I thought your edit regarding photosynthesis was good, but the sentence you added would need to have a source. We don't generally add our own observations to Wikipedia articles, however reasonable and valid. TimidGuy (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've restored the problematic sentence. You are making an observation here: "etc., so it appears that the brain could very well utilize at least some quantum processes." This isn't encyclopedic style, and isn't appropriate. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have revised the paragraph to meet your objections. The citation from Tegmark is over 15 years old. That is forever in science. Today we are talking of building working quantum supercomputers so to rule out quantum processes in something the size of the brain is ludicrous. We know now about many quantum devices like superconducting cables which are bigger than the brain. Exactly where the dividing line is between the microscopic and macroscopic is a topic of very active discussion.

Thanks for revising it. Your revised version is indeed an improvement. There's still a question of a borderline violation of Wikipedia's policy of no original research, but not so egregious that I'm going to pursue it. I first took a course on macroscopic quantum mechanical phenomena back in 1976. It's a fascinating area. TimidGuy (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good you know what I'm talking about. There are many chemical processes that work much more efficiently than you would think based on classical mechanics and the laws of probability. Photosynthesis is just the most studied example of this. My suspicion is we are going to find quantum processes popping up all over if we look hard enough. The truly fundamental thing is the wave function; the classical physics we observe is the epiphenomenon.

I am reverting and adding adding another more recent citation showing that as the date of this poll the C.I. was still the most widely held. This does not mean that the C.I. is the consensus view. Opinions are widely split, but the C.I. is sort of the default view for those working in the field who don't what to get involved in what they probably consider a fruitless exercise in semantics.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language, which reads:

"Avoid such phrases as remember that and note that, which address readers directly in an unencyclopedic tone. They are a subtle form of Wikipedia self-reference. Similarly, phrases such as of course, naturally, obviously, clearly, and actually make presumptions about readers' knowledge, and call into question the reason for including the information in the first place. Do not tell readers that something is ironic, surprising, unexpected, amusing, coincidental, etc. Simply state the sourced facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions." (emphasis added)

5.151.0.106 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was on the basis of idiomatic English usage. You shouldn't have an introductory phrase "On the other hand" and then begin the main sentence with "on". If you want to reword your edit to meet this objection, be my guest.

• I do not see that there is anything wrong with "on the other hand" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22on+the+other+hand If you dislike the repetition of "on" I suggest you replace the introductory phrase with "conversely", but "of course" is presumptuous and unencyclopaedic. 5.151.0.106 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely would be fine. I will make that change.