Key prediction of Darwinian evolution falsified?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 29, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution}

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

Biological life requires thousands of different protein families, about 70% of which are ‘globular’ proteins, each with a 3-dimensional shape that is unique to each family of proteins. An example is shown in the picture at the top of this post. This 3D shape is necessary for a particular biological function and is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries. Instead, they use information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins.

Indeed, our 21st century supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures. Nonetheless, a foundational prediction of neo-Darwinian theory is that a ploddingly slow evolutionary process consisting of genetic drift, mutations, insertions and deletions must be able to ‘find’ not just one, but thousands of sequences pre-determined by physics that will have different stable, functional 3D structures. So how does this falsifiable prediction hold up when tested against real data? As ought to be the case in science, I have made available my program so that you can run your own data and verify for yourself the kinds of probabilities these protein families represent. More.

Readers? Sensible responses wanted. (It’s getting so Darwin’s tenured trolls have nothing to offer but sneers, persecution, and—in the case of those afflicted with religiosity—Jesus-hollers in response.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

ss
There are many, many natural, complex systems which have never been shown to have been designed.
We can build similiar, artificial systems with intelligence. Chaos has never built one.
You might reply that these systems have never been shown to be the products of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural process.
No, I wouldn't reply that way. I would say chaos has never produced a single system - ever. Not even in artificial conditions. That's why ID wins.
Seems a draw, EXCEPT that we can demonstrate the existence of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural processes.
That statement is totally jumbled. First: The problem is not "demonstrating the existence" of things, it's "demonstrating the origin". Second: No, you can't show any process or system, natural or artificial that originated from chaos. You can't start from order and system-processing and then claim no design. Because you haven't explained the system-order that you started with. You have to start with chaos. Then show me an ordered system that arises out of it. No bringing in order or processing first and then claiming there is no design.
You on the other hand CANNOT demonstrate the existence of a designer,
I'm a designer. I'm designing things now. I can build processing-systems of many varieties. Designers exist, they build systems. Now show me what chaos can do. If you fail, then the most reasonable conclusion is that Designers build systems, not Chaos. We see systems, we conclude Designer - not chaos.
Your argument is AT BEST circular: “complex systems must be designed, therefore there is a designer; and since there is a designer, therefore complex systems can be designed.” Illogical AT BEST.
No again. Complex systems are designed. Intelligent guidance can and does design and build them. Chaos does not build systems. Never has. You've got every opportunity to prove that wrong. Show what chaos can do - no order or system-processing smuggled in unexplained. Failing that, it stands -- when we see an ordered system, the best and most reasonable explanation is that it was designed by intelligence, because we know intelligence can design systems and chaos cannot. You really have nowhere to go, nowhere to hide on this.Silver Asiatic_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

BA:
MWI denies the reality of wave function collapse. Yet the reality of wave function collapse is now experimentally established.
From the article:
"Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points." "However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices." "Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways,. thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong."
Note how, in the first part, they explicitly state Einstein's hypothesis that "that the particle is only ever at one point " and contrast that with "the wave function [collapsing] in different ways.". Specially, the MWI says something very different is happening in reality, yet is comparable with the same experimental observations, which are interpreted as the collapse of the wave function in other theories. On the other hand, Einstein's hypothesis suggests something very different is happening in reality, but is not compatible with the experimental observations which can be interpreted as a collapse of the wave function in other theories. So, falsification of Einstein’s hypothesis is not the same as falsifying the MWI.Popperian_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @102 There are many, many natural, complex systems which have never been shown to have been designed. You might reply that these systems have never been shown to be the products of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural process. Seems a draw, EXCEPT that we can demonstrate the existence of random/chaotic/spontaneous natural processes. Whatever remains unknown between the processes and the outcomes can eventually be verified or falsified. You on the other hand CANNOT demonstrate the existence of a designer, and have no hope of verifying or falsifying any of your claims. Your argument is AT BEST circular: “complex systems must be designed, therefore there is a designer; and since there is a designer, therefore complex systems can be designed.” Illogical AT BEST. Upright BiPed @101 and Silver Asiatic @103 Regarding:
How long does it take to simulate the rise of a process that is not determined by the parameters of the simulation? ... starting with a non-process, non-ordered system.
It doesn’t matter how long it takes to simulate it; that length of time has no significance. The time it takes to simulate event X has nothing to say about how long event X takes to occur. This has been amply demonstrated here. It’s akin to the “mapping problem”: the map is not the place mapped. The simulation is not the think simulated. sean s.sean samis_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

@anthropic You are correct. I did not make a distinction between belief in Jesus and "works". However, even if we make such a distinction, the problem remains. Specifically, just as there would be versions of myself that take some actions, while others do not, there would be versions of myself that do believe in Jesus and others that do not.Popperian_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Here is a gem of a quote from a Bible skeptic who thought it unfair to use the Bible as a guide in archeology since,,,:: ‘he knew immediately that, proceeding in this way (using the Bible as a guide), “she would certainly find that building” https://uncommondescent.com.....-it-makes/ LOL, no bias there huh? :) Beyond laughable, eh? Like a little child. No awareness of the absurdity of his complaint. And how many atheist youngsters equally in their thinking. No Dawkins is the doyen of Alice in Wonderland thinking and far too aged for inclusion. I don't have a sufficiently scholarly cast of mind to have read all your posts BA77, but I think you've really starred in this thread - even more than usual. That 'non-locality' one, 'shooting down' materialism 'in flames' is so fundamental to the utter destruction of materialism, exposing the illogic of even its most basic foundation in principle renders writing to this very board a totally vain exercise. But we know that truth has to be hammered into their skulls. Sorry about my stating the obvious so tritely at #24. I hadn't seen your more specific reference to it.Axel_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

UB
How long does it take to simulate the rise of a process that is not determined by the parameters of the simulation?
And just to add ... starting with a non-process, non-ordered system.Silver Asiatic_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

ss
processes creating complex outcomes must have been guided BECAUSE
Because we know intelligent-guidance can build such systems and chaos has never been shown to build any ordered processes or systems. It does work that way.Silver Asiatic_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

The folding of prescribed amino acid strings is determined in great part by local dynamics. The process of prescribing the order of those amino acid strings is not determined by local dynamics. How long does it take to simulate the rise of a process that is not determined by the parameters of the simulation?Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

The long discussion about randomness and design has been interesting in a twisted sort of way; mostly because it’s been predicated on the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity: commentators asserting that processes creating complex outcomes must have been guided BECAUSE! It doesn’t work that way. But getting back to the OP (remember the OP?) the argument against evolution in the OP is the tried and truly failed Computational Argument:
...our 21st century supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures. Nonetheless, a foundational prediction of neo-Darwinian theory is that a ploddingly slow evolutionary process consisting of genetic drift, mutations, insertions and deletions must be able to ‘find’ not just one, but thousands of sequences pre-determined by physics that will have different stable, functional 3D structures. So how does this falsifiable prediction hold up when tested against real data?
The defect of this argument is that it asserts that the time it takes to simulate events in a process is proportional to the time it takes for those events to happen in the real world. As the example of weather simulations demonstrates, vastly complex events happen very quickly in the real world even though a merely-adequate simulation will take much longer to run. Similar examples are simulations of air traffic accidents or automobile accidents, which may take hours to weeks to simulate at a high level but occur in seconds in the real world. Comments about “search space” and one event needing to “find” the next one are malformed analogies. Computer simulations need to “find” the next step, but in real life events flow from one to the next; no “finding” is involved. Related to this is the implicit claim that all combinations must be “searched” even though some combinations are energetically disfavored and might never occur. Simulations may need to be exhaustive, but events merely unfold according to the forces and objects affecting them. Some have complained that the computational delay is because we don’t know how to properly model some events, that we don’t know all the variables. Although there surely are deficiencies in our knowledge of these events, this problem does not explain the failure of the Computational Argument. The real problem is that the time it takes to simulate events in a process is proportional to the COMPLEXITY of the process; adding variables and driving the simulation to higher levels of detail only increase complexity and will make the time-disconnect longer. At the highest level of detail, brief periods of weather or accidents will take months or years to model even though the events were over in seconds. The Computational argument fails, and fails worse as we try to model at better and better levels of detail. Nature does in a moment what we cannot comprehend in a year, and there’s no evidence that any guiding hand ever was involved. sean s.sean samis_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

"@popperiain wrote: “P2. The Bible says God will judge based on our actions, resulting in being eternally rewarded or punished.” If by eternally rewarded you mean go to heaven, this is false. The Bible says that all have sinned & fall short, so our actions condemn all of us. God's standard of righteousness is not met by even the best of people. But those who believe in Jesus' sacrifice & payment for our sin go to heaven because we are judged by His actions & righteousness, rather than our own.anthropic_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Popperian, again, logic is not your strong suit. MWI denies the reality of wave function collapse. Yet the reality of wave function collapse is now experimentally established. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/key-prediction-of-darwinian-evolution-falsified/#comment-574350 It is not rocket science. as to empirically falsifying Darwinism (although Darwinists themselves do not accept falsification), is this post from earlier: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/key-prediction-of-darwinian-evolution-falsified/#comment-573880 Anyways, you have wasted enough of my time and you are now getting into my sleep time with your incoherent/insane ramblings, and I, given my years dealing with dogmatic atheists, certainly do not think you will ever be reasonable. Thus the last word is all yours. I will reply no further to your delusions. Any further imagined refutations that you have of the actual empirical science at hand can be addressed directly to the hand :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28 Good night and good bye!bornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

