Logical Proof of Intelligent Design

Actually I mentioned in my post that quantum mechanics may be an exception on cause preceeding effect, I suppose I should have been broadened that when refering to what the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle means.The principle itself refered to the inability to measure both position and momentum. From what I understood it was being expanded to say they don't have both, but only because those monkeys being observed are losing their true status as "particles".I don't mind getting my science knowledge upgraded if I let it slip in that area, so I'll check out those refs. Actually I had been meaning to read Hawking sometime soon anyway. Maybe it's become necessary.Thanks.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Since we do not observe perfect symmetry in the universe, and the combinative intersection of wavefronts can be explained to be a very complex computation, much more complex than a human brain, the universe is intelligent.

---

Huh?Complexity = intelligence?Since when?

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

This isn't true. Sometimes, effects have no cause.

---

​

For example?

---

Do you not remember the examples I've given?Do the words "Casimir Effect" and "quantum vacuum flux" mean nothing to you?Stephen Hawking has also used the creation of virtual particles to deal with the eventual bleeding off of black holes. Near the event horizon, these virtual particle pairs will be created but one will get sucked into the hole and one will be sent off. This results in a radiation of energy out of the black hole, eventually draining it.Of course, it'll take forever, but it will happen.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

But if it'll make you feel better..........

---

What has my scientifically factual statement got to do with feelings?------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Because while the definition of "universe" is roughly "everything that exists", by convention, it refers only to our bounded space-time, that is, all points in space that you could travel to via Newtonian motion.Ergo it's possible to have multiple, independant space-times. Each would be it's own universe.Sure, cosmologists don't use the word in a way that agrees with its first definition. The way that they do use it is also a definition of the word "universe", so your argument from definition doesn't hold. (They never do, really.)

The Casimir effect is explained by Stephen Hawking to be the result of closed timelike loops, creating a symmetric push on the plates, so the loops[CTCs] are cause and effect together, which form "events".Here is another quote from Stephen Hawking himself:http://clinton4.nara.gov/...iatives/Millennium/shawking.html

quote:

---

​

At the moment computers have an advantage of speed, but they show no sign of intelligence. This is not surprising because our present computers are less complex than the brain of an earthworm, a species not noted for their intellectual powers. But computers obey Moore's Law put forward by Gordon Moore of Intel. This says that their speed and complexity double every 18 months. It is one of these exponential growths which clearly can not continue indefinitely. However it will probably continue until computers have a similar complexity to the human brain.
Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.
This is why I don't believe the science fiction picture of an advanced but constant future. Instead, I expect complexity to increase at a rapid rate, both in the biological and electronic spheres. Not much of this will happen in the next hundred years, which is all we can reliably predict. But by the end of the next millennium, if we get there, the change will be fundamental.

​

---

Increasing computational complexity allows for linear, nonlinear, and eventually, even nonalgorithmic processes.In a universal computation, as wave functions become phase entangled, the information combines analogously to a type of memory storage. Spacetime remembers the input[feedback].The computational complexity, memory, and creative ability of a universal mind, would be much greater than a human brain.[This message has been edited by Russell E. Rierson, 10-28-2003][This message has been edited by Russell E. Rierson, 10-28-2003]

I thought my post made it clear. Some people use "universe" in a different way than you are doing. Crashfrog gave a much more explicit breakdown of this than I did.If you would prefer I use your definition (which indeed is correct) rather than theirs (which is also correct, given their working paradigm) I will do so.Are you really serious about this argument? Posting questions like the one in this post, make this tagline redundant. Believe me, I'm feeling the burn of lost future.------------------
holmes

Okeydoke, I read the articles and I feel pretty confident my original statement was correct. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is almost exactly as I stated (the first citation in specific was dead on to how I learned it).I think what is being said is that in addition to limits the material world presents us on measuring both position and momentum of certain subatomic particles (interference of the measuring device=Heisenberg uncertainty), there is an additional real uncertainty (QM theory/Bell's Theorem).That said, Bell's theorem, even as described by Hawking, was not convincing to me. I think the second article brought that out even more.I realize Hawking's article is critical of those that hold the "hidden values" theory, but saw no real argument for why it could or should be dismissed.If you have or know where I can find more material on this (especially more convincing material) I am interested. Don't worry about level of knowledge issues, as I am at the graduate chem level. It would be nice if it wasn't all math formulas, but it doesn't have to be completely layman oriented.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-28-2003]

holmes writes:

quote:

---

That said, Bell's theorem, even as described by Hawking, was not convincing to me.

---

Oh? Why? It's been demonstrated. It's even been used to generate a method for encrypting transmissions.What is it you don't like?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Why oh why do you have to be sarcastic and mean? Maybe I wasn't clear... the links provided in the post I was responding to, did not have a detailed support for Bell's theorem and its refutation of "hidden values" type theories. The second one in specific said there were still unexplored questions.I have already admitted I may not be up to date on that particular subject and am open to more information.Why not provide me with better links or suggested reading? That is what I was asking for...------------------
holmes

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

Why oh why do you have to be sarcastic and mean?

---

I wasn't. I really want to know. I didn't like the concept of the Bell experiment, either, until it got shown. The idea that somehow the measurement of one particle can cause the simultaneous collapse of the wave function of its pair, even though it can be any distance away, makes my head go funny. But then I heard they actually carried out the experiment and showed that it actually happens. And then when I heard how it could be used in encryption (well, to be most accurate, a method to detect if the data had been intercepted), the "cool!" response overwhelmed everything else.I was just wondering what it was you were getting at.Here's a link talking about it: Physics News Update: The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I've just finished reading a book by Amir Aczel which deals with Quantum Entanglement and has a chapter on recent work involving teleportation. Bit experimental for my liking, but a former chemist might like it Basically, when two particles become entangled, then they have to be treated as if they are two aspects of the same particle, even if they were at opposite ends of the Universe. Bakes my noodle too. This looks like a pretty good explanation, although I haven't had the chance to read it all myself. This looks good as well.PE

Hmmmmmm... I am sceptical since I thought my post was clear enough that I was unconvinced by the two links I had read.But I'll accept the explanation and move on. And I'll check out the link you provided.Thanks.------------------
holmes

Thanks as well, I'll check them out. But they better not lead me to open a gate to hell where pain and pleasure are intermingled.------------------
holmes

That would be Kent Hovind's website.PE