Rejecting Intelligent Design as Possibly Science

"The idea of an observation collapsing a wave function is just on interpretation of QM."It's the dominant interpretation of QM, and the one most backed by hard experimental data."As I understand it the general picture is not now that there has to be an "observation" in the sense of a sentient being observing. Any interaction can cause the wave function to collapse."Your understanding is wrong. Of course, any interaction perhaps can cause an interference, but presumably any interaction is an interaction in a universe with consciousness present. The key to grasping this are more recent and clever experiments that have shown the interference pattern occur prior to observation, but when the potential for observation was present, and thus lending strong support for the fact that it is not measurement but the potential presence of consciousness that sparked the "collapse.""Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.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."http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.htmlAs far as the rest of my post, there are certainly men more qualified than most, as scientists, working along the same lines."In the meantime, Vedral thinks he's identified an equally significant project to pursue. If, as Ghosh's result suggests, entanglement can produce macroscopic effects, is it such a stretch to reason that quantum entanglement might be the key to understanding life?We know that quantum mechanics describes how atoms combine into molecules, and so underpins chemistry. And chemical processes underpin all biological processes, including the metabolic cycle and replication. So could entanglement support the emergent, macroscopic characteristic of chemistry that we call life? Reznik and Durt's revelations - that entanglements exist around us and inside us all the time - can only add to the intrigue. "I think it's a speculation worth making," Vedral says. "There may be some experiments in biology or biochemistry where we can see more of these effects, interpret some of the results in a different light. It would be a very exciting find." " shortened link.Use peek to see how it was doneJudging by your dismissal of my post, it appears you are just unaware of the basics of quantum physics. For example the ball example I used on quantum tunneling is something straight out of introductory textbooks, but you lightly dismiss it.This message has been edited by randman, 05-26-2005 10:00 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-26-2005 09:34 PM

We try to discourge argument by C&P here. And when you do quote someone, we like for you to link to the source and provide attribution.

---

What I dismiss is the philosophical conclusions that you wish to jump to not the current state of our knowledge about QM.I do not see the connection between the results and your need for a sentient, all powerful controller of each quantum mechanical event.At a first cut all I see is that perfroming measurements (that is putting interactions into a system) effects the results. If we pull on on part of the interconnected entities and get a result somewhere else then that isn't a surprise.What is astonishing is that there is an interconnection of some not-yet-understood kind.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-26-2005 11:19 PM

quote:

---

It's the dominant interpretation of QM, and the one most backed by hard experimental data

---

It may be the dominant one (maybe), but it is not "backed by hard experimental data". It is just an interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics, i.e., that the state vector is a representation of knowledge. It is consistent and can be used describe what is going on during quantum interactions, but it's not the only game in town. I think the reason is so widely accepted is that it was the first interpretation worked out and was put forth by some of the founders of the formalism (e.g. Neils Bohr).Is that cat half alive or half dead? Does somebody have to collapse Wigner's friends wave function for him to collapse another wave function? Whose knowledge does the state vector represent? Universal knowledge, which seems to be an abstract concept, or subjective knowledge? These are some of the absurdities (atleast to me) which are a result of the Copenhagen interpretation.The one I prefer, which is a more intuitive way to think about quantum interactions and explains away the previous troublesome questions, is the Transactional interpretation. Rather than have me regurgitate it's contents, you can get it straight from the horses mouth.The Transactional interpretation by John CramerOr a lighter introductionAn Overview of The Transactional interpretation

1. I have shown that my ID boundless spaced eternal universe hypothesis does not break the fundamental td laws of God's ID universe and find myself in hot water debating alternative science so as to support it.2. If there is a God, there is existing in the universe, a whole dimension of intelligent beings existing in the universe having powers which surpass what earthlings are capable of observing, they being not in the same physical form that we experience. Thus what we earthlings consider to be natural laws are simply a lower form of science than higher forms which actually could exist. Earthlings who are into the spiritual, both the good and the evil, believe we have experienced the actual energy which comes from this higher intelligence. Even Son Of Sam Berkowitz, after having experienced a conversion by the good (spiritual rebirth) testifys and believes he was controlled by an existing evil intelligence energized by the evil beings called demons before his conversion experience with the good.3. I can understand that mixing debate of this with the level of science which we call the natural presents problems, but to say it's not science to address this alleged energy is, imo, a narrowminded approach.4. If there is this dimension of power in beings existing, including a creator super being we call God, then a lot of what we observe could be interpreted differently than what conventional science teaches.5. If God created it all by his knowledge and intelligence, imo, ID explains it all. If BB explains it all, there is no ID God. We can't have it both ways. Thus the debate goes on.Idited to change "BB explains it all" to "ID explains it all."This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-27-2005 06:37 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Hi Randman. Welcome. I logged in this thread and posted my last message before reading yours. You seem to be alluding a little to what I tried to say concerning another dimension. I have also, elsewhere mentioned particles relative to the supernatural, in that they appear to go in and out of existence, i.e. appear and disappear. Your ball/wall thing reminded me some of Jesus who, while in the physical body subjected himself to the walls, so to speak, but after his resurection, went through them, according to the Biblical record. He moved from the lower form of existence to the higher

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

"I do not see the connection between the results and your need for a sentient, all powerful controller of each quantum mechanical event."No need, and I did not mention an "all powerful controller", but merely the fact that consciousness has a mysterious connection and function with matter. You seem to acknowledge that when wrote, but maybe not?"What is astonishing is that there is an interconnection of some not-yet-understood kind."I think Wheeler has argued that what he calls the participatory universe suggests that the multi-verse existed in all of it's different possibilities until consciousness evolved, and the multi-verse collapsed into the universe.My thinking is that what we seem to know is that there is this connection, and that matter really does not self-exist in any form at all, but comes into being as a form in some sort of response to consciousness.It thus makes sense to me, and this is just musing but could be right, that God with what we might term an infinite Consciousness (from our perspective) would generate the multi-verse with man having a more limited perspective, but according the Bible and Judeo-Christian spiritual traditions (and even early American Deism), was created "in the image of God" and presumably has some similar attributes, playing a role in the generation and propagation of the universe.In other words, greater or different levels of consciousness, it seems likely, would have greater and different effects within this poorly understood inter-connection discovered by quantum physics.

I have read of the transactional interpretation, and I need to review it again because oddly at the time, it seemed to me that it could co-exist with some the consciousness-based concept intact, but I have to go back and think of that again, and will do so when I have time.

Buzsaw, I am with you on that. Imo, the old line between supernatural and natural is not proper for talking of science, meaning if it's real, it's part of reality, whether one thinks of it as natural, spiritual, or whatever, and there are spiritual dimensions. You are absolutely correct about that.It could be that quantum physics research is beginning to get a glimpse into more of the structure of reality, including both the invisible and non-observable realms, which are probably aspects of what have been called spiritual.I do think what you posted is correct, and at the risk of sounding New Age or something, I think certain aspects of spirituality can be thought of as higher order vibrations and thinking and "being" within energy fields that resonate to a degree that can create some unusual phenomenon.Obviously, Jesus was and is on the Highest and most "transcendant" level.It will be one great Day to be with Him on that same plane of existence.

How does the experiment help your case ?It is argued that:

quote:

---

the interference pattern occur prior to observation, but when the potential for observation was present

---

But for consciousness the important difference is not between observations that might be potentially made or not, but between those that actually ARE made or not. But the experiment shows that the latter distinction does not affect the result. Thus the experiment is evidence against your claim.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-27-2005 08:42 AM

"But for consciousness the important difference is not between observations that might be potentially made or not, but between those that actually ARE made or not."No, that's not the argument, and that's one reason the experimenters view here is that the difference is the potential "threat of obtaining information about which way the proton travelled."The idea here was to determine which was causal (or that may be too strong a term), the act of measurement or consciousness.This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 09:30 AM

quote:

---

Obviously, Jesus was and is on the Highest and most "transcendant" level.It will be one great Day to be with Him on that same plane of existence.

---

Of course, there's not much evidence that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed, is there?

Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed. The vast majority of serious academics acknowledge that. It's somewhat humorous to hear people claim there is no evidence when the evidence for Jesus is similar to and sometimes greater than the evidence for other historical figures such as Julius Ceaser.Maybe in a 1000 years, people will question whether there is any valid evidence for George Washington.Is there evidence he did miracles and rose from the dead?You betcha, but that's not my point. For me, the evidence is His appearance in my life. Moreover, the comment on Jesus to a fellow believer was not meant to make Jesus the new subject of the thread.

Well since "the" argument is not presented it is rather hard to evaluate it, isn't it ?How does this experiment show that consciousness plays any causal role at all ? Suppose the only observer of the signal photons was unaware of whether the idler path had been blocked or not. So far as I can tell even though that observer's consciousness is no different in either case they would still see the interference pattern if and only if the idler path was not blocked.

Paulk, this is only one of many experiments showing this. You can do a little research and see quite a number of experiments where the experimenters interpretation at least is that consciousness is shown as have an interactive effect on form.It gets pretty sticky in terms of explanation, as most of quantum physics is, and I am somewhat loathe to try to break it all down, considering some greats in the field like Feynman made statements that no one understands it but that it's still true, more or less.Basically, the experiments seem to show that somehow the particles "know" if the observer is present or could be present. Of course, the idea the particles "know" anything is not really what they are saying, but this is layman's description of what is observed.The experiment grew out of thinking along the lines of the Heisenberg Uncertaintly principle where the idea was that the more one knows the location of a particle, the less one knows the momentum, and vice verse, and that measuring the particle caused "the wave-function" to collapse.Well, the argument was that the collapse was a result of the presence of observation, specically the observer, and thus the idea of consciousness playing a role there.Some though claimed it was the act of measurement, and probably some better versed on the whole thing can explain it better than I, but this experiment was designed as a delayed-choice type of experiment to see if one could determine if the same interference pattern occurred prior to the act of measurement but when consciousness had an intention to measure.I know it sounds weird, but this is what they were testing, and they made predictions as quantum theorists have done for a long time now, and the predictions have all generally borne out remarkably well and seem to verify the consciousness-based model of interpretation of the experimental data.However, the best way for you or someone else to get a good grip on what these guys are saying is to pore over their own experiments and words, and assessments of others about their work. As far me, I have been quite impressed when doing this.Wheeler's comments on that link and elsewhere are instructive with the idea that things don't really exist as a wave or particle, but in a superspositional or undefined state.