Okay, now I've been looking into Buddhist routines (Meditation and such) and I've seen that it isn't all bull.. Whenever I meditated, I legitimately felt more without stress than before. And this got me thinking, are the Buddhist routines actually effective? Could it be that one belief in the world isn't total B.S and could actually have some effectiveness behind it? I mean, I know the whole "Buddha rising to the heavens" thing is a bit far from the truth, but the teachings seem to be rather effective. It promotes finding inner peace with one's self and peace with the world around you, I dig that (but I would never go full Buddhist).
So, I'm asking all you atheists out there, do you think Buddhist techniques are effective in the way they claim they are?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well Buddhism is not a religion, technically. It is more of a spiritual philosophy. Yes it has, overtime, taken on parts of religious dogma but that is really unavoidable as any ideology spreads throughout the world people of different cultures add to it whatever is culturally relevant to them.
Meditation is a mental exercise where the task is to focus on your breath and just 'be' what you feel when doing this is an increase of oxygen in your circulatory system that your brain then reacts too. Look at how people react when given pure oxygen at the dentist(maybe not anymore) or on an airplane, this is because oxygen has a calming effect on the mind that then spreads throughout your nervous system effecting your muscles and other body parts as well.
So the question is; can one attain some deeper level of understanding from this? Yes, but only personally. Anything beyond that is just a delusion.
I will fully admit that I know very little about buddhism in general, but replace the word "buddhist" or "meditation" with "accupuncture", "rekki", "homeopathy", "chiropractic" or any other such woo and your statement will be just as valid. What you experience when you meditate is confirmation bias or placebo effect. Can meditation or following buddhist teachings result in feelings of relaxation? sure, but that varies on a person to person basis based on their preconceived expectations of the experience. Personally, I feel stupid meditating and I suspect my blood pressure actually goes up on the rare event that I'm forced to do it. Until I see multiple, peer reviewed, randomized, placebo controlled studies that unequivocally prove the effectiveness of meditation and living a buddhist lifestyle, Buddhism is still a fairy-tale wrapped in woo.
To AL's comment that oxygen has "a calming effect on the mind that spreads throughout your nervous system". Again I call foul! I could perhaps agree to some degree assuming the person using the oxygen was suffering from hypoxemia before using the oxygen, as having a low oxygen level can certainly induce anxiety and feelings of air hunger, but in an otherwise normal individual with an oxygen saturation above 90% using supplemental oxygen has no positive effects on human physiology or psychology. What those people at the dentist, on airplanes or the football players on the sideline are experiencing is the placebo effect.
You both are very smart people. I have learned much from reading your posts, but remember that our biases are always right there and we need to remain actively skeptical in our assessment of ours and others experiences.
Sam
Hello, I see you take exception to some of my statements, so I will address your objections and provide the appropriate information
"I will fully admit that I know very little about buddhism in general, "
That is very admirable of you, few are genuine enough to openly state their ignorance (This is not meant as an offense, I do this myself)
"but replace the word "buddhist" or "meditation" with "accupuncture", "rekki", "homeopathy", "chiropractic" or any other such woo and your statement will be just as valid. "
I do not think you were talking to me in this instance but I have to point out the issue with this. First you admit that you know very little about Buddhism, but then go on to make a sweeping generalization, which is a massive misrepresentation as well. You are, of course, free to have an opinion on the validity of Buddhism or its practices but one should at least know what it is they are dismissing.
" Can meditation or following buddhist teachings result in feelings of relaxation? sure, but that varies on a person to person basis based on their preconceived expectations of the experience. Personally, I feel stupid meditating and I suspect my blood pressure actually goes up on the rare event that I'm forced to do it."
There are two issues here, the first is offering as criticism towards Buddhism, that experiences vary from person to person. This oversimplification can be applied to anything and therefore is not exactly valid. Secondly is you offering an anecdote in support of your hasty generalization. That you personally do not find meditation to be claiming is fine, but that alone proves nothing, and when you cry foul for lack of supporting evidence on my part, you would do well to offer your own.
". Until I see multiple, peer reviewed, randomized, placebo controlled studies that unequivocally prove the effectiveness of meditation and living a buddhist lifestyle, ."
You want previewed articles? Well take your pick =)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=physical+effects+of+meditation&hl=e...
"Buddhism is still a fairy-tale wrapped in woo"
You should avoid making statements like this, it only shows that you have not studied Buddhism critically.
"To AL's comment that oxygen has "a calming effect on the mind that spreads throughout your nervous system". Again I call foul!"
