Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,465 Year: 3,722/9,624 Month: 593/974 Week: 206/276 Day: 46/34 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The future of Creationism and mankind's intellectual evolution.
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 30 (221416)
07-03-2005 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dsv
02-11-2005 11:21 AM


in response to the 1st post
I have not read the thread, but in response to the first post, and maybe others have addressed this, I really don't think belief in ToE is all that important to the intellectual advancement of mankind and I can see some ways it is extremely overly primitive and dangerous to mankind's intellectual advancement.
One of the tenets of evolutionists is to dismiss out of hand anything they consider smacks of spiritual or metaphysical.
But it's been over 80 years now already that physics has advanced well into the metaphysical.
Take the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and other consciousness-based models. Had physics silenced the claim of quantum physics, or of many of it's leading theorists and experimentalists, simply because they posited the need for a Universal Observer, and interaction of matter with consciousness in some fashion, then we would be shutting down where the evidence seems to lead to.
Note: I realize the other alternative theory of late are waves that move backwards in time, and I am not dismissing that, although I think the consciousness-based models of explaining the collapsing of the wave function are probably the dominant explanation in quantum physics, from what I have read.
Regardless, evolutionary theory seems to rest in part by insisting on false assumptions of what science can address and what constitutes "material" or the physical world.
In that regard, it is overly primitive in it's current state and will probably be forced at some point to modify along the lines of some sort of ID theory, which takes into account what was once termed "spiritual" interactions as real forces acting in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dsv, posted 02-11-2005 11:21 AM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2005 8:18 AM randman has replied
 Message 27 by dsv, posted 07-03-2005 11:12 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 30 (221588)
07-04-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
07-03-2005 8:18 AM


Re: in response to the 1st post
I am not so sure of that. From what I have read, consciousness is considered necessary for observation. Maybe the Copenhagen interpretation alone does not fully address this, but certainly men like Wheeler and others have.
The idea of an extended thing sitting in a three-dimensional space, waiting for us to discover it, is revealed as another human projection, a limited image of reality, more of an echo of the way our minds work than of reality itself. According to Bohr, nature reveals this to us by showing that we can have only complementary views of reality. If we set up an experimental arrangement to view subatomic phenomena as particles, then that is what we will observe. According to Heisenberg, another major contributor to the Copenhagen Interpretation, what we observe in our experiments is not nature itself but nature exposed to our methods of questioning nature. In short, an electron is not a thing until we observe it!
http://personal.tcu.edu/~dingram/edu/pine3.html
Bohr's view was decidedly mystical: according to him,the mathematics of quantum theory implied that particles of light and matter have no real existence until they are observed.
http://www.fortunecity.com/...ines/e11/86/worldfuz.html#Bohr
The astronomers choice of how to observe photons from the quasar here in the present apparently determines whether each photon took both paths or just one path around the gravitational lens-billions of years ago. As they approached the galactic beam splitter the photons must have had something like a premonition telling them how to behave in order to satisfy a choice to be made by unborn beings on a still nonexistent planet.
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
Also, I would agree that it is not clear that consciousness or just the ability for something to be observed is what causes or leads to the wave collapsing.
Instead their goal is to lay bare the curious reality of the quantum realm. "For me, the main purpose of doing experiments is to show people how strange quantum physics is," says Anton Zeilinger of the University of Innsbruck, who is both a theorist and experimentalist ."Most physicists are very naive; most still believe in real waves or particles."
Yet even this deliberately abstract language contains some misleading implications. One is that measurement requires direct physical intervention. Physicists often explain the uncertainty principle in this way:in measuring the position of a quantum entity, one inevitably blocks it off its course, losing information about its direction and about its phase, the relative position of its crests and troughs.
Most experiments do in fact involve intrusive measurements. For example, blocking one path or the other or moving detectors close to the slits obviously disturbs the photons passage in the two-slit experiment as does placing a detector along one route of the delayed-choice experiment. But an experiment done last year by Mandel's team at the University of Rochester shows that a photon can be forced to switch from wavelike to particlelike behaviour by something much more subtle than direct intervention.
...
Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.
The comparison of arrival times need not actually be performed to destroy the interference pattern. The mere "threat" of obtaining information about which way the photon travelled, Mandel explains, forces it to travel only one route. "The quantum state reflects not only what we know about the system but what is in principle knowable," Mandel says.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
Clearly the two slit experiments, for the first time in physics, indicates that there is a much deeper relationship between the observer and the phenomenon, at least at the subatomic level. This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence.
Quantum Physics
It appears to me the form of the physical world we call reality does not actually exist without conscious observation of it, and that this a basic fundamental principle in quantum physics, at least for most of the 20th century.
Now, I know the avoidance attitude sometimes expressed as "shut up and calculate" may predominate most physicists, but certainly not all, and it doesn't appear those that avoid the issue have really challenged it, except those advocating the transverse waves, multi-worlds, and other hypotheses, but most physicists don't work on this side of things probably.
This message has been edited by randman, 07-04-2005 02:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2005 8:18 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by CK, posted 07-04-2005 7:19 AM randman has not replied
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 07-05-2005 8:59 AM 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