The focus of woo

[Dixie Chick]

The particles in the experiment acted differently when they were being observed. And by "observed", I assume they were observed by a camera or cameras of some kind, which would have ultimately been looked at/interpreted by humans. The simple act of observation changed the way the particles behaved.

[Dixie Chick]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree with WLB on that one - how else did we determine the temparature of the sun (which I do not remember) - it sure as hell wasn't through human observation!

Also Dixie Chick - the social security = greater survival rate probably has more to do with being able to afford treatment, as opposed to just the peace of mind that you're getting social security benefits.

Social support (a/k/a love and attention) - not social security benefits (a/k/a financial assistance)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Perhaps the people who are providing the "love and attention" are also paying for the treatment and/or providing it in an act of "love"?

[Dixie Chick]

Don't know, the study did not address finances, that is something extra you are choosing to add in, Croc.

And I do want to say, yes I did confuse the monkey study with babies, but its been 30 years since I thought about it - and really, monkeys - babies - no difference as far as this thread - both need love and attention.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

But, if one is to examine psychological state of mind in relation to survivability, there is no evidence that the two are related. This is what stewiegriffin81 was trying to say.

[Dixie Chick]

I was equating social support with love & attention - I may have read the thing wrong.

[Dixie Chick]

At any rate, I could google more studies showing yes - mindset matters and she could google more studies saying no it doesn't.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chick

The particles in the experiment acted differently when they were being observed. And by "observed", I assume they were observed by a camera or cameras of some kind, which would have ultimately been looked at/interpreted by humans. The simple act of observation changed the way the particles behaved.

OK, so you are talking a quantum experiment. You are also talking crap. Here is the explanation, in three parts.

• Quantum events happen at quantum scales, less than a nanometre, not macroscopic or tangible scales. Further, the will of a conscious observer (should there happen to be one) makes no difference to the observed collapsed state. Any attempt to translate quantum uncertainty into events at a human scale is totally unsupported by physics.
• An "observer" can be anything and requires no consciousness whatsoever. It can be a chair or some passing hydrogen molecule. Putting together these first two points, were you seriously imagining massive stars did not exist until we looked at them?
• There are more than three possible Interpretations of quantum physics. I can name three, the Bohm, the Copenhagen and the Multiverse interpretations. Currently, there is no experimental evidence which enables us to distinguish which of these interpretations might be right or wrong. However, only the Copenhagen Interpretation requires an observer (such as a chair). Therefore, if you are claiming an observer is necessary then you are asserting you know the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct while Bohm, Multiverse and any others are wrong. Your experimental evidence for this Nobel-winning resolution would be...?

If you want to talk woo without evidence, go ahead and please yourself, but please do not talk quantum crap.

[Dixie Chick]

I actually watched a cartoon by "Dr. Quantum" - that was my background in quantum physics - and in that cartoon, the particles changed when observed - that's how I came to that...I can't compete in Quantum physics discussions - I thought however that it was interesting and relevant that particles changed when observed - but - if they don't in other experiments or if I don't understand the experiment - then - it is what it is....I was just going by that cartoon to be honest.

[Dixie Chick]

I believe in the power of positive thinking, the power of love, and everything that I said - but - I can't argue it well and in order to even give it a good try - I'd have to 1) further my education to even be able to keep up and 2) devote much more time that what I have - and still maybe not be able to argue it effectively. So, forgive me for wasting everyone's time...with this and you know, with playing around and trying to be funny.