Talk:Quantum mysticism

Philosophy Sidebar

Do not just arbitrarily remove the philosophy sidebar. This page was heavily debated and that was a consensus move to leave it there. The sidebar clearly sets a line of demarcation that this is a philosophical, metaphysical article. If you are going to remove it, then put something in its place. It doesn't add anything to remove it and leave it blank, it does, however, take something away from the article, and that is not doing it justice. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

strange

I'm not real clear on what this article is about, and I'm wondering if maybe practitioners of quantum mysticism aren't clear on what quantum mysticism is about, and so there's really nothing around to explain it clearly which makes an article like this one difficult.--Neptunerover (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because this a synthesis of many different ideas from authors noted for using intuitive, nonrational methods for expressing their ideas. it may be inspirational, but its not scientific, and there is no consensus about what Quantum means outside of hard physics. at least, thats my opinion. (and im not a rationalist)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New-age writers feel entitled to sick the word "quantum" in front of just about anything.1Z (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Many Worlds

There are some mentions of the Many worlds interpretation that do not, I think, belong here. Proponents of this interpretation do not regard it a mystical. If it is to be included, very good support is needed. 1Z (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Mysticism and the physicists

There MUST be some very solid citation given before any individual physicist is listed as a quantum mystic. Simply being aluded to in a book by a New Age writer is not enough. 1Z (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't fully agree. We should note that a physicist's theories are used by New Age (quantum mysticism), even if he/she doesn't support it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Eugene Wigner’s 1961 paper": is not specific-enough what paper is meant! "The Unreasonable Effectiveness..." appeared in February 1960, according to Wigner's linked-to Wikipedia page; nothing in 1961 is noted there. 173.206.238.50 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This article Quantum Mysticism

This is a Religion without a church with out a founder. It has been conceived in the back of the minds of those who would like a universe with a plan; a steering wheel.

It's methodism, catholocism, judaism, islamism, budism, hinduism.

It simply has not been formalized, therefore not cite able; arguably not a category for wikipedia. This is a crutch created by the above associated religious persons to manipulate the minds of those rational to enable a possible explanation of "miracle".

It is not a science and links to physics should be grouped as derived from the concepts of physics.

It's the mis-guided attempt to use the in-explicable paradox's from quantum concepts applied to a religious view point to a "super being" or in buddism to the "God with in".

-- simplisticly -- The quantum events/states of matter can be/are manipulated by the human conscious and therefore larger events can be manipulate visa-vi miracles. Prayer esp group prayer is not in vain. The concept quantum (spin,location) in nature are not knowable by measurment, and therefore the outcome of events are influence-able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.189.246 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what suggestions do you make for the article. The concept does exist, and has been used by otherwise credible physicists for various purposes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Every concept has been conceived in the back of the minds of those who would like a steering wheel. People forget that all science is an approximate model of a reality not entirely perceived or understood. That model improves with time. That mystics would borrow from scientific models to conceptualize their experience does not imply that they are grasping for justification. It is simply that science has built excellent conceptual models which are applicable in other domains. The applicability of the quantum model to mystical experience runs far deeper than a simplistic analog to quantum paradox. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That mystics would borrow from scientific models to conceptualize their experience does not imply that they are grasping for justification. That's a nice point, and might well be true in some cases, Mbilitatu, but I suspect that in many cases it is in fact a grasping for justification, as is suggested by those who like to give themselves unwarranted academic titles etc. I wonder, too, if it's permissible to borrow terms from a discipline that these people otherwise reject when it suits them. I'm not necessarily denying the mystical experience, or the spiritual, nor that science is an approximation -- I suppose I'm just addressing your thought about the use of scientific terms, and what the practice implies for the credibility of such people. Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt. As far as I can tell, the majority of cases in which individuals borrow scientific language to explain mystical what-not do so with a poor understanding of the science they cite. I've read whole books by well known authors devoted entirely to how scientific concept X explains mystical experience Y, where the author only deals with the most superficial aspects of X. Thus, I choose to suspect that the author swims in equivalently superficial rivers of Y. And, yes, I agree many people try to play both sides, decrying science as missing the point and borrowing from science to lend credibility. It's bad science. It's deluded awakening. It's pervasive. My initial comment addressed the vary narrow point that the model of quantum mechanics does square well on multiple levels with mystical experience, and in wiki that bridge has been labeled Quantum Mysticism ... whatever that is. --Mbilitatu (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now; and I like your point that science has coined a language that is useful when dealing with ideas, and that this might be useful in other contexts. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant quotes

