4 ms·

Wilson doesn't claim any certainty about some "Quantum Psychology". You're projecting, constructing a STRAW MAN and tearing him down. If you want to cite someth

Wilson doesn't claim any certainty about some "Quantum Psychology". You're projecting, constructing a STRAW MAN and tearing him down. If you want to cite something specific, then do so, otherwise, please stop talking. I've enjoyed your other comments, especially about physics, but in this specific case you really don't know what you're talking about. You're engaging in a lame status transaction without being able to back it up with any concrete terms. Good social tactics but really lame for any sort of intellectual discussion.

ThomPete 16y ago
That's not what I meant by certainty. But I can see it might be unclear. Seriously though. And I am not trying to be contrarian. Can you please explain to me how this In examples 7 and 8, Standard English again assumes indwelling spooks and continues to separate observer and observed; English Prime assumes no spooks and reminds us of QUIP (the QUantum Inseparability Principle, so named by Dr. Nick Herbert), namely, the impossibility of existentially separating observer and observed. http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html Isn't complete pseudo talk. And Nick Herbert QUIM "The Quantum Intimacy Machine" http://quantumtantra.com/quim.html http://quantumtantra.com/quim.html Another great quantum product? I mean I am a monist, I don't believe you can separate the observer and the observed. But QUIP and QUIM? Have you tried to look up QUIP? Did you see how many of those new uses of quantum exist. Quantum Tantra?!? I mean really? You want me to take that stuff serious? And when you finally get to something that actually mentions QUIP and is not some new age rambling (and I say that as one who actually believe some new agers know what they are talking about), what I get is by no metrics comparable to eprime. They discuss two completely unrelated things. Semantics and QM are NOT related. That is what I have problems with.
- zackattack 16y ago
  I think RAW's point is that the principles of QM provide support for a philosophical viewpoint that can be practiced through adjusted semantics. As far as the QUIM, I would like to see some data before making a judgment. I don't have sufficient understanding of the related physics to make theoretical conjectures about its plausibility (or absurdity).
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    And that is exactly where he streches it too far. There is no support for that. Non zero nada nilsch. He just takes one semantic interpretation and applies it to another. But qm isn't about semantics. Our interpretation isn't qm, qm is mathematical and experimental. Every interpretation we choose to put on top, only relates to what happens in the qm world and that is by no metrics what happens in the physical, let alone semantic world. It's simply pseudo science.

ThomPete 16y ago

That's not what I meant by certainty. But I can see it might be unclear. Seriously though. And I am not trying to be contrarian. Can you please explain to me how this In examples 7 and 8, Standard English again assumes indwelling spooks and continues to separate observer and observed; English Prime assumes no spooks and reminds us of QUIP (the QUantum Inseparability Principle, so named by Dr. Nick Herbert), namely, the impossibility of existentially separating observer and observed. http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html Isn't complete pseudo talk. And Nick Herbert QUIM "The Quantum Intimacy Machine" http://quantumtantra.com/quim.html http://quantumtantra.com/quim.html Another great quantum product? I mean I am a monist, I don't believe you can separate the observer and the observed. But QUIP and QUIM? Have you tried to look up QUIP? Did you see how many of those new uses of quantum exist. Quantum Tantra?!? I mean really? You want me to take that stuff serious? And when you finally get to something that actually mentions QUIP and is not some new age rambling (and I say that as one who actually believe some new agers know what they are talking about), what I get is by no metrics comparable to eprime. They discuss two completely unrelated things. Semantics and QM are NOT related. That is what I have problems with.

zackattack 16y ago
I think RAW's point is that the principles of QM provide support for a philosophical viewpoint that can be practiced through adjusted semantics. As far as the QUIM, I would like to see some data before making a judgment. I don't have sufficient understanding of the related physics to make theoretical conjectures about its plausibility (or absurdity).
- ThomPete 16y ago
  And that is exactly where he streches it too far. There is no support for that. Non zero nada nilsch. He just takes one semantic interpretation and applies it to another. But qm isn't about semantics. Our interpretation isn't qm, qm is mathematical and experimental. Every interpretation we choose to put on top, only relates to what happens in the qm world and that is by no metrics what happens in the physical, let alone semantic world. It's simply pseudo science.