Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,356 Year: 3,613/9,624 Month: 484/974 Week: 97/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4918 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 49 (451539)
01-28-2008 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Elmer
01-27-2008 11:47 PM


Re: Trying to get some coherency
But this thread was begun on the understanding that it the "Aspect" experiments were irrefutable proof that space and time, and thus matter itself, were not what Materialism, and its determinism, had always held them to be.
You are exactly correct. My comment is just another way to illustrate that. Here's a quote from an interview with Zeilinger.
Take a particle with an uncertain location and an uncertain velocity. When you look at it through a microscope and locate it, the particle gives you an answer: "Here I am." That means, the location becomes reality at that moment. Beforehand, the particle had no location at all.
The effect has so far been proved across a distance of a hundred kilometres. The amazing thing is that there can be no exchange of information between the two particles. They react absolutely in synch, although they could could never know anything of each other's existence. You can think of it as two dice far away from each other that always land on the same number, without there being any kind of mechanism which connects them. .........The spooky effect at a distance is a process outside time and space
Anton Zeilinger, Mathias Plüss, Regina Hügli: Spooky action and beyond (16/02/2006) - signandsight
What QM shows is that the basic operation for the formation and appearance of matter as a physical reality is, in fact, an immaterial process outside space and time whereby a particle's existence is immaterial, existing as a design or information, which becomes physical as a secondary, derived property. The process is not mechanistic because it's the appearance of an immaterial state into a physical state. Entanglement further illustrates this reality, that quantum operations are immaterial outside space and time, by the fact entangled particles behave as one system so that what happens to one when it "becomes" physical immediately determines what happens to another regardless of distance and imo and there are papers indicating this, regardless of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Elmer, posted 01-27-2008 11:47 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Elmer, posted 01-28-2008 8:00 AM randman has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5922 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 47 of 49 (451616)
01-28-2008 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
01-28-2008 12:03 AM


Re: Trying to get some coherency
Hi randman;
Thanks for the link. What follows are merely my rambling speculations, made up 'ex tempore', just for fun. You can stop right here, or read as much of this daydreaming as suits you.
I would take from it [rightly or wrongly] that an original particle does not exist in space and time until some element of 'observation/perception' brings it into a meaningless, tentative, existence by bestowing temporal 'properties' upon it, [that is, creates a 'datum']. Same for another [gazillion?] particles/data brouight into existence in the same manner. Each distinct from any other, and hence meaningless, information free.
Vacuous, that is,until a simultaneous observation/perception of two or more such 'data bits' enables property/identity comparison, and that comparison,
a/creates meaning, significance, information, and b/ instills 'entanglement', that is instills a linkage/melding of properties/identities, that, as 'information/meaning/significance', lasts forever, i,e. for as long as it is, or can be, observed/perceived; anywhere, anytime, by any observer/perceiver. That is, data/property measurement is bounded and limited by time and space, but information [the property of entangled data], is not.
That means that the entire issue rest on the question of whether or not particles, hence atoms, hence molecules, hence systems, possess, 'in se', the ability to observe/perceive themselves endogenously, or is some other 'something' required that does the 'observing' that they cannot. That is, do these entities direct themselves, or does some 'third party'/element/power have to observe them, exogenously? The answer, IMO, depends upon whether 'particles' are uncreated and eternal, or not. Because if a particle is created, if it has a beginning, then it must either be its own creation, or the creation of something else.
Now it would seem to me to be irrational to claim that anything can create itself, 'ex nihilo, ab nihilo', i.e., out of nothingness, unassisted. Futher it would seem to me that anything built of and dependent upon such self-generating entities would be equally magical and random/indeterminate. From particles all the way along to ourselves and our own minds. That is, existence entire, reality per se, would have to be be irrational if every particle could perceive and be aware, for itself, of itself, by itself.
But we see a rational, at least partially predictable universe. Which suggest to me that particles are not that which observes particles. And the same for atoms and molecules and inanimate systems composed of them. But at some point systems of 'entangled' particles and interrelated molecules form observant, aware systems--biosystems, organisms. Perhaps these have become capable of 'channeling perception', i.e., observing data and creating new information by,through,and for the information already generated by the original incorporeal 'observer'. Like I say, just speculating, and not meaning to suggest that this uncreated, eternal, self-obsering observer, is 'god' in the standard religious understanding for that word.
Anyway, its only speculation, if you bothered to read this far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 12:03 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2008 8:30 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 49 (451619)
01-28-2008 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Elmer
01-28-2008 8:00 AM


Re: Trying to get some coherency
I would take from it [rightly or wrongly] that an original particle does not exist in space and time until some element of 'observation/perception' brings it into a meaningless, tentative, existence by bestowing temporal 'properties' upon it, [that is, creates a 'datum']. Same for another [gazillion?] particles/data brouight into existence in the same manner. Each distinct from any other, and hence meaningless, information free.
Vacuous, that is,until a simultaneous observation/perception of two or more such 'data bits' enables property/identity comparison, and that comparison,
a/creates meaning, significance, information, and b/ instills 'entanglement', that is instills a linkage/melding of properties/identities, that, as 'information/meaning/significance', lasts forever, i,e. for as long as it is, or can be, observed/perceived; anywhere, anytime, by any observer/perceiver. That is, data/property measurement is bounded and limited by time and space, but information [the property of entangled data], is not.
The wonderful thing is that your title for this post was "Trying to get some coherency".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Elmer, posted 01-28-2008 8:00 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5051 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 49 of 49 (454399)
02-06-2008 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Elmer
12-19-2007 7:09 PM


2nd time is a charm but not a quark
Elmer,
Perhaps you would be interested in reinvesting your work in this thread in the "Discussion" my Grandfather created in 1935 in the work, "The Effect of Temperature Upon Wing Size in Drosophila" (JExZoo Vol 69, No3)?
If you really even wanted to bring in QM, via heat being a kinetic energy of molecular motion and a notion in Macrothermodynamics it may be possible (finding the lower free energy wells), in the context of the genes and trait(s) discussed in this paper, to find that temperature (rather the "thermostat") could be thought in the same continuum that binds descent. From there it might be asked if cause and effect have linear relation or a reciprocal one. We have to be able to get there though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 7:09 PM Elmer 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