Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moving towards an ID mechanism.
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 16 of 141 (261885)
11-21-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brad McFall
11-21-2005 7:08 AM


Re: Regarding Only QM-ID thought I think
This sounds like the idea that DNA molecules and DNA synthesising proteins can function as quantum computers and search through the vast probability space of possible conformations for particular solutions.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 11-21-2005 7:08 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 11-21-2005 4:19 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 22 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 5:32 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 17 of 141 (261888)
11-21-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Larni
11-21-2005 10:28 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
From some of their material...
Despite the small scale of the observed consciousness-related anomalies, they could be functionally devastating to many types of contemporary information processing systems, especially those relying on random reference signals. Such concern could apply to aircraft cockpits and ICBM silos;
I suspect that they are either garnering funding from, or angling for funding from, the sort of military research funds that pumped so much cash in to remote viewing.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 11-21-2005 10:28 AM Larni has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 141 (261897)
11-21-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
11-21-2005 3:52 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
You might be interested in the writings of Gerald Scroeder who was trained at MIT and now works at the U of Jerusalem and speaks and writes at great length on this subject. He is certainly more current than Wheeler.
He goes into string theory with the idea that each string is really, at its most basic, information.
Here is his web site. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 3:52 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 3:59 PM GDR has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 141 (262050)
11-21-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
11-21-2005 10:58 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
GDR, thanks for that tip, and I have started to look at his comments. I must confess string theory is beyond me, but I am thinking of dusting off some math textbooks and maybe taking some classes on the subject. On things like the 2-slit experiments, I know math is important but there is also the ability to think of the observed facts in concrete terms, if you follow what I mean.
I am not sure without a great deal of significantly advanced math, that string theory is approachable, and from what I've read, I don't know if there is anyway to actually test for it, but then again, they thought that with some aspects of quantum physics 80 years ago.
If you can help illuminate any physics principles, especially Zeilinger's thesis, please feel free to do so. It helps to have some actual working physicists post on the topic even if you disagree with the It from Bit concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 11-21-2005 10:58 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 11-21-2005 7:10 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 141 (262056)
11-21-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 5:23 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
WK, it's more naunced than that. I am a little busy today, but the first point I am trying to make is just the fundamental state of what constitutes physical things. The issue of consciousness is important, though not well-defined by science, but I like Zeilinger's approach because he focusses not on consciousness but the idea of elementary system given a yes or no answer, and so when we look at wave/particle duality, what is happening is that it is not a wave or particle, but an elementary information system that can answer either "wave" or "particle", and once it answers that, it has spent it's "Bit" so to speak.
Gotta go, but there is more here in explaining quantum phenomena that just some sort of vague claim. He has a system for explaining what we observe. In other words, right or wrong, it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 5:23 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 6:15 PM randman has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 141 (262061)
11-21-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 10:40 AM


Re: Regarding Only QM-ID thought I think
If it was really true it would permit one to try to build DNA computers (Winfree) to do that naturally quantum wise. This sounds like science fiction to me but who knows, maybe even my sense irreality is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 10:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 141 (262088)
11-21-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 10:40 AM


Re: Regarding Only QM-ID thought I think
WK, is that really an idea on the table so to speak?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 10:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 6:45 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 141 (262090)
11-21-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Larni
11-21-2005 10:02 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
I think this includes indirect measurements, but there is some question, it seems to me, of whether this is possible with no conscious observers ever.
Let me put it this way. Experiments have been done to show that even the mere potential for knowing something causes a change, which suggests that the elementary particle in reacting, spends it's Bit, as it were, interacting in a way that can be measured down the road.
Sometimes it seems Wheeler and Zeilinger disagree a little there, from just my own reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 11-21-2005 10:02 AM Larni has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 141 (262091)
11-21-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
11-21-2005 5:04 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
The delayed choice experiments don't deal with "physical form" - they deal with the paths apparently followed by photons. ...I can't see any clear statement of Wheeler's views on what the "fundamental nature" of a particle is before it is measured (although so far as the delayed-choice experiments go the photons are still photons - it is where they appear to have been that is in question).
Wheeler is talking about "form" when he says prior to observation, the photon exists in an "unreal" state, or "undefined" state. It is neither a wave, nor a particle, but is undefined as either, merely existing as the potential for one or the other, until observed.
Zeilinger would say that when the potential for observation takes place, meaning there is a tranfer of information to tell an observer, what form the photon is in, whether it travelled as more wave-like or particle-like, then the photon becomes one or the other based on the Bit of information being spent.
After the Bit has been spent, it cannot be one or the other at the same time, as it was before, as a potential, but is either a wave or a particle. It's information Bit was spent. So it cannot be both any longer.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 05:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:51 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 141 (262094)
11-21-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 10:12 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
I had heard of that, and I do believe there are direct connections between mind and matter, and that the energy of the mind via will, and can be expanded via belief, can have a direct affect.
But starting off with that gets into more of a parapsychology debate. I think an objective person studying the facts would admit extrasensory perception is real, and taking it step further, more than information can be involved and even causal effects can occur under certain circumstances.
But on a broader level, I think a bigger claim is that causal effect is always on-going, that there is mutual interdependence of the form of reality we live and the questions we ask of it, which speak to levels of consciousness.
Back to the OP though, I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. The concept that physical things are at their root, or "at the bottom of everything" as Wheeler states, information systems which work by dispensing levels of information in response to the questions posed of them, meaning physical things are first immaterial in a classical sense, existing as potentials for one state or another, and become real in the sense of being single state as a result of interacting with an observer or potential observer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 10:12 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 141 (262095)
11-21-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
11-21-2005 5:41 PM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
Firslty I would be reluctant to describe the undecided state of the photon as a "form" since it appears to be more an absence of a definite form.
But I can only point out that I cannot comment on Wheeler's opinion on the matter until I know what it is. And it is not clearly stated in the articles you quote. I doubt that I will find it objectionable - ssicne I didn't see anything objectionable in the parts you did quote.
And I willl note that we still have nothing that clearly supports your views - especially not your suggestion that these effects render the past completely unknowable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 5:41 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 5:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 141 (262099)
11-21-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 10:31 AM


you miss something here
If aspects of reality are undefined until observed, as you suggest, then the fact that we can detect undefined aspects of particles we're not directly observing (the Afshar experiment) means that nobody else is observing them either, like an omnipotent God.
Your error is assuming that God's observation acts the same as our's. This may be getting ahead of understanding the It from Bit concept, but think of it this way. If our observations from our vantage point result in a single answer, why would God's observation perhaps not allow multiple answers considering the higher state He is in.
In fact, I would argue that God's observation or awareness would of necessity create the initial quantum state of multiple potentials.
There is no transfer of an information Bit to God because God already knows the answer and created the Bit in the first place. It is rather the information Bit works when transferring the knowledge the other way, towards the physical realm from the information state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 10:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 6:03 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 141 (262101)
11-21-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
11-21-2005 5:51 PM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
Firslty I would be reluctant to describe the undecided state of the photon as a "form" since it appears to be more an absence of a definite form.
You are misreading me. The fundamental state is not a form, but is "unreal" or "undefined" according to Wheeler. Those are his words, which I quoted, not mine.
The photon takes on a form upon observation or the potential for observation.
And I willl note that we still have nothing that clearly supports your views - especially not your suggestion that these effects render the past completely unknowable.
Where have I ever said the past is unknowable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 6:05 PM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 141 (262105)
11-21-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
11-21-2005 5:55 PM


Re: you miss something here
Your error is assuming that God's observation acts the same as our's.
Ok. Then I'm sure you can cite from Wheeler's work where he posits a different class of observer that God belongs to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 5:55 PM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 141 (262108)
11-21-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
11-21-2005 5:57 PM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
quote:
Where have I ever said the past is unknowable.
That was why you introduced your ideas about QM in the transitional fossils discussion in the PS thread. You introduced it as a reason for discounting the evidence of past events.
n

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 5:57 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024