Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moving towards an ID mechanism.
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 50 of 141 (262416)
11-22-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
11-22-2005 11:56 AM


it from bit
Hi randman
randman writes:
discuss the OP concerning a potential ID mechanism in QM, and specifically the It from Bit model of explaining physical phenomena
The It from Bit model is the idea that the existence of physical entities arises from apparatus-elicited answers to binary (yes/no) questions. The number of bits that are necessary to describe an entity is the information content of that entity. So the idea is that the physical existence of an entity arises from the information content of the entity. I found a quote from Wheeler here
Wheeler writes:
'It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.
My understanding is that in the photon experiments, information content is imposed upon the photon by measuring it in such a way as it is forced to give a binary response to the act of observation. The mechanism by which information content is imposed on the photon is in the way that the experimental apparatus has been designed to elicit a binary reponse. (I'm going to use the word "imposed"; perhaps "elicited" or something else is better but bear with me).
If we are to try to apply this idea to the origin of form in biology, then we would need to be able to specify the mechanism by which information content is imposed on (or elicited from) biological existence. For example, Intelligent Design advocates might say that the bacterial flagellum, or Cetaceans, or the blood clotting system, have been designed rather than evolved.
If "it from bit" provided a mechanism for the design of these biological forms, we would need to know:
a) who is the observer?
b) what is being observed? In the case of the design of Cetaceans, for example, what physical entities are being observed in such a way as to impose information content on them such that a whale pops into existence? In the case of the design of the blood clotting system, what is being observed and having information content imposed upon it such that a load of novel genes and their interactions pop into existence?
c) what is the experimental apparatus that permits this kind of extermely complex information content to be elicited as a set of binary responses? What measurement apparatus would I need to be able to observe a bacterium in such a way that it suddenly grows a flagellum?
I'm no physicist so I have no intention of arguing with Wheeler. My only problem with your OP is that this idea of "it from bit" isn't actually a mechanism as far as the origin of biological form is concerned, because the observer, observed and apparatus are all "black boxes".
Mick
This message has been edited by mick, 11-22-2005 12:41 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 11-22-2005 12:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 11:56 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 1:05 PM mick has not replied
 Message 53 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 1:32 PM mick has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 54 of 141 (262461)
11-22-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
11-22-2005 1:32 PM


Re: it from bit
Hi randman,
I'm replying here to your posts 53 and 52.
randman writes:
in this process, we can see how intelligence can manipulate the process to make certain answers appear instead of others, to make certain physical responses appear rather than others; hence an ID mechanism in my opinion. It is not therefore necessary to show who the Observer was since we have shown the mechanism and effect.
That sounds very similar to the rather odd premise of ID that we don't need to know who the designer is. We are not actually left with a mechanism at all - we are left with wishful thinking: an unknown and unknowable intelligent designer manipulates the quantum structure of the universe through an undescribed mechanism in order to make bacteria grow flagella. It's simply not very satisfying. Strictly speaking it is not even an explanation.
randman writes:
On the claim that the "observed" is a black box, I think that's clearly wrong as what is observed is physical reality. On the topic of Observer, Max Plank in response to studying quantum mechanics reflected on the basic Information state which is fundamental existence this way...My point then is first to see that this basic ID mechanism is not just relevant to creating new species, but is part and parcel of fundamental existence. The transfer from information superpositional states into a single state in physical form is something that is always occuring, always present, and is how things are and work, at least how I am reading this.
Look, events at the quantum level do not incorporate "the whole universe". Quantum events occur at the submicroscopic level. At the macroscopic level (i.e. a few dozens of nanometers) the quantum effect resolves into classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics is pretty useless at letting us predict where a tennis ball will land when it's hit in a certain direction with a certain force. Quantum events will not be "relevant to creating new species" simply because the wave function of an object the size of a living organism is, compared to the size of the that organism's world, unutterably tiny. The wave function that describes the possible superpositions of quantum entities works at the level of subatomic particles; at the level of chickens or rabbits it is irrelevant and classical mechanics maintains.
randman writes:
So the third question is what about the apparatus? My first response is we don't exactly the evolutionary paths of many things, but evos claim they nonetheless evolved. They don't know the apparatus but merely point to a mechanism of mutations and variations being selected for.
That isn't a response to my question, it's a claim about the quality of evolutionary biology. That's a standard ID strategy - when somebody asks a difficult question, attack Darwin! But in any case it's irrelevant, because "measurement apparatus" and "observation" are not a part of evolutionary theory.
randman writes:
The apparatus need not be anything more than the surrounding world itself, just influenced by an Intelligent Designer.
You've let the cat out of the bag there (or should I say "you've let the cat out of the box" ) The only reason why the "it from bit" theory is of any succour to proponents of ID is that they believe it necessitates the existence of a conscious, intelligent observer. Quantum mechanics is simply seen as a "God-friendly" theory and that's why it's claimed to be part of the ID mechanism.
Does quantum mechanics require the existence of a conscious observer in order for the physical form of entities to be made apparent? I don't think so. First of all because quantum events are resolved into classical mechanics at the macroscopic level (so the wave function must collapse "naturally" at some point. For example if I hold a brick in my hand, it appears to manifest itself as a physical entity with distinct physical properties without my observing every single electron, neutron and proton in order for them to become real). Second (and I'm not certain about this one) because the "observer" is surely any entity that causes a wave function to resolve itself - and couldn't that be an inanimate object such as a photographic plate or some equipment left running in a lab without conscious agents being present?
Mick
This message has been edited by mick, 11-22-2005 02:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 1:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 3:56 PM mick has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 56 of 141 (262500)
11-22-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
11-22-2005 3:56 PM


Re: it from bit
yeah okay, I'll read up on this stuff.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 3:56 PM randman has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 87 of 141 (264509)
11-30-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
Hi cavediver,
I gather that you know a great deal about 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?
In a previous post, I said:
mick writes:
Does quantum mechanics require the existence of a conscious observer in order for the physical form of entities to be made apparent? I don't think so. First of all because quantum events are resolved into classical mechanics at the macroscopic level (so the wave function must collapse "naturally" at some point. For example if I hold a brick in my hand, it appears to manifest itself as a physical entity with distinct physical properties without my observing every single electron, neutron and proton in order for them to become real). Second (and I'm not certain about this one) because the "observer" is surely any entity that causes a wave function to resolve itself - and couldn't that be an inanimate object such as a photographic plate or some equipment left running in a lab without conscious agents being present?
Is any of that reasonable, or is it just nonsense?
I have tried to look up information on quantum physics on the web, but it's either too mathematically advanced for me or it's written by new-age Christian types who argue that quantum physics necessitates the existence of God.
I would like to understand this stuff. Can you recommend a textbook of moderate difficulty (say, an undergraduate textbook)?
Or, more realistically, could you recommend a maths textbook that would give me the basic grounding for understanding the simplified version of the physics? I am not entirely hopeless at maths and would enjoy some abstract fun in my spare time.
Cheers
Mick
This message has been edited by mick, 11-30-2005 03:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 3:16 PM mick has replied
 Message 141 by Son Goku, posted 12-18-2005 3:15 PM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 90 of 141 (264538)
11-30-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by cavediver
11-30-2005 3:16 PM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
cavediver writes:
I've never found a QM textbook I really like... I'll have a think...
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 3:16 PM cavediver 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