Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

longship

(40,416 posts)

5. Lack of any supporting data

Reply to tama (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 11:07 AM

Mar 2012

Also, look up "decoherence" in quantum physics.

Those who claim top-down causality in QM, Chopra, etc., are just making shit up. Anybody who has followed the research can see no causal link between human experience/thought and what occurs at the quantum level.

I suggest "Quantum Gods" by Victor Stenger, or if you're a bit more industrious, "The Comprehensible Cosmos". Both lay out in fairly good detail why top-down causality is most likely falsified.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Quantum Biology and the Puzzle of Coherence [View all] xchrom Mar 2012 OP

However, it would be a big mistake... longship Mar 2012 #1

Straight to the point tama Mar 2012 #3

Is coherence selected or a structural by-product? Jim__ Mar 2012 #4

Wider context tama Mar 2012 #8

I'm not sure why you would begin by looking at a wider context. Jim__ Mar 2012 #15

To begin with tama Mar 2012 #16

A couple of thoughts. Jim__ Mar 2012 #33

A clarification tama Mar 2012 #36

Lack of any supporting data longship Mar 2012 #5

The word "decoherence" tama Mar 2012 #6

This is complete and utter rubbish longship Mar 2012 #9

But, but... someone was wrong about something before... Silent3 Mar 2012 #11

I disagree tama Mar 2012 #13

Your endless devotion to vagueness is certainly amusing, however. Silent3 Mar 2012 #17

Why don't you even try? tama Mar 2012 #19

You seem to be getting different posters confused Silent3 Mar 2012 #20

Flattering ad hominem, thanks for that tama Mar 2012 #28

I have no problem with people trying to understand "quantum" Silent3 Mar 2012 #29

You are making up tama Mar 2012 #31

New Age? longship Mar 2012 #32

Pseudoskepticism tama Mar 2012 #45

Thank you. Thank you. And THANK YOU!!! nt Joseph8th Mar 2012 #40

Nice tama Mar 2012 #12

Sorry! Your post makes no physical sense longship Mar 2012 #18

First tama Mar 2012 #24

Tama, I'm with you longship Mar 2012 #30

Well that's clearly wrong bananas Mar 2012 #34

Wonderful take down longship Mar 2012 #35

Quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, superconductors are some other examples bananas Mar 2012 #48

Please! It's bad enough to tarnish QM... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #41

G�del tama Mar 2012 #43

Looking for a ToE ... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #46

Abstract tama Mar 2012 #47

Not sure why I'm bothering, but... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #49

Some good points tama Mar 2012 #50

Heheh... Cantor's Paradise... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #53

LOL - "mathematical theorems ... bear no relation to physics" bananas Mar 2012 #51

Math is not physics... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #52

Physics is NOT illogical or irrational... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #54

I didn't know there were Militant Holists, now... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #38

LOL tama Mar 2012 #39

OMG... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #42

Condencending tone tama Mar 2012 #44

Anybody tama Mar 2012 #7

Hmm. DeWitt. Interesting longship Mar 2012 #10

First tama Mar 2012 #14

Okay, I'm with you on all except the "observer" longship Mar 2012 #21

Well, I think there's more to the "observer" unless you're effectively redefining the term caraher Mar 2012 #22

Touch�, Zurek is above my pay grade longship Mar 2012 #23

I do think we're broadly in agreement caraher Mar 2012 #26

Thanks tama Mar 2012 #27

See post 24 for answer to also this n/t tama Mar 2012 #25

Delayed choice experiment tama Mar 2012 #37

So Stuart Kaufmann is still working.. arendt Mar 2012 #2