<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Debunking the Quantum Mystics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/</link>
	<description>Mathematics -- Physics -- Quantum Theory</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 20:04:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mleifer</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/comment-page-1/#comment-384</link>
		<dc:creator>mleifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.info/?p=226#comment-384</guid>
		<description>Yes, I know this all too well.  We are still waiting for a definitive popular book on the foundations of quantum theory that does not make such errors/simplifications.  I fear that too much equivocation may put off the intended audience though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I know this all too well.  We are still waiting for a definitive popular book on the foundations of quantum theory that does not make such errors/simplifications.  I fear that too much equivocation may put off the intended audience though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Esser</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/comment-page-1/#comment-383</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Esser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.info/?p=226#comment-383</guid>
		<description>Your blog post has raised my interest enough that I&#039;m going to order the book.  I have one concern which is that in the course of debunking, sometimes debunkers say or imply things which aren&#039;t quite true (glossing over some of the difficulties): e.g. implying decoherence theory solves the measurement problem, and saying QM only has relevance to nature at the micro-scale.  In the last paragraph of the article you link to Stenger says &quot;Newtonian physics...follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics.&quot;  There is a sense in which that&#039;s true, but I worry it&#039;s too dismissive of the subject.
 Best regards, 
 - Steve Esser</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your blog post has raised my interest enough that I&#8217;m going to order the book.  I have one concern which is that in the course of debunking, sometimes debunkers say or imply things which aren&#8217;t quite true (glossing over some of the difficulties): e.g. implying decoherence theory solves the measurement problem, and saying QM only has relevance to nature at the micro-scale.  In the last paragraph of the article you link to Stenger says &#8220;Newtonian physics&#8230;follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics.&#8221;  There is a sense in which that&#8217;s true, but I worry it&#8217;s too dismissive of the subject.<br />
 Best regards,<br />
 &#8211; Steve Esser</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mleifer</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/comment-page-1/#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>mleifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.info/?p=226#comment-360</guid>
		<description>Well, I think I more or less said as much in the blog post:

&lt;blockquote&gt;My main concern is whether Stenger manages to clearly separate the argument against quantum mysticism from his more general concerns about whether or not science is compatible with new age mystical beliefs. In my view, it is one thing to hold a set of new age mumbo jumbo beliefs and quite another thing to believe they are supported by quantum theory. The latter is clearly false, independently of the general debate about new age ideas.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

In any case, quantum quackery is generally less about God and more about new age spiritual beliefs.  I hope that Stenger has separated these different arguments in his book.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I think I more or less said as much in the blog post:</p>
<blockquote><p>My main concern is whether Stenger manages to clearly separate the argument against quantum mysticism from his more general concerns about whether or not science is compatible with new age mystical beliefs. In my view, it is one thing to hold a set of new age mumbo jumbo beliefs and quite another thing to believe they are supported by quantum theory. The latter is clearly false, independently of the general debate about new age ideas.</p></blockquote>
<p>In any case, quantum quackery is generally less about God and more about new age spiritual beliefs.  I hope that Stenger has separated these different arguments in his book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HECK from Aw, Heck!</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/comment-page-1/#comment-359</link>
		<dc:creator>HECK from Aw, Heck!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.info/?p=226#comment-359</guid>
		<description>Agreed that Deepak et al. are peddling a lot of bunk, but it seems to me that evangelical atheism is as much a belief as evangelical theism. And to claim science proves there is no such thing as God is (again, it seems to me) to misunderstand the nature of science. Not to say someone can&#039;t claim science as the basis for their belief in atheism, but science itself remains mute on the matter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed that Deepak et al. are peddling a lot of bunk, but it seems to me that evangelical atheism is as much a belief as evangelical theism. And to claim science proves there is no such thing as God is (again, it seems to me) to misunderstand the nature of science. Not to say someone can&#8217;t claim science as the basis for their belief in atheism, but science itself remains mute on the matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Orzel</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/comment-page-1/#comment-357</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Orzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.info/?p=226#comment-357</guid>
		<description>The whole thing stayed in. That chapter was one of the least edited in the book, which I found kind of surprising-- I was expecting more comments than I got, but my editor was fine with the whole thing.

Of course, my anti-mystic comments were pretty mild, as such things go. You can find a lot harsher on the Internet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The whole thing stayed in. That chapter was one of the least edited in the book, which I found kind of surprising&#8211; I was expecting more comments than I got, but my editor was fine with the whole thing.</p>
<p>Of course, my anti-mystic comments were pretty mild, as such things go. You can find a lot harsher on the Internet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mleifer</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/comment-page-1/#comment-356</link>
		<dc:creator>mleifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.info/?p=226#comment-356</guid>
		<description>Chad,

Yes, I vaguely remember reading that in an earlier draft of your book.  I&#039;m curious to know how much of the Chopra et. al. stuff you managed to get through when you were researching it.  I think that one of the reasons why this stuff has not been thoroughly debunked is that few serious people have actually read much of their stuff.  For me, even sitting through What The Bleep... was a painful experience.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chad,</p>
<p>Yes, I vaguely remember reading that in an earlier draft of your book.  I&#8217;m curious to know how much of the Chopra et. al. stuff you managed to get through when you were researching it.  I think that one of the reasons why this stuff has not been thoroughly debunked is that few serious people have actually read much of their stuff.  For me, even sitting through What The Bleep&#8230; was a painful experience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Orzel</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.info/2009/07/08/debunking-the-quantum-mystics/comment-page-1/#comment-355</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Orzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.info/?p=226#comment-355</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not a whole book, but I do have one chapter in the forthcoming book talking about how Chopra et al. are peddling crap. The dog has a low opinion of them as well...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not a whole book, but I do have one chapter in the forthcoming book talking about how Chopra et al. are peddling crap. The dog has a low opinion of them as well&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