Ok then I will gladly offer evidence from a 3rd party but I find it odd that you doubt that controlled breathing has a calming effect:
Mladen Golubic, a physician in the Cleveland Clinic's Center for Integrative Medicine, says that breathing can have a profound impact on our physiology and our health.
"You can influence asthma; you can influence chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; you can influence heart failure," Golubic says. "There are studies that show that people who practice breathing exercises and have those conditions — they benefit."
Research has shown that breathing exercises like these can have immediate effects by altering the pH of the blood, or changing blood pressure.
But more importantly, they can be used as a method to train the body's reaction to stressful situations and dampen the production of harmful stress hormones. Esther Sternberg is a physician, author of several books on stress and healing, and researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health. She says rapid breathing is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system. It's part of the "fight or flight" response — the part activated by stress. In contrast, slow, deep breathing actually stimulates the opposing parasympathetic reaction — the one that calms us down
"The relaxation response is controlled by another set of nerves — the main nerve being the Vagus nerve. Think of a car throttling down the highway at 120 miles an hour. That's the stress response, and the Vagus nerve is the brake," says Sternberg. "When you are stressed, you have your foot on the gas, pedal to the floor. When you take slow, deep breaths, that is what is engaging the brake."- http://www.npr.org/2010/12/06/131734718/just-breathe-body-has-a-built-in...
So I'll just ;leave it there, I think that I have vindicated my post and look forward to your response.
Thank you. =)
Your statement was this “doing this is an increase of oxygen in your circulatory system that your brain then reacts too” You said nothing about “breathing exercises”. I stand by my statement that unless a person has low blood oxygen, breathing supplemental oxygen does nothing significant for human physiology.
In regard to your sources for the positive effects of meditation, I have not gone through the articles in-depth yet, but at first glance, 3 of the first 4 sources are from the same journal of The American Psychosomatic Society. This certainly is not a mainstream medical journal, so I am skeptical of the validity of the research but I will read the articles more closely.
In general my issue with meditation is the same as the issue I have with all sorts of “integrative” therapies. They all address subjective symptoms. They frequently can show (barely) statistically significant changes in subjective symptoms which almost always have no clinical consequences. A hypothetical example would be a study which shows that heart rate in the control group=70 and treatment (could be any integrative intervention) group=67. Statistically, that could very well be a significant difference, but in reality, does that actually mean anything for the patient? Probably not.
Again, show me studies that show outcome based benefits of meditation and I’ll gladly change my mind. Just proving that people feel more relaxed, that their heart rates or blood pressure drop or even that cortisol levels drop isn’t good enough. I want to be shown that outcomes change. Show me that MI or stroke rates change, show me that mortality rates drop. Show me that hospitalization rates drop. These are the outcomes that matter to someone who cares about science based medicine.
I’ve reviewed 4 of the articles you supplied in your google scholar search.
While I am no expert in literature evaluation, I do read medical literature regularly and usually know a good study when I see it.
Article #1 “Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation”
N=48, which makes this study an under powered study in my opinion.
No documentation that I saw of what the control group did. In other words did they know they were meditating or not? As you know, blinding of the control group generally results in more reliable data. For that matter, were the evaluators blinded? I didn’t see any documentation of that.
I won’t argue that influenza antibodies rose, but what did that mean to the patient? Did they have any measurable benefit from that such as fewer influenza infections, less sick days at work etc…no mention of any of that.
I also won’t argue that the intervention group had more “left anterior activation”, but again, who cares??? There is absolutely no mention of what that means for the patient.
So, like most publication of this type, there is statistically significant data, but nothing that means a thing for the patient.
Article #2 “Physical and psychological effects of meditation”
Review article and in my opinion irrelevant. High likelihood of author bias.
Article #3 “Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis”
A meta-analysis, which is less optimal compared to a placebo controlled RCT.
Only included 20 studies after throwing many out due to methodological problems.
The authors admit even the 20 they looked at had methodological issues.
Most of the outcomes were subjective and of questionable clinical significance.
There was no long term follow up either.
Article #4 “The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis.”
A meta-analysis. Again not optimal. The most recent study and in the most reputable journal.
They threw out 75% of the studies they found having to deal with this topic.
Effect size varied from strong in relation to subjective findings of emotionality and relationship issues to weak in more objective findings of cognitive measures.
Again raising the question of what does this mean for measurable, objective patient outcomes.
The authors themselves note that a better method for measuring effects related to meditation is needed.
