7 ms·

So again, why should we leave the quantum mechanics out of the spiritual/meditative/what-you-wanna-call-it experiences, exactly? I think you're asking a reason

by SiVal 10y ago

So again, why should we leave the quantum mechanics out of the spiritual/meditative/what-you-wanna-call-it experiences, exactly? I think you're asking a reasonable question if you genuinely don't know. It should be answered or ignored, not downvoted. Quantum mechanics is a sub-field of physics, which grows in the scientific way: you observe things, try to find "rules" that predict outcomes of experiments, perform experiments to distinguish between similar rules, follow whatever path seems to best predict outcomes and extend it by trying more experiments: "Yes, but what would happen if we did X?" If quantum mechanics ever finds "spiritual/meditative..." ideas by this incremental extension process that are repeatable by anyone like the rest of QM, then this spiritual stuff will gradually become part of physics and will be science. QM isn't close to achieving that at this point and no reason yet to assume it ever will. Alternatively, you could go at it from the other direction. Start with whatever spiritual/meditative practice rules you have and try to discover quantum mechanics by following those rules. Or use your spiritual tools to extend our current scientific knowledge of QM to something we don't already know from science but that can be tested and verified by anybody with the measurement gear, just like science. If your spiritual tools can't discover QM, but have to wait for science, and can't even improve on what science has already discovered about it in any way, then people who know about QM via science won't take your combining QM with some spiritual system seriously. Spiritual systems are vast in number and can have any rules they want, which should suggest a need to distinguish real from fake. If you have a real system, it should produce results you can't get from the fakes. Prove it. Demonstrate those results. If you want to include QM, then show results with that, too. But just plugging proven QM into an unproven spiritual system does not increase the value of either one.

pdimitar 10y ago
OFF-TOPIC: Thank you for your reasonable comment. It helped me because I honestly expected more of the general HN populace than to downvote instead of give a legit answer (whether or not it's obvious to them is irrelevant). I know this can bring me additional downvotes but to hell with this; I am not here for validation but to discuss and learn. ON-TOPIC: You are telling me if I claim things the burden of proof is on me. I realize that and I am thankful for your reminder. But thing is: (1) I never claimed anything. My comment was mostly "what if" and a possible thought-provoker. Definitely wasn't "engaging in pseudoscience" as some called it. It was a conversation-starter. (2) I stand by my claim that we don't know everything and as such, we should be skeptical about everything -- including our current approach. Is that really such an outrageous position? Apologies if my comment was seen as something deserving so much negativity, I honestly had no idea that a normal "what if" would be so triggering. Again, I thank you for your reasonable and calm answer. It's much appreciated.
- SiVal 10y ago
  You're welcome. It's interesting that 1) insists you didn't claim anything, then 2) insists that you stand by your claim. ;-) Well, fine, it's not a courtroom, it's a conversation, and I'll try to be useful. 1) It's a natural question. Many people wonder about it, and each new generation will ask it all over again. People who think that because it has already been answered (many times) it should never be asked again need to grow up. They don't have to answer. My background is physics, and for what it's worth I believe there is no value in combining QM with spiritual systems. I could be wrong, of course, and if you want to pursue it, just do some googling and find some good books, because it has been a popular topic for decades. Warning: you will find mountains of pseudoscience. If you are most interested in amazing-sounding ideas and not how well supported the ideas are by repeatable measurements, favor books by non-physicists. If you care less about how amazing it sounds and more about what is best supported by repeated measurements, favor books written by people who know QM best: physicists. 2) Sure, be skeptical about everything, though not EQUALLY skeptical of all claims. (Less evidence -> more skepticism.) Real science needs to welcome skepticism (though real, human scientists often don't, unfortunately), while most spiritual practices don't, insisting that you have more faith or "first empty your cup" or otherwise overcome the weakness / character flaw of your skepticism. So, if you want to be skeptical, real science is a better approach for you (and me). You can claim literally anything, and not all things are true, so you should have an approach to deciding. Mine is the scientific approach; you choose what you like. You did suggest that we don't know everything about QM or spiritual systems, so maybe there is a connection. While philosophically true, such things are empty conjectures in science. We don't know everything about anything, so that argument supports all claims "A might be related to B", no matter what A and B are. Again, philosophically true but scientifically empty, because science doesn't consider something to be real until you actually observe/measure it. If you speculate about a connection between QM and something else, think of a way to measure it. Until someone does, there is nothing there, scientifically. It doesn't mean there never will be, just nothing so far, and nothing (in my opinion) to suggest there ever will be (again, scientifically). Also, if you enjoy this type of discussion, you might enjoy reading more about the philosophy of science in general. You'll see more in-depth justifications for much of what I've been saying that aren't restricted to any particular field of science or non-science.

