Then someone hacked your account when you previously posted; "Simply praying and expecting it to alter your physical reality, and then giving up when it doesn't happen promptly, is ignoring how the conscious mind affects reality... it takes a lot of practice along with skilled visualization, focused emotion, and strong belief in your ability to do so over a sustained period...to effect such changes."

So please don't reply with "Straw Man" until you can get the post appearing above your signature under control, or claim them as your own.

You are selectively interpreting what I said, and you know it. You know quite well (if not damn well) that I did not mean gross alteration of matter in the manner of what Dr. Manhattan does in a fictional universe not our own. I said affecting reality in terms of influencing events, not of altering matter itself. You still Straw Manned the hell out of me.

I DO NOT equate quantum mechanics to magik in its effects. Nor deny the observers role ( however slight ) in determining the extremely limited outcomes of observations below the level of Plank's Constant where those outcomes are valid solutions to the field-equations.

I do, however believe that you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of quantum mechanics as well as the scientific method. I believe that you are attempting to insert the solutions you wish to see at the output-end of the equation without bothering to look at the function or the values in the equations which drive the math.

Science does not have to reduce everything to mathematical equations. It's about studying cause and effect, and using experiments to measure those causes and its effects. That, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. Those we call "magicians" or "witches" have been doing that for ages, and what they do is not based entirely on belief or faith, but on specific observable causes and effects when applying force of will to affecting changes in your personal sphere of reality (in regards to events and probability of circumstances, not alteration of matter). Denying something outright, or re-defining the scientific method, for what amounts to a desperate ideological and politically motivated need to distance quantum mechanics, and science in general, from anything your mind remotely connects to religion or what you broadly term "mysticism," is not the scientific method. And trying to divorce quantum mechanics from any study that suggests the universe is affected by consciousness doesn't necessarily mean you do not understand quantum mechanics, but it does mean you are at least playing dumb to distance it from the observations made by many physicists. Many physicists themselves do this for reasons described by Henry in his essay, and Rosenblum and Kuttner in the book I referred you to.

Lets. And when you do find these text please tell me.

But looking at the CVs of Rosenblum, Kuttner, and contributor to "Edge Science" magazines Henry, reveals that none of them are theoretical physicists working in the area of Quantum Mechanics. The two Applied Physics professors teach an undergrad course on which their book is based. But neither their degrees nor their research are in this area.

I'd hope that you'd have done the homework to see if they were, before making such a claim.

Yet despite what you say, the Wikipedia entry on "Interpretation of quantum mechanics" (link provided below) clearly mentions Rosenblum and Kuttner as physicists, and in no way denounces their interpretations, which is based on studying those equations you like to mention for those who are mathematically inclined. Also, their book is cited, as is a book of another physicist who has theorized in a manner similar to their own, Henry P. Stapp. Stapp's book--The Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer--covers the same theories and similar conclusions as Rosenblum and Kuttner, thus making it clear that this is not something that only one or two physicists support.

Further, the interpretations of Rosenblum, Kuttner, Stapp, and Henry are all variants of the great mathematician and originator of quantum logics known as John Von Neumann, who formulated calculus equations for the subject back in 1936. No less a personage than the great and recently deceased theoretical physicist (yes, a theoretical physicist!) John Archibald Wheeler, the formulator of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, which he developed out of a theory known as the Strong Anthropic Principle formulated by John David Barrow (a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and mathematician, three fields that closely intersect at many points, as Einstein covered all three fields also). These theories are controversial, to be sure, and it's expected that they be attacked by certain scientists and skeptics who (like those of your ideology) have a strong ideological and political need to divorce any attempt to make connections between science and anything that can be remotely connected to the realm of theology in the eyes of the atheistic skeptics (hence, the attacks on Frank Tipler for the entire basis of his own theories, which isn't helped by some of his exaggerated claims; Tipler is rather wacky and rightly criticized in many ways, but Barrow's books have been published by Oxford University Press, and a careful and open-minded look at Tipler's material can enable a theorist to separate the wheat from the chaff).

However, none of these theories have been totally disproven, and continue to be accepted by a number of physicists, mathematicians, and cosmologists. The results thus far remain inconclusive, just as other scientific theories were for long periods of time before finally being proven correct. I support them because my personal observations and studies of what people refer to as "magick" and "spellwork" when using Paganspeak bear out the basics of these theories. I do not buy into some of the wilder claims, but I do consider the basic theory sound, with many aspects of it being possible bearing further research. Do you do this? No, you dismiss such studies out of hand, and continue to cite the words of physicists whose ideology corresponds to your own in an attempt to ignore the fact that not all physicists, mathematicians, and astrophysicists agree with them, and then you try to denounce the credentials of those who do while ignoring the fact that many of these fields overlap with quantum mechanics, including mathematics, cosmology, and astrophysics.

Wheeler himself--who is the winner of Israel's Wolf Award in 1997--has greatly supported the theory of reality as we know it being connected to consciousness. Note the following excerpt from his Wikipedia entry:

Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006). He also coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on "The anthropic universe":[7]

Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.

Yes, I fully acknowledge that not all physicists agree with these aspects of physics promoted by the above, while reminding people that science is a highly politicized field, a fact that certain schools of atheists take full advantage of to bind scientific research to the limits of their personal worldview. However, your implications that these theories are entirely invalid and not accepted by any serious physicists or the field of quantum mechanics in general is patently untrue, and is more or less based upon your personal ideological disagreement with them, which is need-based and not empirically research-based on your part. I agree with aspects of the anthropic principle based upon empirical observations of the practice of "magick" I have personally conducted over the past two decades. This doesn't add up to conclusive proof, but it does provide me with what I believe to be enough evidence to support the basic principles of the theory and that further research into these theories are justified, and is not in any way strictly based on faith, wishful thinking, or ideology/worldview based on my personal attitude towards anything connected to theology or eschatology.

The above sources can be found at these cyber-locales:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The last link up above is one you should especially note, since the info contained within makes it quite clear that the various interpretations and theories that you routinely denounce are embraced by enough physicists and mathematicians to make them legitimate. Not many of these interpretations are embraced by all physicists as being conclusively correct. So are you sure it's me, and not you, who is not doing their homework here?

He is a religious loony who published his "professional" review in a magazine published by academics who are interested in the Little Green Men and other "anomalies." ( strangely not one of them could get their department or University to publish their "peer-reviewed" magazine. Hmmmm. )

By "religious loony," you seem to mean someone who doesn't hate religion and consider absolutely every question it asks about the universe to be automatically invalid simply because the questions hail from theology and thus imperil your worldview (in your own eyes, at least) if any type of validity were to be attributed to them via research. Religious loonies do not typically embrace science, but instead spout moralistic judgments, insist on faith being dominant over knowledge, and ascribe value to scriptural tenets over empirical observations; this is not something that parapsychologists ever do, whether they are religous or not (and many of them are atheists).

Once again, you cite the realm of "paranormal" research as being fully invalid (including using pejoratives like "Little Green Men"), not because any of the theories have been fully disproven, but simply because they go against your worldview (sort of like some fundamentalists insisting it's a fact that science is the work of the Devil or recreational sex is evil, which is the opposite extreme of what you do). Paranormal research asks a lot of questions about frequently recorded phenomena throughout human experience whose possible reality (whatever may underlie that reality) have been reported countless times by a variety of people with a vast disparity of worldviews and attitudes towards the world all across the globe (this includes many atheists!). The opinion that this bears research and study is hardly an unscientific attitude, but the opinion that it should be dismissed out of hand certainly is! The politicization of science artificially and arbitrarily declares any research "invalid" if it doesn't fit the materialistic worldview, which is similar to how scientists in the 18th century outright denied the possible existence of meteorites, or how until the late 19th century germ theory was considered totally ridiculous simply because scientific instrumentation wasn't advanced enough to conclusively prove the existence of microbial life that could have drastic effects on macrobial life, or the consensus belief amongst scientists until the first decade of the 20th century that the laws of aerodynamics made the possibility of human flight effectively impossible despite what "crackpots" like the Wright Brothers and several others claimed (which wasn't helped by the many true crackpots during that era who did outrageous things in their endeavors to prove the possibility of human defiance of gravity). In fact, the theory of evolution and the idea of a long line of life forms giving way to extinction to be replaced by others, and the constant change of organisms due to the great passage of time, was considered "loony" when first proposed, because it went against the scientific worldview of the time. Science by its nature needs to be flexible and open to researching new possibilities, and to objectively give consideration to research that may go against the prevailing worldview at any given time. If you refuse to do this, science will end up beholden to politics, and progress will be skewed in directions that benefit the status quo rather than serve the purpose of objectively enhancing the overall knowledge base and understanding of the universe for the benefit of all humanity.

Btw, the work of Barrow has been published by Oxford University Press, and Wheeler's work has been published by Princeton University Press, and neither are/were fans of parapsychology despite the fact that their readily accepted (though still inconclusive) theories touch base on much of what parapsychologists have studied and researched. This can be cogently argued to have as much to do with politics as much as anything else, with Wheeler distancing himself from parapsychology despite they're sharing some parallel research and theories, and for the same basic reason that the contemporary homosexual community distances themselves from the MAA community despite the societal parallels faced by both groups at different times. I'm sure that had Wheeler cited any parapsychological research texts, no matter how soundly researched, in his books, Princeton University Press would not have published the book unless he agreed to delete those citations, no matter how relevant they may have been to his own research, for fear of validating parapsychology. That's a political faux pas as far as mainstream science is concerned, just as mainstream liberalism currently feels that way about the value neutral validation of MAAs' humanity.

But then again, Rosenblum and Kuttner warn that Quantum weirdness makes “wild speculation inevitable.” And you provide plenty of what they warn against.

But they don't say that all of this speculation has entirely no merit, while acknowledging that yes, some researchers or speculators will overreach at times, and this is to be expected in many areas of endeavor dealing with controversial but potentially important scientific research. They more or less mean that some of this speculation will be very difficult to prove at the present level of scientific advancement, which is why they do their best to stick to the aspects of the theory that can likely be borne out by contemporary or near-future research and technology. This doesn't make all "wild" speculation entirely invalid, but it does make it impractical in many ways, and they commendably point this out. Conversely, they do often say that science is heavily politicized, and that this effects the progress of science and a tendency towards dismissal of potentially good or valid research for reasons that are quite unscientific, and you provide plenty of what they warn against in that respect. Nothing I have suggested is out of sorts with the research conducted by Wheeler, Barrow, or Rosenblum, or entirely out of sorts with phenomena reported both in the past and in the present by many different people. I also insist on empirical observations and research using valid scientific methodology to be conducted on this phenomena, whereas you call for outright dismissal and a priori assumptions of invalidity with no research being conducted, which hardly makes your side of the coin more scientific or rational.

RLY?

I haven't seen you do this in a while! I quote you on that all the time. Okay, back to the scheduled debate...

You deny being able to effect a physical change in the macro-scale ( as opposed to say, determining the singular outcome out of many equally valid ones on a level so small as to not effect the macro-scale? )

No, you are twisting my words again out of intellectually dishonest use of rhetoric. I am talking about how conscious will--with sufficient practice, focus, and belief in one's ability to do so--can affect and influence the probability of events occurring in your personal sphere, which can influence the macro-scale in subtle but potentially important ways by using a connection between consciousness and the micro-scale of the sub-atomic realm. This is greatly difficult to do, because the macro-scale is largely formed out of the consensus, and is done so mostly subconsciously. This is what I said, plain and simple. You will continue to try to twist this due to your ideological outrage at the implications of this theory were it ever proven (and I believe it one day will, even if not in our lifestimes), so I mostly say this for the benefit of any reader who is of a more open mind on this topic.

RLY? Do you never look up something as soon as you see the slightest confirmation of your wishful thinking?

As opposed to your own wishful thinking that is based in no way on research, but every way on ideology and a hatred of the possible implications of certain research on your worldview? Nothing that you ever cite to refute what I say ever comes close to totally disproving the theories you dislike, whereas I never say they have been entirely proven, but only that they do make a sound theory based on the available research and my own personal research (which doesn't require writing out complex mathematical equations, but I'm certain someone could).

OK, now you can impact the physical universe, just with difficulty? But you can't violate local reality by having any kind of significant impact? Right?

Influencing events is much different from radically altering the shape or substance of matter, which proves that your "confusion" over what I am saying invalidates your claims that you are not Straw Manning me. And again, you know that, but when it comes to this subject, employing dirty pool tactics are your norm.

Wait? Now you're starting to sound like that Straw Man you declaim, who has a radical ( non-local-reality-on-the-Macro-scale ) effect. The only thing to complete this Straw Manning of a position you distance yourself from would be to link it "wrongly" by invoking religious elements.

Your first sentence up above (following the "Wait?" fragment) deliberately overlooks the fact that I use words like "subtle" to describe a series of effects on probability in your personal sphere that have potentially significant impacts on what occurs in your life or what experiences you have but in no way constitutes or even implies radical alterations in the shape or substance of stable matter.

Your second sentence makes it clear as glass that your entire dismissal of this theory has everything to do with your hatred of anything your mind remotely connects to religion, or what you perceive and misname "supernatural" phenomena, because your worldview encompasses the belief that any aspect of the world remotely attributed to religion or anything that may support any of its tenets (leaving the crazy moralizing social values and dictatorial political elements of organized religion entirely aside, since we both are against these things) is automatically invalid by association; hence, any analogy or comparison I may make to a tenet or precept attributed to religious belief and often twisted by the political and faith-based elements of organized religion (e.g., a conscious element to the universe, the possible survival of human consciousness following the demise of the physical body, the ability of focused human will to influence probability and events on the sub-atomic level that cascades to subtle but potentially significant effects on the macro-level, etc., et al.) automatically invalidates the scientific validity of said theory due to its failure to conform to the ideological demands of your worldview (centered around a hatred of all things remotely attributable to religion and "mysticism," and a near-fanatical adherence to a gross materialistic interpretation of the universe and the reality surrounding it). Thank you for providing this.

Dang. You've really got to get your account secured. Because someone keeps posting these claims you hold as "Straw Men" under your nick.

The basis of that sarcastic remark of yours would only be valid if I was actually saying or making the contradictions that you claim I am making. Then again, you will not--and feel that you dare not--make an unbiased reading of what I am saying, so you have no choice but to resort to intellectual dishonesty, ad-hominems, and the Straw Men tactic while sarcastically claiming you aren't. Mmm-hmm.

Btw, Dante, as much as I love the latest round of these mean-spirited but interesting exchanges between us on this subject (especially after my recent longish hiatus due to necessity), as I have said before regarding this, I will do my best to respond to each of your responses, but as I haven't been feeling up to par lately due to overwork, and with the demands of my professional life and activism continuing to mount despite this state of my health (e-mail me if you are interested in knowing the specifics of all of this), I may lack the time to engage in a series of extraordinarily lengthy rebukes with you, rebukes that almost no one on the board are likely to be reading other than you and I (i.e., the bickering party) due to their length, even though the length are attempts by the two of us to be thorough in our arguments. I'll try to keep my jabs--er, rebukes--as short and sweet as possible if you will provide me the courtesy of doing the same, especially since these are mostly OT if interesting discussions.