I certainly didn’t review all the articles. I simply don’t have time for that.
I stand by my assertion that meditation like most other woo is only effective in the mind of people prone to expect that it will be effective.
That being said, I don’t dispute that some people will find it effective and helpful. However, that is not a reason to recommend it to everyone in lieu of more studied and objectively effective interventions especially for physical disease states.
@: SAM
Since you have not replied both to Pragmatic and me about our suggestion, I will reply to you here on the assumption that you missed our reply.
Buddhism focuses on understanding oneself and your surroundings.
Sam Harris has done a detailed analysis on this and written a book or 2 about it.
Since it seems you like to read papers but not too many of them.
I would suggest you read this(~ 3 min read) article about an aspect of Meditation which is called Mindfulness.
"Mindfulness is simply a state of clear, nonjudgmental, and nondiscursive attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Developing this quality of mind has been shown to reduce pain, anxiety, and depression; improve cognitive function; and even produce changes in gray matter density in regions of the brain related to learning and memory, emotional regulation, and self-awareness."
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/meditateto-concentrate-penn-researche...
Also used in military: (~ 3 min read)
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/02/18/mindfulness-training-helpful-for...
"I stand by my assertion that meditation like most other woo is only effective in the mind of people prone to expect that it will be effective."
I bet the military and everyone who has actually studied this subject are of a different opinion then.
I am clearly not doing a good job articulating my points.
1) Studies on topics such as meditation and mindfulness, the endpoints of which are often subjective, are difficult and fraught with the possibility of bias. In most studies of these topics, the groups studied were not blinded as to if they were receiving training for participating in mindfulness experiences. That alone leaves the door wide open for bias and inability to account for the placebo effect.
2) I still come back to the question of what does the result of the studies (assuming they are valid) mean for the real world. The studies related to military (apparently, (the article provided to me is a review article that summarizes the study)) show changes in various (subjective) rating scales and slower degradation in “working memory capacity”, which is all well and good but what does that mean??? Do the soldiers have a lower chance of being killed in action? Do they have lower rates of PTSD? Do they have lower divorce rates? There is no mention of these real and measurable outcomes. So what if numbers or scores can be changed. If it doesn’t result in some real life, meaningful outcome, it is irrelevant. The time spent teaching the soldiers mindfulness could have been spent having them exercise, which has clearly been shown to improve cognitive function , improve mood and lower the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, among other things. Even the studies that address pain as an outcome are difficult to interpret. Meditation may lower pain, but does that improve function? A patient can subjectively feel less pain ,but if their function as measured by going back to work or being able to manage their ADL’s independently etc… doesn’t improve, decreasing pain is only helping then feel better (which admittedly is a worthwhile goal) Again, just changing a number on a scale usually means nothing unless that change changes a measurable and objective outcome.. As an example: niacin has been shown unequivocally to lower serum triglyceride levels. Hypertriglyceridemia is a known risk factor for (among other things) stroke and coronary artery disease. As a result, for many years,it was recommended that niacin be used to lower triglyceride levels in people at risk for the above diseases. However, upon further study, it has been shown that lowering triglyceride levels with niacin does not change a person’s risk for stroke or MI, making the use of niacin as a means lower the risk of either one of those end-points useless. I’ll bet that a study could have been done that asked people who took niacin and had lower triglyceride levels how they felt, and most would have said they felt “relaxed” or “good” about their numbers, but that doesn’t change the fact that their risk of adverse outcomes had not changed. As a result, the use of niacin in this regard is no longer recommended even though it clearly lowers the number.
All this being said, if meditation makes you personally feel good, then by all means do it. I am all for a drug free approach to improving one’s attitude and mood. However, I think that people who are recommended such a treatment should know that all that they are improving is the way they feel. I don’t think there is evidence to support any other statements about results related to meditation or mindfulness training. For my and my patient’s money and time, exercise, which has proven, documented benefit in both subjective and objective parameters of human experience and physiology, is a much better endeavor than meditation.
I wish you would post more often Sam. I think you post the best stuff on AR.
I would suggest you read Sam Harris book 'Waking up'. It's about being 'spiritual' without the mumbo jumbo. He has a very sane, rational approach.
Yes SAM, Sam Harris is a place to start to understand that "spirituality" is more of an abused term by religions rather then a bad thing religion created.
Religion just made a monopoly on a successful theme in history.
I will simply give you my personal experience. When I do practice a meditation discipline I feel more “even” throughout the day. More calm. I have never had a “religious” experience while doing it. I have also never spent years in a Himalayan cave searching for Baba Ji. I see it as an effective relaxation technique. Hope that helps.
New Studies Shows Yoga and Meditation Induce Changes at the Genetic Level
Dr. John Hagelin - Hacking Consciousness at Stanford University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ucmRglCTQ
Changing Our DNA through Mind Control?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-our-dna-through-mind-...
Study: How Yoga Alters Genes
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-how-yoga-alters-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/yoga-immune-system-genetic-_n_3...
I so hate to belabor my prior points but belabor I will:
1) These studies are open to all sorts of biases and methodological errors. The lead author of the study quoted in Scientific American is a proponent of "integrative medicine" and supports other, even more "wooy" practices such as accupuncture and rekki, so her potential for bias is great.
2) Once again, even assuming all the findings in the studies are accurate and reproducible....so what!!! All they have proven is that meditation and yoga can change telomere length, change "immune function: and alter gene expression (just think for a moment about the scientific plausibility of those statements). Not a single study translates those changes into anything meaningful for the patients. Do the cancer patients live longer, require less chemo or radiation therapy? Do people with "altered" immune function get sick less often, do people with changed gene expression have some change in their phenotype???
So, if doing meditation and yoga makes you feel good, then by all means do it but don't expect anything other than warm fuzzies to result from it, or don't convince others to do it in lieu of other, more established and studied therapies.
Dear Sam,
You hate religion so much that you just find religion in everything. First of all read/learn about yoga. It is Agnostic philosophy which don't believe in supremacy of god . Even word "Brahman/The One/Source " is defined in many ways in Hinduism, It varies school to school , some school of Hinduism even reject the idea of Brahman . Buddhism also reject the idea of Brahman/GOD. So Buddhism is the earliest Atheism, even though it is considered as religion by Westerners. Before 11 th century there was no idea of religion in India.
In Indian philosophy, three schools of thought are commonly referred to as nastika for rejecting the doctrine of Vedas: Jainism, Buddhism and Cārvāka. Though nastika, meaning heterodox, refers to the non-belief of Vedas rather than non-belief of God,all these schools also reject the notion of a creationist god.
Mimamsas argued that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals.
Among the various schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, Yoga and Mimamsa while not rejecting either the the Vedas or the Brahman , typically reject a personal God, creator God, or a God with attributes. While Samkhya and Yoga rejected the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God, Mimamsa argued that the Vedas could not have been authored by a deity.
Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda states:
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
For example you may have problem with "OM", even with out understanding the meaning of it (For better understanding of it , read Fourier series (Go to NPTEL lecturers of signal and system ,IIT chennai), Probabilistic wave Atomic model) . I am not saying that those ancient people understand these scientific theories. But they did have power of observing the effects, It is the language of explanation which differs. They have philosophical approach of course what do you expect from ancient mind . I am doing a Phd in electrical in Engg. and I will never claim in absence or presence of anything with out properly understanding it. Is Atheism exist is just to "HATE" religion. Just like every other religious orthodox hate other religion. I think "NO". We should try to understand everything , should praise it if it has something good in it.
It is true that I am an anti-theist. But my comments here have nothing to do with theism. What all this relates to is pseudoscience. That is what I truly despise. Unfortunately, atheists, whether they be anti-theists or not can and do fall victim to pseudoscience. Bill Mahrer is a perfect example. He is an atheist with absolutely incorrect views on vaccination which are based on pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.
So in short, if Buddhists purvey pseudoscience, I will call them out. If proponents of yoga make pseudo-scientific claims, I will call them out. If atheists make pseudo-scientific comments, I will remind them of the error of their ways. This is my sacred cow....and I am going to ride that sucker all the way to hell and back.....metaphorically, and scientifically speaking, of course.
Problem is not "what we know or what we don't, Real problem is :we think what we know about the world is correct". This leads to
orthodoxy (Religious or Atheist) which in turn leads to elimination of scope of improvement. Before rejecting/accepting any idea, we should consider scientific, social, economic and environmental factors.
The word "pseudoscience" has many meaning and varies according to a individual's understanding on a given subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow : You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It: George Smoot (Astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner George Smoot ) at TEDxSalford
is a pseudoscience for me, but for George Smoot it may not be.
Now when we read some Hindu scriptures ,They never look like religious stories , infact they are more closer to sci-fi stories.
Same thing what Geroge Smoot is saying now is said 200 BCE in a scripture (in totally different perspective):
Essence of words are:
When Vishnu created this word through his Yog Maya (power of creating new realities). This Maya keeps us in Illusion of reality as we are bound by our senses. The One who understands it , gets Liberation or Nirvana.
Where Vishnu is a deity not Brahman itself , He is manifestation of Brahman in this universe. Other universes (concept of multiverse)have their own Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva.
Replace Vishnu with "Source" , Yog Maya with "Operating system" , "The One" with Neo ,It is movie Matrix. That's why in matrix in last scence when smith and Neo fights, you here Vedic hyms in background:
I tried to prove it wrong for my whole life , but I can not neglect the fact these stories are written in 200 BCE by an ancient man and are equivalent to modern sci-fi stuff. We can neglect them but this raises questions like "how a ancient man was able to even think such stuff in 200 BCE."
Buddhists never say that Buddhism is a science, it is a philosophy. Comparing Science with philosophy is like going to bar and asking for milk, you may get it but you will not enjoy it.
Now come to matter of "pseudoscience".
1. With rise of probabilistic model of atoms coupled with wave equations made Bohr's model pseudoscience for which he get nobel prize. (transformation of science in to pseudoscience)
2.Transformation of pseudoscience in to science :
Bhasmikaran (at least 1500 years old) is a process by which a substance which is otherwise bioincompatible is made biocompatible by certain samskaras or processes (Puranik and Dhamankar, 1964e). Old scientist rejected the claims of its medical application as confirmation bias or placebo effect. But now we know it is not confirmation bias or placebo effect, basically it is herbal way of generating Nano particle of substance, which leads in to change of properties of the substance.
Till late 20 th century this is pseudoscience now we know this :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10967-006-0326-z : Availability of essential elements in bhasmas: Analysis of Ayurvedic metallic preparations by INAA (Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry ).
Physicochemical characterization of an Indian traditional medicine, Jasada Bhasma : detection of nanoparticles containing non-stoichiometric zinc oxide(Journal of Nanoparticle Research ).
Ayurvedic Bhasmas: Overview on Nanomaterialistic Aspects, Applications, and Perspectives (Infectious Diseases and Nanomedicine : Sringer )
Development and characterization of a novel Swarna-based herbo-metallic colloidal nano-formulation – inhibitor of Streptococcus mutans quorum sensing(DOI: 10.1039/C4RA11939H (Communication) RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 5809-5822).
At Nano level things do get change, For example same electron "MAY BE" at two places in a given time. This is not possible in our macroscopic universe. We don't have copyright on the power of observation , Ancient humans had same observational power.
Whole point is ancient people did observe the benefits of some practice like Yoga/Meditation. But they did not understand the reasons so they put everything on GOD's shoulder. But when we call them mumbo-jumbo because we don't understand them fully.
Then we also fall in to same category.
"My sacred cow" , I am neglecting this line, considering your limited understanding of historical, cultural factors of Eastern cultures . You may be very good in the field of medicine which is branch of science but not complete in itself.
Although I expect you to be much more mature in approach next time . Come out of stereotypes first of all; learn about Hinduism
(4 Vedas + 106 books on different commentaries + 18 story books + 2epics) , it is more sort of philosophy. It is not Abramhic religion.
"Be a proud Atheist not a Racist Atheist".
hogwash
My last post disappeared. The term sacred cow was not meant to cause offense, although when you mention it, it was a pretty punny comment given the context.. I'm not generally that witty. Thanks for throwing me a softball.
I have learned much here, first and foremost is to not get into arguments with word salad shooters such as yourself. Doing so only results in headaches and chest pain, therefore, for my own health I will refrain from debating your generally incoherent points.
Very interesting reply.
I'm glad to finally find some open minded people here that do not let their bias effect their judgment.
I will check up on some of your research.
Btw, ignore haters that can only throw uneducated, unproductive claims around.
Ah...the "you're not being open minded" ploy. A classic fall-back for those who lack proof of what they say.
Just because I am skeptical does not mean I am closed minded. I simply want proof of efficacy in a meaningful, real world sense.
For the record: never did I state that Buddhism was a Religion. I merely asked y'all if you believe the ways (yoga, meditation, etc) actually work.
Dear Austin ,
They definitely work when it comes to reducing stress, feeling better. But we don't understand the complete mechanism of these things.
Research is still on It will take time to understand why these thing work .
Mangal Das - 'For example same electron "MAY BE" at two places in a given time'
https://i.imgflip.com/pjab3.jpg
Dear Nyarlathotep,
When you don't understand any thing ,then say it. Editing pictures will not work. First learn difference between special theory of relativity and particle physics. "'For example same electron "MAY BE" at two places in a given time". I used in it in a sense of Electron density (which is the measure of the probability of an electron being present at a specific location) with complete responsibility and with Big "MAY BE". Which has roots in time dependent form of Schrödinger Wave Equation:
For your help go to "http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/AtomicStructure/schrodinger.htm"
If you don't understand it then go to back to college and learn some physics.
when you use time dependent form of it then you can get these wired kind of results.
So better shut up, go and learn some physics.
I don't know why my post went missing but to recap:
1) If you find an electron at location A, the amplitude to find it at space-like location B is 0, therefore the probability of finding it there is also 0. If this were not the case you would have a violation of unitary, conservation of energy, conservation of charge, and special relativity. Absolute madness.
2) In the context of special relativity it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion about 2 events happening at 2 different locations, at the same time. Absolute madness.
3) One of the pillars that particle physics is derived from is special relativity, so suggesting that special relativity does not apply is: Absolute madness.
You are still living in era of 1970s, plz come out of it. But now I love your approach
1. If you find an electron at location A, the amplitude to find it at space-like location B is 0, therefore the probability of finding it there is also 0. This sentence is half correct. Correct way should be "probability of finding an electron on global maxima is maximum and at global minima it is minimum but there are local maxima and minima also which have certain probabilities. " These probabilities exist only till act of measurement is not done, once you find it (as particile) at any location A then your sentence becomes true. If you have not done act of measurement then how can you become so sure where electron is at time "t" ; If you are considering it wave then problem become complex?
We do find these solutions in text books but only under strict assumptions but remember what "uncertainty principal" said. why I said this because we are planning to use this fuzziness in quantum computers.
you may get what I am saying in loose sense by these discussion
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover :If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45041/can-an-electron-be-in-t...
https://www.quora.com/If-an-electron-can-be-in-two-places-at-the-same-ti...
Atoms can be in two places at the same time :http://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html
Although I should not use lines in loose senses but you just can not write mathematics in general discussion.
2. "One of the pillars" that particle physics is derived from is special relativity, so suggesting that special relativity does not apply is
I never said that theory of relativity does not have applications in particle physics. But It is not complete particle physics. particle physics has many more interesting theories along with application of special relativity.
3. Conservation of charge,conservation of energy OMG!!! these things are valid even with that sentence of mine because stating that sentence I considered electron only as probability wave and I have not find electron. Do n't worry about Albert Einstein he can not be write always, Although he is a great scientist.
Discuss these thing below my post ,because this post is all about YOGA/ Meditation etc and we have came to far from subject of this post. But still ,I love your answers this time. Great !!! Although you still need to work with your language.
If you find it at location A, the probability of finding it at space-like location B is 0%. You will never find it in 2 locations at 'the same time'. I don't care what your popularization of science articles say, what your new age guru tells you, what stupid ancient crap you read says, the probability is 0%. Which means it is never in two locations at the 'same time'. That is just fluffy talk, the math NEVER reflects that. If you had actually read the stackexchange page you linked you would know that, but you are so blinded by this new age hogwash you are linking material that contradicts yourself and not even noticing (a sign of a real crackpot)... I should have taken Sam's advise earlier, but I will now: I'm done with you.
Mr. Nyarlathotep,
Next time better look what you say , If I started this game of substd. language then you will really need to google them to even understand them. You are a hypo crate, who want to hear that he is right. I read those link before posting them and I am not like those undemocratic retards who will post only that material which agrees with his view point only. and I am not a person who will push agree button after posting his own comment (This art I learnt from you).In those links there are people who are in principle agree with me and others not . I put those links deliberately just to show you, you read what you want to read(a sign of real Hypo crate). I know you will reject other things even if I post latest material from a reputed journals. FYI that's why I put "MAY BE " there because even at the time posting I know that it was matter of debate. But fools like you was so blind that they was not able to catch up with language. You have deliberately chosen that line but remain silent on other topics of my posts. People like you rejected the paper of Fourier series on the name of math. You are Atheist orthodox who got stuck in 1970s. Better update yourself.
Now this debate is over. let us agree that we disagree .
Oh what a difference a day makes...
Yesterday:
Mangal Das - "You are not Atheist..."
Today:
Mangal Das - "You are Atheist orthodox"
It's interesting that someone logged a 'disagree' with this post, Nyarlathotep. I wonder if they actually disagree that these things were said or they just don't like that you pointed it out.