contradiction, dialetheism & religion

[Polymath257]

There was also in the late 80's when he worked with him on singularities. He also co-authored with him in the mid 90's a few times. I don't know enough specifics to say to what degree QM was involved.

I'm not sure if this is brought up in relevance to contradiction or just as an aside. If the former, ya, that's why the law of contradiction would hold on our scale anyway.

This has to do specifically with his proposal concerning microtubules and their supposed role in consciousness due to quantum effects. They are large, in a warm environment, have multiple influences, and are therefore incredibly bad candidates for preserving entanglement.

What constitutes as graduate level text? The book I gave goes well into a very advanced level math. Actually on Amazon, some of the reviewers were (or at least claimed) to be varying levels of professors and weighed in the book being beyond an undergrad in various respects.

I only mention that as I want to ask if you be inclined to recommend a specific book? Particularly one good at dispelling misconceptions if not just a solid graduate level text?

An undergraduate book that is quite good at explanations is Eiberg&Resnick 'Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles'.

For a graduate level book that will go into things like Bell's inequalities, I'd go for Brandsen & Joachain, Quantum Mechanics.

Those are very standard textbooks.

Like, the evidence is his view on a particle being in two places at once specifically, or just in general his ideas? Sure, he can be a pariah at times, and he's in a minority in his views on consciousness. But so far as any of his physics ideas I'm familiar with he's presented feasible ways to falsify his hypotheses, something a lot of 'cutting edge' physics can't do (looking at you, M-Theory).

Anyways, my entire point is that it's possible that non-contradiction may be allowable by physical laws as we know it, even if in very specific circumstances. Perhaps though that isn't the best way to go about arguing for dielatheism if not just because that argument cascades into becoming very... esoteric... for lack of a better word.

And I'm saying that isn't what the actual QM says. Particles don't have specific properties except under observation.

 

[Kapalika]

An undergraduate book that is quite good at explanations is Eiberg&Resnick 'Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles'.

For a graduate level book that will go into things like Bell's inequalities, I'd go for Brandsen & Joachain, Quantum Mechanics.

Alright thank you....looking up the first one the closest copy is in University library a good drive away... I'll have to see if I can find something similar. Geeze that's pretty expensive for a 30+ year old text. But at least that gives me an idea of where to start.

And I'm saying that isn't what the actual QM says. Particles don't have specific properties except under observation.

Shrugs. It was my understanding that it was one possible interpretation. If after reading enough of something like one of the books you gave above I find that I was wrong, I'm willing to admit that but at this point I am only moderately uncertain.

I'm glad we kind of made some headway later in after I pushed for a response about Penrose, I really felt like we were going in circles for a good while...