Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 82 (212770)
05-31-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by randman
05-30-2005 4:54 PM


Re: do tell
randman responds to me:
quote:
Rhhain, I never quoted physicists concerning the field of biology.
Did you or did you not say the following?
Note the following.
quote:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
- Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning Father of Quantum Theory
Is this thread or is this thread not about "scientists abandoning evolution"?
Did you or did you not say:
If God has imbedded the creation with a mechanism He created to design and guide to a degree certain processes, or stated another way, to influence the physical world, then it may well be that mechanism is involved in other arenas, including evolution.
Isn't that trying to connect quantum physics with evolution?
You're trying to say that the mysticism of some physicists has a bearing on the field of evolutionary biology.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 4:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 1:42 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 62 of 82 (212776)
05-31-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
05-30-2005 12:57 PM


"The comparison of arrival times need not actually be performed to destroy the interference pattern. The mere "threat" of obtaining information about which way the photon travelled, Mandel explains, forces it to travel only one route. "The quantum state reflects not only what we know about the system but what is in principle knowable," Mandel says. "
If anything this seems to argue against a significant role for consciousness. The fact that the potential for knowledge about a system, rather than conscious observation/apprehension of that knowledge, is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern suggests that consciousness is unneccessary. Although perhaps potential conscious observation is sufficient in which case only a potential consciousness should be needed.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 12:57 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 1:50 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 63 of 82 (212786)
05-31-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by randman
05-30-2005 1:49 AM


quote:
Point 2 is that what causes form to take place is interaction with consciousness. My understanding is consciousness-based interpretations of QM effects is dominant. Some here have agreed with that, and some disagreed.
I disagree strongly. In my years as a physicist I seldom, if ever, ran into anyone who espoused a consciousness-based interpretation of QM.
quote:
What QM suggests is that energy patterns are what constitutes material, and it moves, vibrates, etc,...at different frequencies and patterns. That supports the biblical idea that thoughts and actions can have a "seed" effect in the universe as a whole. The reason is that it is unscientific to think that the energy of thought is different than the energy that makes up matter, the force that emanates from a "conscious and intelligent Mind."
Sorry, this has nothing to do with physics. Yes, QM can be thought of as saying that patterns of energy are the basis of matter. Those patterns obey strict physical laws -- they have nothing to do with fuzzy concepts like the "power of thought".
quote:
I've mentioned the entanglement aspect a little which indicates there is the existence of a realm tied to the normally observable world around us, but which is invisible and contains connections which manifest superluminally. Has the basic qualities of the spiritual realm many traditions, including the Bible have depicted, and even explains how prophecy might work in the sense of seeing future or past events. Superluminal means that it works at a differant rate of time, and logically ought to be able to be used to access past and future present points informationally.
Here you are simply contradicting physics, which says that entanglement cannot be used to send information superluminally. Once again, the "superluminal" effect in quantum entanglement obeys strict and precise rules. It is not an opening through which you can drive whatever faster-than-light speculations you might find appealing.
quote:
Miracles are given very strong scientific backing in QM, at least as far as not violating the laws of physics. Take the concept of quantum tunneling. Classical physics, for example, would say it is impossible to throw a ball completely through a wall without it seeming to touch it, nor damage the wall. The ball will always bounce back, or perhaps break the wall, but it cannot just sail right through a solid wall, such as a solid wood wall.
QM also tells you that the probability of the ball tunnelling through a wall is so low that it is immensely unlikely to happen even once in the history of the universe. What QM says, in effect, is that (some) miracles are possible but that they don't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 1:49 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 4:23 PM sfs has not replied

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


Message 64 of 82 (212847)
05-31-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
05-31-2005 3:55 AM


