The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Spirit Science is quantum quackery.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 64171
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Three round debate, 1st round: acceptance/ opening argument. 2nd round: Rebuttal/ arguments. 3rd round: Rebuttal/ closing statement; no new arguments. Please cite sources, no abusive content will be tolerated.

For those who subscribe to the site known as Spirit Science they may find Jordan's rhetoric impressive, as he borrows many terms from quantum mechanics to explain the ideas in his New Age philosophy. This impression quickly wears off when you find that every term is being badly misused and misunderstood. I will be arguing that the Spirit Science ideology has no place in actual science and undermines the practice of real scientists. Con will argue that Jordan's take on quantum mechanics is not flawed and that his application of the quanta is justified.


OK Thanks this sounds like my sort of argument.

Your thinking, I suspect, is mired in ontological dualism) Mind and matter are
distinct ,along the lines of Cartesian (Descartes) materialism or absolute materialism?
Do you not think the effects of the process of the universes' quantising is limited
to matter only and non effective in mind/ thoughts?

While I hold that mind and matter are in communication,
How they interact as in quantum observation effects?
How does dead matter give rise to sentient matter?

In a Newtonian Mechanistic universe, then Maxwells laws of electricity and magnetism,
and even Einsteins view of the universe, of special relativity has no need for anything other than a mechanistic
environment. Action being limited to local events within the speed of light. Where things can only have an effect on something else according to it bumping into each other or proximity effect like gravity.

There was no need for matter to be anything more than dead insentient matter.
The new sciences - Quantum Mechanics and Uncertainty / Chaos theory have
come along and rather upset the apple cart. What was/is previously attributed to God
by the current worldview can now be shown to be inherent sentience in the very building blocks
of reality. Now that Religion has a stranglehold on worldview science has limited will or ability to
overturn everything, re ontological dualism.

Respected Nobel prize winning scientists are using language more usually reserved employed for
modern mystics. But the World view has not flipped with the science rather perpetuating the 'old story'
in a major conspiracy that begins with our first conditionings.

In a quantum universe thinking matter is required and exposed.
Handing over the floor to Pro's arguments which i am looking forward to.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you con for accepting this debate.

Con's first question will be ignored as it does not have relevance to the argument. The second will need clarification as con has used the word as a verb though it is a noun. Quanta refers to the very small, and quantum mechanics studies things such as describing the interaction and motion of subatomic particles, they do so employing several different principles as well as mathematics. While I am made up of atoms, and surely those atoms follow the laws of quantum mechanics myself as a whole does not.

Con will need to provide clarification on communication as he's using it in this instance, as well as the process by which it's directed and possible implications.

I believe the next question posed by con is on the observer effect (correct me if I'm wrong). The observer effect is one of the most frequently misinterpreted, and understandably as it has been stated that when observing you affect the observed reality. This is not to say that the book you read has letters in a jumbled mess or blank pages until it's observed. The observer effect is the phenomenon revealed when studying the particle wave duality. The study published by the Wiezmann Institute of science shows that electrons move in a wave pattern. To demonstrate this they set up what is now known as the double slit experiment, which involved passing electrons through two small slits. To do so they developed a tool they called a quantum observer, which would be able to detect the electrons passing through the slit. What they found was that the electrons behaved as waves when unobserved, when behaving as waves electrons may pass through several openings and then meet again on the other side. Upon introducing the "observer" they found that the electrons passing through were displaying properties of particles, passing through only one slit at a time. While there is not a full explanation of the phenomenon to my knowledge there is no evidence that this happens on the macro scale.

Con next asks how dead matter gives rise to sentient matter, which I admit is an interesting question, however I don't see the relevance to the topic.

I'm not sure how to respond to con's next argument as mechanistic environment, which admittedly I had not heard of. A google search brought me to several business sites, so I am not sure really how to respond to this, nor am I sure I understand the point con is making. Many impressive names and principles, however con does not show how they support his argument.

What is meant by dead insentient matter and inherent sentience in building blocks of reality? While I am a sentient being and I am made of atoms (the building blocks of all matter) it does not follow that the atoms making me up have become or are sentient, since sentience refers to having sensory organs.


kebomystic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


DanK forfeited this round.


kebomystic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Bubbagump282 1 year ago
You... I like you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF