Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The Journal of near-death studies

"Reasonable inferences from quantum mechanics: A response to “Quantum misuse in psychic literature”. "

Bernardo Kastrup

Published Jan 1, 2019• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

This invited article is a response to the paper "Quantum Misuse in Psychic Literature," by Jack A. Mroczkowski and Alexis P. Malozemoff, published in this issue of the Journal of Near-Death Studies. Whereas I sympathize with Mroczkowski's and Malozemoff's cause and goals, and I recognize the problem that they attempted to tackle, I argue that their criticisms often overshot the mark and end up adding to the confusion. I address nince specific technical points that Mroczkowski and Malozemoff accused popular writers in the fields of health care and parapsychology of misunderstanding and misrepresenting. I argue that, by and large--and contrary to Mroczkowski's and Malozemoff's claims--the statements made by these writers are often reasonable and generally consistent with the current state of play in foundations of quantum mechanics.

DOI
10.17514/jnds-2019-37-3-p185-200

Related papers

Quantum misuse in psychic literature: A rejoinder.

Malozemoff, Jack A. Mroczkowski

We provide a rejoinder to the responses of Chopra, Goswami, Kastrup, Radin, and van Lommel to our article "Quantum Misuse in Psychic Literature" that opens this journal issue. Our comments may be summarized in two main themes: These authors failed to recognize (a) how and why the von Neumann concept that only consciousness can collapse the quantum wavefunction has been largely rejected by physicists today and that quantum collapse is now understood to be able to occur without a conscious human observer, and (b) that their efforts to justify a universal consciousness on the basis of presently understood nonlocality are flawed. Also, in our view, from a quantum physics perspective the universe may be much less entangled and holistic than psi authors often assume. In conclusion, we contend that quantum misuse by psi authors remains a serious problem, undermining the credibility of psi research. We provide suggestions to help psi authors avoid this problem in the future.

The Journal of near-death studies•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

Near-Death, End-of-Life Experiences and Quantum Physics

Contzen Pereira, J. Shashi Kiran Reddy, Janice Harter

This book is a compilation of the work published by the present authors in various scientific journals mainly focused on understanding how quantum physics could decipher the experiences observed and reported during near-death and end-of-life situations. The authors claim that various theories and models proposed herein (though not propounding to be a complete one) are just an attempt to understand few aspects associated with such experiences connected to the phenomenon of death. They investigate the possible role of the quantum phenomenon in the occurrence of these events and call for a detailed scientific investigation to validate any hypotheses made.

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

Quantum magic: A skeptical perspective

Giorgio Torrieri

Quantum mechanics (QM) has attracted a considerable amount of mysticism, in public opinion and even among academic researches, due to some of its conceptually puzzling features, such as the modification of reality by the observer and entanglement. We argue that many popular "quantum paradoxes" stem from a confusion between mathematical formalism and physics; We demonstrate this by explaining how the paradoxes go away once a different formalism, usually inconvenient to perform calculations, is used. we argue that some modern developments, well-studied in the research literature but generally overlooked by both popular science and teaching-level literature, make quantum mechanics (that is, "canonical" QM, not extensions of it) less conceptually problematic than it looks at first sight. When all this is looked at together, most "conceptual puzzles" of QM are not much different from the well-known paradoxes from probability theory. Consequently, "explanations of QM" involving physical action of consciouses or an infinity of universes are conceptually unnecessary

arXiv:1107.3800•Jul 19, 2011•0 citations

The Case for the Everett Multiverse

David Wallace

I give a non-technical presentation of the argument that quantum mechanics, in the form in which it is currently used, needs to be understood in many-worlds (Everettian) terms; the alternatives that have been discussed are at present not able to reproduce the full empirical content of the theory. This is a draft of a chapter for the forthcoming \emph{Blackwell Companion to Philosophy and the Multiverse (Klaas Kraay and Daniel Rubio, eds.) }

quant-pharXiv:2608.07706•Aug 11, 2026•0 citations

Readers comments on 'Quantum mechanics: new experiments, new applications, new formulations'' by M B Menskii'

Михаил Борисович Менский

Today in the world literature, as at certain times in the past, are issues actively debated related to the interpretation and, more generally, to the foundations of quantum theory. At the same time these issues do not receive adequate treatment in the Russian-language physical publications. For this reason, Usp. Fiz. Nauk recently published a review by M B Menskii entitled 'Quantum mechanics: new experiments, new applications, new formulations of old problems' (Usp. Fiz. Nauk 170 (6) 631 (2000) [Phys. Usp. 43 585 (2000)]). The editorial preface to this paper invited the readers to make their contributions to the discussion of the foundations of quantum theory. Some letters have been received and are presented below. Wishing to ensure free expression, we did not subject these letters to peer review, and take no responsibility for their content. We believe that such an approach is more or less justified by the current situation.

