Moving towards an ID mechanism.

So far the connection to ID has yet to be shown. The elements concerned relate to the interaction of the experimental apparatus and single particles (e.g. photons). There does not seem to be any truly "creative" element - simply a predictable response to the apparatus.So how about producing additional material that actually supports your ideas ?s

I'm not arguing with Wheeler. I want the items that support your claims. And simply stating that it "seems" that Wheeler disagrees with my points is not going to cut it - expecially when the quoted statements contain no disagreement.Looking at the interview this point seems more relevant:

quote:

---

The "creative" element here, thus far, is perhaps better stated as the
"making element" in that the thing itself exists as information, but takes on form as a result of observation. The taking on a definite form was what I was referring to as "creative."

---

I think it is misleading to use "creative" in a sense that could equally well apply to an assembly-line robot. Which appears to be what you mean. Wheeler's point is that the sort of answers you get when investigating quantum phenomena are essentially a product of how you try to get the answer (which is in turn constrained by the question you are trying to answer). But this aspect is predictable - the delayed choice experiments are repeatable, for instance. Thus the element you call "creative" appears to be "mechanical" - a causal result of the measurement. And of course "creativity" of this sort cannot support ID because it is not intelligent.

The delayed choice experiments don't deal with "physical form" - they deal with the paths apparently followed by photons. And I don't remember any suggestion that the results of the delayed-choice experiments were wrong - only the extent to which they showed "creativity".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).

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.

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