|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:53 pm
It's a common assertion nowadays in metaphysical lore to claim that quantum mechanics in some way or form 'proves' or 'provides evidence for' certain metaphysical ideas. The basic trail of logic goes like this. Since quantum mechanics shows that the location and nature of very tiny particles is determined in part by the observer (more specifically, how the observer choses to measure the said particle), therefore reality as well is some indeterminate thing that can be shaped by human will alone. What we call 'objective reality' then, with its glorious mechanistics, is really all just a construct based on our consensual perception of it. We construct the whole thing and can thus rebuild the whole thing to suit magical endeavors.
There are other variations on the said proposition; others can probably elaborate on it with more eloquence than I can, so if you're more familiar with it, please do. Regardless of how eloquently it is stated, however, there's one glaring problem with the logic used. It takes a legitimate principle of science and takes it well out of the realm of science to say something completely different than was intended. Now, I don't mind that people do this. I do it all the time in my own practice. But there's seeking greater meaningfulness through science, making leaps of logic, and making LEAPS of logic.
Saying that just because some subatomic particle's location is indeterminate unless an observer interjects is a looooong shot away from translating that effect up at greater scales. Anybody who has studied any science for any length of time knows that scale makes a big difference in how something operates. The reason why single-celled organisms never get very large is because of a scale factor and has to do with the limited scale over which diffusion can occur. While I appreciate the idealism of those who find that quantum mechanics confirms metaphysical notions of exerting will to bend or create reality, it is a disastrous leap of logic that simply doesn't hold to the scientifically observed reality. Does anyone else in here find this as an issue? Do any of the proponents of the quantum mechanics - metaphysics juncture consider the issue of scale?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:05 am
I'm always a little bothered when I see books or articles that say things to the effect of "subatomic particles can be in two places at once, hence astral projection is possible". It drives me up the wall.
You're absolutely right - the point of quantum physics is not that it /disproves/ science as we've come to know it, just that when it comes to subatomic particles, it requires a whole new set of methods and procedures to represent what's going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:12 pm
I think that the quantum scale is the only scale that we're able to scientifically verify those various paradoxical phenomena on, even though I'm sure it's obvious to any practitioner of a spiritual path that it occurs on all scales of reality.
I feel that this notion of quantum mechanics somehow proving metaphysical thought is a leap of faith, but I think it is one step closer to reconciling science and spirituality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:43 pm
I'm not trying to be an a**, but from what I remember of my last lecture from Hans-Pieter Durr (a quantum physicist who I believe was in the running for the Nobel prize for his work), he's pretty excited about the idea that intention can affect probability, and used a ball of yarn to demonstrate his theory of how chi/qi/ki/energy (I'm guessing probably also prana but he was lecturing acupuncturists so it didn't come up) fits in to the whole scenario. That was a few years ago, mind, but still.
I look at it like this: math is just another language used to illustrate concepts that can get very complicated. Any scientist using that language to explore various phenomena is going to come up with some pretty neat theories, not all of which will bear up under detailed scrutiny. Some of those theories, however, evolve into something pretty useful which, over time, becomes an accepted near-fact (remember, relativity is still considered a theory too). I consider the investigation of a connection between supernatural phenomena and quantum physics to be more or less in its infancy stages, which is the point where the theories are going to be fairly vague and a bit outlandish. Give it time to develop before you dismiss it as woo-woo crap. As the husband is fond of quoting from I-wish-I-could-remember-where, "All sufficiently advanced science is magic to the uninitiate." Gawd, I probably got the words all wrong too. You get the idea though, I hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:27 pm
I've never personally heard anyone try to claim because of Quantum Leaps, Astral Projection is possible, (Etc, etc.). But is it possible that what they mean by that is a simple statement that "Yesterday's magic is today's science , and today's magic is tomorrow's science."
They may have just worded it wrong so that came out soundinrg like they were saying that one proves the other.
If not, I have to agree, that is rather stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:21 am
I don't think quantum physics really SAYS that one particles can be in two places at once... I think quantum physics tries to quantify the potential actions of the particles, showing where they can go as though they did go there. I don't believe for a second that particles suddenly change their ways once something is observing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
