Rejecting Intelligent Design as Possibly Science

Hi randman, interesting post. I am going to play devils advocate but I feel and have felt for some time as you do to some extent. Thats your personal interpretation. But, if this universe is just a extention of a state that has always been, then the "creation" concept is moot. Hence no creator, Intelligent or otherwise. The duality of matter as wave or a particle did blow some minds.
The fact that an "observation" or measurement could alter how matter manifest is astounding. But why do we have to assume it is due to conciousness or a ultimate observer. The collapse of a wave function doing X could be doing Y in another reality and Z in yet another. All possible outcomes could be taking place. Yes, even you Mr. randman if you could be accelarated enough could be a wave. But how does this have anything to do with "conciousness" or Intelligent design? Even the nature of particle intanglement, spooky action at a distance, or quantum tunneling are all quite mysterious. The answer is we dont know. Call it conciouness or Intelligent design if that is what blows your hair back, but others will simply call it nature. When you come down to the nitty gritty it is just a matter of how you want to look at it. And isnt that what matter is all about? Pun intended.

My real point is that in every experiment I have heard of the variable is part of the physical setup of the experiment and not the presence of consciousness or the mental state of conscious observers.Yet surely IF consciousness is the real issue then the variable tested must be related to consciousness, not the arrangement of the unconscious matter that constitutes the experimental apparatus. How else could it be shown that consciousness is the variable affecting the results ? Surely it is basic experimental method to try to change the variable (or variables) believed to be responsible for the effect and no others. The experiment here, though tries to change another variable (the paths available to the photons) and then conclude that another factor - one that appears to be constant - is responsible for the change in the results.

1.61803, I like your post, especially on how it all comes to down to how you look at it (faith is a persepective)."But, if this universe is just a extention of a state that has always been, then the "creation" concept is moot."Well, I would not say that that. If the universe is the result of the multi-verse collapsing into one state, the multi-verse still had a beginning, and if the multi-verse does not collapse or is just a fantasy, there is still a beginning, but there is something intriguing here to consider.Time as a linear function within space-time has a beginning with the beginning of the universe.
Maybe it's better to think of time as coming from a place which exists apart from time, or biblically, to think of the Beginning as Eternal Person (the Alpha), but hey, that's just me for now spilling over to theology.I would say that the universe is indeed an extension of something that has always been, but that always been thing is God, and exists as an always been, always is, always will be, and exists at every point in time now and forever. It's all now."The collapse of a wave function doing X could be doing Y in another reality and Z in yet another. All possible outcomes could be taking place."That's true, but wouldn't the act of observation still have altered the manifestation of matter for this universe? So matter would not self-exist here, in this form, without consciousness being present."But how does this have anything to do with "conciousness" or Intelligent design?"Well, the idea is that wave/particle duality is more basic to all things, not just subatomic particles (although all physical things consist of that), and therefore these principles would hold true across the board to a degree.On entanglement, we see action at a distance, which is by definition superluminal, and seems to involve a process we haven't grasped, but as part of the overall picture, it can be useful to discovering a mechanism for how Intelligence (Consciousness) could directly design, impart properties of design into particles and their pattern of behaviour. Let's assume here that what we are seeing in particles is what many have said, that consciousness affects somehow the form the particles take, and perhaps the form all things (since probably all things are wave-like to a degree) take.Entanglement since it involves action at a distance works outside of the limitations of time. There is no time regardless of the distance for the effect to take place. Considering relativity, and unfortunately this morning I need to do some work and probably cannot do justice to this, but really entanglement ought to work even across segments of time.I know it's still speculative at this point, but testing for interaction with consciousness directing affecting form and instantaneous action between particles, imo, is the beginning of testing for a mechanism for ID.There are questions though that should be tested further.Does conscious observation, or the intent of conscious observation, create an entanglement directly with the thing being thought of?We assume that thoughts via intelligence do not have a wave of some sort that makes contact with the object, but it may well be that's exactly what goes on. Take the old anecdotal experience of looking at someone with their back turned, and they turn around and could sense ahead of time someone was looking at them.The skeptic says that's just coincidence, and maybe sometimes it is, but considering we are discovering non-local aspects to particles, maybe what we are seeing is the interaction of non-observable realms of existence, formerly called spiritual,and in those places, human spirits (or Unconscious mind) are communicating in the spiritual realm to each other.OK, I know this has veered off somewhat, but hopefully is not rambling and confusing to follow.

