"The 1982 Aspect Experiment in France demonstrated, that two once-connected quantum particles separated by vast distances remained somehow connected. If one particle was changed, the other changed - instantly. Scientists don't know the mechanics of how this faster-than-the-speed-of-light travel can happen, though some theorists suggest that this connection takes place via doorways into higher dimensions... We are connected, rather than separate, from all of life... the full spectrum of consciousness encompasses both physical and a multitude of non physical dimensions of reality. At core, this new world view involves seeing yourself, others, and all of life, not through the eyes of our small, earthly self that lives in time and is born in time. But rather through the eyes of the soul, our Being, the True Self. One by one, people are jumping to this higher orbit."

"A few years after writing the preface of that book, Popper fell into an opposite, and equally serious error about an "EPR situation," On this occasion, contrary to the preceding one, there is an over- rather than an underevaluation of the EPR analysis. On p. 27 of the same book, Popper proposes an experiment that constitutes a variant of the EPR argument, asserting that if the the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, the experiment just analyzed would allow for sending signals faster than the speed of light. This work is one of a lengthy series we will discuss later, in which it is maintained that quantum formalism would permit us to use the reduction of the wave packet to violate one of the postulates at the basis of relativity (i.e., that the speed of light cannot be exceeded). Now, despite the peculiarity of the situation addressed by EPR, this conclusion is fundamentally erroneous and arise from an incorrect use of quantum formalism. I recall a spirited discussion I once had with Popper at the International Center for Theoretical Physics at Miramare in 1983. Professor Abdus Salam informed me that on the occasion of Popper's visit (for delivering a lecture on the foundations of quantum mechanics), he would be very pleased if the Center would have on hand some competent person in the field, and asked me to take part in the discussion. I knew Popper's work well and told Professor Salam that my intervention could be critical. Salam's reply was simple: "I have full confidence in you, and if you think you are right, you should explain your position without any fear." Popper presented his thought experiment (a variant of the EPR argument), which, according to him, left us with only two alternatives: either the orthodox interpretation was correct, and it would then be possible to send signals faster than the speed of light, or there would not be any action at a distance and the experiment would constitute a falsification of quantum theory. At the end of the conference I explained to him in simple, but mathematically precise terms, the reasons why his point of departure was erroneous: he had not correctly applied the rules of the theory and in fact, the impossibility of sending superluminal signals would confirm the theory rather than falsify it—the exact opposite of what he maintained. At the end of my intervention he only said that he could not answer my objection since he did not have a mastery of the mathematics of the formalism, but was still convinced that the theory implied the possibility of superluminal signals. This strange, and, as we shall see, fundamentally erroneous idea has been supported by various researchers in various scientific works, and published in prestigious journals."

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

"Stanley Milgram carried out the “Eichmann experiment” to determine whether Nazi war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann, whose trial had begun a couple of months earlier in Jerusalem, could have committed the heinous acts of the Holocaust merely because of a misplaced obedience to authority. ... The German philosopher Hanna Arendt, a reporter during the trial of Eichmann, coined the phrase "the banality of evil" to describe him, seeing behind the architect of the Holocaust a thoroughly normal person. Going further, Arendt also mentioned that Eichmann’s attitude toward his family and friends was “not only normal but most desirable.”"

"Personality traits such as Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, which are widely related to positive outcomes such as better mental health ... may also have darker sides in that they can lead to destructive and immoral obedience. ... It may be that a signiﬁcant share of human suffering stems from personality dispositions that are not necessarily intrinsically antisocial. On the contrary, some traits that often have negative interpersonal consequences, such as low impulse control, may in some extreme circumstances beneﬁt others, such as when someone jumps into a river and risks his life to save a stranger."

"Our results provide new empirical evidence showing that individual differences in Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, political orientation, and social activism matter. Not only “evil” behavior such as destructive obedience may indeed be “banal” in the sense of not relying on extraordinary cruelty of ideological hate, but it also may even be facilitated by dispositions that are consensually desirable elsewhere with family and friends, as Hanna Arendt proposed over 50 years ago. Although our results suggest that adaptive traits in the interpersonal domain may be maladaptive in a context involving destructive authority, they also suggest that some behaviors that may disrupt social functioning, such as political activism, may express and even strengthen individual dispositions that are both useful and essential to the whole society, at least in some critical moments."

"In the present study, we shed a new light on how personality factors predicted obedience and rebellion in a Milgram-like study. ... We hypothesized that personality traits that are consensually desirable in interpersonal relationships, such as Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, could contribute to destructive obedience given the right context. These are two traits that some observers, including Arendt herself, attributed to Adolf Eichmann."

"I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."

"We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that..."