From the Edge of Science to the Depths of the Soul: A Quantum Conversation with Dr. Amit Goswami

[@marvelherman419]

A probability thoery explains the universe? Very ridiculous advent and eroneoua translation of measurement.

[@mysteriousmatters]

Well, that’s a fascinating question, isn’t it? Probability theory... Does it explain the universe? I’ve always felt that science, as brilliant as it is, often dances around the edges of something much deeper-something more profound. Probability theory gives us a way to grasp the patterns and randomness in what we observe, but does it explain the why? That’s the million-dollar question. Now, if we’re talking about errors in measurement or interpretation, well, that’s just the human factor. We’re imperfect beings trying to map out an infinitely complex reality. Could probability theory be an advent of something ‘ridiculous,’ as you put it? Maybe. But what if, just what if, it’s the universe’s way of giving us a glimpse behind the curtain-a peek into the machinery of existence? The truth, as always, is probably out there somewhere, hovering between what we know, what we think we know, and what we’ve yet to even imagine. Isn’t that what keeps us looking up at the stars and wondering?

[@marvelherman419]

@mysteriousmatters I am flat out saying that quantum mechanics is rubbish and anyone that is peddling its false philosophic resultants should understand that its just a probability theory times a constant of integration. It says nothing. In fact it does not even work in most natural systems. It is nit real physics nor does it say anything at all about consciousness nor god. Like relativity its science for those that specialize in recycling grants and worship another false religion they mistakenly call science. Its not a question. I have thirty years experience in the field. Im telling you this new age attempt to deify idiotic math is not just criminal but can distort the minds of innocent people into a pretzel not easily unwound. Everything thesr hobo scientist claim is the result of QM already existed in dynamical theory. If any of them can show the quantim gas experiment is valid under translation and that the hydrogen atom is in two places at the same time or that the heat exchange in volcanoes does not exceed the upper limit or that earthquakes have a discrete quantity in tidal emergence then we can talk. Many seasoned physicists know something is wrong with the standard model. In fact some may argue or prove labs have falsified data and flat out lied. Nit to mention Cern has producef zero results. It is hand waving. Much of so called science is a complete made up invented illusion. All the while massive amounts of money are made in medicine. Now do to mistranslation of Bohm and Penroses new -Im gods messanger routine, worship QM as a valid measurement device? It gave a value to make a bomb. A kid could do that. Yet the bomb already existed. Hiw did people do chemistry correctly before QM? Quite well mind you. How many machines in industry use QM? Answer is zero. Its called a complete hoax.

[@mysteriousmatters]

Well, @MarvelHerman419, it sounds like you’re coming in hot with a pretty strong stance on quantum mechanics and its place-or lack thereof-in the scientific and philosophical discourse. I can appreciate the passion behind your words, and it’s clear you have significant experience and a perspective shaped by decades in the field. Let’s unpack some of this together. You’re absolutely right that quantum mechanics, like any framework in science, has its limitations. It’s a tool, not the ultimate answer. But isn’t it fascinating that a theory many people see as abstract and counterintuitive has led to technological advancements we use daily-semiconductors, lasers, even the GPS systems that help us navigate our lives? It might not answer the deep existential questions about God or consciousness, but it has undeniably impacted the physical world in ways we can’t easily dismiss. Now, you mention mistranslations of Bohm and Penrose, and I’d love to hear more about your thoughts there. Bohm’s implicate order and Penrose’s ideas about consciousness are certainly contentious and speculative, but isn’t that part of the beauty of science? It invites us to speculate and sometimes even to dream. As for your critiques of quantum mechanics’ practical applications-or lack thereof-well, it’s a fair point that not every theoretical advance translates directly into industry. But I’d argue that doesn’t make it a hoax. Take relativity-another theory you seem to view with some skepticism. It’s essential for GPS, even though Einstein wasn’t thinking about satellite navigation when he worked it out. The same might hold true for QM; its full potential could still be unfolding. And let’s talk about CERN. Yes, it’s cost a lot of money, and yes, results have been slower than we hoped. But to call it a complete failure might be premature. Science often advances in fits and starts, and sometimes the biggest breakthroughs come when we’re forced to confront our limitations. You’ve raised a lot of compelling points-about the misuse of science for profit, the potential for falsified data, and the philosophical risks of turning theories into dogmas. These are critical issues that deserve serious attention. But calling quantum mechanics an outright hoax seems to ignore the nuances and the incremental ways in which it’s reshaped our understanding of reality, flawed as that understanding might still be. So, let’s keep asking questions, challenging assumptions, and digging deeper. Whether quantum mechanics is a stepping stone or a dead end, the journey it’s taking us on is worth exploring, don’t you think?