Does Quantum Physics have anything to do with brain as this paper states?

[Abhirao456]

THIS PAPER  has certain equations in its final section, the author has no degree in physics......

However the author linked me to THIS PAPER saying he had his equations taken from that. Are the two related ? I couldn't make out anything from the first?

[exchemist]

52 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

THIS PAPER  has certain equations in its final section, the author has no degree in physics......

However the author linked me to THIS PAPER saying he had his equations taken from that. Are the two related ? I couldn't make out anything from the first?

No one is going to click on an unknown link with potential malware. If you want a response, I suggest you copy and paste the relevant sections into a post on this forum. 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I concur with exchemist; give a proper citation of the paper and post at least the abstract. This is required by rule 2.7

excerpt:

Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. 

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

THIS PAPER  has certain equations in its final section, the author has no degree in physics......

However the author linked me to THIS PAPER saying he had his equations taken from that. Are the two related ? I couldn't make out anything from the first?

 

This seems to be a sequel to the researchgate article you posted a link to earlier in the year, from the same author.

The general concensus of the first article was that it was fanciful nonsense.

Why would we expect anything different from the second ?

You should also realise by now that we need sufficient summaries of the points to comment.

I will tell you that Penrose offerered a very much non mainstream interpretation of some of the difficulties inherent in Quantum Mechanics suggesting interaction via the observer's brain.

But I stress this is non mainstream and raises more questions than it answers so I cannot advise pursuing it.

[Abhirao456]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

No one is going to click on an unknown link with potential malware. If you want a response, I suggest you copy and paste the relevant sections into a post on this forum. 

One link is researchgate while the other is springer, I'm not trying to install malware in you lmao

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

This seems to be a sequel to the researchgate article you posted a link to earlier in the year, from the same author.

The general concensus of the first article was that it was fanciful nonsense.

Why would we expect anything different from the second ?

You should also realise by now that we need sufficient summaries of the points to comment.

I will tell you that Penrose offerered a very much non mainstream interpretation of some of the difficulties inherent in Quantum Mechanics suggesting interaction via the observer's brain.

But I stress this is non mainstream and raises more questions than it answers so I cannot advise pursuing it.

Thanks

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

I concur with exchemist; give a proper citation of the paper and post at least the abstract. This is required by rule 2.7

excerpt:

Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. 

 

I haven't posted any malware

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I haven't posted any malware

!

Moderator Note

The rules are there for more than protection against malware

 

[studiot]

48 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I haven't posted any malware

Nor have you posted any helpful summaries as requested so I doubt you will get many responses.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

One link is researchgate while the other is springer, I'm not trying to install malware in you lmao

Thanks

I haven't posted any malware

So you say. But that is exactly what a malware spammer would say too, isn't it? Why would I believe you, when I have no idea who you are? 

As several others have now also said, post relevant text directly here if you want to discuss something. Apart form the malware question It is bad form, and a bit lazy, to send readers off-site, without providing at least the gist of the issue in your own words here, first.