RH what do you think:
http://hashem.com/can-quantum-physics-proves-hashem/
I think that the grounding of a faith in any kind of scientific explanation that doesn't include any integrals (i.e. the careful math steps used to reach the conclusions) is very dangerous. From what I've read, there are a number of different ideas about how to best interpret the equations that QM uses. What we know for sure is that the QM model can make very accurate predictions about specific physical events. The idea that "intelligence" is needed to solidify those events is certainly not uncontroversial.
So I think I'm skeptical.
Edit: The most famous objection to the Copenhagen is actually the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment. He considered the idea that the cat is both alive and dead to be so ludicrous that the idea of a collapse of wave function couldn't possibly be the correct idea. The cat is not meant to be a feature of reality but rather a flaw in the theory.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Very interesting response.
Well, I'm not a physicist and so any proclamation I make is going to be suspect. But I am a graduate of a math program and so I know exactly how skewed the lay explanation of something like QM is going to be if it doesn't include any integrals. For example, consider the commonly repeated explanation that "space is curved." What does it mean for space in three dimensions to be curved? As it turns out, this requires a semester of upper level math to even understand the question (which in simplest terms has to do with how to calculate distance between two points). But the proper answer would have taken an additional year of topology the graduate level.
A similar problem emerges in pop-sci explanations of QM. Giving the flavor of scientific progress without the crunch of the math backing it up leads to quantum mysticism like that train wreck of a movie What the Bleep Do We Know!?. I found the article that you linked to be interesting, especially as a component in your broader point about ancient Jewish writings being (loosely) compatible with scientific progress. It'll be interesting to see how advances in theoretical physics line up (or don't) with older traditions.
For what it's worth, I think that I have metaphysical objections to the dualism your article advocates. But metaphysics has always been like chewing tin-foil for me and so I'm going to wait until a sunnier and more awake version of myself has an insight to share concisely. Does the above give you any extra context about why the science aspect of the article is concerning to me?