Talk:Quantum mysticism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

let me know what you all think

Hi - let me know what you all think - how detailed should this be? Its main purpose is to comment on the phenomenon of quantum mysticism as a whole, rather than the scattered pages on Capra, What the Bleep, and Quantum Consciousness etc etc. Adambrowne666 09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a good start. Good idea for an article. --Brentt 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Renaming to either Quantum philosphy or Quantum metaphysics. The current title is stupid and makes little sence. 60.41.187.156

I googled the term "Quantum Mysticism" and returned 535 results. Not all of them were articles that considered the term to be a pejorative (though the majority were). The definition of "Quantum Mysticism" as a phrase capable only of carrying mocking, derisive, or pejorative meaning reflects a personal or cultural bias against serious mysticism and I would strongly recommend that anyone discussing here who has not yet read the article on mysticism do so in order to banish any personal prejudices or biases before attempting to contribute a neutral POV. To prejudicially attach the meaning of "invalid" to all topics associated with mysticism amounts to some sort of baconian fundamentalism and is not a neutral POV. Further, the persistent redirection of Quantum Metaphysics to this article seems to ignore the actual definition of metaphysics and I would recommend either reading the article on metaphysics or taking a survey course in Philosophy in order to remove any bizarre preconceptions about metaphysics or how quantum theory might have a legitimate relationship to metaphysics. Metaphysics and mysticism are far from synonymous.

While quantum theory (and any other theory, belief, or body of knowledge) can be and is abused by the ignorant and sophmoric, we cannot insist, a priori, that every attempt to formulate a metaphysics incorporating various theories of physics (no matter how singular) is foolishness. That is not the role of someone writing an Encyclopedia article and should be left to the editors of websites such as sceptic.com or mythbusters. Nor can we legitimately insist that any sphere of science is somehow "not allowed" to inform mystics: the results of scientific inquiry are not copyrighted.

Unless our intent is to hinder the future advancement of human knowledge, we should not preemptively nay-say speculative inquiry of any sort, but rather judge each speculation on its own merits. To do otherwise is to effectively give a draught of hemlock to the public reputation and respect of any thinker whose fundamental premises disagree with our own and is a practice contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Please stop redirecting Quantum Metaphysics to this article, and please stop reflexively treating as a laughing stock (calling a thing "quackery" or "flapdoodle" cannot be characterized as anything but ridicule) any topic associated with mysticism; ridicule only reflects ignorance of its object and is illogical. Use of the phrase as a pejorative term should be fully noted, but should not be the phrase's primary definition. The words constituting the phrase have independent meaning, the phrase therefore has the potential to carry independent meaning beyond its use in name-calling. Defining it first and foremost as a pejorative dead-ends its development as a concept. Kholtyn 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

'The words constituting the phrase have independent meaning, the phrase therefore has the potential to carry independent meaning beyond its use in name-calling.' - not sure about the logic of this. But in any case, I believe the term 'quantum mysticism' was coined by Margaret Wertheim as a pejorative - but inevitably, the phrase has come to be used in a positive way by proponents of the whole quantum metaphysical idea. Nevertheless, I think you should have a go at trying to redress the balance of the article, try to make it more neutral. Unfortunately, others who have tried to do this have often had an agenda, adding original research etc., which is why the side more sympathetic to quantum mysticism is probably underrepresented here Adambrowne666 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a bit of research and see what I can come up with. I'm a former professional translator and currently a student of philosophy, so my concern is more with linguistic dead-ends created by pejorative usage than any particular familiarity with quantum metaphysics theories. Pejorative language has some curious and unique features in communication, mostly it serves to either redefine an object (e.g. racial slurs effectively serve to redefine their human objects as 'less than human') and to hinder straightforward discussion about the object. It's disturbing to me to see pejorative language come to prevalence in poorly-explored areas of science or philosophy because it means those trails may not be blazed until something profound happens that 'undoes' the derision attached to the subject, freeing up serious investigators and thinkers to explore it without fearing public humilation and damage to their careers. Maybe I can assemble a list of short descriptive blurbs dealing with some of the more popular (and best supported) ideas on this topic and put in links for them. It may take a few days - I'm aware of the glut of weak material in this area; dealing hands-on with mystic philosophies is always slippery work. Kholtyn 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a very worthwhile thing to try Adambrowne666 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quantum philosphy

