Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

So what about the QM involved in the construction of your monitor? Or of your P4 or Athlon? Are those theoretical expressions of QM? What about Cern and Fermilab? Last time I checked, experimental apparatus miles in diameter were not a requirement of a theoretical experiment. This is simply false. I don't know where this idea comes from.This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-26-2005 09:18 AM

The problem is that you are taking terms and concepts you do not understand and redefining them to mean what you want them to mean. The end result is utter nonsense that sounds good to the uninitiated.

Maybe, but we are talking INTERPRETATIONS. Not the physics, not the mechanics, not the mathematics. The answer is ALWAYS the same, no matter which interpretation you use. That is why they are interpretations, not seperate theories. A particular interpretation does not leave room for some extra mechanism, be it ID or something entirely physical. QM is enhanced, not by the interpretations, but by deeper theories: QFT for example. No, a great many quantum physicists do understand their field... it's pretty much the defining characteristic of a quantum physicist. You don't get very far without understanding what is going on. No disrespect, but there is no debating to be done here. I can educate soemone in QM, if they show a willingness to learn, but I am not aware of anyone on this board with whom I could viably debate QM. No one has the requisite knowledge to agree or diagree with my points, nor even to appeal to papers, QM texts, or even Wikipedia. There are many who could beat me to a pulp over QM, but they would all be post-doc in quantum theory. If you will permit me a little idolatry, Wheeler is a god. I sadly never reached even the beginnings of apotheosis. I don't think any quantum physicist on the planet would disagree with this, given a sufficient definition of the terms: undefined, defined, state. Herein lies the problem: you do not have sufficient understanding of these terms, yet wield them with false authority. Not at all. I am just here to point out bad physics, and explain good physics. Wheeler espouses a very interesting set of ideas concerning quantum information theory. The trouble is you are bastardising and corrupting these ideas to somehow show support for ID.If you want God to act through QM, it is very simple. You do not need any deep interpretation, just the basic mechanics. BUT you will not be able to distinguish it from naturalism. And your delving into quantum information theory is not going to improve this position.If you want an evidential act of God, you will have to look elsewhere. QM provides cover for God's activities, and hence performs the opposite of what you seem to be looking for.