Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scientists often don’t know what they’re talking about

Categories
Education
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When reading the following, remember that string theory is taught and discussed in physics courses. Also ask yourself whether Gross’s criticisms apply to evolutionary theory — is it “missing something absolutely fundamental”?

Nobel laureate admits string theory is in trouble
10 December 2005
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825293.700.html

“WE DON’T know what we are talking about.” That was Nobel laureate David Gross at the 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics in Brussels, Belgium, during his concluding remarks on Saturday. He was referring to string theory – the attempt to unify the otherwise incompatible theories of relativity and quantum mechanics to provide a theory of everything.

“The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity”
Gross – who received a Nobel for his work on the strong nuclear force, bringing physics closer to a theory of everything – has been a strong advocate of string theory, which also aims to explain dark energy. “Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory,” he said. “But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break.”

He compared the state of physics today to that during the first Solvay conference in 1911. Then, physicists were mystified by the discovery of radioactivity. The puzzling phenomenon threatened even the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and physicists had to wait for the theory of quantum mechanics to explain it. “They were missing something absolutely fundamental,” he said. “We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.”

From issue 2529 of New Scientist magazine, 10 December 2005, page 6

Comments
DaveScot, "“The reason the immaterial mind was even posited by philosophers in the first place was because” … Was because their knowledge of the brain and how it functions was as close to nil as you can get and they had to either guess about it or remain silent. " Then why do you remain so silent about giving a positive account of how rational thought can be explained in purely material terms? Snipping out my argument and substituting a wisecrack isn't an answer... Dave T.taciturnus
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Dave Scott: "Sure. And how is this information acquired if not through training?" I readily admit that information is acquired through, to use your term, "training". But that nevertheless doesn't make information the equivalent of "training". Is music the same thing as vibrating strings? DS: "I wasn’t aware there was such a thing as soul taxonomy. Care to elaborate?" You can fight it out with St. Thomas Aquinas: http://www.personal.ceu.hu/students/97/Roman_Zakharii/soul.htmPaV
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
PaV "As to the first question (I didn’t mention “soul”), the answer is “no.” It needs “information.”" Sure. And how is this information acquired if not through training? "As to the second, the answer is “yes.” But it’s not the same kind of a soul as a human." I wasn't aware there was such a thing as soul taxonomy. Care to elaborate?DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Josh I'm talking about physics and the quantum theoretical definition of information. You're talking about specified information which conforms to a independent pattern, which is a subset of all information. All information is still physical, including specified information. Information does not and cannot exist absent matter and energy. At least not as far as science can determine.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Maybe we're speaking of information in different terms, but this is what I was getting at. Well, part of what I was getting at. From IDEA: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/infotheory.htm The point I was making was- the information itself is not the same as the matter that contains the information. It only becomes information once we realize that it makes sense. DNA for example contains volumes upon volumes of information...but we only call it information because the material itself within DNA makes sense, it acts as a blueprint telling the particular type of DNA what to build, how much to build, where to build, when and were to start and stop the building, etc. If it was jumbled nonsense in DNA, we wouldn't call it information. On a CD, a bunch of atoms encoded onto the disc is just that- a bunch of atoms, until it makes sense, then it becomes information. If we had no way of deciphering the content of the CD, it'd be a mess and wouldn't contain information. 01001100100110010100 is nonsense, and we wouldn't call it information because it serves us no purpose in this form and no knowledge can be gained by it in this form, but when those bits of code turn into meaningful text, we gain knowledge from it and it serves a purpose. Same for information within atoms- it's only information because an atom itself can make sense of that material bits used to encode the information. If it was a jumbled mess that contained no plan, blueprint, etc. we wouldn't consider it information.Josh Bozeman
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
"The reason the immaterial mind was even posited by philosophers in the first place was because" ... Was because their knowledge of the brain and how it functions was as close to nil as you can get and they had to either guess about it or remain silent.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Josh, a CD does indeed contain information in and of itself, regardless of whether it has personal meaning to you or anyone else. Every particle in the universe has information associated with it. The information content is defined in quantum theory and includes properties such as spin, charge, and location. You are obviously laboring under an incorrect, incomplete, or abitrary definition of information.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Dave Scott: "Now here’s some questions for you - does the hypothetical immaterial soul require training to process information? Does the bear have a soul too? As to the first question (I didn't mention "soul"), the answer is "no." It needs "information." As to the second, the answer is "yes." But it's not the same kind of a soul as a human.PaV
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
