Really ? On what basis ?
"On what basis"???? When you make a ludicrous and insane claim that Buddhists had any clue whatsoever as to quantum theory before physicists, it is strangely enough down to you to provide evidence for this claim.
What is pop science?
Just about all the science presented outside academia; watered down, and often distorted to the point of meaninglessness depending on the presenter; then swallowed by laymen who walk away thinking that they now understand the subject.
Obviously you know the real scientific view of Quantum Physics.
Of course. I studied it for long enough, and then taught it for a good while longer. That said, I'm hardly an expert, as it isn't my core discipline.
So please enlighten me.
Go take a physics degree. Then take some postgrad courses. Then preferably take a PhD in an area related to quantum physics. By then you may have started to get a clue.
Also I would love to know how you think real science contradicts any Metaphysical implications of QM that may be interpreted to have spiritual implications...
Very simply... metaphysical implications of QM are typically based on bullshit, and the spiritual implications are all bullshit.
It is funny how when I use words with more than one syllable you call it "jargon"
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
While you are at please tell me your solution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness.
I don't share my solution with just anyone. I'm rather proud of it, and have an inkling that it may even be partly correct.
Instead of debating me maybe you should be applying for the Noble Prize.
I'm not debating you. I'm instructing you.
No, I can assure you that they have not.
™ Version 4.2
