A case for Natural Design

That's incorrect. The probabilistic nature of QM is not thought to stem from measurement, just that measurement could be what causes that aspect to be made known, but measuring something does not cause a fundamental change in what something is. The probabilistic aspect is never in question.What is in question is whether consciousness/observation or a physical act of observation causes the collapse of the wave function. The wave function, or probabilistic nature of matter, exists either way.Most physicists are not QM experimentalists or QM researchers, and many thought that maybe it was the act of measuring since otherwise without consciousness, no matter could take on any form at all.The Copenhagen interpretation, to my knowledge, did include the consciousness-based concept, but maybe it also included the other. I am not sure. Niels Bohr did talk of a need for a Universal Observer, and I had thought consciousness-based modelling was THE explanation for Copenhagen, but someone challenged that.Regardless, the experiments I linked to show that the collapse of the wave function occurs even if no physical act occurs, but "the mere threat" of being measured appears to do the trick, which is fairly amazing. Mandel and some of the others like Wheeler, making these claims are somewhat giants in the field, or were giants.So what we see is no one disputes the probabilistic nature, in the sense that a wave function exists. Some argue there must be a more classical explanationm, but that does not remove the wave function. It just means it could be less random than earlier thought.I think most of this school are the string theorists.But either way, matter exists as a wave function, as information, before existing as matter in the sense of a measurable thing in 3-D.

The existence of a wave function does not necessarily imply what you call a "probabilistic nature".

Care to back that up? Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 05:50 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 05:58 PM

I think it is highly contentious to say that the function of precipitation is to provide moisture to life. What about precipitation on a barren planet? What's the function of that?I think precipitation is just a physcical process that, on this planet, involves water. And water just happens to be of crucial importance to life as we know it. If there is precipitation, then life can thrive. But the precipitation is there anyway, regardless of the presence of life. If it could care, it couldn't care less, so to speak. We were talking about the patterns of snowflakes. I thought that you meant that the cristalline form of a snowflake has a function or a purpose. I could not imagine how that could be the case, hence my question. My stance with regard to function and purpose can be summarized as follows: There is function and purpose in living nature, but not anywhere else. Function and purpose in living nature is local only, meaning that above a certain level of abstraction, no function and purpose can be attributed to an entity.It is a matter of discussion what exact level of abstraction we are talking about here. For example, you could say that the lens of an eye has the function of focusing light on the retina, the eye itself has the function of enabling the organism to see, but the organism as whole has no purpose or function. On the other hand, if the organism is an ant for example, you might also say that it has a function in the colony. But then, what purpose can be attributed to the colony?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

But is it really the bottom line? Is this what the universe is for? Or is consciousness just a local phenomenon which hardly plays any role of significance in the greater scheme of things? We may be conscious, but what difference does that really make?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

How so? I am speaking of design. If you implement mutation and selection on any substrate - biological material, information in a computer, the body of culture in a community of people, you name it - then whatever makes up the substrate will change in such a way as to meet the requirements that the selective pressure points to. There is no escaping this, it's pure logic that demands this outcome. Mutation guarantees change, and selection provides direction.This mindless process will inevitably result in something that is designed to fit a certain purpose. The purpose is to function in the environment well enough to survive another round of selection until after mutation happens.
And as the environment becomes more demanding, the design will become more accomodating. Therefore, a design that fits the bill, however seemingly perfectly, is not amazing, or evidence of intelligence, but only the logical and inevitable outcome of a simple, repeated and, above all, mindless process.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

1a) I provided ONE example for the function and purpose of precipitation wrt to this planet's NATURE.1b) Clearly you have pointed out exactly what I was originally driving at with the snowflake example.....precipitation is just one of the many cogs in the wheel of NATURE that has gotten us to this point....and I think has probably been instrumental in the way that this planet has evolved....i.e many organisms are reliant on precipitation and not by accident per se (doesn't mean that water is "god", right?)."caring"? human perspective, right? Like I've said before this is a very limited way to judge function and/or purpose.2) Good point, you're right I read back over that and I did see you pointed out the pattern....in light of that I would rebut with: then why is it that something like human emotions can change the way the molecules come together (this I'm getting from 'What the -bleep- do we know')?3) I guess what I don't get is why you think function and purpose is so limited as to be "local"? Since it is my opinon that everything is connected I would tell you that everything on this planet is dependent on something else....thereby every single thing has a function wrt to each other (as "simple" as the eye being dependent on the vascular system). The ability to "see" the depth of this is limited by our own understanding.I have to say that bottom line is I agree with what I think you are proposing: There is design without an intelligent (human construct) designer.....and I think the proof is in the most "simple" of examples and is not limited by our own human concepts of function and purpose.Look, if this is so far off topic then don't respond.

The Road not Taken by Robert FrostTwo roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, Long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way.
I doubted if I should ever come back.I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

As a physicist, I must take exception with the statement"Life is not just biological.. It is also physical and chemical",Physics and chemistry are the underpinnings of Biology. Biology is that subset of physics and chemistry which invovles carbon based molecules.Soplar

Hi ParsimoniumI should have looked at this earlier. Your message comes close to identifying the problem with ID, but it doesn't explictly address the evolutionary "design process". As I have written elsewhere, there is no question that there is a "design process" driving evolution, but the evolutionary design process is one of trial and error which proceeds through genetic mutations to ever improving "trial" organisms, some of whom survive and some whom don't (the Errors). All this proceeds without any guidance from a supernatural ID.Soplar