Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most significant current ID based research activity
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 35 (451409)
01-27-2008 4:18 PM


This question is aimed at supporters of ID and is as simple as it says in the title:
In your view, what is the most significant current ID based research activity?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 01-27-2008 4:28 PM CK has replied
 Message 5 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 9:07 PM CK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 35 (451413)
01-27-2008 4:24 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 3 of 35 (451415)
01-27-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
01-27-2008 4:18 PM


mine
there is no research more relevant to me than my own.
because inevitably, not what others tell me will matter, but what i find myself.
but i like to view others research of ID and see how it is valid in what i have come to know.
the bible has been the most relevant source of information, and more specifically, the things written in red.
of course, if your a non believer in God, then it will have no relevance to you.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 01-27-2008 4:18 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 01-27-2008 4:40 PM tesla has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 35 (451417)
01-27-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by tesla
01-27-2008 4:28 PM


Entirely off topic - do not reply
This is entirely off-topic and I would ask others not to respond to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 01-27-2008 4:28 PM tesla has not replied

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


Message 5 of 35 (451499)
01-27-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
01-27-2008 4:18 PM


not ready to say the most significant, but
I do think research in QM and along the lines of the anthropomorphic principle are very significant.
Originally proposed as a rule of reasoning, the term has since been extended to cover supposed "superlaws" that in various ways require the universe to support intelligent life, usually assumed to be carbon-based, and occasionally to be specifically human beings. Anthropic reasoning involves assessing these constraints by analyzing the properties of universes with different fundamental parameters or laws of physics from the current one, and has frequently concluded that essential structures, from atomic nuclei to the whole universe, depend, for stability, on delicate balances between different fundamental forces; balances which occur only in a small minority of possible universes ” so that ours seems to be fine-tuned for life. Anthropic reasoning also attempts to explain and quantify this fine tuning. Within the scientific community the usual approach is to invoke selection effects from a real ensemble of alternate universes, which cause an anthropic bias in what can be observed; competing strategies, occasionally also called anthropic, include intelligent design.
....
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but for Barrow and Tipler, unlike Carter, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by their three possible elaborations of the SAP:[16]
"There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.' " This can be seen as simply the classic design argument dressed in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being." Barrow and Tipler believe that this can be validly inferred from quantum mechanics, as has long been suggested by John Archibald Wheeler (his "participatory universe").
"An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe." Contrast this with Carter, who merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.
The first of these has of course been welcomed by proponents of intelligent design.
Anthropic principle - Wikipedia
Of course, some have objected to ID proponents using these ideas, but the work is going forward nonetheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 01-27-2008 4:18 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 1:49 AM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 35 (451564)
01-28-2008 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
01-27-2008 9:07 PM


Re: not ready to say the most significant, but
Who actually is doing this work and where ? And what is it ? The quote you provide only says that ID supporters like the idea that intentional design explains the Strong Anthropic Principle. Which is not even part of QM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 9:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:07 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 7 of 35 (451572)
01-28-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
01-28-2008 1:49 AM


Re: not ready to say the most significant, but
It is part of ID. You are certainly capable of googling Barrow and Tipler, the scientists mentioned in the quotes, if you want to review their work. I am sure you have the capability to find others as well and read their research for yourself.
Of course, this isn't part of QM. I wasn't trying to suggest it was, just that these 2 areas of research, in my opinion, represent significant ID research.
Edit to add something from Tipler.....I am too nice a guy since you could easily do this yourself.
His earlier book, 1986's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle with John D. Barrow, reviews the intellectual history of teleology, the large number of physical coincidences which allow sapient life to exist (i.e., the anthropic principle), and then investigates the ultimate fate of the universe. This was the first book to describe the Omega Point Theory.
Prof. Tipler's 2007 book The Physics of Christianity analyzes the Omega Point Theory's pertinence to Christian theology.[10] In the book Tipler identifies the Omega Point as being the Judeo-Christian God, particularly as described by Christian theological tradition. In this book Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament without violating any known laws of physics, even if one were to assume that we currently don't exist on a level of implementation in a computer simulation (in the case that we did, then according to Tipler such miracles would be trivially easy to perform for the society which was running the simulation, even though it would seem amazing from our perspective).
Over the years, Tipler has had fruitful interactions with the theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg.[11]
Tipler's writings on scientific peer review have been cited by William A. Dembski as forming the basis of the process for review in the intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information and Design of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, where both Tipler and Dembski serve as fellows.
Frank J. Tipler - Wikipedia
Tipler, btw, teaches a college course, fully accredited mind you, on the Omega point. He incorporates and teaches ID in his classes at Tulane.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 1:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:21 AM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 35 (451580)
01-28-2008 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
01-28-2008 2:07 AM


Re: not ready to say the most significant, but
I see no indication that Barrow and Tipler are doing any research on that interpretation. SInce you claim that they are, you should have that evidence - not be telling me to go look for it.
And what's this alleged QM research and who is doing that ?
I note that you have added by edit something on Tipler's activities - although you describe it as a "favour" (supporting your points is not a favour to anyone else - it is what you are expected to do). However it sounds more like religious apologetics than scientific research.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:07 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:24 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:33 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 9 of 35 (451582)
01-28-2008 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
01-28-2008 2:21 AM


Re: not ready to say the most significant, but
Then you are choosing not to see it. Tipler is a fellow with Dembski in an ID publication. He is explicitly ID. Make an effort PaulK.
On QM, google quantum mechanics and start studying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:32 AM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 35 (451584)
01-28-2008 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
01-28-2008 2:24 AM


Re: not ready to say the most significant, but
quote:
Then you are choosing not to see it. Tipler is a fellow with Dembski in an ID publication. He is explicitly ID. Make an effort PaulK.
I'm choosing not to see what ? Where's the research ?
quote:
On QM, google quantum mechanics and start studying.
In other words you don't know of any significant ID research in QM and can't be bothered to look. Look, it's up to you to support your assertions. You shouldn't just go around asking other people to do your work for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:24 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:35 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 11 of 35 (451585)
01-28-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
01-28-2008 2:21 AM


maybe creationist is more apt than IDer here
Similarly, everyone has an image of “God,” but to really understand what God really is and how He could interact with the universe, one must use a theory beyond everyday commonsense physics. Contrary to what many physicists have claimed in the popular press, we have had a Theory of Everything for about thirty years. Most physicists dislike this Theory of Everything because it requires the universe to begin in a singularity. That is, they dislike it because the theory is consistent only if God exists, and most contemporary scientists are atheists. They don’t want God to exist, and if keeping God out of science requires rejecting physical laws, well, so be it.
My approach to reality is different. I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well then, God exists.
We can also use the physical laws to tell us what the Cosmological Singularity”God”is like. The laws of physics tell us that our universe began in an initial singularity, and it will end in a final singularity. The laws also tell us that ours is but one of an infinite number of universes, all of which begin and end in a singularity. If we look carefully at the collection of all the universes”this collection is called the multiverse”we see that there is a third singularity, at which the multiverse began. But physics shows us that these three apparently distinct singularities are actually one singularity. The Three are One.
There is one religion which claims that God is a Trinity: Christianity.
Page Not Found | Penguin Random House
Tipler basically asserts physics proves the Christian God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:35 AM randman has replied

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


Message 12 of 35 (451587)
01-28-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
01-28-2008 2:32 AM


Re: not ready to say the most significant, but
No, I am asserting that QM, the basic theory itself, is an integral part of Intelligent Design and so all QM research, imo, is "most significant current ID" research. Unless you understand QM, it's probably a waste of time trying to explain that to you, however, as you won't believe me.
So take some time to study it for yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:42 AM randman has replied
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 01-28-2008 9:15 AM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 35 (451588)
01-28-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
01-28-2008 2:33 AM


Re: maybe creationist is more apt than IDer here
Like I said, it sounds more like religious apologetics than scientific research. Even down to the claim that his work is being rejected for religious reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:33 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:40 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 14 of 35 (451589)
01-28-2008 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
01-28-2008 2:35 AM


maybe to you
I don't think your opinion is a majority, however, nor accurate even if it was. Tipler is not a lightweight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2008 2:35 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 35 (451590)
01-28-2008 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
01-28-2008 2:35 AM


Re: not ready to say the most significant, but
In other words you're talking about your own ideas about QM. Which - to the best of my knowledge - aren't accepted by any serious researchers in that field.
Thanks for telling me to go off on a google search for something that isn't there.
So there's no ID research in QM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:35 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:48 AM PaulK 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