Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 181 of 198 (214027)
06-03-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-03-2005 6:20 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
I think we've already arrived there to a degree. In some ways, the findings of quantum physics have already eclipsed all of the a priori arguments against ID, and we may in fact wind up duplicating some direct engineering ID processes of creation.
When someone criticizes ID for positing non-material or non-natural means, they have already shown they are still clinging to an outdated classical paradigm of what material and physical reality consist of, imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-03-2005 6:20 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by sfs, posted 06-03-2005 11:59 PM randman has replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 182 of 198 (214067)
06-03-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by randman
06-03-2005 8:16 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
quote:
I think we've already arrived there to a degree. In some ways, the findings of quantum physics have already eclipsed all of the a priori arguments against ID, and we may in fact wind up duplicating some direct engineering ID processes of creation.
What a priori arguments against ID are you talking about? Most arguments against ID that I'm familiar with are some variant of "ID hasn't made a case for intelligent design." What arguments do you have in mind?
quote:
When someone criticizes ID for positing non-material or non-natural means, they have already shown they are still clinging to an outdated classical paradigm of what material and physical reality consist of, imo.
I don't criticize ID for positing non-natural means: I criticize it for positing more or less nothing. Nothing testable, at any rate. On the other hand, I find your attempted identification of QM with the non-natural to be quite odd. The reality described by QM has next to nothing to do with the kind of non-material realities that ID may or may not be talking about (but which they clearly have in mind). Once you get used to it, QM becomes just a way of describing a particular part of physical reality that behaves differently than the macroscopic objects most people are familiar with. There's nothing magic or non-physical about it. Physicists only study the physical -- it's in their job description.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 8:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by randman, posted 06-04-2005 2:51 AM sfs has replied
 Message 187 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 2:41 AM sfs has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 183 of 198 (214088)
06-04-2005 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by sfs
06-03-2005 11:59 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
You are missing the point. The principles of QM are remarkably the same as principles taught in spiritual traditions about the true nature of reality.
Let's dispense with the labels for "science" because if it is real, it is real, period, whether spiritual, natural, or whatever you want to call it.
You say for instance that QM studies the physical, but that's not really correct from a classical concept of physical. QM really is as much redefining what is physical or real, and in very interesting ways.
In fact, QM basically states that what we think of as physical is at root something non-physical, just as spiritual traditions have taught all along. QM presents the fundamental existence of particles as information, as patterns which contain or are held together as energy, and which manifest according to probability of the particle appearing according to a design in a certain manner.
QM suggests that what material and physical objects first consist of are energy patterns.
I could go on and discuss every single major discovery of quantum physics and how it parallels the same ideas presented in spiritual traditions, but just dealing with the fundamental nature of existence is a good one to illustrate the point.
To use the term physical or material in a scientific discussion requires one to accept the paradigm presented in QM which substantially alters older classical concepts of what "material" and "physical" really are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by sfs, posted 06-03-2005 11:59 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-04-2005 11:21 AM randman has replied
 Message 185 by sfs, posted 06-04-2005 10:05 PM randman has replied
 Message 186 by sfs, posted 06-04-2005 10:07 PM randman has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 184 of 198 (214163)
06-04-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by randman
06-04-2005 2:51 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
randman writes:
I could go on and discuss every single major discovery of quantum physics and how it parallels the same ideas presented in spiritual traditions, but just dealing with the fundamental nature of existence is a good one to illustrate the point.
While I wouldn't ask for every single major discovery, it would be interested in hearing a few examples of how QM alters some of the assumptions underlying the fundamental nature of existence.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-04-2005 04:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by randman, posted 06-04-2005 2:51 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 3:18 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 185 of 198 (214355)
06-04-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by randman
06-04-2005 2:51 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
quote:
You are missing the point. The principles of QM are remarkably the same as principles taught in spiritual traditions about the true nature of reality.
I'm not missing your point; I'm disagreeing with your point. I know a little about a variety of spiritual traditions and a fair bit about QM, and I see nothing but vague and superficial similarities, best appreciated by ignoring the real contents of both.
quote:
You are missing the point. The principles of QM are remarkably the same as principles taught in spiritual traditions about the true nature of reality.
Well, yes. That's rather the point of physics: to refine our understanding of the physical world. QM helped redefine our understanding of the physical, just as relativity, electromagnetism, Newtonian gravity and Copernican astronomy did before it.
quote:
In fact, QM basically states that what we think of as physical is at root something non-physical, just as spiritual traditions have taught all along. QM presents the fundamental existence of particles as information, as patterns which contain or are held together as energy, and which manifest according to probability of the particle appearing according to a design in a certain manner.
Um, no. QM nowhere syas that the root of the physical is nonphysical. All it says is that at certain scales, the physical has to be described by a probability function, rather than a deterministic one. It doesn't say that particles are fundamentally information. Some people choose to view them that way, which is fine, but that's one equivalent description among many, and it's just a description; the real stuff is still out there, stubbornly physical despite its odd behavior. It says that everything physical is characterized by its energy, sure -- but it also says it's characterized by its momentum, and its position, and its spin.
Basically, you're spinning a nice web of words that has little to do with real physics.
quote:
QM suggests that what material and physical objects first consist of are energy patterns.
No it doesn't, not really. Energy is no more fundamental than spin, for example. How many spiritual traditions talk about spin? What traditions talk about parity nonconservation, or Lorentz invariance?
On the other hand, many traditions do talk about gods and spiritual beings, about prophecy and revelation and prayer. QM has nothing to say about any of those topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by randman, posted 06-04-2005 2:51 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 2:55 AM sfs has replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 186 of 198 (214357)
06-04-2005 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by randman
06-04-2005 2:51 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Also, could you move back on topic a bit and explain your statement that QM undercuts arguments against ID? What arguments are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by randman, posted 06-04-2005 2:51 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 187 of 198 (214406)
06-05-2005 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by sfs
06-03-2005 11:59 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
I don't criticize ID for positing non-natural means
But others do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by sfs, posted 06-03-2005 11:59 PM sfs has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 188 of 198 (214408)
06-05-2005 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by sfs
06-04-2005 10:05 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Basically, you're spinning a nice web of words that has little to do with real physics.
I am pretty busy with another thread, but you are incorect here.
Take the comment of a "probability function." What does that mean?
I suggest you go back and consider that that means. I didn't get this stuff from creationists or IDers, but from physicists. Here is a famous quote that says the exact same thing I have. I apologize for the source. The full quote and speech are much better, but I think even the abbreviated statement is useful here.
"There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the Matrix of all matter."
~ Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning father of Quantum Theory
http://www.ufoteacher.com/portfolio/quotes.html
You also said:
It doesn't say that particles are fundamentally information.
Let's look at how another giant in the field describes the fundamental existence of things.
The fallacy giving rise to such speculations,Wheeler explains, is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
Hmmm... without "physical form" or "probability pattern", is there a difference here?
This message has been edited by randman, 06-05-2005 02:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by sfs, posted 06-04-2005 10:05 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by sfs, posted 06-05-2005 7:13 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 189 of 198 (214411)
06-05-2005 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-04-2005 11:21 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Sure, here are 3.
The idea physical things exist as a probability pattern, which is by definition information rather than a determined state. The root of what we observe as a physical thing is actually merely an energy pattern with a high probability of repeating itself in a certain manner.
One prominent quantum physics researcher made this same observation.
In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word".
Page not found - Metanexus
Another parallel involves the concept of what is possible. Take the concept of quantum tunneling. Classical physics says it's impossible to throw a ball against a wooden wall without the ball either bouncing back, or going straight through the wall.
Quantum physics says the opposite, that it is law of physics that there is always the possibility that the wall will go straight through the wall to the other side without damaging the wall.
An experiment in classical physics could for example test this with repeated observations, maybe even bouncing a ball against a wall a million times, and thus prove this is impossible.
But is it impossible? No, quantum physics is right. It's always possible, but not very likely with such a large object. We do see it with very small objects, such as electrons, and it's an important principle.
Of course, if we could discover how to manipulate quantum tunneling, then maybe we could make it happen more than would be mere chance.
How does this relate to spiritual traditions? Well, science has bashed miracles as being impossible, but here we see that it is not impossible. In fact, what is miraculous could well just be the timing and manipulation of a completely "natural" process. And most miracles in the Bible, for example, entail some specific action of faith (higher consciousness) interacting with God, and thus the requirement of a specific process would fit the idea that there are other processes that need to be tapped or activated to make this happen.
A third area is the consciousness interpretation of QM effects, namely the so-called collapsing of the wave function. From what I can tell among quantum physicists, consciousness-based models are the dominant explanation of what we see. Some here argue otherwise, but regardless, giants in the field like George Mandel, John Wheeler, and many, many others are on record as stating they see interaction or potential interaction with consciousness in some form as fundamental to matter taking a definite form.
That's pretty strong evidence for a direct connection between the energy of one's consciousness and thoughts with the energy that makes up the probability pattern that manifests into matter. That in turn offers a scientific explanation for how the principle of "reaping what we sow" indirectly works.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-05-2005 03:18 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 06-05-2005 03:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-04-2005 11:21 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 198 (214423)
06-05-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-10-2005 7:13 PM


Re: Facts and philosophies
Ex writes:
My only concern with this is that if God actually was directly involved in the speciation of life on earth in a physical and tangible way, a reliance on solely materialistic causalities would tend to miss whatever evidence might actually be left behind to indicate this (if any).
And what exactly would we expect to see if a god has been involved speciation? However you then give youself the out that the supernatural entity may act but conceal her actions! Aren't there qualified biologists in the ID movement who would have discovered have uncovered and supposed evidence? I can only conclude that ID is pseudoscience.
Let's use Occam's Razor and exclude a hint-hiding deity from the explanation from speciation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-10-2005 7:13 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-05-2005 8:49 AM wj has replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 191 of 198 (214446)
06-05-2005 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by randman
06-05-2005 2:55 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
quote:
Take the comment of a "probability function." What does that mean?
I suggest you go back and consider that that means. I didn't get this stuff from creationists or IDers, but from physicists.
I have thought about what it means. I was an experimental particle physicist for ten years, and had to deal with the reality of QM every day. The wave function isn't a spiritual force, and it isn't an Idea matrix, and it isn't thought, or at least there's no reason for thinking of it as any of those things It's a model for how physical stuff behaves.
Yes, Planck thought that there was a conscious mind behind matter. Einstein didn't. Neither conclusion is physics, and physicists have no special standing to draw philosophical conclusions. As it happens, I'm inclined to agree with Planck rather than Einstein, but I don't think it follows from the physics. Physicists who think QM requires an intelligence behind the universe are quite rare.
quote:
The fallacy giving rise to such speculations,Wheeler explains, is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.
As I've already said, I don't like this formulation, since it makes much of physics nonphysical, and I doubt that Wheeler himself would use it consistently. Is an electron a physical thing? But Wheeler's basic point is correct, and basic to any understanding of QM: you simply cannot apply ordinary physical intuition about how stuff behaves at the quantum level.
You might also note that Wheeler's belief that consciousness is important in quantum measurement is a decidedly minority, and shrinking, view among physicists. The trend is to understand measurement in terms of decoherence, not consciousness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 2:55 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 5:39 PM sfs has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 192 of 198 (214462)
06-05-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by wj
06-05-2005 4:05 AM


Re: Facts and philosophies
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
My only concern with this is that if God actually was directly involved in the speciation of life on earth in a physical and tangible way, a reliance on solely materialistic causalities would tend to miss whatever evidence might actually be left behind to indicate this (if any).
wj writes:
And what exactly would we expect to see if a god has been involved speciation?
Maybe we could expect to find the Sabbath week imprinted into the biological rhythms of all life -- some kind of seven day cycle that defies a "natural" explanation.
wj writes:
However you then give youself the out that the supernatural entity may act but conceal her actions!
No. I just think that we simply don't know "how" God did it yet.
As far as I can tell, Intelligent Design is basically a continuation of the Thomastic arguments for God's existence, which were originally already conceived within many ways in Aristotle's metaphysics.
Currently, ID seems to be simply pointing out the limits of human knowledge and inferring God from the lack of evidence thereof -- an argument from ignorance. However, at some point, in redefining their arguments more clearly, they may be able to achieve their desired goal.
When ID can present a natural theology for God's existence without recourse to Scripture by presenting experimental data that indicates an intelligent designer, then it will have achieved credibility on a scientific level.
In other words, if one can discern a signature of Deity based on the scientific evidence in so far that one arrives at the same conclusion that the Scriptures do in regards to its statements about Creation (without actually interpreting the data based on the Scriptures themselves), then one will start to actually have an authentic theory of ID which can likewise be subject to falsification.
wj writes:
Aren't there qualified biologists in the ID movement who would have discovered have uncovered and supposed evidence?
Maybe they have started already.
Examples of theoretical evidence for such a theory would have to display a pattern of scientific evidence which demonstrates unique qualities within creation which are markedly "set apart" from mechanisms of the best natural explantions for our existence available to science.
I do think this can be done to some extent within astrophysics. For example, big bang theory seems to point toward an extra-natural causaulity for our universe's creation. Penzias saw the philosophical significance in his discovery.
Penzias writes:
"The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far."
However, it does not necessarilly imply a creator by virtue of its own evidence. To this extent, ID has thus far not succeeded at its goal.
wj writes:
I can only conclude that ID is pseudoscience.
I tend to think it's a proto-science at this stage.
wj writes:
Let's use Occam's Razor and exclude a hint-hiding deity from the explanation from speciation.
Like randman has said in other threads:
randman writes:
If it's part of reality, it is part of reality, period, and we can perhaps address it via science. It may be, like string theory, that we lack the technology to test for it, but the idea that what we call the supernatural is off-limits arbitrarily is, imo, somewhat silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by wj, posted 06-05-2005 4:05 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 6:19 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 196 by wj, posted 06-07-2005 6:42 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 193 of 198 (214535)
06-05-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by sfs
06-05-2005 7:13 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
But Wheeler's basic point is correct, and basic to any understanding of QM: you simply cannot apply ordinary physical intuition about how stuff behaves at the quantum level.
Can you elaborate?
The reason I ask is even when I hear someone explain how QM effects are not the way I see them, it always pretty much comes back to them obeying principles that were presented in another arena as "spiritual."
I realize there is a certain concern over calling something spiritual, but spiritual could just mean the informational realm governing over the non-informational and visible realm.
Let me ask you something to be more specific.
Do you consider the comment I quoted from a prominent current QM researcher to be accurate?
In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word".
Page not found - Metanexus
I think it's accurate because indeterminedness but an existing pattern governing that indeterminedness seems exactly like the information pattern is fundamental, and physical existence is a secondary effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by sfs, posted 06-05-2005 7:13 AM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by sfs, posted 06-08-2005 3:40 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 194 of 198 (214546)
06-05-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-05-2005 8:49 AM


Re: Facts and philosophies
Mr Ex Nihilo, you seem like a smart and well-informed guy. When you have a minute, would you consider strolling on over to the "convergent evolution" thread and take a stab at it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-05-2005 8:49 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-06-2005 2:47 PM randman has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 195 of 198 (214705)
06-06-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by randman
06-05-2005 6:19 PM


Re: Facts and philosophies
randman writes:
Mr Ex Nihilo, you seem like a smart and well-informed guy.
Thanks randman. Unfortunatly I'm actualy not that smart. I just really take the time to express my ideas as clearly as possible.
randman writes:
When you have a minute, would you consider strolling on over to the "convergent evolution" thread and take a stab at it?
I've gone over and read through a large portion of it. I think it's an intersting debate. Unfortuantely my knowledge of the topic is very limited. I'd like to read more about it before I make any definite assertions.
On the whole, however, I think you've presented an interesting potential dichotomy there. It's something that I'll be looking into further. If, as I read through it further, I feel that I have something worthwhile to contribute, I'll add my two cents worth.
The only thing that I can say, loosely speaking, is that the molecular clock put to effective usage by Allan Wilson and Vincent Sariach has apparently had an enomourmous impact upon some of the accepted notions of human descent.
For example, anthroplogists relying upon fossil evidence had estimated that the ape and human lineage had split at least 15 million years ago -- but the molecular calculations supported a period between 5 and 10 million years ago.
Apparently a date of around 7 million years has come to be widely accepted, in large part because of the molecular data.
More recently, however, Wilson and others have studied decent within the human species by analyzing mitochondrial DNA -- which is passed from the female, from mother to daughter. Their conclusion is that all contemporary humans are descendents of a woman who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago.
Some anthropologists do not aceept this conclusion, however. Part of the reason for not accepting it is because it implies that all the Homo Erectus fossils found outside of Africa that are older than 200,000 years could not be in the line of descent leading to modern humans.
In this area, at least according to IDers such as Johnson, conflict is developing between fossil experts and molecular biologists over which discipline has the authority to settle disputes over the course of human evolution. While I'm not sure about Johnson's thoughts on the matter, I think it is correct to say that there is some issues of ambiguity between these two disciplines which may be related to your thoughts on "convergent evolution". I don't think it's as cut and dry as some see it.
If you're looking for more information on this, do a search for "neutral evolution" (I think that's what it's called?). I might be wrong but I think the "neutralists" may have some answers to the refutations that are being presented against your thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 6:19 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024