BA
ID can easily be falsified whereas, as I cited elsewhere tonight, evolution cannot.
So, a designer couldn't intend to make everything appear that it evolved? Is that what you're claiming? Otherwise, we'd have no way to falsify that. Right? Let me guess. You think the designer is God and, by definition, God cannot mislead us? But that's not ID, the supposedly scientific theory, which you're claiming can be falsified. You're smuggling in theological assumptions. Even then, it's not clear how we could falsify the idea that God is perfectly good and wouldn't mislead us. Furthermore, you still haven't addressed my point of confusing not yet being falsified with being unfalsifiable. I won't hold my breath.Popperian_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

@BA What you're presenting is a false dilemma in that we either have Einstein's version of locality or "spooky action at a distance" non-locality. However, the MWI isn't either of those two things. Einstein's locality was based on the idea there were hidden variables at play and that QM was incomplete. Yes. The experiment indicates there are no hidden variables and that QM is complete and that Einstein's locality is false. However, the MWI's is not the same as Einstein's locality, in that it doesn't assume there are any hidden variables and considers QM to be complete complete, while still being local in it's own way . In fact, one of the references you thought supported your position explicitly points out Einstein's locality is not the same as the MWI. So, apparently, you're posting articles that you just don't understand. Furthermore, the specific observations of "spooky action at a distance" in the experiment are compatible with the MWI, yet incompatible with what it describes as actually happening in reality to produce them. If you actually understood the theory you were criticizing, you'd know this. The MWI is simply the theory of quantum mechanics taken seriously. It literarily comes right out of the theory automatically. Einstein's locality or adding special roles for observers are examples of trying to add to the theory. From this article: Why the Many-Worlds Formulation of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably Correct
The conclusion, therefore, is that multiple worlds automatically occur in quantum mechanics. They are an inevitable part of the formalism. The only remaining question is: what are you going to do about it? There are three popular strategies on the market: anger, denial, and acceptance. The “anger” strategy says “I hate the idea of multiple worlds with such a white-hot passion that I will change the rules of quantum mechanics in order to avoid them.” And people do this! In the four options listed here, both dynamical-collapse theories and hidden-variable theories are straightforward alterations of the conventional picture of quantum mechanics. In dynamical collapse, we change the evolution equation, by adding some explicitly stochastic probability of collapse. In hidden variables, we keep the Schrödinger equation intact, but add new variables — hidden ones, which we know must be explicitly non-local. Of course there is currently zero empirical evidence for these rather ad hoc modifications of the formalism, but hey, you never know. The “denial” strategy says “The idea of multiple worlds is so profoundly upsetting to me that I will deny the existence of reality in order to escape having to think about it.” Advocates of this approach don’t actually put it that way, but I’m being polemical rather than conciliatory in this particular post. And I don’t think it’s an unfair characterization. This is the quantum Bayesianism approach, or more generally “psi-epistemic” approaches. The idea is to simply deny that the quantum state represents anything about reality; it is merely a way of keeping track of the probability of future measurement outcomes. Is the particle spin-up, or spin-down, or both? Neither! There is no particle, there is no spoon, nor is there the state of the particle’s spin; there is only the probability of seeing the spin in different conditions once one performs a measurement. I advocate listening to David Albert’s take at our WSF panel. The final strategy is acceptance. That is the Everettian approach. The formalism of quantum mechanics, in this view, consists of quantum states as described above and nothing more, which evolve according to the usual Schrödinger equation and nothing more. The formalism predicts that there are many worlds, so we choose to accept that. This means that the part of reality we experience is an indescribably thin slice of the entire picture, but so be it. Our job as scientists is to formulate the best possible description of the world as it is, not to force the world to bend to our pre-conceptions.
Popperian_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

BA77, I think I've stated several times that I don't "believe in" MWI or the multiverse in general. Mostly because it's a minority position among experts, but also because it seems quite far-fetched.daveS_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

daveS, " I will be interested to see if his ideas gain traction." I firmly believe that anyone who is willing to dogmatically defend, just so to avoid an inference to God, the notion that unguided material processes can produce the unfathomed integrated complexity we see in life, will not be dissuaded in the least from believing in infinite parallel universes splitting off from each other upon observation no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. Some measure of good old fashioned common sense has to be present to begin with in order for what is overwhelmingly reasonable to be accepted and override the deeply held philosophical biases of atheists. At least that has been my experience over years of debating dogmatic atheists. Evidence simply is of little concern to them!bornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Popperian @ 89: Thanks for the further explanation. BA77: I stand corrected. The Singh papers from ~2008 do claim to have falsified MWI. I will be interested to see if his ideas gain traction.daveS_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Popperian, it is clear that you have no clue what you are talking about. ID can easily be falsified whereas, as I cited elsewhere tonight, evolution cannot. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jim-stump-i-almost-felt-sorry-for-design-advocates/#comment-574343 That you refuse to see this is more a testimony to how biased and blind you are than it is to the evidence at hand. As I said, Popper called and he wants his good name back. You certainly do not deserve it! :) Especially with your MWI tripe!bornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

As for Popper, from What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution?
It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]
In an earlier work, Popper discussed the historical sciences in which the scientific method of theoretical sciences is used:
This view is perfectly compatible with the analysis of scientific method, and especially of causal explanation given in the preceding section. The situation is simply this: while the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements. [Popper, 1957, p. 143ff]
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system. A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.
However, I've quoted this to you before. And I'm the one trying to "Sully Popper's name sullied beyond recognition"? Michael Behe:
Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
Again, we cannot go back in time. So, even if we could produce that in the lab, it doesn't rule out the logical possibility that some designer designed our particular biosphere. Or that some designer wanted it to appear as if it evolved, but didn't. Since your designer is abstract and has no limitations, you can't claim the designer wouldn't try to fool us because the designer is good, etc. You'd have to smuggle in the idea that the designer is God, which isn't part of the "scientific theory". Rather, what we're looking for is a principle or theory for how biological complexity, in the universal sense, arises. ID doesn't explain that beyond "that's just what the designer wanted" because what drives biological complexity is the set of instructions for transformation of matter that build those features. Wanting it to turn out that way, simply is insufficient, as I've pointed out above. Again, you'd have to smuggle in the idea that the designer has a special property that obtains what it intents, via some inexplicable means. This is the same sort of idea that the designer is like us, merely better, in some inexplicable way, so it obtains what it wants by some inexplicable means. This tells us nothing beyond the fact that it's the knowledge in organisms cells that result in those features. IOW, ID doesn't explain that knowledge. As for falsifying darwinism, I've discussed this as well. So, it's unclear why you keep rehashing the same mistake. Not having been falsified is not the same as being unfalsifiable. For example, an organism cannot build features before the knowledge of how to build those features was created. As such, organisms should not appear in the order or most complex to least complex. Nor should the appear all at once. On the other hand, there is no order in which to falsify ID's designer because it doesn't have any limitations, such as what it knows, when it knew it, etc. For a designer always knew how to build any organism that has, does or could exist, it would be possible to organisms in any order, including from most complex to least complex, or even all at once. IOW, ID's designer has no limitation that have consequences for the current state of the system that we could test. Neo-Darwinism does.Popperian_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Popperian, logic is not your strong suit. MWI denies wavefunction collapse:
The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
The experiment demonstrated that, contrary to MWI, the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015 Excerpt: ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.” http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html
As I said before, Karl Popper called and he wants his good name back. You certainly are not deserving of it! As to the world splitting every time an observation is made of a particle, please pray tell what is the exact mechanism by which an entirely new parallel universe is created by observation of a single particle? That is a VERY extraordinary claim that demands VERY extraordinary evidence. By the way, if you truly believe it happens, I have some swamp land in Florida for you to look at! :) You subsequent ramblings are incoherent as well. I am firmly convinced you have no firm clue what as to you are talking about in either QM or relativity. A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8gbornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

