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:   Moving towards an ID mechanism.
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 141 (264185)
11-29-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Wounded King
11-29-2005 4:03 PM


Re: where's the beef?
OK, thanks for clarifying.
Regardless then, TOE or QM all indicate a deeper reality.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-29-2005 04:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2005 4:03 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 141 (264196)
11-29-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:25 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Context is everything... think about the subject we are discussing: TOE - Theory of Everything
So not only QM but TOE agrees with me here then.
Where is there room for an ID mechansim if the underlying theory is deterministic.
Whether something is deterministic is a moot point either way.
Ok, first off, what is an elementary particle?
Context is everything, as you said above. Had you read Zeilinger's work, and I had assumed you had, you would know that by "elementary" he means elementary in the context of containing a Bit. In other words, the informational bit is a potential response to a yes/no question, the idea being that's the lowest reduction level that can take place in an informational system and all other questions/answers can be built up from that system.
Personally, I am not 100% sure of this theory of there being elementary bits, but that's the idea, and something I hoped you were familiar with and could discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:25 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 75 of 141 (264216)
11-29-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:56 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Please do, but don't ask him to comment on whether he believes in ID or his work is applicable to ID or anything like that, but rather on the science he deals with, the particulars of QM.
As we all know, there is a great deal of hostility towards scientists that even consider anything related to ID, and one such scientist at the Smithsonian was subject to an intense withhunt that included deliberate fabrications in an attempt to smear him. So I am not that open to trying to subject Zeilinger to such smear attacks, and frankly, would advise him not to get into ID discussions if he values his current work.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-29-2005 05:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by MangyTiger, posted 11-29-2005 5:38 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 141 (264219)
11-29-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:56 PM


Re: where's the beef?
No, it is not moot. It is exceptionally important. Do you understand determinism? You cannot add information in a deterministic system. There can be no external influence.
So your argument is that God cannot exist according to physics?Interesting, but an unproven concept imo.
I think you also don't consider that God could be an integral part of the system, and conversely the system could be part of God, and so no outside influences exist because there are no influences outside of God.
But the idea that no external influences could ever exist because the universe is deterministic in the way you claim is somewhat outlandish of a claim, but let's go deeper into that.
That idea suggests very strongly then that all events and things already exist prior to their occurence, and I suppose viewing space-time as a whole, that makes some sense, but this should also include all ideas and designs. In other words, the designs and information would all need to exist within the deeper framework of the universe prior to their evolving, right? You can't add information to the system, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2005 5:41 PM randman has not replied
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 12:31 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 141 (264227)
11-29-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by MangyTiger
11-29-2005 5:38 PM


Re: where's the beef?
I know. Just PBS, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the federal investigators, etc,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by MangyTiger, posted 11-29-2005 5:38 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 81 of 141 (264229)
11-29-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Brad McFall
11-29-2005 5:15 PM


