Quantum shight

The Browser

I had a conversation last night with someone who I know is having a tough time emotionally for the past couple of years. She is educated, intelligent, articulate. But, like many an emotionally troubled person, has taken to reiki, crystals, having her fortune told, and latterly, quantum mysticism -- particularly what sound to me like Chopra-esque notions about quantum theory and "how it proves that we're all energy and that if you think about something and visualize it, it will come to you".

I'm wondering how best to converse with someone who clearly cannot tell good science from pseudoscience. How do you get through to them that they're being fooled? And how do you do it without hurting their feelings? And, importantly, how do you show them them that the Chopra-perspective is not the intellectual equivalent of the real scientific method? How do you show them, whhile in the middle of what is an intense but enjoyable conversation, that all of the research they've done is bogus and that they were reading the wrong stuff all along?

I said that this person is educated, and she is -- but obviously only to a point; that point being marked by a complete ignorance of the scientific method and a failure to acknowledge that "reality" isn't just something that everyone can have their own unique take on and still be right.

It's sad to witness. She also went to a psychic recently who told her the following things:

"someone close to you will soon get married"
"I can see you grandmother. I see knitting needles...she liked to knit (yes). I see a stove (yes)...and fields (yes)...with animals (yes!)"

I found it hard to keep a straight face. But I was also demoralized that otherwise intelligent people can be suckered so willingly and so easily. I was thinking of Sam Harris's conversational intolerance and applied it to the psychic's predictions/observations.

But when it came to the quantum gibberish, it was hard to convince her that the stuff she was reading was less meritorious, shall we say, than a Feynman lecture.

We both happen to be Irish and live in Dubai. I'm surrounded by blatant religiosity every day and have to bite my lip when my colleagues sincerely tell me that Arabic was the first language, that homosexuality is a terrible sin, that Arabic is spoken in heaven, and when particular lines from the Koran apparently reveal what can of course only be a divine knowledge of black holes and embryology. So I was looking forward to chatting with a similarly aged non-Muslim for a change -- and then she started with the quantum baloney. It got me down, so I came here to vent with kindreds and to ask for your points of view.

Thanks.

Cork boy 55

Reserve your energy for the real enemy
Target the humans, institutions and systems that produce the irrational content not the victims of it this will be the key to victory and the awakening

As for how to deal with the Irrational and religious victims of cults and liars you encounter on a day to day basis well only you can decide this on a case by case basis. No point picking leaves off a tree cut the ****ing tree down and poison its roots.

Obliq

The Browser wrote: »

So I was looking forward to chatting with a similarly aged non-Muslim for a change -- and then she started with the quantum baloney. It got me down, so I came here to vent with kindreds and to ask for your points of view.

Thanks.

Oh jaysus, hard luck! I come here to vent all the time....... Your situation of being surrounded by this stuff would be enough to get you down alright :eek:! Makes you immediately feel like a big bully unless you go very softly softly and be untrue to yourself by not vehemently disagreeing with the claptrap.

Only today I wrote a post in the "fear of death" thread that's in a similar vein.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84024581&postcount=126
(Not sure how you do those little links to post numbers, but there it is!)

Anyhow, I feel your pain What do you say when this decent intelligent and thoughtful person believes something because it makes them feel better, rather than face the fact that the scientific evidence just isn't there? I usually (when for example, I'm asked by a sick person's wife whether I have a belief in angels just after the "angel man" has told the extremely sick person that they're getting better) say that I'm a very empirical person who has great difficulty believing anything that isn't in evidence in front of me. I say that I'm such a skeptic that because I can't understand how a scientific study works for myself, I have to see it peer reviewed by a whole group of independent scientists before I'll believe in something. I also say that being skeptic doesn't mean I'm right.

I say "You're asking the wrong person", meaning that you really need to ask someone else who actually believes in angels already to have this supportive conversation you need, because anything I say will stomp on your feelings......sigh. It's crap. I'd like to support them, and I do in other ways - *real ones, that they properly benefit from, but not in that way.

*actually, rereading that: I'm sure it would be real support to them that they'd properly benefit from if they had a big long supportive chat with someone who agreed with them, but that's not me. They're adults. Who am I to tell them they're wrong, unless they're hurting someone?

coffee_cake

Give her a basic introduction book to quantum physics

Obliq

Ah, there ya go. Useful advice from someone else, sympathetic waffle from me
Good one - as you give her the book, say "cos I know you're into this cosmic stuff an all that....."

smokingman

Awaits JC/DeadOne equivalent to appear to espouse the fact that "we can't know!" what it all means and doyouwannabuysomemagiccrystals...

ManMade

The Browser wrote: »

1.I'm wondering how best to converse with someone who clearly cannot tell good science from pseudoscience. How do you get through to them that they're being fooled?

2.We both happen to be Irish and live in Dubai. I'm surrounded by blatant religiosity every day and have to bite my lip when my colleagues sincerely tell me that Arabic was the first language, that homosexuality is a terrible sin, that Arabic is spoken in heaven, and when particular lines from the Koran apparently reveal what can of course only be a divine knowledge of black holes and embryology.

1. You can't!
Just look at the creationism thread on here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682&page=85

2. What's Dubai like for religious freedom. How do their authority's react to "blasphemy". What's internet freedom like?

nagirrac

The Browser wrote: »

I said that this person is educated, and she is -- but obviously only to a point; that point being marked by a complete ignorance of the scientific method and a failure to acknowledge that "reality" isn't just something that everyone can have their own unique take on and still be right.

Except for the irratating problem that there is no accepted view of "reality", in particular in the scientific arena. In terms of your overall post, the problem with applying judgement to anyone else's views or beliefs is we all suffer from belief blindness to some degree (and yes, I include myself in "we"), scientists are as vulnerable to confirmation bias as anyone else. Regardless of how much we want to think otherwise, the scientific method, although the best method we have to examine our observed "reality", is not without its problems. The attached article outlines the "decline effect" in scientific studies which most scientists would prefer not to think about but is very real.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

An example given in the article is acupuncture, which many people in the West regard as pseudomedicine. There were a large number of clinical trials done between 1966 and 1995 and the results are fascinating. 47 trials were done in China, Taiwan and Japan and 100% reported acupuncture as an effective treatment based on therapeutic benefits observed. 94 trials were done in the US, Sweden and the UK and only 56% reported therapeutic benefits. Note these are scientists reporting the therapeutic effects. Obviously the placebo effect has been demonstrated sufficiently to accept it exists, but the irratating question remains; even if you believe acupuncture is a placebo effect, how does it result in a therapeutic benefit?

The conclusion of the article is that although publication bias and selective reporting are serious issues in science, the largest issue is that nature is fundamentally random. How the apparent order and complexity of our macro world emerges from a random, probability based micro world is a complete mystery at present, and the reason why we have so many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

Absolutely there is a lot of nonsense written about quantum mechanics, and some would say I have written quite a bit of it myself:o, but again the irritating fact is that we have no agreed interpretation of QM after over a century since its discovery. There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her. QM is counterintuitive and if you apply how you expect things to behave in nature from the classical macro world to the quantum micro world you are in for quite a surprise. What QM appears to be telling us is that the limitations of our senses, and our detectors as extensions of our senses, simply do not allow us to perceive the true nature of reality directly.

As an example, one of the early mysteries of QM was wave-particle duality, the fact that light for example seems to sometimes behave as a wave and sometimes as a particle. It was later found that electrons and other subatomic "particles" had the same behavior. Modern thinking is that there is no duality, "particle like" and "wave like" observed behavior depends on what we are measuring, and in QM "reality" there are only waves, a particle is just a special localized case of a wave. In other words, we cannot apply our macro concept of particle to the quantum world.

The problem most people have in thinking about QM is that they expect nature to make sense, based on their experience of the macro world. Perhaps there is no reason to expect nature to make sense, perhaps it is just "non local" and/or "non realistic" as QM suggests. In fact, the more we look at the quantum world the more it suggests that there is no physical underlying "reality" at all, as in something that exists independently of our senses. It is a bit unsettling but the ultimately reality may be that there is nothing at the "bottom" of our observed physical world. This would suggest that our assumptions regarding reality are incorrect and rather than being bottom up, the world is actually top down. This is outlined in the "Pondicherry Interpretation of QM" by Ulrich Mohrhoff. Whether you choose to seriously consider his interpretation or not, he is a well published scientist in peer reviewed journals and his interpretation has been received favorably by some contempory physicists I have read online. There is a non mathematical ouline of his interpretation on his website (this quantumworld.com).

What is interesting about Mohrhoff's philosophy, (heavily influenced by the Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo) is that he does not believe in an extracosmic creator, something that obviously atheists would agree with. The following is a summary from his website:

"We should not be surprised that nature gives us answers we do not understand, when we are asking questions that nature does not understand. QM is incomprehensible to us becaue our assumption of reality is an incorrect assumption. The wrong assumption is the bottom up materialistic approach i.e. a reality consisting of a multitude of particles, space-time, etc. QM does not make sense if you ask questions about particles and how they interact and combine, it only makes sense in terms of a top down approach i.e. how the One Ultimate Existant takes on the aspect of a multitude and manifests the world".

His interpretation is not that there is a "God" outside our universe but that there is a "One" ultimate reality and this One created all of space and matter from itself. In that sense everything, including ourselves, is part of that One.

smokingman

smokingman wrote: »

Awaits JC/DeadOne equivalent to appear to espouse the fact that "we can't know!" what it all means and doyouwannabuysomemagiccrystals...

Told ya

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

Except for the irratating problem that there is no accepted view of "reality", in particular in the scientific arena. In terms of your overall post, the problem with applying judgement to anyone else's views or beliefs is we all suffer from belief blindness to some degree (and yes, I include myself in "we"), scientists are as vulnerable to confirmation bias as anyone else. Regardless of how much we want to think otherwise, the scientific method, although the best method we have to examine our observed "reality", is not without its problems. The attached article outlines the "decline effect" in scientific studies which most scientists would prefer not to think about but is very real.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

An example given in the article is acupuncture, which many people in the West regard as pseudomedicine. There were a large number of clinical trials done between 1966 and 1995 and the results are fascinating. 47 trials were done in China, Taiwan and Japan and 100% reported acupuncture as an effective treatment based on therapeutic benefits observed. 94 trials were done in the US, Sweden and the UK and only 56% reported therapeutic benefits. Note these are scientists reporting the therapeutic effects. Obviously the placebo effect has been demonstrated sufficiently to accept it exists, but the irratating question remains; even if you believe acupuncture is a placebo effect, how does it result in a therapeutic benefit?

The conclusion of the article is that although publication bias and selective reporting are serious issues in science, the largest issue is that nature is fundamentally random. How the apparent order and complexity of our macro world emerges from a random, probability based micro world is a complete mystery at present, and the reason why we have so many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

Absolutely there is a lot of nonsense written about quantum mechanics, and some would say I have written quite a bit of it myself:o, but again the irritating fact is that we have no agreed interpretation of QM after over a century since its discovery. There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her. QM is counterintuitive and if you apply how you expect things to behave in nature from the classical macro world to the quantum micro world you are in for quite a surprise. What QM appears to be telling us is that the limitations of our senses, and our detectors as extensions of our senses, simply do not allow us to perceive the true nature of reality directly.

As an example, one of the early mysteries of QM was wave-particle duality, the fact that light for example seems to sometimes behave as a wave and sometimes as a particle. It was later found that electrons and other subatomic "particles" had the same behavior. Modern thinking is that there is no duality, "particle like" and "wave like" observed behavior depends on what we are measuring, and in QM "reality" there are only waves, a particle is just a special localized case of a wave. In other words, we cannot apply our macro concept of particle to the quantum world.

The problem most people have in thinking about QM is that they expect nature to make sense, based on their experience of the macro world. Perhaps there is no reason to expect nature to make sense, perhaps it is just "non local" and/or "non realistic" as QM suggests. In fact, the more we look at the quantum world the more it suggests that there is no physical underlying "reality" at all, as in something that exists independently of our senses. It is a bit unsettling but the ultimately reality may be that there is nothing at the "bottom" of our observed physical world. This would suggest that our assumptions regarding reality are incorrect and rather than being bottom up, the world is actually top down. This is outlined in the "Pondicherry Interpretation of QM" by Ulrich Mohrhoff. Whether you choose to seriously consider his interpretation or not, he is a well published scientist in peer reviewed journals and his interpretation has been received favorably by some contempory physicists I have read online. There is a non mathematical ouline of his interpretation on his website (this quantumworld.com).

What is interesting about Mohrhoff's philosophy, (heavily influenced by the Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo) is that he does not believe in an extracosmic creator, something that obviously atheists would agree with. The following is a summary from his website:

"We should not be surprised that nature gives us answers we do not understand, when we are asking questions that nature does not understand. QM is incomprehensible to us becaue our assumption of reality is an incorrect assumption. The wrong assumption is the bottom up materialistic approach i.e. a reality consisting of a multitude of particles, space-time, etc. QM does not make sense if you ask questions about particles and how they interact and combine, it only makes sense in terms of a top down approach i.e. how the One Ultimate Existant takes on the aspect of a multitude and manifests the world".

His interpretation is not that there is a "God" outside our universe but that there is a "One" ultimate reality and this One created all of space and matter from itself. In that sense everything, including ourselves, is part of that One.

Could you identify the point you're making here?

Are you saying science is complex and has it's own pitfalls so we should be open minded to other things and not invest everything in science?

Edit: Also, you are preaching ignorance. A poistion that should not be tolerated as far as I'm concerned.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Could you identify the point you're making here?

Are you saying science is complex and has it's own pitfalls so we should be open minded to other things and not invest everything in science?

The point I am making is we should be cautious about judging other people'e beliefs. If somebody believes praying to a God or wearing a crystal or "thinking positively" has a positive effect on their lives, who are you or anyone else to judge them or tell them they are wrong?

I'm not making any specific point about science. The article I posted is making a very good point however, which is to be cautious about what is conventionally regarded as "proof" or "truth", neither of which science is concerned with.

Of course we should invest heavily in science, however there are many other areas of study and personal development to also invest in.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Edit: Also, you are preaching ignorance. A poistion that should not be tolerated as far as I'm concerned.

Care to actually engage in debate rather than mud slinging?

Where is the "ignorance" in my post and who are you to say it should be tolerated or not? Debate the issues raised, if you are capable.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

The point I am making is we should be cautious about judging other people'e beliefs. If somebody believes praying to a God or wearing a crystal or "thinking positively" has a positive effect on their lives, who are you or anyone else to judge them or tell them they are wrong?

I thought as much.

There's an interesting point made by Quentin Meillasoux in After Finitude where he says that because science has said that religious belief cannot be critiqued because it doesn't follow general rules of rational thought that this very angle gives rise to the worst forms of religious thought. This "anything goes" thinking actually allows for fundamentalism of the highest and most dangerous kind. With that in mind I am weary of this inability to judge what people think.

I think we should rightly judge all thought because to do any less will lead to stagnant and potentially dangerous forms of thought. And people shouldn't be afraid to have there beliefs judged. An important part of thinking is to be able to judge and think about thinking, whether that be ones own thought or those of others. Obviously this should be conducted in a rational and respectful manner if possible.

To conclude, we should be judgemental, in a positive sense.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

Care to actually engage in debate rather than mud slinging?

Where is the "ignorance" in my post and who are you to say it should be tolerated or not? Debate the issues raised, if you are capable.

No problem.

There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her.

Your point here is to not try and deepen someone's understanding of the topic because it is counterintuitive or difficult material. That is promoting ignorance.

Edit: And who am I to say it should be tolerated or not? Well I have free reign over what I will tolerate or not tolerate. A basic freedom. And I chose to speak out against the promotion of ignorance. As it seems to be a common strand of thought that crops up the odd time.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nagirrac wrote: »

If somebody believes praying to a God or wearing a crystal or "thinking positively" has a positive effect on their lives, who are you or anyone else to judge them or tell them they are wrong?

That's pretty much the bottom line. Ironically, that point is pretty much the only conclusion to be drawn from atheism.

coffee_cake

There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her.

This is a good thing. A very good thing. Asking more questions is what people should do.
Presenting someone with something that claims to have all the answers is the problem in the first place

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Your point here is to not try and deepen someone's understanding of the topic because it is counterintuitive or difficult material. That is promoting ignorance.

No, my point was whether a textbook on QM would help the specific individual described by the OP, and in my opinion it would not if she is as stated emotionally troubled and looking for meaning in her life which is what is suggested.

I would normally encourage anyone to read as much as possible on any topic to educate themselves. Reading a textbook on QM in my considered opinion would be of no assistance to someone who is emotionally troubled. What exactly do you think study of the mathematical probabilities associated with the states of subatomic matter would illuminate for her that all the most brilliant physicists for over 100 years have missed?

nagirrac

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a good thing. A very good thing. Asking more questions is what people should do.
Presenting someone with something that claims to have all the answers is the problem in the first place

An emotionally troubled person is looking for answers not questions. QM only provides currently unanswerable questions, not answers.

Nobody has all the answers, anyone claiming to have is a fraud.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

An emotionally troubled person is looking for answers not questions. QM only provides currently unanswerable questions, not answers.

Nobody has all the answers, anyone claiming to have is a fraud.

Seriously?
People don't learn or understand stuff by just being handed the answers. Questions needs to be encouraged. An your generality about an emotionally troubled person is a little disturbing. I don't claim to know what they're looking for so I'm incredibly curious to know how you do?

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

No, my point was whether a textbook on QM would help the specific individual described by the OP, and in my opinion it would not if she is as stated emotionally troubled and looking for meaning in her life which is what is suggested.

I would normally encourage anyone to read as much as possible on any topic to educate themselves. Reading a textbook on QM in my considered opinion would be of no assistance to someone who is emotionally troubled. What exactly do you think study of the mathematical probabilities associated with the states of subatomic matter would illuminate for her that all the most brilliant physicists for over 100 years have missed?

I don't see what harm it would do to be honest. It needn't be a textbook.

There are two separate issues here.
Knowledge and emotional well-being.

I agree that learning about QM probably won't sort out the emotional side of things. But I don't think that means she should get answers from anywhere and accept them simply to stabilise her emotions. The best advice for emotional well-being would be to go and see a professional, psychotherapist or somesuch.

The best advice for improving on one's knowledge would be to read up on the topic. And who knows, maybe she will gleam some personal insight from the workings of subatomic particles. Just because she is not one of the great scientific minds of our century doesn't mean she should simply abandon all efforts. That is a strange argument. One that promotes futility. And surely this is not an attitude that will promote a sense of self-worth and independence!

And there's no reason why both these things can't be pursued simultaneously.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

To conclude, we should be judgemental, in a positive sense.

..but again, who is to judge what is positive and what is negative in the context of what was asked by the OP. If you want to expand the conversation to fundamentalism that is a different discussion, and one where you have to consider all fundamentalism as potentially dangerous.

We shouldn't judge something that has benefits because we do not currently understand why it has benefits. Studies demonstrate conclusively that people who have a positive outlook to medical treatment will respond better to treatment. In every clinical trial ever done on any medication, significant numbers report alleviation of symptoms from a placebo. We can see the effects say with pain reduction where endorphins are released by the brain even though a placebo was administered. We have no clue why this happens.

The only dangerous thinking that matters is thinking that results in someone's rights and freedoms being removed. This includes the freedom to believe whatever you like as long as you are not harming others.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

I agree that learning about QM probably won't sort out the emotional side of things. But I don't think that means she should get answers from anywhere and accept them simply to stabilise her emotions. The best advice for emotional well-being would be to go and see a professional, psychotherapist or somesuch.

Why would you go to a therapist, if not to look for answers? I happen to agree this is the best approach, and the one most likely to improve her well being, even though many would disagree.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

..but again, who is to judge what is positive and what is negative in the context of what was asked by the OP. If you want to expand the conversation to fundamentalism that is a different discussion, and one where you have to consider all fundamentalism as potentially dangerous.

We shouldn't judge something that has benefits because we do not currently understand why it has benefits. Studies demonstrate conclusively that people who have a positive outlook to medical treatment will respond better to treatment. In every clinical trial ever done on any medication, significant numbers report alleviation of symptoms from a placebo. We can see the effects say with pain reduction where endorphins are released by the brain even though a placebo was administered. We have no clue why this happens.

I agree to an extent. I think we are using the word "judge" differently. If something has benefits we don't understand we should judge it, test it further, open it to criticism. These are all things I mean when I say we should judge things. I don't mean be a relentless critique and scepticism. Edit: i.e. what you generally think of as judgemental in the negative context of a judgemental close-minded position.

I'm curious as to why you are placing so much importnance on this question of "who has the right to judge"? Everyone has the right to judge anything for themselves. Would I be right in saying that you are touching on the idea that when someone makes a judgement that it is universally vaild? Because I totally agree, no one can do that. But they can and should make individual judgements about whatver they want. Everyone has that right.

The only dangerous thinking that matters is thinking that results in someone's rights and freedoms being removed. This includes the freedom to believe whatever you like as long as you are not harming others.

Yes, you can believe whatever you want, but you better be prepaired to defend your position when you inevitably get judged by others. You have that freedom to believe whatever you want, but as to whether that's a good or bad thing, I'm leaning more towards it being a bad thing.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

Why would you go to a therapist, if not to look for answers? I happen to agree this is the best approach, and the one most likely to improve her well being, even though many would disagree.

Yes, you initially go to therapy to find answers. But that is not usually where you end up after successful therapy. The therapist doesn't give you answers. The process of therapy itself is based on questioning and getting to the bottom of things and then probably realising that there is no "bottom" of things and how you deal with that. This is a huge topic in itself.

Then you yourself become the questioning therapist for others and become an annoying Socratic asshole.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Seriously?
People don't learn or understand stuff by just being handed the answers. Questions needs to be encouraged. An your generality about an emotionally troubled person is a little disturbing. I don't claim to know what they're looking for so I'm incredibly curious to know how you do?

Of course questions need to be encouraged. Without questions there are no answers, but most of what we learn in life comes from others who have either studied or experienced something more than we have.

The OP described his aquaintance as being emotionally troubled and turning to crystals, reiki, and Deepak. In my experience that is a person looking for meaning in their life.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

In every clinical trial ever done on any medication, significant numbers report alleviation of symptoms from a placebo. We can see the effects say with pain reduction where endorphins are released by the brain even though a placebo was administered. We have no clue why this happens.

Every clinical trial ever done? That's some meta-analysis you've done there. :eek:

And there's no need for (or value in) your dramatic "we have no clue why this happens", because it's not true. There is a documented placebo effect of medicines, even when the patients know they are being given a placebo, and we have a very good idea of why it happens. Aside from the issue of the complex interplay between psychosomatic symptoms and the release of endorphins because of expectations of symptom relief, a key factor is that the placebo effect is almost always shown to work where it can be applied to self-reported symptoms, rather than symptoms that can be externally measured or assessed.

This "quantum spirituality" malarkey is just mumbo jumbo - it's the religious equivalent of the half-baked "sciencey bits" you see in ads for shampoo and face cream.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Yes, you initially go to therapy to find answers. But that is not usually where you end up after successful therapy. The therapist doesn't give you answers. The process of therapy itself is based on questioning and getting to the bottom of things and then probably realising that there is no "bottom" of things and how you deal with that. This is a huge topic in itself.

I agree, but I would also say a good therapist gives someone the tools to deal with their issues. Not always succesfully mind, but the outcome seems to depend on whether you use the tools and your attitude to the treatment.

nagirrac

Deleted User wrote: »

Every clinical trial ever done? That's some meta-analysis you've done there. :eek:

In clinical trials involving the use of placebos. All clinical trials need controls and placebo controls are not just the most common but are mandated by most government regulatory agencies.

I stand by my assertion that we do not understand why the placebo effect occurs, we see its effect but do not understand its fundamental cause (unless you want to get into the realm of mind over matter).

I agree some quantum spirituality is malarkey. However, interpretations of QM are largely philosophical rather than scientific, you have to separate the science of QM from the interpretations which are largely speculative. Atheists just go a step further and exclude any interpretations have a spiritual flavor.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

In clinical trials involving the use of placebos. All clinical trials need controls and placebo controls are not just the most common but are mandated by most government regulatory agencies.

And? That's still some leap to saying that in every trial ever done significant numbers reported symptom alleviation from a placebo. But good luck to you with that one.

nagirrac wrote: »

I stand by my assertion that we do not understand why the placebo effect occurs....

Just as I stand by my conclusion (based on evidence) that we do. Get some evidence that we don't and we'll have a discussion - but simply asserting that something is true does not make it so.

nagirrac wrote: »

However, interpretations of QM are largely philosophical rather than scientific, you have to separate the science of QM from the interpretations which are largely speculative.

You have to? Why? Are you not just saying something that sounds vaguely "sciencey" to justify your position? What "interpretations" of quantum mechanics are "largely speculative"?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a good thing. A very good thing. Asking more questions is what people should do.
Presenting someone with something that claims to have all the answers is the problem in the first place

Yes, but.......



.....leaving aside any other considerations, there is a very significant factor that needs to be taken into account. Is there any point in giving someone a book about QM if they're not going to be able to read it? Not everyone could, even if it was an introduction to the subject. And in fairness, giving an incomprehensible book to a troubled person is probably not going to be of any great help to them.

nagirrac

Deleted User wrote: »

Just as I stand by my conclusion (based on evidence) that we do. Get some evidence that we don't and we'll have a discussion - but simply asserting that something is true does not make it so.

You have to? Why? Are you not just saying something that sounds vaguely "sciencey" to justify your position? What "interpretations" of quantum mechanics are "largely speculative"?

Please provide the evidence for how a thought (this sugar pill will make me better) results in a chemical change in the brain.

All QM interpretations are speculative, some more so than others. Where is the evidence for MWI for example, or the CI which effectively dodges the question.