# The dead contacting the living **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274 "2009-07-07T23:50:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/101 "2009-07-15T18:06:41Z")
You can make some fuzzy analogies about quantum mechanics using words, but all those do is provide intuitive support for what the math says. To actually use it to draw any conclusions whatsoever, you need the math. It’s not enough to just say “My ideas about spirituality are weird, and quantum mechanics is weird, therefore, quantum mechanics supports my ideas about spirituality”. ---
**Author:** ![Aelita\_Daystar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@Aelita\_Daystar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aelita_Daystar)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/102 "2009-07-15T19:00:34Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Nope - here “wave” refers to the “standing probability wave”, which is to say, the soul itself, not some communication system between souls. Telepathy would be when two of these SPWs, floating around in their eldrich aether, leaned over and had a chat irrespective of silence in the physical realm, and isn’t what I’m talking about. > > What I am referring to is, if SPWs are using the brains as radio broadcasters/receivers, and that these waves could be picked up by “any sufficiently complex system” such as perhaps computers or sufficiently complicated bowls of pasta, then what is preventing one SPW from hooking into two such systems, or two living brains, at the same time? Note that this would _not_ be perceived as a spirit talking to you; this would be percieved as having a complete second set of senses attached to a single mind, of equal reality as the first set simultaneously. You’d think that a person experiencing this would notice immediately - yet nobody seems to ever mention it happening. I’ve never heard of Telepathy as being limited to the sensation that “a spirit talking to you”. Am I using the wrong terminology? I was under the impression that the two people would be sharing assorted mental things, not having a conversation. And, why would it necessarily be a complete set of senses? If such a thing is possible, would the brain even be able to accommodate the entirety of two sets at once? Even if it can, it raises questions as to how the brain’s physical circuitry would process it. The brain is a bit of a tricky thing, just as it can trick itself into thinking it’s experiencing things like telepathy, it may also be able to trick itself into ignoring actual “telepathy” - assuming there is such a thing. I think you’re assuming an awful lot in that scenario. Disclaimer: I seriously doubt that telepathy is possible, but I really can’t declare that it’s not without being dishonest. I don’t believe in it though, just to be clear. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/103 "2009-07-15T19:06:43Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Um, no. This is completely and totally wrong. Right now, QM is almost nothing but math, trying to explain anything beyond the most basic concepts without math is guaranteed to get something wrong. QM shows us nothing about spirituality. All you’ve shown is that you most certainly do not understand QM. Math is a language, a more precise language than English, but, it can expressed in English, French, German, and other languages. When translating from one language to another there will always be some problems, that is a given. To tell people QM can not be understood in English is false. As I said before many authors have done a satisfactory job of it. Remember in order to learn math one must use another language to explain the concepts of math and how to use it. Math does not stand alone. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/104 "2009-07-15T19:12:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You can make some fuzzy analogies about quantum mechanics using words, but all those do is provide intuitive support for what the math says. To actually use it to draw any conclusions whatsoever, you need the math. It’s not enough to just say “My ideas about spirituality are weird, and quantum mechanics is weird, therefore, quantum mechanics supports my ideas about spirituality”. Intuitive is a spiritual trait. No one has said QM proves spirituality, but QM does show some concepts of spirituality. I find this very interesting, and worth learning about. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/105 "2009-07-15T19:16:06Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Math is a language, a more precise language than English, but, it can expressed in English, French, German, and other languages. When translating from one language to another there will always be some problems, that is a given. To tell people QM can not be understood in English is false. As I said before many authors have done a satisfactory job of it. > > Remember in order to learn math one must use another language to explain the concepts of math and how to use it. Math does not stand alone. Math, especially the math involved with QM, is extremely difficult to translate to English, so much so that there’s almost no reason. Beyond explaining a few very basic concepts, it’s much easier to just use the math. QM is an extremely difficult concept, and trying to pretend otherwise is pointless. You, by trying to cite obviously invalid examples like Dr. Quantum, have demonstrated that you know nothing of QM. > [@](#): > > Intuitive is a spiritual trait. No one has said QM proves spirituality, but QM does show some concepts of spirituality. I find this very interesting, and worth learning about. No it doesn’t. QM does not show anything about spirituality. Anything spiritual you ascribe to it comes only from ignorant misinterpretation. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/106 "2009-07-15T19:16:42Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > No, it doesn’t. > > People can use almost anything to “prove” spiritual concepts, which has led to numerology, crystal therapy, pyramid power, astrology, and many other scams that have no basis in reality whatsoever. If you try hard enough, you can make up spiritual influences in every rock, twig, and ripple in the water, but mathematics won’t demonstrate merit in any of it. I would expect that from a mainstream scientist. No one said anything about proof. The list you make has nothing to do with this discussion. But what you say cuts both ways, and ofter does. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/107 "2009-07-15T19:28:09Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Math, especially the math involved with QM, is extremely difficult to translate to English, so much so that there’s almost no reason. Beyond explaining a few very basic concepts, it’s much easier to just use the math. QM is an extremely difficult concept, and trying to pretend otherwise is pointless. You, by trying to cite obviously invalid examples like Dr. Quantum, have demonstrated that you know nothing of QM. The Dr. Quantum videos are not invalid. If any knowledge becomes so esoteric, abstruse, and cryptical that only a chosen few can really understand and administer this secret truth then it becomes a religion, and not worth knowing. QM has been written about for years. It is not some secret only a few can understand. Yes, QM does give merit to some spiritual concepts. Even Richard Dawkins was unsure about it when he met Deepak Chopra. There is a video on that also. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/108 "2009-07-15T19:48:58Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The Dr. Quantum videos are not invalid. If any knowledge becomes so esoteric, abstruse, and cryptical that only a chosen few can really understand and administer this secret truth then it becomes a religion, and not worth knowing. Dr. Quantum’s complete and utter lack of credibility on QM has nothing to do with QM being esoteric, abstruse, or cryptical. It has to do with the fact that most of what he talks about originates rectally. A simple look at your cite provides more than enough evidence of this: > [@](#): > > Everything is energy, E=mc2. All energy is sentient, conscious. All consciousness is sentient energy. Therefore the electrons are conscious, and when the observer is added, they conform to the expectations of the observer illustrating our ability to change our reality through our expectations. We create our own reality. Our thoughts and beliefs change our reality. If you don’t like your reality expect better. All energy is sentient? All energy is conscious? Electrons are conscious? Complete bullplop. He has no evidence of any of this, and is just adding QM to his own beliefs in an attempt to give them legitimacy. Hijacking QM is a recent new age tactic at trying to leech credibility off things that actually have it. > [@](#): > > Yes, QM does give merit to some spiritual concepts. Even Richard Dawkins was unsure about it when he met Deepak Chopra. There is a video on that also. Cite. I’ve seen the ‘interview’ between Dawkins and Chopra and didn’t see anything in it about Dawkins ‘being unsure’ about QM & spiritual concepts. The only uncertainty is Deepak Chopra’s ridiculous mangling of QM concepts. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/109 "2009-07-15T20:01:28Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Dr. Quantum’s complete and utter lack of credibility on QM has nothing to do with QM being esoteric, abstruse, or cryptical. It has to do with the fact that most of what he talks about originates rectally. A simple look at your cite provides more than enough evidence of this: > > All energy is sentient? All energy is conscious? Electrons are conscious? Complete bullplop. He has no evidence of any of this, and is just adding QM to his own beliefs in an attempt to give them legitimacy. Hijacking QM is a recent new age tactic at trying to leech credibility off things that actually have it. > Cite. I’ve seen the ‘interview’ between Dawkins and Chopra and didn’t see anything in it about Dawkins ‘being unsure’ about QM & spiritual concepts. The only uncertainty is Deepak Chopra’s ridiculous mangling of QM concepts. We see only what we want to see. “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” ``` Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Geometry and Experience", January 27, 1921 ``` Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. ``` Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), Mysticism and Logic (1917) ch. 4 ``` ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/110 "2009-07-15T20:33:37Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > We see only what we want to see. > > “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” > > ``` > Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Geometry and Experience", January 27, 1921 > > ``` That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that mathematics is a clear, abstract system, which is being applied to a reality that we don’t yet understand. It’s not that we only see what we want to, it’s that we still haven’t worked out the correlation in some cases between what we’re seeing and the math behind it. When I first learned that a rope hanging between two trees formed a parabola, I thought it was cool, but I didn’t understand why. Later on, I learned the physics and it made sense. What you’re doing is looking at the rope and assuming that spirits are pushing it into that shape. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/111 "2009-07-15T20:46:16Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that mathematics is a clear, abstract system, which is being applied to a reality that we don’t yet understand. It’s not that we only see what we want to, it’s that we still haven’t worked out the correlation in some cases between what we’re seeing and the math behind it. > > When I first learned that a rope hanging between two trees formed a parabola, I thought it was cool, but I didn’t understand why. Later on, I learned the physics and it made sense. What you’re doing is looking at the rope and assuming that spirits are pushing it into that shape. You have no idea what I am doing, or assuming or anything else. That is why conversation is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/112 "2009-07-15T20:54:40Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > We see only what we want to see. Apparently, you saw something completely differently from what I wrote, because your response has nothing whatsoever to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/113 "2009-07-15T21:00:59Z")
**Lekatt** I’d like to favor you with a quote. It’s something Krishna says in the Mahabharata. “All that you say, is false.” Note- I am not accusing **Lekatt** of lying. It’s just that everything he says is in error, or has been debunked. Side Note- My FireFox spell checker recognizes Krishna and Mahabharata. I’m surprised and a little bit scared. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/114 "2009-07-15T21:04:42Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > You have no idea what I am doing, or assuming or anything else. That is why conversation is impossible. Oh, but I do. You’re saying that spirits of dead people are pushing around the pointer on the Ouija board, and assuming that math you don’t understand somehow reinforces non-scientific spiritualism. I merely drew an analogy (and explained why your stated interpretation of Einstein’s quote wasn’t right). ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/115 "2009-07-15T21:31:20Z")
Um, nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/116 "2009-07-15T21:59:09Z")
> [@Aelita\_Daystar](#): > > I’ve never heard of Telepathy as being limited to the sensation that “a spirit talking to you”. Am I using the wrong terminology? I was under the impression that the two people would be sharing assorted mental things, not having a conversation. And, why would it necessarily be a complete set of senses? If such a thing is possible, would the brain even be able to accommodate the entirety of two sets at once? Even if it can, it raises questions as to how the brain’s physical circuitry would process it. The brain is a bit of a tricky thing, just as it can trick itself into thinking it’s experiencing things like telepathy, it may also be able to trick itself into ignoring actual “telepathy” - assuming there is such a thing. I think you’re assuming an awful lot in that scenario. > > Disclaimer: I seriously doubt that telepathy is possible, but I really can’t declare that it’s not without being dishonest. I don’t believe in it though, just to be clear. I should probably point out again that I have not read anything by Penrose, and thus may be totally mischaracterizing him. All I’m going is just commenting on my impression of the summary given. That said, as far as I can tell the theory being presented here is that no thinking _at all_ goes on in the brain - the brain is merely a ‘receiver’ of this thing that was referred to as a “standing probability wave” (which pretty clearly is supposed to be a soul, renamed to better fit into a semi-scientific theory). It was further posited that a dead person could be theoretically talked to by _any_ “sufficiently complex, pseudo-random medium” - the theory apparently being that the brain is able to maintain contact with a soul based on its declared status as such a medium. So what is being talked about is nothing less then the _entire_ connection between a human’s mind, and a human’s body - with the human mind (presumably including at least some memories) being encapsulated off in some “standing probability wave”, safe from the ravages of time and crowbars to the skull and thus able to strike up conversations with people who set up contact with it by giving it a new ‘body’ in the form of, apparently “Tarot cards, Ouija boards, or a medium’s own brain”. (Don’t ask me how a ouija board is supposed to be a “sufficiently complex, pseudo-random medium” with only two moving parts. It’s not my idea.) My critique of this is, if the human soul exists externally, and connects to brains or ouija boards via supernatural radio waves, what’s stopping a ouija board from tapping into a _living_ person’s soul, perhaps from across the room, and receiving dictated messages from him? And what’s stopping one soul from accidentally being ‘received’ by more than one body at the same time? In the latter case, it’s worth noting that this wouldn’t be communication with another mind (which is what I consider “telepathy”) - it would be communication with another _body_. Presumably the bodies wouldn’t know the difference and would send the full compliment of sensory information over, just like they dowhen they’re the only puppet the soul is controlling, with neither body’s signal being more significant or important than the other. So why don’t we see this happening more often? (Like, ever?) Heck, why wouldn’t it be _common_? If brain receiving frequencies are randomized and randomly connect to existing souls, you’d think they’d hit the same frequencies as each other all the time. (I suppose the ones who hit _no_ soul frequencies at all could be written off as stillbirths, or perhaps democrats or republicans or whichever you prefer.) Of course, once religion sheds the trappings of pseudoscience, it may admit that it supposes that there’s a God managing and regulating the souls so that only one body is tuned into a brain at a time, and so that all the leftover souls remember to act all cryptic and mysterious when possessing decks of tarot cards. But it’s fair to ask what would happen under a supposedly scientific model where no no God is present. (Though admittedly maybe there’s one in the book, that just didn’t get mentioned in the summary.) ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/117 "2009-07-15T22:11:20Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > We see only what we want to see. Bullshit. I saw “Two girls, one cup”. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/118 "2009-07-15T23:49:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You can make some fuzzy analogies about quantum mechanics using words, but all those do is provide intuitive support for what the math says. To actually use it to draw any conclusions whatsoever, you need the math. It’s not enough to just say “My ideas about spirituality are weird, and quantum mechanics is weird, therefore, quantum mechanics supports my ideas about spirituality”. Every new area of science is used as a trope by hangers on who know that the new area sounds mysterious and powerful and is not widely understood. It can therefore be referred to enigmatically as supposed support for some form of total nonsense without the average guy being able to contradict. Marketers, woo woos, hack science fiction writers and others all use this trick. In the fifties, everything was “atomic”. In the eighties, everything powerful was “turbo”. Now its QM. Yawn. ---
**Author:** ![Anise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/anise/32/21721_2.png) [@Anise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anise)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/119 "2009-07-16T00:53:46Z")
Well, Lekatt, I appreciate the encouragement, but something tells me that Einstein really _wanted_ to learn math. That would not be a good description of my level of desire in that direction. 😉 More like a desire to run far, far away… although I really should take a stats class at some point. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274/120 "2009-07-16T01:01:58Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Oh, but I do. You’re saying that spirits of dead people are pushing around the pointer on the Ouija board, and assuming that math you don’t understand somehow reinforces non-scientific spiritualism. I merely drew an analogy (and explained why your stated interpretation of Einstein’s quote wasn’t right). You couldn’t be more wrong. I never said any of that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dead-contacting-the-living/502274.md?page=7)