Pardon the removal, [1], did you check the source, before "spurious" removal? These are relevant quotes from a highly relevant source. Thank you. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a section of quotes from Ken Wilber, this isn't wikiquotes. If the various scientists' statements are relevant to some section of the article, then state their positions in that relevant section with a valid reference. Vsmith (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Wilber was the authority who put them together in reference to quantum mysticism ... they are the scientists' quotes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Explaining why I am removing some material added in most recent edit

I am removing a few lines of material added in the most recent edit (which also improved the wording in a number of places, so I don't want to simply undo it). I am removing this because it too strongly expresses a personal point of view. If this can be reworded in a more neutral way, I don't necessarily object to something similar going into the article. Here is the material:

...who lack the capability to understand the profound implications of the above statements. All science at the quantum level is still being explored at a number of stages, with the minority view taking the above interpretation, and the mainstream view being less profound. One can't be too sure about where scientists actually stand because there are a number of academic pressures that could result if they deviated from the mainstream in their research or opinion. Regardless there are a number of institutions that are taking research into the above area, though once again, they are a minority.

It would definitely help if this material could be attributed to a specific source. (I did a bit of copy-editing as well.) Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to What The Bleep Do We Know

It says, in the article, that there were a "number of respected professionals in the scientific field, but also had a couple of controversial ones" in the movie. This is highly debatable. Most of the people in the movie hold non-mainstream views on quantum mechanics and other fields of study and some are outright crackpots. Two, maybe three, can be considered "respected". By the way, what "scientific field" are they talking about? Quantum mysticism or quantum mechanics? If the reference is to quantum mysticism since when is it a scientific field? Most of the people in this movie are controversial and only a few are truly respected or have any sort of respectability. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you say what edit you want to make, I'll probably go along with it. I only reverted because the combined edits by you and the other editor had a net effect of leaving the text in an incoherent state -- and I couldn't just fix it because I have never myself seen the film. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The text was in a perfectly coherent state. The other editor had added "(who?)" because he didn't know how to do it any other way. I'm going to edit it to say "The film had a few respected scientific professionals, but also had a number of proponents of controversial ideas." Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to mention, too, that the film is the product of a movement that follows the teachings of Ramtha, a 35,000-year old disembodied entity from an ancient civilization. Might help put the whole thing in context, if you know what I mean.Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Time inclusion

This removes a significant statement [2]. The source appears to indicate time is a statistical concept in quantum mechanics, since it's largely based on statistical mechanics. This other source addresses the time issue further [3] and present that quantum mechanics merely treats time as an ordering concept. It says "Time has always struck people as mysterious ... One thing that is mysterious about time is it's directionality." This article could benefit on how time relates to Quantum mysticism. Best I can tell, folks have not been able to unify statistically frequency based time (closed domain) with continuous linear time. There is an interesting discussion for inclusion in this source here [4], which can be added to this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

quantum mechanics merely treats time as an ordering concept is nonsense, and should not have been presented as a std part of QM. QM has differential equations, need I say more? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe ... yet another good source on time in quantum mysticism [5], where the quantum approach seems to neglect classical cause and effect causality and in favor of spontaneous probabilistic event occurrences by association. Oh what an illusion modeled probabilities can be. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Great article

