Most significant current ID based research activity

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

No, my ideas on what quantum mechanics are is straight-out, mainstream QM from the QM physicists themselves.

---

That isn't true. We resolved that in previous discussions.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, pretty much standard QM is very favorable to ID ways of thinking, particularly the idea of physical reality stemming from immaterial reality.

---

Not really. It's still just mindless physics.

quote:

---

No, you stopped accepting what quantum physicists say and insisted on your own ill-informed opinion

---

That isn't true. To be charitable the dispute was more over what the experts said. And the resident expert - Cavediver - did not agree with you.But rehashing that debate is a diversion which the new stricter adminstration will probably object to. So if you can support your point here and now with ectual examples of ID-based QM research that would be a far better way of supporting your assertion.And you misunderstand my point about QM. QM - like classical physics - deals with the operation of mindless entities. I never said or implied that it was incorrect (although we know that it is incomplete, because it has yet to fully incorporate gravity).