From: "Mark Baron" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:33:50 -0600 Organization: Mayo Foundation Lines: 397 Message-ID: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: baron.mayo.edu X-Trace: tribune.mayo.edu 945207228 29117 129.176.218.141 (14 Dec 1999 21:33:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@mayo.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Dec 1999 21:33:48 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!mayonews.mayo.edu!not-for-mail http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/qmyth.txt Just making it available because of recent discussions. YMMV - Mark ------- The Myth of Quantum Consciousness Victor J. Stenger Published in The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, pp. 13-15. A new myth is burrowing its way into modern thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for the human mind in determining the very nature of the universe. Not surprisingly, this idea can be found in New Age periodicals and in many books on the metaphysical shelves of book stores. But it also can appear where you least expect it, even on the pages of that bastion of rational thinking,The Humanist . In an article in the November/December 1992 issue entitled "The Wise Silence," Robert Lanza says that, according to the current quantum mechanical view of reality, "We are all the ephemeral forms of a consciousness greater than ourselves." The mind of each human being on earth is instantaneously connected to each other - past, present and future - as "a part of every mind existing in space and time."[1] To my ear, these sound very much like the ideas of physicist and New Age guru Fritjof Capra, as expressed most recently in the film "Mindwalk." They also resonate with the "cosmic consciousness" promoted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation movement. Like Lanza, these sages claim modern physics as their authority. The Maharishi associates cosmic consciousness with the Grand Unified Field of particle physics. Maharishi University "quantum physicist" John Hagelin, Natural Law Party candidate for President in last year's election, has spoken frequently about quantum consciousness. In Lanza's interpretation, quantum mechanics tells us that all human minds are united in one mind and "the entities of the universe - electrons, photons, galaxies, and the like - are floating in a field of mind that cannot be limited within a restricted space or period . . ." Unlike traditional myths, which call on scripture or the utterances of charismatic leaders as their authorities, this latest version of ancient Hindu idealism is supposedly based on up-to-date scientific knowledge. The assertion is made that quantum mechanics has ruled invalid the materialistic, reductionist view of the universe, introduced by Newton in the seventeenth century, which formed the foundation of the scientific revolution. Now, materialism is replaced by a new spiritualism and reductionism is cast aside by a new holism. The myth of quantum consciousness sits well with many whose egos have made it impossible for them to accept the insignificant place science perceives for humanity, as modern instruments probe the farthest reaches of space and time. It was bad enough when Copernicus said that we were not at the center of the universe. It was worse when Darwin announced that we were not angels. But it became intolerable when astronomers declared that the earth is but one of a hundred billion trillion other planets, and when geologists demonstrated that recorded history is but a blink of time - a microsecond of the second of earth's existence. In a land where self-gratification has reached heights never dreamed of in ancient Rome, where self- esteem is more important than being able to read, and where self-help requires no more effort than putting on a cassette, the myth of quantum consciousness is just what the shrink ordered. But, alas, quantum consciousness has about as much substance as the aether from which it is composed. Early in this century, quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity destroyed the notion of a holistic universe that had seemed within the realm of possibility in the century just past. First, Einstein did away with the aether, shattering the doctrine that we all move about inside a universal, cosmic fluid whose excitations connect us simultaneously to one another and to the rest of the universe. Second, Einstein and other physicists proved that matter and light were composed of particles, wiping away the notion of universal continuity. Atomic theory and quantum mechanics demonstrated that everything, even space and time, exists in discrete bits - quanta. To turn this around and say that twentieth century physics initiated some new holistic view of the universe is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. The belief in a universal, cosmic fluid pervading all space is an ancient one. To the Greeks, aether was the rarified air breathed by the gods on Olympus. Aristotle used this term for the celestial element - the stuff of the heavens - and said it was subject to different tendencies than the stuff of earth. When Newton was prompted to explain the nature of gravity in non- mathematical terms, he replied that gravity might be transmitted by an invisible aether. He further suggested that the aether also may be responsible for electricity, magnetism, light, radiant heat, and the motion of living things that he, like his contemporaries, thought was the consequence of some source beyond inanimate matter. Even today, despite the preponderance of evidence unavailable to Newton that life is a purely material phenomenon, people still speak of immaterial{,} vital forces such a ch'i, ki, prana, andpsychic energy which have no scientific basis. Newton also had proposed that vibrations of the aether might be excited by the brain. This speculation forms the conceptual foundation for the modern myth of quantum consciousness and the related belief that the human mind commands special powers - psychic forces - that transcend the material universe. Newton had envisioned matter and light to be particulate in nature, though they appear continuous to the human eye. Gravity, however, seemed to be something else, acting invisibly - holistically - over the entire universe. In the mid-nineteenth century, the mathematical concept of the field was developed to describe the apparent continuity of matter, light, and gravity. A field has a value at each point in space, in contrast to the properties of a particle which are localized to a tiny region of space. To some current observers, fields are holistic entities while particles typify the reductionist view of nature, where everything is reduced to its parts. Holists, with great profundity, inform us that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and so the reductionist view must be discarded. Note, however, that fields were not invented last week, after some great burst of intuition by a Capra or a Lanza, but appeared in reductionist physics over a century ago. Little in the new holism is really very new, or very logical. Pressure and density are two examples of matter fields. In continuous elastic media, pressure an density propagate as sound waves when the media are excited. As the phenomena of electricity and magnetism became better understood, they were also described in terms of fields. When Maxwell discovered that the equations which united electricity with magnetism called for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum at the speed of light, it was suggested that the vacuum was not empty but filled with an elastic medium - the aether - whose excitation produced the phenomenon of light. Electromagnetic waves beyond the narrow spectrum of visible light were predicted and soon observed and put to use in "wireless telegraphy." One of the early workers in wireless telegraphy was the English physicist Oliver Lodge. While making major contributions to physics and engineering, Lodge joined William Crookes, Alfred Russel Wallace (co-discoverer of evolution) and other notable nineteenth century scientists in searching for phenomena that transcended the world of matter. If wireless telegraphy was possible, why not wireless telepathy? If electrical circuits could generate and detect ethereal waves, why not the human brain? Coincidentally, certain people who seemed to possess the ability to communicate with other minds, living and dead, had just appeared on the scene. They were called mediums a century ago; today their spiritual descendants are known as psychics or channellers. Unfortunately, most scientists lack the specific skills needed to distinguish fact from illusion in the world of magic. The universe does not lie; people lie. Lodge and other psychical researchers allowed themselves to be fooled by the tricks of professional fortune-tellers and sleight-of-hand artists posing as spiritualists. Lodge desperately wanted to believe in life after death, writing passionately about communications with his son Raymond who was killed in Flanders in 1915. Sadly, he accepted the wildest claims of mediums. Near the turn of the century, Michelson and Morley sought to find experimental evidence for the aether and succeeded in showing instead that it did not appear to exist. Shortly thereafter, in 1905, Einstein developed his theory of relativity which demonstrated that the concept of an aether was logically inconsistent with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Einstein concluded that electromagnetic waves, including light, could not be the vibrations of an aether. Still, Oliver Lodge remained firm in his belief that a universal cosmic fluid existed that could be excited by the human mind. To Lodge, the aether was a necessity, the cosmic glue without which "there can hardly be a material universe at all."[2] Lodge was similarly unhappy with what he was hearing young quantum physicists, like Bohr and Heisenberg, say about the fundamentally discrete, quantized, nature of all phenomena. He deplored "the modern tendency . . . to emphasize the discontinuous or atomic character of everything."[3] But progress passed him by, as evidence accumulated that matter is composed of discrete atoms, that electricity is the flow of electrons or other charged particles, and that light is a current of particles called photons. When Oliver Lodge died in 1940, continuity was already long in its grave. Einstein wasn't comfortable with quantum mechanics either, calling it "spooky." He and two collaborators, Podolsky and Rosen, wrote a paper in 1935 arguing that quantum mechanics was "incomplete" because it seemed to allow for the propagation of signals faster than the speed of light, a result forbidden by Einstein's relativity.[4] Like so many of the strange effects of quantum mechanics, this was a consequence of the wave-particle duality in which physical systems behave either like waves or particles, depending on which type of property you are trying to measure. Again the distinction is between the discrete, localized properties of a particle and the continuous, distributed properties a field. The EPR paradox remained a curiosity until 1964 when John S. Bell showed how it provided a way to experimentally test the conventional, "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics.[5] Earlier, physicist David Bohm had proposed an alternative to Copenhagen in which invisible "hidden variablesÓ were responsible for the wave-like behavior of particles.[6] Bell showed the way to experimentally decide the issue. Now, after a series of precise experiments, the issue has been decided: The Copenhagen interpretation quantum mechanics has been convincingly confirmed, while the most important class of hidden variables is ruled out.[7] David Bohm, who died in October, 1992, had been the foremost proponent of a new holistic paradigm to take the place of reductionist quantum physics.[8] The failure of his related hidden variable theory did not cause the proponents of the new continuity to loose faith. Rather they have turned the experimental confirmation of conventional quantum mechanics on its head by arguing that a basis has been found for the superluminal signals needed in a holistic universe. Einstein's principle that no signals can move faster than light implies that separated events in the universe, even those an atomic diameter apart, cannot be simultaneously connected. This fundamentally contradicts the holistic view of an instantaneous interconnectedness among all things. Rather, relativity paints quite the opposite picture: a universe of localized particles that at any instant depend only on the other particles with which they are in direct contact. What is going on elsewhere in the universe at that instant can have no effect until the particles carrying the necessary information can get there, moving no faster than the speed of light. This is a far more complete form of reductionism than is present in pre-Einsteinian mechanics, where motions at superluminal or even infinite speeds were not ruled out by any known theory. Incompatible with the claims of the new holists, relativity not only supports the reductionist view - it makes it mandatory! A universal cosmic field like the aether, providing a mechanism for interconnectedness, requires a violation of Einstein's relativity. But relativity has passed every experimental test that has been put to it since being introduced in 1905, so it cannot be casually discarded. Similarly, the interpretation of quantum mechanics to which Einstein objected, and which Bohm sought to replace, still reigns supreme after being subjected to a similar period of rigorous experimental test, including the tests of Bell's theorem. The EPR paradox thus would seem to suggest that quantum mechanics and relativity cannot be made compatible, and so one or the other must go. Before the experimental results confirming conventional quantum mechanics came in, Bohm and his supporters had argued that conventional quantum mechanics should be discarded. Now that the results are in, the new holists argue that relativity must yield, since quantum mechanics provides a mechanism by which signals can move faster than light. Quantum mechanics is indeed "spooky." So, bring out the spooks! An ethereal, universal field that allows for the simultaneous connection between events everywhere in the universe must exist after all. Quantum mechanics is called on further to argue that the cosmic field, like Newton's aether, couples to the human mind itself. In Robert Lanza's view, that field is the universal mind of all humanity - living, dead, and unborn. Ironically, this seemingly profound association between quantum and mind is an artifact, the consequence of unfortunate language used by Bohr, Heisenberg and the others who originally formulated quantum mechanics. In describing the necessary interaction between the observer and what is being observed, and how the state of a system is determined by the act of its measurement, they inadvertently left the impression that human consciousness enters the picture to cause that state come into being. This led many who did not understand the physics, but liked the sound of the words used to describe it, to infer a fundamental human role in what was previously a universe that seemed to have need for neither gods nor humanity. If Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than "observers," perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement. Quantum mechanics does not violate the Copernican principle that the universe cares not a whit about the human race. Long after humanity has disappeared from the scene, matter will still undergo the transitions that we call quantum events. The atoms in stars will radiate photons, and these photons will be absorbed by materials that react to them. Perhaps, after we are gone, some of our machines will remain to analyze these photons. If so, they will do so under the same rules of quantum mechanics that operate today. But even without human involvement, with inanimate instruments doing the observing, do the rules of quantum mechanics allow for superluminal motion? A careful analysis of the experiments that tested Bell's theorem shows that the only objects that move faster than light are mathematical creations of our imagination, like the quantum wave function, which are not physical objects. It can be demonstrated that no signal carrying actual information moves faster than the speed of light{.} Neither conventional quantum mechanics nor Einstein's relativity are violated.[9] The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non- superluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world. Victor J. Stenger is Professor of Physics of the University of Hawaii and president of Humanists Hawaii. A further discussion of the ideas in this article can be found in his book Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses (Prometheus Books, 1990) and in his article "The Spooks of Quantum Mechanics, Skeptical Inquirer 15, No. 3, Fall 1990, p. 51. He is also author of Not By Design: The Origin of the Universe (Prometheus Books, 1988) . Notes [1]Robert Lanza, 1992. "The Wise Science." The Humanist Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 24. [2]Oliver Lodge, 1920. Beyond Physics . London: Alana and Unwin. [3]Oliver Lodge, 1914. Continuity. The Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1913. New York: Putnam. P. 21. [4]A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, 1935. "Can the Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Physical Review 47, p. 777. [5]J.S. Bell, 1964. Physics 1, p. 195. [6]David Bohm, 1952. "A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden Variables,' I and II.