|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moving towards an ID mechanism. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
There is also a large leap between a role for entanglement in the chemistry of life and a significant role in the non-random nature of certain mutations.
You've aleady put forward a paper that says QM governs DNA mutations and not classical mechanics. Entanglement is part of QM. So it's already on the table. The point of further inquiry on my part is to try to see how quantum mechanics is involved with respect to entanglement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think one interesting question about QM is where does the superpositional ability, the information, come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This is hardly moving towards an ID mechanism, it seems more to be moving towards navel gazing.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
ID is adding information into a system by a directed, intelligent force. cavediver claims that the information set of the future in one sense is already here since it is within space-time, but Wheeler suggests the responses and thus the information set we see in the universe is also the result of the questions we ask of it, and that the universe contains an observer participancy phenomenon. So that makes it less likely that the universe we will experience is set in stone, meaning space-time is fixed.
It's not navel-gazing. If the physical universe works via observer participancy, then the information we see is partly determined by the universe's reactions to us. This observer participancy principle may be part of a ID mechanism since it contains within it, the ability to influence outcomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Ok.
Now, other than some bizarre application of QM which no one understands, and does not indicate an intelligent designer at all, give me a way to test for ID. give me a way to distinguish between 'Intelligent design', and variation with selection via the mechanism of natural selection. give me a way that can test that there is an 'intelligence' behind QM. Give me a way to 'detect' and 'quantify' information. Give me a definition of Information that is consistant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Observer participancy in quantum mechanics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ID is adding information into a system by a directed, intelligent force. I think you are serving up word salad, lightly tossed. But, in the off chance that it was supposed to mean something, I'll give you an opportunity to explain whatever that was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Wheeler suggests the responses and thus the information set we see in the universe is also the result of the questions we ask of it, and that the universe contains an observer participancy phenomenon. So that makes it less likely that the universe we will experience is set in stone, meaning space-time is fixed. I don't see how that follows, the information set we see doesn't have to be the set of all relevant information. If one accepts that then the questions we ask only affect the answers we get, not the actual state of reality beyond the inside of our heads. But down this path lies the question of whether we can actually choose the questions we ask and the issue of free will. Can you see your navel yet? If you had an actual basis for a mechanism rather than just some loose ideas from that most spooky and outre realm of hard science that is quantum physics, then there might be something that could actually be discussed. As it is you seem to have simply been drawn into an argument over whether you even understand what Wheeler is saying. I don't know if you understand 'It from Bit' or not, but you have given only the vaguest of thoughts as to how it might lead to a basis for a mechanism for ID. Your thoughts don't seem much developed from the 'Intelligence affects the collapse of the eigenstate' that I suggested on the first page of this thread. Although in your case presumably it requires a special class of intelligence which is not readily available for testing. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-Dec-2005 05:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
cavediver claims that the information set of the future in one sense is already here since it is within space-time, but Wheeler suggests... But Wheeler nothing. Wheeler does not believe any different to me in this respect. Perhaps you can point out anywhere that Wheeler states that information is added to the universe by nature of observation? Or by anything else, for that matter...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That does not answer one solitary question I had.
That, frankly, is totally meaningless to any of the questions I gave. Now, Will you address those points one at a time, or expand on how 'observer participation in quantum events' is meaninful in a testable way to any of those matters?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
He doesn't say information is added, but does suggest that the form the information takes is influenced by observer participancy, hence my subsequent comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
My point on this thread is that observer participancy and other aspects of QM appear, to me, to offer a mechanism for real world effects, proven by QM, that involve information, consciousness potentially, observation, and form as a by-product of a previous information-state. These are qualities that any potential ID mechanism would need to include, and so it appears to me QM research is inadvertently researching potential ID mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Why have you assumed ID needs a mechanism ?
Evos don't even know what that means. Evolutionists have no mechanism as NS is hindsight observation for the strong survive - no shit - extreme simpleton logic euphemistically called a mechanism/NS. The origin of NS: Darwin concocted the idea after he read Malthus advocating govenmental help for the poor be abolished. Notice the "scientific origin" for this "scientific mechanism". I can provide exact source cites from respected Darwinian historians. Imagine that; NS originated from an argument denying the poor food stamps LOL ! In the mean time accept this link which candy coats my claim above: Thomas Malthus In Darwin's day NS was entirely rejected except by a few fanatics. Then in the 1930's when evos panicked and had to come up with a synthesis and mechanism they finally adopted Darwinian NS because they could not figure out how nature operated. We now know complexity is the m.o. of the IDer: complexity and nature are synonymous. ID is observed = stark reality. You have swallowed a Darwinian straw man whole and have painted yourself into a corner. ID has no mechanism. It is mechanisms that only God could have created like eyes and bat sonar. Ray The Emperor Has No Clothes - Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution This message has been edited by Herepton, 12-11-2005 03:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Ray, I haven't swallowed an evo straw man as I would believe and argue the same thing regardless if evolution was on the table. I believe QM crosses over into spiritual mechanics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
There is a difference between believing something, and coming up with a way to falsify it, or having it be real.
How do you propose to test this belief? What testable statement, if proven true, proves that statement false? What methodolgy would youuse to test that statement? I find QM very esoteric. I don't think that just because I don't understand it , that it means there is a 'spiritual gateway' there.You need something more substantial.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024