I have been banging on to my 'peeps' about the two programmes by Jim Al-Khalili on the basics of quantum mechanics. Not one of them watched it, and although I am a bit frustrated, I am not entirely shocked and horrified. Personally I think that the nice Dr Al-Khalili made a grand job of explaining the concepts in understandable terms....although I am not sure he would necessarily approve of my applying his good work to the existence of witchcraft.....which, indeed, is the problem.
One of the weirdnesses of quantum mechanics is that positivistic research can be used to show that quanta are affected by being observed. That is, the observer has an impact on the form and existence of a given quantum. More than that, this impact can be communicated to another quantum, regardless of how far away from the original quantum it is in three dimensions.
Therefore, I would argue that the attitude of the observer of the first quantum can have an impact on the second quantum somewhere else. This is basically a spell for all intents and purposes: witches concentrate their thoughts on gathered items, and try to exert their will on an object somewhere else. The difference between witchcraft and quantum mechanics is basically a question of linguistics and semantics. What remains is the capacity to influence stuff at a distance simply by observation.
I am a witch and I like scientific stuff....up to the point where scientists call me a flake, in some way or another. I see acquaintances into hard sciences sneer when I mention the word witchcraft, and dismiss me out of hand. Indeed, the vehemence with which the scientific community disses everything that isnt 'real science' seems rather projective identificationary: scientists may be afraid that positivism really isnt enough to explain the world, but are unable to process that as a community. So they dont like it when they are presented with it by others. It is rejected out of hand, and made to appear irrational. Not so that nice Dr Al-Khalili, as far as I can make out. Is he representative of his section of the scientific community? Wouldnt that be fabulous? A scientific community looking at the efficacy of spells and their impact on non-local quanta. Probably as likely as my flying to Mars, but I can dream!
One of the weirdnesses of quantum mechanics is that positivistic research can be used to show that quanta are affected by being observed. That is, the observer has an impact on the form and existence of a given quantum. More than that, this impact can be communicated to another quantum, regardless of how far away from the original quantum it is in three dimensions.
Therefore, I would argue that the attitude of the observer of the first quantum can have an impact on the second quantum somewhere else. This is basically a spell for all intents and purposes: witches concentrate their thoughts on gathered items, and try to exert their will on an object somewhere else. The difference between witchcraft and quantum mechanics is basically a question of linguistics and semantics. What remains is the capacity to influence stuff at a distance simply by observation.
I am a witch and I like scientific stuff....up to the point where scientists call me a flake, in some way or another. I see acquaintances into hard sciences sneer when I mention the word witchcraft, and dismiss me out of hand. Indeed, the vehemence with which the scientific community disses everything that isnt 'real science' seems rather projective identificationary: scientists may be afraid that positivism really isnt enough to explain the world, but are unable to process that as a community. So they dont like it when they are presented with it by others. It is rejected out of hand, and made to appear irrational. Not so that nice Dr Al-Khalili, as far as I can make out. Is he representative of his section of the scientific community? Wouldnt that be fabulous? A scientific community looking at the efficacy of spells and their impact on non-local quanta. Probably as likely as my flying to Mars, but I can dream!
RSS Feed