User talk:Nhall0608

Hi. I just wanted to bring your attention to a comment I wrote in Talk:Hard_problem_of_consciousness#Need_an_explanation_of_the_Opposing_view, which you previously contributed to. I hope you find it useful and would give your opinions on it, if you have any. Remy B (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement Causes Collapse

You might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_causes_collapse

And their unfortunate attempt to delete it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness causes collapse merger

I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of consciousness causes collapse on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree Peter Jones. I'm not exactly sure what we do about that though? Nhall0608 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. It looks like the Measurement Causes Collapse article will very likely suffer the same fate as CCC. I cut and pasted you and Peter's comments into the discussion section since another user voiced similar issues with regard to the CCC article being deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked whether I have anything to say about consciousness causes collapse. You will find out what I have to say whenever the pseudoscientists infesting Wikipedia decide to let me edit pages about which I have expert knowledge. However, educating you one-on-one is not a good use of my time. Dave Kielpinski (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words you can't reply to the above questions off the top of your head. If that is the case then is your expertise really conclusive on the issue of CCC? Nhall0608 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, guy. I have spent fifteen years studying quantum theory, and not the kind you get from popular science books. It is not my job to bring you, personally, up to speed. Dave Kielpinski (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of arguing the science, you argue I'm not worth your time? Doesn’t sound like you have any expertise on this specific topic at all. First of all I did not get any of the ideas from what you would call popular science books but from scientific literature and good sound reasoning. Second, by all means, don't waist your time giving me the nitty gritty, I'm not a layman, I'm a mathematician and engineer, just point me to any scientific article, experiment, or any type of lead at all that would give just the remotest evidence either against CCC being possible, or any hint of being able to explain the hard problem of consciousness elsewhere. That's all I'm asking. Considering that you consider your expertise specific enough to conclude CCC false, one would think you'd be able to do at least that for less energy than it takes to argue that I'm not worth your time.Nhall0608 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]