The same is true of Creationists.

They deny science, but they try to co opt it in their effort to give their religious beliefs legitimacy. And, they do this despite the fact that they supposedly believe that they are saved by faith.

If this is so, they are saved by faith, why do they so desperately want to try to "prove" that what they believe is scientific fact?

I think it is the rational side of their brains screaming out at them; but, because they are blinded by their religion, they are satisfied/placated with the pseudoscience that does nothing but reaffirm their beliefs.

The phrase quantum mechanics does not belong at a funeral unless the desceased was a physicist. The supernatural always sits right at the edge of our understanding, right now that edge is the quantum world.

@Happy_Killbot it was a ham fisted attempt to talk about transfer of energy, and transfer of soul after death, and how quantum science is revealing these mysteries. I stood there, looked up and down, and shook my head, but not enough to draw attention.

I prefer it here. The colder temperature means I can run my circuits at higher efficiency, meaning I can simulate Hawaii Vacations anytime I please.

@Happy_Killbot Oh, you dreamer in that fridge.

It was actually the fact that I couldn't find any information on the thought experiment described in that book that lead me to write this post. If it isn't something that academia talks about, it's most likely BS.

P.S. also a certain unnamed someone may have blocked my access to a certain post

@Happy_Killbot Possibly the same person. She posted a ludicrous tale about having the ability to make dice land on a certain number using mind control and she also can read minds. All those abilities from an early age and this could all be explained by quantum physics. Hence the Shrodinger's kittens. All I did was suggest she gets in touch with James Rani who is offering $1 million for anyone who can prove that they have paranormal abilities and she blocked me. This money has been on offer for years and no one has claimed it.

@Moravian That's the one. My comments to here were mostly about the misuse of science to explain things it has nothing to do with.

@Happy_Killbot That's a relief then. I am not alone

Ab-so-lu-t-ely! Saw a video of him peddling this crap at a seminar at Caltech. He got told he was full of woo. He didnt like it.

There’s a whole crowd of What The Bleep Do We Know idiots.

@Matias That just made my day!

I think witnessing is considered to be the same as interaction in quantum mechanics – at least in terms of perceiving an overview of the situation. But how can seeing something affect the nature of a thing? I think the answer might lie in a concept that will be explored in Iain McGilchrist's new book which will deal with the idea of matter being no more than a manifestation of process. If matter is a manifestation of process, why would seeing it change its nature? Perhaps because it would place us outside ‘real’ life, having thoughts we would usually only think a god might have. We know the idea of Schrodinger’s cat that was alive and also dead depending on whether we viewed the reality of the cat’s situation as snap-shot or video. Snap-shot would place the cat in specific circumstances at specific times but the video would tell the whole story.

@brentan there is some merit to this but it is a little convoluted. In order to see something, light had to hit it, changing its state as described above. What that implies is that what you see is the only thing that doesn't exist.

@brentan That's because in quantum physics it is impossible to witness/observe without interaction occurring at the quantum level. There is no way for such interaction NOT to affect the quantum state of a particle. It is perfectly natural and expected, though not at the time it was first discovered decades ago. But, that is confusing to the uninitiated mind which leads to speculative and supernatural woo. There is no reason to resort to "having thoughts we would usually only think a god might have."

@Heraclitus There is good reason to speak that way because for centuries God was the only being thought to exist outside of creation.

@brentan Well, but that was then. This is now.
But, if you are making a religious/supernatural argument for this phenomenon, that is different.

@Heraclitus No, I'm not making a religious argument. I'm just using words that I think best express the idea I want to convey.

@brentan Well, since I don't know what kind of thoughts that only a god might have, you have lost me. In fact, I don't know how anyone could know what kind of thoughts only a god might have, having never had them. In you could explain it in more secular terms I'd appreciate it.

The notion of thoughts a god might have comes from my years as a Christian studying scripture to try to understand the way God might think and copy him. In this context, I wanted to get across the old idea of the divine nature that I think comes closest to describe the ability to experience the' past, present, future, here, there and everywhere' aspect of quantum mechanics. I get the feeling that you don't want me to express myself in terms of my own life experience because it isn't secular enough to suit your way of thinking. We have to live and let live and allow people to express themselves on their own terms and not our own.

@brentan Nope, not as all. Used to be a Christian myself. Just don't understand what you meant, that's all. Can't read minds. Still don't really understand how that relates to quantum mechanics and the double-slit experiment. But if you are not comfortable explaining what you mean, that's fine.

@Heraclitus I did explain it. You didn't get it. No big deal in that but telling me how to speak, that's not on!

@brentan False accusation. Just because somewhat doesn't understand your meaning doesn't mean they are telling you how to speak. I am a naturally curious person and would like to understand more. That is not an insult. That is a complement.

@Heraclitus Maybe it would be enough if I could convince people that I am not 'Jesus-smuggling' when I bring my religious past to bear on a topic.

Sorry for being testy!

@brentan No problem. I do the same thing sometimes. I was once accused of being a "religiot" just because I corrected an atheist's misconception of Christianity and scripture.

BTW, you got me curious about Iain McGilchrist.

@johnprytz so what? The original post talk about how the experimental equipment demonstrated the duality of light. The uncertainty only applies to mankind's attempt to measure and understand. The particle could care less about our uncertainty. But thats a complete nonsequiter and irrelevant.

@johnprytz Thanks for the spell check. Typing on my phone I occasionally miss those errors until I revisit them. Glad you had something positive to contribute.

Sadly it's often the people who know a little bit who get suckered into this stuff because, damn, is there ever a lot going on there. It's easy to start filling in your own gaps or letting other people go it for you.

Shoulda scrolled to the bottom and read your reply first.