Re: where's the place?
Brad, just want to say that if I don't respond to your posts, it's nothing personal. They are just over my head. I can't figure them out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 5:15 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 9:22 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 86 of 141 (264504)
11-30-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
11-30-2005 12:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
God cannot interact with the universe via physical mechanisms. I think I agree with that. I see the universe totally self-contained, running on physical principles.
Since the universe is all space-time, I don't see how God could have created the world according to what you have claimed. According to you the system could never have had any input from outside, and knowing that all points in time are part of the universe, then doesn't that preclude the idea God could have created the universe?
Btw, and this is a side issue, but your belief would also rule out God raising Jesus from the dead, or doing any miracles on people's behalf, answering their prayers, etc,....
I do sometimes think along these lines, but primarily focus on God being outside the physical universe.
Can't it be both? God within and outside the universe, but then again, I still don't see how one can believe in God at all and hold to your beliefs. If God cannot in anyway interact with the universe because that's adding input from outside the system, then really He is prohibited from creating this universe and certainly from doing things with people in it, like answering their prayers, etc,...
A bit more than some... it is the fundemental basis of General Relativity. It is rarely pointed out, but GR is the ultimate physics of pre-destination.
Agree on the physics of predestination, but disagree, as stated above, that at the creation point of the universe, you would have input from God and so the view that input cannot occur has to be wrong if God created or creates the universe.
My point is I think the evidence is there for the physical universe not to self-exist at all, but is in a state of being created every moment in one sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 12:31 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2005 7:36 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 141 (264514)
11-30-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
11-30-2005 12:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Not via physical mechanisms, no..
One more note...I think the term "physical" may be poorly defined. Really, physical in the broader scientific sense should just mean anything real, at all, right?
But in terms of what we think of as physical, I am not so sure how information plays into this. Is information physical? Information appears to play a role, right?
More to the point, in what way is the deeper reality you admit is indicated by QM and other areas necessarily "physical"? It's physical in the broad sense if you define any real thing as physical, but the very fact both you and I refer to it as a deeper reality indicates it is in a different context.
Let me be more explicit. One property of spirit or spiritual things is energy by all accounts. God has energy. Consciousness has energy. People's spirits have energy. Thoughts seem to have energy. Angels have energy. This assumes these things exist. So maybe these things are "physical" or "marterial" in the sense of being a real part of the universe, but just within this deeper reality.
Terms like "physical" and "spiritual" were around before modern science, and as technology increases, we are expanding beyond the original limits of what "physical" and "material" are, and in QM, we see principles and basic states that are not what we expected based on our former ideas of what constitutes physical.
Take non-locality (entanglement). Our physical perspective suggests there is a superluminal transfer of information going on. The way to resolve this is to say there is a non-separable aspect for entangled particles, right? That means there is a deeper reality than the physical perspective we have as human beings. That deeper reality we are testing for, imo in all likehihood, includes all realms whether called physical, spiritual, mental, informational, or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 12:31 PM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 92 of 141 (264607)
11-30-2005 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by JustinC
11-30-2005 5:14 PM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
Justin, what do you think of the notion of waves traversing backwards in time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by JustinC, posted 11-30-2005 5:14 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by JustinC, posted 12-01-2005 12:20 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 94 of 141 (264643)
12-01-2005 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by JustinC
12-01-2005 12:20 AM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
I don't think it is crazy either. Not saying I think it's right or wrong, btw.
The reason I asked is because it could be seen as somewhat far out of an idea since the waves are not observable and it is based on the math, but at the same time, there's a lot we miss if we base everything on a concept of linear time and fixed timeline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by JustinC, posted 12-01-2005 12:20 AM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2005 7:05 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 99 of 141 (265299)
12-03-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
12-03-2005 7:36 AM


Re: where's the beef?
Space-time is what has been created. I see no problem...
That's not what I said. I don't believe that there are observable physical processes that reveal any "intervention".
Cavediver, that's not what you said. You ruled out all possibility of ID based on the concept that the universe cannot have input from God. You specifically claimed no outside input was possible, period, which as I pointed out would mean the universe could not be created because at the point of creation, there would be input.
This is one of the things you said.
No, it is not moot. It is exceptionally important. Do you understand determinism? You cannot add information in a deterministic system. There can be no external influence.
So are you claiming the universe is deterministic which excludes any input from God because you consider that an outside influence or not? Also, we went into this a little bit more. You say no information can be added which suggests every bit of new information already exists, which work in the context of space-time since the past, present and future all exist now, but at some point, new information would have to be added in order to create the universe, and moreover, there's no real evidence that new information is not added now. You stance has to assume that the future is fixed and cannot be changed, which of course means the past and present also are fixed, and whereas I think there is a degree of truth on one level and yes, it's predestination, there is no reason to think it cannot be changed, and the predestination changed with it.
We just don't know. If we think the universe had a beginning, perhaps from that point, everything is fixed as you say, but nothing prevents God from restarting and running the whole thing again, and I think moreover that it's a leap to insist there cannot be changes introduced within the system of space-time. If God exists, for example, within space-time as well as without, then you can have constant input from God into space-time because He is part of it.
So handwaving determinism to dismiss any concept of design is very weak. As an aside, I know you are a Christian, but if your idea of determinism rules the universe, then there is no way God raises up Jesus from the dead or involves Himself in any way with answering prayers, is there?
I appreciate the fact you are far more educated in this than anyone else on this thread, and that you openly are dismissive of the Copehagen Interpretation, but let's be a little honest here. Not everyone is dismissive of CI or related theories of how QM works, such as the It from Bit, and imo, you are dismissive of things I am talking about in the way you are dismissive of CI, which is OK, except you use an argument from authority without acknowledging that not all authority agrees with you.
In other words, the things I am saying are not off the map or whatever, as you suggest. YOU think they are wrong but you think a lot of things other physicists have thought, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, are wrong. So I'm not in such bad company, maybe?
I guess what I am saying is you could help move this discussion along on the physics side a lot more, but are dismissive, and yet some of the points you use to be dismissive, such as evoking determinism excluding God, imo, don't add up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2005 7:36 AM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 100 of 141 (265301)
12-03-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
12-03-2005 7:36 AM


Re: where's the beef?
Responding to the 2nd half of your post which addresses some of my other response, but too long to edit.
I didn't say that God does not interact, just that it does not appear to me to be through physical mechanisms.
I have a problem with the idea you present of physical mechanisms and your claim about how God interacts. First, anything that happens is by definition physical in the sense you refer to, right? So any form of energy is physical. In that sense, I would say your definition of physical really has to include God and anything real at all, since presumably these things appear to have energy. Most religious claims of spiritual experiences that I know of, pretty much involve energy, except perhaps knowing something innately, and that involves communication which involves energy. So I think you are way off-base to eliminate any ID mechanism as if it could not be "physical."
The question is what constitutes physical, which has a lot to do with QM, and suggests reality includes ideas that don't fit with what we used to think of as physical, which is why people say QM is weird. It's not weird at all if you understand spiritual mechanics, and it appears to be identical to that.
Secondly, you have never observed God doing anything that wasn't physical, have you? In other words, all of what we have observed is by definition "physical", right? So your statement that it does not appear to you that God interacts in a physical manner is sort of ludicrous. That's the only way anything appears to you, right?
So if there is a God, we have to assume that all of reality is withing his domain. That means everything, evolution included, and that whatever we observe involves God.
In Him we live and move and have our being.
That was addressed to a non-Christian audience, by the way. I included a little theology here because I think that's where you are missing it here. You have some theology that you apply that prevents you from considering that God's presence can be involved in a real world process.
So I don't see what I am talking about as invoking God to explain something unexplainable. No, I think the explanation shows parallels with spiritual ideas and spiritual mechanics and so it is reasonable to posit a potential ID mechanism.
Do I think there will be something deeper still? Sure, but that doesn't mean if we uncover an aspect of how ID works, how God could create within the universe, and moreover, if we duplicate it, that somehow that removes God from having done it.
In other words, God creates the principles of how the world works, right? So perhaps the mechanism by which God creates is itself a creation and so within the domain of science if we develop the technology to uncover, understand, and exploit this same mechanism.
In terms of theology, there is nothing certainly in the Bible that prohibits man from doing this. In fact, the Bible suggests that man can attain to things like that if unified (see Tower of Babel story). Whether you accept the story as true, one of the lessons is that man could get up into heaven and the things of heaven, but was not ready due to pride, rebellion and impurity. Let's don't get off-topic though. The point is just that there is no reason to think we cannot discover the mechanism for creation since it is part of creation.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-03-2005 04:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2005 7:36 AM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 102 of 141 (265386)
12-04-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
12-03-2005 7:17 PM


Re: it from bit
Don't you know all those physicists that accepted Copenhagen-type Interpretations are just cucko, I mean flat out crazy man; no one gives them any credibility. Heck, I was talking with a real heavyweight just the other day at Cambridge.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 12-03-2005 7:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by cavediver, posted 12-04-2005 4:09 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 141 (265493)
12-04-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by cavediver
12-04-2005 9:59 AM


Re: Apologies
My belief: God can and does interact with the universe but it is not through any observable mechanism. Likewise with ID. God is not so impotent that he cannot create a universe with humans as the final product without tinkering on a step-by-step basis.
I find ID the greatest insult to God's creative abilities. I would be a YEC long long before I would ever consider ID.
And finally, I personally believe that no matter how deep our physical theories delve, we will never uncover a spiritual layer.
Thanks for clarifying your beliefs, and the fact they are faith statements, and not based on science, but your personal faith in how you think God must do it.
For clarification, I think God works in everything, period, and that there is no arena, natural, spiritual, or whatever, that God's presence and principles are not at work.
My point which you object to as childish is that your fundamental disagreement with me is not based on science, but based on your personal religious theology which is not based on anything that I can tell, but mere personal bias.
I give my reasons why I think modern science has ventured into the spiritual arena of reality. You dismiss the idea out or mere prejudice. Some of my reasons are the descriptions among many spiritual traditions including biblical theology and Christianity include a number of principles that dovetail with what we see in QM, specifically:
1. Most spiritual experiences relate increases or unusual dispositions of energy. That is subjective, sure, but it appears the spiritual (what people have called spiritual) includes energy and energy that can be felt by the mind and body of people. That places that aspect of the spiritual squarely in the domain of what modern science calls physical reality. It is something experienced by the natural world.
2. Faith principles relating consciousness to what happens in the real world. This is tentative, but QM appears to involve informational transfer and interaction with consciousness, at least the dominant interpretations of the data (as I have heard). Spiritual traditions teach things like what you sow is what you reap, what goes around, comes around, and ideas that internal subjective states (faith) can affect the external world. QM appears to show, or many explanations of QM, appear to show connections exist, and thus appear to be delving into the connections (spirit) between the energy, position and perspective of one's subjective state (faith), and the observed physical world.
3. QM indicates a deeper reality which to some extent forms and governs the reality we live in. This is also true for TOE. The concept of a deeper reality, invisible to the human eye, that is an integral part of the physical world, but which can exist in states somewhat non-physical in the layman's sense of the term, in an energy-state, is pretty much the definition of spiritual. Spiritual is an energy state that interacts with the physical world, is integral to the physical world, but is a deeper reality. So in one sense, you can call spiritual a part of "physical" or vice versa.
The spiritual/physical dichotomy preceded QM. You can call it "a deeper reality." It looks exactly like what men refer to when by "spiritual", and you have offered no scientific evidence to refute that, except your claims of personal bias.
The spiritual world is "deterministic" too in the loose sense that there are principles involved, principles that work seemingly on their own, although I would argue nothing works completely on it's own without God's presence enabling the existence of that thing.
I will add that this does not preclude God from reserving deeper and more hidden aspects and mysteries. At the same time, God created both the physical and spiritual realms and says they are connected. All spiritual traditions I know of claim the spiritual realm is part and parcel of the universe, and as such, the spiritual realm should properly be referred to as part of the natural, material or physical world if one is speaking in scientific terms if one hypothesizes it's existence as real.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-04-2005 03:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 12-04-2005 9:59 AM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 108 of 141 (265495)
12-04-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Regarding Only QM-ID thought I think
WK, does QM apply more than classical mechanics for mutations?
Tautomerisation is essentially a chemist’s way of describing a quantum mechanical property of fundamental particles: that they can be in two or more places at one. Quantum mechanics tells us that the protons in DNA that form the basis of DNA coding are not specifically localised to certain positions but must be smeared out along the double helix. But these different positions for the coding protons correspond to different DNA codes. At the quantum mechanical level, DNA must exist in a superposition of mutational states.
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/O4.htm
I'm asking because I am just learning about this stuff. The paper you cited declares QM effective for mutations, and so do others, but I am not yet clear on how mutations work, in that level of detail.
Seems like a pretty major issue to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 6:45 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Wounded King, posted 12-04-2005 5:49 PM randman 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