Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence

From: Douglas Brooker (dbrooker@clara.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 08:43:32 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA16470 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:18:35 GMT
    Message-ID: <3C945734.E95D4209@clara.co.uk>
    Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:43:32 +0000
    From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk>
    Organization: University of London
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
    References: <F42tNV1HINcKPey7ZyZ0001f9cf@hotmail.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Scott Chase wrote:

    > >From: <AaronLynch@aol.com>
    > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >Subject: Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
    > >Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 14:17:30 EST
    > >
    > >In a message dated 3/16/2002 11:45:46 AM Central Standard
    > >Time, Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk> writes:
    > >
    > > > Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Good morning, everyone,From another list...
    > > > >
    > > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    > > > > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of nargess
    > > > > sabeti
    > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:41 AM
    > > > > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > > > > Subject: Re: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
    > > > >
    > > > > Glenn Bradford <gmbbradford@netscape.net> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Richard Dawkins, in a Forbes article written three
    > > > > years ago, speaks his
    > > > > mind on the notion, popularized by Fritjof Capra
    > > > > and others, that the
    > > > > science of quantum mechanics is converging with
    > > > > religious mysticism.
    > > > >
    > > > > DAWKINS:
    > > > > [A] kind of marriage has been alleged between
    > > > > modern physics and
    > > > > Eastern mysticism. The argument goes as follows:
    > > > > Quantum mechanics, that
    > > > > brilliantly successful flagship theory of modern
    > > > > science, is deeply mysterious
    > > > > and hard to understand. Eastern mystics have
    > > > > always been deeply
    > > > > mysterious and hard to understand. Therefore,
    > > > > Eastern mystics must have
    > > > > been talking about quantum theory all along.
    > > > >
    > > > > Similar mileage is made of Heisenberg's
    > > > > uncertainty principle ("Aren't we all,
    > > > > in a very real sense, uncertain?"), fuzzy logic
    > > > > ("Yes, it's okay for you to be fuzzy,
    > > > > too"), chaos and complexity theory (the butterfly
    > > > > effect, the Platonic, hidden
    > > > > beauty of the Mandelbrot Set--you name it,
    > > > > somebody has mysticized it and!
    > > > > turned it into dollars). You can buy any number of
    > > > > books on "quantum
    > > > > healing," not to mention quantum psychology,
    > > > > quantum responsibility,
    > > > > quantum morality, quantum immortality, and quantum
    > > > > theology. I haven't
    > > > > found a book on quantum feminism, quantum
    > > > > financial management, or
    > > > > Afro-quantum theory, but give it time.
    > > > >
    > > > > The whole dippy business is ably exposed by the
    > > > > physicist Victor Stenger in
    > > > > his book, The Unconscious Quantum, from which the
    > > > > following gem is taken.
    > > > > In a lecture on "Afrocentric healing," the
    > > > > psychiatrist Patricia Newton said that
    > > > > traditional healers "are able to tap that other
    > > > > realm of negative entropy--that
    > > > > superquantum velocity and frequency of
    > > > > electromagnetic energy--and bring
    > > > > them as conduits down to our level. It's not
    > > > > magic. It's not mumbo jumbo. You
    > > > > will see the dawn of the 21st century, the new
    > > > > medical quantum physics really
    > > > > distributing these energies and what they are
    > > > > doing."
    > > > >
    > > > > Sorry, but mumbo jumbo is ! precisely what it is.
    > > > > Not African mumbo jumbo but
    > > > > pseudosc! ientific mumbo jumbo, down to the
    > > > > trademark misuse of the word
    > > > > energy. It is also religion, masquerading as
    > > > > science in a cloying love
    > > > > feast of bogus convergence.
    > > > > --
    > >
    > >Hi Douglas.
    > >
    > >My earlier use of the phrase "the ineffable Quantum of being"
    > >a few months ago was also in reference to some of the mystical
    > >interpretations of quantum mechanics.
    > >
    > > > and memetics is a science?
    > >
    > >Just suppose that Eastern mysticism got attached to quantum
    > >physics in the early days, so that a substantial fraction of
    > >the physicists reading their first quantum physics books were
    > >asked to swallow a lot of mysticism. The word "quantum"
    > >would have gained a very bad reputation among serious
    > >physicists.
    > >
    > > > sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
    > >
    > >Perhaps this is the old strategy of the best defense
    > >being a good offense.
    > >
    > >
    > Dawkins is right on the money. "Quantum" seems to be a popular adjective to
    > attach to a lot of goofy ideas making them more trendy in pop culture. It's
    > like a vague allusion to QM has hybridized with various kooky pet theories.

    The migration of a word from a narrow scientific context to a much wider
    one would seem to be a
    perfect subject for memetics. One one extreme, the physicists; one the
    other,
    the 'kooky pet theories'.

    Question 1: describe the migration (or expansion) of the use of
    "quantum."
    Question 2: explain the migration

    In many of the social sciences there is a tension in the discipline
    between its prescriptive and descriptive urges. It's internal politics,
    perhaps. Linguistics is a good
    example. (and maybe the positive-natural law dichotomy in legal
    theory.) Prescriptivism is not much in fashion these days. But
    fashions, by definition, change.

    Dawkins sounds as if he comes from a prescriptivist school of memetics.

    It's a bit like a lab scientist criticising germs because they are bad.

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 17 2002 - 09:29:11 GMT