by SiVal 10y ago

pdimitar 10y ago

OFF-TOPIC: Thank you for your reasonable comment. It helped me because I honestly expected more of the general HN populace than to downvote instead of give a legit answer (whether or not it's obvious to them is irrelevant). I know this can bring me additional downvotes but to hell with this; I am not here for validation but to discuss and learn. ON-TOPIC: You are telling me if I claim things the burden of proof is on me. I realize that and I am thankful for your reminder. But thing is: (1) I never claimed anything. My comment was mostly "what if" and a possible thought-provoker. Definitely wasn't "engaging in pseudoscience" as some called it. It was a conversation-starter. (2) I stand by my claim that we don't know everything and as such, we should be skeptical about everything -- including our current approach. Is that really such an outrageous position? Apologies if my comment was seen as something deserving so much negativity, I honestly had no idea that a normal "what if" would be so triggering. Again, I thank you for your reasonable and calm answer. It's much appreciated.

SiVal 10y ago
You're welcome. It's interesting that 1) insists you didn't claim anything, then 2) insists that you stand by your claim. ;-) Well, fine, it's not a courtroom, it's a conversation, and I'll try to be useful. 1) It's a natural question. Many people wonder about it, and each new generation will ask it all over again. People who think that because it has already been answered (many times) it should never be asked again need to grow up. They don't have to answer. My background is physics, and for what it's worth I believe there is no value in combining QM with spiritual systems. I could be wrong, of course, and if you want to pursue it, just do some googling and find some good books, because it has been a popular topic for decades. Warning: you will find mountains of pseudoscience. If you are most interested in amazing-sounding ideas and not how well supported the ideas are by repeatable measurements, favor books by non-physicists. If you care less about how amazing it sounds and more about what is best supported by repeated measurements, favor books written by people who know QM best: physicists. 2) Sure, be skeptical about everything, though not EQUALLY skeptical of all claims. (Less evidence -> more skepticism.) Real science needs to welcome skepticism (though real, human scientists often don't, unfortunately), while most spiritual practices don't, insisting that you have more faith or "first empty your cup" or otherwise overcome the weakness / character flaw of your skepticism. So, if you want to be skeptical, real science is a better approach for you (and me). You can claim literally anything, and not all things are true, so you should have an approach to deciding. Mine is the scientific approach; you choose what you like. You did suggest that we don't know everything about QM or spiritual systems, so maybe there is a connection. While philosophically true, such things are empty conjectures in science. We don't know everything about anything, so that argument supports all claims "A might be related to B", no matter what A and B are. Again, philosophically true but scientifically empty, because science doesn't consider something to be real until you actually observe/measure it. If you speculate about a connection between QM and something else, think of a way to measure it. Until someone does, there is nothing there, scientifically. It doesn't mean there never will be, just nothing so far, and nothing (in my opinion) to suggest there ever will be (again, scientifically). Also, if you enjoy this type of discussion, you might enjoy reading more about the philosophy of science in general. You'll see more in-depth justifications for much of what I've been saying that aren't restricted to any particular field of science or non-science.