Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 2, 2009

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Apparently, the sort of comments made in my article in Touchstone – about the little god Darwin – have been noticed by at least one person.

THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:

How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed … Huh? Maybe the story is not believable?

People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died. And his whole coterie was committed to promoting the view that he lost his faith over her death , and it is still fronted today.

Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film worshipping Darwin – or worshipping anything – and threaten to shoot or otherwise punish them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.

As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolution in general. Nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map. But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across that there are some areas government must not infringe, including freedom of religion and freedom of media. (We have big problems with that just now, but we are getting the message across.)

While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it – potentially – rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery’s republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never have dealt with the awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really matters.

Comments

Nak and Seversky,,, If you guys get tired of looking for that photon that ain't there, Here is another little nugget, savaging the foundation of materialism, for you guys to deny the relevance of: Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm here is a formal proof: P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them. P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes. P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved. P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation. ____________________________________________________________ C Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate. And if you guys get tired of trying to disprove that proof, you can then start to try to reestablish your hidden variables which were absolutely required for materialism to even be considered plausibly true: (references upon request)bornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Of course Nak you can scour the literature for hours looking for the measurement of the photon after teleportation,,, I wish you the best of luck with that goose chase!!! LOLbornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

If the quantum state of the photon is destroyed the photon no longer exists,,, The photon cannot exist without its quantum state,,,this is basic stuff Nak... Do you believe the photon exists with absolutely no properties left to measure??? i.e. the ENTIRE information content of the quantum state of the photon (infinite information) was teleported to photon c, The quantum state of the photon was destroyed in the process. No literature exists that has any measurement of any photon a after the teleportation of its entire information content, for there can be no measurement of a photon that has no information/qualities/descriptions left within itself to measure,,,, as I stated before ,,If you want to believe that a photon which cannot, even in principle, be measured for any specific property or quality, go right ahead, but don't ask reasonable men to believe in your invisible photon that can't be seen.bornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Sorry for missing it yesterday, but I don't think an appeal to Messrs Merriam and Webster is going to improve your arguement any better than your previous appeal to HowStuffWorks.com or YouTube. At the sending station object B is scanned together with the original object A which one wishes to teleport, yielding some information and totally disrupting the state of A and B. Yes, I'll see your 'thoroughly' and raise you a 'totally' and throw down not just A but A and B!!1! Totally disrupted! What does that mean, not in dictionary terms but in terms of the experiment? It means we no longer know anything about the quantum state of A or B. if we want to know some aspect of their state, they will have to be measured again (probably destroying them in the process). But they couldn't be measured if they didn't exist, even if their existence is in some indeterminate state.Nakashima_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Seversky, As you clearly illustrate by your dogmatic refusal to "see" the "severe implications" for the materialistic philosophy, by not only quantum teleportation but by quantum mechanics in general with the refutation of the materialists "hidden variable" argument, so as you can't truly help a wino who is not ready to admit he has a severe problem,,, You just like the wino have been brought to the depths of poverty, but unlike his physical poverty, yours is an intellectual poverty that prevents you finding out about the wondrous mysteries of reality, an intellectual poverty that forces you to lie to yourself and others that you really have no problem to deal with. You think the comparison unfair? Well I find it quite fitting after watching you and Nak continually do you damnedest to remain in denial about the true state of affairs,,, Maybe we can start a treatment program for you as there are for winos. We can call it AID,,,Atheists In Denial,,, As they say in AA Seversky,,The first step is admitting you have a problem.bornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 120
Hmm Sev and Nak very interesting quote, since materialism is supposedly the reigning, unquestioned philosophy of science,,, This professor of physics must realize that materialism is in deep manure with quantum teleportation,,, Wouldn’t you think?
No, he makes no reference to any implications for a materialist position. He does, however say in the sentence before the one you quote:
Using entangled photons, Zeilinger showed the teleportation of their quantum state over a distance of several kilometers, making headlines in journals including the cover of Scientific American...
just like the other quotes in my previous post. I need hardly point out that all this research is being conducted, not by creationists or ID proponents, but by physicists who, so far, have not found it necessary to invoke supernatural beings or domains to explain what they are observing. The materialist 'paradigm', as in so many other areas, is proving to be more fruitful than any of the alternatives and, again so far, offers little comfort to persons of faith hoping hoping for something more tangible to support their beliefs.
Seversky_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Nak And Seversky, I like this following quote:
Ernst says. "While this work (quantum teleportation) has serious interpretational and philosophical implications, it also may provide the basis for future technological applications like interaction-free measurements, quantum computation, and quantum cryptography." http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Chemerda3-2002.htm
Hmm Sev and Nak very interesting quote, since materialism is supposedly the reigning, unquestioned philosophy of science,,, This professor of physics must realize that materialism is in deep manure with quantum teleportation,,, Wouldn't you think? Why did he not say that it presents minor philosophical implications??? NO NO he chose the word serious,,, But this puts you guys in a severe bind as atheist,, for as far as I know, if you guys completely lose your materialistic definition of reality you have no right to claim any currency in science proper whatsoever! Man you guys better find that measurement of that post-teleportation Photon quick!!!! Do you guys want me to help you look for the photon? It could be stuck between the cushions of my couch! LOLbornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

