Wait--are you trying to pull a Bugs Bunny reversal where you momentarily argue for the other side, hoping to trick us into agreeing with you?
ID/Creationism challenge
- Thread starter thaiboxerken
- Start date
Wait--are you trying to pull a Bugs Bunny reversal where you momentarily argue for the other side, hoping to trick us into agreeing with you?
Truly laughable. Hey, how is these are original thoughts when they are just what quantum physicists have been saying for decades, and more recent research vindicates?
The only original thought is to compare these findings with biblical concepts and even there. Zeilinger references the book of John in concluding remarks in one paper talking of information being central to matter as a very old idea.
Who said anything about not understanding? Entangled particles are by definition no longer physically connected.
They are either informationally connected within a universe exhibiting non-locality, or they just appear to be but our observation is limited because we cannot see alternative universes splitting off.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
The main things that have changed since 1994 are:
- the multi-worlds interpretation is more widely accepted now than in 1994
- partly as a consequence, quantum mechanics is less widely regarded as non-local than it was in 1994
- partly as a consequence, counterfactual definiteness is less widely accepted than it was in 1994
sol invictus appears to agree with what I have been saying:
Note also what I had written in post #2 of that thread:
You appear to be confusing EPR's notion of "reality" with your common-sense notion of objective reality. They are not at all the same. Most physicists now reject EPR's notion of reality while affirming some concept of objective reality.W.D.Clinger said:
Once again, you employ the fallacy of false dichotomy. In this case, however, your first sentence says the conclusion stated in your second sentence is fallacious.
Although physicists tend to shun the word "metaphysics" because of its association with philosophy, it is an accurate characterization of the various philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics such as the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations. Were that not so, the following link would not redirect you to the Wikipedia article on interpretations of quantum mechanics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_metaphysics
And that's not even original. Buddhists and Taoists have been saying it for a while, and much more elegantly. Why not agree with them instead?
This comment?
So it's sloppy thinking and/or writing, like I thought.
Here's a hint: physicists don't understand the mechanism that causes or allows for entanglement. It's an open question in the field. Unless you have access to some revealed truth from on-high, you don't understand the mechanism either.
Show me the definition of "entanglement" that includes "no longer physically connected".
No.
You merely asserted that there is a supernatural informational superposition which syncs-up the information contained in entangled particles.
You did not explain how it can exist "outside of space and time", nor how something outside space and time would interact with things inside space and time.
MWI folks don't like Copenhagen because it violates locality. That's the context for the statement but if you want to go further, it may well be everything that seems be a law is just a very high likelihood. But that's not germane to the discussion here.
For example, you will hear some illustrate quantum mechanics by saying if you roll a ball off the table, classical physics says it will always fall absent some other force whereas QM says there is an infinitely small chance it will roll into the air and roll back. They use a similar example to illustrate quantum tunneling with the ball passing through a wall.
Now, I don't want to talk about those illustrations because they are not mine. I think just looking at what we observe in quantum physics experiments works just fine.
For example, you will hear some illustrate quantum mechanics by saying if you roll a ball off the table, classical physics says it will always fall absent some other force whereas QM says there is an infinitely small chance it will roll into the air and roll back. They use a similar example to illustrate quantum tunneling with the ball passing through a wall.
Now, I don't want to talk about those illustrations because they are not mine. I think just looking at what we observe in quantum physics experiments works just fine.
Maybe you don't get the concept of a derived property. QM shows discrete physical form is a derived property, and that is fully predicted over 80 years ago. Entanglement, which was fully predicted by QM and experimentally verified, shows the same thing. Particles exist whether they have any discrete form at all. QM shows that unless you want to go the MWI route, which we are not discussing but freely admit some posit that as a mechanistic theory, that particles root existence is not physical. In other words, even when a particle does not exist in any discrete form at all, it still exists as a probability for a specific form.
Think of it this way. Let's say someone swims and you are looking at them from underwater. You observe them in the water and used to think they were always in the water but now you realize through theory and experimental verification, that often even if you see a picture of them on the surface of the water, they are not actually in the water. They exist, in fact, as fundamentally outside of the water and the state of swimming is a derived function of their basic existence.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Had you restricted your discussion to matters that are germane, you would never have mentioned quantum mechanics in this thread.
Small, but not infinitely small. If the probability of quantum tunnelling were infinitely small, then the flash memory in USB drives wouldn't work.
If you believe some quantum experiment provides evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, then you should tell us about that experiment. Otherwise your references to quantum mechanics are not germane to this thread.
Last edited:
Exactly my point! Hence the description of thinking of classical physical laws as probabilities. The law of gravity says the ball will fall as does laws of thermodynamics and it will actually fall, but just for illustrating the concept, the idea in QM is there is always a very slight possibility it will not!
Now, I don't like that example for a lot of reasons but it illustrates the concept of seeming laws being probabilities.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
None of the experiments you listed provide evidence for Intelligent Design or for Creationism.
No, you are wrong because the form of the energy equation is specifically determined, not by time invariance, but by the information construct of the ACTUAL form, without regard to its space-time eigenvalue.
Furthermore, a particle (read: wave-function parameter) cannot have a non-physical counterpart in experimental contexts, because looking at them collapses the wave function.
In any event, we know how even which form if ever than superposition underlying which more is scientific, because any does think the informational reality.
Breaking down your comments:
So? No one is saying that the process has no governing principles.
Isn't that a point in my favor?
Except it does. Look at the experiments again. It is non-physical (probability for one thing or another) until we measure it, which the experiments show. The which-way path occurs once measured, right?
Are you saying there was no which-way path at all until measurement? If so, that's still a point in my favor.
I suppose you think gravity does not exist either?
Basically, you are saying we cannot say the wave-function is informational and non-physical in the sense of lacking any definite, discrete form until measurement because, uh well, when you measure it, it's physical? That's just circular reasoning on your part.
Look at the experiments again. If you want to claim the MWI, fine, but don't pretend locality is not violated and non-locality not demonstrated otherwise. It is. It was predicted by Einstein which is why he abandoned quantum mechanics. He couldn't deal with the random aspect of QM and "spooky action at a distance." It's been experimentally verified now repeatedly, and as I said above, unless you want to invoke a gazillion unobserved multiverses, the violation of locality as predicted nearly 100 years ago stands.
Last edited:
My bad. I found your post on derived properties (and that terrible underwater analogy) to be essentially gibberish, and I attempted to indicate as much with that parody.
I hoped this sentence (at least) would be a giveaway:
Sorry for the confusion.
I hoped this sentence (at least) would be a giveaway:
Sorry for the confusion.
Is there any sort of mathematical formalism associated with the role Logos has in entanglement, copenhagen-style history choices, etc? If Logos is being suggested as a solution to anything (or everything), there must be a predictive element to it.
On a side note, the term "choice" is used all the time when discussing reduction of systems to a given state, and it does not indicate a conscious choice made by the system. Quantum Choice A is often shorthand for the longer "an event in the system gave rise to eigenstate A." I think Hawking and the gang were discussing how a system (as superposition of possible states) ends up in a specific arrangement.
On a side note, the term "choice" is used all the time when discussing reduction of systems to a given state, and it does not indicate a conscious choice made by the system. Quantum Choice A is often shorthand for the longer "an event in the system gave rise to eigenstate A." I think Hawking and the gang were discussing how a system (as superposition of possible states) ends up in a specific arrangement.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
No apology needed. Some of us enjoyed it.
There are mathematical questions to describe QM if that's what you mean.
On the 2nd point, you raise a good question. QM does not involve a conscious choice to be made, except that it posits reality responds to our questions of it and the universe is not totally independent of it. The reaction is said to be automatic and actually random, though not in the sense of having no governing principles. What I mean, for example, if you measure the which-way path of a photon or electron, it will have travelled in a which-way path. If you measure it but don't determine which path it took, it will travel in a lot of paths at the same time. So what we ask determines what we can say about what it did and in some sense causes the past result. One way to try to preserve causality (present not affecting the past) is to say the particle didn't really exist in any form at all until measurement, and then when we measure, depending on our questions, that depends on what reality says for us.
May not be as clear. Basically, it's not already in some state before we can measure it. It's not an independent physical reality. It exists as a probability for one thing or another. It shows a violation of local realism.
But whatever path it will have taken if we measure the which-way path is said to be a random result. Perhaps that view will change, however.
So it is a mechanism of an informational realm giving rise to the physical realm via discrete particles, but it does not show any choice per se or at least not definitively in this interaction. Maybe down the road it will, or maybe the fact it seems to be random leaves room for a conscious choice.
So it's fair criticism to say, well yea, this seems to indicate the universe (all particles) are first immaterial and then secondarily can become physical, discrete form, and this involves information, a sort of interfacing matrix. The universe may well be immaterial at it's core (non-physical) but it doesn't show that this Logos or quantum realm is a conscious Being, and that is true.
There perhaps will always be some limits to answering certain questions. At the same time, if one posits a Designer did or does cause things to happen within space-time, the idea the mechanism for it might still be part of the fabric of the universe makes logical sense, and this mechanism seems to fit the bill since it entails an informational, non-physical existence forming physical existence, and that's not metaphysics but observed quantum mechanics.
But it's not like we can say, Ok, we're gonna ask God to make the particle travel through the left slit and see if it happens as a scientific test.
It's also a very experimental claim to apply quantum mechanics to mutation but there have been papers published on it.
Keep in mind Darwin didn't know all the mechanics of speciation and we still don't, but that doesn't mean it's not a scientific theory.
Last edited: