The Next level of Religion and Theology is Quantum Physics for the human race

[Ichingcarpenter]

Did you know
plants couldn't do Photosynthesis
without Quantum Physics ........
and Quantum Physics explains it scientifically

But it sure as shit uses the human mind more than other rationalizations and explanations for our existence.





Discuss

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Bees do it.

http://www.n8ture.com/scienceqm.html

Honeybees, like all other living creatures, have methods of communicating within their species, and to others as well. The honeybees buzzing and sting apparatus are both well known. Certainly their use of pheromones1 have been studied by many scientists, and their waggle dance, and sensitivity to ultraviolet and polarized light was reported by K. von Frisch in 1965. However, it wasn't until 1995 when Barbara Shipman, a mathematician at the University of Rochester, linked the Waggle Dance of the honeybee to Quantum Mechanics2.

Ms. Shipman who is, or was at this writing, now an associate professor at UTA was studying a form of geometrics, for her doctoral thesis, that defines curves or shapes of surfaces - some of which can have six or more dimensions. The higher dimensional objects can't be visualized so they are often projected onto a two dimensional space (like a paper). Your shadow on a wall is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object (you).a rotating 4 dimensional hypercube.

The two dimensional representation of a six dimensional flag manifold³ turns out to be a hexagon (like the comb in a beehive) which is interestingly coincidental, however, Ms. Shipman, upon further study, found curves that were an exact duplicate of the curves in the honeybees recruitment dance (the dance made by bees to recruit other bees to a source).

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Bees are amazing

they can see twice as fast than other beings with color.


BTW.... the formula, for anyone who wants to know, is a segment of Chaos theory
which has been scientifically proven when accessed with Order Theory

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Its a needed Parthenon to the gods of science that chaos and order

share an equal stage mathematically and quantumly.

The strong force, the weak force and all the other gods are all there in quantum mechanics.

[Silent3]

4. What the f*ck does it matter if plants use QM principles for photosynthesis?

That is about as fraught with serious implications for theology and religion as beavers building dams is for improvisational theater.

Next level of obfuscatory BS is more like it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. What the f*ck does it matter?

Science, math and quantum physics can explain our reality,
religion and theology can't except without using vague universal arch types
in our collective unconsciousness

[GliderGuider]

8. I think people are busily missing your point.

The human mind seems to have a special affinity for abstracting and reifying our relationship to the universe. I'd much rather see that tendency coalesce around QM (even poorly understood QM) than around a bearded celestial patriarch and his bevy of minions in funny hats.

[Silent3]

9. Busily missing his point, or another point of your own you want to insert?

Perhaps QM mysticism is the lesser of two evils compared to bearded celestial patriarchs (even if I am fond of funny hats), but BS is still BS even when it's a bit less pungent.

For too many people these days "quantum" is just a fancy word for magic fairy dust.

[GliderGuider]

11. What I'd really like to know is

"So what?"

So what if some people have irrational (by your definition) beliefs? It's not like QM is going to bring back the Inquisition or lead to banning gay marriage. I'm not sure what it is about a touch of irrationality that offends some people. Given that human beings appear to be programmed for some level of unreason, why waste your energy spitting into the wind? Those who are utterly rational will reject such notions (as you do) and if the rest find something of value, or at least comfort, in such soft ideas, who are you to deny them? It's not as though people like me are going to convince people like you to follow us on our path into the darkness...

[Silent3]

12. Irrationality can be dangerous

Irrational beliefs are easily exploited by scam artists, and the comfort people sometimes get from irrational beliefs can blind them from the need to take more effective rational actions. If you forgo proven medical treatment in favor of quantum woo, for example, the harm can be great indeed.

Apart from that, if we can't discuss what's BS and what isn't here, in this forum, where can that be discussed? Do you favor a blanket "don't go there!" throughout all aspects of life, with people carefully self-censoring what they say out of fear of disturbing anyone else's irrational beliefs?

Human's may always be irrational to some extent, but it's not like there's a known minimum daily requirement of irrationality. Just because irrationality is common doesn't mean it's a necessary or beneficial thing, it doesn't mean that if irrationality has benefits that they aren't outweighed by its ill effects, or that there aren't rational routes to the same benefits.

Those who are utterly rational will reject such notions (as you do) and if the rest find something of value, or at least comfort, in such soft ideas, who are you to deny them?"

Who's denying anyone anything? Challenging maybe, but "denying"? And, please, make up your mind: Are people divided into resolutely rational and irrational camps, as if rationality or its lack are unchangeable inborn traits, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that? Or can my mere words challenging an irrational belief "deny" a person whatever they get from that belief, very effectively breaking through their irrationality and forcing the harsh light of rationality upon them?

