Pet Peeve., Quantum Physics it’s involvement in Magick Options

Using science catch phrases to further your agenda or personal beliefs when you understand nothing of the science you are talking about. I could go into global warming, but that would make this alot longer.

I see this done over and over again, why is it necessary to justify something with something else when 90% of the time they understand neither subject?

I totally get it is a pet peeve, and I have too much emotional charge at this point as it detracts me every time I read something on magick that is totally plausible and they “justify it” by mentioning quantum physics.

Quantum physics is one of the “current” tool boxes used for the study of subatomic partials because Newtonian physics fails terribly at it.

At this point Quantum theory will never become “law” it is already known to be wrong. But it is still one of the best tool boxes they have for this area of study.

The only three cool thing in Quantum that people can relate to magick

1. The possibility to be in multiple places at once. (a photon will traverse every possible solution of a maze at once to get to the other side)
2. Instant effect (beyond the speed of light). Partials will change instantly when their twin is changed.
3. The discovery that the observer can effect the results.

Now those three things are huge, but they are not the things usually brought up when connecting Magick and Science.

Science is now on the cusp of being able to create a pocket universe (a mini big bang so to speak), instead I am reading how opening my chakras or third eye will let me see or feel energy that is in different quantum dimensions (paraphrasing but I would not be surprised to see that in print).

The only good approaches to Science and Magick that come to mind are Peter Carroll’s and William A . Tiller. Carroll on the pure theory side does not make claims of anything justifying anything. William A Tiller takes a purely scientific approach to proving the most minute existence of magickal phenomena.

His books are not for the feint of heart, but they are what is needed to get a firmer grasp on the whys of Magick.

Do we need the whys? No not really, but we do if we want to use science to prove it exists.

Body and mind control is now accepted by the scientific community, why, because people can repeatedly do things like go to only theta waves at will (mental equivalent of stopping the heart) and then come back out, or show the full spectrum of brain waves at once. Or stopping the heart or slowing it down to almost stopping it.

What has that done? It has given medical researchers new tools, and added a ton of funding to the research of long term effects of specific meditations. It has opened holistic medical schools where traditional and non traditional treatments are taught and researched ultimately providing better care.

Meanwhile on the magickal side of the fence you have idiots talking about science in an uneducated way…the least science is going to do is the same.

I read this through a couple of times and really--it's so poorly written that I can't figure out what you are trying to say, and I'm really trying.

Using science catch phrases to further your agenda or personal beliefs when you understand nothing of the science you are talking about. I could go into global warming, but that would make this alot longer.

Ok--so that is your pet peeve, I get that. Sort of.

Yes it does irritate me a bit when people use science to support... anything. Science is nothing more or less than a religion, or beliefs system. If you keep that in mind you will understand better why people quote its tenets so much, even when those tenets are poorly understood. I mean--how can the average person "prove" anything about particle theory? It has to be grasped in a conceptual manner if it is to be understood at all.

Yeah, it irritates me when people say that there is sin because "the devil tricked Eve into eating an apple".

People say all kinds of crazy shit, don't they? xoxo ;)

Most of my posts are poorly written, and poorly thought out. They are. At the length that I write I should be outlining and all I am doing is keyboard vomiting…but that was not my point :-P


My point was really this.
Start of point.
If people are going to use science or a scientific theory as a backup for their claims, they at least need to know about the scientific concepts enough to explain the correlations between their claims and the scientific theory.

They also should explain them in any publication where they make such claims, preferably in an appendix.

End of point.
If not all I believe they are doing, is blowing smoke up my ass.

There are many who use pseudoscience for their claims. This is at least more honest, but it does not excuse the fact.

For example in the Ghost chasing scenarios. Monitor everything you can at a site and a site near where you are going with no claims of paranormal activity (a base line must be established) for two weeks. Then try to identify and minimize all the variables as possible. Then go for your haunting. To make extraordinary claims you must have extraordinary proof.

Just for minor safety controls, we demand more clinical testing then that with most products. In a lab they make sure their instruments are precise, and the baselines set.

They also expose things to nothing Vs. the experiment to verify lack of outside contamination. Even after an enormous effort is made, it is peer reviewed and other people (hopefully independent) make experiments. This is the strength of the scientific community, the ability to make and explain predictable results.

Myth Busters does a better job at checking the validity of a claim then any paranormal show I have seen, and they pride themselves in shoddy scientific methods.

Now, I have had two experiences with visual entities, both scared me to my witts end, and I can not prove either case. One could have been a dream, the other a sound and light educed hallucination (though I would have found myself short of a horse if that was the case).

But to claim something and have the production money of a TV show…get decent equipment, and baseline it at minimum, if you are going to use any science to back up your claims at least apply scientific principles.


As to Science being a religion. I agree in many regards. However, scientific principles of testing are pretty standard affairs. I would state that academia is the religion, as there are areas that are not scientific that are treated with the same reverence.

Another wonderful thing is when asking scientists things in a poll. They are not asking scientists in that field, they are just asking scientists…thus lay people when it comes to that field.

But as in all things today, perception is so much more important and more real then the truth.

This post has been edited by paxx: Nov 6 2007, 09:42 PM

NO matter where you go people will try to justify their ideas by name dropping and catering to an "authority" of the subject. Its in religion, its in science, politics, magick theory and whatever else. Stupid people will follow stupid ideas.

At this point Quantum theory will never become “law” it is already known to be wrong. But it is still one of the best tool boxes they have for this area of study.

The only three cool thing in Quantum that people can relate to magick

1. The possibility to be in multiple places at once. (a photon will traverse every possible solution of a maze at once to get to the other side)
2. Instant effect (beyond the speed of light). Partials will change instantly when their twin is changed.
3. The discovery that the observer can effect the results.

Now those three things are huge, but they are not the things usually brought up when connecting Magick and Science.

Science is now on the cusp of being able to create a pocket universe (a mini big bang so to speak), instead I am reading how opening my chakras or third eye will let me see or feel energy that is in different quantum dimensions (paraphrasing but I would not be surprised to see that in print).

The only good approaches to Science and Magick that come to mind are Peter Carroll’s and William A . Tiller. Carroll on the pure theory side does not make claims of anything justifying anything. William A Tiller takes a purely scientific approach to proving the most minute existence of magickal phenomena.

His books are not for the feint of heart, but they are what is needed to get a firmer grasp on the whys of Magick.

Do we need the whys? No not really, but we do if we want to use science to prove it exists.

Body and mind control is now accepted by the scientific community, why, because people can repeatedly do things like go to only theta waves at will (mental equivalent of stopping the heart) and then come back out, or show the full spectrum of brain waves at once. Or stopping the heart or slowing it down to almost stopping it.

What has that done? It has given medical researchers new tools, and added a ton of funding to the research of long term effects of specific meditations. It has opened holistic medical schools where traditional and non traditional treatments are taught and researched ultimately providing better care.

You are talking about various interpretations of quantum mechanics. The flaw with it is division of the microscopic world and the macroscopic world. When does one system cross over into another and how big is the observer affect. That is the only paradox. Considering things, it the most accurate model ,yet,. People just disagree in certain little things and various interpretations. If it just applies to the microscopic systems, then the affect itself may be negligible. I bolded an above statement of your's, which only applies to the microscopic or sub atomic world. They have to do with sub atomic interactions have to weak of a nuclear force violate conservation of parity and charge conjunction and other things around that area. The reason why quantum physics is stressed in the "magickal" community comes from the theme of magick is the art of changing reality with will. I am not going to go into those depths, but most magickal systems take the approach to reality being subjective. Quantum Mechanics has the same view, but is iffy on the depth of the affect. To be totally honest, I believe magick to be simply a different paradigm to psychokinesis playing with probability. By the way, the instant affect thing plays into locality and non locality, meaning that something can be transported instantly to its location without a medium or such things as time and other varibales playing into it. Also, that pretty much states that such information can be exchanged between to exact particles at the same time, meaning if one changed, the other did to. That, however, has not been tested.

It is interesting to note that light and other electromagnetic effects were also once thought to be transmitted instantaneously, until observational evidence proved otherwise. The hypothesis that nonlocal connections are absolutely instantaneous is impossible to verify, as it would require two perfectly simultaneous measurements, which would demand an infinite degree of accuracy. However, as David Bohm and Basil Hiley (1993, pp. 293-4, 347) have pointed out, it could be experimentally falsified. For if nonlocal connections are propagated not at infinite speeds but at speeds greater than that of light through a "quantum ether" -- a subquantum domain where current quantum theory and relativity theory break down -- then the correlations predicted by quantum theory would vanish if measurements were made in periods shorter than those required for the transmission of quantum connections between particles. Such experiments are beyond the capabilities of present technology but might be possible in the future. If superluminal interactions exist, they would be "nonlocal" only in the sense of nonphysical.

If you study magick and psychology, you will know that the belief, or whatever you want to call it, allows for the mind to accept the possibility for such things happening. You can argue that this paradigm allows one to tap into whatever facilities are necessary for a controlled affect on reality on whatever scale. So the belief is what does it, not the understanding of said mechanics. I used to study magick very in depth, but then I realized I did not need it. I can accomplish the same thing someone else can just by using my mind.

Honestly, I have stopped studying physics after a friend moved…no longer a subject that mattered too much to me as I could not geek out over coffee. As for the incorrect statements made, I think I agree with you with all of them, perhaps not.

In saying it applies to the microscopic or subatomic world…that is where it is studied, and readily observable as observable as it is.

It does have an affect on every system it is part of. Just as every part of a system has an affect on the greater system.

Particals affect Atoms affect Molecules and so on until all the multiverse or “god”. There is no question there, however the study of the greater astral bodies does not include large asteroids unless they collide with a large astral body and provides a unique study point.
As such, physicists who deal exclusively in the macro world do not use Quantum physics, at least in my experience with explosive physicists or those dealing with fragrance materials, or detergents. It is not a tool they require, there is interest and passing study, but not use in their fields. All of those do deal with microscopic issues, just not sub atomic. The only one I know personally who did any post graduate study on it is currently working on highly focused energy, even there I don’t think that there is any professional use of Quantum mechanics for him at this moment, but I never really asked.

As for magick taking the stance that reality is subjective? That would imply that it only affects the internal perceived reality. Now saying that it is somewhat subjective allows a bit more freedom there. A bent spoon is a bent spoon…there is no subjectivity. How it got bent could be subjective.

As for the differences between magick and PSI, magick is the ritualized version…depending on the system. That one can take things away till he can manifest the result over and over at will, makes it have little difference. Then again that is my take, at least with meditation, I can enter various trance states at will, I still meditate and do the ritual to get there from time to time to observe it from a different perspective or reanalyze it.

As for the belief portion of the statement. I agree, however this has not been adequately experimented on with humans.