Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 46 of 213 (203664)
04-29-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 4:09 AM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
Let's go to the University of Sussex where Gribbins is one of my favorite dudes on this. Read this whole page, guys:
"It requires an observer intelligent enough to infer what is happening, and what would have happened if the particle had been heading towards the inner hemisphere (so a cat, for example, clearly would not be intelligent enough to cause this particular collapse of a wave function). Under these circumstances, the absence of an observation can collapse the quantum wave function as effectively as an actual observation can. At least, so says the Copenhagen interpretation.
This central role for the observer -- not just any observer, but an intelligent observer -- lies at the heart of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics."
Notice how he says, "so says the Copehagen Interpretation." There is no reason to think the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct. The only reason it is so widely accepted is because it was the first interpretation that could be made to work and it was forcefully promoted by Neils Bohr. Also, John von Neumann wrote a authoritative proof that an alternative theory, the pilot wave theory, couldn't be true. His proof was false but influenced the fate of the interpretation of QM. The pilot wave theory is only recently (past 20 years) being taken seriously.
The Copenhagen Interpretation leads to so many absurdities, such as Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, that a lot of physicists only use it tentatively as a way to think about what's going on.
So keep in mind that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't the only game in town, and there's no reason to accept it over other interpretations. All we can say is that for a certain experimental setup, certain results occur.
By the way, I learned a majority of the information in this post from Gribbon's, "Schrodinger's Cats and the Search for Reality." From what I understand, Gribbon no longer accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation but opts for a pilot wave type theory. He also says that the value of the interpretations should be judged not on their ability add insight into the reality of the phenomena but on their ability to help people think about the phenomena. I don't think he believes there is one true interpretation on the phenomena.
That's how I understood the book.
This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-29-2005 12:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 4:09 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 6:48 PM JustinC has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 213 (203749)
04-29-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Parasomnium
04-29-2005 5:50 AM


Re: Debunking some nonsense
Parasomnium
quote:
Parsing "collapse of the wave function", I get the meaning that there is a function that describes a wave and that said function collapses. When I try "wave-collapse function", I get the meaning that there is a function which has the purpose of collapsing waves. That's quite a different meaning. When talking science, one must be precise and, more importantly, know what one is talking about.
The wave function describes the probabilities of finding a particle at particular positions. The collapse of the wave function is nothing more than actually finding a particle at a certain position. When you have found the particle (observed it), then the probability of finding it elsewhere is zero. That's what is meant by the collapse of the wave function.
Is that typo really confusing you to the extent you are expressing? Just mentally go back and replace the term with "collapse of the wave" or "wave function collapse" or whatever it would take for you to understand that the wave collapses into particles.
quote:
It's possible to find a particle at position X, and the wave function describes the probability of that happening. It's also possible to find a particle at position Y, and the wave function also describes the probability of that happening. The collapse of the wave function means that one of the possibilities has become reality, and you have actually found the particle at a certain position.
Right.
quote:
Name one, and we'll see.
There's many. You might want to start with the harbinger, common descent.
quote:
Trying to ridicule the theory of evolution isn't very convincing. Please support your interpretation of 'poofs' in evolution.
I'm not ridiculing the theory of evolution. There is no such thing as a theory of evolution as theories are taken through the scientific method from observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory by experimentation or mathematics and this concept has never been through either.
Darwinism certainly seems like a 'poof' concept to me. Is there a real mechanism you can show to explain the Cambrian Explosion where organisms just seem to pop into the fossil record unexplained?
quote:
Why is common descent not falsifiable?
Because no one in your camp has shown a way to falsify it. Perhaps you would like to do that.
quote:
Sloppy thinking again. You have me confused with a radar wave. What the cop detects with his device are radar waves (photons) reflected by a car. If for some reason the reflected photons do not fall on the detector, they do not constitute a measurement. In other words: the cop cannot observe radar waves unless they hit his detector.
No. You were not the radar wave in the scenario of a car going by and being stopped for speeding. You seem to be dropping your logic on many of the tenets we are discussing. You were the driver of the car. But the radar waves DO hit the cops detector when they bounce back from your car just as they do when they (or light waves, or whatever that particular detector is using) bounce off a photon or electron.
I feel I have fairly well covered these points you've brought up and probably won't be responding to many more posts on them unless new material is introduced. Thanks!

