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.
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 57 of 141 (263203)
11-26-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
11-22-2005 3:56 PM


Re: it from bit
Randman, it would take far more time than I have to talk you through all of this, so let me put it briefly.
All of the "weirdness" of QM is down to physical interpretation of the mathematics. There are ways of interpreting the meaning of the mathematics of QM, and these interpretations give rise to different ideas, such as those of Wheeler (and I am more than intimately familiar with his ideas on this and with most of his other work) and Penrose and many many others.
All of these interpretations are connected by one common thread... they all rest on the undelying mathematics. If it is not in the mathematics, it is not in the interpretation. There is NOTHING in the mathematics that allows for an ID mechanism. It is a purely deterministic theory, and does not conjure up magic.
Entanglement may appear weird, and certainly does to a layperson, but there is nothing mysterious in it. It is just a fact of our universe. Despite what you may have read, it does not imply superluminary anything, nor imply that the theories of relativity are flawed, nor that the universe is just too damn wierd for us to understand. It is certainly the antithesis of common sense, but thank God the universe is not built on common sense.
If God wants to guide evolution by manipulating random mutations, I assume He is at liberty so to do. He does not require "weird" mechanisms of quantum mechanics to hide behind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 3:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 9:59 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 1:31 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 12-03-2005 7:17 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 141 (263253)
11-26-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nwr
11-26-2005 9:59 AM


Re: it from bit
That would be some variant of theistic evolution.
Exactly, something completely indistinguishable from physical evolutionary principles. Theistic evolution is purely a matter of faith.
You might have misunderstood randman, for he is no theistic evolutionist.
Don't worry, I do not misunderstand Randman
What I am saying is that QM holds no answers or mechanisms for "poofing". If you want "poofs" then you have to go elsewhere... preferably far away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 9:59 AM nwr has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 64 of 141 (264136)
11-29-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-28-2005 1:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Randman, with all due respect I used to sit down and chat these things through over coffee with scientists far more famous and "heavy-weight" than John Wheeler. [abe would have loved the opportunity to sit down with JAW as well, but it never happened. Great shame, especially as I missed ever meeting his student as well] BTW, I used to teach advanced quantum mechanics at Cambridge.
You are tackling a subject at the frontier of human knoweldge. It should be the height of arrogance to believe that you can have a sensible discussion on this. However, the popular science press make a good deal of money out of pretending that these things are comprehendible at a layman level, so I appreciate your desires. I am sorry, life and quantum mechanics are not like that. I could patronise you with some weak analogies and make you feel that you were learning something, but I do not have the time, nor do I think that it is worthwhile to the discussion.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-29-2005 01:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 1:31 PM randman has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 141 (264157)
11-29-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-28-2005 1:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Ok, having said it's not worthwhile...
the neat thing about QM is that the double-split experiment and related delayed-choice experiments are experiments with real objects, not just mathematical concepts.
I couldn't agree more. QM is very real. But these experiments do not reveal unknown or mysterious facets of the universe, just some concepts that do not fit common sense. Even Einstein objected to some of these concepts, so there can be no disgrace in finding them mysterious.
you also don't seem to understand what I, nor Wheeler is talking about.
Well, you may be entirely right wrt to your ideas. But may I respectfully suggest a 10yr education in theoretical physics before you are in a position to judge my understanding of Wheeler's work?
The fact you think anyone has invoked magic suggests you don't understand their claims.
I do not believe that Wheeler nor any other major quantum physicst (well, David Bohm was always a little out there...) is invoking magic. It is wrt to your ideas and claims that I use the term. I believe you are seriously misunderstanding quantum mechanics and especially the it-from-bit concept. As much as I hate to push popular science, there are some books out there on it-from-bit that may be useful.
Why not take their claims seriously?
I do. In fact, some of my own studies of the holographic principle went way past this stuff.
One thing Wheeler is very clear on, and I beleive is solidly supported by the evidence, and that is the fundamental state of things prior to observation is undefined
No, only observational properties are undefined in that without observation, they do not exist. The "fundemental state of things" is very well defined. It is all a matter of what you are calling fundemental. You have to go deeper...
Why are you dodging that issue?
I can only explain this stuff to you in analogies. You can question, but if you start arguing, you have to appreciate that you may simply not be understanding the analogy, may be missing the point, maybe picking up on a weakness of the analogy, etc. This is not debate.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-29-2005 02:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-28-2005 1:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:16 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 67 of 141 (264175)
11-29-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
11-29-2005 3:16 PM


Re: where's the beef?
The holographic principle agrees with my basic contention about what QM shows.
If your basic contention is that observed reality is emergent from some deeper reality substantially different from our (3+1)d perspective, then I agree... just about every approach to TOE suggests this.
But every approach has its own formalism of this underlying "reality". It is not some free-form existence from where species can appear or alternate realities merge with ours, or more importantly, some Wizard-of-Oz curtain behind which God operates the levers of reality.
As I said, these proposed underlying realities have form and substance and are described mathematically. I cannot even begin to discuss these ideas with you, becasue you do not talk the required language. You can hypothesise all you like, but do not delude yourself to thinking at Wheeler's level. Not because you necessarily lack the intellectual ability, just the rather extensive training. It doesn't matter how clever you are, cleverness does not convey the ability to converse in Cantonese.
These concepts have no bearing whatsoever upon evolution, nor any other macroscopic situation.
The "undefined" and "unreal" comments deal with form. They exist as a potential for various forms, a potential for physical discreteness. That potential is definitely real and defined, but not as single state, which is generally what people think of when they think of something as physical.
You see, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. If you want to play the game, you have to talk the same language as the players. You are speaking in laymanese and it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Virtual and holographic are very similar terms, and yet you seem quite pleased with your use of holographic, but act like my use of virtual (in a layman's sense) is absurd, or the result of not being as educated in this area.
The HP refers to something very specific. Your use of the word virtual is vague and imprecise.
Imo, you are not addressing the issue of the It from Bit concept, but just saying, well, you don't understand it because we can explain it from math.
No, I am saying that it is nothing special. It is is merely a way of putting words to the underlying mathematical concepts. It is just an idea. Somthing like the HP gives a possible realisation of it-from-bit. Again, this has NOTHING to do with macroscopic phenomena. It does not enable macroscopic objects to break the laws of classical physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:58 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 71 of 141 (264190)
11-29-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
11-29-2005 3:58 PM


Re: where's the beef?
I disagree very strongly here, but maybe I don't understand the point. How do approaches to ToE contain or suggest theories of a deeper reality?
Context is everything... think about the subject we are discussing: TOE - Theory of Everything
Exactly as I have stated, proposed, and fully in line with an Intelligent Design mechanism
Where is there room for an ID mechansim if the underlying theory is deterministic. There is no theory of which I am aware that is not deterministic. The last one was dropped by Hawking a few years back.
Sometimes the fact one cannot discuss something in everyday language means they don't understand it as well as they think or cannot envision what they do understand that well due to limits in the way they think about the world.
Hmmm, perhaps. But then why have I got a string of POTMs for my explanations of relativity and QM topics? Why do I find so many of my life's beer drinking hours spent explaining black holes to those silly enough to ask? Anyway, how would you know? When was the last time you had to explain frontier science to anyone? I mean, black holes and GR is a piece of cake compared to this. Why should this be understandable by you? Give me something similar that you have grasped without the corresponding education?
You say the world is a holographic projection of a deeper reality
No, I say I've worked on the Holographic Principle. Something very very different. This is a piece of mathematical conjecture, given validity with the proof of the AdS/CFT correspondance. It is formal science, not some bandying of words.
Zeilinger seeks to explain quantum mechanics as a result of elementary particles containing an elementary bit
Ok, first off, what is an elementary particle? Particles are not elementary. We use fields. And what kind of particle? Are we talking boson or fermion? What about confined states such as quark combinations... do colourless states have to contain two bits (mesons) or three bits (hadrons), such that the individual bits are as unobservable as the quarks themselves. That doesn't sound right... What about a QED three-vertex function? Where is the bit-flow? These are questions that should immediately arise in a decent 3rd year undergard/grad student.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 3:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:34 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 77 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2005 5:32 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 73 of 141 (264205)
11-29-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
11-29-2005 4:34 PM