I happened across this article recently, and was impressed with (what at first glance appears to be its) good sourcing and neutral tone. The skeptical/critical point-of-view is prominent; but this is justified as the authorities in quantum physics are generally skeptical of "quantum mysticism". I plan to write a university essay on the topic, so thanks for pointing me to some good sources. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with NPOV. It can present complete nonsense as if it has some credibility. Your comment, "authorities in quantum physics are generally skeptical", is an understatement. There are no legitimate scientists who give any credibility to what is represented in this article. The well known scientists mentioned in this article had credibility in the past but have now, essentially, become crackpots. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr Morbius, your argument is circular, or rather a statement of personal belief. "These are not legitimate scientists because they have lost credibility because they are crackpots because other scientists disagree and so do I." In short "they are wrong because I say so". Hence, perhaps, you find NPOV a "problem" .

NOW - here's what I am looking for - please;

An authoritative statement that Capra's and Bohm's ideas are generally regarded as "pseudoscience". A big claim that requires big cites.

A reference for the claim that Capra has claimed that quantum mechanics "can explain any number of paranormal and mystical claims, especially psi".

A demonstration that the very term "quantum mysticism" is current and notably and authoritatively applied to the mentioned physicists (whose ideas seem to me to be no more far-fetched, no less supported by actual evidence, than, say, the many-worlds hypothesis or various other paradigmatic views of the subject) and that these terms are used in the 6 refs to the 1st sentence (all of which lack verbatim cites and page numbers). I am particularly surprised that so many agree that it is possible to "experience reality at quantum scale" - quite a claim. Mystical even!

This will do for a start, thanks. But please note that, should these be forthcoming, neutrality may require the introduction of contrary views by other equally-eminent physicists and reviewers. On the other hand, without such cites, the present infobox (if not the entire page) must be removed, as it is apparently at present NNPOV/OR. Please note that it is the job of theoretical scientists to provide possible explicatory paradigms for observed or deduced phenomena and that NO accepted paradigm, however well-accepted, is "proven" in itself - because it is an interpretation, not an empirical phenomenon. There is no "periodic table", no "evolution" in reality - these are just interpretations that work on a mental level - the concepts that best explain the observations. Though there is no evidence for the substantiality of consciousness in physics (and cannot be) there is nothing intrinsically absurd in proposing paradigms that would support such a substantiality. Hope this is quite clear.Redheylin (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a difficult matter when there are a number of "practitioners" of a WP:FRINGE theory. I hope you realize that, if the theory is considered "fringe", then believers are automatically considered "fringe", regardless of their credentials in other fields. Hence, all we really need for "pseudo-scientific" is a firm statement by a recognized expert or journal that it is not scientific, if the believers are not recognized experts in the field. How "recognized" is determined is left up to the experts in the field. Hence your requests are both unnecessary and insufficient to support the present content.

As for "pseudoscience", if a statement is considered "not even wrong", even a statement by a recognized expert, it will not be called "pseudoscience", as the consensus of experts in the field would be that it is not science nor does it resemble science. If, however, it "claims" to be science, it meets the definition of "pseudoscience", in the view of those experts. WP:NPOV and WP:SYN make it difficult for us to say that it is pseudoscience, but we should not imply otherwise.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your answer. I most certainly agree that we are dealing with highly-speculative fringe science theory: moreover physics that seeks to include controversial extra-physical ideas. This is not science-fact and, having read both Capra and Bohm, I do not believe they claimed otherwise - hence a statement that it is not science by another expert does not make is "pseudo-science". Furthermore, a statement that, say, one expert does not agree with the "many worlds" interpretation (also a speculative interpretation of observations) does not invalidate that interpretation, and most certainly does not allow unreferenced editorial statements of scientific incompetence, nor does it support your statements regarding these scientists, or non-scientists that discuss them, being termed "believers". The present article is absolutely clear in calling eminent quantum physicists by name "incompetent pseudo-scientists" and this is unacceptable. The present state of the references is unacceptable. The claims regarding psi, the paranormal and mysticism are unsupported. The presentation of these ideas as "quantum mysticism" is unsupported. Poor referencing, OR and NNPOV are NEVER acceptable. My request for improved referencing and balancing, and my assertion that the article is absolutely unacceptable in its present state, therefore both stand. Redheylin (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Sorry. iPad isn't an ideal Wikipedia tool. Redheylins edit was not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 11:10, March 20, 2011

