--- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > >> > > > > > --- turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > >> > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > >>>> ... > > > > >>>> " > > > > >>>> The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do > > > > >>>> with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > >>>> physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > >>>> consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people > > > > >>>> meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field > > > > >>>> of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation > > > > >>>> of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently > > > > >>>> supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness > > > > >>>> can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any > > > > >>>> better. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > >>>> distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > >>>> beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > >>>> generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > >>>> feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > >>>> distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his > > > > >>>> movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. > > > > >>>> But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the > > > > >>>> framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific > > > > >>>> truth (Pagels). > > > > >>>> What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It > > > > is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was > > > > based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the > > > > vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in > > > > the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy > > > > describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of > > > > gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy > > > > morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently > > > > morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see today under > > > > Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I do not know > > > > what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement > > > > any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, > > > > including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the > > > > skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was > > > > really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and > > > > physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered > > > > Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse > > > > of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, > > > > recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw > > > > said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that made > > > > any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between > > > > consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no > > > > sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > >
.................... Well, at least for me, a lot of stuff in QM, or stuff, seems like nonsense. For instance, it's impossible for me to grasp that an elementary particle can *literally* be in two places simultaneously! :o "Nobody [not even Mlodi? -- card] knows how it can be like that." -- Richard Feynman