DaveScot, You wrote: "You posited 2+2=4 is immaterial yet in order to store and convey the information you needed matter and energy. Information is physical. Absent matter and energy information cannot exist." Everyone grants that matter and energy are needed for us to convey information. The materialist argument says a lot more than this, however. It says that information is itself NOTHING BUT matter and energy. To make this case, the materialist has to point to more than the fact that we store information physically. He has to show how thoughts like "2+2=4" can be understood in purely material terms. Examples of brain pathology don't even start to make this case. The reason the immaterial mind was even posited by philosophers in the first place was because they saw that rational thought could not be explained in purely material terms. A very simple and ancient point is that "2+2=4" cannot be purely physical because if it was, then you and I could not both think it since we do not share brain matter. Now maybe this argument is wrong, but to prove it wrong, the materialist needs to give an account of mathematical thought in purely material terms that also accounts for the fact that we can share thoughts. The fact that I need matter and energy to transmit information proves that, well, I need matter and energy to transmit information. It doesn't answer the arguments that indicate that rational thought cannot have a purely material basis. Cheers, Dave T. Dave T.taciturnus
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
A CD doesn't contain information itself. It contains bits of code...the information content isn't information until it can be deciphered by a person. That gets to the heart of the meaning of information itself, which isn't the same as the bits of code on a CD, or the written ink on a paper. Wikipedia's article on information makes this note:
Information is a term with many meanings depending on context, but is as a rule closely related to such concepts as meaning, knowledge, instruction, communication, representation, and mental stimulus.
Information is the knowledge and meaning GAINED from the written ink or the bits of code itself. You can't reduce a computer code to information, they're not the same thing. 011001100111000 isn't information- only when a computer deciphers that code and the human brain recognizes the content and gains knowledge through it is it actually information.Josh Bozeman
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
From above link:
At first, the notion that information, like energy, cannot be destroyed seems like a dubious pronouncement. Tear out a page from a book and drop it into a fire and the information seems to vanish. After all, the second law of thermodynamics says that an orderly system (like a page arrayed with words and numbers) will inevitably become more and more disordered, increasing in entropy, until it eventually becomes a meaningless mess. In principle, however, information doesn't truly disappear. The markings of ink on the page are preserved in the way the flame flickers and the smoke curls, in the ripples of heat radiating through the air and the pattern of the ashes delicately falling to the ground. The practical difficulties of retrieving this subtle data and restoring the original order give the second law its vaunted power. But in theory one could reconstruct every paragraph. The information is supposed to be out there in the universe somewhere.
This gets to MY notion of how the essence of a person might continue after physical death. Every thought you have leaves a mark on the universe in the form of altered states of matter and energy. This is information that can be neither created nor destroyed. In principle it can be recovered (with the possible exception of it falling into a black hole! ;-) ). The question then becomes whether or how this radiating field of energy that is you continues to change and interact and retain a conscious identity. Given all we don't know about the universe I remain unconvinced either way.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
This article is in tune with how I logically derive a law of conservation of information. To be perfectly honest I thought it was obvious and widely known that if the universe is deterministic then information can be neither created nor destroyed. As some of you already know I believe the universe IS deterministic with an exception - intelligent agency (a.k.a. "free will") is non-deterministic. I think this lines up fairly well with Dembski's notions on how CSI is created (only via intelligent agency)but in different words. Anyhow, here's the article, it deals with hypothetical destruction of information via black holes (Hawkings). If it weren't widely accepted that information cannot be created nor destroyed this long running debate over whether a black hole can violate the principle wouldn't be a debate. That's why I don't understand what's new about the concept. http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/blackhole_bet.htmlDaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as great minds think alike, but on a lark I did a google search for "Conservation of Information" and guess whose name pops up proposing "The Law of Conservation of Information"? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+Law+of+Conservation+of+Information%22DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Lurker There is information on a blank CD. The arrangement of atoms, their position in time and space, IS information. Rearranging them changes the information but doesn't add or subtract from the quantity of it. Information, like energy, can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only change form.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Taciturnus and Bombadill Sorry, but you still haven't met the challenge. You posited 2+2=4 is immaterial yet in order to store and convey the information you needed matter and energy. Information is physical. Absent matter and energy information cannot exist.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
"We take in information all the time that isn’t in any way physical itself." No, we do not. All information is physical. If you disagree please demonstrate a means of either storing or transmitting information absent matter and energy. Otherwise concede the point.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
PaV "a few questions: let us suppose that a particular spot on a road winding through a forest, there is a sign that says, “Danger: Animal Crossing. Slow Down”; if a bear comes across the sign, does he see it?" Probably. "And if he does, is it the bear or the motorist who will slow down?" If the motorist doesn't understand English he won't slow down and if he's in a hurry he won't slow down either. It's all a matter of training. If the bear is properly trained and motivated, he will slow down. If the motorist is properly trained and motivated he will slow down. Absent training and motivation neither will. Now here's some questions for you - does the hypothetical immaterial soul require training to process information? Does the bear have a soul too?DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
This is interesting. A new book on a theory they admittedly know nothing about. The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design Leonard Susskind http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316155799/ref=pe_snp_799/104-7232388-0643109?n=283155Mario A. Lopez
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Getting back to a really basic issue concerning information for a non-scientist: When the term “information” is used in biology and evolution, does information mean something other than, or in addition to, DNA? I have assumed that “information,” in the context of biology, is virtually the same as a book/manual of directions or instructions. And such directions or instructions are provided in cells via the “book” of DNA nucleotides. Is this not correct?JohnLiljegren
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
A CD full of information weighs the same as one with no information. Information is immaterial.Lurker
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
This is an interesting example of why information is immaterial. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2646 One set of data (information) can be put into many different forms, none of which means the information itself is material. If it was material, you couldn't change the format the info. comes on without physically manipulating the information itself. When you speak to someone, you pass on information but you're not actually passing anything physically to them. Their mind is picking it up and they catalog it into a file of sorts- but the words themselves aren't being put into the brain, nor are the sounds of the words, or written words, etc.- merely the thoughts themselves. These words I type right now are pieces of information, but the only physical aspect to it is the delivery system. You see the words I type, and the letters themselves on the screen are material, but the letters are not information- the information is the message you took and implanted in your brain. You could sit down and try to memorize this entire paragraph, but you're not putting any material object into your brain or your mind.Josh Bozeman
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
exactly. if 2+2=4 is reducible to matter, it would logically follow that it along with other matter, has mass. That's absurd.Bombadill
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
"find a way to store or transmit information devoid of matter and energy if successful you’ll get a nobel prize in physics" Actually, you wouldn't, since physics deals specifically with matter and energy, and therefore any discussion of information as non-material is outside the subject matter of physics. Of course information can be *represented* physically, which is what we do when we store or transmit it. But information itself can't be physical, or we wouldn't be able to represent it in a variety of ways or even communicate it. If "2+2=4" is itself a physical body and not merely represented by them, then either you or I can have it, but not both, since bodies can't be in two places at once.taciturnus
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Because something is stored in a physical system doesn't mean that something itself is physical. We take in information all the time that isn't in any way physical itself. The messenger might be physical but the message itself need not be.Josh Bozeman
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Dave Scott: "to taciturnus and others that believe information is non-material find a way to store or transmit information devoid of matter and energy" A few questions: let us suppose that a particular spot on a road winding through a forest, there is a sign that says, "Danger: Animal Crossing. Slow Down"; if a bear comes across the sign, does he see it? And if he does, is it the bear or the motorist who will slow down? And, if it is the motorist, then why does the motorist slow down, while the bear does not? Remember, both the motorist and the bear "saw" the sign with a mammalian eye, processed through a mammalian nueral system, into a mammalian brain.PaV
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
ID theory is falsifiable. String theory is not falsifiable. Both should be call hypotheses, not theories, of course. "Theory" is used very loosely by nearly everyone, scientist or otherwise. The notion that RM+NS can eventually turn bacteria into baboons is hypothetical. The number of scientists that say ID theory is false makes one wonder how that's possible if it isn't falsifiable. In fact for RM+NS to be a valid hypothesis it must also be falsifiable. It can only be falsfied by ID being verifiable. Conversely ID is falsifiable by RM+NS being verifiable. It's quite possible neither are valid hypotheses but the bottom line is that if one is valid then so must the other when judged by the same criteria.DaveScot
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
to taciturnus and others that believe information is non-material find a way to store or transmit information devoid of matter and energy if successful you'll get a nobel prize in physicsDaveScot
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Here is something even funnier. Admittedly flawed, but still qualifies as "legitimate" science---unlike intelligent design, of course. (LOL) Article Preview Mind your scientific language 03 December 2005 Lawrence Krauss Magazine issue 2528 Misusing the word "theory" plays into the hands of creationists - that's why string theory ought to be renamed, says Lawrence Krauss IN DESCRIBING humankind's fascination with extra dimensions for The New York Times recently, I made the mistake of mentioning string theory and intelligent design on the same page. My purpose was not to claim they are similar. Quite the opposite. I wanted to describe how both science and religion sometimes provoke heated debates about features of the universe we cannot measure. While string theory has yet to make contact with the empirical universe, it is a legitimate part of science, even if it proves a failure, because its practitioners are ultimately aiming to produce falsifiable results. The proponents of intelligent design, on the other hand, do not seem to have this intent. My choice of examples provoked a furious discussion on several physics blogs. The juxtaposition particularly irritated a number of string theorists who seem sensitive to any scepticism regarding the whole string enterprise. This was not my intent, although ... The complete article is 885 words long. Original : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825285.400Mario A. Lopez
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
So the laws of physics, since they are information, are themselves physical? I once dropped a pencil on the floor in a physics exam, but I've never dropped "F=MA". I wonder what kind of sound it makes.taciturnus
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Actually information is physical and does follow laws of physics.DaveScot
December 10, 2005
December
12
Dec
10
10
2005
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply