Moving towards an ID mechanism.

So who's asking the questions? This just sounds like yet another framework for interpreting quantum formalism. Any one of them might be right or wrong but since they are all different interperative forms of the quantum formalism they all 'work'. Many worlds 'works', the transactional interpretation 'works', the copenhagen interpretation 'works'. How does this differ from the many interpretations of the quantum formalism.TTFN,WK

Well, I am not sure the transactional interpretation is as exclusive as it has been presented, but that's a little different topic.The Copenhagen interpretation seems to actually be several different interpretations all rolled into one, and the It from Bit fits into that, I think.The Many-worlds does work just as well. So I cannot argue there.I think the It from Bit concept though has some simplicity in combining information systems with the quantum phenomena, and also provides a groundwork to developing quantum computers potentially.Personally, I think there may be a bit of truth in a number of approaches. Obviously, I think the It from Bit has merit, but at the same time, it does not preclude many worlds, although it takes away the need for it. At the same time, it suggests perhaps with different observers, there may exist different universes, and so back a little bit to many worlds thinking.

It has been put forward (McFadden and Al-Khalili, 1999).TTFN,WK

Dang, I didn't know that. What do you think about the paper?This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 06:56 PM

Boy have I got you buffaloed. I have just the most basic grasp on the concepts and zero knowledge of the math. Actually Schroeder's book is very readable with a very basic understanding of the principles.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I remember now, GDR. I was thinking of cavediver and the guy with the weirder sounding moniker where we all participated, and forgot you were like me in asking those guys some questions about General Relativity and the like.By the way, I enjoyed thinking of Barbour's thesis immensely.My own take is that space and time are not absolute qualities of existence but relative aspects of existence.This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 07:53 PM

Seems a big complaint is that ID did not posit a mechanism. With that study and other ideas, should ID be considered a viable scientific theory?

I don't see how that's a mechanism. Collapsing quantum states doesn't appear to have any usefulness in, say, chemistry. How do you generate a protein by collapsing quantum states?QM is not a scientific basis for magic, RM, even though it seems magical to you.

That's only because you don't understand QM. It does seem like magic which is why some of the best quantum physicists said no one can "understand" it. I think he was wrong, and he wasn't saying he and others could not use it, observe it, predict it, etc,...but that it was so far off from prior paradigms (seems like magic) that you just have to first accept the observations.Btw, QM is more than collapsing of the wave function. It involves entanglement which does affect chemistry.Besides, you missed WK's link. A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation - PubMedI don't have access to the whole article, but clearly these scientists do believe quantum phenomena and principles play a role in adaptive mutations.Are they proclaiming magic too?

Actually Barbour's theories and Scroeder's ideas come at things from totally different perspectives but are at the same time compatible. The comment that really got me thinking was Don Page's comment on Barbour's work, when he said that eventually we will not only find that time is illusionary but so is space. Where do you go from there? I've read a number of your thoughts and you really should read "The Hidden Face of God" by Schroeder. The book is on this very topic and covers it from the point of view of the biologist, the cosmologist and the theologist. (He's Jewish which I guess is pretty obvious.)By the way, congratulations on your recent promotion. Will you be joining the admin union?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Pretty much, yeah. Their paper doesn't even have conclusive evidence that adaptive mutations actually occur. The only examples they give are the E. coli on lactose substrate experiments, and they don't seem to address the most logical explanation - that E. coli on such a substrate appear to "mutate on demand" only because those that don't perish too quickly to be observed.You really should read the whole paper. Here's a link: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_and_al-khalili.pdf

404: Page Not Found - The Globe and MailThis message has been edited by GDR, 11-21-2005 06:08 PM

Never been a union man myself. Same thing with me. To me, GR and QM sort of shows this. If at the speed of light, time and distance equal 0, then it seems that time and space are not absolute qualities, but maybe I am missing something there.It seems even clearer in QM because of the basic undefined and immaterial state which then injects a form into time and space, suggesting a deeper informational structure within the universe.I'll have to check the book out.

Well, regardless of that paper, the principle of entanglement can affect chemistry and is considered as a factor in materials research and development.

I don't know that much about adaptive mutations, but at the same time, there appears to be many scientists that accept the phenomenon as real. What's more interesting to me are the claims that "biological phenomena involve the movements of fundamental particles ...and thus are properly described by quantum rather than classical mechanics."I am not positive about that claim, but it does seem it would make sense for certain biological phenomena, even if not all as the paper asserts.