I have requested on user's talk-page that a vandalism report be made. If the reverting ed has changed his mind, I request he revert himself, apologise and present proper reasons for reversion. Redheylin (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Guyonthesubway acknowledged that the edit was made in error, I have undone it. In any case it is clear that Redheylin's edit was an improvement. Let's move on, shall we? Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and thanks Redheylin (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy said that the edit he reverted was not vandalism; he didn't say it was good. I don't think it was good, either. Please discuss the edit, per WP:BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, a statement that a book contains "many erroneous claims" needs to cite at least one source. Otherwise the proper response is simply to remove it. Strongly critical statements ought not to be made without verifiable sources. Looie496 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Normally, UserAR, such a discussion begins with an edit comment. The two reverting editors have given no such comment beyond your own "it is wrong", and you have taken it upon yourself to interpret another editor's action, otherwise consensus is against you at the moment. Never mind. Here's the trouble. Weinberg is (see his page) a militant atheist and cannot be taken as a representative of the views of "the physics community" as a whole, so the generalisation would be inadequate even were it referenced, which it is not. You have since added that "we know" that Weinberg called Bohm's (and Bohm is an equally distinguished physicist) physics "erroneous" - we do NOT know that, the statement, once again, has no refs. Finally, given Weinberg's known POV (which is no more physics based than Bohm's: remember Hawking's recent closing statement to his last book about current cosmology "leaving room for God") requires a balancing statement from one of the many deist physicists (Einstein, Paul Davies) EVEN WHEN it is properly referenced and attributed solely to Weinberg. My edit corrected these shortcomings to some extent. Your own opinion that "this is wrong" is no more than - your own opinion. This article appears to consist of little more than such editorial opinion. Please give clear citation support for this "opposition of the physics community" and for the accusations attributed to Weinberg or else allow the modification to stand. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NB It's worth remembering that Capra is a living person and that unsupported allegations that he is an incompetetent pseudo-scientist may be adjudged libellous, as may be unsupported (and in my view completely erroneous) claims that he sought to explain psi and the paranormal. As far as I know, his book discussed parallels between 20thC physics and ancient/oriental metaphysics. This and this only. Redheylin (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Capra extends physics in a non-rigorous manner that enjoys poor support from the scientific community to lend support for ideas/beliefs that aren't conventionally held to be supported by science. This is wikipedia's definition for paranormal.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove 'Pseudoscientific' Classification.

As all who are scientists here know, the term 'pseudoscience' is one of great denigration, and is a potentially career-destroying insult when leverage against one's work. These theories have a strongly scientific basis, and as the proponents list describes, have been actively promulgated by some of the greatest scientific minds human history has ever seen. It is clear, then, that on this basis the label of pseudoscience should be more selectively applied - rather than labelling the entire topic pseudoscience, it would be better to present criticisms of specific aspects of quantum mechanics that have been found to be pseudoscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about quantum mechanics. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Einstein & Spinoza

Here's a quote:

Albert Einstein, though he believed in Spinoza's God[13], remained opposed to some of the novel "mystical" formulations of other physicists.

The "though" implies that there's a contrast between believing in Spinoza's God and being opposed to a mystical formulation of quantum physics. But, if Einstein's appreciation for the "Ethics" has any role to play in his view on quantum physics, it would compound the view, rather than contrast with the view, that the universe is essentially deterministic -- that God does not play with dice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.2.85 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)