranormal is as ignorant as saying Einstein’s speculation that time and space are relative was resorting to the paranormal. CCC was not made up by people trying to promote some pseudo-science; it was created as one of many logical explanations to a significant problem with our understanding of how things work. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As a working physicist, I want to put in my two cents. Sure, consciousness causes collapse hasn't been proven scientifically, but neither has any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. So it really isn't fair to merge CCC with quantum mysticism pseudoscience when the Everett Interpretation is just as crazy (and even more scientifically unprovable). Yes, it might require philosophical dualism, but this too is a serious point of view held by some scientists and philosophers. Therefore, CCC should be restored to its original article and kept clean of myticism.Meson Wind (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Meson Wind, it is good to hear voices of individuals who understand and follow the scientific method. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm taking the bait: 'scientific method'? - where's the scientific method in anything Meson Wind says above? Further, from my understanding, which is admittedly limited, quantum theory HAS been proven scientifically: for all its counterintuiveness, I've read that it is the most robust theory in the history of science, with all manner of practical applications.

Can I ask, Meson Wind, what kind of physics work you do?

Seriously, I don't really have an opinion on the CCC thing, but overall, I find this whole debate at once disheartening and encouraging. It's disheartening to see people who are such lazy thinkers, who don't see that the need to resort to underhanded tactics strongly suggests their point of view is badly flawed. But it's also encouraging, because no matter what they do, WP remains inviolate - it's self repairing - it won't harbour unproven or original research ... so New Age articles just don't get in without all manner of apologia - just as the CCC article will be if it gets restored. Ciao. Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that he said interpretation of quantum mechanics. CCC is an interpretation that has significance in the history of physics. An article could deal with it without including New Age. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The tone of this article does not meet Misplaced Pages standards. Example: "Quantum mysticism refers to the practice of selectively borrowing ideas from quantum physics to support New Age and pseudoscientific beliefs, or to draw metaphorical similarites between principles in quantum physics and principles in Eastern mysticism." (as opposed to "Quantum mysticism is a system of belief that seeks to explain metaphysical issues using the principles of quantum physics.")

Please edit to present a balanced review of the topic and related issues, or remove this article. Grammargal (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No-body self identifies as practicing quantum mysticism. It's a perjoritive term used to describe various beliefs which purport to be based in quantum dynamics. Since they do not believe that they are practicing "quantum mysticism", it is not PoV to describe the subject as we have done. Jefffire (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jefffire, it dose not say that New age beliefs etc are wrong, or even that using particular scientific ideas to support them is. It jsut says this is how it is described. Only if there are people who say they are 'quantum mystics' themselves would the alternate wording be appropriate, and though I would not be surprised if that did happen one day it hasn't yet--Nate1481(/_c) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. But it seems to me, then, that the entire article is biased according to NPOV standards, specifically the requirement to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." If "Quantum Mysticism" is a pejorative term, how is it appropriate for the title, and subject, of an article? How is it different from an article called "The Catholic Cult"? That would clearly be an inappropriate title because it defines Catholicism according to a single belief rather than examining Catholicism in the larger context of all religious thought. In that larger context there are surely some who believe that Catholicism is a cult, but that opinion would most appropriately be reported as one belief among many. When an article presents as fact the definition of someone else's belief as a cult (or as mysticism) I don't see how the point of view can be called neutral. According to your argument, Nate, the article "The Catholic Cult" would be acceptable because no one defines him/herself as a "Catholic Cultist". Grammargal (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen that you removed the NPOV flag from the article -- please leave it until this dispute is settled. I have no particular feelings about Quantum philosophy one way or the other, but I am quite serious about issues that affect freedom of thought and religion. As far as I can see, the purpose of this article is to demean the adherents to a particular system of thought, and that can't be acceptable. Grammargal (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Or it is to describe a notable cultural phenomenon, namely drawing parallels between quantum mechanics and mysticism. These parallels are generally regarded by the scientific community as spurious and as treating physics on only a very superficial level. This subject matter is not really appropriate in Interpretations of quantum mechanics, and Misinterpretations of quantum mechanics would certainly not fly under NPOV. A fair description of the ideas put forth must include context but refrain from editorializing. If the context asserted by adherents is unsupported "quantum" speculation then it has to be treated using the tools of science. If the context asserted is religion, then it falls beyond the scope of this article unless testable predictions are made. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To give an example, it is a philosophical assertion to state that nothing exists until a human sees it. This form of solipsism is not treated by this article. It is another matter entirely, however, to assert that quantum mechanics shows that nothing really exists until a human observes it. This is a misinterpretation of the meaning of observation in the context of quantum mechanics, and has been shown by experiment not to be true. If this latter statement further asserts a mystical association, then and only then will it fall within the proper purview of this article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Or it is to describe a notable cultural phenomenon, namely drawing parallels between quantum mechanics and mysticism."

I think that would be a very interesting topic.

But I'd also like to address the issue of calling it "mysticism" or "a misinterpretation" at all. There are people who firmly believe that quantum mechanics has philosophical elements, including the folks at the Center for Quantum Philosophy (http://www.quantumphil.org/), and it wouldn't be any more appropriate to omit their perspective than to write a dismissive article of the philosophy of Buddhism and leave out a Buddhist perspective. As I say, I have no personal opinion for or against, I'm just addressing the larger issue of bias.

OK, stepping off my soapbox, can we agree on the right course with this? I'd propose rewriting it to present the cultural phenomenon objectively, with a fair representation of each side. Grammargal (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that that could make for an interesting addition to or refocus for this article. I do think, though, that there is an important difference between saying that quantum mechanics has philosophical implications (true for everyone except the most hardcore positivists), and saying that it has mystical connections (not generally mentioned at physics conferences). There must be room in any article that makes reference to experimental results for commonly the accepted interpretation of the corpus.

That said, I think perhaps wait a day or two to make sure there is consensus, and then go for it. As long as NPOV and WEIGHT are maintained, it goes without saying.

Also, if the discussion seemed initially more combative than your words would seem to warrant, please understand that this article has had in the recent past problems with editors who seemed to wish to present as objective fact or well-accepted interpretation matters which have been invalidated or are otherwise not consistent with experiment. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the point, as people do claim to be Catholics, but I don't believe any religious group self identifies as 'cultist'. So while I can see you point, on "The Catholic Cult" as a title we do have Criticism of the Catholic Church and an article on cults. The title dose not specifically denote any group as dose the former and, no any group claim that 'Quantum mysticism' is included in their philosophy, the same as not group climes to be a cult. The term is explicitly external to any individual group, saying "to support New Age and pseudoscientific beliefs" i.e. it is not about the beliefs but the support for them. I have been focusing on the lead so if you can point to examples of this not been the case they should be corrected probably only needing to be rephrased. --Nate1481(/_c) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be saying the same thing, Nate, just coming to different conclusions. I'll just continue with the Catholicism example with the understanding that the conclusions reached from the example apply to the Quantum philosophy issue:

There are many faithful, believing Catholics in the world. There are also many people who think Catholicism is a cult ("cult" being a pejorative term). Calling an article "The Catholic Cult", and omitting the perspective of the Catholics themselves, would show a heavy bias on the part of the author: basically, the author is taking sides. An author on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral. Therefore, anything stated in the author's own voice in a Misplaced Pages article is presented as fact.