Ó Physical Review 85, p. 166. [7]Alain Aspect, Phillipe Grangier, and Roger Gerard, 1982. "Experimental Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities." Physical Review Letters 49, p. 91; "Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers. " Ibid, p. 1804. [8]Gary Zukav, 1979. The Dancing Wu Lee Masters. New York: Morrow. [9]David N Mermin, 1985. "Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory." Physics Today, 38, p. 38. ###### From: Joseph Polanik Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 23:03:41 -0500 Organization: Trionic Research Institute Lines: 129 Message-ID: <8q727sg10fc2o7mr5j6hvlee8t499bpm49@4ax.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> Reply-To: jpolanik@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.95.4d Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 4 Jan 2000 04:05:30 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-MUC.ecrc.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.mindspring.net!newsfeed.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29360 >: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness >: Victor J. Stenger >: Published in The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, >: Number 3, pp. 13-15. >: The notion is spreading that the principles >: embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for >: the human mind in determining the very nature of the >: universe. Not surprisingly, this idea can be found in New >: Age periodicals and in many books on the metaphysical >: shelves of book stores. But it also can appear where you >: least expect it, even on the pages of that bastion of >: rational thinking,The Humanist . >: In an article in the November/December 1992 issue >: entitled "The Wise Silence," Robert Lanza says >: that, according to the current quantum mechanical view >: of reality, "We are all the ephemeral forms of a >: consciousness greater than ourselves." The mind of each >: human being on earth is instantaneously connected to >: each other - past, present and future - as "a part of >: every mind existing in space and time."[1] This perspective is very old. >: To my ear, these sound very much like the ideas of >: physicist and New Age guru Fritjof Capra, as expressed >: most recently in the film "Mindwalk." >: In Lanza's interpretation, quantum mechanics >: tells us that all human minds are united in one mind and >: "the entities of the universe - electrons, photons, >: galaxies, and the like - are floating in a field of mind >: that cannot be limited within a restricted space or >: period . . ." >: Unlike traditional myths, ... >: this latest version of ancient Hindu idealism >: is supposedly based on up-to-date scientific knowledge. >: The assertion is made that quantum mechanics has ruled >: invalid the materialistic, reductionist view of the >: universe, introduced by Newton in the seventeenth >: century, which formed the foundation of the scientific >: revolution. Now, materialism is replaced by a new >: spiritualism and reductionism is cast aside by a new >: holism. Quantum theory resolved the wave/particle dichotomy by giving up the either/or thinking that led some to claim that light was only a wave and led others to claim that light was only a particle. Now we have a wave/particle duality, an entity that appears to be either a wave or a particle depending on how we choose to observe it. Quantum theory may inspire some to balance reductionism and holism or to seek a balance between materiality and spirituality, but it neither proves that a reductionistic, materialistic philosophy is false nor proves that a reductionistic, materialistic philosophy is true. Unfortunately, Stenger is exhibiting the either/or thinking that quantum theory has discarded. >: The myth of quantum consciousness sits well with >: many whose egos have made it impossible for them to >: accept the insignificant place science perceives for >: humanity, ... the myth of quantum consciousness is just >: what the shrink ordered. >: First, Einstein did away with >: the aether, shattering the doctrine that we all move >: about inside a universal, cosmic fluid whose excitations >: connect us simultaneously to one another and to the rest >: of the universe. Second, Einstein and other physicists >: proved that matter and light were composed of particles, >: wiping away the notion of universal continuity. Atomic >: theory and quantum mechanics demonstrated that >: everything, even space and time, exists in discrete bits - >: quanta. To turn this around and say that twentieth >: century physics initiated some new holistic view of the >: universe is a complete misrepresentation of what >: actually took place. Stenger is doing some misrepresenting of his own. There are any number of views as to the fate of human ego consciousness after the death of its body, But, details aside, they fall into three main categories: 1. Consciousness disappears much like the light in a refrigerator when you shut the door. 2. Consciousness survives the death of its body but loses its individuality much like a drop of water returning to the ocean. 3. Consciousness survives the death of its body and retains its individuality. A fundamental insight of quantum theory is that there are discrete packets of . So it is foolish to call Position 2 'quantum consciousness' since it holds that there are no discrete quanta of consciousness. Position 3 might have some claim to be called quantum consciousness since it holds that consciousnesses remain discrete, but this would be a metaphorical use of the word 'quantum'. In no sense is it being said that quantum theory proves that Position 3 is true. IMHO, quantum theory does not prove that any of these postitions is true nor does it prove that any of them are false. It doesn't really address the issue. >: Lodge was similarly unhappy with what he was >: hearing young quantum physicists, like Bohr and >: Heisenberg, say about the fundamentally discrete, >: quantized, nature of all phenomena. He deplored "the >: modern tendency . . . to emphasize the discontinuous or >: atomic character of everything."[3] But progress passed >: him by, as evidence accumulated that matter is composed >: of discrete atoms, that electricity is the flow of >: electrons or other charged particles, and that light is a >: current of particles called photons. When Oliver Lodge >: died in 1940, continuity was already long in its grave. Yet, somehow, any attempt to apply this insight to the understanding of consciousness draws the ire of the high priests of scientism. Joe ***************************************************** Joseph Polanik, jpolanik@mindspring.com Trionic Research Institute, http://www.trionica.com ###### Message-ID: <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 17:21:38 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.149 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 946859095 204.131.176.149 (Sun, 02 Jan 2000 17:24:55 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 17:24:55 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29274 Simon, who the hell are you prey tell? Are you a typical taunter? It seems that way from your post. "The most truthful...." you say? You must be joking! There are a lot of facts stated in the post, and there are certainly a lot of facts left out. Do you call this "truth"? I call it bias in support of your religion. Need I remind you of the Alaine Aspect experiment which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that superluminal communication exist. You call this post "insightful". Really? What is so insightful about it. It is common knowledge that the aether proved not to exist. The author tries to twist this age old observation into meaning that superluminal communication doesn't exist. But I must say I'm not impressed. Who but a first grade science student would even consider that the existance of an aether implies that superluminal communication exists. For your simple mind I will explain this further. The existance of aether was proposed to support the propagation of electromagnetic energy. Nowhere, and I repeat *NOWHERE* in the last century will you find any proposal by physicists that the aether was a medium for superluminal communication. Yet your "truthful and insightful" author here splashes that thought all over the place. The thing is I'm sure you already knew about the Aspect experiment, yet you chose to post this ridiculing comment of yours instead of facing the facts. You are pathetic. Go away and leave us "loonies" alone. And take your accomplice Price with you. (Geez, what idiots!) Ken Simon Farrand wrote: > This is by far the most truthful and insightful post I have read on this > newsgroup for a long time. > > Of course the next logical step is to destroy the cherished notion of > conciousness itself. Are there any eliminativist OBEers out there? ###### Message-ID: <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 223 Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 18:47:14 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.156 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 946864234 204.131.176.156 (Sun, 02 Jan 2000 18:50:34 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 18:50:34 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!korova.insync.net!newsfeed.enteract.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29272 John M Price PhD wrote: > Thanks very much! As I have suggested often, people should get their > physics from a physicist, and Vic is one of them! Well, If it isn't the condescending Mr Price again. It's so nice to see that the above comment made you feel as good as I assume it did. "See, I told you if you would just take your medicine it would make you feel better." So there you are, day after day, telling people who they should get their advice from and who they shouldn't. Unfortunately Mr. Price, you do not chose your mentors very well. Let's just take a closer look at this wonderful post of Yogi Vic shall we? I will snip everything that I find irrelevant to the subject and get to the meat if you don't mind. > : ------- > : The Myth of Quantum Consciousness > : Victor J. Stenger > : Published in The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, > : Number 3, pp. 13-15. > > : A new myth is burrowing its way into modern > : thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles > : embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for > : the human mind in determining the very nature of the > : universe. This is not a myth. It is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is the foundation for the Classical Copenhagen theory of Quantum Mechanics. But you knew this already. > Not surprisingly, this idea can be found in New > : Age periodicals... > : The assertion is made that quantum mechanics has ruled > : invalid the materialistic, reductionist view of the > : universe, introduced by Newton in the seventeenth > : century, which formed the foundation of the scientific > : revolution. Now, materialism is replaced by a new > : spiritualism and reductionism is cast aside by a new > : holism. Yep, and for good reason. Read on. > : The myth Again, there is no myth, but we'll let this word slide since we all know this is a biased post and untruthful assumptions will no doubt be made. > of quantum consciousness sits well with > : many whose egos have made it impossible for them to > : accept the insignificant place science perceives for > : humanity, And it sits well with those of us who can accept the insignificance, so what was the point again? > : In a land where self-gratification has reached > : heights never dreamed of in ancient Rome, where self- > : esteem is more important than being able to read, Can we please quit already with the gibber and get to the point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > : But, alas, quantum consciousness has about as much > : substance as the aether from which it is composed. Ok, let the fun begin. > : Early in this century, quantum mechanics and > : Einstein's relativity destroyed the notion of a holistic > : universe that had seemed within the realm of possibility > : in the century just past. First, Einstein did away with > : the aether, So far so good. > shattering the doctrine that we all move > : about inside a universal, cosmic fluid whose excitations > : connect us simultaneously to one another and to the rest > : of the universe. But now here is where the author gets psychotic. There was no doctrine at this time by any physicist that stated that the ether connects us all simultaneously. What was shattered was the idea that electromagnetic energy needed a medium with which to travel. That is all. So why all this stupid word play? > Second, Einstein and other physicists > : proved that matter and light were composed of particles, > : wiping away the notion of universal continuity. Are you sure this author is a physicist? I really have my doubts. One of those online diplomas I suppose. Let me clear a few things up. First of all Einstein proved that light was composed of particles (which, interestingly enough was what got him the Nobel price, not his Special or General theories of relativity.) but never did he suggest that light did not also show it's face as waves (waves of probability to be exact). It seems that light could now be either particles or waves depending on the experiment performed. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. > Atomic > : theory and quantum mechanics demonstrated that > : everything, even space and time, exists in discrete bits - > : quanta. To turn this around and say that twentieth > : century physics initiated some new holistic view of the > : universe is a complete misrepresentation of what > : actually took place. Silly man. Atomic theory has nothing to do with this. Atomic theory simply portrays matter as being made of atoms. Let's cool it with the flamboyant tossing of meaningless phrases shall we? OK, getting on with this: Quanta surely exist, no arguing that point. The author however makes the suggestion that this does not suggest a holistic view of the universe. *WRONG*!!!! There is very little about quantum mechanics that does not suggest this. Far too much to go into here. I will at this point point you and this knowledgeable author of yours to some much needed reading such as "Schrodingers Kittens" by John Gribben. > : The belief in a universal, cosmic fluid pervading all > : space is an ancient one. > : Little in the new holism is really very new, or very > : logical. I'll grant the author that quantum mechanics is not very logical. There isn't a physicist alive that thinks quantum mechanics makes any kind of logical sense at all. But it is reality. Deal with it. > : Pressure and density are two examples of matter > : fields. In continuous elastic media, pressure an density > : propagate as sound waves when the media are excited. I suppose this stupid comment is intended to confuse the reader. Well I'm not fooled, so take your double talk elsewhere Mr. Author. "Matter Fields"? Pleassseeeee! Continuous elastic media? Um excuse me but didn't the author just agree that all nature is comprised of Quanta and lacks continuity? I'm really tiring of this stupid double talk, but I'll try and hang in there. > > : Unfortunately, most scientists lack the specific > : skills needed to distinguish fact from illusion in the > : world of magic. Yes, and the author seems to be one of them. > : Near the turn of the century, Michelson and Morley > : sought to find experimental evidence for the aether and > : succeeded in showing instead that it did not appear to > : exist. It in fact does not exist. > Shortly thereafter, in 1905, Einstein developed his > : theory of relativity which demonstrated that the concept > : of an aether was logically inconsistent with > : Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. No, the concept of ether was inconsistent with the Special Theory of Relativity itself. In fact it was no surprise to Einstein when told that the M & M experiment just proved the nonexistence of ether which by the way occurred *after* Einstein provided mathematical evidence that it could not exist. > : Lodge was similarly unhappy with what he was > : hearing young quantum physicists, like Bohr and > : Heisenberg, say about the fundamentally discrete, > : quantized, nature of all phenomena. He deplored "the > : modern tendency . . . to emphasize the discontinuous or > : atomic character of everything."[3] But progress passed > : him by, as evidence accumulated that matter is composed > : of discrete atoms, that electricity is the flow of > : electrons or other charged particles, and that light is a > : current of particles called photons. Yes, but it wasn't long after that that it was discovered that matter and energy are both particles and waves of probability. Not one, not the other, but one or the other depending on the experiment performed. > : Einstein wasn't comfortable with quantum > : mechanics either, calling it "spooky." He and two > : collaborators, Podolsky and Rosen, wrote a paper in 1935 > : arguing that quantum mechanics was "incomplete" > : because it seemed to allow for the propagation of signals > : faster than the speed of light, a result forbidden by > : Einstein's relativity.[4] *WRONG*! Einstein was not comfortable with quantum mechanic because he did not believe that the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle which stated that it was impossible to simultaneously know both the position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle. He stated "God does not play dice with the universe". > : David Bohm, who died in October, 1992, had been > : the foremost proponent of a new holistic paradigm to > : take the place of reductionist quantum physics.[8] Just in case you were not aware, David Bohm was one of the most respected if not *the* most respected physicist of our time. It seems to me that if he was a proponent of a holistic paradigm then we ought to be listening to him. Don't you think? Or maybe we should listen to Dr. Vic here instead? You decide. > The > : failure of his related hidden variable theory did not cause > : the proponents of the new continuity to loose faith. > : Rather they have turned the experimental confirmation of > : conventional quantum mechanics on its head by arguing > : that a basis has been found for the superluminal signals > : needed in a holistic universe. Again, superluminal communication has already been proven by the Aspect experiment. Let me quote from the above mentioned book on page 224: (regarding the aspect experiment) "..it implies that once two particles have interacted with one another they remain linked in some way, effectively parts of the same indivisible system. This property of "nonlocality" has sweeping implications. We can think of the Universe as a vast network of interacting particles, and each linkage binds the participating particles into a single quantum system. In some sense the entire Universe can be regarded as a single quantum system." > : Einstein's principle that no signals can move > : faster than light implies that separated events in the > : universe, even those an atomic diameter apart, cannot be > : simultaneously connected. Sure it does. But the aspect experiment proved that there seems to be an exception to this principle. Deal with it. It's reality. Now go away and leave us alone! Ken ###### From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980818 ("Laura") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-RC (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Message-ID: <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> Date: 2 Jan 2000 18:32:15 -0800 X-Trace: 2 Jan 2000 18:32:15 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 35 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!novia!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!web1.calweb.com!jmprice Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29273 In alt.out-of-body article <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: :> : A new myth is burrowing its way into modern :> : thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles :> : embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for :> : the human mind in determining the very nature of the :> : universe. : This is not a myth. It is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is the foundation for the : Classical Copenhagen theory of Quantum Mechanics. But you knew this already. : *WRONG*! Einstein was not comfortable with quantum mechanic because he did not believe that the Heisenburg : Uncertainty Principle which stated that it was impossible to simultaneously know both the position and : momentum of a sub-atomic particle. He stated "God does not play dice with the universe". OK, Ken, one of these interpretations of the uncertainty principle is correct. As noted, you, too, have misapplied the words, without understanding the concepts behind them. I am sorry you are so attached to your beliefs, that you actually exclude knowledge. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 GEMINI (May 21 - June 20) You are a quick and intelligent thinker. People like you because you are bisexual. However, you are inclined to expect too much for too little. This means you are cheap. Geminis are known for committing incest. ###### Message-ID: <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 20:21:55 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.192 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 946869927 204.131.176.192 (Sun, 02 Jan 2000 20:25:27 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 20:25:27 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!EU.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29270 John M Price PhD wrote: > In alt.out-of-body article <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: > :> : A new myth is burrowing its way into modern > :> : thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles > :> : embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for > :> : the human mind in determining the very nature of the > :> : universe. > > : This is not a myth. It is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is the foundation for the > : Classical Copenhagen theory of Quantum Mechanics. But you knew this already. > > : *WRONG*! Einstein was not comfortable with quantum mechanic because he did not believe that the Heisenburg > : Uncertainty Principle which stated that it was impossible to simultaneously know both the position and > : momentum of a sub-atomic particle. He stated "God does not play dice with the universe". > > OK, Ken, one of these interpretations of the uncertainty principle is > correct. As noted, you, too, have misapplied the words, without > understanding the concepts behind them. > > I am sorry you are so attached to your beliefs, that you actually exclude > knowledge. John, please say something intelligent. I'm dying for some thought provoking conversation. I had hopes for you. You seem to think that just because Einstein said he was uncomfortable with the Principle that the Uncertanty Principle does not exist. A little foolish, don't you think? Is this *all* you have to say to my response? Please show at least a *little* grey matter. Ken ###### From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980818 ("Laura") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-RC (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Message-ID: <38702698$1_2@news.calweb.com> Date: 2 Jan 2000 20:33:28 -0800 X-Trace: 2 Jan 2000 20:33:28 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 50 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.direct.ca!novia!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!web1.calweb.com!jmprice Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29263 In alt.out-of-body article <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: : John M Price PhD wrote: :> In alt.out-of-body article <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: :> :> : A new myth is burrowing its way into modern :> :> : thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles :> :> : embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for :> :> : the human mind in determining the very nature of the :> :> : universe. :> :> : This is not a myth. It is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is the foundation for the :> : Classical Copenhagen theory of Quantum Mechanics. But you knew this already. :> :> : *WRONG*! Einstein was not comfortable with quantum mechanic because he did not believe that the Heisenburg :> : Uncertainty Principle which stated that it was impossible to simultaneously know both the position and :> : momentum of a sub-atomic particle. He stated "God does not play dice with the universe". :> :> OK, Ken, one of these interpretations of the uncertainty principle is :> correct. As noted, you, too, have misapplied the words, without :> understanding the concepts behind them. :> :> I am sorry you are so attached to your beliefs, that you actually exclude :> knowledge. : John, please say something intelligent. I'm dying for some thought provoking conversation. I had hopes for you. You can't think very well, however you have caused a bit of humor with your posts on one of the skeptic lists. Really. Also, we found another candidate for the loon site propounding just what you (I think, he is pretty dense writing wise) think on the Aspect study. So, thanks for the entertainment. Do read some real physics - the third hand sources are not treating you well, it seems. BTW, if Vic responds, I'll be sure to forward those here with his permission. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 Double-Blind Experiment, n.: An experiment in which the chief researcher believes he is fooling both the subject and the lab assistant. Often accompanied by a belief in the tooth fairy. ###### Message-ID: <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> <38702698$1_2@news.calweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 61 Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:13:02 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.170 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 946876525 204.131.176.170 (Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:15:25 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:15:25 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.frii.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29268 John, You can't even hold up a decent debate. how do you expect me to take anything you have to say seriously. Please, don't enter the arena till you are ready to play. Ken John M Price PhD wrote: > In alt.out-of-body article <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: > > : John M Price PhD wrote: > > :> In alt.out-of-body article <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: > :> :> : A new myth is burrowing its way into modern > :> :> : thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles > :> :> : embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for > :> :> : the human mind in determining the very nature of the > :> :> : universe. > :> > :> : This is not a myth. It is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is the foundation for the > :> : Classical Copenhagen theory of Quantum Mechanics. But you knew this already. > :> > :> : *WRONG*! Einstein was not comfortable with quantum mechanic because he did not believe that the Heisenburg > :> : Uncertainty Principle which stated that it was impossible to simultaneously know both the position and > :> : momentum of a sub-atomic particle. He stated "God does not play dice with the universe". > :> > :> OK, Ken, one of these interpretations of the uncertainty principle is > :> correct. As noted, you, too, have misapplied the words, without > :> understanding the concepts behind them. > :> > :> I am sorry you are so attached to your beliefs, that you actually exclude > :> knowledge. > > : John, please say something intelligent. I'm dying for some thought provoking conversation. I had hopes for you. > > You can't think very well, however you have caused a bit of humor with > your posts on one of the skeptic lists. Really. Also, we found another > candidate for the loon site propounding just what you (I think, he is > pretty dense writing wise) think on the Aspect study. > > So, thanks for the entertainment. Do read some real physics - the third > hand sources are not treating you well, it seems. > > BTW, if Vic responds, I'll be sure to forward those here with his > permission. > > -- > John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 > Syndicate Section III - Number 1 > > Double-Blind Experiment, n.: > An experiment in which the chief researcher believes he is > fooling both the subject and the lab assistant. Often accompanied by a > belief in the tooth fairy. ###### From: midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Message-ID: <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 459 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 05:17:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.210.137.172 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 946876655 205.210.137.172 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:17:35 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:17:35 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29284 On 2 Jan 2000 11:59:46 -0800, John M Price PhD wrote: >Thanks very much! As I have suggested often, people should get their >physics from a physicist, and Vic is one of them! As others have noted, this is a textbook response from Mr Price. He, and others like him seem to take great relish in using the statement "I TOLD YOU SO!!!", and so, I will also use one of his favorite phrases to reply to the post... "OH YAH.....PROVE IT!!!" As our word is not taken on our own experimentation and documented accounts by him, then I see no need to take anyones word on anything, except my own word, my own knowledge, which is based on my own experience and experimentation. I am not a quantum physicist. And if I was, I might agree with some of what was written. If I was a quantum physicist, and had lived (as I have) with many years of traveling out of body, then I am sure I would be singing a different tune. Anyone can make anything sound like "FACT". I prefer to make my own facts rather than have to follow and hide in the shadow of others and use their words to try and make my own beliefs sound important. "Oh yah,.,,,prove it!" is a wonderful phrase. I HAVE proven to myself, many times over, and beyond a shadow of a doubt all of the beliefs that I have. Not read about them... Not searched the internet for someone "more important than myself" to quote and misquote".... And not sat back and arugued a point just for the sake of argument. I have PROVEN to myself all the wonders of astral travel, and an interconnected universe. All everyone (scientists and layman alike) who argue the point that none of this can exist is base their information on present day technology for their testing methods. And for that, all I can say is that "what they are trying to disprove cannot be measured by present day technology" Radiation (other than the visible spectrum) has been a part of our earth life system for millenia. To try to describe it or even concieve of it a thousand years ago would have been as impossible as trying to measure what I have already proven to myself. I do not have the equipment to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (to you and others) that astral travel and an interconnected universe exist and offer no proof as such. And I argue that their can be no proof of their "non-existance" either. All there is, is half truths and partial facts based on the ability of present knowledge and testing. To argue that anything that cannot be found or measured by present scientific standards cannot exist is ludicrous. Did Madam Curie "INVENT" the radioactive material she discovered? Nope, but she did advance science enough to be able to measure and find it. Does that mean that radioactive material did not exist before her discoveries???? Again, no. Does that mean that just because we cannot (today) offer the scientifically measured proof that is so often asked for, that what we are beginning to explore and understand does not exist? Again......NO. Rick >In alt.out-of-body article <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> Mark Baron wrote: >: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/qmyth.txt > >: Just making it available because of recent discussions. >: YMMV >: - Mark > >: ------- >: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness >: Victor J. Stenger >: Published in The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, >: Number 3, pp. 13-15. > >: A new myth is burrowing its way into modern >: thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles >: embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for >: the human mind in determining the very nature of the >: universe. Not surprisingly, this idea can be found in New >: Age periodicals and in many books on the metaphysical >: shelves of book stores. But it also can appear where you >: least expect it, even on the pages of that bastion of >: rational thinking,The Humanist . >: In an article in the November/December 1992 issue >: entitled "The Wise Silence," Robert Lanza says >: that, according to the current quantum mechanical view >: of reality, "We are all the ephemeral forms of a >: consciousness greater than ourselves." The mind of each >: human being on earth is instantaneously connected to >: each other - past, present and future - as "a part of >: every mind existing in space and time."[1] >: To my ear, these sound very much like the ideas of >: physicist and New Age guru Fritjof Capra, as expressed >: most recently in the film "Mindwalk." They also >: resonate with the "cosmic consciousness" promoted by >: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation >: movement. Like Lanza, these sages claim modern physics >: as their authority. The Maharishi associates cosmic >: consciousness with the Grand Unified Field of particle >: physics. Maharishi University "quantum physicist" >: John Hagelin, Natural Law Party candidate for President >: in last year's election, has spoken frequently about >: quantum consciousness. >: In Lanza's interpretation, quantum mechanics >: tells us that all human minds are united in one mind and >: "the entities of the universe - electrons, photons, >: galaxies, and the like - are floating in a field of mind >: that cannot be limited within a restricted space or >: period . . ." >: Unlike traditional myths, which call on scripture or >: the utterances of charismatic leaders as their >: authorities, this latest version of ancient Hindu idealism >: is supposedly based on up-to-date scientific knowledge. >: The assertion is made that quantum mechanics has ruled >: invalid the materialistic, reductionist view of the >: universe, introduced by Newton in the seventeenth >: century, which formed the foundation of the scientific >: revolution. Now, materialism is replaced by a new >: spiritualism and reductionism is cast aside by a new >: holism. >: The myth of quantum consciousness sits well with >: many whose egos have made it impossible for them to >: accept the insignificant place science perceives for >: humanity, as modern instruments probe the farthest >: reaches of space and time. It was bad enough when >: Copernicus said that we were not at the center of the >: universe. It was worse when Darwin announced that we >: were not angels. But it became intolerable when >: astronomers declared that the earth is but one of a >: hundred billion trillion other planets, and when >: geologists demonstrated that recorded history is but a >: blink of time - a microsecond of the second of earth's >: existence. >: In a land where self-gratification has reached >: heights never dreamed of in ancient Rome, where self- >: esteem is more important than being able to read, and >: where self-help requires no more effort than putting on a >: cassette, the myth of quantum consciousness is just >: what the shrink ordered. >: But, alas, quantum consciousness has about as much >: substance as the aether from which it is composed. >: Early in this century, quantum mechanics and >: Einstein's relativity destroyed the notion of a holistic >: universe that had seemed within the realm of possibility >: in the century just past. First, Einstein did away with >: the aether, shattering the doctrine that we all move >: about inside a universal, cosmic fluid whose excitations >: connect us simultaneously to one another and to the rest >: of the universe. Second, Einstein and other physicists >: proved that matter and light were composed of particles, >: wiping away the notion of universal continuity. Atomic >: theory and quantum mechanics demonstrated that >: everything, even space and time, exists in discrete bits - >: quanta. To turn this around and say that twentieth >: century physics initiated some new holistic view of the >: universe is a complete misrepresentation of what >: actually took place. >: The belief in a universal, cosmic fluid pervading all >: space is an ancient one. To the Greeks, aether was the >: rarified air breathed by the gods on Olympus. Aristotle >: used this term for the celestial element - the stuff of >: the heavens - and said it was subject to different >: tendencies than the stuff of earth. When Newton was >: prompted to explain the nature of gravity in non- >: mathematical terms, he replied that gravity might be >: transmitted by an invisible aether. He further suggested >: that the aether also may be responsible for electricity, >: magnetism, light, radiant heat, and the motion of living >: things that he, like his contemporaries, thought was the >: consequence of some source beyond inanimate matter. >: Even today, despite the preponderance of evidence >: unavailable to Newton that life is a purely material >: phenomenon, people still speak of immaterial{,} vital >: forces such a ch'i, ki, prana, andpsychic energy which >: have no scientific basis. >: Newton also had proposed that vibrations of the >: aether might be excited by the brain. This speculation >: forms the conceptual foundation for the modern myth of >: quantum consciousness and the related belief that the >: human mind commands special powers - psychic forces - >: that transcend the material universe. >: Newton had envisioned matter and light to be >: particulate in nature, though they appear continuous to >: the human eye. Gravity, however, seemed to be >: something else, acting invisibly - holistically - over the >: entire universe. In the mid-nineteenth century, the >: mathematical concept of the field was developed to >: describe the apparent continuity of matter, light, and >: gravity. A field has a value at each point in space, in >: contrast to the properties of a particle which are >: localized to a tiny region of space. To some current >: observers, fields are holistic entities while particles >: typify the reductionist view of nature, where everything >: is reduced to its parts. Holists, with great profundity, >: inform us that the whole is greater than the sum of its >: parts and so the reductionist view must be discarded. >: Note, however, that fields were not invented last week, >: after some great burst of intuition by a Capra or a Lanza, >: but appeared in reductionist physics over a century ago. >: Little in the new holism is really very new, or very >: logical. >: Pressure and density are two examples of matter >: fields. In continuous elastic media, pressure an density >: propagate as sound waves when the media are excited. >: As the phenomena of electricity and magnetism became >: better understood, they were also described in terms of >: fields. When Maxwell discovered that the equations >: which united electricity with magnetism called for the >: propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum at the >: speed of light, it was suggested that the vacuum was not >: empty but filled with an elastic medium - the aether - >: whose excitation produced the phenomenon of light. >: Electromagnetic waves beyond the narrow spectrum >: of visible light were predicted and soon observed and put >: to use in "wireless telegraphy." One of the early >: workers in wireless telegraphy was the English physicist >: Oliver Lodge. While making major contributions to >: physics and engineering, Lodge joined William Crookes, >: Alfred Russel Wallace (co-discoverer of evolution) and >: other notable nineteenth century scientists in searching >: for phenomena that transcended the world of matter. If >: wireless telegraphy was possible, why not wireless >: telepathy? If electrical circuits could generate and >: detect ethereal waves, why not the human brain? >: Coincidentally, certain people who seemed to possess the >: ability to communicate with other minds, living and dead, >: had just appeared on the scene. They were called >: mediums a century ago; today their spiritual descendants >: are known as psychics or channellers. >: Unfortunately, most scientists lack the specific >: skills needed to distinguish fact from illusion in the >: world of magic. The universe does not lie; people lie. >: Lodge and other psychical researchers allowed >: themselves to be fooled by the tricks of professional >: fortune-tellers and sleight-of-hand artists posing as >: spiritualists. Lodge desperately wanted to believe in >: life after death, writing passionately about >: communications with his son Raymond who was killed in >: Flanders in 1915. Sadly, he accepted the wildest claims >: of mediums. >: Near the turn of the century, Michelson and Morley >: sought to find experimental evidence for the aether and >: succeeded in showing instead that it did not appear to >: exist. Shortly thereafter, in 1905, Einstein developed his >: theory of relativity which demonstrated that the concept >: of an aether was logically inconsistent with >: Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Einstein >: concluded that electromagnetic waves, including light, >: could not be the vibrations of an aether. Still, Oliver >: Lodge remained firm in his belief that a universal cosmic >: fluid existed that could be excited by the human mind. To >: Lodge, the aether was a necessity, the cosmic glue >: without which "there can hardly be a material universe >: at all."[2] >: Lodge was similarly unhappy with what he was >: hearing young quantum physicists, like Bohr and >: Heisenberg, say about the fundamentally discrete, >: quantized, nature of all phenomena. He deplored "the >: modern tendency . . . to emphasize the discontinuous or >: atomic character of everything."[3] But progress passed >: him by, as evidence accumulated that matter is composed >: of discrete atoms, that electricity is the flow of >: electrons or other charged particles, and that light is a >: current of particles called photons. When Oliver Lodge >: died in 1940, continuity was already long in its grave. >: Einstein wasn't comfortable with quantum >: mechanics either, calling it "spooky." He and two >: collaborators, Podolsky and Rosen, wrote a paper in 1935 >: arguing that quantum mechanics was "incomplete" >: because it seemed to allow for the propagation of signals >: faster than the speed of light, a result forbidden by >: Einstein's relativity.[4] Like so many of the strange >: effects of quantum mechanics, this was a consequence of >: the wave-particle duality in which physical systems >: behave either like waves or particles, depending on which >: type of property you are trying to measure. Again the >: distinction is between the discrete, localized properties >: of a particle and the continuous, distributed properties a >: field. >: The EPR paradox remained a curiosity until 1964 >: when John S. Bell showed how it provided a way to >: experimentally test the conventional, "Copenhagen" >: interpretation of quantum mechanics.[5] Earlier, >: physicist David Bohm had proposed an alternative to >: Copenhagen in which invisible "hidden variablesÓ were >: responsible for the wave-like behavior of particles.[6] >: Bell showed the way to experimentally decide the issue. >: Now, after a series of precise experiments, the issue has >: been decided: The Copenhagen interpretation quantum >: mechanics has been convincingly confirmed, while the >: most important class of hidden variables is ruled out.[7] >: David Bohm, who died in October, 1992, had been >: the foremost proponent of a new holistic paradigm to >: take the place of reductionist quantum physics.[8] The >: failure of his related hidden variable theory did not cause >: the proponents of the new continuity to loose faith. >: Rather they have turned the experimental confirmation of >: conventional quantum mechanics on its head by arguing >: that a basis has been found for the superluminal signals >: needed in a holistic universe. >: Einstein's principle that no signals can move >: faster than light implies that separated events in the >: universe, even those an atomic diameter apart, cannot be >: simultaneously connected. This fundamentally >: contradicts the holistic view of an instantaneous >: interconnectedness among all things. Rather, relativity >: paints quite the opposite picture: a universe of localized >: particles that at any instant depend only on the other >: particles with which they are in direct contact. What is >: going on elsewhere in the universe at that instant can >: have no effect until the particles carrying the necessary >: information can get there, moving no faster than the >: speed of light. This is a far more complete form of >: reductionism than is present in pre-Einsteinian >: mechanics, where motions at superluminal or even >: infinite speeds were not ruled out by any known theory. >: Incompatible with the claims of the new holists, >: relativity not only supports the reductionist view - it >: makes it mandatory! A universal cosmic field like the >: aether, providing a mechanism for interconnectedness, >: requires a violation of Einstein's relativity. But >: relativity has passed every experimental test that has >: been put to it since being introduced in 1905, so it >: cannot be casually discarded. >: Similarly, the interpretation of quantum mechanics >: to which Einstein objected, and which Bohm sought to >: replace, still reigns supreme after being subjected to a >: similar period of rigorous experimental test, including >: the tests of Bell's theorem. The EPR paradox thus >: would seem to suggest that quantum mechanics and >: relativity cannot be made compatible, and so one or the >: other must go. Before the experimental results >: confirming conventional quantum mechanics came in, >: Bohm and his supporters had argued that conventional >: quantum mechanics should be discarded. Now that the >: results are in, the new holists argue that relativity must >: yield, since quantum mechanics provides a mechanism by >: which signals can move faster than light. Quantum >: mechanics is indeed "spooky." So, bring out the >: spooks! An ethereal, universal field that allows for the >: simultaneous connection between events everywhere in >: the universe must exist after all. >: Quantum mechanics is called on further to argue >: that the cosmic field, like Newton's aether, couples to >: the human mind itself. In Robert Lanza's view, that >: field is the universal mind of all humanity - living, dead, >: and unborn. Ironically, this seemingly profound >: association between quantum and mind is an artifact, the >: consequence of unfortunate language used by Bohr, >: Heisenberg and the others who originally formulated >: quantum mechanics. In describing the necessary >: interaction between the observer and what is being >: observed, and how the state of a system is determined by >: the act of its measurement, they inadvertently left the >: impression that human consciousness enters the picture >: to cause that state come into being. This led many who >: did not understand the physics, but liked the sound of the >: words used to describe it, to infer a fundamental human >: role in what was previously a universe that seemed to >: have need for neither gods nor humanity. >: If Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements >: made by inanimate instruments rather than >: "observers," perhaps this strained relationship >: between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. >: For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human >: involvement. >: Quantum mechanics does not violate the Copernican >: principle that the >: universe cares not a whit about the human race. Long >: after humanity has disappeared from the scene, matter >: will still undergo the transitions that we call quantum >: events. The atoms in stars will radiate photons, and >: these photons will be absorbed by materials that react to >: them. Perhaps, after we are gone, some of our machines >: will remain to analyze these photons. If so, they will do >: so under the same rules of quantum mechanics that >: operate today. >: But even without human involvement, with >: inanimate instruments doing the observing, do the rules >: of quantum mechanics allow for superluminal motion? A >: careful analysis of the experiments that tested Bell's >: theorem shows that the only objects that move faster >: than light are mathematical creations of our imagination, >: like the quantum wave function, which are not physical >: objects. It can be demonstrated that no signal carrying >: actual information moves faster than the speed of light{.} >: Neither conventional quantum mechanics nor >: Einstein's relativity are violated.[9] >: The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven >: decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a >: violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non- >: superluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum >: mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human >: consciousness other than in our own subjective >: perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course >: our thinking processes have a strong influence on what >: we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore >: determines, or even controls, what is out there is >: without rational foundation. The world would be a far >: different place for all of us if it was just all in our >: heads - if we really could make our own reality as the >: New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is >: what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have >: little to say about it. The myth of quantum >: consciousness should take its place along with gods, >: unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the >: fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, >: reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world. > >: Victor J. Stenger is Professor of Physics of the >: University of Hawaii and president of Humanists Hawaii. >: A further discussion of the ideas in this article can be >: found in his book Physics and Psychics: The Search for a >: World Beyond the Senses (Prometheus Books, 1990) and >: in his article "The Spooks of Quantum Mechanics, >: Skeptical Inquirer 15, No. 3, Fall 1990, p. 51. He is also >: author of Not By Design: The Origin of the Universe >: (Prometheus Books, 1988) . > > >: Notes > >: [1]Robert Lanza, 1992. "The Wise Science." The >: Humanist Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 24. > >: [2]Oliver Lodge, 1920. Beyond Physics . London: Alana and >: Unwin. > >: [3]Oliver Lodge, 1914. Continuity. The Presidential >: Address to the British Association for the Advancement >: of Science, 1913. New York: Putnam. P. 21. > >: [4]A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, 1935. "Can the >: Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be >: Considered Complete?" Physical Review 47, p. 777. > >: [5]J.S. Bell, 1964. Physics 1, p. 195. > >: [6]David Bohm, 1952. "A Suggested Interpretation of >: Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden Variables,' I and >: II.Ó Physical Review 85, p. 166. > >: [7]Alain Aspect, Phillipe Grangier, and Roger Gerard, 1982. >: "Experimental Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky- >: Rosen Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's >: Inequalities." Physical Review Letters 49, p. 91; >: "Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequalities Using >: Time-Varying Analyzers. " Ibid, p. 1804. > >: [8]Gary Zukav, 1979. The Dancing Wu Lee Masters. New >: York: Morrow. > >: [9]David N Mermin, 1985. "Is the Moon There When >: Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory." >: Physics Today, 38, p. 38. ###### From: midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Message-ID: <12d58d9e.44057285@news.worldlinx.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 05:55:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.210.137.172 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 946878905 205.210.137.172 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:55:05 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:55:05 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newsmaster-01.vbs.at!newsrouter.chello.at!news-MUC.ecrc.net!feeder.qis.net!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29293 On 2 Jan 2000 18:32:15 -0800, John M Price PhD wrote: >I am sorry you are so attached to your beliefs, that you actually exclude >knowledge. "KNOWLEDGE".......was it not "KNOWLEDGE" (before being proven otherwise) that the world is flat, and the universe revolves around the earth??? So what is knowledge, besides information based on present day BELIEFS and testing methods? Science has proven over and over again to the point that it can be taken as a matter of fact that nothing is "FACT", as so many known facts turn out to be incorrect when science advances enough to prove otherwise. Mr. Price: Is it so impossible for you to acknowledge the possibility that just because YOU do not personally believe in something, that it could be a reality? OR IS THE WORLD TRUELY FLAT, AND DOES THE SUN TRUELY REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH????? ###### From: "Mark Baron" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:16:35 -0600 Organization: Mayo Foundation Lines: 35 Message-ID: <84peq3$d0g$1@tribune.mayo.edu> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: rmtaccess195.mayo.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: tribune.mayo.edu 946880131 13328 172.22.175.205 (3 Jan 2000 06:15:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@mayo.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jan 2000 06:15:31 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-MUC.ecrc.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.eecs.umich.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!mayonews.mayo.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29277 ---------- In article <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com>, midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) wrote: > "Oh yah,.,,,prove it!" is a wonderful phrase. I HAVE proven to > myself, many times over, and beyond a shadow of a doubt all of the > beliefs that I have. > Not read about them... > Not searched the internet for someone "more important than myself" to > quote and misquote".... > And not sat back and arugued a point just for the sake of argument. > I have PROVEN to myself all the wonders of astral travel, and an > interconnected universe. > All everyone (scientists and layman alike) who argue the point that > none of this can exist is base their information on present day > technology for their testing methods. > And for that, all I can say is that "what they are trying to > disprove cannot be measured by present day technology" Rick, this is exactly the rub for me. I'm tired of talking about OBEs. I'm tired of reading about how to do them. I'm tired of reading about others experiences. Down right jealous in fact. I'm tired of arguing about them. I just want to do them. I want to see for myself. I want to test for myself. I want to write about MY experiences. (Just a journal entry or a post.) I want to decide for myself whether or not they are subjective or real. -Mark "Oh yeah! Well if he's so smart, how come he's dead?!" ---Homer Simpson ###### From: midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Message-ID: <12d69a56.47313015@news.worldlinx.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> <84peq3$d0g$1@tribune.mayo.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 06:44:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.210.137.172 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 946881877 205.210.137.172 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 01:44:37 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 01:44:37 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newsmaster-01.vbs.at!newsrouter.chello.at!news-MUC.ecrc.net!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29286 On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:16:35 -0600, "Mark Baron" wrote: >Rick, this is exactly the rub for me. I'm tired of talking about OBEs. >I'm tired of reading about how to do them. >I'm tired of reading about others experiences. Down right jealous in fact. >I'm tired of arguing about them. > >I just want to do them. >I want to see for myself. >I want to test for myself. >I want to write about MY experiences. (Just a journal entry or a post.) >I want to decide for myself whether or not they are subjective or real. > >-Mark And I am sure, that with an attitude (positive) like that, that you will be able to write from personal experience some day. At the very least you have a much better chance than someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility. Searching out personal knowledge is always so much more self satisfying that relying on the words and work of others. If everyone throughout history had lived that way, then we would indeed still be living on a flat world. Good luck in your journey. Rick >"Oh yeah! Well if he's so smart, how come he's dead?!" >---Homer Simpson ###### From: "Simon Farrand" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:46:01 -0000 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 44 Message-ID: <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-116.courting.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk 946936076 15469 62.136.129.116 (3 Jan 2000 21:47:56 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jan 2000 21:47:56 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29283 ----- Original Message ----- From: The Original Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:21 AM Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Ken Wrote: The author tries to twist this age old observation into meaning that superluminal communication doesn't exist > Ken From my understanding the author was not attempting to deny "superluminal communication" since he acknowledges the results of the Aspect experiment, although not explicitly. He is merely stating that the results of this experiment are quoted out of context by new agers to support unproven "spook " theories that are totally unsupported within the scientfic community, including David Bohm. (He was open minded, but not a crack pot). Ken Wrote: *NOWHERE* in the last century will you find any proposal by > physicists that the aether was a medium for superluminal communication. Which is the author`s point EXACTLY. The point that the author is making is that quantum physics SUPPORTS non-local interaction but it does not support wacky, rationally apathetic pseudo-scientific ideas of the new age, with particular regard to the "You create reality" type of egocentric drivel spouted by pseudo-theorists who havent sufficently grasped an understanding of QM aspects such as "Measurement", "collapse of the wave function", "Unitary evolution","EPR" and so on, believing than QM proves their religous propaganda and holistic theories. Surely you cannot deny these people exist? Simon ###### From: midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Message-ID: <12d46f41.101828607@news.worldlinx.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 77 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:48:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.210.137.110 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 946936139 205.210.137.110 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:48:59 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:48:59 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29292 On 2 Jan 2000 11:59:46 -0800, John M Price PhD wrote: >Thanks very much! As I have suggested often, people should get their >physics from a physicist, and Vic is one of them! As others have noted, this is a textbook response from Mr Price. He, and others like him seem to take great relish in using the statement "I TOLD YOU SO!!!", and so, I will also use one of his favorite phrases to reply to the post... "OH YAH.....PROVE IT!!!" As our word is not taken on our own experimentation and documented accounts by him, then I see no need to take anyones word on anything, except my own word, my own knowledge, which is based on my own experience and experimentation. I am not a quantum physicist. And if I was, I might agree with some of what was written. If I was a quantum physicist, and had lived (as I have) with many years of traveling out of body, then I am sure I would be singing a different tune. Anyone can make anything sound like "FACT". I prefer to make my own facts rather than have to follow and hide in the shadow of others and use their words to try and make my own beliefs sound important. "Oh yah,.,,,prove it!" is a wonderful phrase. I HAVE proven to myself, many times over, and beyond a shadow of a doubt all of the beliefs that I have. Not read about them... Not searched the internet for someone "more important than myself" to quote and misquote".... And not sat back and arugued a point just for the sake of argument. I have PROVEN to myself all the wonders of astral travel, and an interconnected universe. All everyone (scientists and layman alike) who argue the point that none of this can exist is base their information on present day technology for their testing methods. And for that, all I can say is that "what they are trying to disprove cannot be measured by present day technology" Radiation (other than the visible spectrum) has been a part of our earth life system for millenia. To try to describe it or even concieve of it a thousand years ago would have been as impossible as trying to measure what I have already proven to myself. I do not have the equipment to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (to you and others) that astral travel and an interconnected universe exist and offer no proof as such. And I argue that their can be no proof of their "non-existance" either. All there is, is half truths and partial facts based on the ability of present knowledge and testing. To argue that anything that cannot be found or measured by present scientific standards cannot exist is ludicrous. Did Madam Curie "INVENT" the radioactive material she discovered? Nope, but she did advance science enough to be able to measure and find it. Does that mean that radioactive material did not exist before her discoveries???? Again, no. Does that mean that just because we cannot (today) offer the scientifically measured proof that is so often asked for, that what we are beginning to explore and understand does not exist? Again......NO. Rick >In alt.out-of-body article <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> Mark Baron wrote: >: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/qmyth.txt > >: Just making it available because of recent discussions. >: YMMV >: - Mark > >: ------- >: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness >: Victor J. Stenger >: Published in The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, >: Number 3, pp. 13-15. ###### From: midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Message-ID: <12d56f82.101893985@news.worldlinx.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:49:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.210.137.110 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 946936145 205.210.137.110 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:49:05 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:49:05 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29294 On 2 Jan 2000 18:32:15 -0800, John M Price PhD wrote: >I am sorry you are so attached to your beliefs, that you actually exclude >knowledge. "KNOWLEDGE".......was it not "KNOWLEDGE" (before being proven otherwise) that the world is flat, and the universe revolves around the earth??? So what is knowledge, besides information based on present day BELIEFS and testing methods? Science has proven over and over again to the point that it can be taken as a matter of fact that nothing is "FACT", as so many known facts turn out to be incorrect when science advances enough to prove otherwise. Mr. Price: Is it so impossible for you to acknowledge the possibility that just because YOU do not personally believe in something, that it could be a reality? OR IS THE WORLD TRUELY FLAT, AND DOES THE SUN TRUELY REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH????? ###### From: midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Message-ID: <12d66f8c.101903944@news.worldlinx.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> <84peq3$d0g$1@tribune.mayo.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:49:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.210.137.110 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 946936156 205.210.137.110 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:49:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:49:16 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29299 On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:16:35 -0600, "Mark Baron" wrote: >Rick, this is exactly the rub for me. I'm tired of talking about OBEs. >I'm tired of reading about how to do them. >I'm tired of reading about others experiences. Down right jealous in fact. >I'm tired of arguing about them. > >I just want to do them. >I want to see for myself. >I want to test for myself. >I want to write about MY experiences. (Just a journal entry or a post.) >I want to decide for myself whether or not they are subjective or real. > >-Mark And I am sure, that with an attitude (positive) like that, that you will be able to write from personal experience some day. At the very least you have a much better chance than someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility. Searching out personal knowledge is always so much more self satisfying that relying on the words and work of others. If everyone throughout history had lived that way, then we would indeed still be living on a flat world. Good luck in your journey. Rick >"Oh yeah! Well if he's so smart, how come he's dead?!" >---Homer Simpson ###### Message-ID: <38711994_4@news.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-RC (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 3 Jan 2000 13:50:12 -0800 X-Trace: 3 Jan 2000 13:50:12 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 34 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.novia.net.MISMATCH!novia!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29257 In alt.out-of-body article <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> midnight wrote: : On 2 Jan 2000 11:59:46 -0800, John M Price PhD : wrote: :>Thanks very much! As I have suggested often, people should get their :>physics from a physicist, and Vic is one of them! : As others have noted, this is a textbook response from Mr Price. He, Yes, it is. Generally, if I don't know something, I go forth to those who do. You, of course, don't need to do that, as with your prouncement of there being no middle ear muscle movement during REM sleep. You've already demonstrated your credibility here by that one. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 MORE SPORTS RESULTS: The Beverly Hills Freudians tied the Chicago Rogerians 0-0 last Saturday night. The match started with a long period of silence while the Freudians waited for the Rogerians to free associate and the Rogerians waited for the Freudians to say something they could paraphrase. The stalemate was broken when the Freudians' best player took the offensive and interpreted the Rogerians' silence as reflecting their anal-retentive personalities. At this the Rogerians' star player said "I hear you saying you think we're full of ka-ka." This started a fight and the match was called by officials. ###### Message-ID: <38711a03_4@news.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> <38702698$1_2@news.calweb.com> <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-RC (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 3 Jan 2000 13:52:03 -0800 X-Trace: 3 Jan 2000 13:52:03 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 23 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.novia.net.MISMATCH!novia!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29259 In alt.out-of-body article <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: : John, : You can't even hold up a decent debate. how do you expect me to take anything you have to say seriously. Please, : don't enter the arena till you are ready to play. I am not a physicist. The big difference here is that I freely admit it. You like to bluff and make myths, as noted in Vic's paper, and in so doing, get it badly wrong. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 When we hate someone we are hating something that is wihin ourselvs, in his image. We are never stirred up by something which does not alredy exist within us. Herman Hesse (1877 - 1962) ###### Message-ID: <3871559a_2@news.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <12d56f82.101893985@news.worldlinx.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-RC (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 3 Jan 2000 18:06:18 -0800 X-Trace: 3 Jan 2000 18:06:18 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 18 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!novia!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29321 No particular reason, but from the tales I've heard, people here would like this site: http://www.arthuryoung.com/ -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise. - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 15 August 1820. ###### Message-ID: <387157D1.1B7FDFB1@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> <38702698$1_2@news.calweb.com> <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> <38711a03_4@news.calweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 19:15:45 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.152 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 946952299 204.131.176.152 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 19:18:19 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 19:18:19 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.grnet.gr!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29329 There you go with more "Can! Can not!" John. If you think I am wrong, then point out what it is that I am wrong about. Don't just go saying I'm wrong and not backing it up. That is pointless and makes you look really really silly. Ken John M Price PhD wrote: > In alt.out-of-body article <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> The Original Ken wrote: > : John, > > : You can't even hold up a decent debate. how do you expect me to take anything you have to say seriously. Please, > : don't enter the arena till you are ready to play. > > I am not a physicist. The big difference here is that I freely admit it. > You like to bluff and make myths, as noted in Vic's paper, and in so > doing, get it badly wrong. > > ###### From: midnight@worldchat.com (midnight) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Message-ID: <12d4b06b.16202609@news.worldlinx.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> <38711994_4@news.calweb.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 02:31:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.210.137.74 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 946953101 205.210.137.74 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:31:41 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:31:41 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.flash.net!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29346 On 3 Jan 2000 13:50:12 -0800, John M Price PhD wrote: >In alt.out-of-body article <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> midnight wrote: >: On 2 Jan 2000 11:59:46 -0800, John M Price PhD >: wrote: > >:>Thanks very much! As I have suggested often, people should get their >:>physics from a physicist, and Vic is one of them! > >: As others have noted, this is a textbook response from Mr Price. He, > >Yes, it is. Generally, if I don't know something, I go forth to those who >do. > >You, of course, don't need to do that, as with your prouncement of there >being no middle ear muscle movement during REM sleep. You've already >demonstrated your credibility here by that one. Wow, it is true. Your responses ARE getting weak. I did come back to that post and apologise for my ignorance (in that I could find no data by myself to support such a statement), I stand corrected (again), as I did then. As for... "Yes, it is. Generally, if I don't know something, I go forth to those who do." Listen to your own words, then listen to what we have to say here, and by the end of the day you might actually know more than when you woke up this morning. Otherwise, it may be best to edit your above quote to the following... "Generally, if I don't know something, I go forth to those who agree with my preconceived ideas" Rick ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <12d56f82.101893985@news.worldlinx.com> <3871559a_2@news.calweb.com> Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Lines: 40 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:46:04 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.3 X-Trace: news3.atl 946954070 216.78.240.3 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:47:50 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:47:50 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed.tli.de!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.atl!news3.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29324 Well so far I do! This is good: http://www.arthuryoung.com/sci-spir.HTML So what are your feelings on Arthur Young, John? Thanks, Lorene -- When you hit hour thumb with an eight-pound hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a very special and strong-minded kind of atheist to jump up and down and shout, "Oh, random-fluctuations-in-the-space-time- continuum!", or "Aaargh, primitive-and-outmoded-concept on a crutch!" ---Terry Pratchett John M Price PhD wrote in message news:3871559a_2@news.calweb.com... > No particular reason, but from the tales I've heard, people here would > like this site: > > http://www.arthuryoung.com/ > > > -- > John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 > Syndicate Section III - Number 1 > > To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the > human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or > that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise. > - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 15 August 1820. > ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> <38702698$1_2@news.calweb.com> <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> <38711a03_4@news.calweb.com> <387157D1.1B7FDFB1@privatei.com> Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Lines: 29 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /KDWjaxED9aF0GcV8TOloX4Hj2Py7UDeEiw/6zJM95KVU3asIps76vxV9CqIzBMGeHV1Gum08dd8!tCMks9YeMsqf1U0YSKd6LNmsjwhTElau5nWtXU++cV3NX2p26nAbuX1gYoqZhQhuL/5R1ZkvPA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 03:01:07 GMT Distribution: world Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 03:01:07 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29353 The Original Ken wrote in message <387157D1.1B7FDFB1@privatei.com>... >There you go with more "Can! Can not!" John. If you think I am wrong, then point out what it is that I am wrong >about. Don't just go saying I'm wrong and not backing it up. That is pointless and makes you look really really silly. > >Ken He can't Ken. He stuck his foot in his mouth, and he knows it. His only admittance was to agreeing with ideas that he knows nothing about, simply because those ideas support his original agenda. He will not discuss it with you, because he's afraid of what you might say. If he's so secure in his ideas, wouldn't you think he'd be applying his well earned PhD to the world of science, rather than writing into a newsgroup, taunting "radicals" such as ourselves for ego sport? He's not a man of science. He's a broken record. Unoriginal. Mediocre. A follower, not a leader. A mere shade of what he could have been. And he knows it. I applaud your valiant effort, but I pity the man. Anyone can apply book knowledge and do what he's done, yet he hasn't the courage to walk out his own front door. Trish ###### Message-ID: <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 92 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:09:21 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.148 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 946955575 204.131.176.148 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:12:55 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:12:55 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!blackbush.xlink.net!news-MUC.ecrc.net!netnews.com!news-stl.cp.verio.net!news.verio.net!newsfeed.frii.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29323 Simon Farrand wrote: > Ken Wrote: > > >The author tries to twist this age old observation into meaning that > >superluminal communication doesn't exist > From my understanding the author was not attempting to deny > "superluminal communication" since he acknowledges the results of the Aspect > experiment, although not explicitly. He is merely stating that the results > of this experiment are quoted out of context by new > agers to support unproven "spook " theories that are totally unsupported > within the scientfic community, including David Bohm. (He was open minded, > but not a crack pot). The way I read it, the author made no mention even suggestively about the Aspect experiment. Instead he relied heavily on referring to The Special Theory of Relativity which states that nothing, including information can travel faster than light. He then used this to suggest that any form of superluminal communication, which would lead directly into Holism was silliness. But certainly over and above what he was trying to say using his semi clever references there is one thing that is overwhelmingly clear to me which makes me think Mr. Vic is nothing more than a stupid little troll. And that is his severe condescending attitude toward people that believe that Holism is a very real and very serious part of their lives. He tosses around little tidbits from Quantum history in the form of double talk to make it look like he has just proved that Holism is a dead end path and should be abandoned by anyone with any intelligence. He does not fool me or anyone in this newsgroup. His arrogance is so overwhelmingly abundant it is like throwing up on your spouses hair and expecting them not to notice. He really should get some help with his runaway ego and sick view of his fellow human beings. > *NOWHERE* in the last century will you find any proposal by > > physicists that the aether was a medium for superluminal communication. > > Which is the author`s point EXACTLY. > > The point that the author is making is that quantum physics SUPPORTS > non-local interaction but it does not support wacky, rationally apathetic > pseudo-scientific ideas of the new age, with particular regard to the "You > create reality" type of egocentric drivel spouted by pseudo-theorists who > havent sufficently grasped an understanding of QM aspects such as > "Measurement", "collapse of the wave function", "Unitary evolution","EPR" > and so on, believing than QM proves their religous propaganda and holistic > theories. Well now I am impressed. So you are saying that the author chose to string together long paragraphs about 20th century physics just to say that there are laymen in this world who understand holism, but do not understand physics completely and any attempt by them to try and link the two together should be considered heresy and so they should be hung by the balls. Well then I say your author is a self centered egotistical ass hole of the first degree. I was really hoping he was making a point that perhaps I was missing. Thanks for clearing that up. You know when Einstein was in his heyday and came to the US with lots of fanfare, he knew that there where a lot of common people that didn't understand his theory. Did he go around saying "You know all you people talk and hoot and post your headlines about "Time is not a Constant" and have your parties and go about acting like you *really* know what the STR and GTR are all about. Well let me tell you that you don't, you can't because none of you are scientists! Do you really think you can comprehend the implications of what I am saying? Do you really think that you can apply what I know to your everyday lives? Do you really think that your religions and your beliefs in your gods can be tied in logically to what I have presented to you?" Well let me tell you that this was not the case. Einstein was happy and satisfied that people were receptive to his new ideas even if they did not understand them completely or missed some of the details. He understood that the important thing was that the common people were *thinking* about new ways to view the universe and that this was a very good thing. Sure there were the usual con artists and so on making a buck off the cool new view of the world, but this was insignificant compared to the new perspective that was coming over the people like a wave. So yes, you will find that a lot of people who have OBEs or experience concepts in their lives that they don't understand will try and tie them in to the latest discoveries in science even if they don't have a full grasp of the sciences involved. So what!! If the Aspect experiment and other more recent theories and experiments show that there is an intimate connection between all particles in the universe and if people experience OBEs and unusual states of consciousness and find that there may be a connection between the two, even if they can't exactly write a thesis on it, then Hey, that's great. Great for them, great for the scientists. This seems to be something that Mr. Vic certainly does not understand. And as long as he attempts his pathetic maneuvers in this NG, I will be here to set the record straight. Ken ###### Message-ID: <387172CF.3C9E13CD@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> <38702698$1_2@news.calweb.com> <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> <38711a03_4@news.calweb.com> <387157D1.1B7FDFB1@privatei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:10:55 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.148 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 946959233 204.131.176.148 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:13:53 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:13:53 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!nntp.abs.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29330 Hi Trish, My new years resolution was to not respond to posts by half witted skeptix, but I just keep thinking that just maybe there is a little bit of ingenuity, insight, or knowledge that John or any of these other self proclaimed know-it-alls might be able to share with us loons that might help me to expand my own personal horizon. That's the only reason I even try. But alas, Trish, you are right. There really is no brain behind all the babble. Just empty empty gibberish. I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they at least have a *little* something to offer before blowing them off as hopeless morons, but maybe I need to change that overly optimistic view of mine. I keep telling these guys "deal with it, it's reality" and I now have to come face to face with my own advice. These guys are bubbleheads, deal with it, it's reality. Ken Trish wrote: > The Original Ken wrote in message <387157D1.1B7FDFB1@privatei.com>... > >There you go with more "Can! Can not!" John. If you think I am wrong, > then point out what it is that I am wrong > >about. Don't just go saying I'm wrong and not backing it up. That is > pointless and makes you look really really silly. > > > >Ken > > He can't Ken. He stuck his foot in his mouth, and he knows it. His only > admittance was to agreeing with ideas that he knows nothing about, simply > because those ideas support his original agenda. He will not discuss it > with you, because he's afraid of what you might say. If he's so secure in > his ideas, wouldn't you think he'd be applying his well earned PhD to the > world of science, rather than writing into a newsgroup, taunting "radicals" > such as ourselves for ego sport? He's not a man of science. He's a broken > record. Unoriginal. Mediocre. A follower, not a leader. A mere shade of > what he could have been. And he knows it. > > I applaud your valiant effort, but I pity the man. Anyone can apply book > knowledge and do what he's done, yet he hasn't the courage to walk out his > own front door. > > Trish ###### Message-ID: <38717f94_4@news.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> <38711994_4@news.calweb.com> <12d4b06b.16202609@news.worldlinx.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-RC (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 3 Jan 2000 21:05:24 -0800 X-Trace: 3 Jan 2000 21:05:24 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 42 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!novia!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29322 In alt.out-of-body article <12d4b06b.16202609@news.worldlinx.com> midnight wrote: : On 3 Jan 2000 13:50:12 -0800, John M Price PhD : wrote: :>In alt.out-of-body article <12d48706.42369278@news.worldlinx.com> midnight wrote: :>: On 2 Jan 2000 11:59:46 -0800, John M Price PhD :>: wrote: :> :>:>Thanks very much! As I have suggested often, people should get their :>:>physics from a physicist, and Vic is one of them! :> :>: As others have noted, this is a textbook response from Mr Price. He, :> :>Yes, it is. Generally, if I don't know something, I go forth to those who :>do. :> :>You, of course, don't need to do that, as with your prouncement of there :>being no middle ear muscle movement during REM sleep. You've already :>demonstrated your credibility here by that one. : Wow, it is true. Your responses ARE getting weak. I did come back : to that post and apologise for my ignorance (in that I could find no : data by myself to support such a statement), I stand corrected : (again), as I did then. Sorry, my apologies. I have never seen that post, but then NNTP was a bit dicey here at times. Again, I think it was a lack of post here. Sorry about that. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 "As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life -- so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls." -- Matt Cartmill ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:39:46 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 34 Message-ID: <84s0se$qb5$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <386fae32$1_2@news.calweb.com> <386FFFA2.19F02E52@privatei.com> <38700a2f$1_4@news.calweb.com> <387015D3.EA92DB26@privatei.com> <38702698$1_2@news.calweb.com> <38702FDE.72284387@privatei.com> <38711a03_4@news.calweb.com> <387157D1.1B7FDFB1@privatei.com> <387172CF.3C9E13CD@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.ab X-Server-Date: 4 Jan 2000 05:36:14 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!blackbush.xlink.net!news-MUC.ecrc.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29354 Hi Ken :-) (I'm so happy - I smile all the time now :-) The Original Ken wrote in message <387172CF.3C9E13CD@privatei.com>... >These guys are bubbleheads, deal with it, >it's reality. > >Ken I see a fence. They are on one side of the fence - you are on the other. You can see that there is a wall behind them. They see the wide open expanse behind you - but they only know the distance between the wall and the fence before them. That which is beyond the fence is not in their world. Since they cannot experience the other side of the fence - they have convinced themselves that it is worthless. You know better. I'm thinking of a lesson that Jesus taught us. As long as you stand before them - they will have no desire to look beyond. But if you turn and walk away from them, into the expanse, then they will see that it is their choice to remain trapped behind that fence or be free with a simple jump in faith. I'm learning that I cannot continue on my journey if I stand at a fence arguing with someone in a small pen. I want to continue my journey. I'd like to do it with my good friends. Shall we go? Bart ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 03:03:28 -0600 Lines: 176 Message-ID: <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust179.tnt29.dfw5.da.uu.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!npeer.kpnqwest.net!EU.net!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29337 Strictly speaking, Special Relativity actually does not deny the possibility of objects traveling faster than light. It merely says that acceleration through the speed of light is impossible because inertial mass becomes infinite at (and only at) the speed of light. For a hypothetical object already traveling faster than light the inertial mass decreases and the energy it takes to slow down increases if it slows towards light speed. Also time for such an object is reversed by extension of the familiar time dilation effects. There have been microwave/double slit style experiments which have made use of a quantum barrier on one path to the detectors that show light can be made to travel at least 1.6 times faster than C in a vacuum. So even light can "travel" faster than light. In this case information was passed faster than light speed in the real world. Further the wavefront of a soliton formation can travel faster than light though there is doubt as to whether information can be passed with this means. Further, quantum pairing causes information to be available instantaneously between pairs of particles regardless of separation distance. If this were repeatable with multiple measurements then one could send binary code between the two sets assuming that the pairing effect continued after one or the other particle was further disturbed. The primary problem of superluminal travel for ordinary objects is mass or specifically inertial mass. It is postulated that Mass as a physical property is the result of a interaction of an as yet undetected particle called a higg's particle. If higg's particles could be shielded or matter could be constructed without them then there would be no mass or inertial mass to prevent superluminal acceleration. Another possibility is that the superluminal barrier could be tunneled through in the manner of the microwave experiments or the function of quantum Hall/Josephson transistor operation then the infinite inertial mass/energy problem could be solved. There are many other possibilities including the collapsed dimensions required to explain all the forces in the universe geometrically as Einstein did with gravity. Super string or super symmetry theory requires these dimensions to be coterminous with every point in the standard three dimensional universe or else these forces would not be universal. If true, given relativity and GUT theories; these sections of the continuum should be interchangeable if the method were known. It might then be possible to utilize these collapsed dimensions as shortcuts through physical space. The list of known loopholes and potential loopholes in the superluminal barrier grows with physicist's and cosmologist's understanding of the universe. It is hard to discredit even the most wild ideas of science fiction or even fantasy literature by using current state of the art scientific knowledge. There is as of yet no sighting of the "absolute" truth in any field of exploration. Sometimes todays scientists and skeptics forget this. The Original Ken wrote in message <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com>... > > >Simon Farrand wrote: > >> Ken Wrote: >> >> >The author tries to twist this age old observation into meaning that >> >superluminal communication doesn't exist > > > >> From my understanding the author was not attempting to deny >> "superluminal communication" since he acknowledges the results of the Aspect >> experiment, although not explicitly. He is merely stating that the results >> of this experiment are quoted out of context by new >> agers to support unproven "spook " theories that are totally unsupported >> within the scientfic community, including David Bohm. (He was open minded, >> but not a crack pot). > >The way I read it, the author made no mention even suggestively about the Aspect >experiment. Instead he relied heavily on referring to The Special Theory of >Relativity which states that nothing, including information can travel faster >than light. He then used this to suggest that any form of superluminal >communication, which would lead directly into Holism was silliness. But >certainly over and above what he was trying to say using his semi clever >references there is one thing that is overwhelmingly clear to me which makes me >think Mr. Vic is nothing more than a stupid little troll. And that is his >severe condescending attitude toward people that believe that Holism is a very >real and very serious part of their lives. He tosses around little tidbits from >Quantum history in the form of double talk to make it look like he has just >proved that Holism is a dead end path and should be abandoned by anyone with any >intelligence. He does not fool me or anyone in this newsgroup. His arrogance >is so overwhelmingly abundant it is like throwing up on your spouses hair and >expecting them not to notice. He really should get some help with his runaway >ego and sick view of his fellow human beings. > >> *NOWHERE* in the last century will you find any proposal by >> > physicists that the aether was a medium for superluminal communication. >> >> Which is the author`s point EXACTLY. >> >> The point that the author is making is that quantum physics SUPPORTS >> non-local interaction but it does not support wacky, rationally apathetic >> pseudo-scientific ideas of the new age, with particular regard to the "You >> create reality" type of egocentric drivel spouted by pseudo-theorists who >> havent sufficently grasped an understanding of QM aspects such as >> "Measurement", "collapse of the wave function", "Unitary evolution","EPR" >> and so on, believing than QM proves their religous propaganda and holistic >> theories. > >Well now I am impressed. So you are saying that the author chose to string >together long paragraphs about 20th century physics just to say that there are >laymen in this world who understand holism, but do not understand physics >completely and any attempt by them to try and link the two together should be >considered heresy and so they should be hung by the balls. Well then I say your >author is a self centered egotistical ass hole of the first degree. I was >really hoping he was making a point that perhaps I was missing. Thanks for >clearing that up. > >You know when Einstein was in his heyday and came to the US with lots of >fanfare, he knew that there where a lot of common people that didn't understand >his theory. Did he go around saying "You know all you people talk and hoot and >post your headlines about "Time is not a Constant" and have your parties and go >about acting like you *really* know what the STR and GTR are all about. Well >let me tell you that you don't, you can't because none of you are scientists! >Do you really think you can comprehend the implications of what I am saying? Do >you really think that you can apply what I know to your everyday lives? Do you >really think that your religions and your beliefs in your gods can be tied in >logically to what I have presented to you?" Well let me tell you that this was >not the case. Einstein was happy and satisfied that people were receptive to >his new ideas even if they did not understand them completely or missed some of >the details. He understood that the important thing was that the common people >were *thinking* about new ways to view the universe and that this was a very >good thing. Sure there were the usual con artists and so on making a buck off >the cool new view of the world, but this was insignificant compared to the new >perspective that was coming over the people like a wave. > >So yes, you will find that a lot of people who have OBEs or experience concepts >in their lives that they don't understand will try and tie them in to the latest >discoveries in science even if they don't have a full grasp of the sciences >involved. So what!! If the Aspect experiment and other more recent theories >and experiments show that there is an intimate connection between all particles >in the universe and if people experience OBEs and unusual states of >consciousness and find that there may be a connection between the two, even if >they can't exactly write a thesis on it, then Hey, that's great. Great for >them, great for the scientists. This seems to be something that Mr. Vic >certainly does not understand. And as long as he attempts his pathetic >maneuvers in this NG, I will be here to set the record straight. > >Ken > > ###### From: "carolisle" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 21:45:20 -0000 Lines: 229 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: vip-207-8.vip.uk.com Message-ID: <38726f04_2@news1.vip.uk.com> X-Trace: 4 Jan 2000 22:07:00 GMT, vip-207-8.vip.uk.com X-Report: Report abuse to abuse@vip.uk.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!iclnet!news1.vip.uk.com!vip-207-8.vip.uk.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29372 Hi Jerry, Ken and Bart, I don't read flame posts, though I eavesdrop on the responses from time to time as they can be quite educational. Understanding physics doesn't come easily to me but still fascinates and wondered if you had come across this limerick that I found in Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time'? Very amusing to me as although I'm not a young lady I live in the Isle of Wight . . . "There was a young lady from Wight, Who travelled much faster than light; She departed one day in a relative way And arrived the previous night". Love carol Jerry Adams wrote in message news:84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net... > Strictly speaking, Special Relativity actually does not deny the possibility > of objects traveling faster than light. It merely says that acceleration > through the speed of light is impossible because inertial mass becomes > infinite at (and only at) the speed of light. For a hypothetical object > already traveling faster than light the inertial mass decreases and the > energy it takes to slow down increases if it slows towards light speed. Also > time for such an object is reversed by extension of the familiar time > dilation effects. > > There have been microwave/double slit style experiments which have made use > of a quantum barrier on one path to the detectors that show light can be > made to travel at least 1.6 times faster than C in a vacuum. So even light > can "travel" faster than light. In this case information was passed faster > than light speed in the real world. Further the wavefront of a soliton > formation can travel faster than light though there is doubt as to whether > information can be passed with this means. Further, quantum pairing causes > information to be available instantaneously between pairs of particles > regardless of separation distance. If this were repeatable with multiple > measurements then one could send binary code between the two sets assuming > that the pairing effect continued after one or the other particle was > further disturbed. The primary problem of superluminal travel for ordinary > objects is mass or specifically inertial mass. It is postulated that Mass as > a physical property is the result of a interaction of an as yet undetected > particle called a higg's particle. If higg's particles could be shielded or > matter could be constructed without them then there would be no mass or > inertial mass to prevent superluminal acceleration. Another possibility is > that the superluminal barrier could be tunneled through in the manner of the > microwave experiments or the function of quantum Hall/Josephson transistor > operation then the infinite inertial mass/energy problem could be solved. > There are many other possibilities including the collapsed dimensions > required to explain all the forces in the universe geometrically as Einstein > did with gravity. Super string or super symmetry theory requires these > dimensions to be coterminous with every point in the standard three > dimensional universe or else these forces would not be universal. If true, > given relativity and GUT theories; these sections of the continuum should be > interchangeable if the method were known. It might then be possible to > utilize these collapsed dimensions as shortcuts through physical space. The > list of known loopholes and potential loopholes in the superluminal barrier > grows with physicist's and cosmologist's understanding of the universe. It > is hard to discredit even the most wild ideas of science fiction or even > fantasy literature by using current state of the art scientific knowledge. > There is as of yet no sighting of the "absolute" truth in any field of > exploration. Sometimes todays scientists and skeptics forget this. > The Original Ken wrote in message <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com>... > > > > > >Simon Farrand wrote: > > > >> Ken Wrote: > >> > >> >The author tries to twist this age old observation into meaning that > >> >superluminal communication doesn't exist > > > > > > > >> From my understanding the author was not attempting to deny > >> "superluminal communication" since he acknowledges the results of the > Aspect > >> experiment, although not explicitly. He is merely stating that the > results > >> of this experiment are quoted out of context by new > >> agers to support unproven "spook " theories that are totally unsupported > >> within the scientfic community, including David Bohm. (He was open > minded, > >> but not a crack pot). > > > >The way I read it, the author made no mention even suggestively about the > Aspect > >experiment. Instead he relied heavily on referring to The Special Theory > of > >Relativity which states that nothing, including information can travel > faster > >than light. He then used this to suggest that any form of superluminal > >communication, which would lead directly into Holism was silliness. But > >certainly over and above what he was trying to say using his semi clever > >references there is one thing that is overwhelmingly clear to me which > makes me > >think Mr. Vic is nothing more than a stupid little troll. And that is his > >severe condescending attitude toward people that believe that Holism is a > very > >real and very serious part of their lives. He tosses around little tidbits > from > >Quantum history in the form of double talk to make it look like he has just > >proved that Holism is a dead end path and should be abandoned by anyone > with any > >intelligence. He does not fool me or anyone in this newsgroup. His > arrogance > >is so overwhelmingly abundant it is like throwing up on your spouses hair > and > >expecting them not to notice. He really should get some help with his > runaway > >ego and sick view of his fellow human beings. > > > >> *NOWHERE* in the last century will you find any proposal by > >> > physicists that the aether was a medium for superluminal communication. > >> > >> Which is the author`s point EXACTLY. > >> > >> The point that the author is making is that quantum physics SUPPORTS > >> non-local interaction but it does not support wacky, rationally apathetic > >> pseudo-scientific ideas of the new age, with particular regard to the > "You > >> create reality" type of egocentric drivel spouted by pseudo-theorists who > >> havent sufficently grasped an understanding of QM aspects such as > >> "Measurement", "collapse of the wave function", "Unitary evolution","EPR" > >> and so on, believing than QM proves their religous propaganda and > holistic > >> theories. > > > >Well now I am impressed. So you are saying that the author chose to string > >together long paragraphs about 20th century physics just to say that there > are > >laymen in this world who understand holism, but do not understand physics > >completely and any attempt by them to try and link the two together should > be > >considered heresy and so they should be hung by the balls. Well then I say > your > >author is a self centered egotistical ass hole of the first degree. I was > >really hoping he was making a point that perhaps I was missing. Thanks for > >clearing that up. > > > >You know when Einstein was in his heyday and came to the US with lots of > >fanfare, he knew that there where a lot of common people that didn't > understand > >his theory. Did he go around saying "You know all you people talk and > hoot and > >post your headlines about "Time is not a Constant" and have your parties > and go > >about acting like you *really* know what the STR and GTR are all about. > Well > >let me tell you that you don't, you can't because none of you are > scientists! > >Do you really think you can comprehend the implications of what I am > saying? Do > >you really think that you can apply what I know to your everyday lives? Do > you > >really think that your religions and your beliefs in your gods can be tied > in > >logically to what I have presented to you?" Well let me tell you that this > was > >not the case. Einstein was happy and satisfied that people were receptive > to > >his new ideas even if they did not understand them completely or missed > some of > >the details. He understood that the important thing was that the common > people > >were *thinking* about new ways to view the universe and that this was a > very > >good thing. Sure there were the usual con artists and so on making a buck > off > >the cool new view of the world, but this was insignificant compared to the > new > >perspective that was coming over the people like a wave. > > > >So yes, you will find that a lot of people who have OBEs or experience > concepts > >in their lives that they don't understand will try and tie them in to the > latest > >discoveries in science even if they don't have a full grasp of the sciences > >involved. So what!! If the Aspect experiment and other more recent > theories > >and experiments show that there is an intimate connection between all > particles > >in the universe and if people experience OBEs and unusual states of > >consciousness and find that there may be a connection between the two, even > if > >they can't exactly write a thesis on it, then Hey, that's great. Great for > >them, great for the scientists. This seems to be something that Mr. Vic > >certainly does not understand. And as long as he attempts his pathetic > >maneuvers in this NG, I will be here to set the record straight. > > > >Ken > > > > > > ###### Message-ID: <3872BBF0.D851FD9E@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 97 Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 20:35:12 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.192 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 947043601 204.131.176.192 (Tue, 04 Jan 2000 20:40:01 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 20:40:01 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29383 Jerry Adams wrote: > Strictly speaking, Special Relativity actually does not deny the possibility > of objects traveling faster than light. It merely says that acceleration > through the speed of light is impossible because inertial mass becomes > infinite at (and only at) the speed of light. For a hypothetical object > already traveling faster than light the inertial mass decreases and the > energy it takes to slow down increases if it slows towards light speed. Also > time for such an object is reversed by extension of the familiar time > dilation effects. Yes, that's true. I apologize for leaving that often overlooked but very important point about the theory out. > There have been microwave/double slit style experiments which have made use > of a quantum barrier on one path to the detectors that show light can be > made to travel at least 1.6 times faster than C in a vacuum. In my opinion, the famous double slit experiments (of which there are many incarnations) is one of the most profound and excruciatingly exciting experiments of our time. Would you happen to have a link explaining this particular one? I would love to read about it. > Further, quantum pairing causes > information to be available instantaneously between pairs of particles > regardless of separation distance. If this were repeatable with multiple > measurements then one could send binary code between the two sets assuming > that the pairing effect continued after one or the other particle was > further disturbed. Unfortunately, even though there is a direct link between the two particles, it is impossible (correct me if I am wrong) to send data using the particles. The Aspect experiment proved that if you detect the polarization of one of the photons in the pair, then you have just forced the other photon of the pair into come out of its natural indeterminate state and assume a definite polarization. This polarization can then be detected and recorded. In other words, the first photon will have an indeterminate polarization until it is measured. Upon being measured it "colapses" into a definite polarization. What this polarization angle will be is not up to the experimenter, it is totally random. In an Aspect pair, as soon as you detect the polarization of that first photon you have just forced the second photon to assume a specific polarization that relates to the first. If you measure the angle of the second photon at this time (instantaneously and millions of light years away if you like), then you will find that it has already assumed the expected polarization proving a link between the two particles that transcends time and distance. The clincher is that you cannot "force" the first partical into a particular polarazation angle. All you can do is force it to randomly collapse into whatever angle it will once it is detected forcing the other partical to assume the same angle. Certainly if you could force the first into a particular angle and call that a "1" or force it into another angle and call that a "0" then you would simultaneously be forcing the second particle to reflect that information and you would have superluminal transmission of data. But so far there is no known way to do this and it seems to be inherently impossible. Still this does not deny a faster than light link between the two particles, only faster than light transmission of data, and it is the link that is important when discussing holism. > The primary problem of superluminal travel for ordinary > objects is mass or specifically inertial mass. It is postulated that Mass as > a physical property is the result of a interaction of an as yet undetected > particle called a higg's particle. If higg's particles could be shielded or > matter could be constructed without them then there would be no mass or > inertial mass to prevent superluminal acceleration. So photons lack this higgs particle? > Another possibility is > that the superluminal barrier could be tunneled through in the manner of the > microwave experiments or the function of quantum Hall/Josephson transistor > operation then the infinite inertial mass/energy problem could be solved. > There are many other possibilities including the collapsed dimensions > required to explain all the forces in the universe geometrically as Einstein > did with gravity. Super string or super symmetry theory requires these > dimensions to be coterminous with every point in the standard three > dimensional universe or else these forces would not be universal. If true, > given relativity and GUT theories; these sections of the continuum should be > interchangeable if the method were known. It might then be possible to > utilize these collapsed dimensions as shortcuts through physical space. The > list of known loopholes and potential loopholes in the superluminal barrier > grows with physicist's and cosmologist's understanding of the universe. It > is hard to discredit even the most wild ideas of science fiction or even > fantasy literature by using current state of the art scientific knowledge. > There is as of yet no sighting of the "absolute" truth in any field of > exploration. Sometimes todays scientists and skeptics forget this. It really is mind boggling just how little we know about our world. But it does go to show how extremely possible OBE travel can be. We do not live in a reductionist world, we live in a world of mind and super amazing interactivity, and in this world, just about anything is possible. Ken ###### Message-ID: <3872BD14.69E6E750@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> <38726f04_2@news1.vip.uk.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 20:40:04 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.192 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 947043835 204.131.176.192 (Tue, 04 Jan 2000 20:43:55 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 20:43:55 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29379 Hi Carol, Have you had a chance to read the second edition to the Brief History of Time? It is really a remarkable book. Bunches of beautifully draw pictures were added to help explain some of the concepts. They might have it at your library, they did at ours. You didn't by any chance get to see Hendrix when he last played at the Isle of Wight did you? (big Hendrix fan here) Ken carolisle wrote: > Hi Jerry, Ken and Bart, > > I don't read flame posts, though I eavesdrop on the responses from time to > time as they can be quite educational. Understanding physics doesn't come > easily to me but still fascinates and wondered if you had come across this > limerick that I found in Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time'? Very > amusing to me as although I'm not a young lady I live in the Isle of Wight . > . . > > "There was a young lady from Wight, > Who travelled much faster than light; > She departed one day in a relative way > And arrived the previous night". > > Love carol ###### From: aka_praxis@my-deja.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 08:56:06 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 47 Message-ID: <84v0v2$g7r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> <3872BBF0.D851FD9E@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.27.213.110 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 05 08:56:06 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98; Compaq) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 bx6.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 63.27.213.110 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDaka_praxis Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29375 It is just me using my deja account because my isp is to slow at this time of night. (Jerry Adams) In article <3872BBF0.D851FD9E@privatei.com>, The Original Ken wrote: > As far as a link goes this was in the science magazines or or on one of my science news feeds, I forget which, nearly a year ago. I will try to get a reference but can't garantee the is a Web URL for it. Also It was discussed on alt.magick about four months ago in one of my strands there and the reasercher's name was mentioned by one ofthe other participants. I may be able to check the archives on it. > > > ***So photons lack this higgs particle? > Yes. Higgs particle theories have two variants: 1> An exchange particle in the same class as photons, gluons, Gravitons and whatever the other known force exhange particle is. 2> a subquark "particle that exchanges a mass transmitting particle in the same class as the mentioned particles. Photon exchange carries the electromagnetic force, Gravitons the gravity force and so on. This depends on the model used:particle, wave or Spacetime geometry, too. As you know the various species of particles are grouped into diferent families; hadrons, baryons and so forth. The exchange particles likethe photon are generally held to be without mass, though the higg's would probably be the exception. *** It really is mind boggling just how little we know about our world. But it does > go to show how extremely possible OBE travel can be. We do not live in a > reductionist world, we live in a world of mind and super amazing interactivity, > and in this world, just about anything is possible. > > Ken > > -- Jerry Adams AKA: Praxis Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: "carolisle" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> <38726f04_2@news1.vip.uk.com> <3872BD14.69E6E750@privatei.com> Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:22:33 -0000 Lines: 55 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: <38736faa_2@news2.vip.uk.com> X-Report: Report abuse to abuse@vip.uk.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.176.194.174 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.250.101.2 X-Trace: 5 Jan 2000 16:22:07 GMT, 10.250.101.2 X-Report: Report abuse to abuse@vip.uk.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!iclnet!news1.vip.uk.com!10.250.101.2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29382 The Original Ken wrote in message news:3872BD14.69E6E750@privatei.com... Hi Ken, > > Have you had a chance to read the second edition to the Brief History of Time? > It is really a remarkable book. Bunches of beautifully draw pictures were added > to help explain some of the concepts. They might have it at your library, they > did at ours. As far as I know I bought the most recent edition; My son has it at the moment (goodbye book!) But I have it on CD ROM. Amazing graphics that even I can follow. > You didn't by any chance get to see Hendrix when he last played at the Isle of > Wight did you? (big Hendrix fan here) Was working I'm afraid and couldn't get away; Was really wild from what I hear, so many people the Island nearly tipped up that end. Shame Hendrix died so young. . . Love carol > > Ken > > carolisle wrote: > > > Hi Jerry, Ken and Bart, > > > > I don't read flame posts, though I eavesdrop on the responses from time to > > time as they can be quite educational. Understanding physics doesn't come > > easily to me but still fascinates and wondered if you had come across this > > limerick that I found in Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time'? Very > > amusing to me as although I'm not a young lady I live in the Isle of Wight . > > . . > > > > "There was a young lady from Wight, > > Who travelled much faster than light; > > She departed one day in a relative way > > And arrived the previous night". > > > > Love carol > > > ###### From: "dorothy dunne" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> <38726f04_2@news1.vip.uk.com> Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:06:55 -0800 Lines: 27 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2119.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2119.bossig.com Message-ID: <38743b7a@nntp-out.newsnerds.com> X-Trace: 6 Jan 2000 00:51:38 -0600, sanduser2119.bossig.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.usit.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!nntp-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser2119.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29465 carolisle wrote in message news:38726f04_2@news1.vip.uk.com... > Hi Jerry, Ken and Bart, > > I don't read flame posts, though I eavesdrop on the responses from time to > time as they can be quite educational. Understanding physics doesn't come > easily to me but still fascinates and wondered if you had come across this > limerick that I found in Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time'? Very > amusing to me as although I'm not a young lady I live in the Isle of Wight . > . . > > "There was a young lady from Wight, > Who travelled much faster than light; > She departed one day in a relative way > And arrived the previous night". Yeah, it's a good one. The version I recall is similar: There was a young lady from Wight Whose speed was much faster than light. She left home one day In a relative way And returned the preceding night. ###### From: "Simon Farrand" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (long) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:30:05 -0000 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 39 Message-ID: <853c78$evm$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <836d3s$sdt$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <84o7o3$ldk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <386FEB92.F495D54E@privatei.com> <84r5ec$f3d$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <38716461.F73907F4@privatei.com> <84sean$7o0$1@news.laserlink.net> <3872BBF0.D851FD9E@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-19.farmer.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk 947205160 15350 62.136.159.19 (7 Jan 2000 00:32:40 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jan 2000 00:32:40 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:29550 Ken Wrote > It really is mind boggling just how little we know about our world. But it does > go to show how extremely possible OBE travel can be. We do not live in a > reductionist world, we live in a world of mind and super amazing interactivity, > and in this world, just about anything is possible. > > Ken As amazing as this world may be, I am still unmoved from my reductionistic faith. After all, all phenomena can be explained by the sum of their parts, even entangled photons. The word "superposition" infers that the resultant entangled state is merely the sum of each individual state. Likewise, I have no doubt that a reductionistic explanation exists for all mental and emotional phenomena. (Not that it will necessarily be a comprehensible explanation to us for that matter). This isn`t just a flakey issue we are dealing with here, for it will probably be within our life time that machine intelligence mimics, or supersedes human intelligence. Serious moral and spiritual issues will need to be debated and decided upon before this happens so not to possibly cause undue suffering to the minds of future machines. It intrigues me to think of the O.B.E adventures computers may have in a hundred years, or so (Or are they having them to some extent already? After all, 3 dimensional first person shooters, i.e quake, simulate (very crudely) certain visual data processing mechanisms of the visual cortex. Not that their experiences would be semantically rich for that matter). Si