@daves BA would need to actually understand the MWI to know any particular experiment falsified it. Yet, his references in these thread indicate he lacks such an understanding of QM and the MWI. For example.. BA
Yet, contrary to the MWI, the following experiment demonstrated that the non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, collapse of a single particles wave function is real:
Yet, from the referenced article....
"Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
IOW, non-locality in the context of this experiment is in contrast to specific to Einstein's view that there are hidden variables at play that are not described in QM. However, Einstein's view is not the MWI. So, finding Einstein's view wrong does not equate to finding the MWI wrong. Namely, what we experience isn't the same as the unseen expiation for seen phenomena, including the non-local result obtained by the experiment. BA
i.e. MWI is dependent on the wave function being merely an abstract description of reality. In fact as stated previously, the MWI gets rid of the axiom of wave function collapse altogether and gives primary consideration to the particle.
This is false. You can think of the wave function operating at a more fundamental level as multiverse in the MWI, which manifests itself as particles in each universe. So, it's both a particle and a wave in that the deeper level of understanding being explained by the wave function of the multiverse, which is comparable with the same observations. IOW, the wave function not collapsing is not the same as getting rid of it completely. BA
The particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone tries to observe a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes. In other words, the MWI is basically saying that, instead of God, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to.
Which is also false. See above. It's unclear how BA can criticize a theory he does not understand. From the article on quantum gravity...
This nonlinearity is responsible for a dynamically induced collapse of the wave-function, during a quantum measurement, and it hence falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Yet, the MWI doesn't suggest the wave function actually collapses. Something here doesn't add up. As for the article on the "loophole-free demonstration of non-locality", it reinforces my point about Einstein's non-locality.
But why cannot “many worlds” and “parallel lives” be rejected, if one assumes “empty waves”? Because all these pictures share a rejection of the following basic principle: Principle A: Any entity in space-time is in principle accessible to a human observer unless both (the entity and the observer) are spacelike separated. Or in other words, the only way to have inaccessibility within space-time is through space-like separation. I think Principle A is the reasonable way of characterizing the contents of space-time, and it should be assumed by any sound scientific theory. In fact Principle A is at the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and in particular of Bohr’s view. And it seems to be shared by Einstein as well, who in fact disqualified the “empty waves” terming them as ghost fields. Therefore, for reasons of scientific coherence one should reject “empty waves”, “many worlds” and “parallel lives”. And in any case one cannot say that “many worlds” reconciles quantum mechanics and Einstein’s local realism because in fact it is at odds with both
Here, rejecting the MWI is based on accepting a principle of how to define space-time based on its popularity with Einstein, Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation? Couldn't get past the first 30 seconds of Antoine Suarez's video. Summary? Your link for Sturman's critique is broken. Looking at this version instead Sturman:
Excerpt: 1. The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch’s argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.
Not presenting an argument in that section for the purpose of presenting the MWI in a way that laymen can understand does not mean no such arguments exist. For example, relativity says changes to a physical system cannot propagate faster than c. Sturman:
2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.
No, it's not evidence against the existence of shadow photons. Again, Deutsch is presenting the MWI theory in a way that is deigned to prevent people from jumping to conclusions about the role that observations play in QM. For example, he explicitly addresses this later and explains why it wasn't presented earlier....
“For example, in all the experiments I have described, the interfering universes differ only in the position of one photon. If a photon affects other particles in its travels, and in particular if it is observed, then those particles or the observer will also become differentiated in different universes. If so, subsequent interference involving that photon will be undetectable in practice because the requisite interaction {49} between all the affected particles is too complicated to arrange. I must mention here that the standard phrase for describing this fact, namely ‘observation destroys interference’, is very misleading in three ways. First, it suggests some sort of psychokinetic effect of the conscious ‘observer’ on basic physical phenomena, though there is no such effect. Second, the interference is not ‘destroyed’: it is just (much!) harder to observe because doing “so involves controlling the precise behaviour of many more particles. And third, it is not just ‘observation’, but any effect of the photon on its surroundings that depends on which path the photon has taken, that does this. For the benefit of readers who may have seen other accounts of quantum physics, I must briefly make contact between the argument I have given in this chapter and the way the subject is usually presented. Perhaps because the debate began among theoretical physicists, the traditional starting-point has been quantum theory itself. One states the theory as carefully as possible, and then one tries to understand what it tells us about reality. That is the only possible approach if one wants to understand the finer details of quantum phenomena. But as regards the issue of whether reality consists of one universe or many, it is an unnecessarily complicated approach. That is why I have not followed it in this chapter. I have not even stated any of the postulates of quantum theory — I have merely described some physical phenomena and drawn inescapable conclusions.”
So, this is simply false, as it it addressed by Deutsch. Sturman:
Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.
Deutsch's criticism is not presented in that chapter because it is based on the concept of a bad explanation, which is expanded on at great length elsewhere in the book.
4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.
That's an incredibly vague criticism.
5. Deutsch’s argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.
Again, this is addressed elsewhere. The entire point of the book is to show how what appear to be unrelated subjects are actually related and represent the strands in the fabric of reality indicated by the title of the book. Ponting out the author doesn't explain everything at once isn't a good criticism. An example I've presented elsewhere is a science fiction plot where a crew member on a space ship is somehow shifted out of phase with the rest of the ship during an event, such as a transporter accident, and the rest of the crew must detect and shift him back into phase. What air is the crew member breathing? If he is breathing the same air as the rest of the crew, then he could simply speak to them. Yet, he cannot. Why doesn't the crew member fall though the floor out into space? Walking on same floor as the rest of the crew would also cause vibrations that the could hear. Yet, the crew they cannot detect that either. So, apparently, not just the crew member exists out of phase, but an entire ship, with life support, etc. And the same argument can be made beyond the ship, etc. As for the video, what it fails to address is that universes only interfere with each other to the degree that they are separated. The act of observation causes an increase in the degree in which universes are different from each other, which prevents interference. More specifically, the observer's measurement represents a significant change in the form of information about a specific location for the particle, which increases the difference between other parallel counterparts and prevents interference. However, this differentiation could occur in other ways, such as moving a block of wood, or even one's hand in front of the slits. The observer doesn't play a special role. BA:
Deutsch also claimed that the ‘particle interfering with itself’ is another proof for many worlds, but the notion that particles interfere with themselves in the double slit was proven to be wrong by Henry Stapp decades ago when he was just a Jr. in college:
Wow, BA. Are you just being disingenuous or are you really that clueless about the subject at hand? The experiment in question was to rule out that other photons edited by the emitter, not the shadows of the emitted photos Deutsch was referring to, were interfering with the photons going though the slit. Again, are you just pretending to be disingenuously or ? As for the paper: "Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern", it's unclear how any such variation in probably would actually be caused by directing one's attention in some vague way, vs actually attempting to measure the particle, as described in the classic QM experiment. One could assume such a variation via some kind of psychokinesis, however it should be observed in other classical systems just as well as quantum, which similar results. IOW, appealing to "some psychokinesis" effect, as apposed to measurement, wouldn't be specific to quantum mechanics. So, some kind of general psychokinesis theory should be developed to explain it in a general sense, and also tested in a general sense. Otherwise, you're appealing to what appears to be what is commonly known as "quantum woo woo". Since observations are themselves theory laden, as illustrated by supposed observation of neutrons traveling faster than the speed of light, in the OPERA experiment, some psychokinesis theory should be developed to explain why indirect psychokinesis works on quantum probably, but not anything else, which explains the differences in outcomes, or shows psychokinesis works in classical scenerios as well.Popperian_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

God let’s the whole life and universe be destroyed, from dust to dust.
That is wisdom. I, for one, am not making any more long-term plans.Daniel King_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

@popperiain wrote: "P2. The Bible says God will judge based on our actions, resulting in being eternally rewarded or punished." The soul chooses, the soul is judged, not the action. Based on the decisions the soul makes, God looks at the soul. He does not look at the action to preserve it! God let's the whole life and universe be destroyed, from dust to dust.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Popperian, you claim I'm evasive and then turn right around and are yourself evasive to the fact that the Bible has stunning outside empirical confirmation. You ignoring the evidence provided refuting many worlds and testifying to the veracity of the Bible is all the more peculiar since you have chosen the handle Popperian. i.e. Karl Popper called and he wants his good name, which you have now sullied beyond recognition, back! :)
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right. - Dr Michael Behe The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
bornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

@BA I wrote:
But the belief that the Bible is sufficient is itself a Biblical claim about the Bible.
BA
The Bible, contrary to what Popperian believes, has stunning outside evidence tesitifying to the veracity of its claims.
Evasive much? I'll ask you directly: Does the Bible itself claim the Bible contains all you should need to know about one's eternal salvation? Is this true or false? To elaborate, would you agree with the following from Are the Scriptures Sufficient
We can then see that we are equipped for every good work. Every good work is explained in the previous verse as teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. This means that the Bible is sufficient for all of these things. This naturally includes the teaching of doctrine because teaching correct doctrine is a good work by which we reprove, correct, and train. Furthermore, this means that we don't need sacred tradition to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness because the Scriptures are what is sufficient for this.
I'm asking because, should you hold such a belief.... P1. The MWI indicates there are more than one "copy" of us in each universe which makes different choices and takes mutually exclusive actions. P2. The Bible says God will judge based on our actions, resulting in being eternally rewarded or punished. P3. The Bible claims the Bible contains everything we need to know about our eternal salvation. C1. The MWI conflicts with P2, is not described anywhere in the Bible and, so, according to P3 must be false. So, if you hold the theological belief that the scriptures are sufficient [p3], then you must believe the MWI is false on theological grounds. BA:
Perhaps the most stunning example being the verification that the entire universe, all space-time matter-energy, was created a finite time ago and that the universe has not always existed as was always believed by atheists/materialists.
First, you do realize that at one point in the past there were theists and non-theists alike though the universe was eternal, right? So, was the Bible somehow less "verified" then? No. They though Genesis agreed with their belief back then as well. Nor does the existence of a singularity at the big bang necessitate the conclusions you've drawn from it. So, apparently, you think we must life in some very special time in history. Yet, I'm guessing those theists in the past thought they lived in a special time as well. IOW, you conclusion is very short sighted. The funny thing is, you think that evolution is short sighed and will be superseded, but apparently cannot conceive of your interpretation as being short sighted and superseded, despite the fact that applying induction to it would suggest it would be superseded as well. I guess that's just another example of where you selectively apply induction when it coincides with your theological commitments. Second, the theological belief that the scriptures are sufficient is itself circular. At best, you might try to appeal to inductivism by trying to claiming that the Bible has always been right in the past, and the future resembles the past, so we are justified in believing that the scriptures are sufficient. But that's bad philosophy, as I've pointed out elsewhere. The idea that inductivism as always worked for us in the past, so it will probably work for us in the future, despite anyone actually being unable to formulate a principle of induction that works in practice, is itself circular. The fact that you appeal to verse and music at the end of your comment is an example of appealing to an authoritative source of knowledge.Popperian_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28bornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is falsified.
I know we've discussed this before, but has anyone else acknowledged this? It's been several months, and you would think there would at least be a mention of it in a major journal.daveS_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Popperian also claims that:
the belief that the Bible is sufficient is itself a Biblical claim about the Bible.
The Bible, contrary to what Popperian believes, has stunning outside evidence tesitifying to the veracity of its claims. Perhaps the most stunning example being the verification that the entire universe, all space-time matter-energy, was created a finite time ago and that the universe has not always existed as was always believed by atheists/materialists.
“The Bible is frequently dismissed as being anti-scientific because it makes no predictions. Oh no, that is incorrect. It makes a brilliant prediction. For centuries it has been saying there was a beginning. And if scientists had taken that a bit more seriously they might have discovered evidence for a beginning a lot earlier than they did.” John Lennox The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’
Moreover, not only did the Bible correctly predict the beginning of the entire material universe and therefore falsify materialism, but also, among all the 'holy' books of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the entire universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)
The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y
A few more notes on the veracity of the Bible:
Joseph Holden - Archaeology and the Bible: What Stones Tell Us About the Reliability of Scripture - video http://vimeo.com/24514152 Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven? Excerpt: Many archaeologists, Bible scholars and historians continue to conclude from the evidence that the Exodus did indeed occur, among them the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks (Ha'aretz Magazine, Nov. 5, 1999). "In Extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New testaments - corroborating key points of the stories of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus." Jeffery Sheler - 'Is The Bible True', U.S. News and World Report, Oct. 25th, 1999, pg.52
Here is a gem of a quote from a Bible skeptic who thought it unfair to use the Bible as a guide in archeology since,,,::
‘he knew immediately that, proceeding in this way (using the Bible as a guide), “she would certainly find that building” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialism-vs-science-in-archaeology-and-the-difference-it-makes/
LOL, no bias there huh? :)
Isaiah 53 and the Dead Sea Scrolls - verified prophecy before the birth of Christ http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls-2.htm Outside the Bible (external) historical evidence for Jesus is listed on the following site: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/on-a-case-study-of-the-willful-closed-mindedness-produced-by-the-selective-hyperskepticism-of-the-new-atheist-mindset/
And my favorite outside evidence for the veracity of the Holy Bible, since it gives actual empirical evidence for Jesus Christ defeating death, is this
Shroud Of Turin - Photographic Negative - 3D Hologram - The Lamb - video http://www.tunesbaby.com/watch/?x=5664213 Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 Test Proven False – - Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford - video (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE
Verse and Music:
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. "Alive" - By Natalie Grant - With Lyrics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFpgzjRD44
bornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

as to Popperian at 77
Apparently, you do not understand the Many Worlds Interpretation. Each instance of what we consider a classical universe is an emergent property of the a greater scope of reality known as the multiverse, which represent histories in which each version of the cat is alive, while others are dead or never born.
Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is falsified. MWI 'removes the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet':
Quantum mechanics Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: per wikipedia
Yet, contrary to the MWI, the following experiment demonstrated that the non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, collapse of a single particles wave function is real:
Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' - March 24, 2015 Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle. ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle's wave function.,, According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,, ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, "Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle," says Professor Wiseman. "Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points. "However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices." "Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong." http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html
i.e. MWI is dependent on the wave function being merely an abstract description of reality. In fact as stated previously, the MWI gets rid of the axiom of wave function collapse altogether and gives primary consideration to the particle. IMHO, MWI truly exposes materialism in all its full blown absurdity in doing so. The particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone tries to observe a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes. In other words, the MWI is basically saying that, instead of God, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to. To say MWI is an idiotic conjecture would be an insult to idiots. Here are a few more notes falsifying the MWI:
The inevitable nonlinearity of quantum gravity falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics - T. P. Singh - 2007 Excerpt:,,, This nonlinearity is responsible for a dynamically induced collapse of the wave-function, during a quantum measurement, and it hence falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We illustrate this conclusion using a mathematical model based on a generalized Doebner-Goldin equation. The non-Hermitian part of the Hamiltonian in this norm-preserving, nonlinear, Schrodinger equation dominates during a quantum measurement, and leads to a breakdown of linear superposition. http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2357 Empty waves, many worlds, parallel lives, and nonlocal decision at detection - Antoine Suarez - 2012 Abstract: I discuss an experiment demonstrating nonlocality and conservation of energy under the assumption that the decision of the outcome happens at detection. The experiment does not require Bell's inequalities and is loophole-free. I further argue that the local hidden variables assumed in Bell's theorem involve de Broglie's "empty waves", and therefore "many worlds" achieves to reconcile locality with the violation of Bell's inequalities. Accordingly, the discussed experiment may be the first loophole-free demonstration of nonlocality. http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1732v1 Nonlocality and free will vs. many-worlds and determinism: The material world emerges from outside space-time - Antoine Suarez - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=q-YULI2WfBs#t=2469s
Besides the empirical falsifications of the MWI listed, the problems with MWI interpretation are profound and deep. Here is, in my view, a excellent mini-overview of the many profound problems with the Many Worlds Interpretation:
The Parallel Universes of David Deutsch (As argued for in Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality) - A Critque by Henry R. Sturman Excerpt: 1. The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch's argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption. 2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it. 3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments. 4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns. 5. Deutsch's argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man. http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html
In the following excellent video is a bit deeper look at the many irreconcilable fallacies inherent within the Many Worlds Interpretation:
A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation - (Inspiring Philosophy - 2014) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g
David Deutsch's claim that Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation is dealt with here
Is Shor's algorithm a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation? Excerpt: David Deutsch is very fond of pointing out Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation. As he often asked, where else did all the exponentially many combinations happen? Are there any other alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which can explain Shor’s algorithm, and the Deutsch-Jozsa and Simon’s algorithm? ,,, this argument is totally wrong for a simple reason: the real Universe - our Universe - is a quantum system, not a classical system. So it is normal for quantum systems in a single Universe to behave just like the quantum computer running Shor's algorithm. On the contrary, if we only use the classical computers, we exponentially slow down the computer relatively to what it could do. In this sense, Deutsch's "argument" shows that the many-worlds interpretation is just another psychological aid for the people who can't resist to incorrectly think about our world as being a classical world of a sort.,,, There is one more lethal conceptual problem with the “many worlds” explanation of the Shor’s algorithm’s speed: the whole quantum computer’s calculation has to proceed in a completely coherent way and you’re not allowed to imagine that the world splits into “many worlds” as long as things are coherent i.e. before the qubits are measured. Only when the measurement is completed – e.g. at the end of the Shor’s algorithm calculation – you’re allowed to imagine that the worlds split. But it’s too late because by that moment, the whole calculation has already been done in a single (quantum) world, without any help from the parallel worlds. (Many more excellent answers are on the site) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10062/is-shors-algorithm-a-demonstration-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation
Deutsch also claimed that the ‘particle interfering with itself’ is another proof for many worlds, but the notion that particles interfere with themselves in the double slit was proven to be wrong by Henry Stapp decades ago when he was just a Jr. in college:
A Conversation with Henry Stapp, Ryan Cochrane – March 2014 Excerpt: As a junior in college, at the University of Michigan, (around 1950), I carried out, during Easter vacation a double-slit experiment where the photons were, on average, 1 km apart, and verified that effect was not due (to) different photons interfering with one another. Henry Stapp - Physicist http://social-epistemology.com/2014/03/22/a-conversation-with-henry-stapp-ryan-cochrane/
If anyone is interested in how Dr. Stapp accomplished the preceding experiment, this was his reponse to my e-mail to him asking him how he did it,
The experiment was meant only to inform myself, and there was never any thought of publication, although I saved for many years the glass slides with the two photographic images, one below the other, of the two double-slit patterns. The U of M optics lab featured a double slit experiment. My modified version was not very ingenious: the lab had some calibrated color filters. I merely placed a stack of filters between the light source and the rest of the experiment, so that, using the stated absorption coefficients of the filters, the light was attenuated to an intensity that amounted to an average distance of 1km between photons, whose coherence length was supposed to be about a meter. The run lasted ten days. The two interference patterns, one just above the other, were, to my eye, indistinguishable. The "crazy" quantum mechanical prediction was apparently correct! Something very, very interesting was afoot. - Henry Stapp - Physicist
Of related interest to that double slit falsification of the many world’s interpretation, (i.e. falsification of a 'particle interfering with itself'), is this following double slit experiment which found, completely contrary to materialistic thought, consciousness to be integral to the double slit experiment:
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments - Radin - 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6•10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf
bornagain77_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Popperian @ 77: Thanks for that correction.daveS_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

@Popperian Theories in science are stated in general form. So creationism stated generally merely describes the mechanism of creation, irrespective of who created what and when. The mechanism of creation is choosing. Creationism divides into 2 components the creator category, which does the choosing, and the creation category, which is chosen. All questions about what is in the creator category are neccessarily subjective. This is simply how all subjectivity works. That the existence of God is a matter of faith, meaning that the conclusion God exists, is equally valid to saying God does not exist, is the same rule by which it is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is valid to say the painting is ugly. So the creator category is never going to be any part of science. But still we can acknowledge the facts about how things are chosen, without referencing who made the decisions turn out the way they did. And how organisms are chosen, intelligent design theory says they are chosen as a whole, with a reasoned and informed decision as to their functioning. What such a decision actually looks like, is that first the possible adult organisms are in the future, anticipated from the present. And of course, there may also be "rubbish" configurations in the future. But immediately you can see the efficiency of how this logic works. Rubbish configurations simply do not have a future. So they simply do not show as options to choose from. Like "death" is not really a thing in itself, it is merely the absence of life. See how straightforward intelligent design theory is? And if you weren't such an evil person, you would theorize along these lines, which lines of enquiry are immediately productive, in providing good hypothesis, like the DNA worlds theory.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply