One Mind According to Quantum Field Theory

I read that our minds are projections from one single Mind according to quantum field theory. What do u think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Total crap. This is just more quantum woo. Where do you get this nonsense from? It's not that Indian charlatan, is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does this claim have a scientific background? What do u think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Total crap.

 

Donald Trump could be photographed in front of the Large Hadron Collider and he would then have a scientific background! I think this is about the same.

My question to you: where did you read this?

 

Christopher Langan. I suspect that you are talking to Spellbound.

 

I do find that hypothesis is more likely on the basis of these 12 posts than for some random new poster. But it largely doesn't matter to me since this poster is too old (based on his choice to advertise his birthday) to post this nonsense without having reason stripped from him by some powerful anti-science indoctrination. He can't defend the ideas behind introducing such questions by posting even flawed definitions of the key terms he uses, so by all appearances his sources are bad teachers. He responds poorly or not at all to requests for the sources of his ideas, which again goes to miseducation and perhaps a pattern of evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. If he won't make a good choice of teachers, the best we can do as moderators would be good janitors and toss the refuse of these posts in the proper bin.

And true to form for someone with an ulterior motive, he habitually posts the same nonsense in multiple forums at once:
cf. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96101-one-mind-according-to-quantum-field-theory/

 

This is a claim of the physicist Fred Alan Wolf and Ludvic Bass. I don't know if he is a good scientist. I am just asking a question. No need to get so angry about it

 

Precise citation required.
They may have speculated about such things, but not on the basis of evidence.

Neither one is. A scientist is someone who does science.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/Bass_1.pdf is bafflegab assuming that consciousness is a thing in physics and reasoning in a vacuum to reach preconceived notions about mind and consciousness derived from Vedic texts. It's not science, but doublespeak.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/Quantum Field Theory.pdf is similar but with more baseless math-based bafflegab.

Multiple related questions predicated on the specific miseducation of quantum woo, with no engagement in discussion as part of some multi-site campaign trolling for someone to flesh out your ideas and completely ignoring those voices that explain why your teachers are bad and your ideas aren't grounded in science.

I don't have to be angry at you for dropping your trash into the hallway to point out that it's improper behavior and to clean it up.

 

I only asked for your help since this claim confuses and discomforts me.

 

Reported thusly:
I have argued often that this forum tolerates far too much pseudoscience and other forms of crap. However, this attack on a new member who asked a simple question is frankly beyond the pale. I have, until now, had nothing but huge respect and appreciation for the contribution that rpenner makes as a member and as a moderator. However, this nasty, vindictive outburst is despicable, unwarranted and a disgrace. I trust an appropriate apology will be forthcoming.

 

"Anti-science indoctrination"?

Most laypeople haven't had any formal training at all in quantum mechanics or in its philosophical interpretation. All they know is that QM is supposed to very important, that it's supposed to reveal fundamental truths about reality, and that it's revolutionary, absolutely counter-intuitive and proves that everyone else's concepts of reality are totally wrong. As for what quantum physics really says, most people's exposure has been limited to watching sensationalist TV shows ( slipped in between the programming about ancient ufos) or reading crankish pop-science authors like Fred Alan Wolf. (In popular everyday usage, the word 'quantum' in a sentence basically means 'anything is possible' or 'nothing is too outlandish to be true'.)

Assuming that anyone who posts on Sciforums understands quantum mechanics and its interpretations, then why don't they try to teach people like Buket? That would certainly be helpful to me, a guy whose exposure to physics was merely the introductory sequence and whose exposure to mathematics went no further than introductory calculus. (Both completed decades ago as part of an undergraduate biology degree program.) I can certainly use some teaching.

One of the things that annoys me about Sciforums is how scientific ideas are treated as doctrines of faith, to simply be accepted on authority as revelations of the true nature of reality. "Scientists say..." If a person doesn't display the requisite faith, then he or she is "anti-science" and a "denier". It reminds me of religious fundamentalism. But what other option do laypeople have (short of returning to a university and majoring in a science)?

When it comes to understanding quantum physics to the extent that anyone does, it seems to me that one must know something about classical physics first. And both of those presuppose some knowledge of fairly advanced mathematics. So it's difficult to even understand what contemporary physical problems are about without having the necessary background. There's a lot of room here on Sciforums for some threads laying out some of the motivation and conceptual basis (not necessarily the ability to do calculations) of this material. Sciforums could dramatically raise its game and really shine.

 

It is not a simple question -- it is predicated on ideas of "mind" and "Mind" and "quantum theory" that spring from the same cesspool of quantum woo as the other two posts (as well as 5 similar posts on other forums); posts where the author made zero effort to explain the definitions or assumptions or sources of his/her position or engage with answers to the questions.

It is not proven that this is a new member. This user behind the account seems to have no difficulty in signing up for multiple accounts on multiple systems and employs a service which routes packets via at least Turkey, Qatar and the Netherlands which make the issue of identity one where I have little verifiable information. It is not proven that this user is not Spellbound or an associate.

The intersection of the weakness of engagement and shotgunning questions across multiple sites makes me lack faith in this user's good intentions. But I save my abuse for his/her teachers.

Because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. People believe what they want to believe. Science is something you do – the authority comes not from people but from confrontation between concrete ideas and concrete reality – that's why classrooms have demonstrations. "People like Buket" need to be more transparent what their sources and motivations are before any sort of tutorial on physical theory is warranted. For example, quantum theory requires knowledge of complex numbers and probability theory (and more) if one is argue from its principles. If we strip that out, we wind up with the type of pop-science paraphrases and analogies that ultimately are unreliable, because while quantum theory explains everyday phenomena like colors of artist pigments and why certain photographs look grainy and why a hot electric stovetop element glows red, they are based on fundamental experiments and math far outside the experience of the average reader.

 

Well I am a regular girl asking a question. No bad intentions. English is not my first language.

 

I am afraid I am not disposed to believe you.

 

That was my fear.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry ! But who is that Indian charlatan ?

 

I guessed Deepak Chopra but only because he is often brought up to be dismissed . I am not very familiar with him except that I think he was close to Maharishi M Yogi and was thought to be his possible successor before he split from the TM movement.