As well, Seversky, if you dig a little deeper into the "atom" I believe you will find they are referring to the experiment where only two atoms and a laser are used,,,which is a drastically different set up than the "base level of reality" experiment we are currently focused on.bornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

It is funny Seversky, the very article you cited wants it boths ways, as you and Nak do,,, they say "Well Yes the photon was destroyed,,,but it was not REALLY destroyed ,,,only its quantum state was destroyed",,, Well excuse me seversky if the entire quantum state of the photon is destroyed, the photon is still destoyed. The photon CANNOT exist without a quantum state!!! Thus once again I ask you to please provide a measurement of the Photon AFTER teleportation. Nak here is a refresher on our English Lesson yeaterday Thoroughly Disrupted i.e. Exhaustively and Completely Broke Asunder i.e. The photon was Exhaustively and Completely Broken Asunderbornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 113
Seversky, That you would dodge the primary question of “where did the photon?” go with such garbage of rhetoric is inexcusable, You may think you can dodge the issue but the plain fact is that the photon was there before teleporation and it is not there after teleportation, as far as measuring the photon is concerned.
Perhaps you prefer your evidence in a more familiar format. For example, from the Conclusion of this paper:
Let us briefly recapitulate what we have learnt. Quantum teleportation is a procedure whereby an unknown state of a quantum system is transferred from a particle at a place A to a particle at a place B. [My emphases]
Note that this is about transference of a quantum state. Then there is the following passage from this article:
Unlike the customary conception of "beaming", it is not a matter here of a particle disappearing from one place and re-appearing in another. "Quantum teleportation constitutes methods of communication for application in quantum cryptography, the decoding of data, and not new kinds of transportation", as Dr. Klemens Hammerer emphasizes.[My emphasis]
If you prefer blog posts there is this
The Transporters Aren't Working. Again. So, having discussed how to do "quantum teleportation," how does this get us to "Beam me up, Scotty?" Well, that's the thing. It doesn't, not in any meaningful sense. What gets "teleported" is just the state of the initial quantum particle, not the particle itself. There's no reason why you couldn't do "teleportation" with atoms instead of photons (indeed, that's the next stated goal of the experimenters in the field), but again, all you're "teleporting" is the state of the atoms, not the atoms themselves. To "teleport" a person by this method, you'd need to already have a gigantic person-sized collection of the appropriate atoms at Bob's house, and copy the quantum state of the original patron of Alice's Restaurant onto those atoms. It's also not true that "teleportation" inherently requires the destruction of the initial object, as is sometimes claimed. For photons, this happens to be true, as most photon measuring schemes involves the destruction of the photon, but the only thing that's necessarily destroyed is the quantum state of the original.[My emphasis] If you were to do "teleportation" of an atom, the original atom would still be sitting in the lab at the end of the experiment, it'd just be in a different state than when you started.
Thus it would appear quantum teleportation concerns the transference of quantum states from one particle to another. The process of 'scanning' a photon to record its quantum state involves its destruction but that destruction, like the destruction of a building in my previous example or the absorption of a photon by rhodopsin, does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is a fascinating phenomenon no doubt but it does not warrant extravagant speculations about "pure transcendent information".

