>>11005299"On different wavelengths" and "state of mind" are perfectly fine.
What really grinds my gears though is any reference to "quantum," like this anon's story:
>>11005838I'm still a little annoyed over a decade later that one of my interdisciplinary studies (non-STEM) professors forced us to watch What the Bleep Do We Know during one of our classes.
It's because quantum physics is abstract enough and dependent on enough convoluted mathematical foundation to even begin thinking about correctly that new age scam artists and schizo dipshits are able to exploit how they can say any ridiculous nonsense they feel like, wrap it up in "quantum" terminology, and then it won't be immediately obvious what exactly they're getting wrong because almost nobody knows anything about the real topic.
You even see otherwise intelligent and reputable people like Roger Penrose abusing quantum physics in this way to apply it where it doesn't belong as an explanation for "consciousness" (because "consciousness" is mysterious and difficult to understand and quantum physics is mysterious and difficult to understand, so surely slapping the two together will solve everything).
