Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 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:   Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 166 of 173 (272205)
12-23-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by randman
12-23-2005 1:57 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
Yes. It's been done successfully for over 80 years. The classical double-slit experiments demonstrate this, as well as the variations of it called delayed-choice experiments.
Wow! Fantastic! And here I thought that the double-slit experiments demonstrated particles with different trajectories.
Could you point me to a good article on how the double slit experiments spontaneously created wholely autonomous animals out of nothingness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:57 PM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 167 of 173 (272206)
12-23-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by randman
12-23-2005 1:52 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
Fact is Darwin was wrong on heredity.
Last time I checked, offspring inherit features from their parents.
I suppose ID has some other explaination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:52 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 168 of 173 (272372)
12-24-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by randman
12-23-2005 12:47 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
What causes physical reality as we experience it is an ID mechanism whereby an information state, a potential, collapses or forms into physical reality. We see a constant process of moving from an inherent design into physical form, all the time. That's what quantum physics shows, this deeper, more fundamental reality containing the design (the information) interacting to cause a more limited manifestation of form we experience as the physical or material world. Aspects of the deeper reality, the superpositional state, we cannot measure, but we can take measurements that show it exists since the measurements or even the potential for measurement (delayed-choice experiments) cause one state or another to form out of the superpositional state.
The problem is that you are taking terms and concepts you do not understand and redefining them to mean what you want them to mean. The end result is utter nonsense that sounds good to the uninitiated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by randman, posted 12-24-2005 12:51 PM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 169 of 173 (272446)
12-24-2005 12:38 PM


Opus Humor
Thought I'd inject a little humor into this thread at Christmas time:
Looks much better at full size, so click to enlarge. Apologies for large size of file.
--Percy

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


Message 170 of 173 (272452)
12-24-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by cavediver
12-24-2005 5:16 AM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
cacediver, or not. I think one can understand the 2-slit experiment enough to understand some of the different interpretations without being a physicist. Sure, that doesn't mean one is qualified to determine scientifically which argument is right in interpretating quantum phenonomena, but thus far, from the things you write, I'd say a great many quantum physicists working in the field apparently don't understand their field, but you do.
You could be right...or not. Thus far, I'd have to say you don't appear to be correct as you don't engage the points that much except to say you think they are wrong.
I know you consider Wheeler a lightweight compared to yourself, but something he says, that we see things appear from an undefined state to a definite state does seem to match up well with the experimental data. Now, maybe you have a different mathematical argument I cannot understand, or maybe you are just too biased to give these ideas a fair hearing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2005 5:16 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2005 2:48 PM randman has replied

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


Message 171 of 173 (272497)
12-24-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by randman
12-24-2005 12:51 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
I think one can understand the 2-slit experiment enough to understand some of the different interpretations without being a physicist.
Maybe, but we are talking INTERPRETATIONS. Not the physics, not the mechanics, not the mathematics. The answer is ALWAYS the same, no matter which interpretation you use. That is why they are interpretations, not seperate theories. A particular interpretation does not leave room for some extra mechanism, be it ID or something entirely physical. QM is enhanced, not by the interpretations, but by deeper theories: QFT for example.
from the things you write, I'd say a great many quantum physicists working in the field apparently don't understand their field, but you do.
No, a great many quantum physicists do understand their field... it's pretty much the defining characteristic of a quantum physicist. You don't get very far without understanding what is going on.
Thus far, I'd have to say you don't appear to be correct as you don't engage the points that much except to say you think they are wrong.
No disrespect, but there is no debating to be done here. I can educate soemone in QM, if they show a willingness to learn, but I am not aware of anyone on this board with whom I could viably debate QM. No one has the requisite knowledge to agree or diagree with my points, nor even to appeal to papers, QM texts, or even Wikipedia. There are many who could beat me to a pulp over QM, but they would all be post-doc in quantum theory.
I know you consider Wheeler a lightweight compared to yourself
If you will permit me a little idolatry, Wheeler is a god. I sadly never reached even the beginnings of apotheosis.
that we see things appear from an undefined state to a definite state does seem to match up well with the experimental data.
I don't think any quantum physicist on the planet would disagree with this, given a sufficient definition of the terms: undefined, defined, state. Herein lies the problem: you do not have sufficient understanding of these terms, yet wield them with false authority.
or maybe you are just too biased to give these ideas a fair hearing.
Not at all. I am just here to point out bad physics, and explain good physics. Wheeler espouses a very interesting set of ideas concerning quantum information theory. The trouble is you are bastardising and corrupting these ideas to somehow show support for ID.
If you want God to act through QM, it is very simple. You do not need any deep interpretation, just the basic mechanics. BUT you will not be able to distinguish it from naturalism. And your delving into quantum information theory is not going to improve this position.
If you want an evidential act of God, you will have to look elsewhere. QM provides cover for God's activities, and hence performs the opposite of what you seem to be looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by randman, posted 12-24-2005 12:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by randman, posted 12-24-2005 5:44 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 172 of 173 (272537)
12-24-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by cavediver
12-24-2005 2:48 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
cavediver, your problem is you have a mental block, imo, and are not hearing what I am saying. Imo, an ID mechanism is fully naturalistic. God Himself exists as part of nature or the material world, if all forms of energy that can exist here are defined as material.
So when I see QM as ID, I am not asserting anything but the exact same claims Wheeler does. The only difference is I see the process as best described, labelled or whatever as Intelligent Design due to the fact QM demonstrates certain qualities, many not disputed, such as design being fundamental. The design exists at all states, whether positional or superpositional. The form is a by-product of the design, the information/energy set.
I don't think any QM physicist disagrees with that basic evidentiary claim, although they may disagree with applying it to ID.
You seem to think the minute someone mentions God, they are talking about something magical, but my God is not a God of the gaps, but a God of the process. The processes in life are all created and instruments of God, even microevolution...everything in fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2005 2:48 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 12-24-2005 5:56 PM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 173 of 173 (272543)
12-24-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by randman
12-24-2005 5:44 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
God Himself exists as part of nature or the material world
quote:
Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation
11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by randman, posted 12-24-2005 5:44 PM 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