Well if you've studied it to a post-graduate level then that means you probably have more knowledge about it than I do. However, I know a few people who have - one imparticular who is doing a masters in physics and quantum theory and is on some sort of world-class elite panel of researchers here at the university - and when I put all of this too him he agrees that the whole malarky proves only one thing - that the uncertainty there is at the highest level of science about the sources of energy and consciousness in our universe is matched only by the complexity and immaterial elegance that all the theory and observation suggests. You have said 'Umm..No' here, but what are you disagreeing with? When did I ever suggest that quantum theory can 'prove ESP'? I merely suggested that there is an uncertainty about these things that cannot be ignored (and therefore not discredited)
Quantum mechanics describes very well the uncertainty in things like the energy levels of excited atoms or the positions of subatomic particles. Here you seem to be talking about uncertainty over concepts from the unexplained or paranormal - at least, that's what I got from your mention of non-local communication, which some people like to talk about in the context of ESP, telepathy or whathaveyou.
You said in an earlier post that "quantum physics had destroyed the boundary between rational science and mysticism". All I can say is: not from where I'm standing, it hasn't. Yes, there is "uncertainty" in quantum mechanics but it is a kind of uncertainty that is very precisely quantified and subject to rigorous physical laws, just like the behaviour of macroscopic objects that obey Newtonian mechanics.
It isn't
magic, put it that way. Consciousness is another thing altogether and I think it's fair to say no-one understands where it comes from yet - explicitly quantum-mechanical phenomena may well have some part to play in it, who knows? I still don't think it lends any support to some ghosty 'pneuma' that is somehow generated by neurons and exists apart from the material universe. That's why I call myself a materialist, and I think quantum mechanics is in no way incompatible with it. It's still a materialistic framework, even though it radically redefines what we understand by "matter".
By saying this I was pointing out that atheists and cynics seem to be so certain that 'ESP' and other psychic phenomena doesn't exist, whereas the truth is that these things still cannot be totally disproved but merely speculated not to exist. In terms of non-locality and entanglement - as far as I know this is still an open issue - but if it were proven to be possible I don't see (nor do I care at all!) about whether or not it can 'support the existence of God', but certainly it could point to the possibility that consciousness was infinitely more complex and powerful than we have ever imagined - and therefore has possibilities of it's own that have been hinted at in other ways throughout the ages in poetry, mythology and religion.
Just to simplify that - from my perspective you seem to be overly concerned with 'the existence of God', whereas I don't really see it that way. 'God' as we know it is mostly a construct and only relates vaguely poetically/allegorically to the formation and circulation of energy and consciousness in our universe. I see that quantum theory and related fields, such as in the work of Penrose, as not being able to prove anything mystical, but certainly not being at all in opposition to the basic tenets of ancient mystical schools, but definitely in opposition to religious fundamentalism, new ageism and other plagues of the planet. Speaking of which, what to you think of Kapra?
Ha, a mate of mine leant me
The Tao Of Physics when I was a physics freshman, and I remember thinking it was kind of cool at the time...there are *some* analogies, I think, between certain ancient schools of metaphysics and the worldview of modern physics, but they are only analogies, and some people have tended to make too much out of them. As far I as I remember the latter part of the book goes into properly crazy territory (or maybe that's other books by Kapra) with regards to explaining alleged paranormal or mystical phenomena using particle physics or somesuch. I could be wrong though, it was ages ago that I read it.
Consciousness, I think, is incredibly powerful and complex anyway - it doesn't require weird quantum phenomena* for us to understand this. A modern computer would have seemed 'magic' to someone in the 19th or early 20th century, but computers are based on 20th century physics which has been well understood for a long time now (admittedly, the
interpretation of the quantum phenomena by which computers (and, presumably, brain cells) work is an open question - but that's more a metaphysical problem than a physical one). And a motor car would have seemed 'magic' to someone in the middle ages, and firearms must have seemed 'magic' to pre-modern peoples during the age of European exploration/colonialism, and so on...as science and technology progress, things that once seemed inexplicable come into the domain of rational understanding. There's no reason to suppose consciousness won't go the same way one day, I think.
Now I really don't understand you here. I've already stated that I'm not talking about scientists, but materialist atheists, and stated that quantum mechanics (Heisenberg, in other words) has discredited materialism. You are trying to disagree with me by saying exactly what I have said. If you haven't, please explain.
Then it sounds like we're using the word "materialist" differently. As I said above, I don't think there's anything in QM that requires a non-materialist position. I don't think an electron is in a radically different ontological category from a brick or a block of wood; it just has some properties that are unexpected if you've not come across them before because your intuitive understanding of what matter is is based on a familiarity with large objects like bricks. Whether there's a radical ontological difference between a brick and a living human brain, well that's a bit tougher - I think we'll be better able to examine that question when our understanding of neurology and consciousness is a lot more advanced than it is now.
*Specifically, maintaining an entangled state between two particles separated by any distance or a superposition in a system over any physical extent is extremely difficult, and can only happen in very specific laboratory conditions whereby interaction with any other particles is prevented. Typically, this is done in a lab by preparing entangled photons using lasers, precision mirrors and so on and then sending them down evacuated tubes. The warm, dense, messy environment inside a brain is the exact opposite of the kinds of conditions whereby entanglement or superposition can be maintained over anything other than atomic distances and time scales.