| Revision as of 17:47, 8 December 2019 editHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,408 edits →"today most physicists are realists who do not believe that quantum theory is involved with consciousness"← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:19, 10 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,845,884 editsm →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep C; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (37 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Notice|{{find}}}} |
|
{{Notice|{{find}}}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Afd-merged-from|Consciousness causes collapse|Consciousness causes collapse|22 February 2008|9 July 2008}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Paranormal|class=Start}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Paranormal}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|class=Start |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
|
|logic=yes|religion=yes|eastern=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|logic=yes|religion=yes|eastern=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{afd-merged-from|Consciousness causes collapse|Consciousness causes collapse|22 February 2008|9 July 2008}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Consciousness causes collapse}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Consciousness causes collapse}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = Stephen Harrison |
|
|
| title = How Quantum Theories Took Over TikTok |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = https://slate.com/technology/2022/10/quantum-theories-nobel-prize-tiktok.html |
|
|
| date = 20 October 2022 |
|
|
| quote = Its article on “Quantum mysticism” explains that nonbelievers with expert knowledge consider it a “pseudoscience” and also references some pejorative terms such as "quantum quackery" and "quantum woo." That’s because respectable scientific journals—the kind of sources that are required for Misplaced Pages’s science articles—have not embraced these fringe interpretations. |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Archives|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archives|search=yes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 20: |
Line 28: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{clear}} |
|
{{clear}} |
|
== "today most physicists are realists who do not believe that quantum theory is involved with consciousness" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Weird phrasing and sources == |
|
This statement is too general. Not involved how? Roger Penrose is a "realist", has specifically said he dislikes the idea of consciousness being primary or fundamental, but is well known for promoting the idea that QM is involved in consciousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
--15:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
|
A lot of this page feels like it poorly conforms to Misplaced Pages's general style and flow: clunky language, quotes strangely embedded in lines (generally a failure to paraphrase sources), etc. I'm thinking I may redo much of this page. ] (]) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Totally agree, this is a poor article. I'm not a physicist but have an interest in the subject, and agree that while it does tend to attract fringe ideas it is still a legitimate subject area and one with philosophical interest. ] (]) 21:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed with what the two above me have said, I have seen this article a few times, and each time it seems to have gotten worse. This is a legitimate topic of philosophical debate over what effect quantum mechanics has over the mind. It seems to be too one sided, and does not acknowledge that there are people with legitimate arguments on both sides. There are people like Henry Stapp and Fred Alan Wolf whose opinions on the topic are largely glossed over. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with you but I also think that it’s better to have an article referring to the actual philosophical and metaphysical questions regarding quantum mechanics article referring to the ways in which the language of quantum mechanics is used in an improper way. Nonetheless this article does need cleaning up; I’ll start with the grammar. ] (]) 17:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Yup, I guess it is about the old argument "human awareness is what collapses the wave function". ] (]) 14:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've amended this statement slightly as it's not what the cited article says - it puts it the other way round: "...do not believe that consciousness has a role in quantum theory", which is important as it subtly (but importantly) changes the meaning. In the article it is talking about consciousness being an active agent in creating reality - which physicists generally no longer think is the case. The other way round it would be saying that quantum theory is not involved with process which give rise to consciousness - this is not the conclusion of the article, and indeed is still an area of active research. ] (]) 08:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Most physicists are not Roger Penrose. --] (]) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::To be a bit clearer: The current version is OK, but the justification is not. From the fact that Roger Penrose thinks that "quantum theory is involved with consciousness" one cannot conclude that "most physicists do not believe that" is wrong, because, as I said, Penrose is one single man and "most physicists" are not him. --] (]) 17:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
A lot of this page feels like it poorly conforms to Misplaced Pages's general style and flow: clunky language, quotes strangely embedded in lines (generally a failure to paraphrase sources), etc. I'm thinking I may redo much of this page. Kedra Bhaonne (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with what the two above me have said, I have seen this article a few times, and each time it seems to have gotten worse. This is a legitimate topic of philosophical debate over what effect quantum mechanics has over the mind. It seems to be too one sided, and does not acknowledge that there are people with legitimate arguments on both sides. There are people like Henry Stapp and Fred Alan Wolf whose opinions on the topic are largely glossed over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.26.22 (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