Seversky_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, What do you mean there are no properties left to mrasure? Of course there are, they are just completely unorrelated to what those properties were before the teleportation took place. That is what 'disrupted' means in the illustration from the IBM Research page. Having transfered the state with the teleportation, we need to to remeasure the photon to know anything about it. But it is still there to be measured! Again, I suggest you count the photons in that illustration. Three at the bottom. Three at the top. Wakarimashita?Nakashima_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Rob, And what in the world does your mathematical fantasy land have to do with the empirical FACT that evolution has never demonstrated a gain in functional information? You denied it, but you are the guy who fancies himself to clever to be bothered by empirical evidence. Whenever you decide to join the real world present your empirical evidence for evolution (gain of functional information) and watch it be shot down as all other examples have been on UD!bornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, since you won't point me to a definition of the Law of Conservation of Information, I have no way of knowing if it can be reconciled with the Law of Synergistic Transconfiguration. As all reasonable people know, the parametrical contrastability of hyperbolic physicodynamics has been proven by the Institute of Metachronology at the U of Toob.R0b_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Seversky, That you would dodge the primary question of "where did the photon?" go with such garbage of rhetoric is inexcusable, You may think you can dodge the issue but the plain fact is that the photon was there before teleporation and it is not there after teleportation, as far as measuring the photon is concerned. Do you want to hop onto Nak clown car and insist the photon is there even though there are no properties are left to measure? Go ahaead, I really don't care! but DO NOT insult me by insisting you are maintaining scientific integrity by doing so. To prove me wrong provide the peer-reviewed measurement that shows exactly where the photon went in terms of its energy equivalent. To simplify this for you, The total system can be reduced to 3 photons in the beginning of the experiment, at the end of the experiment, as far as measuring properties of photons are concerned, only 2 photons remain, as well I have my doubts about photon B being measurable at the end of the experiment. That is not gish gallop contrary to your accusations,,It is a pure unadulterated question of science? i.e. Namely, where in the heck is the photon if we can't measure its properties science energy is governed by conservation? And no you may not gish gallop your way out of the question by appealing to "virtual photons".bornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 108
Actually now that I reread your post seversky, you have made some factual errors,,, I suggest you look up conservation of energy. Basically it will state something like this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed though it may change its form.
Precisely, that was my point. If a building is demolished with explosives we say that it has been destroyed but what exactly does that mean? Before the explosion there was the building and the explosives, After, there was a pile of rubble. The building was destroyed. Yet, the First Law tells us that the total amount of matter and energy in the building plus explosives system is unchanged. It just got rearranged a lot. So what was destroyed? What was destroyed was the particular arrangement or pattern of matter and energy that made up the building and explosives, nothing else. When some of those uncounted billions of photons coming out of your monitor hit molecules of rhodopsin in your retina, they are absorbed and destroyed in the sense that that energy has been transferred to the rhodopsin where it triggers a cascade of chemical changes which lead to a signal being passed along the optic nerve to the brain. But the total matter and energy of the system is unchanged. The energy of the photon has not been annihilated or wiped out of existence. It's just gone somewhere else. If you actually study the papers on quantum teleportation, I doubt that you will find in any of them a claim that the First Law has been violated. Again, the total matter and energy of the system is unchanged throughout the experiment. The problem with the so-called evidence that you keep dumping into these threads is that it looks like a Gish Gallop grab-bag of YouTube videos, blog posts, Biblical quotations, news articles, press releases and a few scientific papers which, on closer inspection, do not say what you claim they say. Maybe you find it persuasive but, for many others, it "don't amount to a hill of beans" compared to the evidence amassed by practicing scientists over the years, evidence which is pointing to a Universe which is a whole lot stranger and more mysterious than that of some believers.Seversky_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

We will see how just how fair you allow empirics to guide your reasoning Rob! The empirical evidence I have cited clearly establishes the Conservation of "Pure Transcendent Information". That is to say that by the demonstrated dominion, as well as the demonstrated "superior state of "transcendent" being"(pure information is not limited by any known physical constraint), of transcendent Information over energy, it is thus by logical necessity that it is established that all transcendent information that can exist, already must exist, for all events of energy. All events of energy, past, present, and future. This inference is warranted because anything demonstrating direct dominion of energy, the fundamental constituent of this universe, must possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. Since Energy is established by the First Law to not be able to be created or destroyed by any known Material means, this quality by logical necessity applies to pure information itself which exercises dominion over energy in entanglement and teleportaion. To suppose transcendent Information does not have this "eternal" quality, that energy processes, is to presuppose that something with a lesser state of being is superior to energy which is logically incoherent. This observation, of the independence and superiority of information over energy, is further solidified into a fact of science by the thorough refutation of the materialists "hidden variable" argument: Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm As well, it is now conclusively shown that a independent entity must exist to account for the "highly specified" origination of energy in the Big Bang (unless you want to hold the absurd position that nothing created this universe) Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 Thus Rob, Any reasonable man can see that Transcendent Information must be conserved by logical necessity, to suppose otherwise is to suppose that "things" with lesser states of being can dominate those with higher states, or the even presuppose that nothing can create everything. I would think it should be fairly obvious that if either of those two presuppositions were held to be true then science would be impossible. So Rob, Do you hold either of those two presuppositions to be false? If so I will not even waste my time discussing this issue with you!bornagain77_{November 7, 2009
November
11
Nov
7
07
2009
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

bornagain77:
forgive me if I have you mixed up
You do seem to have me confused with someone else. I don't think myself a whiz at anything, and I don't even know what materialism means, much less "materialistic based mathematics". The main object of my criticism in this debate has been the disconnect between certain mathematical frameworks and empirical reality, so you and I seem to be on the same page in that regard. I'd still like to know what exactly you mean when you refer to Law of Conservation of Information. Is it defined mathematically as other laws of physics and mathematics are? Can you point us to a definition?R0b_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Rob, If I remember you correctly, you are the guy who thinks himself such a whiz at math that you are willing to ignore all contrary empirical evidence in order to have your pet view of how reality should work be bent to conform to your materialistic based mathematics, all the while blatantly disregarding what the empirical evidence is screaming of reality,,, To me refusing empirical evidence its due place as final arbiter in the scientific method is inexcusable,,, and Frankly if that is who you are, forgive me if I have you mixed up, I would rather waste a day with Nak playing chase the meaning of a word around a rose bush, than to chase you through your mathematical fantasy land of anything is possible for materialism but not for Theism.bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Actually now that I reread your post seversky, you have made some factual errors,,, I suggest you look up conservation of energy. Basically it will state something like this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed though it may change its form.bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Ok Seversky perform a measurement on the photon with zero properties to measure (or cite the paper), tell me exactly what you find (or they find), and I will concede my claim for a controlled violation of the first law. Although, even if it turns out there is some ghost like property of the photon left to measure, I still will not concede the main claim I have for transcendent information's dominion of energy, which is clearly demonstrated in the teleportation experiment, and which ultimately establishes Transcendent Information's conservation, since energy is itself conserved. (of note: Don't Virtual Particles Prove Something Can Come From Nothing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Owbornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

If I remember my basic physics, photons are being created and destroyed in vast numbers all the time. Think about it. When we look at our screens what we see is carried to our eyes by photons. Those photons are created and emitted by the monitor. When they reach our eyes, some of them strike the molecules of light-sensitive chemicals in the retina. They are absorbed and thus destroyed in that collision. The total energy of the system however, if measured, would be unchanged. The First Law is not violated.Seversky_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

BTW, bornagain77, what is the Law Of Conservation Of Information? Is it a law of physics or of mathematics? Either way, can you point us to where it's defined mathematically? Thank you.R0b_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Wow, well put BA =). As far as proof goes, there's often a significantly steep double standard that the Darwinist must project in order to protect his/her beliefs, yet they so often disregard the fact that they remove themselves from their own celebrated naturalistic methodology in doing so. Such is the case that you've just illustrated quite well. Sorry Nak, but he does have quite a strong argument that's very well-defined, making for very little room for misconstrual and semantic play.PaulN_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Nak, since you have no heart for this to be true and desperately want it not to be true, as you despise all the other Theistic implications coming from ID, I would hardly hold you as a unbiased judge in the weighing of this evidence. As your track record amply testifies. Yet, to try to reason with you in your unwillingness to reason, I maintain that your whole case for refuting what is crystal clear to me, rest on your prejudiced reading of the word "disrupt". Bennet and company in fact stated "Thoroughly Disrupt" Since that is what they stated that is what I take them to mean: So to take a little English lesson, I looked up the meanings of both words: thor·oughly adj. 1. Exhaustively complete: a thorough search. 2. Painstakingly accurate or careful: thorough research. 3. Absolute; utter: a thorough pleasure. prep. & adv. Archaic Variant of through. Disrupt \Dis*rupt"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Disrupted; p. pr. & vb. n. Disrupting.] To break asunder; to rend. --Thomson. Thus "Thoroughly Disrupt" means; Exhaustively complete breaking asunder: Now I've quoted the prime reference that stated the photon was "destroyed", as well as stating the photon was "Thoroughly Disrupted", whereas you quote the drawing of same reference I had cited which says merely "disrupt" without the adjective Thoroughly in front of it. As well I cited one non-peer review from Cal-Tech that said "the Photon No Longer Existed". Only the most biased of people would take your most charitable reading of the word "disrupt" to mean what you so fervently wish for it to mean.,,,which I can reasonably hold to mean "a mere disturbing" of the photon. The main point Nak, that you are loathe to even look at is, there are zero qualities/information left in the photon to measure after it is "thoroughly disrupted"... Or to make it crystal clear, It is a photon with zero properties left in itself to measure! (No angular momentum,, no brightness nada, zilch etc.. You may argue that the photon is still there until you are blue in the face, I really don't care! But as for me you must show me a measurement of the photon, of some property or quality, to prove to me that the photon is still there ,,, As far as I am concerned, if the photon can no longer be measured it no longer exists. What is funny is that you are the one who usually derides everyone for believing in the invisible and transcendent Creator,,,but here you are arguing for the existence of a invisible photon that has no properties to see!bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, You persist in confusing the state of the photon and the photon. I don't have to prove anything on this topic, you are the one making extraordinary claims. That is to say that anything exercising direct superluminal “transcendent” dominion of energy must of logical necessity possess the same qualities as energy has in its being. You have entered a semantics free zone.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

And Nak, If you don't mind I would appreciate that it be a peer-review article testifying to the fact that photon A does in fact still exist after teleportation.bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Nak, It is funny you are debating a secondary issue that really has no bearing on the primary principle. The primary principle to be established by quantum teleportation is that "transcendent (superluminal) information" is exercising direct dominion of Energy, thereby establishing the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information. That is to say that anything exercising direct superluminal "transcendent" dominion of energy must of logical necessity possess the same qualities as energy has in its being. Thus since energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, this provides a direct line of inference that Transcendent Information cannot be created or destroyed, thereby establishing the primary tenet of the Law Of Conservation Of Information. That you would argue over a secondary issue of whether the photon is completely destroyed is really pointless, and as far as the main overriding issue it has no bearing. But aside from that the plain fact is that you are wrong to argue the photon still exists for there are in fact zero qualities(information) of the photon left to measure. in Bennet's words "perfect teleportation" i.e. The complete information content of infinite information of the photon is teleported since the teleportation is "perfect",, the photon no longer can exist as far as we are concerned for there is zero information content left in the photon for us to measure! Or as Bennet's team put it (photon A) itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted by the scanning, So all you have to do to prove the photon still exist, and to prove me wrong, is to perform a measurement, which will require you extracting some information from the original photon, yet this may prove to be a bit problematic for since the information teleportation was "perfect! l every time we check to see if a photon is there we extract a bit of information from the photon,,,or as Zeilinger states:bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Tell us what you are quoting. HowStuffWorks.com? Where is the reference to the scientific literature?Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Just one problem, they never say the photon is destroyed. They use the word destroy three times, in their introductory paragraph analogizing to science fiction teleporters. The photon is disrupted, as the illustration puts it. Its quantum state is DESTROYED, the information represented by that quantum state is DESTROYED, but the photon survives. If you would like to use the D word in the same way as they do, please do so. That would eliminate from your discourse this whole 'violation of the first law, dominion of information over time and space' business. Thank you.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

The Caltech group was able to read the atomic structure of a photon, send this information across 3.28 feet (about 1 meter) of coaxial cable and create a replica of the photon. As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply