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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No it doesn’t. QM does not show anything about spirituality. Anything spiritual you ascribe to it comes only from ignorant misinterpretation.
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.
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.
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. 4That’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.
Apparently, you saw something completely differently from what I wrote, because your response has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
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.
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).
Um, nevermind.
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.)
Bullshit. I saw “Two girls, one cup”.
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.
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.
You couldn’t be more wrong. I never said any of that.