posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:15 PM
I appreciate you reading through my points, thanks for at least paying attention. I'm still not going to argue about entanglement + human thought,
however.
You might be able to wedge the idea that human thought is somehow changing the physical outcome of the experiment in here, because of the ambiguities
of the experiments. But you can't link consciousness to many other field that quantum physics deals with. Your idea does not port well, and it
explains nothing about the world. A theory about spins and charge (not my theory) is portable and applicable to any quantum experiment. But I'm not
trying to sell you those ideas here. I'm just saying that there are rational objections to the models used by quantum mechanics.
And I didn't say you had to be able to explain consciousness before you could talk about, I said you have to study neuroscience in order to know the
basic parameters. It is the sensible way to approach the problem. You have to explain how neurons are able to send quantum communication particles
at the entanglement experiment. How are you going to propose a biological quantum mechanism if you don't understand what is already there? If you
can't do that, then what you are proposing is just hot air?