Physics-Uspekhi•Apr 30, 2001•7 citations

Indeterminacy, EPR and Bell

Silvio Seno Chibeni

This article seeks to clarify certain key theoretical, conceptual and philosophical issues in the foundations of microphysics which, to judge from certain recent publications, continue to cause misunderstandings. In particular, we examine the Heisenberg indeterminacy relations, underlining that they are not univocally interpretable and that, at least in the interpretation following directly from the quantum formalism, they are not the target of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen's criticism. We try to identify the essential goal and premises of this famous argument, with the help of a simple example. Finally, we examine briefly the Bell inequalities, emphasizing that, given their generality, the net consequence of their experimental violation cannot be circumvented neither by the abandonment of determinism nor by any local realistic reinterpretation of measurement results, as attempted in an article recently published in this journal.

European Journal of Physics•Dec 11, 2000•5 citations
This invited article is a response to the paper "Quantum Misuse in Psychic Literature," by Jack A. Mroczkowski and Alexis P. Malozemoff, published in this issue of the Journal of Near-Death Studies. Whereas I sympathize with Mroczkowski's and Malozemoff's cause and goals, and I recognize the problem that they attempted to tackle, I argue that their criticisms often overshot the mark and end up adding to the confusion. I address nince specific technical points that Mroczkowski and Malozemoff accused popular writers in the fields of health care and parapsychology of misunderstanding and misrepresenting. I argue that, by and large--and contrary to Mroczkowski's and Malozemoff's claims--the statements made by these writers are often reasonable and generally consistent with the current state of play in foundations of quantum mechanics.
We provide a rejoinder to the responses of Chopra, Goswami, Kastrup, Radin, and van Lommel to our article "Quantum Misuse in Psychic Literature" that opens this journal issue. Our comments may be summarized in two main themes: These authors failed to recognize (a) how and why the von Neumann concept that only consciousness can collapse the quantum wavefunction has been largely rejected by physicists today and that quantum collapse is now understood to be able to occur without a conscious human observer, and (b) that their efforts to justify a universal consciousness on the basis of presently understood nonlocality are flawed. Also, in our view, from a quantum physics perspective the universe may be much less entangled and holistic than psi authors often assume. In conclusion, we contend that quantum misuse by psi authors remains a serious problem, undermining the credibility of psi research. We provide suggestions to help psi authors avoid this problem in the future.
This book is a compilation of the work published by the present authors in various scientific journals mainly focused on understanding how quantum physics could decipher the experiences observed and reported during near-death and end-of-life situations. The authors claim that various theories and models proposed herein (though not propounding to be a complete one) are just an attempt to understand few aspects associated with such experiences connected to the phenomenon of death. They investigate the possible role of the quantum phenomenon in the occurrence of these events and call for a detailed scientific investigation to validate any hypotheses made.
Quantum mechanics (QM) has attracted a considerable amount of mysticism, in public opinion and even among academic researches, due to some of its conceptually puzzling features, such as the modification of reality by the observer and entanglement. We argue that many popular "quantum paradoxes" stem from a confusion between mathematical formalism and physics; We demonstrate this by explaining how the paradoxes go away once a different formalism, usually inconvenient to perform calculations, is used. we argue that some modern developments, well-studied in the research literature but generally overlooked by both popular science and teaching-level literature, make quantum mechanics (that is, "canonical" QM, not extensions of it) less conceptually problematic than it looks at first sight. When all this is looked at together, most "conceptual puzzles" of QM are not much different from the well-known paradoxes from probability theory. Consequently, "explanations of QM" involving physical action of consciouses or an infinity of universes are conceptually unnecessary
Today in the world literature, as at certain times in the past, are issues actively debated related to the interpretation and, more generally, to the foundations of quantum theory. At the same time these issues do not receive adequate treatment in the Russian-language physical publications. For this reason, Usp. Fiz. Nauk recently published a review by M B Menskii entitled 'Quantum mechanics: new experiments, new applications, new formulations of old problems' (Usp. Fiz. Nauk 170 (6) 631 (2000) [Phys. Usp. 43 585 (2000)]). The editorial preface to this paper invited the readers to make their contributions to the discussion of the foundations of quantum theory. Some letters have been received and are presented below. Wishing to ensure free expression, we did not subject these letters to peer review, and take no responsibility for their content. We believe that such an approach is more or less justified by the current situation.
This article seeks to clarify certain key theoretical, conceptual and philosophical issues in the foundations of microphysics which, to judge from certain recent publications, continue to cause misunderstandings. In particular, we examine the Heisenberg indeterminacy relations, underlining that they are not univocally interpretable and that, at least in the interpretation following directly from the quantum formalism, they are not the target of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen's criticism. We try to identify the essential goal and premises of this famous argument, with the help of a simple example. Finally, we examine briefly the Bell inequalities, emphasizing that, given their generality, the net consequence of their experimental violation cannot be circumvented neither by the abandonment of determinism nor by any local realistic reinterpretation of measurement results, as attempted in an article recently published in this journal.