Re: do tell
RrHain, the physicists are discussing the fundamentals of matter, not biology. Now, it is true that if matter comes into being only by the force of an Intelligent Mind, then that also related to the field of evolution because biological processes are undergirded by chemistry which is in itself undergirded by the properties of matter.
But you seem to be suggesting that these physicists were speaking "outside their field" and that moreover, evolutionary biologists would understand better what someone like Max Planck was studying that they would.
That is totally laughable.
Are you claiming the field of physics has no bearing at all on the field of biology?
If that were the case, we would have to think biological systems did not consist of matter. if matter indeed comes into being through the force of an Intelligent Mind, then we can conclusively state that what makes up biology is dependent on an Intelligent Mind, and more to the point, we would have within the fabric of nature discovered that the force of an Intelligent Mind is indeed part of any modern view of physical reality or so-called naturalism.
If this Intelligent Mind acts on the fundamentals of all of physical reality, the formation of matter, it is mere presumption to consider that same Intelligent Mind off-limits to evolutionary biology.
Now, you can claim Max was wrong, and we can debate quantum physics. I would suggest though that the mere evidence that he could be right places the concept of an Intelligent Mind as the matrix of all matter and thus fundamental to all existence within the realm of hard science. Not saying it is proven, but it certainly deserves to be on the table and considered as such, as real science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2005 3:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 05-31-2005 6:51 PM randman has not replied
 Message 79 by Rrhain, posted 06-04-2005 7:07 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 65 of 82 (212852)
05-31-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Wounded King
05-31-2005 5:23 AM


If anything this seems to argue against a significant role for consciousness. The fact that the potential for knowledge about a system, rather than conscious observation/apprehension of that knowledge, is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern suggests that consciousness is unneccessary. Although perhaps potential conscious observation is sufficient in which case only a potential consciousness should be needed.
That would be true if we did not also have evidence of things such as superluminal (action at a distance) communication between objects, or transfer of information between objects. The principle of entanglement suggests in fact, and some have shown this fairly convincingly, that entanglement should work even across segments of time. Run some entangled protons though a polarizing field and produce 2 sets, and see the interference pattern destroyed. Run them again, and see the interference pattern restored, but if restored, then the protons going through the interference pattern the first time would seem to have to "know" they were going to go through the second time. The explanation is they are entangled over segments of time.
Brukner and Vedral showed this in a thought experiment but based on observable behavious. Obviously, we cannot actually yet go back in time (nor can we do in evolution), but the thought experiment is pretty powerful since we do see this happening.
So the "collapse" due to potential knowledge could also be the result of consciousness in the future.
Or, it could be that there is a preprogrammed aspect to reality that responds somehow as if consciouness is present, and so the potential knowledge angle would be the correct one with or without consciousness directly present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 05-31-2005 5:23 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 66 of 82 (212855)
05-31-2005 1:57 PM


Topic Drift Alert
If no one wants to discuss the topic I will close this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 4:31 PM Admin has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 67 of 82 (212863)
05-31-2005 2:32 PM


Not much basis for this topic question anyway
I think the thread can be closed (unless someone feels compelled to get in the last word )
It is a fact, as Schraf makes abundantly clear in message 5, that scientists are *not* abandoning evolutionary theory in droves as the proponents of ID would like everyone to think.
Although some ID proponents have scientific credentials in fields related to the biological sciences and medicine, they are typically not working in fields where inferences from evolutionary biology are routinely relied upon, like applied resources management, molecular genetics, community ecology, conservation, and agriculture.
Furthermore, most of the discussion up-thread has crossed over to inferences from physical sciences and quotes from physicists etc. and does not relate directly to biological evolution, only perhaps to cosmological evolution in some cases. The basic Darwinian model is still the 'gold standard' for evaluating and predicting changes in living populations. Almost any applied biologist working in organismal or population biology will tell you that. Until ID theorists can come up with some testable hypotheses or solve some actual problems in applied biology, they just aren't going to be taken seriously by 'serious' scientists.
End of story.

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


Message 68 of 82 (212877)
05-31-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by sfs
05-31-2005 7:49 AM


I disagree strongly. In my years as a physicist I seldom, if ever, ran into anyone who espoused a consciousness-based interpretation of QM.
OK, so you never heard of Leornard Mandel or John Wheeler?
Yes, QM can be thought of as saying that patterns of energy are the basis of matter. Those patterns obey strict physical laws -- they have nothing to do with fuzzy concepts like the "power of thought".
OK, the concept that "patterns of energy consitute the basis of matter" is in itself equivalent to the concepts of reality espoused by many spiritual traditions for thousands of years. If you were to look at these views as "predictions", they have an excellent track record.
Those patterns obey strict physical laws
Here is where you make the error. What constitutes "physical"? You have already conceded that what is physical can be thought of as energy patterns. The fact that these patterns obey laws is quite obvious and uncontested. The suggestion they obey "physical laws" is misleading since they do not seem to obey laws derived from classical physics and the observation of the classical concepts of physicality. They obey laws within the realm they exist. You can call them physical laws, and if you are going to do that, I can just relabel all things called "spiritual" per science as "physical", and the same result is acheived, or vice versa. In other words, they seem to obey strict "spiritual laws" as presented in various spiritual traditions as oppossed to classical concepts of physicality, but per modern science, these "spiritual laws" are physical, once physical is defined as including all of reality, including the energy patters that all things consist of.
I also question your use of "strict." I think that is an alien concept to quantum physics. Would you not agree?
Furthermore, why is "thought" a fuzzy concept? Are you denying that thought is real, and takes energy?
I would think your stance is the one here that is nonsensical. Thought works and may even consist of an energy form that is by definition defined in patterns. No pattern equals no thought.
Thought is pattern and energy within human consciousness.
Matter is pattern and energy as well, but it's manifestation is observed in physical objects.
As far as entanglement, there are plenty of scientists working right now to develop quantum computers using the process of entanglement to do exactly what you claim is impossible. I realize that some scientists assumed that entanglement did not entail superluminal action, and have put forward ideas on how it works, but in fact the observed and theoritical action of entanglement occurs over distance immediately regardless of distance, and thus is superluminal.
Page has gone | New Scientist
Defining the entangled particles as non-separable or non-local and thus implying a hidden structure within the universe, and yet claim nothing happens superluminally works just as well for what I am talking about.
Once again, you can change the verbiage and the concept of how it occurs and the labelling, but regardless of what "it" [QM effects] is, it is predicted by what spiritual traditions have been claiming for thousands of years.
This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 04:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by sfs, posted 05-31-2005 7:49 AM sfs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 05-31-2005 5:13 PM randman has replied

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


Message 69 of 82 (212879)
05-31-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Admin
05-31-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Topic Drift Alert
Note: I did not see the 2 posts prior to posting mine. Wssn't trying to get in the last word, but reply, which hopefully is informative, to the comment made on my posts.
I suspect some scientists are swayed by ID, but maybe more the concept of guided evolution than something like traditional creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Admin, posted 05-31-2005 1:57 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 06-01-2005 6:00 AM randman has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 70 of 82 (212888)
05-31-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
05-31-2005 4:23 PM


randman writes:
Here is where you make the error. What constitutes "physical"? You have already conceded that what is physical can be thought of as energy patterns. The fact that these patterns obey laws is quite obvious and uncontested. The suggestion they obey "physical laws" is misleading since they do not seem to obey laws derived from classical physics and the observation of the classical concepts of physicality. They obey laws within the realm they exist. You can call them physical laws, and if you are going to do that, I can just relabel all things called "spiritual" per science as "physical", and the same result is acheived, or vice versa. In other words, they seem to obey strict "spiritual laws" as presented in various spiritual traditions as oppossed to classical concepts of physicality, but per modern science, these "spiritual laws" are physical, once physical is defined as including all of reality, including the energy patters that all things consist of.
I'm just looking for information. I understand you to say that all of what is physical can be thought of as energy patterns. What do you mean by "thought of as"? Do particles have mass as a basic constituent, or is their mass just a result of the particular nature of their energy?
I have been told on another thread that string theory has been largely discounted and is no longer considered at all probable. Are there theories, other than the string theory, that suggest that all particles are made up of energy with a variety of properties?
I have read Schroeder who suggests that in turn the basis of the energy is information. His theories seem similar to the view that you seem to be espousing. How mainstream are his ideas?
I realize this sounds like it is going off topic but it seems to me that if ID is present in physics then ID also exits in the biological. If ID became normative thinking for physicists then I would think that the biologists would have to take that into account in their view of evolution. (I am not saying that I believe that by accepting ID that evolution would be abandoned, but it would mean that a different approach would have to be taken for the impetus for evolution.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 4:23 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 5:46 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 71 of 82 (212894)
05-31-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by GDR
05-31-2005 5:13 PM


What do you mean by "thought of as"? Do particles have mass as a basic constituent, or is their mass just a result of the particular nature of their energy?
I actually think the latter is the case, that matter is the result of the particular nature of their energy, but it's not clear to me that most accept that. But the actual mass is so small, in terms of the space it occupies relative to the object containing the mass, that the whole scenario I have laid out still is valid. If you reduced all the mass of the building you are in to eliminate the space between the mass, assuming the mass is not just a different form of energy, the mass may not even be visible, or at least very tiny.
Plus, the question in quantum physics is also just when does the mass become mass. When it exists as a probability pattern, where is the mass, and what form does it exist?
I have read Schroeder who suggests that in turn the basis of the energy is information. His theories seem similar to the view that you seem to be espousing. How mainstream are his ideas?
I think they are mainstream, as far as quantum physics researchers, but it also seems there is a lot of specialization and some scientists may not really delve into this area, or care to have an opinion based on the science so much. Some have gone as far as to say no one can really understand quantum physics, but it works. Personally, I think it's easier for someone schooled in spiritual principles to understand quantum physics, though not to research it, because the ideas and principles have already been taught, accepted, and considerable effort often put into applying them or at least applying them in theology and thought (hopefully in deeds and actions too).
I realize this sounds like it is going off topic but it seems to me that if ID is present in physics then ID also exits in the biological. If ID became normative thinking for physicists then I would think that the biologists would have to take that into account in their view of evolution.
That's what I am saying, especially since these physicists did not come to these ideas via religion. It's not even that they are advocating religion or spirituality. It's just that the basic principles they are uncovering seem to say the exact same things that spiritual traditions have said for thousands of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 05-31-2005 5:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-31-2005 6:40 PM randman has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 72 of 82 (212899)
05-31-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by randman
05-31-2005 5:46 PM


randman writes:
matter is the result of the particular nature of their energy
Thanks for the reply. Is your thinking based on string theory or something else, and if something else, what is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 5:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 7:03 PM GDR has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 73 of 82 (212903)
05-31-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
05-31-2005 1:42 PM


physics bearing on biology
Are you claiming the field of physics has no bearing at all on the field of biology?
For all practical purposes it does not.
You'd think there would be an even more direct connection between physics at the quantum mechanical level and something like structural engineering. However, you may astonish me by showing that engineers use quantum mechanics to determine the appropriate load bearing material when building a bridge. In fact that level of physics is ignored.
When solving problems or thinking about a specific area it is important to set the levels of abstraction correctly. Population genetics does not worry about the precise chemistry of DNA much less the physics of the interaction of molecules.
Your suggesting a meaningful tie is an example of erroneous thinking of a very fundamental nature.
If you wish to suggest, on the other hand, that the laws of the universe were designed by some self-aware force to produce the possibility of life like ourselves evolving then you are free to do so. You may even choose to make this a foundation stone of your faith. There is no way to support or falsify such an idea at present. We don't know why the laws of the universe are as they are.
This view is a philosophical one which isn't something having anything at all to do with biology and the evolutionary ideas contained there.
Of course, if you choose to build your faith on such foundational assumptions then you are at risk of having the foundation shattered at some future date. That puts you in the same position as those who have faith resting on the sand of a literal genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 1:42 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 74 of 82 (212908)
05-31-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
05-31-2005 6:40 PM


GDR, keep in mind this is a secondary point since what we view as far physical objects contains very little matter in terms of space, and thus the field of space we see the object occupying is for the most part energy, and a pattern that moves very tiny bits of matter into positions that tend to duplicate that pattern. I would say the pattern moves the matter "around" except that's not what happens. It appears in different places.
Moreover, we see particles can seem to not exist in any definite form, but a probability of forms, or a superposition of forms according to the pattern, but the matter may not actually exist as matter until a certain point in time where something occurs, but rather as merely the potential for matter, and if that is the case, I would suggest that matter should be more thought of as a manifestation of the energy pattern, and not something existing apart from it, but something that emerges from the energy pattern.
John Wheeler, as the quote below indicates but can be gleaned from other articles, books, etc,..as well, describes the fundamental physical state of particles as intrinsincally undefined.
The fallacy giving rise to such speculations,Wheeler explains, is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
I am not basing any of this on string theory, but on quantum physics by the way. If a particle has a superpositional potential that only collapses into a single state, at some intervention, whether consciousness or otherwise related to it, then the particle exists as information first and foremost and the matter is a secondary existence subsequent to the information pattern.
That to me suggests that matter is "the result of the particular nature of [its] energy" as you put it.
I hope that answers your question, and I apologize if I have not used the clearest of language.
This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 07:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-31-2005 6:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 75 of 82 (212926)
05-31-2005 8:27 PM


Off Topic
Since this thread is no longer on topic I will close it for a few hours so that participants may review the OP.

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminNosy, posted 06-01-2005 12:01 AM AdminNosy 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