Re: where's the beef?
So not only QM but TOE agrees with me here then.
No, not if you mean in the way you try to use QM to back up your outlandish claims at EvC. There is no ID mechanism hiding in any of this. There is no room.
Whether something is deterministic is a moot point either way.
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. There is unitary evolution via the S-matrix. Hawking's $-matrix didn't gain information either, it only lost information.
Had you read Zeilinger's work
I do browse Zeilinger's work. To which paper are you referring. He's rather prolific. I count 67 papers on quant-ph alone.
My understanding of Zeilinger is not at question here, it is your understanding.
Tell you what. I have his contact email here. I may just send him some excerpts from EvC (if Percy doesn't mind) and ask him to comment... sound like a plan?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 5:15 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 75 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:24 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 76 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:31 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 82 of 141 (264248)
11-29-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Brad McFall
11-29-2005 5:15 PM


Re: where's the place?
that provide the place to space in the redundant numbers that physics still does not use since it strove for a single dimenional analysis.
Don't be too sure of what is not used. These days we are finding use for just about everything. If Connes can get p-adics into physics, then nothing is sacred!
but the question of where is the good room that is free to Intelligent Design if God needs latitude as well as longitude?
Good point. I don't believe that God acts within physics. I've always thought of any interference, if it exists, is whole-scale changes in reality. I don't like the idea of God hiding in macroscopic thermodynamic noise, nor planck-scale quantum noise.

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 83 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 9:20 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 87 by mick, posted 11-30-2005 3:02 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 85 of 141 (264443)
11-30-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
11-29-2005 5:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
So your argument is that God cannot exist according to physics?Interesting, but an unproven concept imo.
That's not my argument. But as you bring it up... no, I do not believe God can exist according to physics. That would leave the door open to us creating God, given sufficient control of the physical universe...
However, I think what you meant was that [my argument was] 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. I would probably place any divine intervention in the realm of "global changes to reality" (as I was discussing with Brad). This keeps God's activities out of science and back into Goddidit and faith, which is where I personally believe all such musings belong.
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.
I do sometimes think along these lines, but primarily focus on God being outside the physical universe.
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
Not at all outlandish. I would claim the opposite based on the opinions of the physicists I know. My outlandish view would be that there are external divine influences DESPITE the universe being deterministic...
That idea suggests very strongly then that all events and things already exist prior to their occurence
I agree, it is very suggestive. But there are alternatives...
and I suppose viewing space-time as a whole, that makes some sense
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.
In other words, the designs and information would all need to exist within the deeper framework of the universe prior to their evolving, right?
Possibly, but who's to say that "your" designs are not created by "your" thoughts in the process of creation of the universe? Creation of the universe is not a matter of when and where. Creation is all around you... it is the existence of the universe.
You see? We can babble bollocks about existence without bastardising physics...
You can't add information to the system, correct?
Not via physical mechanisms, no... at least, that's what it look like.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-30-2005 12:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by randman, posted 11-30-2005 2:47 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 89 by randman, posted 11-30-2005 3:16 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 88 of 141 (264512)
11-30-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mick
11-30-2005 3:02 PM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
As a personal favour, could you tell me whether quantum physics "necessitates" the existence of an observer in order for physical events to occur?
Hmmm, not sure... that's a pretty big favour if you ask me... you'll owe me
Your view is quite in line with the majority view of physicists, certianly those working on the underpinings of qunatum phenomena. Conciousness is not a required part of classical emergence from the quantum realm. I like your point about the brick. So, not nonsense at all!
I would like to understand this stuff. Can you recommend a textbook of moderate difficulty (say, an undergraduate textbook)?
I've never found a QM textbook I really like... I'll have a think...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mick, posted 11-30-2005 3:02 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by mick, posted 11-30-2005 4:20 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 91 by JustinC, posted 11-30-2005 5:14 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 141 (265193)
12-03-2005 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by JustinC
11-30-2005 5:14 PM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
Yes, I have "heard" of it
I'm not sure it is a good interpretation, in that I'm not convinced that "interpretations" are necessarily a good thing. It is a vast improvement over the CI (in many of its guises), as it attempts to keep everything physical, without resorting to invoking some form of consciousness or even just external knowledge. What I do think is good about thinking around this interpretation is that it beaks down some of the barriers to perceived reality - conventional naive thinking of objects, particles, and the idea that you can think of "things" like electrons and photons independently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by JustinC, posted 11-30-2005 5:14 PM JustinC has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 96 of 141 (265194)
12-03-2005 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
12-01-2005 1:46 AM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
there's a lot we miss if we base everything on a concept of linear time and fixed timeline.
Who misses? The relativists/quantum theorists or the laymen? Or possibly those that attempt to present the ideas of the former to the latter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 12-01-2005 1:46 AM randman has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 97 of 141 (265195)
12-03-2005 7:07 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 feel I have the education in physics to give an informed answer.
Perfect answer
That aside, I don't think it is that crazy at all; especially considering how antiparticles can be thought of as their particle counterpart travelling backwards in time, advanced electromagnetic waves are predicted during photon emmision (I think), and the relativistic Shrodinger equation is time symmetric.
Right! But the mistake here is to try to interpret this back into conventional classical thinking. For these ideas to make sense, you need to push in deeper, not back out. That is where the education is needed.

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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 141 (265197)
12-03-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by randman
11-30-2005 2:47 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Since the universe is all space-time, I don't see how God could have created the world according to what you have claimed.
Space-time is what has been created. I see no problem...
According to you the system could never have had any input from outside
That's not what I said. I don't believe that there are observable physical processes that reveal any "intervention". I believe in
\                   /
         \                 /
       e+ \               / e-       Time ^
           \  e_v    ____/           e+ positron
            \____----    ~           e- electron
            ~             ~          e_v virtual electron
           ~               ~         Ph photon
          ~                 ~
         ~  Ph               ~ Ph
        ~                     ~
but I do not believe in
\                   /
         \                 /
       e+ \               / e-       Time ^
           \  e_v    ____/
            \____----    ~
            ~             ~
           ~               ~
          ~                 ~
         ~  GOD              ~ Ph
        ~                     ~
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?
For someone keen to make comments like...
quote:
there's a lot we miss if we base everything on a concept of linear time and fixed timeline.
...you really have little concept of the nature of time as relativity presents it. Time is merely a parametrisation of the universe. It doesn't have any applicability outside the universe. Of course God could externally create the universe. He doesn't require a point of time within the universe to do that, given that that point is part of the creation.
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,...
See above. I didn't say that God does not interact, just that it does not appear to me to be through physical mechanisms. He did not create the universe using the physical laws of the universe. Those laws were part of the creation. But if you were to ask me about the mathematics... well, that's another story.
The problem with ID is that it is looking for the Babel fish. I don't believe the fish exists, but if it does then that just leaves the door open to Oolon Coluphid. Was Adams aware of the modern ID movement back in the late 70s? Amazingly prophetic if he wasn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by randman, posted 11-30-2005 2:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 4:06 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 100 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 4:18 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 103 of 141 (265405)
12-04-2005 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by randman
12-04-2005 1:17 AM


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.....
End of discussion Randman. Let me know when you've grown up.
[ad-hominem]You're a prat[/ad-hominem]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 1:17 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