ID/Creationism challenge

[randman]

Simple, defined specific characteristics.

 

[randman]

Interpretations of quantum mechanics are metaphysics.

No, they are not. You just don't like what the facts say.

 

[fishbob]

No, you just have no concept what QM is. Everything physical consists of particles; hence every single point and moment.

QM principles like entanglement are not some esoteric theory. It's basic science, something you should consider sometime.

Now, you could try to invoke the Multiverse, but you cannot pretend this is some sort of poorly understood, esoteric concept, etc,....

5 sentences, falling into a familiar pattern?

1 - smug assertion.
2 - impressive looking incomplete sentence - typing fast to get talking points posted.
3 - plural / singular mismatch - typing even faster as realization sets in that all these keystrokes don't actually mean anything.
4 - another smug assertion - when in doubt, insult.
5 - gobbletygoop, word salad bereft of meaning - hoping nobody notices that position is intellectually bankrupt and running on empty.

 

[BadBoy]

You can call it something else if you want but the same properties will be manifest. Of course, many will refuse to see it as the Logos having the same characteristics. Either way, it's a theory of how information gives rise to discrete physical form from an immaterial state and it is completely testable and observed.

Well, if its evidence then no one can "refuse to see it". But of course its not, its faith.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Interpretations of quantum mechanics are metaphysics.

No, they are not. You just don't like what the facts say.

More to the point, I have some knowledge of the facts.

You've been quoting Wikipedia as one of your authorities, so I'll note that the Wikipedia page on "Quantum metaphysics" redirects to the page on "Interpretations of quantum mechanics". That fact can be verified by clicking on the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_metaphysics

 

[PixyMisa]

No, they are not. You just don't like what the facts say.

I think that metaphysics is a perfectly good description of interpretations of QM. There is absolutely zero difference between the predictions of Many Worlds and Copenhagen, or the Transactional interpretation. If they made different predictions, they'd be hypotheses rather than interpretations.

They are just different ways of thinking about the meaning what we observe, and that is precisely what metaphysics is.

 

[Halfcentaur]

You asked for an ID mechanism. I provided and now you complain.

As far as Christian creationism, yes in the sense of creating every moment of the universe from beginning to end at all points in space-time.....yes.

But that's different than, say, young earth creationism, which may or may not be correct in my view.

You're just sort of complicated as you've stated, and from what you've alluded to when speaking of the dinosaur tissue, but you still think the Earth is only within tens of thousands of years old. Is this less than 20,000 years, or more?

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, they are not. You just don't like what the facts say.

Is it your propose to try to trick people into believing?

 

[BadBoy]

Call what you want, an informational superposition outside space and time that gives rise to discrete form within space and time.

Same thing.

But thats exactly the mistake you are making, you are arbitrarily calling it a god. If it is infact unknown, then its just that, unknown. Science has a history of there being lots of unknown stuff. Infact, if science knew everything then it would be done, finished, a completed works, filed away for information only.

My understanding of quantum mechanics is that it is a purely mathematical model which is impossible to thinkabout physically? Its a bunch of maths that fits the observable results.

 

[Pup]

No, you just have no concept what QM is. Everything physical consists of particles; hence every single point and moment.

QM principles like entanglement are not some esoteric theory. It's basic science, something you should consider sometime.

Now, you could try to invoke the Multiverse, but you cannot pretend this is some sort of poorly understood, esoteric concept, etc,....

If you just want to say that god (logos) is part of everything, there's no need to involve quantum mechanics to put a pseudo-scientific air to it. People have been saying it for centuries.

 

[Philosaur]

Call what you want, an informational superposition outside space and time that gives rise to discrete form within space and time.

Same thing.

Care to explain what "outside space and time" means?

Care to explain how something outside space and time can affect anything inside space and time?

Just to be clear: this is a major part of your explanation, since if the informational superposition were within space and time, it would just be called "the universe".

 

[Wowbagger]

Simple, defined specific characteristics.

Such as?

If "Logo" is better than an investigative dead end, surely you could do better than that!

 

[randman]

Care to explain what "outside space and time" means?

Care to explain how something outside space and time can affect anything inside space and time?

Just to be clear: this is a major part of your explanation, since if the informational superposition were within space and time, it would just be called "the universe".

Sure. Everything within space and time must conform or are thought to conform to specific concepts some would say are "the laws of physics." I would not call them laws but probailities but let's not quibble.

One reason Einstein after helping develop quantum physics decided it must not be correct involves his reference to "spooky action at a distance." He rightly saw the theory predicted this action at a distance and tried in vain to find a way to explain quantum mechanics a different way. But Einstein couldn't and over the years subsequent experiments have validated this action at a distance occuring.

Multiverse theorists do the same thing and try to preserve classical laws by invoking a near limitless number of multiverses to try to explain observed phenomenon.

When 2 particles are entangled and you can see this principle elsewhere but entanglement is perhaps most clear, they will act as one system regardless of distance (space) and so that also means regardless of time as well. Locality is thus violated.

In other words, the entangled particles are not physically connected. They don't have faster than the speed of light particles flowing between them, and even if one thought they did, the action is instant and so the communication would have to self-adjust their speed due to distance. The connection is clearly and undeniably without regard to distance.

In other words, they are informationally connected and operating as one system without any physical connection between the 2. They are connected outside space and time.

You can see the same principle at work with the violation of local realism or put another way, "objective reality." One classical concept of science is that something exists in a definite way regardless of whether one finds it or not, and that discovering it does not change the objective reality of the thing. A fossil is thought to exist in the ground as a fossil regardless of whether one digs it up, and merely looking for the fossil does not determine what it is.

In QM, this is not the case which incidentally raises the question of how far this principle could be applied elsewhere. If we shoot an electron out and do not measure which path it took, it's thought to traverse like a wave. This needs further explanation since a man like Wheeler says the basic rule of the quantum is a particle does not exist as a discrete form at all until observation. But to help a little here, if we try to measure which path the electron took, it will have taken just one path and traverse like a particle.

Depending on the question we ask of it results in what it did and is; hence it's physical reality is not independent. That's why you will read descriptions that say Copenhagen says objective reality does not exist; that we cannot measure reality itself, just what reality will tell us when we seek to know something.

It's a lot to grab in one post, I know, but it's not some magical thinking based on speculation but is based on observations.

Plenty of scientists have a major problem accepting the violation of locality and frankly causality as well (depending on whether one accepts the superposition of the past as real or just a possible). That's why some have come up with a Multiverse which is quite a fantastic and unobserved claim. Without it though, Copenhagen and what was predicted by quantum mechanics stands.

So you either give up a physically oriented view of reality for an informational one, or innumerable alternative universes just split off while I've been typing this.

 

[randman]

But thats exactly the mistake you are making, you are arbitrarily calling it a god. If it is infact unknown, then its just that, unknown. Science has a history of there being lots of unknown stuff. Infact, if science knew everything then it would be done, finished, a completed works, filed away for information only.

My understanding of quantum mechanics is that it is a purely mathematical model which is impossible to thinkabout physically? Its a bunch of maths that fits the observable results.

It's not arbitrary. The ideas on the Logos predated quantum mechanics and QM observes a process and thing in action exhibiting those same qualities.

Either way, QM shows us how physical reality comes into being at all times. Either way, it is an ID mechanism as it involves a non-mechanistic flow of information as fundamental and causal to discrete physical form. So you don't have to call it God for it still to be an ID mechanism. It shows informational design outside space and time governing and causing space and time's existence.

 

[randman]

You're just sort of complicated as you've stated, and from what you've alluded to when speaking of the dinosaur tissue, but you still think the Earth is only within tens of thousands of years old. Is this less than 20,000 years, or more?

I never stated I think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and flat out said I am not a young earther.

So you are fabricating stuff.

On the other hand, the earth may be billions of years old today and who knows in a 1000 years, it may be less....But that's really a different topic. For the sake of our discussion, I have no problem with an older earth.

I just don't think you can find soft tissue and red blood cells or parts of it after 65 million years. Those particular dino bones are not that old.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

When 2 particles are entangled and you can see this principle elsewhere but entanglement is perhaps most clear, they will act as one system regardless of distance (space) and so that also means regardless of time as well. Locality is thus violated.

That's your personal interpretation, your personal metaphysics. You are asserting your personal metaphysics as objective fact, but it isn't.

You can see the same principle at work with the violation of local realism or put another way, "objective reality."

Local realism is not the same as objective reality. Virtually all physicists accept the reality of objective reality, but local realism remains somewhat controversial. If objective reality and local realism were identical, then both concepts would be equally controversial.

One classical concept of science is that something exists in a definite way regardless of whether one finds it or not, and that discovering it does not change the objective reality of the thing. A fossil is thought to exist in the ground as a fossil regardless of whether one digs it up, and merely looking for the fossil does not determine what it is.

Quantum mechanics has taught those of us who are willing to learn from QM that our common-sense intuitions concerning objective reality are flawed. Scientists appear to have been wrong about the kinds of things that were previously assumed to have objective reality (e.g. momentum, position, polarization as objective values prior to interaction). Nowadays we understand that less common-sense things (e.g. wavefunctions) may, in at least some circumstances, be more objectively real. The more modern understanding remains consistent with the general notion of objective reality.

Depending on the question we ask of it results in what it did and is; hence it's physical reality is not independent. That's why you will read descriptions that say Copenhagen says objective reality does not exist; that we cannot measure reality itself, just what reality will tell us when we seek to know something.

You can find all sorts of differing descriptions of the Copenhagen metaphysics. That does not imply that any interpretations of the Copenhagen metaphysics are objectively correct. It certainly does not imply the existence of magical beings.

It's a lot to grab in one post, I know, but it's not some magical thinking based on speculation but is based on observations.

It's magical thinking based on speculation based on popular descriptions of metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics, which is a science that's based upon observations.

Plenty of scientists have a major problem accepting the violation of locality and frankly causality as well (depending on whether one accepts the superposition of the past as real or just a possible). That's why some have come up with a Multiverse which is quite a fantastic and unobserved claim. Without it though, Copenhagen and what was predicted by quantum mechanics stands.

Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the only alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, which is itself a term that refers to an extremely diverse range of metaphysical interpretations. The fallacy of false dichotomy is just one of the fallacies you have been employing in this and other threads.

So you either give up a physically oriented view of reality for an informational one, or innumerable alternative universes just split off while I've been typing this.

That's a beautiful example of the fallacy of false dichotomy.

 

[randman]

Originally Posted by randman
When 2 particles are entangled and you can see this principle elsewhere but entanglement is perhaps most clear, they will act as one system regardless of distance (space) and so that also means regardless of time as well. Locality is thus violated.

That's your personal interpretation, your personal metaphysics. You are asserting your personal metaphysics as objective fact, but it isn't.

It's not my personal interpretation. Prove it if you disagree.

Prove the standard Copenhagen does not violate locality and that all these quantum physicists are wrong.

You can't. You are just making stuff up.

Standard QM violates locality. That's basic quantum mechanics.

 

[Philosaur]

Sure. Everything within space and time must conform or are thought to conform to specific concepts some would say are "the laws of physics." I would not call them laws but probailities but let's not quibble.

No, lets quibble--because the more you write, the more evident it is that you don't really understand what you're typing about, or that you are at best extremely sloppy in your thinking or writing.

How is the inverse-square law of gravitation a probability?

<snip unsolicited and inaccurate history of physics />

Multiverse theorists do the same thing and try to preserve classical laws by invoking a near limitless number of multiverses to try to explain observed phenomenon.

And MWI is just one of several valid interpretation of quantum physics.

All you've done with your Logos thing is to tack a bunch of unnecessary baggage onto the Copenhagen interpretation. This extra baggage makes NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE in the world.

When 2 particles are entangled ... <snip more inaccurate and misleading explanation> ...They are connected outside space and time.

No. There is no logical move from "We don't quite understand the nature of the physical correlation" to "therefore they are not physically connected."

You can see the same principle... <snip rambling and vague misunderstanding of non-locality and uncertainty> ....

It's a lot to grab in one post, I know, but it's not some magical thinking based on speculation but is based on observations.

Really? Your hubris deluded you into thinking I wanted a primer on non-locality, when what I asked for was an explanation for how something could exist outside space and time (which you did not provide) and how it could interact with the mundane things in our universe (which you also did not provide).

Plenty of scientists have a major problem accepting the violation of locality and frankly causality as well (depending on whether one accepts the superposition of the past as real or just a possible). That's why some have come up with a Multiverse which is quite a fantastic and unobserved claim. Without it though, Copenhagen and what was predicted by quantum mechanics stands.

I hate to break it to you, but you do not get to count yourself among the great, original thinkers just because you can so easily dispense with locality and causality.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by randman
When 2 particles are entangled and you can see this principle elsewhere but entanglement is perhaps most clear, they will act as one system regardless of distance (space) and so that also means regardless of time as well. Locality is thus violated.

That's your personal interpretation, your personal metaphysics. You are asserting your personal metaphysics as objective fact, but it isn't.

It's not my personal interpretation. Prove it if you disagree.

It is widely (though not universally) accepted that metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics may choose between locality and counterfactual definiteness. For example:

W. M. de Muynch, W. De Baere, H. Martens. Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness. Foundations of Physics 24 (12), 1994, pages 1589-1664.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w2h4h73014n51038/

That paper's abstract:

The validity of the conclusion to the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, accepted widely today as the only reasonable solution to the EPR and Bell issues, is questioned and criticized. Arguments are presented which remove the compelling character of this conclusion and make clear that it is not the most obvious solution. Alternative solutions are developed which are free of the contradictions related with the nonlocality conclusion. Firstly, the dependence on the adopted interpretation is shown, with the conclusion that the alleged nonlocality property of the quantum formalism may have been reached on the basis of an interpretation that is unnecessarily restrictive. Secondly, by extending the conventional quantum formalism along the lines of Ludwig and Davies it is shown that the Bell problem may be related to complementarity rather than to nonlocality. Finally, the dependence on counterfactual reasoning is critically examined. It appears that locality on the quantum level may still be retained provided one accepts a newly proposed principle of nonreproducibility at the individual quantum level as an alternative of quantum nonlocality. It is concluded that the locality principle can retain its general validity, in full conformity with all experimental data.

In 1994, when that paper was written, it was reasonable to say that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics was "widely accepted today". Today, in 2011, that statement is less reasonable.

Several interpretations of Everett's many-worlds interpretation abandon counterfactual definiteness while preserving locality, as do some of the modal interpretations. From Wikipedia, which you have been using as one of your main sources of authority:

MWI is realist, deterministic, local theory, akin to classical physics (including the theory of relativity), at the expense of losing counterfactual definiteness.

Prove the standard Copenhagen does not violate locality and that all these quantum physicists are wrong.

You can't. You are just making stuff up.

I have no need to prove that "standard Copenhagen does not violate locality", because the various Copenhagen interpretations are a proper subset of the set of all metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics, and are falling more out of favor with every passing year. If your argument depends upon acceptance of some Copenhagen interpretation, then your argument cannot be regarded as objective.

Standard QM violates locality. That's basic quantum mechanics.

You have been identifying standard quantum mechanics with your favorite metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics. That's just one of many basic flaws in your argument.

 

[randman]

It is widely (though not universally) accepted that metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics may choose between locality and counterfactual definiteness. For example:

W. M. de Muynch, W. De Baere, H. Martens. Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness. Foundations of Physics 24 (12), 1994, pages 1589-1664.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w2h4h73014n51038/

1994 is out of date, and likely you are not properly assessing it anyway. Review Sol's take on the quantum mechanics thread where he argues for the Multiverse.

"Counterfactual definiteness is not a means to explain away non-locality. Look up the terms.

Several interpretations of Everett's many-worlds interpretation abandon counterfactual definiteness while preserving locality,

Of course, which I already stated in referencing the MWI.

There are other models but the 2 I have mentioned are the dominant ones and for good reason. Either you invoke near countless alternative universes or you abandon locality.

I have no need to prove that "standard Copenhagen does not violate locality", because the various Copenhagen interpretations are a proper subset of the set of all metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics,

They have are not metaphysical which is why scientific journals publish a ton of papers on these things. You assume they are because you are stuck in a 19th century concept of physics.