You've asked for examples of what I see as bias, and in light of the author = fact idea I'd start with the title, as we've discussed. An author calling any philosophy "mysticism" is biased because it presents an opinion as accepted fact. A more neutral treatment would say that "some scientists think Quantum philosophy is mysticism". In that case the author is neutral, just presenting a fact. The balancing fact would be "Adherents to Quantum philosophy think that philosophical truths can be derived from Quantum Physics."

Beyond the title, I think that bias shows up in terms like "quantum quackery," and in the first line: "Quantum mysticism refers to the practice of selectively borrowing ideas from quantum physics to support New Age and pseudoscientific beliefs..." I understand that your intention there is to define the term "Quantum Mysticism" as used by the scientists you quote (is the part about hijacking and having little understanding a direct quote?) But saying that Quantum mysticism is a practice, as if people were selectively borrowing ideas on purpose, doesn't present even the term in a neutral way.

OK, just clarifying, I think I've held forth long enough. I'd be proud to do the research and rewrite the article unless someone else wants to do it. Consensus? Grammargal (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand what your getting at, but the point is it is not a set of beliefs, or a religious- (or pseudo-religious) practice. Regardless of the name used for it, no one states there beliefs are in part or fully derived from a misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise) of quantum theory/mechanics; people pointing out that that is what they are doing use the term 'Quantum mysticism' to describe it, so the initially suggested alternate 1st line would actually be incorrect the use of the word 'Mysticism' is deliberately derogatory as that is how the term is used. My point is that Catholicism is a bad metaphor, people starting cult based on some ideas of the catholic church as depicted in The Da Vinci Code would be nearer as it would be a misinterpretation/representation of catholic teaching; in the case catholic teaching would the equivalent to quantum theory, I don't believe I just drew that parallel!

I would be more than happy to help with re-writing some bit that you feel need it to make it more balanced, I'd would suggest we start a sub page then replace the article on mass, as it would be more of an over hall.--Nate1481(/_c) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was once unilaterally renamed "quantum pseudomysticism" by an editor who believed that calling this material "mysticism" was PoV. I think that Grammargal is perhaps making the same nature of error. It is verifiable that "quantum mysticism" exists as a term, and has defined meanings. It is not PoV to describe those since no-ones is being specificially identified. As mentioned above, Cults is a perfect comparison. It would be nonsense to rename cult as "disputed religions", even though it is a perjoritive. Jefffire (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just so. 'Quantum mysticism' is a term if not coined by Margaret Wertheim, then at least popularised by her, and always used by her as a pejorative. This article reflects that. I suggest a NPOV article on metaphysical interpretations of quantum physics should be separate from this. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is enough material to justify the creation of such an article without seriously treading on WP:SYNTH. Jefffire (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "Quantum mysticism" as a term really notable?? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure all the people who have made attacks on this article would look on it very favourably if it was decided the term wasn't notable, but I think it's sufficiently notable - it gets a lot of google hits - and it's a useful umbrella term to describe the social phenomenon of the new age annexing of quantum physics. Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It has several high quality sources including newspapers books and a journal + g-hits for this term being used as a catch all would mean it would sand a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted by AfD, a rename could be argued but 'Quantum mysticism' is a term in use and it would mean creating a term or being wordy, (Criticisms of perceived pseudoscientific uses of quantum theory is the only neutral version I can think of) and this would still be a redirect and the term would need mentioning in the article. --Nate1481(/_c) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we also move cults to criticisms of minority religions with extreme views, and dictator to criticisms of world leaders of an authoritarian nature? No, absolutely not. Just because the title is a pejorative doesn't mean that the article is. Jefffire (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is not a pronounced as those, I agree entirely, that is would not be appropriate. P.S. beware Godwin's law :D --Nate1481(/_c) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of Stalin :P Jefffire (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, all -- vacation.

So. You've convinced me that the title is ok if this is an article about the term "Quantum Mysticism" and the fact that it is a derogatory term for a certain system of thought. It's ok to quote people using the term in a derogatory manner. It's just not ok for the author to imply "and those people are right -- thinking that there's a philosophical connection is kinda stupid."

And Nate -- I understand your comment about the DaVinci Code/Catholicism thing -- my point was that "misinterpretation" is in the eye of the beholder. If you're a DaVinci Code-ist, you're not going to think it's a misinterpretation at all... and Martin Luther certainly thought Catholicism was a misinterpretation! (I'm really enjoying debating this with you guys, by the way, but I'll restrain myself from now on.)

So I'm with AdamBrowne -- How about this article becomes an objective overview of the term "Quantum Mysticism", its definition and context. It has a link to a new article called Quantum Philosophy (or whatever adherents would call it). I'd be glad to write the philosophy article or contribute a section to the other article mentioned above if that's deemed appropriate. Grammargal (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I could see the logic in a separate article, but keeping it from being POV (either way) or a POV fork would need serious work and cross-linking her would be a must. Would starting it as a sub page then posting it fully formed help avoid this? --Nate1481(/_c) 17:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It is nice to have a constructive discussion once in a while where you can tell people are actually reading your responses (I spend way to much time dealing with martial arts POV warriors)

Recent ScienceApologist edit

Re these edits, I agree with him for once. This is correct. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This Page vs. CCC Page

here is the issue as I see it: 1. CCC is a real theory proposed by none other than Wheeler himself and supported by Chalmers and, I think, Penrose. WIKI should have a page about it. It is not quantum mysticism. 2. CCC has drawn a bunch of pseudoscientific wackos, they and their views should not seriously be part of the CCC page (exccept to mention they have sprung up and that they are not seriously considered by scientists). 3. This quantum mysticism page is good like it is. QM is indeed the selective drawing of poorly understood facts of quantum mechanics, exactly as described in the article, and is not taken seriously by any peer-review-published scientists OR philosophers. (Unfortuneately for me, I read 'The Tao of Physics') 208.54.15.1 (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)artman772000

You are correct but the problem was that the CCC article was full of pseudoscientific garbage. If the article had lacked references to new age nonsense, ESP, religion, etc. it would probably still exist. Although I disagree that CCC is a theory. It is barely a hypothesis and it treads into the supernatural. The original article looked like it was created by someone with an agenda to promote new age nonsense. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the original article ahd been properly edited or merged instead of being effectively deleted, it would still exist. Babies and bathwater.1Z (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the first time I find myself agreeing with Dr. Morbius. I think we're all on the same page then. So my question is, once one of us has time to do the CCC page the justice it deservers, how do we go about getting the page un-deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you type in 'Consciousness Causes Collapse' you will be redirected to this page with a little link just below the title indicating the redirection; if you click on that, you get tot the redicrect page which can be reverted back. (although editorially I thik it would be better to start from scratch). 1Z (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply undeleting the page will not work since those who oppose CCC are quite zealous. If you attempt to start from scratch they will also delete that effort. You'll need to coordinate with the mucky mucks of wikipedia if you want it to be restored. Lordvolton (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The opposition isn't to CCC it's to mystical interpretations of CCC. A CCC article that is completely devoid of pseudoscience and mystical interpretations would be a very small article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

E. H. Walker

walker's book specifically notes where the line between mysticism and science can be drawn, and includes a thought experiment about a possible mathematical modelling of consciousness. to list it as a book "dealing with mysticism" in this new and highly snobby article is suspect; over half of the book explains in not-so-simple terms how the microscopic world is described in the realm of quantum physics totally separately from the alternative storyline in which he describes the story of his motivation to research these things. there is no mystic correlation asserted therein. whoever has listed this book likely hasn't read it at all, or is simply not a particularly good editor. 72.93.2.187 (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness causes collapse

Consciousness causes collapse redirects here, but there is absolutely no information in this article about this theory, or pseudoscientific notion, or whatever it is. There was a consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Consciousness causes collapse that the old consciousness causes collapse article should be merged here, but it never was merged, instead there's just the protected redirect. There are many links to consciousness causes collapse from other quantum physics articles, such as Wigner's friend, which claims that it is a serious theory proposed by none other than the Nobel laureate Wigner. The redirect implies that the idea is nonsense that is false on its face, not even in need of a rebuttal. I have no idea who's right, but as a reader I find this very confusing. Maybe the redirect should go to some more informative, maybe the merge should have been completed, or maybe consciousness causes collapse should just be deleted to avoid confusion. But the status quo is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.76.80 (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Read all the comments that have been made about the CCC article and you'll see why it was merged. The original CCC article was completely unscientific and full of pseudoscience. Also just because a Nobel laureate proposes a theory doesn't make it legitimate. Look at Brian Josephson. He believes in ESP and is now considered by many scientists to have lost some credibility. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there's a consensus to delete CCC, I won't question it. As I said, I don't know anything about the physics. But there still are a bunch of links to CCC from other quantum physics articles. They now redirect here, an article that doesn't explain the concept. If CCC is nothing but pseudoscience, articles like Wigner's friend need to be fixed to reflect that. 67.187.76.80 (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to delete CCC. Many opposed it as it is a credible and important theory. However individuals that prefer to promote materialism instead of science managed to cause the re-direct. I do agree that the original CCC page was never done well, but they currently will not let us un-delete it to put in credible information. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Materialism is not in opposition to Science if anything it goes hand-in-hand with science. Materialism is in opposition to Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Also, your characterization of everyone who opposed the CCC article as being a materialist is false. Some of us have more diverse belief systems. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Science means you have no predisposition or axioms. Materialism is a set of beliefs held to be true, thus going into research with a materialism mindset is opposed to science. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Materialism says that the only things that exist are matter, forces, space etc., things that are measurable, and everything else is the result of interactions between these. At least that's my definition of materialism. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically your definition of Materialism seems to require another axiom to be true to make any sense. You state that materialism is the belief that the only things that exist are matter, forces, space etc., and then you assert (create another axiom) that these are the only things that are measurable. I do agree that science, correctly done, is the study of all things that are measurable. But the assumption that the only things that exist and that effect us is that which is measurable, is an axiom. However, the actual definition of Materialism (which seems to be what you believe, based off of your posts and inability to understand the subtly and importance of CCC) is the belief in the axiom that only matter, and the laws that govern it, exists and that the human soul can not be separate from matter, or governed by other laws. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no human soul. What "other laws" are you talking about? If I devise a law that explains some previously unexplained phenomenon it becomes a part of science. Therefore there can be no other "laws" separate from science that explain natural processes. You're implying that the paranormal exists and is explained by "laws" that are separate from scientific laws. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we are now arguing semantics and not differing in opinion. Obviously the phase 'human soul' is one that implies dualism. I used that term in relation to Materialism because the axioms of materialism rules substance dualism out as a possibility of how the universe works. Would if be fair to say that you have no problem with the idea that one possibility is that phenomenal experience may eventually be discovered to be generated by a substance other than what we currently understand to be matter, and that this substance may casually interact with matter? If so I would say that our only difference is that I would define this new substance as non material and you would define it as material, which is something I can agree to disagree on. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it can survive the scientific method I don't care what it is or what you call it. There were many things in the past that were once thought to be the product of "supernatural" processes but are now known to be the result of simple physical natural processes. This will continue to be true in the future. My objection to CCC is that it relies on things that are untestable such as claims that consciousness is somehow separate from the body. How do you test that? Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we're making some progress here. I would disagree that consciousness being separate from the body is a requirement of CCC. CCC only says that consciousness causes the wave function to collapse, it does not speculate on the location or form of consciousness, just the one aspect of its casual interaction with matter. That aspect of course being that to interact with the substance that generates phenomenal experience, the wave function of the matter interacting with it must collapse into a definitive state.

You state that your not alright with CCC because its claims are currently not testable, but how is that any different than the many worlds interpretation or string theory? CCC may not currently be testable but there is every reason to believe it will be one day. For example, one hypothesis of CCC is that if we are ever able track down the origin of a von Neumann chain, we would find that they always lead to something with the capability of phenomenal experience. If phenomenal experience happens to only reside within living organisms (which CCC does not claim), then the tracing of the von Neumann chain would almost prove conclusively that CCC is correct. Another example is that if we can ever show the wave function can collapse independently of interacting with anything that has the potential of generating phenomenal experience, then we would prove CCC false.

These experiments may never be possible, but we do not know that they are not. 71.33.240.156 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of playing whack-a-mole with all the people who show up to discuss the CCC article. You need to dig up the history of the CCC article and read the original article and you'll see all the silly claims that the article contained. How would my consciousness cause the wave function to collapse? At would point would it happen? When I open my eyes and look at the instrument that's measuring the wave function? So my consciousness extends into my eyes? Or maybe it happens when I touch the instrument. So that means my consciousness extends down my arm? how far down my arm? To the tips of my fingers? How does my consciousness then extend into the machine down to the atomic level and cause the wave function collapse? CCC only works if consciousness extends beyond the brain and the body. If it doesn't extend beyond the body then theres no way for it to interact with the wave function. Many Worlds Interpretation and String Theory have made predictions that will soon be testable with the LHC. I find both of those theories interesting but I'm waiting until the results of the experiments before I accept their validity. Besides CCC is in no way even close to being on an equal footing, as a theory, as Many Worlds Interpretation or String Theory. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of CCC to conclude that your consciousness must extend outside of your brain to cause a wave function to collapse. The primary speculation of CCC made by David Chalmers is that when matter interacts with the substance that generates phenomenal experience, it reduces to a definitive state, and when matter that currently exists as a wave function interacts with matter in a definitive state, it also reduces to a definitive state, creating a chain of wave function collapse. Therefore the instrument, your eye and arm (which are likely just another instrument), would exist as wave functions until they interact with matter that has been reduced to a single state by consciousness or interacts with consciousness itself. The results of this speculation start to get really interesting when you take into account interactions that require a wave function to collapse in the past; such as detecting a photon coming from a star in another galaxy. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right Dr. Morbius, the original article in Misplaced Pages for CCC was horrible and paved the way for the significant topic of CCC to be clumped together with Quantum Mysticism. That article did much damage to CCC, which is unfortunate because it deals with a topic that is very sorely lacking in the physics community. Physics can never hope to understand the universe if they do not account for all phenomena, and currently the physics community does little to nothing to understand how consciousness and experience plays into all the other forces of the universe. I suspect we should not be surprised that physics exists in its current shattered state with no resolution in sight between relativity and quantum when the physics community ignores certain phenomena. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting Consciousness causes collapse up for deletion at WP:RFD, as I think it ought to be deleted outright to end this confusion. (though I can only write the nomination, i can't add the deletion notice to a protected page) 67.187.76.80 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ignorant here, but will deleting it ensure that previous links to this article no longer send people to quantum mysticism? I wrote some of the longer posts on here arguing for consciousness-causes-collapse as something other than mysticism, but I agree that it is more of a speculation than a theory. It doesn't seem essential for wikipedia to have a page on it. It does seem essential, however, for the present re-direct not to happen, for precisely the reasons of maintaining the boundaries between careful and uncareful thought that have been discussed heavily on here.

Will deleting it allow for it to be re-created? 162.18.76.206 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So who exactly is deciding which QM interpretations are reasonable and which are not? Until the "measurement problem" is solved to the satisfaction of results based science then all interpretations are equal, including CCC, many-worlds etc...Lets face it, certain phycists just do not like CCC because it implies that biology, or observers play a central role in the universe. Fancy that; they are rubishing an "interpretation" because its end product could be contrary to how they think the universe works. How scientific is that assumptive bias?

CCC is as falsifiable as many-worlds or any other interpretation simply because none of them are falsifiable. That's why they are called interpretations. CCC is as compatible with the maths of qm as any other interpretation. To single out CCC as being Mystical is being highly selective. Its a bit like combining the Judaism and Christianity pages on Wiki.

I suggest people read "The Quantum Enigma" by Kuttner and Rosenblum for a 100% accurate explanation of why CCC has plenty of legs as an alternative QM interpretation. Then make up your mind whether you think CCC deserves to be denigrated by being tainted by the old Mysticism brush. I find it really insulting that people use the Mysticsim and Religious accusatories as a way of shutting up research into controversial concepts. Thats not scientific, just vested interests protesting their myopic worldview. If CCC does not remain then Wiki has done a terrible injustice to science as a whole.(M Morris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.84.102 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Are half of you people even physicists? I didn't see the original CCC article, but since there is currently no test for String Theory or MWI, the Copenhagen interpretation is still the standard one, and since it gives special status to measurement processes without clearly defining them, CCC is a reasonable idea. You may not /like/ it, or CI, but short of MWI or String Theory becoming proven (which isn't likely anytime soon), you don't have a choice. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

Heisenberg & Quantum Mysticism

The article claims Heisenberg strongly denied the parallels between QM & Mysticism as being anything other than metaphoric. Yet if you look at Capra's book, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, you will find that Heisenberg mentored Capra in writing it, to the extent of going through it with him Chapter by Chapter. So go figure.

I find this article hilarious - scientists resisting mysticism, mystics resisting scientists. Clearly neither knows their mysticism very well. The idea that any 'Mystical Source' is present in the material universe is a universally Mystical idea. Look at Platonism, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, Byzantine Christianity, Hinduism, Daoism etc - all say that the phenomenal world points towards the One. The universal adage 'as above, so below' was what used to unite science with spirituality ie that material phenomena mirrored the spiritual world. If you look in detail into Kabbalah you will find astonishing parallels to QM from the Big Bang theory to Dark Matter, to the existence of ten dimensions to ultra-violet light to the residual White Light of the Big Bang which is everywhere but invisible to our eyes.

What scares people is the idea of a religion with its hierarchies and moralities. Pure mysticism isn't about either of these things. It goes beyond them to apprehend the nature of Consciousness and the Universe itself. QM doesn't prove that the God of the Old or the New Testaments or Allah of the Koran or Wotan or Krishna exist, but it does point toward what lies behind all of them - an Infinite Consciousness incarnate everywhere and a material 'reality' which is hidden from us by our limited senses. ThePeg (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving recent addition here for discussion

Moved to: Archive2

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. 80.4.196.1811Z (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:

1. declaring that quantum mechanics is categorically not mystical
2. categorically declaring that the mystical component is Jesus, or the Hindu vedas, or some such thing.
3. 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? Misplaced Pages 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. Quantum mechanics is random for observers, deterministic for wavefunctions.
2. Wavefunctions are not probabilities, they do not have an obvious interpretion as a model of our ignorance about hidden variables.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. What is the correct intepretation of quantum mechanics?
2. Is the problem of consciousness worse in quantum mechanics than in classical mechanics, or just more obvious?
3. 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?
4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "" or "" 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)

" 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 ☎ 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)

Further reading

(copied from user talk by Verbal chat) Thank you. This is the first time I am using Wiki to edit. My apologies for the confusion as I learn how it works. This book is worthy of the futher reading category because it sites and researches the work of many of the authors mentioned in this category at wiki for quantum mechanics and mysticism, as I have read on the subject. It is also listed at the University of California Berkley Student Store as well as Amazon and all the major online retailers. Here is the book description:

"In an interview in 1989 at the Nils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, David Bohm spoke on his theory of wholeness and the implicate order. The conversation centered around a new worldview that is developing in part of the Western world, one that places more focus on wholeness and process than analysis of separate parts. Bohm explained the basics of the theory of relativity and its more revolutionary offspring, quantum theory. Either theory, if carried out to its extreme, violates every concept on which we base our understanding of reality. Both challenge our notions of our world and ourselves. He cited evidence from both theories that support a new paradigm of a more interrelated, fluid, and less absolute basis of existence, one in which mind is an active participant. Information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance.

The early quantum physicists like Nils Bohr were ridiculed by those who could not comprehend the majesty of their attempts to explain our reality. The debunker inductive reasoning which imposes direct inferential theory upon nature has caused a setback that science has yet to overcome. Despite their stated fear of religion these theories are in fact doing what the Dark Ages did to sincere seekers of truth. It was the dawning of a New Age which revived ancient Chaos Science. Our whole computerized creative and productive world is largely a function of these atom-mysticists."

I hope I am using the talk page correctly here. I had somewhat of difficult time navigating my way around.

Research recommendation (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From a search on amazon.com, I can't seem to find any books published by 'Ancient Wisdom Publishing' that aren't written by Baird. It looks like the book is self-published, which is considered inappropriate under Misplaced Pages policies. Nevard (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I do wonder what the equivalent of the "discussion about erectyle dysfunction" in his 'The Early Life of Jesus' would be... Nevard (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you have a problem with erectyle dysfunction. Its not a dirty word in case you didn't know (sounds like you don't know much). You really gave this book, the author, the publisher and me a real hatchet job - linking to the only bad review by someone who did not even read, let alone understand this book (see the other reviews). No wonder people say you can't rely on wiki as a good source for information. And FYI, it is not self published. You can find his self published work at Lulu.com Research recommendation (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and quoting a goofy Christian who cannot read or write and is making fun of things there from - is beyond being an idiot!!!!! Research recommendation (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Diverse Druids (by Robert Bruce Baird) is published by Invisible College Press. WHO is in charge of making sure wiki does their job? Research recommendation (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles I've seen on wikipedia, full of irrelevant opinion and an interweaving of biased ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.234.79 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• So please add this to the external links section:

Duality : A Bridge Between Physics And Philosophy?

Abstract

A generalized view of Duality is offered as a bridge between physical sciences and the more abstract philosophical dimensions bordering on mysticism. To that end several examples of duality are first cited from from conventional physics sectors to illustrate the obvious powers of this principle. These include items from reciprocity in Newtonian mechanics to the problem of measurement duality that characterizes quantum mechanics. It is also noted that the latter has acquired a renewed interest in recent times, consequent on the emergence of new experimental techniques for testing the actual laboratory outcomes of traditional gedanken experiments, hitherto taken for granted. Against this background, the Duality principle is sought to be extended to the mystical domain, with convincing examples from various human level experiences.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006physics...5107M

The above paper retrieved from:

The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System The Digital Library for Physics and Astronomy.

The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) is a Digital Library portal for researchers in Astronomy and Physics, operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) under a NASA grant. The ADS maintains three bibliographic databases containing more than 7.5 million records: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Physics, and arXiv e-prints. The main body of data in the ADS consists of bibliographic records, which are searchable through highly customizable query forms, and full-text scans of much of the astronomical literature which can be browsed or searched via our full-text search interface. Integrated in its databases, the ADS provides access and pointers to a wealth of external resources, including electronic articles, data catalogs and archives. We currently have links to over 8.1 million records maintained by our collaborators.

http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/ Research recommendation (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2009 (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://en.wikipedia.org/Bell_test_experiments

http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Metaphysics, not Science

Hi, I'm new to Misplaced Pages. There are already existing science articles (e.g. quantum mechanics. Is this not a metaphysical article? Shouldn't it be written with a lighter touch? Please discuss. Trelawnie (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation vs. Theory

There is no sharp demarcation between "fact" and "interpretation" in quantum mechanics. The only facts are that quantum mechanics gives you the probabilities of certain experimental outcomes, when the interaction of the experimental devices and the quantum system is particularly simple. When talking about how the perception of observers emerges in quantum theory, it's all philosophy. The rewrite made things less clear.

For example: the many worlds interpretation is not the most preferred by mystics, it is the least preferred. Mystics prefer Copenhagen interpretation, because it explicitly rejects describing observers with quantum mechanics. No source is needed for the obvious statement "the atoms of the brain do not stay the same", since all atoms enter and leave the body. The discussion of subtle points of consciousness is not improved by introducing the sentence "mystics believe" every once in a while, because non-mystics also need to answer the question of what consciousness is just as well, or leave it alone.

That means that the discussion is going to be completely philosophical, it can't be helped, hinging on the most annoying points of "what is my experience made of" and "how is this consciousness-stuff represented in quantum mechanics".

There are some very clear facts associated with quantum mechanics: Double-slit experiment, Hydrogen spectral series, and the time evolution of Bose–Einstein condensate are all facts and the Bohr model of the atom could be considered a stipulation. Its important to remember that all applications of modeling reality off a wave functions are extrapolated from hydrogen like atoms. Its not a fact that "wave functions spread into the world" its an interpretation of a sparse number of facts, readers should be reminded that there are many interpretation of quantum mechanics. Its very important to distinguish between "fact" and "interpretation" especially when describing QM's relationship to "mysticism".

The problem with the atoms and brain statement is not the idea that the atoms of the brain change.

"It has been suggested that the brain can't be explained though atoms since the atoms which constitute the brain do not stay the same."

The problem is that by changing a classical explanation based around atoms is in sufficient since they change location. This is similar to saying that classical mechanics is insufficient to explain the solar system because the planets move. Classical methods fail it both situation but not for the implied reasons. The sentence contains wp:synthesis I was giving the author an opportunity to attribute the sentence before I or another editor deletes the text.

As for the "mystic believe" qualifiers not everyone believes in philosophical zombie. But the bigger problem is whole premising of the hypothetical question in "Mind/body problem in Newtonian mechanics" includes a host of assumptions and is contextualized in a mystic belief system. For example the idea that consciousness is a "stream" is inane from my perspective I think of it as a temporal physical pattern, given the right tools and resources a pattern could be replicated an infinite number of times. But I would never add that to the text because that would be wp:synthesis so I qualified, through attribution, the verifiable text. Thats what I can say for now.--OMCV (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous--- that whole history section is the toughest thing to source, as is anything else on this subject. The issue is this--- quantum mechanics is not classical mechanics. It does not describe the positions of atoms. It describes wavefunctions. So even if you take the perspective the consciousness is the clockwork in the brain, that doesn't tell you what consciousness is in quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics does not describe clockwork. It describes wavefunctions.Likebox (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A Newtonian clockwork consciousness model does not need to meet the standards of QM, it only needs to meet its own standards which still allows atoms to exchange. If the classical model of mind and brain is failing by QM's standards the sentence needs to be rewritten and no matter what the sentence still needs citation. Furthermore if something is difficult to cite wp:verify odds are that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--OMCV (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not impossible, just difficult to cite.Likebox (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said rewrite it so it makes sense and then cite it.--OMCV (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Consciousness Causes Collapse

This needs to be separated out from this article. This article should focus on mysticism and relations between mysticism and QM. CCC is just a straighforward add-on to Copenhagen, a half-way house between Copenhagen and full blown many-worlds. Many worlds can best be described as : consciousness seems to cause collapse from its own point of view.Likebox (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If the main CCC article is going to be Wigner's interpretation of quantum mechanics then Consciousness causes collapse should presumably redirect there, not here. 1Z (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph

The laws of quantum physics allow by calculation the prediction of observables, which can be tested in repeated experiments to a very high precision. This is a property shared with all other physical theories, but not with mystical beliefs. However, Ken Wilber asserts that meditation with the aim of experiencing higher consciousness may be regarded an experimental science (as it was and is regarded by some Buddhist sect.

This paragraph has no purpose except to misrepresent quantum mechanics as a mundane kind of physical theory, sort of like Newton's theory, except more precise and probalistic. That's not quantum mechanics. Nobody who knows quantum mechanics ever thinks of it that way.

Quantum mechanics does allow prediction of experimental outcomes after interpretation. The theory distinguishes between "measurements" and "physical processes", and this distinction is essential. A person is always performing measurements, and there is no obvious way of making sense out of the quantum state of a person. More generally, the entire classical world can only be extracted out of the theory itself by taking a many-worlds type interpretation. Otherwise, the theory is dualistic, just the same as mysticism.

Mysticism is not science, but the type of mysticism supported by quantum mechanics is of a very limited sort: it is just the statement that the consciousness-stuff is not reducible in an obvious way to material-stuff. The reason is that no classical-stuff is reducible in an obvious way to wavefunction-stuff. That separation is the entire content of quantum mysticism.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A deterministic perspective is a very common interpretation of quantum mechanics. More importantly most researchers (regardless of their religious or mystical beliefs) treat quantum mechanics as a mathematical formalism when they work; which means they are agnostic to determinism or more likely assume some form of determinism as is the norm in all physical sciences. With that said I see know reason to keep the paragraph other than it being a well cited opinion of a quantum mystics, even if a lesser quantum mystics. Did you know that the double-slit experiment has been conducted with bucky balls (Arndt, M. et al. Nature 401, 680–682 (1999)). I don't think the double-slit experiment has been conducted with humans yet but it would be a reason experiment to conducted if we wanted to quantitatively measure how much our wave component contributed to our physical behavior.--OMCV (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a "deterministic perspective" in quantum mechanics? Do you mean many worlds? That's still subjectively probablistic.Likebox (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientists before they conduct experiments make the assumption that cause and event are linked through the material world, that some aspect of the world they are trying to understand is going to have intelligible deterministic behavior. Likebox you appear to be very hung up on theoretical perspectives and seem to have trouble distinguishing between QM models of reality and known experimental facts. Most of these perspectives over step their data otherwise their wouldn't be so many perspectives. As stated before we are going to have to do better to distinguish between "facts" and "interpretations".--OMCV (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "cause and effect are linked through the material world?" Do you mean that if you do something twice you get the same results? That's certainly wrong. Do you mean that if you do something twice you get the same probabilities? That's also incorrect, if you do certain experiments. Please don't impose your own pet philosophy on this article--- it is discussing subtle issues which are difficult to explain.Likebox (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly describing a pet philosophy, its the operational philosophy of the vast majority of people working in scientific research stated in plain language. Its also off topic.--OMCV (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little off topic, but I want to know where you are coming from. If our discussion here is free enough, we might come to agree on a text by mutual understanding. So be patient, I am just core-dumping my POV, so that you can do the same, and we can compare our POV and see if it is possible to make the article pleasing to both of us.

The "science is about measurements" philosophy is so minimalistic, it suggests that science has absolutely nothing to say about consciousness or mysticism in any way. While this is a self-consistent point of view, and was held by Bohr, it is no secret that many people believe that a theory is about reality. So if you say that "electrons are fully described by wavefunctions", some will go further and say "electrons can be identified with wavefunctions". This was explicitly the point of view of Everett. It rejects the Bohr notion that science is just about explicitly described feasable measurements, and it incorporates the Wigner point of view that the rules of conscious perception is why we percieve collapse.

This point of view is not very sensible sounding to Bohr people, because they think of the wavefunction as somehow representing "information about the system", but the Bohr perspective is not self-evident. One reason is that the wavefunction is not a probability, so an "ignorance" interpretation makes it natural to ask "ignorance of what exactly?" a Bohrist would say it is ignorance of incompatible classical position and momentum, but a modern person would say "but position and momentum are fully quantum concepts, not classical ones. The classical ones are just approximations. And there are probably no hidden variables underneath to be ignorant of." Bohr would say "that's complementarity!" and so on.

Some people view the idea that the quantum description does not describe systems that include observers as mystical all by itself--- since it separates out the world of physics and the world of experience. Some people view the role of consciousness in CCC as mystical, because it separates out "experience" from "physical description". But it's always the same thing that people are pointing out as "mystical", and I wanted to explain what it is as clearly as possible.Likebox (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the rewrite

Within Newtonian mechanics, the question of consciousness is not directly addressed since consciousness can not be directly measured and or quantified.

Yes, yes, we know, and everyone who reads this knows this. It is not useful to state the obvious.

Adaptation of a Newtonian mechanic perspective to explain the nature of consciousness suggests the content and function of a mind might be identified with the position and velocity of the atoms of the brain. Knowing the state of the atoms determines the future, so in a verificationalist sense it determines all measurable aspects of conscious behavior.

This is exactly what was said more pithily before. It is not useful to say "adaptation of a Newtonian mechanic perspective" instead of "In Newtonian mechanics", because that obfuscates the issue

Proponents of Quantum mysticism claim that even in a Newtonian universe, there are philosophical doubts about explain consciousness through the position and velocity of atoms.

Proponents of quantum mysticism do not specifically claim this. This is stuff that nobody disputes (as far as I know). This is an expository paragraph, designed to get the reader to the point where the explanations of mysticism in a physical theory can make sense. So it explains why you can't obviously point to a certain collection of atoms and say "that's my consciousness", because 1. what if the pattern moves into different atoms, like when atoms get replaced in the brain? And what if you copy the pattern into a duplicate, but keep the original, which way does the consciousness go subjectively? These two questions need to be asked to get the reader to understand the perspective of Everett. These questions are only raised by not answered, because if you haven't thought about these before, you aren't going to understand anything.

It has been suggested that the brain can't be explained though atoms since the atoms which constitute the brain do not stay the same. Individuals have put forward certain contrived thought experiments in which they claim the identity of mind and brain can become confused. For example, when a conscious Newtonian observer is duplicated, by copying all the relative positions and velocities of the observer's atoms. It is is argued that it is not obvious which way the stream of conscious experience for the observer will go but it assumed to go one way or both (but not duplicated). If the consciousness only goes one way, the duplicate will be left a philosophical zombie, without a consciousness of its own. But if the consciousness goes both ways, both observers start off with the same internal state, so that the subjective experience of the consciousness after the split requires extra information to describe. This information is what determines which path the consciousness will take. It has been argued that the value of this information is subjectively very important for the duplicated- since the information predicts the relative futures' of the duplicated pair - but this information is not contained in the relative positions and velocities of the observer's internal atoms.

This is OK, but overqualified. The Dennett stuff is classical, no QM, it just talks about copying consciousnesses. This is implicit in Everett too. It is not particularly mystical, and the "suggestion" is overly strong: the suggestion is not that the brain cannot be explained through atoms, the suggestion is that there is more information in the pattern of consciousness than what you can see in the position of the atoms. For example, which way a duplicated observer's consciousness "goes" is a bit of information like that.

The source for moving the brain pattern into a different system (a remote electronic machine in this case) was discussed by Dennett in "Where am I". This is the source for the statement "The atoms don't stay the same", but it is a loose paraphrase of ideas, as is the whole thing, frankly.Likebox (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The first section states how Newtonian Mechanics sees the world and I'm glad we agree its accurate but I disagree that it will be obvious to anyone who comes to this page. There is a great deal of misunderstandings of scientific philosophy that revolves around quantum mysticism and its best to be clear, especially when it takes a single sentence. In the next section "Adaptation of a Newtonian mechanic perspective to explain the nature of consciousness..." is stated the way it is because there has never been an experiment based in Newtonian physics conducted on the "nature of consciousness" this line of thought is extrapolation. If there was such research it would be worth citing here.

Proponents of Quantum mysticism claim that even in a Newtonian universe, there are philosophical doubts about explain(ing) consciousness through the position and velocity of atoms.

This sentence has been attributed to "Proponents of Quantum mysticism" because it is a disputable statement. Seriously the "Newtonian model" of the universe lacks a proper description of atoms, the whole idea pitting the two models against each other in this way is contrived and thus needs attribution. It seems the following hypothetical statements are primers for Everett's theories, or perhaps from Everett's works, and as such be attributed to Everett or purged as wp:synth. I've already stated that the hypothetical question is bad. The idea that our "stream of consciousness" is hiding in the subatomic activities of ground state atoms/molecules flies in the face of modern neuroscience which at no point invokes subatomic activity. Consider they whole hypothetical question in need of citation or deletion. Paraphrasing even if its loose should be attributed and if its too loose its wp:synth.--OMCV (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only SYNTH if people who aren't familiar with the ideas think it is. Everyone knows that there is nothing original about these ideas--- they have been kicking around for 60 years. The statement that there are "philsoophical doubts about explaining all the contents of consciousness through positions of atoms" is not debatable--- the doubts exist. Whether they are justified or not is another story.

To explain these doubts--- if someone makes a copy of you, and puts the copy in Antarctica--- do you feel that you are still where you are, or that you are teleported to Antarctica? What if it is the original that is moved very very quickly to Antarctica, while the copy is left here? What if the atoms are split between you and copy half/half.

The question of consciousness is where you feel yourself to be. This is a different question than where the atoms actually are.Likebox (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If its been around for 60 years it should be very easy to cite as it is I've deleted it as OR. Someone who understands QM would realize that two observers whose atoms relative positions and relative velocities are identical would be identical. They would also realize that the situation of identical observers could theoretically never be achieved because of the uncertainty principle even if all the practical difficulties are ignored.

The vast majority of biochemical activity contributing to all of life can be explained without QM. There are two exception that I know of, quantum tunneling must be invoked to explain the reaction rates of H+ and e-. All heavier atoms are well explained through classical chemical kinetics. Subatomic states play no known role in consciousness for example the magnetic alignment of nuclei that occurs in an MRI machine has not been demonstrated to the biological activity of anything. It seems the contrived hypothetical question concerning the twin observers, the stream of consciousness, and their "feelings" is Likebox's OR as such its been deleted.--OMCV (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is well cited--- it is in Dennett and Hofstadter. The sentence you give "Someone who understands QM would realize that two observers whose atoms relative positions and relative velocities are identical would be identical" shows that you do not understand QM at all, and should not edit this article.Likebox (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by that cryptic statement above is that it is impossible to even imagine that two observers' atoms have a definite position and definite momentum. It is not allowed in QM, even hypothetically. You can't view the uncertainty principle as a limitation to measuring the position and momentum (but they exist anyway secretly inside). That's a completely wrong point of view.

Your hypothetical unknown simultaneous position and momentum would be local hidden variables, and would violate Bell's inequality. They would not obey Newton's laws, and they would have to be in constant communication faster than the speed of light. This type of misunderstanding is not shared by ANY quantum mechanics practitioner, and it is serious enough error for me to ask you to please get a better understanding for quantum mechanics before mucking around with this article.Likebox (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If "it is impossible to even imagine that two observers' atoms have a definite position and definite momentum" than the hypothetical needs to be restated. I was thinking well within the ridiculous hypothetical to say that two observers with identical atoms and velocities are identical, I never said that they would stay identical, its best not to make to many interpretations your bound to get something wrong.--OMCV (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The hypothetical is a pure hypothetical, in Newtonian mechanics. It imagines that you make a clone of a classical observer, and the clone then goes off and does other things. But at the instant that the clone is made, it has the same relative (classical) positions and velocities. This thought experiment assumes the world is classical, and that a classical world could include conscious beings just like ourselves. This might not be clear enough in the article.

In quantum mechanics, there is no analogous copying, because you can't precisely duplicate a quantum state. But the analogous thing in QM is just a macroscopic superposition itself. In Everett's view, an observer in a superposition "feels" unsuperposed. This is the main point, echoed in Wigner's consciousness causes collapse article.Likebox (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a hypothetical! You say it not possible to "precisely duplicate a quantum state" well in classical mechanics its not possible precisely position a collection of atoms and the classical mechanics doesn't even have the Bohr model. What I think you real mean is that quantum states spread infinitely so internal states can't be distinguished from external states thus the idea of duplicating internally relative state is a fallacy. I'm fine with that. Then again that assumes a quantum state at infinity is relevant. In the practical application of quantum mechanics, "Matter" has a very localized wave function and the influence of more distant aspects of these wave functions are considered inconsequential for everyone but mystics. That's why delocalizing matter in a Bose–Einstein condensate was such a big deal.--OMCV (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the edits in the next section are no good

Unlike classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics, there is no naive way of identifying the true state of the world or its components such as observers. The state of all parts of reality is believed to be measurably indefinite as described by the uncertainty principle.

This is not just about the uncertainty principle. It is about the wavefunction. Using the uncertainty principle in this context can make it sound like there is a secret hidden variable underneath.

The implications of this finding on the nature of reality is unclear since there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) the wavefunction, that describes matter and energy, spreads out describing an ever larger superposition of different worlds. In this interpretation an observer observing a superposition can be described by a superposition of different observers seeing different things, but in actual experience, an observer never feels a superposition, but always feels that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict between a wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation. The founders of quantum mechanics each interpreted the theory and associated assumptions different, each interpretation has different implications on an observer and their relationship to the world.

This is pretty much OK, but it is equivalent to what was there before. I don't understand these nitpicking rewrites. If you aren't going to change the content at all, why make it sound worse?Likebox (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a need to distinguish between undisputed "facts" and "interpretations" or "models". I don't dispute the statements listed above have been made, they just need to be attributed and cited. Thats what all my edits have been about.--OMCV (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the sources already there? If you do, then I think you will be satisfied that there is no original thought in the whole section.Likebox (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote Wigners conclusions on his own paper:

"The present writer is well aware of the fact that he is not the first one to discuss the questions which form the subject of this article and that the surmises of his predecessors were either found to be wrong or unprovable, hence, in the long run, uninteresting. He would not be greatly surprised if the present article share the fate of those of his predecessors."

I'm not overly worried that these ideas are OR, I'm worried that ideas are being stated as undisputed facts when they are interpretations that need to be attributed to an individual or a school of thought.--OMCV (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that nothing here is stated as fact, that is a surprising assertion. To say "there are philosophical doubts" is not the same as saying "this is true", or "this is false". It just says people have raised doubts (they have).Likebox (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets say you heard someone say that they thought my sister could be a slut. I still want this non-fact cited and attributed. But thats not what the problem is the version I edited stated to the effect that "quantum mechanics states this", I changed it to "an interpretation of quantum mechanics states this". There is a big difference in one quantum mechanics is treated as a single entity, I would be fine with that if you where dealing with things a mathematical formalism. Instead you are invoking ideas almost whole derived from an interpretation of quantum mechanics completely unrelated to the mathematical formalism and its supporting experimental evidence.--OMCV (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cites for Mind/Body Problem in Classical Mechanics

All the philosophy there is contained in great detail in the articles by Dennett from the late 70's early 80's, and reprinted and expanded upon in the Hofstadter/Dennett book cited. To be clear: there is no quantum mechanics in what Dennett and Hofstadter discuss, it's all about representing consciousness as a pattern in atoms, but the ideas are certainly inspired by Many Worlds interpretation.

Please do not make this section less clear: the statement that is made is that which way you "feel" yourself to go when your atoms are duplicated is an extra bit of information which is not present before the split, but is present after. This bit is apparent to you, as a subjective observer, but it has no objective meaning inside the atoms, because your consciousness goes both ways. This point is a little subtle, and I ask you to understand it before editing the section. The wording needs to be clear that it is exactly one bit that is not present in the atoms. Not "extra information" or "some claim that there is extra information". It is exactly one bit, and no more.

This extra bits is the "world selection" in many worlds, or equivalently the "results of past measurements" in some variants of Copenhagen, or with the "outcome of the consciousness collapse" in CCC, or with the "actually realized histories" in decoherent histories, or any other of the equivalent up-to-philosophy intepretations. The role of consciousness here in making the world appear as it is is similar to the role of consciousness in making time "go forward" subjectively. The feeling of time "going forward" is not obviously derivable from physical law, because it is a perceptual property, not a physical property. It is obviously related to entropy production, but exactly how is hard to say. Similarly, the feeling of "probabilistic measurements" is a subjective feeling in many-worlds, and an additional axiom associated with observers in standard Copenhagen style interpretations.Likebox (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For the hypothetical question its not good enough to say the philosophy is out there in papers for the 70's and 80's. Please cite and attribute the hypothetical question plainly so that I and other editors can verify that it isn't a hypothetical of your own creation. Its troubling that "The wording needs to be clear that it is exactly one bit that is not present in the atoms." Does it need to be so exact because its quoted or does it need to be so exact because its your personal idea that needs to be protected. The idea that there is one bit connected to: "world selection", "results of past measurements", "outcome of the consciousness collapse", and "actually realized histories" needs to attributed and cited as well as the idea that those are equivalent concepts . This is not a forum for individuals to present their own thoughts stick to what can be cited. For now the offending section has been deleted.--OMCV (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This hypothetical question is the SUBJECT of the book, "The Minds' I". It is also the subject of the articles I quoted here, and Hofstadter, who is an author on The Mind's I, makes no bones about the link to many-worlds.Likebox (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(moved from OMCV's talk page)::: About "Citing a whole book" please look at it: the book contains a lot of articles that discuss thought experiments like the copying of an observer. The articles are very long-winded, because they are written to convince a skeptic, but you can just skim them (although they are pleasant to read). The original article is (I think--- I haven't read this in years) "where am I" by Dennett, and "Who am I?" (a sequel). I think they are both reprinted there, with extra commentary. The many-worlds article by Hofstadter is reprinted in "Metamagical Themas" (I am pretty sure). I didn't cite a particular page, because the thought experiment I wrote about is a very condensed summary of "Where am I". That is written as a fable about someone whose consciousness is copied into circuits (if my memory serves me right). I really don't mind if you change stuff here, but please read this literature first. Dennett is a very non-mystical philosopher of consciousness.Likebox (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First this talk page is the place to respond to my specific concerns about the article. Second this clearly demonstrates that they the "hypothetical question" is of Likeboxes' own invention. If it was adapted from a "fable about someone whose consciousness is copied into circuit" than there has been significant WP:Synth since at no point does it mention circuitry. His owner ship issues over the language are also disconcerting. If the "hypothetical question" needs to be deleted until it can be specifically cited and attributed and Likebox's thought don't qualify as "WP:RS".--OMCV (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at where am i very briefly and you might as well be citing the gholas of the Dune series or something by Williams Gibson. I understand that Dennett is a prominent philosopher and I'll look at the piece and see if it can be paraphrased and attributed. This is generous of me since the burden of citation is not on the editor you challenges the material but the editor that adds it. I expect the hypothetical question to remain deleted until it is correctly cited.--OMCV (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Wilber Ken A Brief History of Everything, 1st ed. 1996, 2nd ed. 2001: ISBN 1-57062-740-1
2. Wilber, Ken Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (editor), 1984, rev. ed. 2001: ISBN 1-57062-768-1
3. For example, Wigner states in "Remarks on the mind body question":"Until not many years ago, the "existence" of a mind or soul would have been passionately denied by most physical scientists. The brilliant successes of mechanistic and, more generally, macroscopic physics and of chemistry overshadowed the obvious fact that thoughts, desires, and emotions are not made of matter, and it was nearly universally accepted among physical scientists that there is nothing beside matter. The epistome of this belief was the conviction that, if we knew the positions and velocities of all atoms at one instant of time, we could compute the fate of the universe for all future"
4. Dennett, Daniel C. (2001-01). The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self & Soul. Basic Books. ISBN 0465030912. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Start-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Start-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• Start-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles