Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 5:48 AM
235 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 233 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,570 Year: 10,393/29,783 Month: 1,057/1,583 Week: 75/451 Day: 7/68 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Moving towards an ID mechanism.
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2867 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 61 of 141 (263849)
11-28-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-28-2005 1:31 PM


Re: where's the beet?
They(objects) do incorporate the whole poulation thinking universe of biology, yes?

If yes, then next, does stochasticID exist?

If yes- then by what maths…
??????????????????????????????
If no-Randman vs Cavediver??

This is a possible thought where the populations of biology include the brains of the humans doing QM(humans are primates, there is a common ancestor, lateral gene transfer exists, etc) but if randomID has some significant probability there is not really the same question as if IDdesigners exist, here. There may still be some however.

The confusion would lie then in the information aspect of supramolecular statics, later to be discussed as dynamized given some value to absolute torque(relative to invariants in any givable design inter mutation alia), provided said maths exist.

Measurement and Observation may not be a part of Provine’s post-60s evolutionary biology but they are of worthy size in view of experimental philosophy. It is possible that I am aposteriori mistaken but this way I can not be in fault of inappropriate a priori probabilities in the plyed incidence geometry within.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-28-2005 05:11 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 1:31 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 7:23 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 62 of 141 (263907)
11-28-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Brad McFall
11-28-2005 5:10 PM


Re: where's the beet?
Brad, can you break that down a bit?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Brad McFall, posted 11-28-2005 5:10 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 11-28-2005 8:45 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2867 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 63 of 141 (263934)
11-28-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
11-28-2005 7:23 PM


Re: where's the beat?
You said
quote:
the neat thing about QM is that the double-split experiment and related delayed-choice experiments are experiments with real objects, not just mathematical concepts.

I have heard that before. Last Christmass both of my brothers were talking about this stuff. I really didnt care then. I guess I must this year.

I was reading CaveDiver's post to apply to objects, no matter whether it is the whole universe or a part of it that Mick wanted to have out of the question, but CDiver is very adroit with words, so let him speak himself, a for...

In his words

quote:
physical interpretation of the mathematics
is broad enough however to apply to any findable application in biology of QM at least if the philosophy of math extends to Kronecker vs Cantor say when not Brouwerisms I think.

I thought I had seen some indication in the questioning after WoundKing gave the reference earlier, that there was a lack of appreciation for the possibility that design could be random as well( stochasticID might find a strange bedfellow with netural gene expressions etc.). My own idea of artifical selection of natural selections (being reedited to become clearer in the Malthus essay
http://www.students.tc3.edu/bmcfall/fripge.htm
via ecosystem engineering) can be as random as we can make machines approach pure chances is of this kin indeed. I do not have any evidence that ID has been so supposed or proposed, but if one limited oneself to the application of philosophy of math to particle combination enumerations, whether this is recoverd by information techniques or mere brain power, the negative side of Cavedivers' turned possible androidness, need not be entered on a highly critical level, the specifics that he and you are addressing I leave to the both of you until and unless I can partition Boltzman better than the guy himself. What I understand that he writes, I rather like.

I assumed the IDmechanism being approached to be one in life if it does exist.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-28-2005 08:47 PM

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-28-2005 08:51 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 7:23 PM randman has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 64 of 141 (264136)
11-29-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-28-2005 1:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Randman, with all due respect I used to sit down and chat these things through over coffee with scientists far more famous and "heavy-weight" than John Wheeler. [abe would have loved the opportunity to sit down with JAW as well, but it never happened. Great shame, especially as I missed ever meeting his student as well] BTW, I used to teach advanced quantum mechanics at Cambridge.

You are tackling a subject at the frontier of human knoweldge. It should be the height of arrogance to believe that you can have a sensible discussion on this. However, the popular science press make a good deal of money out of pretending that these things are comprehendible at a layman level, so I appreciate your desires. I am sorry, life and quantum mechanics are not like that. I could patronise you with some weak analogies and make you feel that you were learning something, but I do not have the time, nor do I think that it is worthwhile to the discussion.

This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-29-2005 01:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 1:31 PM randman has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 141 (264157)
11-29-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-28-2005 1:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Ok, having said it's not worthwhile...

the neat thing about QM is that the double-split experiment and related delayed-choice experiments are experiments with real objects, not just mathematical concepts.

I couldn't agree more. QM is very real. But these experiments do not reveal unknown or mysterious facets of the universe, just some concepts that do not fit common sense. Even Einstein objected to some of these concepts, so there can be no disgrace in finding them mysterious.

you also don't seem to understand what I, nor Wheeler is talking about.

