User talk:Dr. Morbius

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:
 * visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
 * type   on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly
 * visit the directory of help pages

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome! – Outʀiggʀ 08:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

FRANK ARMY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.109.188 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Noise colors reply
See Talk:Pink_noise — Omegatron 16:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order of Forward the Foundation relative to Foundation's Triumph
I really believe that the events of Foundation's Triumph occur after Forward the Foundation (except for the last epilogue of Seldon slummed dead at the table). If you recall Foundation's triumph tells the story of Seldon's last adventure *after* making the recording for the time vault. By that point Dor is of course dead, so the fact that Dor died in Forward the foundation means nothing. Aarontay 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. You're absolutely right. In fact I just checked and Dors is dead at the start of Foundation and Chaos. It has been a while since I read the books and I was going by memory and that was one of the things I had forgotten. Of course, there's only a few things I remember about the Second Foundation Trilogy since I wasn't very happy with it in the first place. I thought that the second trilogy should have taken place after Foundation and Earth. They could have used the same story lines just set the events after the discovery of Earth. They didn't need Hari Seldon. The problem with the second trilogy was that they couldn't do anything to change the history of the Foundation since all of that was set in stone with the first trilogy, Foundation's Edge, and Foundation and Earth. I just wasn't very happy with the second trilogy. Dr. Morbius 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrefutable evidence that you are wrong
There are a an inifinte number of ways that reality could be interpreted, as everything we believe depends upon some basic assumptions at the lowest level. As a result any particular view of reality is likely to be wrong (inconsistent or incomplete) in some way. Refer to "Goedel's Theorem" for more information. However this in itself is not necessarily "Irrefutable evidence that you are wrong", as there remains a (possibly infinitely small) chance that you are correct as I have made an assumption in my first statement, and Goedel does allow your position to be consistent but incomplete. What is irrefutable evidence that you are wrong, however, is that you do not entertain the possibility of you being in error. Clearly this is illogical given the facts. Thus, sir, you are wrong. P.S. This is tongue-in-cheek.... Dndn1011 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Doctor: I'm enjoying the discussion at "Consciousness causes Collapse".  I almost totally agree with you that the subject is nonsense.  I just have this slight niggling uncertainty which leads me to not label something as nonsense just because I do not comprehend it.


 * "I do not give up easily. The only way you'll win an argument with me is to provide irrefutable evidence that I am wrong." - That is a challenge.


 * Back in September, you wrote "That's why this article is full of references to people and institutions that lack credibility and to pseudoscience like What the bleep do we know and The Secret." Speaking of "The Secret", have you read the article "Law of Attraction"?  I think it has a lot in common with "consciousness causes collapse".  The veneer of science is thinner on "law of attraction".
 * Cheers, Wanderer57 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I hadn't seen that article. Wow, that's scary stuff. I know someone who has read The Secret and is constantly mentioning stuff like "we are all made of energy". I can't help but roll my eyes at them. I'm trying my hardest to explain to them what QM is really all about. I'm making some progress. The funny thing is I don't even remember how I discovered the article on CCC. I think I was reading the article on QM then I saw the reference to Quantum Mind and then saw the CCC reference. The only reason I pick on CCC is that I see it as the epitome of the types of pseudoscience that exist within WP. Besides the fact that there aren't enough hours in a day to deal with all the nonsense in WP. My main goal is to make sure that wherever pseudoscience exists in WP that it be labeled as such and that there be no doubt as to it's lack of credibility. Dr. Morbius 07:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there appears to be an experiment which supports CCC. I'm seeking some intelligent input and debate on the subject on its talk page. It's entirely possible that the details of the experiment were presented wrong (I'm still hunting for a quality source) but as presented, I believe it offers very compelling evidence of CCC--and I say am saying this as a secular atheist whom regularly rolls his eyes when he hears most people talking about new age ideas. --Lode Runner 03:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * The problem is that nobody has bothered to merge the CCC article with Quantum mysticism. I guess everybody is waiting for someone else to do it and no one has stepped up. What happened to all those people that were defending CCC? This is my first experience with article mergers but I'm guessing that the people who were defenders of the original article should be the ones to merge the content. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have the an article from a few hundred edits back restored, it was really good before the edit wars started.

Oh and for the record, an interpretation is not a theory. What makes QM such a puzzle is that the theory and the experimental results are so unintuitive that crazy ideas like Consciousness Causing Collapse and the Many Worlds Theory are actually quite plausible.65.87.236.95 (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Wulf
 * Are you talking about the original CCC article? If you are it's still there in the history. You can dig it up and remove all the crap and try to have the article reinstated. There are a lot of things about quantum mechanics that I find to be very bizarre and somewhat disturbing and I'm hoping that if String Theory turns out to be correct it will explain why QM is that way. I don't have a problem with scientific explanations of CCC it's when they strayed into mystical interpretations that I put my foot down. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Morbius - I wrote one of the long posts defending CCC, but just wanted to write a quick note to say that, after having watched this debate for a while, I understand your antagonism toward many of the defenders at this point. Lots and lots of nonsensical things keep cropping up (thus your earlier whack-a-mole analogy -- I suppose I was one of the previous moles), and it's somewhat disheartening to see. So, while I do think that CCC is enough of a theory to merit separate discussion (if only barely), I guess I just wanted to say that I have a deeper sympathy for your own position at this point.

Not that that's worth a great deal, but it seemed worth saying. Best wishes for the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.124.186 (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When I first encountered the CCC article I considered editing it to remove all the pseudoscience and make the article more scientific. But after posting some comments about the article in the talk page and seeing the response I got from the pseudoscience defenders I realized that if I attempted any editing it would probably wind up starting an edit war. So, I quickly gave up on that idea. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Crime in Oman
Hi Dr. Morbius. Don't you think that your comment there was unnecessarily abrasive? If you think an article is inappropriate, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion, but making aggressive comments like you did is hurtful to the people who write articles -- this is exactly why we have a civility policy. It makes it possible for people with very different backgrounds and personality styles to work together. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CCC and Quantum Mysticism
Unfortunately, the mystics want their article back! They are deleting all the science from quantum mysticism, and all the mind/body philosophy as well. This means that this material has lost its home, and Wigner's interpretation is very very notable.Likebox (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can rename it to CCC, that would be great.Likebox (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Wigner's interpretation is so notable why can't I find any reference to it when I Google it. It was decided a while ago that the CCC article be merged with Quantum Mysticism and it should remain that way. I'm going to try to get the Wigner's Interpretation article deleted and the content put back in to the Quantum Mysticism article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The decision to merge CCC with Quantum Mysticism was in fact opposed by a number of editors.1Z (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who opposed it a vote was taken and the supporters of the CCC article lost. I opposed the election of George Bush in 2000 but that didn't stop it from happening. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recollect a clear majority. 1Z (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the main point: the point is that the decision was to merge with quantum mysticism. Now quantum mysticism want the science out. So where do you put the science? I tried to move it to "quantum mind/body problem".Likebox (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's your proof. There are far more merge/delete than keep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Consciousness_causes_collapse Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of the voting paradox here: when most people vote "merge", that is not the same as voting delete. The merge was attempted, it failed when lightbound deleted all CCC and science from the article. This material is obviously notable, and is not pseudoscience in any way.Likebox (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about science in the mysticism article when there isn't supposed to be any. The Quantum Mysticism article was supposed to be about non-scientists trying to use quantum mechanics to explain non-scientific topics like spirituality, metaphysics, parapsychology. And now Lightbound has shown up and decided to turn it into whatever definition of mysticism he agrees with. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Do you really think it is good editing practice to start a deletion controversy when there is already a controversy waging on a clolsely related page? Do you really think that is good editing practice? 1Z (talk)

PS "consciousness causes collapse" gets 121,000 goolge hits. Since that was the original name of the article there is presumably not much problem with the notability of the content. Indeed, since CCC is about the ony interpretation of QM the layperson has heard about, it would be ridiculous not to cover it. 1Z (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think it was good editing practice to arbitrarily recreate an article that had been merged with QM without discussing it first on the QM forum? CCC should be covered but it should be covered under the Quantum Mysticism article. That was the decision that was made in the past. Just because Lightbound and Likebox end up getting into a disagreement over what the QM article should be doesn't mean that what occurred in the past is no longer relevant. If you want I'll be happy to edit the CCC article so that there are no mentions or links to pseudoscience or crackpot theories but then the article would be very small and would essentially consist of the paragraph that is currently on the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics article. As long as the references to pseudoscience remain in the CCC article then that article is no different than the one that existed before the merger. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Quantum mysticism is no longer friendly to science topics, and focuses exclusively on pseudoscience practice. The CCC page is a mainstream interrpretation, proposed by Wigner. How can you call it pseudoscience? It's just an exercise in philosophy by a respected physicist. It makes no pseudoscience claims, and it is equivalent to the Copenhagen or many-worlds interpretation in terms of predictions and structure.Likebox (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CCC was pseudoscience. The original article had references to all kinds of mystical nonsense like "What the Bleep do we Know" and links to pseudoscience websites. Not only that but the article really wasn't about consciousness collapsing wave functions. It was a mishmash of several topics. All of which were pseudoscience or borderline pseudoscience. There was very little real science in the article. Here's the article when I first encountered it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consciousness_causes_collapse&oldid=97213153. You say that Quantum Mysticism is no longer friendly to science topics and that's the way it should be. The QM article was never meant to be scientific. It's supposed to be about claims that Quantum Mechanics is involved in mysticism, parapsychology and spirituality. None of those topics are scientific because they are either unprovable or unfalsifiable. Attempting to inject science into the article would have been fruitless and possibly have misled some into believing that the topics discussed in the article were scientifically valid. If you want to create a CCC article that is purely scientific then go ahead but you'll have to remove all the references to books about 70's new age nonsense and other pseudoscience. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that the old Wikipedia article on CCC was full of pseudoscience does not mean that CCC itself is pseudoscience. The problem is that CCC has been linked to many pseudoscience topics by unfortunate history, and the old article was written by people who conflated quantum mysticism practice, consciousness as a collapse ingredient, and quantum consciousness, which are three completely different ideas.


 * CCC itself is a mainstream hypothesis, equivalent to many-worlds and Copenhagen in terms of content, but different in philosophy. Quantum consciousness is speculative science, while the quantum mysticism practices like quantum healing are pseudoscience ("quantum mysticism" as a term by itself sometimes just be referring to CCC or Copenhagen or Pauli's Lucid Mysticism or many-worlds).


 * I put all the relevant mainstream science/philosophy discussions on quantum mind/body problem. I moved all the pseudoscience to quantum mysticism, and all the "quantum consciousness" speculative stuff to the quantum mind article. Please keep in mind that these are three separate topics. The quantum mind/body problem discussion is closely parallel to Wigner's paper, and I hope you are satisfied that the pseudoscience problem is solved.Likebox (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the CCC article is free of pseudoscience I'll be happy. That's been my intent since the beginning but I was constantly being opposed by editors who wanted to keep injecting pseudoscience into it. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism page
You are addressing me as the author of the quantum/mindbody page. You are mistaken. That was User:Likebox and his followers, who I am opposing, not supporting. I realize the talk page for QMyst is very filled and it is easy to misunderstand what is going on there. -- ☯ Lightbound ☯   talk   20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected the indent. I explain why on the QM talk page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Frosty, Heidi & Frank
Honestly, please read wp:Biographies of living persons. VKIL (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Of course there is. :) According to Wikipedia policies, when a vandal has been given four warnings in short time, he may be reported at WP:AIAV, and an administrator will block him temporaily. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Silene stenophylla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lotus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. When you recently edited Douglas Coe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Fellowship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Dr. Morbius,

I've uploaded a copy of the article you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Dr. Morbius, thanks for reverting the vandalism at Nernst equation and making a note about it on the IP's talk page. If you would like a convenient way to add the appropriate level of warning, Twinkle is a great resource. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism Tag
Storing this here for when I need to warn a vandal about vandalism that someone else has reverted. Dr. Morbius (talk)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vandalized Article. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Dr. Morbius (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)