The Mystery of Jennifer Scharf's Quantum Mind

2 thoughts on “The Mystery of Jennifer Scharf's Quantum Mind”

1. Dear Claire, 

   Your dulcet reading from the opening of John's gospel was fascinating, inasmuch as you seemed to endorse that the Word is, indeed, of prime importance, and you seemed fine with the concept that 'the Word was God'.  

   One assumes that God's word has always existed, and that God has never lacked his Word, or that He has lacked the ability to express himself. His Logos / Reason / Rationale is inseparable from Himself, and has no beginning or end.

   The Koran states that Isa / Jesus is God's 'Spirit' and 'the Word'.(4:171). In various Koranic passages Jesus is given the title Christ, or Messiah, indicating that the New Testament testimony that he is God's Anointed One (Christ) is true. If the Koran is, as you propose, God's divine word (and not just Muhammad's slap-dash pastiche of the OT and NT), then the Jews are wrong to reject Jesus' messiahship, right? We needn't consider them to be God's 'chosen', right? Meanwhile, the Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament prophesies that God's Anointed One will be an atonement for man's sin, and that he would be rejected by his own people, and that the nations (gentiles) would be drawn to this Anointed One, and that he would be raised from the dead!

   The Koran also confirms that Jesus came with miracles, signs and wonders (2:87, 5:110, 43:63, etc), which indicates that the NT accounts aren't merely silly stories, as you have opined. Furthermore, the Koran calls out the Jews, who rejected Jesus, as 'unbelievers' (5:110). Again, not very becoming of Muhammad to call God's chosen 'unbelievers'!

   Ergo, it seems there is inconsistencies with your dismissal of Jesus merely being a dead idol. Either he is God's Word (i.e co-eternal), or the Koran is mistaken. Either Jesus is the Messiah, or the Jews are right, and he isn't the Messiah — in which case the Koran is in error. Either the Word 'is God', as you read yourself from John's gospel, or it isn't. If the Word is God, and the Word 'became flesh' as John's gospel proclaims, then you are left with Jesus as eternal with the Father.

   One troubling side-note: the Koran elevates Mary, the mother of Jesus, in an idolatrous way, second only to the Mariolatry perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church. The Koran reserves an entire chapter to her! Not even Moses or Elijah or the Hebrew prophets received such adulation. Very dubious indeed.

   I am not suggesting that the above is prima facie 'proof', but such inconsistencies in your reasoning does open yourself up to accusations of irrationality.You're in a bit of a pickle, Most Excellent Prophetess of the Airwaves. If you are to claim your rightful place as Cosmic Queen of the coming Caliphate, these contradictions need to be ironed out, m'lady.

2. 2:00 The ethical problems of the Quantum Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Ethical_problems
   
   3:00 The idea of changing the world by thinking about it
   
   8:00 Deepak Chopra
   
   10:00 Are Jen and I in a state of quantum entanglement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
   
   16:00 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness
   
   19:00 Four laws of physics
   
   21:00 The Mystery of Jennifer Scharf

   22:00 Why Quantum Physics must be a function of consciousness
   
   34:00 The nature of faith and posterity
   
   38:00 Jen's Quantum Mind Hypothesis is superfluous.

   39:00 Mitchell Porter on 13 May 2019:
   
   Hello Jennifer Scharf and Claire Khaw. I ran across your online dialogues a week ago, and despite having studied many extremes of human thought over the years, I found the two of you, both individually and together, to be a unique and arresting phenomenon: two women, alt-right-adjacent but with imperious and idiosyncratic intellectual agendas, fighting it out in an almost unnoticed corner of philosophy Youtube.

   I've tuned into two or three streams by now, I made a few comments in the chat, but I wanted to get in touch in a more formal way. As well as hello, this email is a step towards goodbye, because I do need to return to my own intellectual universe. But I felt that it is more civilized to send a personal communication, rather than just slip away as an anon.

   I feel that my most substantial remarks are for Jennifer. I hesitate to make them, since they are a criticism of her physics, which to a great extent seems to be the jewel in the crown of her intellectual pride, and it might be a net loss if she were to suspend her philosophical barnstorming, because of doubts about her personal theory of everything. Nonetheless…

   I read "Quantum Chemistry Teaser" in an attempt to see what your point is, regarding the periodic table. What I see is that you have a kind of combinatorial scheme, which serves to generate a number of types of "atom", matching the the number of elements in the periodic table.

   However, the variety of atoms in the world already has an explanation, in terms of possible electron wavefunctions, indexed by four quantum numbers; and there are specific reasons why those numbers can take the values that they do. I simply don't believe that your explanation is remotely compatible with that other explanation; and that other explanation is part of a larger framework which can, for example, explain the emission spectra of atoms, in terms of energy differences between orbitals.

   What I believe you have done, is attempt to prematurely forge a connection between physics and metaphysics. Such a connection provides a qualitative and intuitive interpretation of physics that is missing from any purely calculational framework. But you're doing this in a way which negates large and verified parts of the calculational framework. Never mind skepticism about the standard model; despite your use of quantum notation, what you're doing appears to be something already inconsistent with the kind of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics that describes orbitals.

   I never yet heard of someone who made a seriously deviant personal theory of physics, and then abandoned it for orthodoxy. At least, I can't think of any such person. I suppose one reason for it is the mathematical difficulty of advanced physics. If you really want to know the truth, but for whatever reason aren't willing to spend however long it takes to learn gauge field theory and similar formalisms, it must be tempting to just keep finetuning your own creation.

   So, as a bridge between your efforts and the kind of physics that any actual university lab utilizes in order to understand Bose condensation and a hundred other phenomena, I would like to point out the work of Michael Atiyah on "complex geometry of nuclei and atoms" and "geometric models of helium". Atiyah was a very eminent mathematician who died earlier this year, and who in his final years, very sensibly decided to go for it, and began to speculate much more than in his previous works. Although physics contains a number of examples of surprising alternative descriptions of the same thing, I think it is very unlikely that this work of his actually connects to reality; but perhaps it will be stimulating for you to investigate.

   And as for Claire… I regret that I have much less to say to you. As your interests are political and practical, they don't face the same kind of critique as a new theory of nature, and frankly my political thinking is not as evolved as my scientific thinking. I guess all I will say is that I think I understand your motives, and that secular Quranism is an ingenious attempt to use the material provided by humanity's historic civilizations and the current western situation, to restore patriarchy; but it probably has the most chance of being successful, in the places that need it the least.

   One more thing, for you both. Are you aware of vixra.org? This is the free-for-all twin of arxiv.org, a site where academic physicists, computer scientists, and biologists post preprints of their papers. vixra was started by physicists who were being excluded from arxiv, but has since expanded to accommodate papers on all kinds of subject matter. Essentially anything can be posted, so long as it is not a work of libel or plagiarism. If either of you wishes to codify part of your thought in the form of a PDF, it could be another medium to use.

   Best wishes to you both,

   Mitchell Porter

Comments are closed.