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2005 5:50 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2005 6:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 65 by Parasomnium, posted 04-30-2005 6:04 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 213 (203750)
04-29-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Limbo
04-29-2005 9:13 AM


quote:
If the designer is the observer of quantum mechanics, then the act of observing the right place at the right time could be the mechanism. I predict that someday QM and ID will support each other in this reguard.
They already do, Limbo. You might want to wade through the deeper posts in this thread.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 9:13 AM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 5:52 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 213 (203767)
04-29-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 5:15 PM


I meant that they will support each other in an easily falsifiable manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 5:15 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 213 (203769)
04-29-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NosyNed
04-29-2005 9:22 AM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
Actually, that is an old expression of the idea. Recent work with quantum entanglement shows that you have to have no interaction whatever or the entanglement is destroyed. It does not require 'intelligent' observation. It simply requires some interaction with some other part of the universe.
The idea that an intelligent 'observer' is required is something which has grown out of the everyday idea of "observe". Any observation requires some interaction with the system understudy. It does not require that an intelligent person examine the result of the interaction. We use the word, colloquially, to mean the persons examination. What actually 'collapses the wave function' is the interaction.
Not correct, I'm afraid. First, you are confusing the double-slit experiments with the quantum erasure experiments where entanglement occurs. Entanglement is not studied in the simple double-slits I was discussing.
Second, this is not ONLY old science (nothing wrong if it was, of course, but you seem to be implying that it has been falsified). See Wheeler's work on this in the delayed choice experiments. Also see the paper I posted on quantum Erasure. That paper is dated 2000.
quote:
Well, this does tell us something about the nature of the designer then doesn't it?
The designer can not be the Christian God as described by almost all of His believers can it? It seems unlikely that the ID folks actually wanted to disprove the existance of the Christian God but that is a side effect of this QM idea.
It can be the Christian God if one chooses to view this theologically rather than scientifically. It can also be Allah, Zeus, Krisna, demons, a computer or a giant green pickle from the planet Xenon. The role of an observer may only explicate a small part of the observer's overall persona, the individual can then take it from there by incorporating it into his belief system. Or, one can just stop at quantum mechanics and be done with it.
quote:
The designer is clearly not omniscient is S/He/It? If He was the all observations have been made already. All wave functions are collapsed. Why then does the double slit experiment ever produce the interference result?
It could be omniscient, science does not tell us it is or isn't.
quote:
I wonder who or what the designer is then now that we have eliminated one popular possibility?
You certainly haven't eliminated any possibilities. Just because you only describe my hands does not logically extrapolate to, "therefore, there must be no arms, legs, brain and body attached to them."
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 04-29-2005 05:55 PM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2005 9:22 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2005 6:08 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 51 of 213 (203775)
04-29-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 5:54 PM


Re: It takes an observer?
Not correct, I'm afraid. First, you are confusing the double-slit experiments with the quantum erasure experiments where entanglement occurs. Entanglement is not studied in the simple double-slits I was discussing.
Could you explain more why there is that distinction. I'll have to do some other reading too I guess.
It can be the Christian God if one chooses to view this theologically rather than scientifically.
Well, since science works with natural evidence it has to be viewed theologically doesn't it? Most folks seem to consider the Christian God to be omniscient don't they? That suggests to me that He/She/It is an observer of all events for all times.
Or, one can just stop at quantum mechanics and be done with it.
I thought that this was a "foundation of ID" that you were putting forward. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is an "intelligent designer"?
It could be omniscient, science does not tell us it is or isn't.
If the designer is omnisicient what does that suggest about the observations of all quantum events?
You certainly haven't eliminated any possibilities. Just because you only describe my hands does not logically extrapolate to, "therefore, there must be no arms, legs, brain and body attached to them."
As I noted when I started: Most Christians I am aware of consider the Christian God to be omniscient. If I can say from what you are telling me about the QM issues that the observer is NOT omnisicient (since it does not collapse all wave functions ) then I can say that the designer is NOT the God that a majority of Christians believe in.
If in discussing some unknown creature I can say nothing about the arms, legs, brain etc. but I can say that the hands are claws then I can say that we are not talking about a human being. I have eliminated that possibility.
It seems to me that eliminating omniscience might still give us a God but it is not the God of the majority of Christians. I am inclined to think that without omniscience I also don't get omnipotence but that is too far from the topic at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 5:54 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 8:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 213 (203785)
04-29-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-28-2005 11:03 PM


The photon doesn't hit the detector. The detector is just there to observe the photon as it goes by.
The detectors I'm familiar with, the photon does hit the detector. Thats how it detects it. Anyways, the detector has to interact with the photon in some way to get a detection, and that interaction could be what is interupting the interference pattern.
If it takes an observer to collapse a wave into a particle (energy to matter) and since there is matter in our universe that is exhibiting that form rather than its energy persona, it follows that an observer has collapsed those waves
Collapsing a light wave into a photon is not the same as collapsing energy to matter. Photons do not have mass. So you cannot conclude that matter requires an observer to collapse it into energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 11:03 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 7:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 213 (203786)
04-29-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 5:12 PM


But the radar waves DO hit the cops detector when they bounce back from your car just as they do when they (or light waves, or whatever that particular detector is using) bounce off a photon or electron.
You need to know how the detector detects the photon to determine if it is simply observation that is disrupting the interference pattern. You have to rule out the possibility that the detector is at fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 5:12 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 213 (203791)
04-29-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by JustinC
04-29-2005 12:29 PM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
Notice how he says, "so says the Copehagen Interpretation." There is no reason to think the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct. The only reason it is so widely accepted is because it was the first interpretation that could be made to work and it was forcefully promoted by Neils Bohr. Also, John von Neumann wrote a authoritative proof that an alternative theory, the pilot wave theory, couldn't be true. His proof was false but influenced the fate of the interpretation of QM. The pilot wave theory is only recently (past 20 years) being taken seriously.
The references I have posted do not seem to question the Copenhagen Interpretation. And I don't think I've listed any that aren't fairly well known and reputable in science: Bohr, Heisenberg, Young, Feynman, Gribbins, Wheeler, Tipler......
In fact, there is much material on the Web by physicists about the CI, some way out there, but many just as I've proposed it.
With that said, this is not the end all and be all on the subject. This is science and we need to question everything in science. But we certainly don't want to prematurely falsify something just because we may not like it (or have other pet theories, which we all do).
quote:
The Copenhagen Interpretation leads to so many absurdities, such as Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, that a lot of physicists only use it tentatively as a way to think about what's going on.
What's wrong with that? That's exactly the way I am using it. To get people to think about what's going on.
quote:
So keep in mind that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't the only game in town, and there's no reason to accept it over other interpretations. All we can say is that for a certain experimental setup, certain results occur.
It's not the only game in town, but it is the game to use in this subject, as I am using it, because it communicates my thoughts quite well.
quote:
By the way, I learned a majority of the information in this post from Gribbon's, "Schrodinger's Cats and the Search for Reality." From what I understand, Gribbon no longer accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation but opts for a pilot wave type theory. He also says that the value of the interpretations should be judged not on their ability add insight into the reality of the phenomena but on their ability to help people think about the phenomena. I don't think he believes there is one true interpretation on the phenomena.
That's how I understood the book.
I haven't read that book. I probably need to place that on my summer reading agenda. But I did do some Googling on the Pilot Wave Theory and enjoyed it immensely. The possibility exists that Bohm may have went way out there with this (after first being proposed 25 years earlier by Louis de Broglie, then also thoroughly rejected by him, and Einstein).
For example, He proposed that particle behavior is determined by an unusual field or wave consisting both of classical versions of forces such as electromagnetism and an entirely new force-which Bohm called the quantum potential-that is responsible for nonclassical effects.
I don't think that his force has been discovered experimentally, to my knowledge, so there are some big "ifs" in there.
"The Bohm interpretation is not popular among physicists for a number of scientific and sociological reasons that would be fascinating but long to study, but perhaps we can at least say here it is considered very inelegant by some (it was considered as "unnecessary superstructure" even by Einstein who dreamed about a deterministic replacement for the Copenhagen interpretation)"
De Broglie—Bohm theory - Wikipedia
Now, that is an interesting alternative to the CI that we will need to keep an open mind toward as further research is done into it. Here's a good read:
Page Not Found | Waterloo Region Record
Your post was a great contribution to the thread, I might add.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by JustinC, posted 04-29-2005 12:29 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by JustinC, posted 04-29-2005 8:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 213 (203801)
04-29-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2005 6:32 PM


quote:
The detectors I'm familiar with, the photon does hit the detector. Thats how it detects it. Anyways, the detector has to interact with the photon in some way to get a detection, and that interaction could be what is interupting the interference pattern.
Could be doesn't cut it, CS. Do you have experimental evidence to show that the detector is collapsing the wave other than by observation? You are still on the argument from incredulity here. I mean telescopes are sometimes used as these detectors, how does a telescope interfere with something other than just by observing it?
quote:
Collapsing a light wave into a photon is not the same as collapsing energy to matter. Photons do not have mass. So you cannot conclude that matter requires an observer to collapse it into energy.
Well, this is controversial, but remember that electrons have been used as well in these experiments and you cannot argue they are not matter. Anyhow, photons do not have mass in the way that many people use the term, but they certainly are attributed with one mannerism of mass called relativistic mass. Of course, photons do not have resting mass because they never rest! If you will think this through with me, we all know that photons are energy (think of solar panels and photosynthesis) and Einstein directly related energy and mass, E = MC^2. Turning that formula around to M = E / C^2 it's easy to see that energy is always a form of mass, in fact, velocity-dependent mass; and this is the definition of relativistic mass.
quote:
You need to know how the detector detects the photon to determine if it is simply observation that is disrupting the interference pattern. You have to rule out the possibility that the detector is at fault.
No. I don't need to do that because I am not the researchers doing the experiments. If you don't think that theoretical physicist John Wheeler is qualified to do an experiment on this, I would hate to ask you what you might think about the state of science as a whole. You're are grasping at straws here, CS, simply because science seems to be upsetting your belief system. But some assert this is how all of Darwinism works.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2005 6:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2005 7:41 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 213 (203808)
04-29-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 7:22 PM


You're are grasping at straws here, CS, simply because science seems to be upsetting your belief system.
Well, its not. My belief system is just fine.
Could be doesn't cut it, CS. Do you have experimental evidence to show that the detector is collapsing the wave other than by observation? You are still on the argument from incredulity here.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You are the one who is doing the arguing so you look up the evidence. This thread seems to be trying to convince people of ID and I'm just saying that I'm not convinced and this is why. I'm not gonna spend time looking up experimental evidence to prove you wrong.
Here's what I'm getting from you:
When the double slit experiment is performed an interference pattern emerges. When detectors are placed to observe what slit the photon goes through then the pattern goes away. It must be the observation that is interfering the pattern. So, there must be an observer for the whole universe.
Here's what I see:
When the double slit experiment is performed an interference pattern emerges. When detectors are placed to observe what slit the photon goes through then the pattern goes away. It must be the detector that is interfering the pattern. And then I say that I don't understand how you jump from the light wave-particle duality to the whole universe.
electrons have been used as well in these experiments and you cannot argue they are not matter
Electrons are not matter. They are point charges that have no mass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 7:22 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 8:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 57 of 213 (203832)
04-29-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 6:48 PM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
What's wrong with that? That's exactly the way I am using it. To get people to think about what's going on.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be using the interpretation to imply that there is a ultimate intelligent being collapsing the wave functions.
I just think the caveat should be included which states, "if the CI is correct," which is by no means certain.
quote:
What's wrong with that? That's exactly the way I am using it. To get people to think about what's going on.
Again, I think the caveat should be added, and I think that really takes away from the heart of the argument. Other consistent models have been made(e.g. pilot theory and multiple universes).
quote:
I haven't read that book. I probably need to place that on my summer reading agenda. But I did do some Googling on the Pilot Wave Theory and enjoyed it immensely. The possibility exists that Bohm may have went way out there with this (after first being proposed 25 years earlier by Louis de Broglie, then also thoroughly rejected by him, and Einstein).
I highly recommend the book. I enjoy reading Gribbin more than any other author of QM.
quote:
For example, He proposed that particle behavior is determined by an unusual field or wave consisting both of classical versions of forces such as electromagnetism and an entirely new force-which Bohm called the quantum potential-that is responsible for nonclassical effects.
I don't see that as being a downfall. It's no different than proposing some sort of "probability wave" and supposing wave particle complementarity. These are taken as justified since they can explain the results, but there is no direct evidence for either of them, just as there isn't direct evidence for the quantum potential.
quote:
I don't think that his force has been discovered experimentally, to my knowledge, so there are some big "ifs" in there.
Just as the probility wave hasn't been discovered experimentally. They're all ad hoc explanations for results, and I don't see the one being more reputable than the other just because it has been around longer. If von Neumman hadn't made that mistake, the pilot wave theory would probably be just as developed and would have been apart of the QM orthodoxy.
quote:
"The Bohm interpretation is not popular among physicists for a number of scientific and sociological reasons that would be fascinating but long to study, but perhaps we can at least say here it is considered very inelegant by some (it was considered as "unnecessary superstructure" even by Einstein who dreamed about a deterministic replacement for the Copenhagen interpretation)"
The main reason Einstein disliked pilot wave theory is because it assumed non-locality, which goes against his theory of special relativity. But, with the Aspect experiment breaking Bell's inequality, you have to abandon either locality or reality (i.e., local reality cannot exist). This is the case no matter which interpretation you take. (I have admit that I don't understand the details of this experiment or inequality, but take the word of several authors, including Gribbin.)
And just in case it isn't clear, "local" means no communication faster than light and "reality" means the world existing outside of observation.
I'll try and dig up that book to see what else it has to say about the issue. The last chapter introduces his preferred interpretation which is definately not CI, but I forget the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 6:48 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 9:21 PM JustinC has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 213 (203836)
04-29-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NosyNed
04-29-2005 6:08 PM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
Could you explain more why there is that distinction. I'll have to do some other reading too I guess.
If you trust my judgment, I can probably clear that up for you right here. Photon entanglement involves a phenomenon where several photons are considered together as having the same properties and being the same unit. Physicists study two proton, three proton, four proton entanglements, etc.
But the double-slit experiment only considers a massive amount of photons, as in a beam of light, or single photons coming through the slits one at a time. My point is, no entanglements need be considered in that experiment to complicate it.
quote:
Well, since science works with natural evidence it has to be viewed theologically doesn't it? Most folks seem to consider the Christian God to be omniscient don't they? That suggests to me that He/She/It is an observer of all events for all times.
No, I don't think science CAN be viewed theologically and kept pure, can it? If a chemist looks at a strange chemical reaction in a beaker, shrugs his shoulders and says, I guess God did it, we probably wouldn't get very far in scientific inquiry.
Therefore, ID theorists, just as anyone else, recognize that metaphysics must be kept out of our test tubes.
However, that doesn't mean one isn't entitled to have religious beliefs. Heck, most of the greatest scientists of all time had them, Newton, Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Pasteur and even Einstein appeared to favor Pantheism.
I don't see how omniscience of a deity then ties into that, but I see you ask further questions on it below and I'll expand on this.
quote:
I thought that this was a "foundation of ID" that you were putting forward. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is an "intelligent designer"?
Yes, it is a foundation of ID I'm putting forward. I'm suggesting that the implementation of design was quantum mechanics being manipulated by a Supreme Observer. Remember that I posted a quote from John Gribbin that stated this observer must exhibit true intelligence and that a cat would not work? Mathematical physicist Frank Tipler, also ties that observer into a mathematical entity called an Omega Point. It's all math and quantum mechanics, but I feel that many people (unknowingly) extrapolate other qualities such as omniscience to this phenomenon and who am I to say they are wrong? I mean common sense tells me that the Omega Point may be omniscient because how else could it know what to observe in order to collapse it into a solid and what not to, and be able to do it across the entire universe at the same time?
quote:
If the designer is omnisicient what does that suggest about the observations of all quantum events?
Nothing to me other than it would be able to observe them all.
quote:
As I noted when I started: Most Christians I am aware of consider the Christian God to be omniscient. If I can say from what you are telling me about the QM issues that the observer is NOT omnisicient (since it does not collapse all wave functions ) then I can say that the designer is NOT the God that a majority of Christians believe in.
If in discussing some unknown creature I can say nothing about the arms, legs, brain etc. but I can say that the hands are claws then I can say that we are not talking about a human being. I have eliminated that possibility.
It seems to me that eliminating omniscience might still give us a God but it is not the God of the majority of Christians. I am inclined to think that without omniscience I also don't get omnipotence but that is too far from the topic at hand.
Well, I hope I have cleared that up for you. The fact that the observer knows which energy systems to observe in order to collapse them, and which ones not to observe in order that they stay waves suggests omniscience on its part rather than monoscience or whatever the antonym of that word is, in my opinion.
And more specifically to this:
quote:
If in discussing some unknown creature I can say nothing about the arms, legs, brain etc. but I can say that the hands are claws then I can say that we are not talking about a human being. I have eliminated that possibility.
But you cannot validly state the hands are claws. One cannot deduce a macrostate from a microstate just vise versa. The fact that I can show quantum mechanics to be the observer and the Omega Point to be the manipulator does not then tell me anything else about the macrostate of the observer. Deduction of those other qualities lie outside of science (at this time) and fall into the arena of metaphysics: individual beliefs. And I believe we all have a right to those.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2005 6:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 213 (203840)
04-29-2005 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2005 7:41 PM


quote:
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You are the one who is doing the arguing so you look up the evidence. This thread seems to be trying to convince people of ID and I'm just saying that I'm not convinced and this is why. I'm not gonna spend time looking up experimental evidence to prove you wrong.
Ok, we will agree that you remain unconvinced and we'll leave it right there. I have presented a ton of references from reputable scientists and can't seem to get you to produce any to show that your assertions hold merit. You seem just not to agree with them. Not much I can do about that, I'm afraid.
Finally, since I'm not sure how to convince you of the obvious fact that the keyboard you are typing on right now is matter and made of atoms with tons of electrons in their valence shells, I would guess our conversation is over and I will bid you a good day and thank you for your contributions.
Thanks for your posts
Sorry, I forgot to post the link: "Electrons are matter and must be accounted for (Law of Conservation of Mass); the number of electrons lost must equal the number of electrons gained"
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 04-29-2005 09:28 PM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2005 7:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 213 (203844)
04-29-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by JustinC
04-29-2005 8:35 PM


Re: It takes an observer?
quote:
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be using the interpretation to imply that there is a ultimate intelligent being collapsing the wave functions. I just think the caveat should be included which states, "if the CI is correct," which is by no means certain.
I'm suggesting this as a likely possibility based on the evidence and the math we have achieved at this point, yes. But nothing in science is ever certain. Theories never prove anything and caveats are always applicable. I'm not disagreeing with you that I haven't proven anything as this is impossible in science.
University of Texas at Austin: "theory (the'-o-ry) A scientifically accepted general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena that is consistent with evidence, data, and experimental results. Theories can be disproved, but it is scientifically impossible to prove a theory correct."
Page not found | Texas Memorial Museum
quote:
I don't see that as being a downfall. It's no different than proposing some sort of "probability wave" and supposing wave particle complementarity. These are taken as justified since they can explain the results, but there is no direct evidence for either of them, just as there isn't direct evidence for the quantum potential.
You obviously have a background in physics. It's true, probability waves have been proposed to explain this dilemma. All I would add at this point is that we know it takes an observer to collapse the wave function and this has been shown experimentally time and time again. Thus, in my opinion, this the best explanation of the phenomenon in question and this is as far as science can take it. Perhaps someday we will know why this happens and discover the 'god' particle and all kinds of other cool things. But until then, this is all we know and it is from this conclusion and mathematics that I draw my designer hypothesis. Seems to work just fine.
quote:
I'll try and dig up that book to see what else it has to say about the issue. The last chapter introduces his preferred interpretation which is definately not CI, but I forget the details.
Thanks

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by JustinC, posted 04-29-2005 8:35 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by JustinC, posted 04-30-2005 6:23 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024