Well, you may be entirely right wrt to your ideas. But may I respectfully suggest a 10yr education in theoretical physics before you are in a position to judge my understanding of Wheeler's work?

The fact you think anyone has invoked magic suggests you don't understand their claims.

I do not believe that Wheeler nor any other major quantum physicst (well, David Bohm was always a little out there...) is invoking magic. It is wrt to your ideas and claims that I use the term. I believe you are seriously misunderstanding quantum mechanics and especially the it-from-bit concept. As much as I hate to push popular science, there are some books out there on it-from-bit that may be useful.

Why not take their claims seriously?

I do. In fact, some of my own studies of the holographic principle went way past this stuff.

One thing Wheeler is very clear on, and I beleive is solidly supported by the evidence, and that is the fundamental state of things prior to observation is undefined

No, only observational properties are undefined in that without observation, they do not exist. The "fundemental state of things" is very well defined. It is all a matter of what you are calling fundemental. You have to go deeper...

Why are you dodging that issue?

I can only explain this stuff to you in analogies. You can question, but if you start arguing, you have to appreciate that you may simply not be understanding the analogy, may be missing the point, maybe picking up on a weakness of the analogy, etc. This is not debate.

This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-29-2005 02:44 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 1:31 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:16 PM cavediver has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 141 (264165)
11-29-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by cavediver
11-29-2005 2:43 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Cavediver, I am aware different physicists think about this differently, but assertations from authority don't help much, and you appear to agree with me in one respect in the following.

In fact, some of my own studies of the holographic principle went way past this stuff.

The holographic principle agrees with my basic contention about what QM shows.

No, only observational properties are undefined in that without observation, they do not exist. The "fundemental state of things" is very well defined. It is all a matter of what you are calling fundemental. You have to go deeper...

I am going deeper. Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying here or what is being said. No one is claiming the fundamental state is not defined in one sense. The use of the terms "undefined" or "unreal" by Wheeler, which I use by extension, are within a context, and a context you should know about and thus it perplexes me to see you dodge the issue.

The "undefined" and "unreal" comments deal with form. They exist as a potential for various forms, a potential for physical discreteness. That potential is definitely real and defined, but not as single state, which is generally what people think of when they think of something as physical.

I refer to that existence as information or an information or virtual state, and go on to talk about Zeilinger's work in trying to define how it works within the It from Bit paradigm.

What's your beef with my descriptions?

Virtual and holographic are very similar terms, and yet you seem quite pleased with your use of holographic, but act like my use of virtual (in a layman's sense) is absurd, or the result of not being as educated in this area.

Imo, you are not addressing the issue of the It from Bit concept, but just saying, well, you don't understand it because we can explain it from math. Well, so what if you can explain from math. No is saying math should not apply, but none of that changes the basic issue here of what the fundamental state of things are.

Moreover, the fact you think stating things are fully deterministic somehow invalidates or applies to what I have posted shows you are not looking closely at it, nor considering it. Btw, I don't want to get sidetracked into indeterminancy discussions because that really has no bearing on what I am saying here.

What I am saying is that matter from our perspective as a discrete form comes into being, or is derived from, this more fundamental state which whether calls the process holographic or whatever, the former concept of what is real, or physical, is shown to be derived property of a larger framework of potentials.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 2:43 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 3:40 PM randman has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 67 of 141 (264175)
11-29-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
11-29-2005 3:16 PM


Re: where's the beef?
The holographic principle agrees with my basic contention about what QM shows.

If your basic contention is that observed reality is emergent from some deeper reality substantially different from our (3+1)d perspective, then I agree... just about every approach to TOE suggests this.

But every approach has its own formalism of this underlying "reality". It is not some free-form existence from where species can appear or alternate realities merge with ours, or more importantly, some Wizard-of-Oz curtain behind which God operates the levers of reality.

As I said, these proposed underlying realities have form and substance and are described mathematically. I cannot even begin to discuss these ideas with you, becasue you do not talk the required language. You can hypothesise all you like, but do not delude yourself to thinking at Wheeler's level. Not because you necessarily lack the intellectual ability, just the rather extensive training. It doesn't matter how clever you are, cleverness does not convey the ability to converse in Cantonese.

These concepts have no bearing whatsoever upon evolution, nor any other macroscopic situation.

The "undefined" and "unreal" comments deal with form. They exist as a potential for various forms, a potential for physical discreteness. That potential is definitely real and defined, but not as single state, which is generally what people think of when they think of something as physical.

You see, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. If you want to play the game, you have to talk the same language as the players. You are speaking in laymanese and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Virtual and holographic are very similar terms, and yet you seem quite pleased with your use of holographic, but act like my use of virtual (in a layman's sense) is absurd, or the result of not being as educated in this area.

The HP refers to something very specific. Your use of the word virtual is vague and imprecise.

Imo, you are not addressing the issue of the It from Bit concept, but just saying, well, you don't understand it because we can explain it from math.

No, I am saying that it is nothing special. It is is merely a way of putting words to the underlying mathematical concepts. It is just an idea. Somthing like the HP gives a possible realisation of it-from-bit. Again, this has NOTHING to do with macroscopic phenomena. It does not enable macroscopic objects to break the laws of classical physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:16 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:58 PM cavediver has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 68 of 141 (264182)
11-29-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by cavediver
11-29-2005 3:40 PM


Re: where's the beef?
If your basic contention is that observed reality is emergent from some deeper reality substantially different from our (3+1)d perspective, then I agree...

Then, we agree here.


just about every approach to TOE suggests this.

I disagree very strongly here, but maybe I don't understand the point. How do approaches to ToE contain or suggest theories of a deeper reality?

As I said, these proposed underlying realities have form and substance and are described mathematically.

Exactly as I have stated, proposed, and fully in line with an Intelligent Design mechanism. Once again, I don't see how you are in disagreement with me here on the facts. Maybe you just dislike the wording.

You are speaking in laymanese and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sometimes the fact one cannot discuss something in everyday language means they don't understand it as well as they think or cannot envision what they do understand that well due to limits in the way they think about the world. I think what I have stated is pretty darn clear, if you just stop and think about.

You say the world is a holographic projection of a deeper reality. Well, in layman's terms, the world is what is physical, not the deeper reality. So what we think of as physical is a derived state from that deeper reality. That deeper reality is ordered, and thus the idea of information.

Zeilinger seeks to explain quantum mechanics as a result of elementary particles containing an elementary bit, right? So that information of the bit is spend, the particle cannot possess the information for the previous superpositional state, but is in a single state because the Bit was spent, and thus it collapses to a single form or however you want to look at it. This is where your comments could be useful, if you can ever come to see that the holographic perspective and my terminology express the same basic idea in terms of there being a deeper reality.

No, I am saying that it is nothing special. It is is merely a way of putting words to the underlying mathematical concepts. It is just an idea.

That's bull crap, cavediver. We already agreed it does show something very special, the existence of a deeper reality. So it's not "just an idea." It's a very powerful idea and if we understand and can utilyze that realm, we may well produce quantum computers and all sorts of things.

In terms of the macroscopic world, the study WK linked to claims mutations are governed by QM, not classical mechanics, and if that's the case, then it affects the macro-world in a major way specifically evolutionary mechanisms.

There have been tests indicating atoms and molecules exhibit wave-like properties, and the quantum world seems to, in fact, extend a little further than once believed. So claiming that QM does not affect or has nothing to do with the macro-world appears to have been premature. Certainly, Wheeler's applications of QM to the universe as a whole suggest he disagrees strongly with you on that.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-29-2005 04:05 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 3:40 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2005 4:03 PM randman has responded
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:25 PM randman has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1929 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 69 of 141 (264184)
11-29-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
11-29-2005 3:58 PM


Re: where's the beef?
How do approaches to ToE contain or suggest theories of a deeper reality?

In this instance I suspect TOE stands for 'theory of everything'.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:58 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:06 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 141 (264185)
11-29-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Wounded King
11-29-2005 4:03 PM


Re: where's the beef?
OK, thanks for clarifying.

Regardless then, TOE or QM all indicate a deeper reality.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-29-2005 04:15 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2005 4:03 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 71 of 141 (264190)
11-29-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
11-29-2005 3:58 PM


Re: where's the beef?
I disagree very strongly here, but maybe I don't understand the point. How do approaches to ToE contain or suggest theories of a deeper reality?

Context is everything... think about the subject we are discussing: TOE - Theory of Everything

Exactly as I have stated, proposed, and fully in line with an Intelligent Design mechanism

Where is there room for an ID mechansim if the underlying theory is deterministic. There is no theory of which I am aware that is not deterministic. The last one was dropped by Hawking a few years back.

Sometimes the fact one cannot discuss something in everyday language means they don't understand it as well as they think or cannot envision what they do understand that well due to limits in the way they think about the world.

Hmmm, perhaps. But then why have I got a string of POTMs for my explanations of relativity and QM topics? Why do I find so many of my life's beer drinking hours spent explaining black holes to those silly enough to ask? Anyway, how would you know? When was the last time you had to explain frontier science to anyone? I mean, black holes and GR is a piece of cake compared to this. Why should this be understandable by you? Give me something similar that you have grasped without the corresponding education?

You say the world is a holographic projection of a deeper reality

No, I say I've worked on the Holographic Principle. Something very very different. This is a piece of mathematical conjecture, given validity with the proof of the AdS/CFT correspondance. It is formal science, not some bandying of words.

Zeilinger seeks to explain quantum mechanics as a result of elementary particles containing an elementary bit

Ok, first off, what is an elementary particle? Particles are not elementary. We use fields. And what kind of particle? Are we talking boson or fermion? What about confined states such as quark combinations... do colourless states have to contain two bits (mesons) or three bits (hadrons), such that the individual bits are as unobservable as the quarks themselves. That doesn't sound right... What about a QED three-vertex function? Where is the bit-flow? These are questions that should immediately arise in a decent 3rd year undergard/grad student.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:58 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:34 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 77 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2005 5:32 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 141 (264196)
11-29-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:25 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Context is everything... think about the subject we are discussing: TOE - Theory of Everything

So not only QM but TOE agrees with me here then.

Where is there room for an ID mechansim if the underlying theory is deterministic.

Whether something is deterministic is a moot point either way.

Ok, first off, what is an elementary particle?

Context is everything, as you said above. Had you read Zeilinger's work, and I had assumed you had, you would know that by "elementary" he means elementary in the context of containing a Bit. In other words, the informational bit is a potential response to a yes/no question, the idea being that's the lowest reduction level that can take place in an informational system and all other questions/answers can be built up from that system.

Personally, I am not 100% sure of this theory of there being elementary bits, but that's the idea, and something I hoped you were familiar with and could discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:25 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM randman has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 73 of 141 (264205)
11-29-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
11-29-2005 4:34 PM


Re: where's the beef?
So not only QM but TOE agrees with me here then.

No, not if you mean in the way you try to use QM to back up your outlandish claims at EvC. There is no ID mechanism hiding in any of this. There is no room.

Whether something is deterministic is a moot point either way.

No, it is not moot. It is exceptionally important. Do you understand determinism? You cannot add information in a deterministic system. There can be no external influence. There is unitary evolution via the S-matrix. Hawking's $-matrix didn't gain information either, it only lost information.

Had you read Zeilinger's work

I do browse Zeilinger's work. To which paper are you referring. He's rather prolific. I count 67 papers on quant-ph alone.

My understanding of Zeilinger is not at question here, it is your understanding.

Tell you what. I have his contact email here. I may just send him some excerpts from EvC (if Percy doesn't mind) and ask him to comment... sound like a plan?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:34 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 5:15 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 75 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:24 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 76 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:31 PM cavediver has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2867 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 141 (264211)
11-29-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:56 PM


Re: where's the place?
There was some possible room here
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=361&m=1#13
but I have not gotten far enough to reliably criticize Russel on Cantor on limits, Dedekind on Cantor on real numbers, or Dauben on Cantor's personality.

The determinism would be ruled by a higher order catastorphe set of Thom with topological conditions that would be unknown to us today that provide the place to space in the redundant numbers that physics still does not use since it strove for a single dimenional analysis. I am sure there is philosophy about it but the question of where is the good room that is free to Intelligent Design if God needs latitude as well as longitude?

... is a vaild question indeed.

Sometimes I wonder if the Gibbs applied to Boscovich in terms of neutral mutations might bind said conditions practically.I sleep on the idea that this would solve the difference of opinion between Rene Thom and Francis Crick. Of course I do not know. If so then the cross space and time differential equations of macrothermodynics would score the text describing the same but TOE means theory of evolution not theory of everything to me here. I do not see how ID can move to a mechanism if only operates with a physical teleology no matter the idol freedem idillic nonetheless.

The place is in some form of a turtle that remands a real physical difference of numberclasses genetically. I do not know if these exist. I do know that turtles have barbels and perhaps they really exist in a constant Hausdorf dimension of ordertypes that are represented by different sets of real numbers in different demes but that is streching it even for me.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-29-2005 05:16 PM

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-29-2005 05:23 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:43 PM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 75 of 141 (264216)
11-29-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:56 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Please do, but don't ask him to comment on whether he believes in ID or his work is applicable to ID or anything like that, but rather on the science he deals with, the particulars of QM.

As we all know, there is a great deal of hostility towards scientists that even consider anything related to ID, and one such scientist at the Smithsonian was subject to an intense withhunt that included deliberate fabrications in an attempt to smear him. So I am not that open to trying to subject Zeilinger to such smear attacks, and frankly, would advise him not to get into ID discussions if he values his current work.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-29-2005 05:24 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by MangyTiger, posted 11-29-2005 5:38 PM randman has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018