I interpreted your comment as "Quantum psychology sounds like bullshit, because I've never heard of it and I can't conceive of a way for quantum mechanics to relate to psychology." This may be a poor interpretation as that may not be what you meant. Can you please help me understand, Yoda? Also, if you disagreed with any of the explicit points, please elaborate instead of engaging in evasive platitude-laced rhetoric.
P.S. All concepts are necessarily invented. If you disagree (perhaps you subscribe to Plato's theory of "forms"?) then your perspective will be challenged if you read the post. (shortcut for the lazy: ctrl/cmd-f, "Does wood really have a wood-ness")
Although no quantum physicist by any stretch, I have read enough to know that you can't just throw a word like quantum psychology around.
The question is not whether I have heard of it but whether such a breakthrough discovery has been made that we can talk about Quantum Psychology.
Let me remind you that with regards to quantum mechanics there are three areas that need to be covered.
The mathematical part (which is relatively easy and proven)
The experimental part (which is also proven (Bells theorem))
And the philosophical part (i.e. what does this all mean)
The latter is by no measurement proven or done with yet.
There are several competing interpretations from the Copenhagen interpretation to M-Theory/Many Worlds/Minds theory.
None of them have successfully been able to create a consistent theory that embed both the classical local world view and the quantum mechanical world non-local world view.
So excuse me for not just jumping on the wagon of a cool sounding theory but fundamentally unsupported theory from a non physicist.
But you where right in your interpretation of what I said. Quantum Psychology does sound like bullshit. Not because I haven't heard of it but because there is no basis to claim it on. There might be with time who knows, but right now, you will be hard pressed to find any well respected physicists who would support such a concept.
Quantum Psychology discusses all of this, from Copenhagenism to the Many-worlds interpretation. The point is by calling "Quantum Psychology" bullshit, you're engaging in the same sort of fallacious rhetoric that my post cautions against. Again, I ask you - what, specifically, disturbed you?
There are many books that discusses "all of this" it doesn't really matter.
What matters is evidence. And there is no evidence what so ever so far that quantum mechanics affect our brains whether you call it the quantum mind or whatever clever word you might find.
You can't solve this by creating a field called quantum psychology and then work your way backwards. It's not that kind of intellectual challenge.
The problems are much more fundamental. Had the author been an actual physicist he would have known that.
So no I am not engaging in any fallacious rhetoric.
I don't even have to disagree with some of what you say in that post to still be dismissive about the term Quantum Psychology and Wilson's attempt to claim certainty where none exist at all, pseudoscience at it's worst.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
P.S. All concepts are necessarily invented. If you disagree (perhaps you subscribe to Plato's theory of "forms"?) then your perspective will be challenged if you read the post. (shortcut for the lazy: ctrl/cmd-f, "Does wood really have a wood-ness")