Paulk, I hear what you are saying, but I think there is more going on in this experiment that you might realize, although I have wondered if an alternate explanation could be that the one set of protons is somehow entangled with the other set and that even though they do not cross paths with the other set, they are affected by it being affected, but the researchers rejected this, and I am not sure that entanglement has been shown to work that way anyway with interference patterns.Maybe someone more knowledgeable can help me out here on the entanglement question, but back to the experiment."Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons."Why is the interference pattern destroyed of the path of the set of protons by blocking the path of the alternate set when they don't cross paths?That's the question here.The researchers opinion is that the variable, or change, is the potential for knowledge."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."Btw, I quote not to argue C&P, but to elaborate on their view of the experiment.The signal protons do not have mechanical block in their path, and yet they revert to a particle-state instead of a wave-state. One reason is what the researchers have indicated, that now it is possible to measure the signal protons by comparing them to the idler protons.To my mind, it is an astonishing experiment.But there may be alternate explanations. What do you think has caused the change?Also, maybe someone could explain how the transactional theory would work in this experiment?It really is hard to figure out what else has changed to cause one set of protons to be affected by the alternate set when they do not cross paths again.You wrote (need to figure out the quote-thing):"The experiment here, though tries to change another variable (the paths available to the photons) and then conclude that another factor - one that appears to be constant - is responsible for the change in the results. "But that's not the claim, as you can see. Only one set of protons had their path blocked. So the other set does not have a physical change. The change or variable, is that by blocking the one set of protons, it becomes possible to obtain information about the other. Once there is the possibility for information to be obtained by consciousness, the wave-function collapses.So the change in variable is the potential for knowledge of the protons paths, not blocking their path.An alternate explanation could be that changing the path of the idler set of protons, by itself, changes the path of the signal set even though they do not cross paths again, but how does one explain that since they do not cross paths again?That's why I wondered about entanglement being an alternate explanation, but obviously the researchers rejected this explanation, and they clearly accept entanglement as a general principle, and hence my question to anyone reading that has more knowledge of entanglement to perhaps illuminate us on that.What do you think?This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 12:31 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 12:34 PM

The issue I have problems with is that while actual knowledge relates to consciousness the potential for knowledge really doesn't. So far as I can tell an automated system could identify the photon paths even if the system itself were shielded from any conscious observers.I don't see why entanglement can't be the reason for the effect. Surely the photon pair from each downshifter must be entangled - so if one of a pair is forced into a definite state then the other should be, too - just as with the standard example of paired particles.

I dont know about you two, but I think the fact that the potential for knowlege even changing the path in the first place is very, very strange. Whether it be conciousness or not , it seems reality does not want to be pigeon holed.

I can't imagine anyone saying that QM isn't weird.But the more I think about it the more I see that this experiment really isn't that different from the standard dual slit experiment.In both experiments the difference is what the photon does at the beam-splitter. With two paths fully open it goes "both" ways, with one closed off it definitely goes one way or another. In the new experiment what happens on the idler paths is the same as the dual slit experiment - and if we see that as forcing the photon to definitely take one or the other path through the beam splitter then it logically should affect the output on the signal paths in the same way. So I don't think that this experiment tells us anything useful about the role of consciousness.

Paulk, I don't have time to answer in more depth, but why do you think Mandel thinks the results are based on the potential for knowledge changing, and not entanglement?By the way,"and if we see that as forcing the photon to definitely take one or the other path through the beam splitter then it logically should affect the output on the signal paths in the same way. "Why should "it logically affect the output on the signal paths" when the signal path was not blocked as the idler protons' path was? The path for the idler protons is blocked after the beam-splitter, and after departing from the signal protons.This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 02:19 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 02:31 PM

I don't know the reasons for Mandel's claim. Like I said I haven't really seen an argument that consciousness is the deciding factor.As to the other point take the logic.The photon is required to follow one or the other path at the beam splitter. That determines which of the downshifters it arrives at. And that is why we do not see the interference from the signal paths.In fact the result we see is the LEAST weird possiblity. If we saw interference at the idler path - from a single slit - THAT would be really weird. If a signal beam was different from the equivalent idler beam THAT would be really weird - and that is what we would need to get interference at the signal path output. The actual result is strange but less so than the alternatives.

I am not following you. The proton before the idler path is blocked produces a pattern indicating, as predicted, that it passes through both the idler and signal paths, right? The wave-like property remains intact.Then, they create an inteference with one set of protons that forces the wave-like aspect to collapse into a particle-state, taking one path, right?But they don't do the same to the other set of protons, and yet they too "pick" one path rather than remain superpositional.That's the way I read it. Maybe if you break it down, I can see better what you are saying?

It took me a while to understand the experiment and I think you've not quite got it.The photons form the original source are sent to a beam splitter.The outputs of the beam splitter go to the downshifterThe signal path of one downshifter is combined with that of the other.The idler paths are likewise combined.Collapse has to affect the path through the beam splitter - before we reach the downshifters. It's the key point in the setup.

If one opens one slit the particle acts like a particle, if you open both slits the freaken thing goes through both. But it is one thing.
How does one thing go through both slits (at the same time no less)...??? I know its a wave now.Then if you aim the particle at one slit with the other covered then repeat firing the particles, eventually you get a interference pattern of a wave. Even though you aimed the particle at the exact same place it lands somewhere else forming interference pattern. ......hello???? thats wierd. How does the particles know to land in different places one at a time to form that pattern?But it gets even better.....you take a particles paired electrons and shoot it down a supercollider.....as it passes some magnitized plates you change the electrons spin. As soon as one spins up the other spins down. Ok,,, how did it know? how does a freakin particle know the other particles spin was changed? They call it quantum entanglement, others call it conciousness. Again, I call it weird.OH but wait it gets better yet.... we can know a particles position or its velocity but not both......so devise a test to try and fool a particle by taking a measurement that catches the particle as a wave, then manipulate the test to see it as a particle. Oh darn the particle knows ahead of time if the "threat" of knowlege is there and does the opposite. ,,,,,Im sorry, but that is just plain strange indeed.

OK, I think I'm getting it, but nevertheless, it seems to show exactly what they claim.Why should the signal photons' interference pattern collapse as a result of the idler photons being blocked?

"In both experiments the difference is what the photon does at the beam-splitter. With two paths fully open it goes "both" ways, with one closed off it definitely goes one way or another."I think the idea is not to be so different than the double-split experiment, but to show the same results without mechanical interference in a set of protons.Note in your explanation above, how does the proton "know" ahead of time that one path is blocked?I see the process in both experiments as the proton is superpositional, or maybe exists as potentially superpositional, and then when one path or location is determined, the other existing paths "collapse" which just means they are not detectable any longer, and thus do not exist within our reference of the universe (multi-verse could thus be true).The change from wave (superpositonal) to (particle) or positional in Mandel's experiment occurs after they cleverly devise a way to measure the proton by examining it's pair.About the only thing that can explain it besides potential knowledge would be entanglement.Do you see it any differently?But considering Mandel's stature, I wonder why entanglement as an explanation was rejected? I suppose since we see the same effect with the double-split experiment.Note: Just trying to get a handle on this.I do think the idea that a potential transfer of information, even without consciousness, could explain it as well. Note the following from the same article."Can the threat of obtaining incriminating information, once made, be retracted? In other words, are measurements reversible? Many theorists, including Bohr, thought not, and the phrase "collapse of the wave function" reflects that belief. But since 1983 Marlan O. Scully, [Isn't that just the correct name?-LB] a theorist at the University of New Mexico, has argued that it should be possible to gain information about the state of a quantum phoenomenon, thereby destroying its wavelike properties, and then restore those properties by "erasing" the information. "Presumably, "erasing" the information does not include "erasing" the information from the researcher's consciousness. So maybe the deal here involves more the nature of information and how it interacts within the physical universe than just conciousness alone.This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 03:24 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 03:29 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 03:37 PM

Because the signal photons are duplicates of the idler photons. The indeterminacy is solely due to the original photons' path through he beam splitter. When that collapses all the rest follows by necessity.