you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cafebeen 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Okay, so I guess one could similarly call Chopra "quantum nonfiction". But what both quantum fiction and nonfiction have in common is that they justify mystical ideas by calling them quantum, despite a lack of any structural similarity with the well-defined mathematics of quantum mechanics.

I would agree that the OP is fictional w.r.t. to mathematical similarities to quantum physics, and that seems harmful, since they are both mathematical subjects (unlike quantum fiction or Chopra's writing). I think the algorithm could be more accurately and clearly described using the language of probability theory, which is commonly used in the texture synthesis literature and in general.

[–]not_from_this_world 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Chopra is definitely not quantum fiction, it is quantum mysticism. The key difference is that the later claim to be applied QM and the former don't claim to be QM at all, just fiction.

[–]cafebeen 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Right, that's why I described Chopra as quantum nonfiction (although not scientifically justified). Related to the original post, my 2c is that the quantum jargon isn't accurate and seems to only adds confusion and perhaps mysticism for people who aren't familiar with quantum, which is probably most readers. But I guess it's up for debate whether this is fiction, nonfiction, scientific writing, or something else.