Help against yet ANOTHER Quantum Physics - observer effect argument!

[DarthFishy]

Lols I wrote a blog post about this idea a while ago. Lemme quote some bits:

How does a person's smallest organ for perception and awareness (a single neuron) detect something probably a million times smaller than itself?

To put this into perspective the radius of an atom (remember the level quantum mechanics operates at) is a thousand times smaller than the wavelengths of light.

Basically I looked at the scope at which Quantum effects manifest (i.e. on the picometer level) and at the scope at which a neuron functions (i.e. on the micrometer level).

I think people do not realise just how incredibly f-ing small the scope is that quantum effects manifest at.

 

[osmosis]

His first claim was something like this: that we create our own problems with our negative thinking.

I don't suppose your friend recently finished watching "The Secret"?

That is SO last week's B.S.

Tell your friend that there is much fresher B.S. to spread around, and s/he should get with the B.S. times.

 

[-Fran-]

I don't suppose your friend recently finished watching "The Secret"?

That is SO last week's B.S.

Tell your friend that there is much fresher B.S. to spread around, and s/he should get with the B.S. times.

I suspected that he has so I asked him where these ideas came from, and thought that if he answers "The Secret" I will have a few links ready, but I have got no reply at all so far.

 

[-Fran-]

I just meant that at a fundamental level we cannot say anything for certain about the state of the universe. That doesn't mean the universe depends on our interpretations (subjective). We can predict the probabilities of which state a system will be in and that's as good as it gets. It seems to be a hard limit on our capabilities as creatures made of the stuff of this cosmos.

Ahh, OK, now I understand better, thanks.

Yeah, I guess it's so. And I am fine really with him thinking what he wants about the universe (what's it to me after all), but that he based his ideas on QM... I couldn't refrain from checking up on that, and get back to him about that detail.

 

[-Fran-]

I think people do not realise just how incredibly f-ing small the scope is that quantum effects manifest at.

I agree, this is a common problem I think. I admit that I, as many people, often have trouble with really understanding 'very small', 'very big', 'very old' and so on. Of course it's hard visualizing the size of the universe, or the age of it and so on. But some people have a bigger problem with this than others it seems. Like YEC-people thinking it's not strange at all to claim that the earth is around 10 000 years old, and how they can't grasp how much time some geological processes actually need.

 

[-Fran-]

I also really think positive thinking can make a big difference in the way a person views the world and feels about themselves, and this in turn can affect the way other people perceive them, too. But that's something separate than the quantum physics claims he's making, and there isn't anything magical about it. It's more like common sense to me, that we can choose how we view ourselves and the things that happen to us to some extent, spinning them in a positive or negative light.

Yes, I agree, positive thinking in itself doesn't necessarily have to be woo, and he also said in the beginning that he meant it this way and that he didn't claim it was anything "magical" at all. I agreed with him about positive thinking in general not being magical (as he put it), but said that I was neither interested in, or believed in the methods he wanted me to use. And then as the discussion went on things that he said started to be more and more wooish and finally ended in him connecting it all to QM, and just as you say that's something else... The tricky thing is that even though things became more and more woo, he didn't realize this. He thinks all his ideas are well rooted in science and according to him he didn't talk magic in the beginning and he still did not talk magic in the end... I agreed with the former but definitely not with the latter

It seems like I recently read somewhere how the observer effect is misunderstood. Something like: Woo seems to think the observer is influencing the results of the experiments by their consciousness, whereas the observer effect is actually related to the fact that in quantum physics different types of measurement produce different effects (i.e. the WAY they are doing the observing is what makes the difference, not what they are THINKING). I may not have that exactly right but I think that's the general idea.

Yes. I made a similar thread in the science forum (maybe this thread should be moved and merged with that one?) and someone there said something similar. He seems to have misunderstood this in just this way, and it annoys me somewhat that he tells me (several times) to google this stuff to see for myself that he is right I mean, it doesn't really looks like he has been googling stuff himself because then he would sure have found out sooner or later that he has misunderstood this.

 

[schlitt]

See if you can get a copy of "The unconscious quantum" by Victor Stenger.
That may be of help. I bought a copy off amazon recently, it is a great book that deals with a lot of the quantum woo in the new age community.

 

[-Fran-]

See if you can get a copy of "The unconscious quantum" by Victor Stenger.
That may be of help. I bought a copy off amazon recently, it is a great book that deals with a lot of the quantum woo in the new age community.

Thanks for the tip. Even if he doesn't want to discuss this with me anymore (I'm still waiting for a reply) I would like to learn a bit more about this for my own sake. It will go on my books to get-list.

 

[DarthFishy]

I agree, this is a common problem I think. I admit that I, as many people, often have trouble with really understanding 'very small', 'very big', 'very old' and so on.

Oh yes indeed. I count myself as one of those people as well. I was just amazed, as I was browsing through wikipedia, about how small some of these things really are. It's actually quite impossible to wrap your head around some of these concepts.

Which is where I think the problems come in. To be able to understand something like Quantum Physics we use maths, but if you can't follow the math you have to use some kind of metaphor or analogy. And unfortunately these metaphors are pretty much a pale imitation of what is really going on. Of course people read (or hear) about these metaphors and think that it accurately explains the phenomenon and then bring their own interpretation as well.

Result: Woo.

 

[ExMinister]

Yes. I made a similar thread in the science forum (maybe this thread should be moved and merged with that one?) and someone there said something similar. He seems to have misunderstood this in just this way, and it annoys me somewhat that he tells me (several times) to google this stuff to see for myself that he is right I mean, it doesn't really looks like he has been googling stuff himself because then he would sure have found out sooner or later that he has misunderstood this.

I believed this for a long time myself so I know how convinced your friend probably is. Like your friend I really thought there WAS lots of scientific support for it all because there are scientists supporting it! (Fred Alan Wolfe, A. Goswami, Fritjof Capra, that water crystal guy, M. Emoto to name a few, and MDs and PHds like Chopra and Lynne McTaggert). Not until I came here did I realize that even within the science field, you have to be careful and that all scientific research is not created equally, and an expert in one area of science is not necessarily an expert in another. It can be a minefield out there for those who are only just barely knowledgeable about science.

But the thing I don't get is physicists supporting goofy interpretations of quantum physics. Wouldn't you think THEY would know better?!

 

[-Fran-]

But the thing I don't get is physicists supporting goofy interpretations of quantum physics. Wouldn't you think THEY would know better?!

One would think so

I believed this for a long time myself so I know how convinced your friend probably is. Like your friend I really thought there WAS lots of scientific support for it all because there are scientists supporting it! (Fred Alan Wolfe, A. Goswami, Fritjof Capra, that water crystal guy, M. Emoto to name a few, and MDs and PHds like Chopra and Lynne McTaggert). Not until I came here did I realize that even within the science field, you have to be careful and that all scientific research is not created equally, and an expert in one area of science is not necessarily an expert in another. It can be a minefield out there for those who are only just barely knowledgeable about science.

Yes, I see what you mean, and I don't want to sound harsh.

We live in a time when there is an onslaught of information from all directions showering over us constantly, and it demands much of us these days to wade through all of that and filter out the valid stuff from the sheer nonsene. It's impossible for that matter for any one single individual to check out and test everything for ourselves, and we have to trust the ones with more specialized knowledge to tell us the right info. And as you say, when we can't even trust them not to be gullible, what do we do?

I guess there isn't a full proof system to guarantee we always will get the best info, and none of us are really 100% immune against getting fooled now and then. But there is still quite a lot that we ordinary every day people can do to sort all this information a bit better and minimize the risk of getting fooled by this and that. Teaching our kids critical thinking is a good start I guess.

Many people do know to be sceptical in some situations but aren't a least bit skeptical in others. They won't believe everything a used car salesman say, but they believe the local tarot card reader... So they have the potential, but it is other factors that stops them from applying it to other parts of their lives. Factors such as traditions, social factors, lack of education in different subjects, the prejudice that it is not a positive or nice thing to be skeptical (my friend referred to it as "Mr. Spock-people" - logical people with little sense of humor and feelings). And many other factors too.

That you once believed these things does not really matter (we can all fall for things) what really matters is that you were open to learning and discarding what turned out to be wrong.

What really annoys me about people such as my friend isn't really that he believes these things, or that he didn't recognize faulty information, but that he doesn't seem to want to learn and discard. Well, I won't say too much yet, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and not judge him right away, he might still reply and be... well, openminded!! But he did give some rather telling examples of typical woo behaviour such as saying I am not open-minded when I didn't accept some of his wooish talk, and when I wrote the reply to the things he said in the OP, telling him about the common misunderstandings about QM... well, I have still not got a reply, and something is telling me I will not get a 'thank you' even if I do get a reply.

Believing weird things is understandable - rejecting knowledge when offered it... I don't get that But maybe he isn't rejecting it, maybe he just needs time to process things. I don't know.

I am no expert of anything, but only during my one year stay at this forum I have learnt SO much about how to get better at separating valid stuff from nonsense, and I would gladly have taught him the little I know so that he could set himself on his own self-learning journey.

But so far it looks like he doesn't want to, and my tries to at least make him aware of the risks you mention and so on, have been met with basically telling me I have such a pessimistic and skeptical outlook on life that I can't be taken seriously.

You are right, this world is full of traps, it's not easy, but if people also wants to fall in them... *sad shrug*

Be that as it may, maybe my whole approach could have been better, I know I am not very good at these things, I mean talking with people about things like this. But, well...