previous article was removed maybe it can be incorporated into a new one: H0riz0n Whereas the philosophy of quantum mechanics explores what exactly is quantum mechanics talking about? Quantum Philosophy / quantum metaphysics, on the other hand, takes thing much further and muses on what these possibilities and interpretations have on the broader “Who are we? What are we?” questions. It is a relatively new discipline of metaphysics made popular by the philosophical implication and musings of quantum mechanics. The recent box office success of What the Bleep Do We Know!? has also significantly increase popularity in quantum metaphysical ideas.

Key Questions:

• What does it mean if we truly exist in a Brane Universe?
• Where is God in the quantum mechanical universe?
• What's reality in quantum mechanics?
• Who/what is quantum mechanical God?

Authors, Contributors, Philosophers

Steven Hawking, Brian Greene, William Tiller, Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, Fred Alan Wolf, Dr. David Albert, Dean Radin, Stuart Hameroff, Jeffrey Satinover, Andrew B. Newberg, Daniel Monti,Joseph Dispenza, Candace Pert, Larry L Hench, Stanislav Grof

See also

• Philosophy of science
• Philosophy of physics
• Philosophy of quantum mechanics
• Philosophy of space and time
• Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

External Links and Related Material

• "Quantum Physics Quackery", Skeptical Inquirer, January 1997 (discusses book The Self-Aware Universe)
• PBS Nova The Elegant Universe
• Movie: What The Beep Do We Know?
• Distributed unconsciousness

---

comment copied from Talk:Quantum pseudo-mysticism

name of page changed from 'mysticism' to 'pseudo-mysticism', as per suggestion by user HOrizOn Adambrowne666 20:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [1]

Moving/renaming this page

Everyone: stop creating new pages by cutting and pasting the contents of this article. See WP:MOVE. I'm putting it back under this title because it's the simplest way for me to resolve the current mess caused by these cut-and-paste moves. I don't really care what title it winds up under as long as (1) the people involved in editing it reach a consensus on what it should be (2) you don't get into move wars (renaming it over and over) (3) you don't do any more of these cut-and-paste moves. FreplySpang (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think it's done. Feel free to edit. Quantum mysticism and Quantum pseudo-mysticism both redirect to Quantum metaphysics. All the talk pages redirect here. Once again, I'm not doing this because I particularly like or dislike the name "quantum metaphysics," but because the article history was under this name. If you want to move/rename the article, you might ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. FreplySpang (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Quantum metaphysics → Quantum mysticism – {- Rationale: the original article was changed from 'quantum mysticism' to 'quantum metaphysics' by user hOrIzOn, who finds the term 'mysticism' offensive to his 'quantum metaphysical' beliefs. After some debate, we compromised on 'pseudo-mysticism'. Adambrowne666 06:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)}

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

What sources do you have that call this quantum mysticism? What English speakers actually use is our chief test. Septentrionalis 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good question. Maybe it should be called Quantum flapdoodle? - this was mooted at one point, but I thought it placed too much emphasis on Murray Gell-Mann - now, I dunno. Adambrowne666

Actually, now that I google the term, it pops up quite often, generally in reference to this social phenomenon - there's even an article by Margaret Wertheim on the topic, which I will include as a link in the article. Also, there's a secion in the Wikipedia article quantum consciousness called 'Quantum mysticism', so it turns out there is quite a bit of precedent. Adambrowne666 03:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Nightstallion (?) 07:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion notices on your page

This page is retarded. First such a subject doesnt exist. 60.41.188.125 Delete 60.41.188.125

What is it?

Just came across this page, and I have to say that it doesn't actually say what quantum metaphysics/(pseudo-)mysticism is. At the least, it touches upon it, but we really could use a concise definition to make this more encyclopedic. blahpers 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, thanks, I'll get on it Adambrowne666 12:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If the term exists only as a pejorative used by a handful of authors, perhaps it should be merged into their articles or articles handling their work. This would solve the problem of there being no apparent independent meaning for the term. 2 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'Quantum metaphysics' redirection

• Removed redirection from the 'Quantum metaphysics' page to the 'Quantum pseudo-mysticism' page.
• Removal reverted by Adambrowne666, who said: "i don't agree, pseudo-account - please give your reasons before editing again"

The article 'quantum metaphysics' should not redirect to 'quantum pseudo-mysticism', that was the reason of my edit—I thought it said all that had to be said. Reasons are called for on your redirecting side, not mine. But here is my elaboration: 'quantum metaphysics' and 'quantum pseudo-mysticism' are not synonymous expressions; they are distinct topics, just as 'quantum mechanics' and 'quantum pseudo-science' are. Even if you think you have a case for one being an instance of the other, that warrants no redirects.

I for one was presented the 'Quantum pseudo-mysticism' article when following a link to 'quantum metaphysics', expecting... something —this *is* wikipedia— either on that part of quantum theory that makes assertions concerning the real itself, independent of our located perception of it; or else on that sub-genre of metaphysics— genre whose paradigmatic instances include Aristotle's and Parmenides' — inspired, compatible or otherwise related to quantum theory. Here is the first sentence of the text I was actually given to read: "Quantum mysticism is a term used by Margaret Wertheim and others to describe the metaphysical or New Age interpretation of quantum mechanics". --Pseudo account 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, fair enough, well argued Adambrowne666 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

why don't you have a go at writing the Quantum Metaphysics article? Adambrowne666

Quantum Metaphysics still redirects to this article. I would also like to register an objection to such a redirect whether or not an independent article on Quantum Metaphysics exists, as the terms are not synonymous despite being used so by some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"[...] the metaphysical or New Age interpretation of quantum of mechanics."

Irrespective of what Margaret Wertheim or others describe by the term 'quantum mysticism', I hope people realize that such expression inside an encyclopedia is somewhere between humorous and embarrassing, depending on how seriously you take what this project claims to be. I would most certainly remove it, if I were a non-pseudo account.

--Pseudo account 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

not quite sure what you're saying here - you're unclear in your statement why this article might be considered humorous or embarrassing - doesn't the fact that Quantum Mysticism is a real social phenomenon make this a legitimate article? Adambrowne666 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Quantum mysticism redirects here. What's the deal? Are mystics insulted by association? Quantum mysticism is the name commonly used in the press and in common usage. Quantum Pseudo-mysticism is not in common usage. I advice a move to Quantum Mysticism. Jefffire 12:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There was a bit of a scuffle over the name, and this unsatisfactory compromise was reached. I'm going to request a name change soon Adambrowne666 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

requested move

Quantum Pseudo-mysticism → Quantum mysticism – Rationale: the current title came about as a compromise after much discussion with user:HoRiZoN, but the latter title is now considered preferable because there is precedence [[2]] Adambrowne666 11:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Can an admin move it but now? Jefffire 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support If people really are mystical and justify said mysticism with bad physics (which is what this is about), then the article should be called quantum mysticism (or, to a physicist, pseudo-quantum mysticism). Anville 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Give it a day, and if no-one objects move it. If they don't then we utilise our linguistic powers to try and convince them. Jefffire 12:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Move. Really, I would have thought that "pseudo-mysticism" is even more disparaging than "mysticism", it seems to be one chap's idiosyncracy that led to this in the first place. Quantum mysticism it is. Byrgenwulf 13:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, unless there are any objections it will be moved. Jefffire 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Already listed for admin move. Cool. Jefffire 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"the 2004 film What tнe ♯$*! Do ωΣ (k)πow!? Made by the Ramtha School of Enlightenment "

nonsense. sorry

-- of course it's nonsense - read the article, then get back to us. Adambrowne666 10:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific mysticism

I'm not suggesting a change of name for the article, but you all might be interested to know that the expression "scientific mysticism" currently gets more google hits than "quantum mysticism". I have a sort of conflict of interest, having used the phrase "scientific mysticism" for a long time (and in something like the sense of this article) in a vague attempt to popularise it - so I'll confine myself to the talk page. But someone else might might be interested at least to have a look at what a google search throws up. It's quite interesting. Metamagician3000 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting, I agree, and definitely a valid term - maybe Quantum Mysticism is a subset of Scientific Mysticism. Why don't you start a WP article on it? - maybe in time the Quantum Mysticism article will be merged into it.Adambrowne666 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually think that would be justified - the term doesn't seem to be used often enough or consistently enough (sometimes it is used pejoratively as with "quantum mysticism", but sometimes it seems approvingly). Maybe all that we should be thinking about is mentioning briefly that it isn't just quantum theory that is seized on for "mystical" purposes but sometimes also other things, such as relativity theory. Metamagician3000 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Adambrowne666 10:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I agree, but the title is going to be a tricky issue. Maybe something like "controversial interpetations of quantum mechanics". 1Z 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a merge. I suggest merging first, and renaming afterwards. Daf 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I probably would never have started the article if I'd known of the Quantum Quackery one - should've checked more thoroughly, I guess. Adambrowne666 10:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say, though, the quantum quackery article is a mess - very hard to read and make sense of - I'm a bit reluctant to merge until something is done about it. Adambrowne666 11:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for merge and cleanup (do both in one go and save labour). The title is a secondary concern, but don't make it something awkward and weasly. Let usage decide. "quantum quackery": 1,600 google hits, "quantum mysticism" 1,800 hits. "appeal to quantum mechanics" gets 6,000 hits, but many of these are occurrences of the phrase in bona fide physics text. My vote would go to quantum mysticism, but it's not clear-cut either way. I'm opposed to "controversial interpetations", since this is precisely not about "interpretations", but about people throwing about QM terminology without knowing the first or last thing about them: before you can iterpret something, you need to understand the proposition first. dab (𒁳) 10:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

edits by ph787

Sorry to undo your work, ph787, but i think you've misinterpreted the intent of the article. The term is pejorative - this is margaret wertheim's intention - the article isn't violating npov, because it is merely reporting the comments made by people like wertheim, greg egan and gell-mann on the social phenomenon herein called quantum mysticism. Whether or not there is evidence for a correlation between quantum physics and buddhism/new age/paranormal beliefs is irrelevent here -- the question is dealt with elsewhere in wikipedia and other forums.

Adambrowne666 09:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

is Ph787 (talk · contribs) == LJR565 (talk · contribs)? we seem to be dealing with a sockmaster with a New-Age/quantum-mysticist agenda. dab (𒁳) 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider myself a regular wikipedia contributor, sockmaster, sockpuppet, or any of the range of other colourful wikipedia perjoratives, nor would I describe myself as a committed "follower" of some of these ideas. What I would say is that I'm concerned that wikipedia is being actively used to promote a counter-agenda here. At the moment there is no paralell broader article on these ideas which does not appear to start from the premise of dismissing them, for example. If someone were to start one, and merge both the poor "quantum quackery" article , this one and it together, that could be an improvement, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncertainty768 (talk • contribs)

you are welcome to voice your concerns, but please stop creating a new account for every edit you do. Also be aware of WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia by its very WP:NPOV policy will not treat equally views that are widely rejected and views that are widely accepted. We aim at an accurate reflection of mainstream opinion, not at a representation of "truth", and not at an agnostic or relativist treatment of every view ever held no matter how unlikely. Any article on a fringe view ("fringe" does not mean "false", it means "widely rejected") will state up front that its subject is fringy. You may want to try Wikinfo which has a policy of adopting a viewpoint sympathetic to the topic, which will yield vastly different result on topics of "New Age physics". dab (𒁳) 17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well put, Dab.

I'm worried this article is being hijacked - I see weasel words, slow attrition by various accounts -- as well as messy grammar and formatting and spelling -- it all feels a bit dodgy to me. Do the people -- or person -- responsible feel comfortable with this? Uncertainty, if you would like to make a 'paralell broader article on these ideas which does not appear to start from the premise of dismissing them', then please do -- start one; be bold, defend your view there from people like DBachmann and me.Adambrowne666

ok, we are seeing a slow edit-war over at quantum quackery. The two articles should be merged asap, cleaned up, and checked for npov and weasling, otherwise they'll just be plucked apart by our polynymous friend. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, dab; still, we'd best not panic. In my resistance to the new age attrition, I'm going to try not to be too militant. For example, the line about scientists being suspicious of mysticism in general was my effort to be a bit more fair minded about this - it is true, after all. As for the merge, I'm a good writer, but clumsy with wikipedia-format-type-stuff - always seem to muck up merges and that kind of thing. If you feel like it, Dab, or if anyone else does, and since there seems to be no negative votes on the notion, please feel free to go ahead and do the merge; then I'll start trying to make the prose work, if that's ok with everyone... Adambrowne666 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, DAB, I agree with your current edit, except for the first para, which originates, I think, from the quantum quackery article - I find it very obscure and difficult to read - would it be possible to keep everything as is, but reinstate the para that started the article in my previous edit, referring to Margaret Wertheim? Adambrowne666

Bias in the source list?

Obviously, "quantum mysticism" or "quantum quackery" is a term meant in the pejorative sense and has to be treated as such within the body of the article. But the list of sources ("Quantum mysticist publications"), since it simply asserts that the sources listed are mysticist, assumes they are correctly labeled as such. Also, it seems like publications "debunking" other works strongly implies they were wrong in the first place. Now, I hated "What the Bleep do We Know" or "The Secret" as much as the next reasonable person, but doesn't it seem like we shouldn't dismiss the intersection of quantum physics and philosophy a priori? Perhaps we could say "Publications accused of quantum mysticism/quackery" and "Publications challenging quantum metaphysics." --Ungood Crimethink 08:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your idea of separating the list of publications into two groups. I am afraid too that as you suggest the article itself 'dismisses the intersection of quantum physics and philosophy a priori' - perhaps we need to include just that phrase somewhere in the body of the article? Adambrowne666 00:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything Specific?

This article makes a lot of vague attacks on the "New Age" community of philosophies and any attempt, in general, to decompartmentalize concepts in theoretic physics by relating them directly to biology or psychology but I didn't see a single coherent argument put forth by the supposed Quantum Mystics and clearly debunked by the supposed Scientific Mainstream. The entire article seems like nothing more than a marginally coherent straw-man argument. Who are these Quantum Mystics? What are their beliefs? Why are their beliefs invalid? This article gives no detail but strongly discourages and inhibits multi-disciplinary thinking by creating a negative social stigma. The entire page should be junked if no one has anything precise and meaningful to say. -Anon. 12, October 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Go on then, make some additions. Say something precise and meaningful. Adambrowne666 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Philosophy?

sorry if this is redundant but quantum philosophy redirects here. I dont know if you plan to edit this page to be about the philosophical ramifications of quantum mechanics or to keep it as-is, which seems like a biased attack on mystical relations to quantum theory. But, if the latter is the case, I would like to aid in reconstructing a new quantum philosophy article so that links to quantum philosophy don't redirect to this article.—Lehel Kovach (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article is really about abuse and misunderstanding of the theory of quantum mechanics. If you think it violates WP:NPOV, please be bold and fix it. Perhaps Quantum philosophy should redirect to Interpretation of quantum mechanics instead? That page treats casewise the implications of the several interpretations, with links to each main article. On the other hand, Philosophy of quantum mechanics already redirects there - does anybody know if this is this an accident of the evolving encyclopedia or if the terms are used differently? Eldereft (talk) 23:39, 12 January 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^phi ☎ 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^phi ☎ 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 Wikipedia 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(^t/_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(^t/_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 Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Therefore, anything stated in the author's own voice in a Wikipedia 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(^t/_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^phi ☎ 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(^t/_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(^t/_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(^t/_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^phi ☎ 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)