[GliderGuider]

13. Scam artists infest every sphere of human activity

Because people are easily herded by manipulating their limbic responses. I'm a big fan of Paul Maclean's triune brain hypothesis, which implies that some behavioral and belief tendencies are indeed hard-wired in the older levels of the brain. Those tendencies can be overridden to some degree by cortical reasoning, but the tendencies themselves remain. The reptilian and limbic systems are probably also the seat of much of the human love of unreason. There may not be a "minimum daily requirement of irrationality", but there seems to be an irreducible tendency towards it that is hard to overcome even using harsh methods because it operates at an unconscious level. Take Republicans... please...

I would also suggest that forgoing modern medical care in favour of gentler approaches is not always a bad idea. Google "statin rhabdomyolysis" for an example.

My main objection to many of the threads like this is that the contempt that is all too often on display tends to promote closed-mindedness and shuts down dialogue. I firmly believe that there are useful things to learn from people with irrational beliefs -- not necessarily about the beliefs themselves, but about such things as why they hold them, what value they feel they get from them, and why they feel there might be something "real" about them.

As a final note, I don't think that reification (which is the sort of unreason we're talking about with lay interpretations of QM) is always a bad thing. After all, without that tendency, our belief in an enduring, monolithic self (which is IMO the fundamental human reification) would not be possible.

[Silent3]

14. Germs infest every place people go...

...but that doesn't mean that having a strong immune system doesn't make things better for you, and it doesn't mean that particular germs shouldn't be avoided or treated with a strong dose of antibiotics.

A rational mind is like an immune system to filter out bad memes from good memes.

I would also suggest that forgoing modern medical care in favour of gentler approaches is not always a bad idea. Google "statin rhabdomyolysis" for an example.

And guess what makes a good tool to distinguish between which approach is likeliest to produce the maximum benefit? You guessed it: a rational mind.

Of course you can rationally decide on what ultimately turns out to be a bad course of action, or irrationally stumble into something that turns out well (every winning lottery ticket is an example of that), but the odds favor a rational evaluation of actions over bumbling into good results irrationally.

My main objection to many of the threads like this is that the contempt that is all too often on display tends to promote closed-mindedness and shuts down dialogue.

Supposedly rational ideas must to be subject to criticism, including outright contempt and scorn at times, to sort out whether or not something posing as a rational idea truly is rational.

A lot of what I'm calling "quantum woo" evokes quantum mechanics specifically in order to gain a gloss of scientific respectability, trying to pass itself off as rational. Do you suggest I sort out ideas that come from what I consider a rational approach, but which are nevertheless in my view mistaken, from faux-rational ideas, saving my criticism for flawed ideas generated from a rational approach, while giving irrationality posing as rationality a pass, the same way I might smile and nod and play along with a small child's belief in Santa Claus?

As for "shutting down dialogue": To me, a good dialogue is a crucible for sorting through ideas and evaluating their relative merit. Good dialogue is not, in my opinion, simply floating ideas around while everyone admires the pretty colors drifting by, oohing and aahing and giving everyone a gold star just for playing.

belief in an enduring, monolithic self

First of all, I think it's a much more interesting world when you're free to examine and think about different notions of the self, rather than blindly clinging to whatever notion gives you the most comfort. I function day-to-day as if there is a "monolithic me" simply because it's hard to do otherwise, and I'm not sure what the alternatives would be, but I don't need everyone else walking on eggshells in fear of spoiling some delicate irrational delusion I'm depending on in order to keep functioning.

Second, a lot of "quantum woo" about "universal consciousness" is at least as much of a challenge to the notion of a monolithic, independent self as any rational, materialistic approach to the nature of the human mind.

[GliderGuider]

16. A couple of thoughts

First, I suspect that you and I have somewhat different value systems. I tend to be less interested in the objective truth of a belief or proposition than in the meaning someone takes from it. For example, I care more about how my feeling that the universe is intrinsically and fully interconnected makes me respond to outer events than (for instance) whether quantum entanglement provides "objective" justification for the possibility of telepathy.

Second, most people I know who think about the metaphysical implications of QM don't use it for a "gloss of scientific respectability" but rather as a suggestive metaphor or a signpost to deeper aspects of reality. I no more expect them to be theoretical physicists than I would expect a poet who uses cloud metaphors to stick to the science of meteorology or someone who uses tree metaphors to remain within a strict botanical frame of reference.

IMO QM provides tantalizing and suggestive evidence that reality at some level doesn't behave as our senses tell us it does. What I do with that implication is a more interesting discussion to me than whether QM "supports" my subjective metaphysical conclusions in any objective way.

BTW, do you know your Myers-Briggs type? I'd bet money that we're very different types, which would be one way of framing the psychological differences between us that interfere in discussions like this. I'm an INFP...

[Silent3]

18. There's a difference between, say, enjoying "Lord of the Rings"...

...as a story, and actually believing there's a real Middle Earth.

If "most people (you) know who think about the metaphysical implications of QM don't use it for a 'gloss of scientific respectability'", then you haven't read the R/T forum very much. For instance, recent discussions here about photosynthesis supposedly being dependent on QM phenomena, and this supposedly being support for plants being consciously aware and people being telepathic -- all of this dressed up in technical lingo with references to (not well respected) research -- is a whole lot more than people being "metaphorical". The OP in this thread refers to the same stuff. Does that OP look like a metaphor to you?

My problem isn't with expecting the equivalent of people using tree metaphors to be experts in botany, it's with someone, say, getting carried away with a metaphor like "the tree of life" and insisting that the latest research on leaf-eating insects proves something about their sister needing to get a divorce.

If you're "less interested in the objective truth of a belief or proposition" then please, be consistent, and be less interested in someone else criticizing the objective truth of that proposition. I'm free to observe the meaning someone gets out of a proposition without having to be supportive of misleading BS he or she might spread as a side effect of accepting that proposition.

PS: No, I don't know my Myers-Briggs type. I do vaguely remember reading something that questioned over-reliance on Myers-Briggs as a dependable psychological evaluation tool.

[GliderGuider]

19. I see a bit of a disconnect between the subject line and the body of the OP

The body of the post (aside from the opaque and out of context equations) is supported to a degree by recent research, as in this report:

Quantum mechanics boosts photosynthesis

Physicists in Canada and Australia have shown that nature exploits quantum mechanics to make photosynthesis more efficient. By probing light-harvesting proteins within algae using laser beams, the researchers found that quantum coherence links molecules within these proteins. They say that these links improve the transfer of energy in the production of life-supporting sugars.

(...)the protein complexes that carry out the necessary reactions do not absorb sunlight themselves. Instead, they rely on electrons being excited within pigment molecules housed in other proteins, with typically hundreds of pigment molecules supplying energy to an individual reaction centre. One reason for supplying energy indirectly in this way is that some photosynthetic reactions need the energy from several electron excitations in quick succession, something that would otherwise not be possible if light levels were low.

The transfer of energy from light-harvesting proteins to reaction centres is a highly efficient process.
(...)
Now, however, Elisabetta Collini of the University of Toronto and colleagues are proposing that the energy-transfer process is made even more efficient via quantum coherence. They suggest that the pigment molecules do not act entirely on their own, but interact so that when one molecule is excited by a photon from the Sun, it can to some extent share that excitation quantum mechanically with other pigment molecules. This superposition of excited states will then oscillate, shifting the excitations from one set of molecules to another and then back again on a very short timescale, allowing energy to be transferred to the reaction centres before it is released as light or heat.

Regarding the subject line of the OP, the science of QM is silent on spiritual issues. The extension of QM concepts to spirituality really doesn't bother me, I do it myself, though I'm careful to use it as a metaphor only. People will always hang their spirituality on something subjective. As I said before at least QM doesn't have gods or an organized priesthood, so the potential for abuse is quite a bit lower than with traditional religions.

[Silent3]

20. What the last part of your post says looks a lot like...

...a diplomatic way to call bullshit just as I'm doing. If the idea is "People are going to believe irrational BS no matter what, so I guess it's better they believe in less potentially abusive BS", then I sort of believe the same thing, but without abandoning making a case for less total BS. I hardly think you need fear very much that my calling BS on quantum woo, if it has much effect at all, is going to drive people into nuttier and more dangerous beliefs in response.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. This is dumb.

A plants vascular system involves the field of fluid dynamics. Therefore fluid dynamics is next step for the human race.

:crazy:

[dmallind]

10. Engineers are just like priests ya know ;) NT

[TransitJohn]

7. Aw Jeez

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. I'm not talking about Quantum Consciousness

but on Quantum Mechanics...... so its not shit.

[trotsky]

17. Define quantum mechanics in your own words, please.

And explain what principles exactly lead to "religion" or "theology."

Thanks.

[onager]

22. All I need to know is right here in this epic poem...

Schrodinger, Edwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)

Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,"
No grease monkey I, but a Quantum Mechanic

Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!

No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of `em is and the rest of `em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.

Even Einstein had doubts, and so Schrodinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--

Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and oh, if you got `em
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom

Or atom--whatever--but when it emits
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.

The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away, is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.

Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke)
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer "Tough shit."

We may not know much, but one thing fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--

Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainly, never."

The effect of this notion? I very much fear
`Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."

So said Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts,
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and Lord knows he tried
In vain--until finally he more or less died.

Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint.
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/113/the-story-of-schroedingers-cat-an-epic-poem

[trotsky]

23. Brings tears to my eyes.

Thank you.

[rrneck]

21. Not a bad idea.

At least it would be difficult to throw a virgin into quantum mechanics. :)