Jump to content

Talk:Quantum mysticism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Present Issues

Lets create a list of issues. Lets set some rules, so that we (and I am guilty of it too) are not knocking back walls of text between each other. Here are the suggested rules for this list of issues:

  1. No jargon; use the most simple noun that will suffice.
  2. One, two sentences at most.
  3. We add issues to the bottom of the list.
  4. When addressed/completed, strike style them and move to the completed section.
  5. We discuss the issue in a separate talk section.
  6. When discussing the issue, keep to that one issue in that section. If another issue is raised, add it to the list, but not there.

These are the suggested issues guidelines. This talk page is beyond overwhelming to new editors trying to come into the topic. Lets focus on the issues as abridged as possible. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Issues/Questions

Addressed Issues

What quantum mysticism is

What quantum mysticism is, is notsomething for the editors of the page to decide, it must be based on WP:RS like everything else. In particular it should not be assumed that it must be principally viewed as Mysticism not as Quantum, ie it should not be assumed that other forms of mysticism are X, therefore quantum mysticism is X. It should not be assumed that Quantum mysticism is a single well-defined entity: if the sources diverge, that must be reflected. 1Z (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Quantum Mysticism in physics

I have trawled up some sources here for the History of Quantum Mysticism in physics. I find that on these contentious subjects it is often best to structure the page according to so-and-so said...so-and-so said..e.g here. 1Z (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on...

Ladies and gentlemen, hold up. One issue at a time please. Posting new sections constantly on the talk page, we are ever going to come to a resolution on this. Can we please address one issue at a time, mark it off the list, and move forward? If not, we will be here forever, and that is something I do not want. Before we begin discussing, does anyone have any more issues to add to that list? We will move through all of them and discuss them each, have a consensus and move forward. I am trying to keep this sane. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page does not need a referee, and you are not qualified anyway, since you are actively involved in pushing one version. The debates on the talk page can take forever, and that's just fine, because it lets everybody say everything there is to say.Likebox (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
We can say everything we want in serial, rather than in parrallel, so that we can actually get somthing done. Its not an attempt to stop people from discussing, its an attempt to end the sixteen car pile-up that is this talk page. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is very easy to follow. Everyone is indenting properly, and most of the comments are brief. It is also making progress, although at the usual Wikipedia pace of 1 issue per month.Likebox (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Raised Issue: The claims for the definition of quantum mysticism are enslaved to one source

Lets begin here, why? Because it affects the whole article, not just one section, but its entire contents. If we can not have a consesnsus that the article is on-topic everything else is irrelevant!

Now, this issue claims that it relies on one source fo the definition of quantum mysticism. I wrote an essay above that explains this already. But here are the main points.

  • There is more than one source.
    • mysticism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved October 01, 2009
    • mysticism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 01, 2009
    • mysticism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved October 01, 2009
    • mysticism. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved October 1, 2009
  • The qualifying noun, "quantum," specifies what type of mysticism it is.

--☯Lightbound☯ talk 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. I support that this issue is resolved. The article is named quantum mysticism. There are multiple books on the subject of mysticism that is based on quantum concepts. According to WP:POV this article is on topic to the WP:NAME of the article. The metaphysics behind it is not the same as the mysticism that precedes it. I can not repeat this enough. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop holding votes It's counterproductive. You aren't going to persuade people to go away, and you aren't going to persuade me that your version of the article, which is myopic in its focus and excludes all criticism, is appropriate.Likebox (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. This is an attempt to condense the spam of this talk page into fine pointed issues that can be resolved through consensus. Its not a vote because I explained the rationality behind it in a way that can be argued. A vote can not be picked apart, it is a will without a declared reasoning. We can not come to a consensus if you are not willing to discuss specific issues and reach resolution. Your actions are becoming disruptive, Likebox. I am making every attempt to mediate this debate and you continue to thwart those efforts with comments like this one. I do not have to pursade you, only a consensus. And I will bring other editors in to interpret the subject of the article, if necessary. Which will slow all our efforts to a crawl while we put everything on hold to decide this one issue. And thank goodness the world's source of knowledge doesn't require one person's persuasion to be included. So what is your view on this particular issue, Likebox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbound (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't be a mediator, because you are not neutral. Stop trying to decide who is disruptive, it won't get anyone anywhere. Since myself,1Z, Count Iblis, and others who disagree with you are part of the consensus, you won't get consensus on your version.
The argument that you give is ridiculous: just as 1Z said, you obviously think of "quantum mysticism" as a modifier "quantum" applied to a broad term "mysticism". Then you look up "mysticism" and use this definition. That's like saying that "Higgs mechanism" is a modifier "Higgs" applied to "mechanism", and putting the dictionary definition of mechanism up on that page.
That argument is specious. "Quantum mysticism" is one concept, and sources that discuss mysticism in general are worthless in defining it. Only quantum specific sources are relevant.Likebox (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And Christian mysticism is specious because it uses the modifier, "Christian?" The practice is, indeed, mystical, by the dictionary. The books on it are, indeed, written about that subject and are based, and explicitly state, that they are about quantum principles or dealing with the quantum of the known universe. That is also another important distinction, that they can be about the quantum of the known world, as in, the smallest indivisible units of the known universe, and not just about quantum mechanics. The implications that quantum mechanics explains mysticism is a totally separate topic, which should be make into its own article with a disambiguation page that links to it from here. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As for your claim of multiple sources: none of them are discussing quantum mysticism per se, and therefore all of them are totally worthless. The one source that is sort of OK is "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters" which you use to give an outline, but that's just one source.Likebox (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Then the fundamental issue of this page is that we disagree on the meaning of the name of the article. I tried to address this issue before, by suggesting it be renamed. I tried to say we split the page into two versions. The mystical practice that is based on quantum theory is a well documented practice. Therefor, it merits its own article. The objective criticism of the phenomenon of psudoscience and metaphysics, may warrant its own article. That is why I suggested you go to Quantum metaphysics and fill it out to your hearts content. Why? Because you can theorize, parraellize, sillogize, and deduce scientific basis into metaphysical concepts which are not related to the philosophical practice of quantum mysticism. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am formally raising this to dispute resolution. Third option has already been tried. You are clearly not going to shift on your stance, the arguments on this page have let to people being blocked, and a lot of chaos. Lets end this now by seeking dispute resolution. I will begin the procedure and link it to this section. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a split is possible, and that is one option. I think that "quantum mind/body problem" might be a good home for both CCC and the science stuff that used to be here.
But even in a split, the criticism of quantum mysticism belongs on this page, not on the CCC page. That means that your version, which excludes notable critics of Chopra, is not appropriate, and excessively biased by a POV supportive of new-age quantum mystical practices. It all comes down to WP:RS. Likebox (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, dispute resolution is not yet necessary, since we might agree on the split. I am pretty happy with the idea of the split now. But we disagree on the home for the criticism. There are many sources that dismiss Chopra and other new-agers as pseudoscience pushing hokum.Likebox (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

disagree -- if we are voting. Trying to determine the correct meaning of "quantum mysticism" by researching the word "mysticism "is WP:SYN. Fool's gold isn't gold, public schools aren't public, pencil lead isn't lead, koala bears aren't bears, ...need I continue? You need to find references to "quantum mysticism" and see what they say. The current lead is completley unsourced. Since there are sources who criticise "quantum mysticism" in those very words -- they should not be hived off onto another page. 1Z (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Before we can decide what to critize, we need to decide what the article is about. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Which needs to be based on RS not SYN. 1Z (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

There are many issues, even after this one, given the long history of the page, the blocks, the protections, the administrators involved, and the constant disputes on the content and subject, I have requested arbitration. All parties have been notified by those procedures. I hope that some outside help can come in and end the long standing problems of this page. The arbitration has been filed here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. WP:RS eveything. 1Z (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. And how we go about that is the debate. If it was as simple as "WP:RS everything" it would be resolved by now. No one can agree on anything here. It doesn't take a statistian to see that these concerns will never be resolved without outside force. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
People can come to agreement after a very long discussion. It happens all the time. You can probably get everyone to agree on the split if you are just patient enough. Then you can discuss the issue of criticisms, which you are wrong to exclude.Likebox (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms section was not left out. It was moved into the background and history section and renamed to controversy. The article is unfinished. The old information was cut because it was unsalvagable. It had so many problems, which are all documented on this talk page before and during my removal of them, that they could not be saved. You need to read those comments and see why that information was blanked. Each section had a comment and associated explanation as to why it had to be reduced. A lot of the prior article was preserved. That which went totally off-topic, even for an article about the debate of mysticism, was exluded. Please see above. There is no attempt to censor any viewpoint here. The attempt is to define what quantum mysticism is, and then document that clearly.

You have been hostile the entire time, including telling administrators to "fuck off,"[1] when you were blocked. You have made rude remarks to me throughout the discourse of this page's editing and I have had to warn you several times on WP:CIVIL. If you want to talk about patience, I know that I have it, having patiently dealt with the issues of this page. You keep going in circles about the debate. You keep trying to attack changes intended to make the article more readable and informative.

  • You ignored that I had sandboxed the article on my page, which was subsequently hijacked and I had to request to delete it.
  • You ignore that we have been trying to agree on fundamental issues related to the topic, before decending into debates about what needs to be criticized.
  • You keep putting the "cart before the horse," making more problems before we have already finished a discussion on another.
  • While you were blocked, I made bold changes to the article to attempt to get changes done. All changes were commented over the three day period.

That is why arbitration has been brought in. No one is exluding any viewpoint here. Before I came to this page, it was filled passages of quotes, seemingly unrelated technical diatribes on physics, and various, poorly written composition on those particular views. When I actually looked into what quantum mysticism means, I found a wealth of information that describes the topic, as expressed in an uncountable number of books on the subject, spanning decades of publishing. Clearly, the article was not on topic from that basis. In an attempt to preserve your historical debate on the "mysticism" the founders thought they saw, a history section was crafted. It can be expanded and expounded upon. Yet your attacks remain on me about changes to the article that are made in an attempt to clarify, contrast, and stay on topic, and mediate this thing so that we can go one issue at a time. You refuse to even discuss one issue at a time, instead attacking my efforts to mediate. I am not sure how to deal with someone so unreasonable on Wikipedia. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Arbitration will make things worse. Editor conduct will be discussed and that will amplify the tensions that exist by a factor of 100 or more. Usually arbitration is done to get editors banned or impose some sort of editing restriction. It is also simply a waste of time. Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Count iblis, you should be listed as an involved party.Likebox (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have found a wealth of information and it doesn't support your lead, LikeboxLightbound. if you don't amend the lead I will. Like I say, RS everything. 1Z (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not my lead, it's lightbound's.Likebox (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Whatever needs to be done to get this page stable. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, your idea of a split has been accepted. Act accordingly! That means, acknowledge that we have moved on, and discuss the inclusion of critics in this article. There is plenty of sourced material which has been accumulated by 1Z.Likebox (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And when other editors reject the split he has made, which is already happening? This is not going to solve the issue. See my comment below. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 20:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
WHo has rejected the split? 1Z (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum Mind/Body Problem

I created Quantum mind/body problem for the scientific material, in line with lightbound's suggestion. I am OK with the split, but the article includes the old CCC material (which was merged here, and is now gone), and this makes it a candidate for deletion. If you would like to see a successful split, I would encourage people to not delete the new article.Likebox (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any further debate is pointless until the arbitration is decided. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You called the arbitration within a week of editing, after rewriting the whole article deleting almost everything, and without responding to criticism. Your request for a split were met, there is now a free standing article called quantum mind/body problem. The only dispute that remains is how to include the criticisms you deleted back here.Likebox (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A week of us editing. The page has been in conflict longer than that and some of the methods, attitudes, and faith have not been good. Even with administrators lurking and looming threat of blocking for edit wars, the conflict has not stopped, it only shifted to the talk page, where it devolved into personal attacks and walls of diatribe that did not benefit the subject. What really made me file arbitration was when you rejected the to discuss the first issue of the page, one at a time, in a rational and sane manner. That is when my hands flew up in the air and I said, I give up. I had filed third option, someone else had as well, nothing has worked. You are an immovable object. You can not be reasoned with; because, you have already made up your mind. I came in as a fourth or even fifth party, and even my reasoning has failed to open your mind to other possibilities. The most heinous thing is that you have used your knowledge of policy to constrict a subject that has hudreds of books written about it, with a ratio of about a dozen or two skeptics, and peddled it as fact on the largest source of information on the internet. I have done everything humanly possible, though the means of this Wikipedia system, to achieve mediation with you, including attempting to do it myself. Others have as well. Then, if you were not difficult enough to deal with, more editors came in with your similiar rigid inability to compromise and added more heat to the discussion. Someone outside of us has to end this. Splitting the page is not going to work. It is clear that other editors can and will have mixed issues on this topic. It is best to go through the difficulty now and get this article setup for a stable and quiet future, where readers, interested or not, can skim through and find encylopedic fact, not rants, essays, and counter-pointed debates with massive jargon that only people like us, that know anything about quantum mechanics, could decipher. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the Quantum mind/body problem article is that it contains a lot material that is already discussed in the Quantum Mechanics, Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics article and other articles. It seems like the topic is being over explained. There is already an article on the Mind/body problem and the new article doesn't say anything new that isn't already covered in the article on Quantum mind. If you have new content then add it to the Quantum mind article but don't create a whole new article that just winds up being redundant. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not create that article. From your text indent, you seem to be replying to me. Please correct this, as I did not write that article and your comment makes it appear as though you believe that I did. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. I did it that way because I sometimes find it hard to read comments that are at the same level because it sometimes appears as if 2 separate comments were made by the same person. There, I corrected it Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Please do not confuse quantum mind with CCC, they are two completely different topics. Quantum mind is the speculative idea that quantum effects are important in the brain, while CCC is a relatively mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not make any predictions about the nature of the brain at all. In particular, the brain in CCC is just the ordinary classical neurons/classical molecules, no quantum stuff.Likebox (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That is powerful and significant information, representing a significant viewpoint on the subject of consciousness and the quantum. That page should be edited for neutrality and tone so that it can be broad and inclusive of such a notable viewpoint! But it does not belong here. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that CCC and QMind are different. I disagee that there is a single version of CCC that is non-dualistic. See von Neumanns "Abstract Ego" for an alternative to the Wigner/Evertt version. 1Z (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The statement I made is DO NOT CONFUSE QUANTUM MIND WITH CCC. That's not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. These are two completely different topics. Quantum mind is about the idea that the brain has quantum mechanical effects. CCC is the idea that the consciousness of the observer is what is important for the process of collapse of the wavefunction.Likebox (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Seconded 1Z (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consciousness causes collapse at RFD

I have nominated the redirect consciousness causes collapse at RFD to either be retargeted or deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_2. 140.247.103.56 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I put a delete tag on the Wigner's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics for the reason stated there. The CCC link needs to be redirected back to a section within this article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No. CCC needs to goto Quantum mind. This article does not discuss the science or metaphysics of consciousness causing collapse. Period. Even if it was about the debate between quantum mysticism in physics. Quantum mysticism is totally unrelated to this. I will also have to raise this now injected debate into the arbitration page. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The CCC article was merged with QM because it was nothing more than an attempt to push Quantum Mysticism as if it were science. The original CCC article was full of references to pseudoscience, mysticism and crackpot theories. Some of those references are now in the Quantum mind/body problem article. If CCC were treated from a purely scientific viewpoint then it could be put in the Quantum mind article even though that article is, in my opinion, borderline pseudoscience. The Quantum mysticism article was fine until some editors decided that they were going to try to make it more scientific. That's when the current controversy began. Quantum Mysticism refers to the attempt to use quantum mechanics to explain metaphysics, parapsychology and spirituality. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Morbius, we have already debated what "quantum mysticism" means here ad nauseum, it is presently the largest and most fundamental issue of the page. I am sorry if you feel that a colloquialism takes precendence over the countless books that are specifically on the subject of the mystical practices centered around the quantum of the natural world. Welcome to the debate. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"Consciousness causes collapse" is not related in any way to quantum mind. There are three different ideas about the relation of quantum mechanics and consciousness
  1. Quantum mind/body problem--- the subject of Wigner's article, this says that a conscious mind cannot be in a superposition of states, rather when a superposition reaches the level of an observer, the mind of the observer chooses one of the paths in accordance with the usual Born rule for probability. This leads to collapse of the wavefunction. This is consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation (which does not offer a reason for collapse), it is an ingredient of the many-worlds interpretation (which incorporates the idea naturally), and it is implicitly accepted by all modern interpretations of quantum mechanics based on decoherence. As such, it is a part of mainstream science. Since it is equivalent to standard interpretations, it is not distinguishable from them by experiments, and does not constitute a new theory. It is just one of the many standard interpretations of collapse in quantum mechanics.
  2. Quantum consciousness/Quantum mind --- the idea that conscious experience relies inherently on tunneling phenomenon, or quantum computation, or some quantum voodoo-juice (as Dennett calls it). This idea is considered speculative science, and is promoted by Penrose and a few others. While not mainstream, it is not pseudoscience either. It is just a speculative theory that makes predictions.
  3. Quantum mysticism --- new age practices of quantum healing, telepathy, and other topics usually labelled pseudoscience.
This article was about subject 1 and subject 3 together, and now it has been separated. The topic of CCC is pure mainstream science, and any attempt to label it otherwise is just an expression of ignorance. Wigner won the nobel prize for pete's sake.Likebox (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
CCC is not pure maisntream science, it is often dismissed as pseudoscience. Indeed I have had to stop the CCC page from nbeing deleted on those grounds. Morevoer, CCC is related to QMyst The idea that a dualist consciousness has reality-altering powers is what unerlies "qunatum healing" for instance. ANd I have sources for that. 1Z (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of that, and I also would prefer to discuss them together, we agree on content. Given the political situation with lightbound, however, this is the best that can be achieved.
There is some reason to separate Wigner from the new-age stuff. There's no way that Wigner would have supported the idea that the reality modification extends beyond collapsing the wavefunction according to the Born rule. In particular, the collapse happens in the same way, regardless of what the consciousness is thinking about. So "thinking hard with a purpose of affecting the universe" won't do anything different than just looking.Likebox (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Likebox's last comment. First of all, the Quantum consciousness and/or Quantum mind article need to be reworded to include all of the associated discussions and relavant theories. It does not belong on a page that describes the mystical practices centered on the quantum of the natural world. Edit the article there to make it fit and we can all go home on this issue. And again, you are labeling philosophy as pseudoscience. Some practitioners may have pseudoscientific claims, but the whole practice of the mysticism involving the quantum scale (not neccessarily quantum mechanics) is separate. It describes the practice and philosophy behind the practices themselves: the why. The how is in the individual practices, which do not require any inkling of understanding of quantum mechanics on the part of the participant. CCC is related to topic that cover quantum theory and consciousness. Rather than forcing an unrelated bit of information here, why not put it there, update the redirect, and the problem is done? --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum Mysticism is not just about practices, it includes things like the The Tao of Physics and What the Bleep which make extensive appeals to the science. And I have sources for that. 1Z (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Quantum mind article is no good as a home for CCC, it's about something completely different. I don't care what you do here, because the only material I am interested in preserving is now separated on Quantum mind/body problem.Likebox (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. 1Z (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Boycott the Arbitration

Just look at what OMCV has written on the arbitration page. If arbitration goes ahead, I suggest we write on the "workshop" page that we are not interested in debating this sort of nonsense. There is a plan for proceeding worked out already on this talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not boycott, because the arbitration has a goal of imposing long term sanctions on me! If no one is on the other side, this will happen.Likebox (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Long-term sanctions on you are long overdue -- this is only the most recent in a long LONG history of bad behavior on your part and it's about time it was stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.1.227 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, LIkebox, it was not my goal for you to be blocked at any time, nor in the future. I even stated that on the arbitration page. I doubt you will be "sanctioned," insomuch as this page will be clearly defined by an authoriative portion of Wikipedia. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If the Arbitration case is accepted by the Arbitrators, then they'll create an evidence and a workshop page. I suggest that we (i.e. the editors here who want to approach this subject from the point of view of physics) write on those pages our points of views and that we are not interested in continuing with this process any more than making this statement. Also we should write that we will not accept any ruling by the arbitrators, we simply do not have any faith that this whole circus can yield anything useful.
The less you expose yourself to this process, the better the outcome will be, because the arbitrators do not understand this topic, they are wikilawyers (a few are actually lawyers in real life). The more you argue there the more chance there is to be uncivil. The arguments you make that are based on science will not be undestood. So, you can only score negative points there. OMCV only argues on the basis of wikilaw, so he'll score goal after goal there.
Now, the boycott statement plus the statement that not just you but some other involved editors will disregard anything that comes out of this process, will make the Arbitrators to lose interest as well. They will not waste their time on this if the involved editors are not going to listen to them anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Then what is the point of arbitration if it can be bypassed by a mob of biased individuals? This is rediculous. A consensus here does not represent the consensus of all of the human race. Wanting to describe this subject from a physics standpoint is so totally wrong, that it would be like applying physics to religion. I have read that light speed issue page on the arbitration and every single one of those editors, except for your comment there, has violated the rules of that evidence page by posting personal diatribes. That page is meant to post evidence only, nothing more, not a he-said-she-said diff fest. It says that plainly in the rules. I would not be interested in posting such nonsense there. I would be interested in posting evidence, as it relates to wiki policy. If you want to call that wikilawyering ,sobeit, because those policies were made to prevent biased individuals from dominating and poisoning the well of human knowledge. If you disagree with policies, perhaps you would do well to change them. I see that the policies are well thought out, but like any tool, can only be used as good as the person intends or is capable. By disregarding those policies and gaming the system, and allowing personal feelings and bias on the subject, from intellectually-bound closed-minded perspectives, which are so totally out of the perspective of what the scholarally works actually represent, the original article had completley lost any objectivity and was unrelated to what the name of it referred. If arbitration fails, then I will be forever done with this rediculous excuse for "human knowledge on the internet," which, as other users have stated, is infested with bias, nihilism, existentialism, and a general contempt for anything that requires thought beyond measurement. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Look, Arbitration should really be the end point when no progress can be made by the involved editors themselves anymore. It can only work if most of the involved editors will want to proceed with that process. In case of the speed of light page, you have two editors who were reerred to AN/I and would have been banned if I hadn't intervened on that page and suggested more discussions. Then an Admin proposed Arbitration to sort out the dispute. The alternative would have been a direct topic ban for the two problem editors.
In case of this article, I don't see why we would not continue discussing editing the article, how to go about splitting the article etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
But you are ignoring that other means have been attempted, numerous times. There have been multiple third party requests. There have been blockings. There have been edit wars. Third option did not work. The chain of dispute resolution has escalated only because of the increasing opposition to discussion. Likebox, one of the main constituents of the opposition to this new version and content of this article refused to discuss issues in a serial and logical manner, saying that he would "never be convinced." That is an impasse. That was the point where arbitration was filed. Only after it was filed, did he have a change of heart, when all the truth came pouring out about the long and needless war of this article. When the arbitration comes up, it will be swift, because I will only add evidence to the case that it should be what it is about now: mysticial practice centered around the quantum of the natural world, as written about by many, many, books, for a quarter century now.
If it gets thrown out, great, I can quicklly put this out of my mind. I really am tired of this article. There are many other articles that could use my copy-editing skills, but I was sucked into this one like quicksand. I do not tend to walk out on obligations, and this page was in serious need of help. I really do not care one way or the other, so long as it is neutral and represents the topic. I have a serious problem when an article is not on-topic and is poorly written. This version, indeed it is new, and needs expansion, is incomplete, but arguably better (of which other editors concede). The exlusion of content was a side-effect of that process, just as a surgeon has to sometimes remove healthy tissue in a biopsy. It was unavoidable. It can be brought back in, if it relates, if it reports with disinterested tone, and the sources are notable (not the person). I am all about quality. As it was, it was not quality. As it is, it is a prelude to quality. The debate is if it is on-topic or not. Splitting is not compatible as other editors came in and are now burning the candle at both ends. It has spiraled out of control. There needs to be some governing force to the anarchy that is present.
It blows my mind that Wikipedia would not have a panel that handles such significant cases of dispute and anarchy. The fact that it hasn't descended into a spiral of hate is only because I have not allowed it to, by not responding to the childish attacks to my user page, jabs at me in comments, and other frustrations of the page. I have remained, always, on topic, and argued the points. The arbiters will see that, as other editors have, and a decision should be rapid and I hope, final. Even if it is not in favor of a version I like, I will consider it a release from this horrible obligation I have been trapped into. Good day, sir! And I said... good day, sir. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What OMCV did not appreciate (and what many editors in similar circumstances do not see) is that the way OMCV was addressing the problems he saw, caused tensions to rise see here my explanation to OMCV. It is better to discuss things from first principles to see where the real disputes are, as I also suggested in these proposed guidelines.
Not every person is always able to keep his/her cool when provoked. If that is then made an issue in its own right you have moved very far from the original dispute. I think it is likely that the arbitration process will look at this issue in the wrong way, focussing a lot on instances were inappropriate language was used. The issue itself will only be approached from a purely wiki-law perspective. So, I do not see anything good coming out of this. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well you can put your crystal ball away for now. Lets see how things turn out. Optimism. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 00:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki NPOV and Policy Research in re Quantum mysticism

From WP:PARITY:


Quantum mysticism is about the mystical practices and philosophy related to the quantum scale of the natural world, not about the explanation, deduction, and science of quantum theory.


Two points here. First of all, what we believe to be right or wrong about quantum mysticism is irrelevant, so long as the sources support the statements being made and are notable. The second point is that the article need not desire its former state about the concept, which it did, in a very poor way that was focused on criticism to the exclusion of information.

From WP:NPOV:


The article name refers most neutrally to the mystical practice of quantum mysticism. To imply that the article's title is about the mystical, aka., "quackery," delusion, paranormal, and occult, in an attempt to create a page setup for the criticisms of perceived pseudoscientific claims, which in fact are philosophical claims. It is okay to state that mainstream science has no part in it, and that is stated very prominently in the introduction.

We do not want criticism sections.

From WP:REDFLAG:


Many of the criticisms are based on these types of sources and are unacceptable. If there are books and other notable sources that have specific criticisms of the philosophy and practices of quantum mysticism, they are more than welcome.

From WP:NPOV:


I do not think the article needs to be split, unless you want to fully document the historical debate that physicists had of the the mysterious claims of quantum theory in the early 20th century; that would belong in the history of physics or related articles.


Quantum mysticism does not claim to be science. It claims that some of its philosophical concepts and practices were inspired by, or that might be explained by, but are not in fact, science. That is a critical distinction. Nothing in the article, as it is now, presents itself as scientific fact.

Axe to grind? Try the hardware store, not Wikipedia.



I will do more research on these issues in time.

Lastly, I think one or more of the editors here need to read Characteristics of problem editors.

--☯Lightbound☯ talk 05:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism is about the mystical practices and philosophy related to the quantum scale of the natural world, not about the explanation, deduction, and science of quantum theory.

Quantum mysticism is based on certain scientitific ideas and I have sources that say do. Please stop ignoring sources that don't fit your POV. 1Z (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Two points here. First of all, what we believe to be right or wrong about quantum mysticism is irrelevant, so long as the sources support the statements being made and are notable. The second point is that the article need not desire its former state about the concept, which it did, in a very poor way that was focused on criticism to the exclusion of information.

The article need not go back. The article needs to be more balanced. It is currently POV. 1Z (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


The article name refers most neutrally to the mystical practice of quantum mysticism. To imply that the article's title is about the mystical, aka., "quackery," delusion, paranormal, and occult, in an attempt to create a page setup for the criticisms of perceived pseudoscientific claims, which in fact are philosophical claims. It is okay to state that mainstream science has no part in it, and that is stated very prominently in the introduction.

The link between qusntum mysiticism and quantum quackery is made by RS's, so you don't get to censor it. Please stop ignoring sources that don't fit your POV. 1Z (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not want criticism sections.

Doens't mean we dopn't want criticism. 1Z (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Many of the criticisms are based on these types of sources and are unacceptable. If there are books and other notable sources that have specific criticisms of the philosophy and practices of quantum mysticism, they are more than welcome.

Good. I will take that as agreement to my intended changes. 1Z (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


I do not think the article needs to be split, unless you want to fully document the historical debate that physicists had of the the mysterious claims of quantum theory in the early 20th century; that would belong in the history of physics or related articles.

The debate on this subject is relevant to this subject. I have sources linking the debate to quantum mysticism in those very words. Please stop ignoring sources that don't fit your POV. 1Z (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism does not claim to be science. It claims that some of its philosophical concepts and practices were inspired by, or that might be explained by, but are not in fact, science. That is a critical distinction. Nothing in the article, as it is now, presents itself as scientific fact.

Different sources say different things on that topic, and all should be reflected in the article. YOU do not get to pick and choose sources to reflect your personal POV. 1Z (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My only problem with the article so far is that the introduction is vague and full of jargon. I have read the intro several times and I'm still not sure what the article is supposed to be about. The rest of the article is fine. You discuss Deepak Chopra, What the bleep do we know, 70's new age nonsense; all that stuff is fine it's just that the intro doesn't precisely state what areas quantum mysticism covers. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions and Concerns

To the meat-puppet orchestra, stop accusing me of POV pushing. I am sick of it. It is certainly not WP:CIVIL. You are assuming I am making bad faith edits in an attempt to censor information. This tag-teaming is bordering on abuse, harassment, and meat-puppetry, and I am not really interested in tolerating it. Keep your points on the subject matter. This is my last warning. You can make your points without accusing me of anything. Do so.

We have not even agreed on the topic of this page. We can not even agree to what the article should be about. View points are, as I have repeated for over a dozen sections now, secondary to the primary concern of finding out what the article should be about. As per the policy, all necessary viewpoints on the topic will be covered, once we have a consensus as to what the article's subject-matter is. Changes were made so that the article could represent the primary coverage that the subject relates. All changes were documented. Not all content could be saved. I have repeated this, and other editors have repeated this.

Let me repeat: this article is a work in progress. Censoring information is not the goal. To even hint of this is uncivil and unacceptable. Further, it solves nothing.

Some of you disagree that the topic is about the mystical practice of quantum mysticism. You claim that there is:

  1. A history of physics, that the founders believed there were mystical ideas about quantum theory.
  2. A whole host of sources that criticize or "debunk" that quantum theory could relate to anything mystical or ontological, and you want that in this article.
  3. Some of you think there is no such thing as what the introduction states.

Addressing 1. That needs to be touched on here, as it relates to the mystical practices themselves as history, then detailed in the history of physics and quantum theory articles. Period. No point debating it, its asinine to even think it goes elsewhere.

Addressing 2. This is an entirely other can of worms that needs to be approached carefully. There are notable sources and books that debate this. But they need to be carefully interpreted and properly read so that they relate to the subject.

Addressing 3. I am sorry, but there are too many books, published by separate authors of the practice, to discount it. That introduction is solid.

My suggestions (not concrete views, i.e. they are open to debate):

  • That we rename this article to Quantum mysticism (practice) and put your desired content from 1 and 2, mentioned above, into an article called Quantum mysticism (physics) or Quantum mysticism (history of physics).

OR (and this is the idea I recommend)

  • That we keep the article as it is and provide disambiguation into the history sections of physics and quantum mechanics, so that those individuals looking for the historical debate between occult ideas and quantum mechanics can be documented.

AND (in addition to one of the above)

  • Go ahead and add relevant viewpoints, but the sources must be notable, and the way they are written, disinterested and neutral, and it MUST relate to the specific practice or claim that it mentions. Do not improperly synthesize sources to make bold overarching claims that all of quantum mysticism is bad. Be precise. Those viewpoints will need to be integrated as the article develops, and carefully balanced, as per policy, that they are in "rough proportion" to the sources.

Remember. I am a skeptic too. I am not a quantum mystic. But this article does need to document what its name refers to. I find it amusing when I was looking at the talk pages for some of the users involved, and I saw comments like, "The mystics want their article back!" That was a kicker. I laughed out loud. I am afraid you are mistaken. I just want to see a well written article that could pass a good article check. Please put away the axe. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 21:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm definitely one of the biggest supporters of what you have done here Lightbond but I do have a few concerns with the intro. My understanding is that mysticism is a practice and a belief system. Often the belief system is more important than the associated practices (assuming they can be separated). To this end I've formulated an intro the represents this understanding from the most balanced language I could imagine.
Quantum mysticism is a menagerie of beliefs and practices based on the broad implications and often loose interpretation of quantum mechanic in an effort to seek an understanding and/or control over reality that generally exceeds the bounds of mainstream science. Quantum mysticism is distinct from the interpretations of quantum mechanics found in mainstream physics which deal with the implications of quantum mechanics in a sharply delineated and limited manner within the scientific process while seeking a more defined and unified understanding of reality and its components.
I know its not perfect but I think it might be a push in the right direction.--OMCV (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for QMys specifically, but as far as mysticism goes, "Often the belief system is more important than the associated practices" is backwards. Mysticism is based on practices and experience, not belief. Beliefs are a side effect of experience. It's the reason that Buddha said, "Don't believe anything I said because I said it." All mystical text is considered a pointer to guide people in having their own experience. It is not intended to communicate a dogma or a belief. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Mbilitatu; because, the dictionaries, books, and other sources indicate that it is primarily an act, singular or not, theistic or not, that is the focus of mysticism. What makes it "occult," is that much of it is only understandable as a subjective experience. Much like, no one can relate to you, except in rough approximation, what the distinct sensation of a thermal burn feels like. You must feel it yourself. Much like the hammer is to a carpenter, mystical practices are the description of the act itself, with the relation as to what the object is. The why, the belief and reasoning behind it is very much less important, just as we do not question the why of Wikipedia or a movie, as we use or experience it; we do not stop and consider the hundreds of innovations, electronics, engineering, software, languages, technology, and personel that go into making this page display, we just "experience" it as we are using it. To specifically address your introduction suggestion, I believe we could cull the present introduction, but could you point out the sentences in which you feel are not neutral, and/or, are misleading to readers? --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You are still trying to OR-up you own defintion of QMyst. 1Z (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we are focusing on whats common to all mysticism. The "belief" that the individual has to experience/derive an understanding themselvies is common to all mysticisms but each and every mysticism has an associated set of foundational beliefs. Most mysticism evolve out of a religious tradition which carries with it a great deal of ritual and I think that ritual is translated into in a "practice". In contrast quantum mysticism thanks to its connection to quantum mechanics is a bit light on ritual. I'm not saying there aren't rituals associated with the scientific process but I think it would be reasonable to say the belief(knowledge)/ritual ratio is higher for "science" than "religion". I think this theory laden character exists with in both the historic material and new age junk. Peter if you can comment reasonably does my definition sound at all accurate. If I had to point at something it would be the lead sentence that introduces the subject as a "practice". From what I've read and tried to explain I really think its the "belief" that results in a new way of "looking" at the world that matters. So its beliefs that inform the practice of looking. Let me know what you all think.--OMCV (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
YOur definition sounds completly unsourced. You and lightbound need to understand that WP is based on WP:RS, not on editors puzzling out "the truth" for themselves.1Z (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for sources that defines the term "quantum mysticism"? I would be very happy to go with any definition drawn from a WP:RS and help would be appreciated.--OMCV (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


see here 1Z (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"... each and every mysticism has an associated set of foundational beliefs. Most mysticism evolve out of a religious tradition". BACKWARDS! Religions evolve from mysticism! Mystics have experiences. The experiences get written down as law and truth, and then you have religion. There are deep mystical traditions underpinning all religions. A belief is a conclusion. A true mystic does not need to start out with any conclusion ... just questions and guidance. --Mbilitatu (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
When I said mysticism evolves from religion I was thinking of Kabbalah, Sufism, Christian mysticism, and a variety of Hinduisms, but I guess those might not be "true" mysticisms. As far as "questions and guidance" go, both of those include intrinsic assumptions and assumptions are beliefs. Experience is always contextualized. Yet "assumptions" are usually distinguished from "conclusions" but the entire subject has a tendency to become a bit circular. My point is that quantum mysticism is weak on ritual/practice, while heavy of knowledge (from quantum mechanics) when compared to most mysticisms and thus it is an extreme form of mysticism.--OMCV (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"My point is that quantum mysticism is weak on ritual/practice, while heavy of knowledge (from quantum mechanics) when compared to most mysticisms and thus it is an extreme form of mysticism." Oh. I missed this point. Sorry. I don't really know what quantum mysticism is (do any of us?), but I would have to agree with you. It's actually a great observation. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not add spurious lists of institutions for the sake that you personally feel they are related. I rolled back that change, also informed you on the talk page, and have posted a section here. Please see WP:LINKFARM and WP:Source list and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. More specifically, in the WP:Source List:


If those particular institutions have something to say regarding the topic, we need to merge that into the body of the article, and make an associated point with that information. Are they an authoritative source of information on the subject of quantum mysticism? Are they an authoritative source of anything? I challenge it, and so should any thinking person. How they relate needs to be clearly defined and explained, not just plopped back up there as if they were the final word on the internet. And please do not revert my good faith edits, 1Z, aka, Peterdjones. If you do, at least explain why you do. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If those particular institutions have something to say regarding the topic, we need to merge that into the body of the article, By that logic,no article should ever have any external links.1Z (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Your right. And thats why that policy is there. Wikipedia is not a website, but an encyclopedia, where information should be summarized and referenced. Its not my policy, its their policy. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 09:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

These sections have been tagged. Please do not remove the tags until we have reached consensus on how to fix them. In totality they are way too long. I will address each one individually:

  1. Further reading section:
  • Every book or article there needs to be verified for notability then included into the main body of the article as referenced sources for facts on particular viewpoints.
  • I challenge the notability of the "Skeptical Inquirer," the others seem notable.
  1. See Also section:
  • It may be too long.
  • It may imply non-neutral connotations that are only relevant to partial audiences.
  • It has never been updated since the last major re-write of the article and may be out-of-date.
  1. External Links section:
  • Too long.
  • Many of them are not notable.
  • Just as in 1, any facts they make need to be put into the main article and referenced as so, after being checked for notability.

To Likebox and your gang, go ahead and start adding your critical viewpoints to the article if you wish. I will verify every reference and tag where appropriate. Its fine by me, and those sources look like a great place to start. That is, if we can agree that this article's main topic is about the practices of quantum mysticism as mystical practices. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The "External links" section is a major problem. If the editors responsible for dumping these links don't clean them up to a reason list of WP:RS. Furthermore "External links" is not the place for a pro vs con section. I would support deleting this material wholesale.--OMCV (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the external links to this page so we can work on what should be kept and what should go. Anything that is a blog or a glorified blog should be removed and if its an article its not worth including if its not worth referencing in the body of the article. This is standard and practical application of WP:RS among WP:NOTE the other policies described by lightbound. I've struck everything I don't think belongs in the article.--OMCV (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Well ... in my opinion I would remove all the pro links and leave all the con links. None of the pro links are supported by actual science. They are selective interpretations of science by supporters of mystical concepts. They take some legitimate scientific discovery and go berserk coming up with all kinds of unfounded connections to mysticism. Also, I'm not sure I understand the challenge to the notability of The Skeptical Inquirer. Is Lightbound challenging their claim to be able to debunk quantum mystical concepts or just their notability in general. If it's the latter then I disagree because The Skeptical Inquirer is a well known publication. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be blanked, thank you to whoever took that step. Also, Dr. Morbius, it does not even matter if they are not scientific. What matters is if a source is notable. There are many statements, even entire articles, that are not based on the scientific method, but are documented with notable sources. The reason it should be removed (all of it) is because it is better presented in the body of the article in an informative way, rather than throwing them at a user as a de facto standard that they are authoritative sources that support or criticize. Further, it defeats the point of Wikipedia entirely to not summarize it in encyclopedic fashion, where they came in the first place to learn something. I criticize non-scientific practices as well, especially when people base their life decisions on them, but all of human knowledge does not revolve around whether or not we can describe it scientifically (thank goodness), nor does the Wikipedia. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the information in the sources should be presented within the body of the article and not as links. This will ensure that anyone who comes to this article will not leave thinking that quantum mechanics in any way supports any of the ideas presented as mysticism. But isn't that what Likebox was trying to do? Debunk quantum mysticism from within the article? Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Not going to open that can of worms again, but providing reliable sources in an encyclopedic fashion is not the same as "debunking," its reporting. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to explain: these links are ancient--- they come from the old Consciousness Causes Collapse article, which was deleted years ago, at a time when Wikipedia was a good home for various weblinks. So the end of CCC had a bunch of links labelled "pro" and "con". I sorted them out into the links appropriate for quantum mysticism (those about supernatural stuff), the links appropriate for quantum mind (those about voodoo-juice quantum tunneling in the brain), and the links about the measurement problem, which I kept on mind/body problem.
Wikipedia has become less tolerant of links in recent years, so it is natural that a lot of them would get deleted. I personally didn't delete them because I don't delete anything that isn't flat out wrong.Likebox (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
pro
con

Expanding The Article

After we all settle on the topic of the article and introduction, I feel we should try to expand the article. The real work has only just begun. It needs to be expanded in an ever-neutral and broad scope. The more mystical and philosophical information that goes within, the more it will be open to scrutiny, so it must be thought out.

Claims Section

  • The claims/philosophy section should reduce its dependency on the list and move into paragraphed sub-sections that expound based on source material.
    • Consider renaming it to philosophy, beliefs, or such. Claims is very neutral, but does not imply the same perception as "Philosophical claims," or even "Metaphysical claims." We should discuss it. This will require a lot of thought, as different authors make different claims on the subject.
    • The truth is that mysticism is less about claims and philosophy than it is about the practices.
    • Some authors on quantum mysticism focus entirely on "claims," and leave other authors to write about associated practices. Thereby building a foundation for the practices to rest upon. We could suggest "foundations," or such.
    • Cosmogonical claims, as they pertain to philosophical or the practical applications of the practices, not as in metaphysical theories on cosmogony. A very fine point to make and a difficult line to draw in the sand. Whatever source must relate to that point to stay on topic, less it rip open the serenity of the page into that scientific / philosophical debate again.
    • Ontological claims


Practices Section

  • The practices section will be the one that will be shot at the most. It should describe the practices carefully.
    • Quantum healing
      • Reversing or halting senescence
      • Immortality
    • (This is going to generate heat) Remote viewing
      • Government involvement. Gotta find sources. Even if the author claims it in a notable source.
    • Reaching into an "Intelligence" or "Consciousness", as described by the sources.

The practices section will definitely receive a lot of flak and may open more spurious debate. I am not saying these must go into the article, but that they are subjects that are covered by some of the authors related to quantum mysticism. Some of them go into metaphysics. Some of it is very difficult to separate.

Get Pseudoscience Strait

To be clear, pseudoscience is a very specific thing. An idea can be metaphysical and not be pseudoscience. Pseudoscience, from the dictionary: "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." The keywords, "mistakenly regarded," as being based on "scientific method." That means explicitly, to me at least, that rather than being inspired by, or even based on top of, that it must assert that it was a derivative of genuine scientific practice; aka, the scientific method. When a writer of quantum mysticism says, "This is based on physics." That is not the same as, "This has been proven to be true by science." So I am just putting this out in advance, so when it comes, there is pre-existing argument that whatever comes after, any other editor can use to help cut the chaff from the wheat on criticism. Likewise, it would be wrong to improperly synthesize "remote viewing" as hard science, without serious, notable sources. Make us a believer.

I am going to take a backseat for now. I came here to catalyze the article; I think that happened. If things are totally calm, I may head to the library and actually do the scholarly work required to expand some of these sections in detail. As it stands, the reading I have done has been light, as the debate was all consuming. I also want to step away so that other editors do not feel that I will hinder them in any way. That is not an invitation for Likebox or anyone else to return to attempt to lyse the expansion of the article. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not fort editors to decide what is psuedocience, it is for editors to teport what RS's have to say on the subject. 1Z (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say why quantum mysticism has often been labelled pseudoscience. The reason is that they use jargon from science to justify spiritual practices that have nothing to do with science. When you dress up some mumbo jumbo with scientific sounding words to make it more legitimate, that's the definition of pseudoscience.
About the article--- I told you that my main concern was CCC and Wigner. Now that it's alive somewhere else, I don't care about this page anymore. On the other hand, 1Z will probably want to put back the skeptical opinions, and since they are relevant and sourced, you should let them be placed here.Likebox (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Pseudoscience doesn't need to assert that it was derived from genuine scientific practices it just has to engage in what are claimed to be genuine scientific practices. See Cargo Cult Science. If any of the sections which you intend to add to the article makes any pseudoscientific claims or misrepresents actual science that imply support for mystical concepts then those claims must be countered, within the section, by legitimate scientific arguments. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That is not a problem and that has already been said that it can be added, as long as it is not synth, has a notable source, and actually relates to what the point is being made. We do not want the page looking like a diatribe debate essay again. I am going to start calling it a viewpoint from hereon, because thats what the criticism actually is; it is a viewpoint on the practices and claims. And frankly, I would love to see that viewpoint, but in a way that informs, not persuades. So "criticism" is actually a bad word. It immediately sets that viewpoint up for failure. If you really want zero resistance to putting in that viewpoint, it just needs to inform. For example, quantum healing, would be a great candidate to find notable sources that make counter claims, their reasoning, and etc. No peacock words, no weasel words, just plain clear reporting and in proportion to the rest of the article. Quantum healing has not had a chance to even be filled out yet, so adding that viewpoint would be WP:UNDUE, at this time. As the article grows, please do add that viewpoint. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New Introduction with serious research done

I could not deny the citations needed tags. They were put there for good reason by an editor. 1Z, aka, Peterdjones, I feel I have addressed your concerns as well as those mentioned by OMCV, in this new draft of the introduction. I spent several hours researching some serious texts on the subject on both sides of the issue, including the historical views. There are very solid references with actual reading of the text themselves as they relate to the statements. 1Z aka, Peterdjones, it is not original research or synth now; they are cited and the sources clearly state that information. It is neutral and offers the facts in a disinterested tone. I am still open to tweaking the introduction. I would like to see it expanded, not contracted, as the references are many now and somewhat weigh the eye of the text. Let us discuss? --☯Lightbound☯ talk 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Well-sourced and concise without inadvertently seeming to legitimize the concept. DKqwerty (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
One more thing: "Mainstream" is a very subjective, biased, and often loaded term. Isn't there a more accurate, objective term that could be used like "majority of the" or simply leaving an adjective off altogether? Or is it just me? DKqwerty (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Good eye. I had thought about it as I put it in, but your opinion has sealed the first doubt: deleted that word. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
WOW. The new introduction is, in my opinion, superior to the previous one. It's clearer and easier to understand and describes exactly what quantum mysticism is. Dr. Morbius (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bibliography

Here is my bibliography in APA format for the research I conducted the introduction:

  • Athearn, D. (1994). Scientific Nihilism: On the Loss and Recovery of Physical Explanation (S U N Y Series in Philosophy). Albany, New York: State University Of New York Press.
  • Carroll, R. T., & Carroll, R. T. (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. New York, NY: Wiley.
  • Crease, R. P. (1993). Play of Nature, The (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Technology). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Edis, T. (2005). Science and Nonbelief (Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion). New York: Greenwood Press.
  • Edis, T. (2002). The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
  • Nanda, M. (2003). Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
  • Pagels, H. R. (1982). The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics As the Language of Nature. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
  • Scott, A. C. (2007). The Nonlinear Universe: Chaos, Emergence, Life (The Frontiers Collection). New York: Springer.
  • Seager, W. (1999). Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction (Philosophical Issues in Science). New York: Routledge.
  • Stenger, V. J. (2003). Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Best regards, --☯Lightbound☯ talk 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There are still problems here.

The complexity of quantum theory itself, and the ontological implications it raises, makes philosophical and scientific separation difficult, and has been a source of much of the controversy, especially claims of healing are involved.

Well, no, it is not the complexity of QMech that makes claim of "quantum healing" hard to believe. It's just the lack of evidence that it works.

1Z (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the new-age practice'...'

Still just plumb wrong, as many of the classics of the genre, such as The Tao of Physics are very much intelectual theorising. 1Z (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy Sidebar

The philosophy sidebar is very necessary to this article and should be left there.

  • It clearly separates this article from a scientific article.
  • It clearly categorizes this article to the heart of what it represents: metaphysics, which is part of philosophy. Just click the categories or types in the infobox and you can see that metaphysics is part of philosophy.
  • We have already defined that qmyst is metaphysics and philosophy, not science. Its absence does more harm than its inclusion.

I will be reverting that edit. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 09:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article need to be clearly distinguished from a science article? 1Z (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Because quantum mysticism isn't science. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction Again

TimVickers came in and added some excellent edits to the introduction. I also updated the introduction for grammar and prose, then I noticed some discrepancies.

  • I updated the transitive verb of supposes.
  • I corrected in -> to, to properly relate to that use.
  • Major change involved a re-write of the latter to mid section to indicate what the sources actually say.
    • Quantum mysticism was a word used in the debate between the founders during the quantum revolution.
    • Quantum theory experienced a stable period of strength and development after this point and any notion of mysticism was largely dropped.
    • The idea of new-age, spiritual, or other practices did not emerge until decades later in the 1970s, and heavily throughout the 80s, where new-age writers began to heavily write about their interpretations of the physics. (This was the heated point of contention on this page -- if this was mysticism or not)
  • Removed reference to "scientific community," as those sources, which I added, do not indicate the full consensus of the scientific community, but only some authors, some in academia, and others skeptics, but all notable sources.
    • It is sufficient to show that there are notable sources that have a specific view without giving bias to the wording itself or misleading nouns that do not state what the source indicates, regardless if 9 out of 10 professors would agree it is not supported by science; the sentence must be a proper synthesis.
  • As a result of this update, I realized there was no Quantum revolution page, so I created one and updated the redirect to that section.
  • I added a link to scientific theory, as many lay readers mistakenly associate the weaker denotation of "theory" with a scientific theory, which we know to be supported by a lot of empirical and mathematical data and consensus; many confuse the everyday use of theory with what is actually a hypothesis in the early stage of the scientific method. I wanted to make that crystal clear, as theory takes a long time to develop and a lot of minds.

--☯Lightbound☯ talk 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Observer Effect Misinterpreted

A lot of the more Fringey claims of quantum mysticism seem to stem from the misinterpretation of the observer effect to suggest that an "observer" must be conscious. Since the observer effect has more to do with how the physical processes of observation leads to interactions (such as when a photon hits an electron) which effect the end state of the particle. I think it bears inclusion but I'm uncertain how best to introduce the information, short of linking directly to Observer_effect_(physics) in the body. Suggestions? Simonm223 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference for pseudo-science (Meera Manda paper and others)

I've no idea why "Prophets Facing Backward Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India" by Meera Nanda is given as reference for Quantum Mysticism being pseudo science. In the paper at https://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/resources/education/asdp_pdfs/Prophets_Facing_Backward.pdf I do not even find the term "quantum".

The other two references talk about quantum and one even mentions mysticism, yet they don't mention pseudo-science so I don't see how they support the claim. --Rebach (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagged NPOV

I have concerns this article has a fundamental NPOV problem. An article on a controversial topic - whether sense or nonsense - should explain the topic itself (WP:NPOV). It should provide a reader with an understanding of the topic, as well as significant views on the topic, or criticisms of it (WP:NPOV). This article states that "Quantum mysticism" is a term used (etc) as in intro, a brief dictionary definition. The entire rest of the article covers soundbites and criticisms almost exclusively, often in a non neutral way. Some (but not all) examples:

  1. There is no section describing more fully what quantum mysticism is, or its development or common features as a belief. In fact there is no meaningful description of it at all. (At best the origins of the term and a few soundbites, nothing more)
  2. To a reader, the article essentially devotes its whole length to a critique or opposition to the topic. (Any exceptions tend to be soundbites not descriptions)
  3. The only things in Wikipedia's voice seem to be criticisms, we never really get a proper description of the topic, nor why its proponents believed as they did.
  4. Of its proponents we learn that:
    • Bohm was "deeply influenced" in his "worldview" - but we never learn what he thought or why, nor see the topic through his words or description. We learn a sentence he said related to Krishnamurti's influence, little else.
    • We're told that Einstein "remained opposed to some of the novel mystical formulations" but we never learn what "novel mystical" formulations existed nor the extent of his views (both ways if applicable)
    • Criticism is described as "cutting" but no cite exists for this WP:OR which is stated without a solid basis.
  5. Under "History" we learn of Pauli's "active interest" in the 1920s (but no explanation or details of any of it, nor any "historical" insight) and then skip to Penrose and decades later with no coherent historical description, just a set of snipped quotes.
  6. Under "Philosophical claims" we have one "woo-woo" quotation, visibly not scientific. If other writers have made other claims or offered other reasoning that would shed light on the topic, or there is criticism that actually explains what is wrong with these, we aren't told either of these things in the article.

In my view:

  • Better and actual explanations, covering multiple significant views - This article needs a section that covers what types of beliefs exist, and their basis (presumably there was some attempt or basis by proponents to relate beliefs to science, even if flawed). The ideas need to be given context. It then needs specific and actual discussion, rebuttals or significant views on these which show any scientific flaws or any other reservations, rather than just being mere dismissive soundbite.
  • History - There also needs to be a history section that is actually a history. Who were the pivotal or original proponents, how did the topic develop, when did it become popular or unpopular, and what was its actual history between 1900 - 2013?
  • Significant views (again) - The article spans into philosophy and mysticism, yet we have no substantive information - and almost no info at all - on views by credible philosophers, or any identified mystics.
  • General NPOV issues (tone, approach, etc) - Finally it needs fixing for NPOV issues generally, such as one sided writing or tone, WP:NOR in Wikipedia's voice, and non-explaining of the topic's significant views.

FT2 (Talk | email) 12:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Good points. Do you have the time and inclination to work on it? TimidGuy (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Inclination yes, but alas not time. This was the second best alternative: ie, I can at least highlight specifics and key points that catch my eye and that probably need fixing as a starting point, which'll help someone else. Do you? FT2 (Talk | email) 00:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No, unfortunately. And I suspect that it would be difficult to make these changes, given that the topic is considered fringe by a group of editors. TimidGuy (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Why would that be a problem? Quantum mysticism is a well established form of pseudoscience, there are well known examples and plenty of discussion of why people fall for it. We have neutral articles on things like creationism, why not this? Guy (Help!) 14:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Case for non-neutrality not well made, at least not for the article as it exists now (June 2014). FT2 does cite some good points, most of them would indeed make the article better, but they're not all related to NPOV and NPOV tag still isn't justified for the whole article. The article simply talks about a pseudoscience like all the other pseudosciences. It's (relatively) very thoroughly documented too, and with no "tone". Like all the other pseudoscience articles, there any many who are offended that the thing they hold to is called "pseudoscience". They naturally think the article is POV unless it explains their side. So, nah. It's not POV as a whole. If parts are, those parts should be tagged with better justification, but not the whole article. 100.0.101.252 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Weinberg and Bohm

There was a statement that Steven Weinberg criticized David Bohm's theories. An unregistered editor removed it, and a registered editor restored it. If it isn't sourced, but is probably true, it should be tagged as needing a citation rather than removed. (This isn't a BLP, where unsourced material should be removed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Related Topics--Should be referenced in the article

There are a number of topics related to the so-called "quantum mysticism" that have a firm scientific and metaphysical foundation and should probably be referenced at some point in the article to differentiate the ideas of actual physicists from those of pseudoscientists and laymen.

Other notable Vedantist physicists include: Oppenheimer, Pauli, Heisenberg, Bohr, and Tesla. But even people like Spinoza and Einstein embraced a philosophy of science similar to that of the Vedas, though Einstein famously had problems with even the conventional formulation of quantum theory (Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation).

Even non-mystic physicists at time seem to support quasi-mystical ideas related to consciousness and physics. Compare Planck:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Even James Jeans and Arthur Eddington held non-reductive views of consciousness.

A couple sources for further reference:

2605:E000:6384:B800:A1D8:25C9:784B:6F47 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Saved text from insertion in the wrong place

The text below might (in my view) be OK somewhere in the article body (if the information isn't even already present there); it is too particular for the lead, however. For the latter reason, I deleted it, for the former, I save it here. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

*****

Mystical formulations of physics have varies widely between individual physicists: Wolfgang Pauli who, along with Carl Jung believed in parapsychology and the collective unconscious, for example, famously wrote, "I do not believe in the possible future of mysticism in the old form. However, I do believe that the natural sciences will out of themselves bring forth a counter pole in their adherents, which connects with the old mystic elements."[1] Many of the other founders of quantum theory, including Erwin Schrödinger, Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, reportedly made similar statements about spiritual traditions, such as Buddhism, Vedanta (Hinduism), and Taoism.[2]

*****

  1. ^ Miller, Arthur (2009), 137: Jung, Pauli, and the Pursuit of a Scientific Obsession, W. W. Norton & Company, pp. xx
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBJFJVZMnlo
Those were the three people who invented quantum mechanics (Bohr, Schroedinger, and Heisenberg, all Nobel Prize winners). (Max Planck, who invented quantum theory and also won the Nobel Prize in Physics, held similar nonreductive views of consciousness.) I would think that their opinions should be of primary importance for this article, since they were the people who created quantum physics in the first place.
Neuroscience325 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Article needs secondary sources

I removed some material that was either unrelated or tenuously related to quantum mysticism. In particular, there was a quote from Schrodinger talking about something else. Such are perils of using primary sources; a properly written article requires secondary sources to connect the article subject with the sourced text, and to gauge what the prominent points are. Examples of good sources on which to base this article are this and this. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

On the distinction between old and new mysticism

This source mentions how the old-style controversy died after Schrodinger, whose "lectures mark the last of a generation that lived with the mysticism controversy". The new-style controversy involves New Age-types and, as also mentioned in that source, revolves around religion vs science, as opposed to the old-style controversy which didn't. As such, the article should clearly distinguish between e.g. Schrodinger's philosophical views and e.g. the gibberish of Deepak Chopra, who by all accounts does not know what he's talking about when it comes to quantum physics. More secondary sources are needed for this task. Manul ~ talk 23:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum for original research.
This simply isn't true. As soon as one decides to read what Bohr and Heisenberg and Schrödinger actually wrote, this will be transparently obvious.
http://www.hippiessavedphysics.com/
All of quantum information science was born directly out of discussions about quantum mysticism. The Tao of Physics and Dancing Wu Li Masters, both cited in the article, were both birthed out of the Fundamental Fysiks Group at UC Berkeley, which variously studied telepathy with the CIA in the Stargate Project, inspired the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory to conduct a quarter century of research on parapsychology, and is still around making notable contributions to science: Fritjof Capra whose Tao of Physics is quoting on the dancing Shiva statue outside CERN, recently co-authored The Systems View of Life (by Cambridge University Press) which lays the theoretical foundation for basically all of the modern life sciences, from psychology to economics to chemistry to complexity theory to spirituality and meditation as scientific, empirical practices for health (in addition to a brief .
There is no "old style controversy" that has died; quantum mysticism is as alive as ever, with plenty of well-read and well-educated proponents in the scientific community, all of whom were directly inspired by the founders of QM, all of whom discussed their views on the primacy of consciousness. (Seriously--we have Planck, Schrödinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and I could name drop plenty of quote others too...David Bohm, Eugene Wigner, Roger Penrose, Brian Josephson, Nick Herbert, Fred Wolf, John Hagelin, etc.). And these are only the well-known people in quantum theory: How many other physicists have read a single one of these founders and found them the least bit convincing? Between the aforementioned individuals, that's 6 Nobel Prize winners.
I saw a talk a couple months back by Nobel Prize winner David J. Wineland about Schroedinger's Cat and quantum computation. Most of it was highly technical and over my head, but he was very clear in believing that Schroedinger's Cat is a PROBLEM for modern physics, which is basically tantamount to saying there is something special about consciousness to the physicist.
Penrose had a very good video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fXfh-IFMSs
And here's just a bit of what Schroedinger wrote in Mind and Matter (one of my favorite books of all time; it variously covers quantum theory, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and metaphysics, all through the lens of Schroedinger's depth of knowledge and quick wit about virtually everything that exists):
From Chapter 5: Science and Religion
Some of you, I am sure, will call this mysticism. So with all due acknowledgement to the fact that physical theory is at all times relative, in that it depends on certain basic assumptions, we may, or so I believe, assert that physical theory in its present state strongly suggests the indestructibility of Mind by Time.
What made [Plato's] fame? In my opinion it was this, that he was the first to envisage the idea of timeless existence and to emphasize it--against reason--as a reality, more real than our actual experience; this, he said, is but a shadow of the former, from which all experienced reality is borrowed. I am speaking of the theory of forms (or ideas).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBJFJVZMnlo
Here's a great documentary about Fritjof Capra and the Tao of Physics. It mentions Heisenberg (who Capra talked to as he wrote the book, and who approved of the final manuscript) and Bohr--their work and discussions about QM were in some aspects directly inspired by their conversations with Eastern religious; they all said that their experiences with Eastern spiritual traditions helped their work.
Obviously Chopra isn't a physicist and shouldn't be listened to (or even mentioned) when it comes to physics...but given how much Eastern mysticism was present in all of this (the people at Berkeley were experimenting with telepathy--and many of them claim to have proved it!!!), I'm sure at least some of them would be at least somewhat sympathetic.
Compare neuroscientist Stuart Hameroff, who has published about quantum biology with Penrose.
Hameroff talking with Chopra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSd5xep30w
Hameroff discussing his model generally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM
There is no old vs. new mysticism--there are physicist like Schroedinger and Pauli who respectively talked about surviving death and telepathy...and today there are physicists who believe the same (probably in larger number than way back then, given how information propagates through a population).
For example, this is a stupid use of extraneous information: "The 1979 book The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav (self-confessedly "not a physicist") again included parallels between Eastern mysticism and modern physics."
This is how Bohm reviewed the book: "Recommended highly for those who want to understand the essential significance of modern physics, and for those who are concerned with its implications for the possible transformation of human consciousness."
What Zukav actually wrote:
For better or worse, my first qualification as a translator is that, like you, I am not a physicist.
To compensate for my lack of education in physics (and for my liberal arts mentality) I asked, and recieved, the assistance of an extraordinary group of physicists. Four of them, in particular, read the entire manuscript. As each chapter was completed, I sent a copy of it to each physicist and asked him to correct any conceptual or factual errors which he found. (Several other physicists read selected chapters.)
Here's something John Bell wrote (cited in the intro to Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness, which also ought to be cited):
Is it not good to know what follows from what, even if it is not necessary FAPP? [FAPP is Bell's disparaging abbreviation of "for all practical purposes."] Suppose for example that quantum mechanics were found to resist precise formulation. Suppose that when formulation beyond FAPP is attempted, we find an unmovable finger obstinately pointing outside the subject, to the mind of the observer, to the Hindu scriptures, to God, or even only Gravitation? Would that not be very, very interesting?
Neuroscience325 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion or original research. Articles are based upon reliable and independent secondary sources. Manul ~ talk 03:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Key Texts

As it stands, the article doesn't have much of a conceptual presentation of the actual mysticism controversy, simply naming physicists as historical relics.

There are a key couple of texts to the understanding of the "mysticism controversy", and I think they each ought to be explained in more detail to elucidate this rather arcane historical epoch.

2009 paper in the European Journal of Physics by Harvard Professor Juan Marin: "Mysticism in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy" http://www.academia.edu/260503/_Mysticism_in_quantum_mechanics_the_forgotten_controversy_

Again, "quantum mysticism" and "quantum psychology" are well-represented and well-supported by reputable physicists, authors, and publishers--note the progression in time and the multiple bestsellers on the list:

  • The Perennial Philosophy (Aldous Huxley, 1945, HarperCollins)
  • What is Life? (Erwin Schrodinger, 1948, Cambridge University Press)
  • Mind and Matter (Erwin Schrodinger, 1958, Cambridge University Press)
  • Physics and Philosophy (Werner Heisenberg, 1958, HarperCollins)
  • My View of the World (Erwin Schrodinger, 1960, Cambridge University Press)
  • Literature and Science (Aldous Huxley, 1963, Ox Bow Press)
  • The Tao of Physics (Fritjof Capra, 1975, Shambhala Publications)
  • The Dancing Wu Li Masters (Gary Zukav, 1979, William Morrow and Company)
  • Wholeness and the Implicate Order (David Bohm, 1980, Routledge)
  • Prometheus Rising (Robert Anton Wilson, 1983, New Falcon Publications)
  • The Emperor's New Mind (Roger Penrose, 1989, Oxford University Press)
  • Quantum Psychology (Robert Anton Wilson, 1990, New Falcon Publications)
  • Shadows of the Mind (Roger Penrose, 1994, Oxford University Press)
  • The Yoga of Time Travel (Fred Wolf, 2004, Theosophical Publishing House)
  • Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (Bruce Rosenblum & Fred Kuttner, 2006, Oxford University Press)
  • Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe (Robert Lanza & Bob Berman, 2010, BenBella Books)
  • How the Hippies Saved Physics (David Kaiser, 2011, Norton)
  • Quirks of the Quantum Mind (Robert Jahn, 2012, ICRL Press)
  • The Systems View of Life (Fritjof Capra & Pier Luisi, 2014, Cambridge University Press)

Slowly but surely, this topic is becoming increasingly academically respectable and normalized. All of these references and physicists deserve to be mentioned at some point as notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroscience325 (talk • contribs)

(no it is not, but that is beside the point) What sort of edit or sourcing are you suggesting? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's add this one. This article looks like to be growing in date ranked attributed summaries, so be it. Unfortunate, physical academia sees disrespect in seeing the principle and observer as the same, as if the mind's refection. Basic neurological response is a reflex too.

  • Windows on the mind; reflections on the physical basis of consciousness" (Erich Harth, 1983, Quil) [2]

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"add it" where? how? my quantum mystic mind is not at the level of reading yours yet. [3] and it does not appear to discuss quantum mysticism at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The Harth source index has 13 pages references to "quantum mechanics" and 11 pages references to "mysticism' as "occult. To me, this qualifies the source into "quantum mysticism". Perhaps, it is used by others reliable in this way. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


"What sort of edit or sourcing are you suggesting?"

The "quantum mysticism" position was largely formulated by Erwin Schrodinger working at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies during the tail end of World War II and into the 50s and 60s, publishing What is Life in 1944 and Mind and Matter in 1958. The article should reflect this history. Similarly, the Wolfgang Pauli-Carl Jung correspondences (published by Princeton University Press as "Atom and Archetype") lasted from 1932-1958; these were central to establishing key concepts for both Jung and Pauli's philosophy, such as Jung's concept of syncronicity and the relevance of Bohr's principle of Complimentarity to psychology. http://www.academia.edu/260503/_Mysticism_in_quantum_mechanics_the_forgotten_controversy_

As for your comment that quantum mysticism isn't becoming more mainstream, I'd recommend two history books on QM: 137: Jung, Pauli, and the Pursuit of a Scientific Obsession (well-reviewed by Walter Isaacson and New Scientist) and How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (by MIT professor of the history of science, David Kaiser). Bell's theorem, the no-cloning theorem, and quantum cryptography grew directly out of parapsychological work on telepathy done by the Fundamental Fysiks Group at Berkeley in the 70s, which also published The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters (endorsed by Werner Heisenberg and David Bohm respectively).

Today, we have Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (2006, Oxford University Press), dedicated to John Bell, mentioning such weirdo aspects of QM as Bell's Theorem, EPR, Entanglement, Schrodinger's interest in Vedanta, Schrodinger's cat, Wigner's friend, Quantum bayesianism, possible parapsychology, etc. Similarly, 137 passingly comments how Pauli and Jung surely would have approved of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research's work, delving extensively into Jung and Pauli's joint obsession with Judaism, Christianity, Platonism, the Occult, Kabbalah, Alchemical texts, and so forth.

It's interesting to note that while Schrodinger's What is Life? and Mind and Matter (both simultaneously foundational to theoretical biology and cognitive science in addition to quantum mysticism) were both published by Cambridge University Press, so is Fritjof Capra's recent book, The Systems View of Life (2014), recalling that Capra authored The Tao of Physics back in the 70s, discussing in brief the relation of science to spirituality in a more recent light, referencing Paul Davies's The Mind of God, Stephen Hawking's commentary in A Brief History of Time, and others, in the context of systemic thinking and systems biology.

I think it's also notable that Fritjof Capra and Erwin Schrodinger, both atomic physicists turned biologists, both published by Cambridge University Press on mysticism, have themselves endorsed parapsychologists to some extent, Schrodinger for example referencing Jung and the "inadvisability of locating a man's thoughts and ideas in his head" (this the year before he died on the fifth page of his essay What is Real?, published in My View of the World).

The article ought also reference Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, which itself contains a healthy discussion of mysticism and religion, concerning also the positions of Bohr, Pauli, and Dirac. The Tao of Physics was dedicated to Heisenberg who read the final manuscript and gave Capra his stamp of approval.

[Heisenberg] told me something interesting that I have never read anywhere, and that was that he was the guest of Rabindranath Tagore, the famous Indian poet and philosopher, when Heisenberg was in India, and he long discussions with Tagore about Indian philosophy, about Western science, and Heisenberg told me that these discussions had helped him very much because they had shown him that this new kind of worldview that was emerging from quantum physics was in fact no so crazy, that in fact there was an entire culture, the Indian culture, that was built on the premises of indeterminacy, relativity, interconnectedness, the dynamic nature of the world—the very concepts that emerged from physics. So Heisenberg was well aware of the parallels, and just to sum it up, he said to me when I closed my manuscript [to The Tao of Physics], verbatim, basically, I’m in full agreement with you.
Now to me, as an unknown author, with a manuscript that was very difficult to sell to a publisher, this was of course extremely satisfying, and I left his office very happy, and it gave me a real impetus.
(Audio transcript of Capra, starting at 32:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBJFJVZMnlo&feature=youtu.be&t=32m15s)

I don't know why people insist on talking about people like Deepak Chopra who is not a physicist and is merely parroting ideas that he's only sort-of heard physicists express and only sort-of understands. Capra and Schrodinger are two well-respected atomic physicists who formulate their quantum mysticism in a precise and well put together terminology: their views ought to be emphasized as notable; Chopra is simply a cog of their machine.

Neuroscience325 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Soul Mates ?

I've reverted the paragraph about soul mates that was added by Zulupapa5 because it doesn't seem to fit. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Now why so aggressive? It can stay in WP:AGF, please revert. This concept of a binding connection between people is as a faith issue as the source of the controversy between classical interpretations in physics and mysticism. The physical approach has a logical faith in observables as separate from the observer. The quantum logical approach brings up "hidden" issues to this faith, as the observables are collapsed into the observer. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Hagelin, Jahn, and Wolf

The removal comment by Manul was "all primary sources; we can't interpret or categorize; see WP:PRIMARY"

Wolf is a self-confessed mystic according to his book The Yoga of Time Travel (and his biography is discussed in How the Hippies Saved Physics, already cited in the article), and Jahn's book Consciousness and the Source of Reality similarly talks about the "mystic man" vector that PEAR defined at the start of its operations in the 1970s and 1980s. The Hagelin source was not even primary; it was a secondary source, but regardless, the Hagelin article itself (as the Wolf article) presents more than enough evidence to support this (Hagelin used to be well-featured on this page, but was removed for some reason):

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/John_Hagelin#Efforts_to_link_consciousness_to_the_unified_field

I don't see any of this as interpretation or categorization--if a quantum physicists calls themselves mystics, they ought to be included in an article called quantum mysticism, plain and simple.

Can these physicists be added back to the lead, given their centrality and prominence in the debate--Jahn as Princeton's former Dean of Engineering, Wolf as a Berkeley Ph.D. and well-known author, and Hagelin as influential string theorist and Transcendental Meditation advocate.

I thought you were on board with "The relevant skill on Wikipedia is to read, comprehend, and summarize secondary sources with a sense of proportion of what the major and minor points are." This article has many problems which would be at least partially remedied by using secondary sources to determine content. It's a bad strategy to start throwing in stuff without a secondary source.
I contributed to the Hagelin article, including the section to which you linked. I know about Hagelin -- his brand of mysticism is quite distinct. We can't start lumping these people together because of our say-so. We need secondary sources to sort this out.
A fundamental problem with the article is that "quantum mysticism" has many different meanings, not only per individual but per time period. I don't regard Schrodinger as being in the same category as Hagelin with regard to mysticism, not even close. And then there's Chopra et al who don't understand a thing. The article needs to draw these distinctions, and the only way that can be done is with good secondary sources. Manul ~ talk 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I did notice the Hagelin source was not primary, but it's ultra-unreliable -- apparently just an essay someone wrote and posted online. Please see WP:RS. Manul ~ talk 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Hippies Saved Physics" book

Well I finally began reading this and, oh my, I found it entirely unconvincing, even wrong. Fortunately one needn't take my word for it because the book has been reviewed by experts, each taking issue with the book's premise. E.g.,

  • Physics Today:
    • "...I am deeply concerned that Kaiser's thesis, which magnifies and embellishes the role of the Fysiks Group, will lead the general public to believe that the group's concerns with consciousness and extrasensory phenomena were in the same ballpark as Eugene Wigner's analyses of the foundations quantum theory."
    • "The claim that the Fundamental Fysiks Group rescued Bell's theorem from a decade of unrelenting obscurity is not accurate, nor is Kaiser's statement that foundational issues in quantum mechanics were not being addressed."
  • American Scientist:
    • Nick Herbert's indirect influence in the development of the no-cloning theorem was "a very long way from making Herbert responsible for saving physics."
    • "Quantum mechanics has generated a huge amount of pseudoscientific nonsense about its supposed relation to the question of consciousness and to parapsychology. Unfortunately, members of the Fundamental Fysiks Group were and are among those responsible for this nonsense, which has seriously damaged their credibility as scientists."

If the book is used, then disputed claims need to be attributed to Kaiser and placed in context, if such claims are to be mentioned at all. For non-controversial statements and facts, using the book as a source for Wikipedia's voice is fine. Manul ~ talk 12:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. A couple bad book reviews is no reason to doubt the validity of the source--and regardless, what are you actually challenging?--I see a simplistic if naive criticism of the consciousness-based approach to physics and a historical epoch that you completely fail to understand.
Some nicer reviews, taken off the book cover:
  • Hugh Husterson, Nature
    • "It's hard to write a book about quantum mechanics that is at once intellectually serious and a page-turner. But David Kaiser succeeds...Illuminating"
  • "[Kaiser] does an admirable job of making the very concepts of quantum mechanics palpable. What Kaiser's storytelling does best is make a case for the value of freewheeling free thinking, particularly now, when institutions of higher learning are under siege."
    • Todd Wilkinson, Christian Science Monitor
  • "An entertaining tale of a bunch of counterculture types who, in the mid-1970s, rescued physics from a slump and kicked it in a new directions."
    • Michael D. Schaffer, Philadelphia Inquirer
Unless you're challenging a specific souring, I think the book is entirely appropriate.
"disputed claims need to be attributed to Kaiser and placed in context"
If there's no sourcing to dispute, you're just rambling.
"the book has been reviewed by experts"
The book was written by an expert, MIT Professor of the History of Science David Kaiser. Some book reviewer from Physics Today or American Scientist is hardly an expert on the history of science--smart and generally well educated, but not necessarily a historian at all.
Kaiser is a mainstream historian just like Schrodinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Capra, Wolf, Safatti, and the rest are mainstream physicists who openly embraced and embrace mysticism. This all ought to be referenced in the article.
"Fortunately one needn't take my word for it"
That's exactly what you're asking people to do since you haven't produced a single thing actually wrong with the book nor the way it is used as a source--it's literally a history book written by a historian recounting a period of history. What you quoted were book reviewers who didn't enjoy Kaiser's thesis that the Fundamental Fysiks Group was important and is relevant. To them, it was just a blip on the radar. But How the Hippies Saved Physics remains a history book, written by a historian, recounting the facts of a period of history. You've imagined some "disputed claims" into existence that simply do not exist.
This is exactly what people succeeded in doing to the PEAR article--Kaiser is an expert on history, just like Jahn is an expert on physics. But for some reason, the minute they mention parapsychology in a positive context, some menial book review becomes holy doctrine and a good Professor's name is dragged through the mud.
It's really quite disgusting.
Although you may have personally found a history book "entirely unconvincing, even wrong" (how was it wrong?--you never say) shortly after you "began reading" it, I trust my own judgement about the Fundamental Fysiks Group, having read Kaiser's entire book, taking an MIT Professor over an anonymous Wikipedia editor. But then again, you'd think people would realize that a Princeton Physics Ph.D, Plasma Physicist, Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, and aerospace engineer sponsored by NASA and the Air Force, who ran a consciousness laboratory for Princeton University's Human Information Processing Group for a quarter century, would be an expert on physics. Have you read The Dancing Wu Li Masters and The Tao of Physics and the dozen plus other books and immense number of scholarly publications produced by members of the Fundamental Fysiks Group over the years? These are all notable historical publications and realizations in the history of science that should be mentioned, but you're instead spending your time imagining some "disputed claims" that don't exist than looking at works and people who ought be further incorporated.
But Cartesian-Newtonian materialism just has to win out because Dawkins just has to be right about everything. Only on Wikipedia.
Neuroscience325 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Please be sure to read WP:NPA, WP:TPG, and WP:AC/DS. There have been well enough of these off-topic personal comments, thank you.
  • I began this thread in response to claims you have made on this talk page, such as the one that quantum mysticism "is becoming increasingly academically respectable and normalized". You said, "As for [TRPoD's] comment that quantum mysticism isn't becoming more mainstream, I'd recommend two history books on QM", and gave the Kaiser book. From what I can see, Kaiser doesn't argue that QM is becoming more mainstream. And as one review mentioned, the physicists in question are considered fringe.
  • You said the no-cloning theorem "grew directly out of parapsychological work on telepathy done by the Fundamental Fysiks Group". That's a difficult case to make, as one review confirms. I'm not even sure Kaiser would support the claim.
  • Presumably, the reason you are contributing to this talk page is to suggest changes to the article and to influence its direction. Some things you have asserted, however, are unsupported. If you were only here to talk then, right, there's nothing to do, in which case please see WP:NOTFORUM.
  • Laudatory quotes from reviews do not rebut the substantive criticism the book has received. Also note there is not necessarily a contradiction between criticism and praise, even from the same review. For example Physics Today said, "Kaiser is a master storyteller, a very good physicist, and a fine historian."
Manul ~ talk 14:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Need to Reference Actual Physicists in the Lead

As it stands, the lead doesn't really explain anything about the actual controversy: there are no people, books, dates, or arguments--it's a collection of bland statements that don't really elucidate the conceptual point.

I think the following two sentences remedy this error: I've sourced them both from a variety of people, but if there are any specific referenced needed, this is the place to discuss it. I originally added two similar statements to the article, removed for lack of sourcing. I think I've now remedied this problem.

Quantum mysticism has been featured as a topic in popular works on physics such as Mind and Matter by Erwin Schrödinger, The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, and The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Other notable mystical quantum physicists include former Fundamental Fysiks Group member Fred Alan Wolf[7][8], string theorist John Hagelin[9], and Dean Emeritus of Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Science, and Director of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Robert Jahn[10].
  1. ^ Kaiser, David (2011). How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival. New York: Norton & Company.
  2. ^ Capra, Fritjof; Luisi, Pier Luigi (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. ^ Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich; et al. (2011). What is Life?: The Intellectual Pertinence of Erwin Schrodinger. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  4. ^ Schrodinger, Erwin (1944). What is Life?: The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. ^ Capra, Fritjof (1975). The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boston: Random House.
  6. ^ Zukav, Gary (1979). The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics’'. New York, New York: HarperCollins.
  7. ^ Wolf, Fred (2004). The Yoga of Time Travel. Wheaton: Theosophical Publishing House.
  8. ^ Wolf, Fred (2010). Time Loops and Space Twists: How God Created the Universe. San Antonio: Hierophant Publishing.
  9. ^ http://physics.iupui.edu/~vasavada/ModernPhysicsandHinduPhilosophy.pdf
  10. ^ Jahn, Robert G.; Dunne, Brenda J. (2011). Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey. Princeton: ICRL Press.

Neuroscience325 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of this would be an improvement. Put it in the article. Better to make further improvements there than here. --Kvng (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Quantum mysticism is considered pseudoscience and "quackery"."

I have added "by whom?" to the sentence "Quantum mysticism is considered pseudoscience and "quackery"", as some obviously do not consider it so. Even though I definitely also consider it pseudoscience and "quackery", we should still hold the standards of Wikipedia high and tell who believes what when there are differing opinions, instead of just claiming our personal beliefs to be absolute truths believed by all. I am unsure how to phrase the sentence in a more truthful way and hope that someone can adjust it to be more true. --Jhertel (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So if one person doesn't consider it pseudoscience that needs to be in there? That's ridiculous. So every article for which there is at least one person who disagrees then that person needs to be recognized? This falls under undue weight and the crackpots who don't understand or misrepresent Quantum Mechanics and believe in Quantum Mysticism are vastly outnumbered by legitimate scientists who think it's pseudoscience. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, False balance Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you are confounding two rather separate cases. Certainly many mystical appeals to quantum physics are valueless. But on the other hand, Bohm wrote about mysticism and physics in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" and Capra in "The Tao of Physics", Bohr selected a Taoist symbol for his achievement, Davies has contributed "God and the New Physics" - even Einstein's famous "God does not play dice" brings religious ideas to bear upon quantum theory. There is a subject here. These people are scientists trying to make sense of the world - they are not pseudoscientists, their thoughts deserve a fair and balanced assessment, whatever you may think of them. Redheylin (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You missed the point. For every crackpot who believes in Quantum Mysticism there are many scientists who don't. This is the definition of "undue weight". According to you the 3% of climatologists who disagree with AGW deserve the same attention as the 97% who don't; same thing applies to creationists who deny evolution. Besides, there are many scientists who became crackpots in their latter years. Just because they were rational in the past does not mean that their unproven pseudoscientific ideas deserve any more serious treatment than someone who was a crackpot from the start. Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Redheylin, I think you can see the sort of person you're dealing with here. There's not much room for rational discussion. This black-and-white mindset, and the tendency to toss around the "crackpot" label, is typical of the bigotry of Wikipedia's militant skeptic faction. In such an environment discussion is likely useless. TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
An honest statement would be that QM is considered pseudoscience by those who consider themselves scientists. But I'm not sure I can provide reliable sources. - Arthur Rubin, 31 Oct 2014
@Arthur Rubin: you are right in returning to the original question. However, I think your statement isn't logically compatible with the definition of pseudo science: supporters of QM consider themselves scientists, but don't consider QM pseudoscience. - @Jhertel: I wonder what kind of statement could be an answer to your "By whom" question, when an opion poll is unavailable (or is it?). A google search for "quantum mysticism pseudoscience" finds lots of essays and blogs, but listing them all in the article isn't a good idea. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think when you look at it comparatively "every scientist" is accurate. The "not every scientist" portion consists of less than a rounding error. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read and studied at-length both the history of QMech (as an undergrad) and classical mysticism (eastern and western). While "many" scientists and philosophers certainly consider QMyst to be pseudoscience, IMO just as many consider comparisons between the two to be valuable - as did many of the great thinkers of the mid-20th century.

I realize that WP has a CSICOP camp that feels it has to stamp out pseudoscience (sometimes a great notion, sometimes a fetish), but the claim in the opening paragraph today is clearly intended to be prejudicial and insulting rather than balanced. Obvious slant and barely-disguised adhominem like that has no place in a (theoretically) intelligent reference work, and makes WP, and its editors, look sophmoric. TLDR: Uncool, dude.

The very title of the article is a strawman setup to be slapped down. There's no such thing as "quantum mysticism". If I gave enough of a damn, I'd propose the article for deletion. Maybe someone does. Twang (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting problem. There is something consistently called "quantum mysticism" by experts in quantum mechanics. Just because a term is pejorative doesn't mean we cannot use it if it really is used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism is not pseudoscience (it isn't really science either, but not everything that isn't science is necessarily pseudoscience). However, many people who do not understand physics misunderstand it and make various pseudoscientific claims, so, a lot of people have made it into a pseudoscience even though it isn't meant to be. --Zzo38 (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Early Controversy and resolution

I don't think the claim "By the second half of the twentieth century, the controversy had run its course—Schrödinger's 1958 lectures are said to "mark the last of a generation that lived with the mysticism controversy"—and today most physicists are realists who do not believe that quantum theory is involved with consciousness.[11]" under in this section is correct. It is just a claim made by one author of a single article on a single website. It is stated like it is a fact that consciousness has nothing to do with quantum theory. Which is simply not true. See comment by Oxford Philosopher of Science and a leading authority on the subject in https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/plurality-worlds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.8.17 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 175.39.8.17 (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

SMBC

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3958 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No info on subject

I came to this article to learn more about this subject, but left empty-handed. I found good material on criticism of the subject but little more. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In what way, exactly? It seems OK to me, but what do you want, examples of outrageous quantumbollocks? Guy (Help!) 17:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the scope of the article is not terribly well defined. There's no body of belief or practice that is described by its own adherents as "quantum mysticism". Instead, the term is used to criticize New Age and other beliefs because of their dubious invocation of quantum mechanics, although they may not misuse quantum mechanics in the same way, or have anything else in common. It is therefore not easy to detail exactly what quantum mystical ideas consist of. I suggest it would be preferable to have separate articles with tighter scope, for example quantum mechanics in New Age thought, or consciousness in quantum mechanics (which is may already covered well enough in quantum mind and Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation). --Amble (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
outrageous quantumbollock would do nicely, JzG. Seriously, at least some info on what this is. Otherwise, why have an article that does not explain what this is? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it does, but please do explain what is wrong. Obviously I know what it's about so I must be filling in the gaps mentally. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

POV issues

The article must be balanced between Materialism and Idealism and give equal weight to both ideas, the latter of which accepts mysticism and rejects the former. In its current form, the article is too materialistically biased. Khestwol (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:fringe142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia is neutral in respect to philosophies (such as materialism and idealism). What it does not do is give equal validity to hard science and wild speculation. You should read about methodological naturalism as one of the cornerstones of science. Methodological naturalism supports neither materialism, nor idealism, but confines the realm of science to logically analyzing empirically observable stuff. How each person metaphysically interprets its results, is not part of science. As Barbara Ehrenreich put it, quantum flapdoodle is saying that "quantum mechanics is true, therefore all knowledge gathered from all other sciences is false". Wikipedia takes science seriously, it does not dismiss medical sciences and mainstream psychology just because some people make wild guesses about the meaning of quantum mechanics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quantum mysticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose removing tag on "Further Reading" section

While I can understand the original motivation for the tag, there can be little expectation that this list can be better replaced by prose.

As for the contents of the list, it looks fairly reasonable to me. It certainly includes the classic New Age works mentioned in the article (that I've read and am familiar with) and the others appear on their face to be in the same vein.

Perhaps we could achieve some agreement here on the Talk page about what criteria should govern whether a book is on the list or not. I'd certainly like to leave it open for books that are respectful of the physics while excluding those that amount to "quantum flapdoodle". --jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Serious books that represent quantum physics accurately (I guess that is what you mean with "respectful of the physics") do not belong in this article. "Further Reading" should only contain quantum flapdoodle, and it already does. No action needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I meant to distinguish between Schroedinger, at one end, and Chopra, at the other, but where exactly the dividing line should be is not always easy to say.
The tag requesting work be done has been there for 5 years and, in my opinion, probably can't be satisfied. I'm going to remove the tag as proposed with a pointer to this talk page as the edit summary.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Misconception of the observer effect in Early Controversey

I have removed Werner Heisenberg as an alleged endorser of "consciousness playing a role in quantum theory." See Observer effect (physics) which contains the following reference, Heisenberg's own words: [1] Note also that "consciousness playing a role in quantum theory" could arguably be restated to better convey the intended point. Consciousness could be said to play a "role in quantum theory" since conscious beings created quantum theory! Rather, the point being conveyed seems to be the popular misconception of the observer effect. In regard to Niels Bohr, it seems doubtful that one of the major architects of the Copenhagen interpretation would misunderstand his own theory. Oddly, the article referenced at the end of the paragraph claims that Bohr believed the mystical interpretation was a misunderstanding of the theory (contrary to what is stated in the paragraph in question), [Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten]. If the article is to be accepted at face value, then it might be fair to replace Bohr's name with Wolfgang Pauli with the existing article as a sufficient reference. If there are no objections?... Blacksun1942 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quantum mysticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourcechecked  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

OK, fair enough, there is a load of "quantum bunk" in the New Age camp. But seriously, this was not all settled in 1958! The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is still a mainstream interpretation, and Schroedinger's Cat is considered to be in a superposition of dead and alive until observed by a conscious observer that "collapses the wavefunction". Feynman, no less, stated that if you think you've understood quantum physics, you haven't understood quantum physics. Or read Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind. And Bohr won his argument against Einstein. Oh yes, which eminent scientist said "it's as if the universe knew we (conscious humans) were coming"? Might have been Feynman again.

This article is far too dismissive, consigning the whole matter to "quackery", as if there is nothing weird about quantum physics. It's like a bunch of embarrassed "realists" are trying to hide something.

The article could at least expand on why quantum mysticism arose, ie. point out some of the rather mystical-seeming aspects of it, and the way quantum systems always seem to "know" if anyone's watching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clark42 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Arguably, it is the measurement which collapses the wave function, not watching the measurement or being aware of it. I agree that quantum mechanics has results/explanations which defy our common sense logic. But it is a leap of faith to jump from such apparent oddities to quantum mysticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
For an article written for and by laypeople, there's going to be limits to how technical it can be. It s eems fairly close to NPOV to me, but I'm no expert.As to getting the history of mystical ideas right, we need sources. The expression "it's as if" is a good jumping off point; as an observation, the interpretation is influenced by the theoretical background that you bring to it. Better than "seems to know". I think it starts as a an expression of mystery or mystification, some of which remains today; and one consequence was that people with fringe ideas could hang their ideas on the uncertainty expressed by real physicists.
Are there particular items that you think express POV? Can you propose something better?
Could this article perhaps benefit from a link to quantum decoherence?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"which eminent scientist": Freeman Dyson.
The problem may be that the Copenhagen interpretation is labeled "quantum mysticism" by the article. Yes, it is mainstream. (I think most physicists just don't care enough to make the effort of finding a better interpretation. QM works, that's enough.) But is it mysticism? It may have been called that by its opponents... but what does the literature as a whole say? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not the Copenhagen interpretation, it's some musing upon the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation which could be construed as labeled "quantum flapdoodle", as the article now stands. Some physicists did think that the logic of Eastern mysticism makes sense of quantum mechanics, a view later popularized by Fritjof Capra. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The argument here appears to be: (1) the Copenhagen interpretation is quantum mysticism; (2) the Copenhagen interpretation is reasonable and not bunk; (3) ergo, quantum mysticism is reasonable and not bunk.
But the Copenhagen interpretation is not quantum mysticism, and the article doesn't even mention the Copenhagen interpretation. It does mention the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, which is often confused with the Copenhagen interpretation. And further, the article explicitly distinguishes Wigner from the mysticism that followed.
Considering that the reason for the NPOV tag appears to be misguided, else it is unclear what the violation is, per the notes at {{npov}} I am removing the template. Manul ~ talk 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Since you're interested, I'd recommend David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity. He convincingly trashes each of those claims, even mentioning the very same Feynman quote. Although Deutsch considers Feynman a personal hero (one of a handful of people he regularly lists as his greatest influences), he states that Feynman was simply wrong. He argues that the entrenched paradigm is the result of "bad philosophy" in which physicists are taught theory in grad school with the proviso that they not attempt to understand what they're being taught, which is the antithesis of the scientific method. He therefore considers the Copenhagen interpretation to be bad science, and asserts (again, convincingly) that the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only scientific framework which best fits the facts. Blacksun1942 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Imho, the interpretations of quantum mechanics are philosophical ways of making sense of the consensually accepted descriptions of quantum mechanics and there is yet no way to decide which interpretation best fit the facts. It that were possible, they would be called hypotheses or theories, not interpretations. I think Bell's theorem is a way of distinguishing between interpretations appealing to hidden variables and the rest, but it has received no final answer. We still don't know if there are any hidden variables. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Quackery

The word quackery only appeared in external links, after the removal from the lead. So it is not restating anything already written in the article. Therefore its removal for restating what is already there, it is a removal for a bogus reason. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of (misconstrued?) Hawking quote in lead section? OR/SYNTH? (again)

I apologize if it seems that I'm picking on David here (I suspect that David is David Pearce (philosopher)). I appreciate David's desire to expand and improve this article. Nevertheless, it yet again seems to me that [this edit] is not appropriate. Yet again, I think this is an example of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Without unambiguous context, it seems clear to me that the quote is not relevant, and it's inclusion here is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The full quote in and of itself does not seem to have any *explicit* connection to this article. It seems to me that, yet again, it is only the editor himself who is implying the connection. Are there any notable/reliable sources who have used this quote to justify quantum mysticism or otherwise specifically connected it to this subject? If so, then I think it would be appropriate to mention this elsewhere in the article rather than in the lead. If not, I believe that this addition should be removed. Blacksun1942 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A citation may cover a paragraph

It's not unusual to cite a source at the end of a paragraph; WP:CITE mentions "sentence or paragraph" multiple times. Yet, throughout the history of this article, several editors have thought the first section is unsourced despite the supporting citation at the end.

Recently one editor thought that mentioning Schrödinger as being part of the early mysticism camp was WP:PROFRINGE,[4] but that is clearly sourced and the article clearly distinguishes Schrödinger from the New Age stuff that later followed.

In any case I suppose I'll relent and repeat the same citation across consecutive sentences. (Sigh.) Manul ~ talk 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the inclusion of Schrodinger was totally appropriate as you say. *shrug* Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"On pain of dualism..."

Regarding the [recent edits made] by Davidcpearce: I'd like to encourage [Davidcpearce]] to contribute to the article in good faith, but it's pretty clear that the specific added content is a straightforward violation of WP:OR and an example of WP:SYNTH. It seems clear to me that you've not read policy or guidelines regarding neutral point of view. Again WP:SYNTH is also very important to read as is WP:WORDS. Again, please feel free to contribute, but I encourage you to do so bearing in mind the policies and guidelines mentioned, and especially WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Blacksun1942, I'm disconcerted if flattered to be told I'm contributing original research: all I was doing was restating the Hard Problem, not offering a solution - or endorsing any of the authors named. The claim that physicalism is false, and that quantum theory as enshrined by the Standard Model or its extensions _cannot_ explain consciousness, is itself as bold as any of the proposals excoriated in the existing entry. Either way, in our eagerness to debunk mysticism and pseudoscience, we shouldn’t pretend to possess a knowledge that we simply don't have. --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
David, welcome to Wikipedia! "Original research/synthesis" encompasses any conclusion/opinion personally reached by the editor as a result of his/her familiarity with the relevant literature, personal experience, etc *rather* than a mere neutral restatement of information in an appropriate source. The statement "The American higher education system is failing to produce economically viable citizens" is an example of original research if it represents the editor's personal conclusion. "According to John Doe, the American higher education is failing to produce economically viable citizens" is an appropriate edit that is not original research. If you are a valid authority on a given topic, you may quote/cite any relevant material you've published provided that it is a reliable source, is not given undue weight, and is in accordance with guidelines, e.g. WP:PROFRINGE, etc. The guidelines are set up so that articles reflect current scientific consensus and mainstream views (even though some of these views are surely wrong, or subject to change in the foreseeable future); this is not necessarily the same as debunking pseudoscience. While editors may be eager to be debunk pseudoscience, the proper role of these articles is the dissemination of information by succinctly summarizing/restating relevant source material in cool encyclopedic prose. While your edits may be appropriate for a blog (or scholarly debate), I believe that they constitute WP:SYNTH and editorializing. I don't have access to the source you cited, so I don't know if "On pain of dualism..." was a direct quote (in which case, it might well be appropriate); is the author notable enough, especially explicitly regarding quantum mysticism? Is he a fringe author advocating a fringe position? Even if he were as notable and relevant to the article as Deepak Chopra or Erwin Schrodinger, we should consider WP:LEAD. The inclusion of such content (any content) is essentially subject to a democratic process, the basis of which is the merit of its relevance, not whether it should be "debunked" or whether one editor or another personally agrees or disagrees with the viewpoint expressed by the author in question. Just to be clear, I think that your statements here regarding physicalism, quantum theory, and consciousness would definitely not be appropriate for inclusion in the article (no matter how obvious you might think they are) unless they were specific quotes. For example, calling a claim "bold" is not appropriate unless you're specifically quoting someone. Again WP:EDITORIALIZING (and WP:MOS generally) offers very useful guidance here. Blacksun1942 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The hard problem has nothing to do with quantum mysticism, that's a violation of WP:COATRACK. Pleading the hard problem as a defense of quantum mysticism is a violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, forgive me, but you've missed the point I was making: I was not defending quantum mysticism!.--Davidcpearce (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:MNA we know that there are many philosophical views and we assume that the reader knows this. So your inference "there are many philosophical views, therefore quantum mysticism could be valid" is original research unless your actually quote a reliable source making this very claim. In such a case, we would not state it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, but we would attribute it to its author. We cannot attribute claims to editors, since editors aren't allowed to make claims of their own inside Wikipedia articles. And actually, having many philosophical views does not imply such a point, since many occultists pretend to write metaphysics (i.e. philosophy) while no respectable university would teach their views as amounting to philosophy. As for the scientific merits of quantum mysticism, there do not seem to be any. So it is bunk as philosophy and bunk as science. Only New Age minded people consider it otherwise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's right. Let's not forget that some models of awareness posit that it is a result of emergence. Skeptics have argued that quantum effects do not affect neurotransmitters (molecules too large to matter quantum effects), therefore Newtonian physics is good enough for describing awareness. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I don't have any interest in debating these issues here. I don't think that the notion that quantum mechanics plays a role in human consciousness is necessarily relevant to this particular article. For example, The Emperor's New Mind represents a minority opinion, but it is not (to my knowledge) exactly considered "quantum mysticism." The added content originally referred to might be more relevant to the hard problem of consciousness. In fact, I'm not aware that explaining the hard problem of consciousness by appealing to quantum mechanics is, in and of itself, considered "quantum mysticism." From what I understand (e.g. via the relevant sources used in our article), quantum mysticism more refers to the claims of new age personalities like Deepak Chopra, Amit Goswami, Quantum University, etc...specifically that because of the observer effect (physics), it is possible to significantly alter the physical world, including and especially your physical health, simply by thought alone. That's not what's being asserted by those like Roger Penrose who, while in the considerable minority, believe only that consciousness may be explained by quantum effects in the brain. For what it's worth, I agree with you: my understanding is that it's fairly clear that quantum effects are irrelevant to conscious awareness and that Penrose is simply "not even wrong." Nevertheless, I think the hypothesis is relevant to this article *only insofar as its been specifically mentioned by figures such as Deepak Chopra in service of his pseudoscientific/quackery (e.g. supernatural healing techniques which are "explained" by appeals to quantum mechanics). The mention of consciousness in the "early controversy" section is relevant because these disagreements paved the way for entrepreneurs such as Chopra and Quantum University to point to figures like Schrodinger in order to validate the books, techniques, etc they began selling to the lay public; these individuals are not noteworthy philosophers of mind, nor is their work considered to offer any meaningful contribution whatsoever to philosophical debates regarding the hard problem of consciousness, even (as far as I know) by people like Penrose, who *do* believe that quantum effects play a role. Blacksun1942 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Behind the Lost Symbol: Appropriateness of Citation

Do we consider an obscure book of literary criticism concerning a Dan Brown novel to be an appropriate citation regarding scientific thought? Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Sources are reliable for a specific claim, not in general. Per WP:BLUE there are no harsh requirements for quoting Captain Obvious. I mean if the people from religion studies already got the point about pseudoscience, then it is really a mainstream view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If, I suppose, the point is to be made that this is psuedoscience by popular thought, rather than by consensus of a specific scientific community, or communities then perhaps it might aid the article to make this distinction, and even to expand the article to include both scientific debunking and non-scientific community debunking? Such might show the cross-sections of opinion that this article concerns quackery, which seems to be the current Wiki consensus.
As an aside: there are questions about the inter-relationship between science and faith-based philosophies that the inclusion of what seems to be a fairly fantastical book as citation may underline. Most notably, the school of thought that views the scientific method(s) as an attempt to create a single unified objective truth -- a viewpoint on science as a whole that can root from alternative philosophies which hold that every individual conciousness creates their own reality, mediated by multiple conciousness-gravities which interact as 'complex node-geometries'. However, such pseudo-science should have no place within this article, of course, even if credible sources can be found for it or the view could be shown to be in any way mainstream, it should of course be demonstrated to be palpable nonsense in order to maintain NPOV. Though I do remember helping someone with his Public Health PhD, who was having trouble understanding the concept itself, and we got there with him in the end, after many headaches and much stroking of beards... Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The writer does not say that it is a matter of his own opinion, but refers to what physicists think of quantum mysticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The citation is not a citation of a physicist and the name of any supporting person does not seem to be mentioned, nor any qualifications or coroborating institutions. It really isn't the place of one guy writing a book about a Dan Brown novel to sum up what physicists in general think (are these even quantum physicists???), is it? Mrspaceowl (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Then I advise you to take it to WP:RSN, so that more eyes look at it. Oh, yes, just noticed that you are a newbie. Do consider WP:FRIND and WP:PARITY. It is your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia WP:RULES which made you question the use of that source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mrspaceowl: I have reverted your edits as obvious violations of WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I have asked a question about one of the sources used at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Philosophy of Science and the Occult. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm. I am unclear on where the evidence for lack of familiarity with the rules of Wikipedia, or the newness of my editing status (which I note predates the creation of this account considerably, though I have no other) has come from, apart from that your personal judgment posits violation. For the record I am familiar with many of the quote rules. Nevertheless, I would like to leave this line of argument aside as it doesn't feel a productive avenue of debate and seems unlikely to aid in improving the article...
Instead I would propose an alternative resolution which hopefully will not lead to acrimony. That being: an expansion of the history section to include more details of the debates between, for example Einstein, Bohm, Wolfgang Pauli, Schrodinger, Shopenhauer and Dirac. This to represent that the view in scientific and lay communities was at least at some point split (on points that to my mind have never been satisfactorally resolved). I suggest an expansion focusing more on a full and complete representation of the arguments put forward, and looking to science historians' own understanding of the WP:DUE of each, since it seems that in their field they would be best placed to decide. I would suggest for example that Juan Miguel Marin might be seen as an appropriate arbiter in this regard. In addition, I would like some more details on how the Copenhagen interpretation fits into the synthesises made by those claiming a basis for quantum mysticism. I'd also like to see some reference, and critiques if critiques can be sourced, on texts such as The Tao of Physics or The Dancing Wu Li Masters as I understand these have some influence. At present it seems that the widely debunked What the Bleep Do We Know? is being given prominance in the field, and some are taking its arguments and those of the likes of Deepak Chopra as if to represent the totality of thought on the matter by many of scientific and non-scientific minds.
I wonder if you would consent to allow the article to be extended with significant additional sourcing and historical citations, to allow the various competing viewpoints to speak for themselves? There seem to be a large number of historically mainstream and a few moderately popular resources that put forward the case for quantum mysticism. If you could collaborate in finding additional sources that demonstrate the views of significantly cited physicists, particularly those working in the quantum fields, or whose research at least has crossover, who oppose the proposition as well, I would be very grateful to you.
At present the article seems somewhat lacking, to say the least. Mrspaceowl (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You have been told about WP:PROFRINGE: presenting this quantum flapdoodle as anything else than WP:FRINGE/PS is a violation of basic policy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

TOC?

Why doesn't this page have a table of contents? Or is it just me? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You get a TOC if there are four or more sections. You can att {TOC} if you want. EEng 19:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

In the section above an editor says that he wants "allow the various competing viewpoints to speak for themselves". presumably he is talking about some "competing viewpoint" other than the viewpoint shared by most scientists and philosophers -- that quantum mysticism is pseudoscience and quackery.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[5][6]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards quantum entanglement, and biased against quantum mysticism.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for posting this! Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Recent edit warring smacks of WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"today most physicists are realists who do not believe that quantum theory is involved with consciousness"

This statement is too general. Not involved how? Roger Penrose is a "realist", has specifically said he dislikes the idea of consciousness being primary or fundamental, but is well known for promoting the idea that QM is involved in consciousness. --15:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Derwos (talk)

Yup, I guess it is about the old argument "human awareness is what collapses the wave function". Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I've amended this statement slightly as it's not what the cited article says - it puts it the other way round: "...do not believe that consciousness has a role in quantum theory", which is important as it subtly (but importantly) changes the meaning. In the article it is talking about consciousness being an active agent in creating reality - which physicists generally no longer think is the case. The other way round it would be saying that quantum theory is not involved with process which give rise to consciousness - this is not the conclusion of the article, and indeed is still an area of active research. Seajay (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Most physicists are not Roger Penrose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
To be a bit clearer: The current version is OK, but the justification is not. From the fact that Roger Penrose thinks that "quantum theory is involved with consciousness" one cannot conclude that "most physicists do not believe that" is wrong, because, as I said, Penrose is one single man and "most physicists" are not him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That's pathetic, stuff like "wavefunction" was invented to explicitly deny metaphysical implications of measurement, simply because Einstein refused to accept that World is not well organized mathematical puzzle that can be solved with right equations. Of course such artificial thing as "wavefunction" not worked well, and they have to "fix" it with another invented term "collapse of wavefunction", which itself isn't working and leads to Shrodinger's Cat. All that just to satisfy Einstein stubborness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.116.139.40 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And your point about our article is...? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.
— User:Kww

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Although I was not part of the editing history of this page. It is clearly not a page on a definition of Quantum mysticism, but a biased debunking of Quantum mysticism. There is no evidence on the page indicating references that didn't debunk the subject would be allowed. The tone of it ranges from nonobjectivism to misrepresentative and insulting: Examples include; "Quackery and describing Fritjof Capra as a quantum metaphysicist, when he already has a wiki page with a more accurate description. [1] This article, in an effort to keep respect, should not be about validating or debunking the thought process of Quantum mysticism, but giving references that describe it. Naninnewetuah (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fritjof_Capra
Ooh, reverse causation! Your contribution was answered by Tgeorgescu's contribution last year. In the edit history, it looks as if you answered what he wrote, but actually he answered what you wrote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic content removed

According to WP:COATRACK I have removed off-topic content. It was learned, interesting writing, but it had nothing to do with quantum mysticism. E.g. they are many considerations about the link between awareness and quantum mechanics, which have nothing to do with quantum mysticism. The purpose of this article isn't to elucidate that link, but only speak about quantum mysticism. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2021 and 18 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arpierc1, RAY of the SEA, Acarrol2. Peer reviewers: Lcwest, Raia6, Led201133, Latinamarcy, AlexisReed, AlexisTReed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This article is written from a non-neutral perspective. It can be seen in the edit history, any language not supporting the thesis of quantum mysticism as pseudoscience or quackery is removed. It here should be references to mainstream publications that support empirical evidence if not objective data. 2603:7000:8500:11D0:4470:1820:5443:9F6E (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, see WP:GOODBIAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2021 and 18 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arpierc1, RAY of the SEA, Acarrol2 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lcwest, Raia6, Led201133, AlexisReed, AlexisTReed.

— Assignment last updated by Latinamarcy (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mysticism/Archive_5&oldid=1179435426"