Consciousness causes collapse was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 February 2008 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Quantum mysticism on 9 July 2008. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Stephen Harrison (20 October 2022). "How Quantum Theories Took Over TikTok". Slate (magazine). Its article on "Quantum mysticism" explains that nonbelievers with expert knowledge consider it a "pseudoscience" and also references some pejorative terms such as "quantum quackery" and "quantum woo." That's because respectable scientific journals—the kind of sources that are required for Wikipedia's science articles—have not embraced these fringe interpretations.
A lot of this page feels like it poorly conforms to Wikipedia's general style and flow: clunky language, quotes strangely embedded in lines (generally a failure to paraphrase sources), etc. I'm thinking I may redo much of this page. Kedra Bhaonne (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, this is a poor article. I'm not a physicist but have an interest in the subject, and agree that while it does tend to attract fringe ideas it is still a legitimate subject area and one with philosophical interest. Jeeprs (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with what the two above me have said, I have seen this article a few times, and each time it seems to have gotten worse. This is a legitimate topic of philosophical debate over what effect quantum mechanics has over the mind. It seems to be too one sided, and does not acknowledge that there are people with legitimate arguments on both sides. There are people like Henry Stapp and Fred Alan Wolf whose opinions on the topic are largely glossed over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.26.22 (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but I also think that it’s better to have an article referring to the actual philosophical and metaphysical questions regarding quantum mechanics article referring to the ways in which the language of quantum mechanics is used in an improper way. Nonetheless this article does need cleaning up; I’ll start with the grammar. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
