Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: For Darwinism, Pregnancy Is the “Mother of all Chicken-and-Egg Problems”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

David Klinghoffer writes:

Here’s a really devilish problem to pose to your favorite friend, teacher, or relative who’s a Darwinist true believer. As Your Designed Body co-author Steve Laufmann observes, the relationship between an embryo and its mother is a relationship between unequals. The embryo’s systems are not yet complete so it depends on its mother for its life. This entails communication between the entities. 

But as Laufmann asks, how could such a thing as pregnancy evolve gradually, without guidance or foresight, “when you have to have it in order to have a next generation. Nobody has ever addressed a problem like that.” No, they haven’t, at least not persuasively, which is why Laufmann calls it the “mother of all chicken-and-egg problems.” Darwinian evolution has many of those, as it takes an engineer like Steve Laufmann, or a physician like his co-author Howard Glicksman, to fully recognize. Evolutionary biologists tend to silently glide over such issues, which clearly point to intelligent design. Either that, or they are satisfied by vague speculations. Watch:

Evolution News

I’ve just ordered a copy of Your Designed Body and I look forward to reading it. Perceiving that the human body (or an animal’s body) is a designed system helps keep the wonder of life front and center. The reductionism approach, while useful for gaining knowledge of the biological details, carries the risk of losing sight of the big picture. Gandalf alludes to this in an argument against Saruman, “And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” [J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston: 1994), p. 252).

Comments
there is one force in the universe that can explain “emergence”, in all the relevant cases, namely (functional specified) information.
How does information explain the properties of water which is the best example of emergence I can think of?jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
KF @163 Your reply to PM1 is very educational. Key in your response, as I understand it, is that there is one force in the universe that can explain “emergence”, in all the relevant cases, namely (functional specified) information. This ties in nicely with Paul Davis who confronted with the question “what is emergence?”, talks about one thing only, namely information — video. Surely, information explains why certain systems do what they do, and takes away the need to invoke the incoherent concept of “emergence.” It seems to me that PM1 forgets about the component information when he lists the parts of a system. Note that he does not once mention information.Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Emergence is certainly present in molecule formation. The best example is water. Is emergence present in any other process? If so what are they and are they reproducible? That would be a good start in justifying the process as relevant. Otherwise it is just wishful speculation.jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
It is only ludicrous if theee is indeed a mechanism. I don’t see anything close to one on following your link.
There is no mechanism due to the laws of physics. That is what ID is about and you know it. So the tools of science will not explain how it happened. It was essentially a one time construction process. The anti-ID people from 13 years ago were smarter than you and understood it could happen in a laboratory setting. They wouldn’t make the silly comments that you do They were knowledgeable of synthetic biology and its efforts. So pick one process and assume it worked. Even Richard Dawkins understood that. The rest of your comment is nonsense including the boast that you could explain Evolution in a couple of sentences. Remember niches don’t get it done so to invoke them are just more non sequitur’s. Humans are a perfect example of niches not producing any meaningful change where it was needed.jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
AF, evolution by design, based on built in capabilities so that creatures with relevant body plans can adapt to current and changing biophysical environments; environments and ecosystems too require design, up to levels involving setting up planets, solar system and onwards to cosmological frameworks; nearby supernovas on a fairly regular basis likely would be lethal. At basic level, Tomcods adapted to otherwise toxic waters, Europeans to drinking milk in adulthood, and we have circumpolar species complexes. Thus, at minimum, a certain degree of front loading. The problem is, adaptation mechanisms have been force fitted to grand macro narratives under ideological straightjackets as Lewontin and others long since exposed. And in case you missed the point on evolution by design, this is related to technological evolution principles as identified by the TRIZ practitioners. All of this has been pointed out here many times for years, just studiously ignored. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
I mean, I can if necessary, give an abbreviated explanation for biological evolution. It takes a couple of sentences. Why is everyone so coy about how "Intelligent Design" works?Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
to Also the silliness of saying there is no mechanism for design is ludicrous.
It is only ludicrous if theee is indeed a mechanism. I don't see anything close to one on following your link.Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
PM1, a few comments:
I am often puzzled at the notion of “levels of reality”. (Is reality structured like a layer cake?) …
You’d better make up your mind on this matter, because strong emergence is all about the claim that higher-order properties emerge from lower-order interactions (yet cannot be explained by them) and next proceed to ‘reach down’, so to speak, in effect constituting new laws. Either our thoughts are produced bottom-up by particles in the brain, or by a "person" who is able to reach down, so to speak.
The emergence of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, but that doesn’t mean that it is predictable from those laws.
So we have some system and the laws. And all is good, since everything acts in accord with laws. All is predictable and understandable. .... But. Wait. What?? Suddenly something emerges which is totally unexpected. **POOF** Suddenly all sorts of things occur which are principally unpredictable, principally unexplainable from known laws. And the system starts to behave in a completely unexplainable unexpected way. And now you tell me that such somehow does not violate the laws? The whole concept of strong emergence is either nonsense, or we live in an unpredictable unlawful universe.Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
News to me. Where can I find such an explanation.
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-sci-news-moths-produce-ultrasonic-defensive-sounds-to-fend-off-bat-predators/#comment-762546 There was a long discussion there and you were participating. Also the silliness of saying there is no mechanism for design is ludicrous. Here is a comment from about 13 years ago.
Yes, I make sarcastic remarks because absurdity deserves it. If I hear one more person wanting to know what FSCI is, I will scream. I explained it to my niece in 4th grade and she understood it and thought it was neat. But she is really a bright kid. Someone actually wants the laboratory techniques used 3.8 billion years ago. You talk about bizarre. I say a thousand as hyperbole and Mark in all seriousness says there is probably only a dozen. Mark wants the actual technique used a few billion years ago. Mark, I got word from the designer a few weeks ago and he said the original lab and blue prints were subducted under what was to become the African plate 3.4 billion years ago but by then they were mostly rubble anyway. The original cells were relatively simple but still very complex. Subsequent plants/labs went the same way and unfortunately all holograph videos of it are now in hyper space and haven’t been looked at for at least 3 million years. So to answer one of your questions, no further work has been done for quite awhile and the designer expects future work to be done by the latest design itself. The designer travels via hyper space between his home and our area of the universe when it is necessary. The designer said the techniques used were much more sophisticated than anything dreamed of by current synthetic biologist crowd but in a couple million years they may get up to speed and understand how it was actually done. The designer said it is actually a lot more difficult than people think especially since this was a new technique and he had to invent the DNA/RNA/protein process from scratch but amazingly they had the right chemical properties. His comment was “Thank God for that” or else he doesn’t think he wouldn’t have been able to do it. It took him about 200,000 of our years just experimenting with amino acid combinations to get usable proteins. He said it will be easier for current scientists since they will have a template to work off. Adel, if you make a negative comment or exhibit a negative attitude then expect the essence of your negative comment to be dealt with in some way. I would not let any of my children make a comment such as yours without being sent to their room. I could think of hundreds of ways for you to have made a cordial comment inquiring what I think on the matter. But why did you choose the way you did which revealed a lot of things. (By the way I am quite clear on what I think and it is all over this blog.) But thank you any way for your comments. Your comments and Mark Frank’s comment and those by others here help us immensely. We really appreciate how easy you guys make our job convincing others about the logic and facts behind our position.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-you-be-the-judge/#comment-305339 You were exposed to the above comment since it was repeated on a thread in response to a comment you made and that you immediately afterwards made a comment. By the way the title of the thread from 2009 was "Complex Specified Information? You Be The Judge." https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-big-think-can-we-predict-evolution/#comment-764277 So let's stuff the "news to me" nonsense.jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
SG, we can and often do reliably infer to design on sign when we have noconvincing idea of how they did the job, e.g. building stonehenge or the pyramids of Egypt. As it is you know that after this talk point was raised endlessly, I put up again an elaboration of molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter. Not to say this is how but this is one way it could be done. That such is on the table, backed by what Venter et al have already done but such made no difference to the talking point simply highlights that we see objection for the sake of road blocking rhetoric, not serious engagement. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
PM1, You raised points in a thread I was not monitoring, I clip from your linked and will comment on relevant point, in numbered steps of thought: PM1, thought thread, 49: >>The root idea of emergence is “the whole is different from the sum of its parts”: specifically, the whole has causal powers that are distinct from the causal powers that belong to each of its parts, taken individually.>> 1: Note, you are speaking here about wholes, parts and ordering or organisation, which are different. 2: Order is often a result of built in forces such as those that form NaCl crystals, by contrast with organisation; which expresses an invisible component, functional, configuring information that on observation traces to design once complexity is above 500 - 1,000 bits with essentially certain reliability. 3: The aspect of the system's behaviour that comes from interaction arises through the order and/or organisation (and can also come from disordering forces e.g. melting a crystal or breaking down of components deranging function). 4: The whole-parts differences do not arise by poof magic, they come from interaction, order, organisation (and disorganisation). 5: For some systems stochastic behaviour is also material, e.g. how statistical micro behaviour gives rise to macro level thermodynamic properties such as temperature or pressure, or the micro-macro relationships of socio-cultural and economic systems. 6: Going beyond systems, these extend also to networks, now, most famously, the Internet. 7: So, the holistic aspects come from somewhere, and that tends to be in key part, design. 8: For instance, economies are always planned, the issue is the information and control choking of central planning systems vs the relatively superior performance of markets based on households and firms acting at micro level. Economies are particularly prone to disordering shocks. 9: So, your premise fails to escape the Platonic-Mododian triad: mechanical necessity, chance, intelligence acting by art. 10: We may extend to, material causal factors contribute substances and components, actuators are directly effective factors, purposes are targets of designers, and designers are initiating causes. Of course in some cases, we fall short of the full four, e.g. accidents happen. And the butterfly effect causes sharply cumulative divergence in a phase space. I will just mention quantum phenomena, superposition, wave particle duality and entanglement etc. Remember, colour and fire are quantum effects and magnetism a relativistic effect. 11: So, we have not injected a novel, unaccounted for causal capacity, no we are not getting something from nothing, non being. >>I think that this is not only true, but it is necessarily true given a correct understanding of causality itself. Causation is a relation: a causal power is the realization of a difference between things. (As a trivial example: oxygen causes iron to rust because of the relational difference between the orbitals in the atoms, such that iron tends to become iron oxide in the presence of oxygen.)>> 12: Already accounted for. >>Once we see that causation is always about a relational difference, then it becomes rather easy to see that different kinds of organization will bring forth different causal powers. These causal powers will include the power to bring forth new kinds of organization.>> 13: Organisation, as the O in FSCO/I reminds, is informational, and you do not get complex functionally specific information from nothing, it is reliably the product of intelligence, once we are beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. >>What’s needed to naturalize teleology is to combine this generic account of emergence with a specific idea about the levels of complexity that emergence can bring about.>> 13: Question begged, see above on the sources of system behaviour. No, we do not get something from nothing. >>There are, I think, at least three distinct levels: (1) basic thermodynamic systems, which tend to maximize entropy over time unless additional energy is put into the system; >> 14: A common error, as was noted earlier. Injection of unordered, uncoupled energy naturally INCREASES disorder as more energy is available to feed into random thermal motion, enable going over [or through -- tunnelling] potential barriers etc. 15: It is organised, information rich forced ordered motion -- work under a plan -- that increases organisation once we go beyond a modest threshold of complexity as was noted. >>(2) self-organized far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems, >> 16: Convection cells and the like come about by ordering forces in the structure of a system, e.g. hurricanes come through Coriolis forces in the context of convection over sea surface waters at or above 80 degrees F. 17: Self ordered systems do not show the sort of complex, information rich ordering we find in cells etc, not on our observation. A question is being begged and empirical evidence is being shunted aside. >>which tend to resist entropy over time if the system is set up with background parameters;>> 18: Ordered systems trace to boundary conditions, circumstances and ordering energy flows, they are nothing like homeostasis in the living cell, which is a metabolising automaton, with protective encapsulation, smart gating and a built in von Neumann kinematic self replicator. 19: In short galloping hypotheses errors. >> (3) teleological systems, which tend to resist entropy over time by virtue of generating their own parameters.>> 20: Organisation and organised work, information rich. >>We know that systems of class (2) can emerge from systems of class (1). (Ilya Prigogine got the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry for demonstrating this.)>> 21: He was also very aware of the limitations of his work, much along the lines noted. >> So the $64,000 question is, can systems of class (3) emerge from systems of class (2)?>> 22: No, the OBSERVATIONAL, EMPIRICAL challenge is to demonstrate this, and frankly that is closely related to the challenge conventional thermodynamicists pose to perpetuum mobile advocates: show us a case. >> Moreover, it (the emergent phenomenon) cannot violate known laws of nature.>> 23: Precisely. >>Right, but notice that “cannot violate” is very different from “can be predicted from” or even “are entailed by”.>> 24: See above on what tends to be overlooked about systems. >> The only constraint that the naturalist would insist upon is that no emergent phenomena (teleology, intentionality, normativity) can violate the laws of fundamental physics — no violation of the laws of quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, or general relativity. (Or any successor theory to any or all of those.)>> 25: Organising, configuring work for complex systems, from nothing in effect, is a violation of thermodynamics, posing on order and claiming emergence fails to account for the information and linked work to configure. >>That’s perfectly consistent with also insisting that the laws of fundamental physics do not allow us to predict the behavior of emergent phenomena.>> 26: Creativity is often surprising and transcends the expected, but comes from intelligence. >> I would argue that known laws of physics preclude the natural development of the systemic complexity of atoms that we find in even the simplest living organism.>> 27: Because of the information gap to get to the required organisation. >>If self-organizing far-from-equilibrium systems can emerge spontaneously from equilibrium thermodynamics (and we know that they can), why can’t teleological systems emerge spontaneously from self-organizing far-from-equilibrium systems?>> 28: The information and organising work gaps again. >>As I see it, here’s the fundamental issue at contention: is the difference between a teleological system and a self-organizing but non-teleological system the same kind of difference as the difference between a self-organizing non-teleological system and a system that tends towards equilibrium?>> 29: Information and organising work gap again. >>I might be wrong in thinking that the answer to that question is “yes”. If I’m wrong, then that would strengthen the case for ID. But I don’t think it’s irrational to think that the answer is “yes”, which means that naturalism is not an irrational position to hold.>> 30: The key sidestepped issue is, again, the information and organising work gap. 31: That can only be surmounted by empirical, observed demonstration, not imposed ideological speculation coming from a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
KF: AF, we do not need to reason from agent to design, that is cart before horse reasoning in this context.
Fair enough.
We reason from reliable sign to design as process then inquire as to candidate.
You are completely ignoring the most important step. How did the candidate implement its design (ie, hypotheses)?Where is the forensic evidence for the implementation process (ie, testing and evidence). Where is the refining of the hypotheses following observations and testing? Evolutionary theory demonstrates these in abundance. ID, not so much (ie, not at all).Sir Giles
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
@158
does PM1’s iron oxide, or any other conglomerate PM1 puts forward, have “emergent” causal powers which cannot be given a satisfactory reductive account, even in principal? IOW is the “whole” (iron oxide) really somehow more than the sum of its parts?
This is a good question. Reflecting on it, it's now clear to me that iron oxide would be at best an example of "weak emergence." It demonstrates the emergence of new causal powers, but (arguably) explainable in terms of the constituents: we can explain why oxygen does what it does to iron in terms of the structure of the electron orbitals in oxygen atoms and iron atoms. I am somewhat less happy with "reducible even in principle" (or Chalmers's "deducible in principle") because "reductive in principle" just seems to me "it's possible that someone might be able to carry out the reduction, even though no one actually has". That seems terribly vague to me. In some contexts, "in principle" is just writing a promissory note.
. Strong emergence proposes the “emergence” (*poof*) of new laws with downward causation. How can they operate without influencing anything, without making a difference, without violating known laws of nature?
I am often puzzled at the notion of "levels of reality". (Is reality structured like a layer cake?) I prefer to think of strong emergence as diachronic (happening over time) rather than synchronic (obtaining at the same moment in time). The emergence of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, but that doesn't mean that it is predictable from those laws. The question is, would knowing the laws of thermodynamics and the molecular properties of water allow one to predict the hexagonal structure of Benard cells? Maybe, but it's hard for me to see how. Would knowing the laws that govern dissipative systems allow one to predict emergence of teleological systems? Again, maybe, but I don't see how. I suspect that Davies is setting up a false dichotomy between either (1) "a satisfactory reductive account, even in principle" or (2) "novel global forces." I agree with Davies in rejecting (2): emergence does not involve positing new fundamental forces beyond those of physics. But rejecting (2) does not entail (1), which seems to be what you think his view is. But I'll know more once I've read the paper in its entirety. I've started giving this paper a quick glance, and one think that it makes clear is that his concern is whether there's need for strong emergence within physics. He isn't addressing the question that I'm interested in, which is whether biology is reducible to physics (even "in principle") or if biology is strongly emergent with regard to physics. However, in the same volume that Davies's paper appeared (The Re-emergence of Emergence), there's a paper by Terrence Deacon, which does address this issue. Deacon's article doesn't appear to be free online, but there's a decent summary of it here.PyrrhoManiac1
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
It is fairly easy to understand why agent causation, i.e. free-will, (and/or consciousness), will NEVER be explained as being an emergent property of particles, (as some atheistic naturalists, apparently, desperately want to believe/imagine). Specifically, in quantum mechanics it is now shown that material particles themselves do not even exist until 'observers' choose, via their free will, what to measure. As the late Steven Weinberg, (who was an atheist), stated in the following article, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
And as the newly minted Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, "what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
In fact, Anton Zeilinger, in 2018, was instrumental, (via using distant quasars), in closing the last remaining, and 'creepy', 'freedom of choice' loophole,,,
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Moreover, via Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment with atoms, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice with atoms) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. “Quantum physics predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, a PhD student who worked on the experiment.,,, http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
And via experimental realization of Leggett’s inequality we find, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
So thus in conclusion, since it is now proven that material particles do not even exist until after we choose how we wish to observe and/or measure them, well then so much for your Atheistic desire that agent causation, and/or free will, be explained as some 'magical' emergent property of particles. It just ain't gonna happen that way no matter how much some atheists may wish, and/or imagine, it to happen that way. i.e. Baron Munchausen just ain't never gonna pull himself out of the swamp by his own pigtail, no matter how much he may try. also see
Nov. 2022 - Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/time/at-big-think-how-reality-is-shaped-by-the-speed-of-light/#comment-769891
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
AF, we do not need to reason from agent to design, that is cart before horse reasoning in this context. We reason from reliable sign to design as process then inquire as to candidate. Evidence of arson first before inferring arson then seeking suspects. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
PM1's emergentism
PM1: I can understand why it might seem like ‘magic’. Let me explain why I disagree. The root idea of emergence is “the whole is different from the sum of its parts”: specifically, the whole has causal powers that are distinct from the causal powers that belong to each of its parts, taken individually.
This notion is at odds with …
…. ontological reductionism: the assertion that the whole really is, in the final analysis, nothing but the sum of the parts, and that the formulation of concepts, theories, and experimental procedures in terms of higher-level concepts is merely a convenience. A minority of scientists—emergentists—challenge this account of nature. [Paul Davies]
- - -
PM1: I think that this is not only true, but it is necessarily true given a correct understanding of causality itself. Causation is a relation: a causal power is the realization of a difference between things. (As a trivial example: oxygen causes iron to rust because of the relational difference between the orbitals in the atoms, such that iron tends to become iron oxide in the presence of oxygen.) Once we see that causation is always about a relational difference, then it becomes rather easy to see that different kinds of organization will bring forth different causal powers. These causal powers will include the power to bring forth new kinds of organization.
Setting aside the matter if “relational difference” is a helpful concept, the question before us is: does PM1’s iron oxide, or any other conglomerate PM1 puts forward, have “emergent” causal powers which cannot be given a satisfactory reductive account, even in principal? IOW is the "whole" (iron oxide) really somehow more than the sum of its parts?
P.Davies: So we are confronted with the key question: is it ever the case that an emergent phenomenon cannot be given a satisfactory reductive account, even in principle? And if the answer is yes, then we come to the next key question: in what way, precisely, does the value-added emergent ‘law’ or ‘behavior’ affect the system? A survey of the literature shows a lot of flabby, vague, qualitative statements about higher-level descriptions and influences springing into play at thresholds of complexity, without one ever being told specifically how these emergent laws affect the individual particle ‘on the ground’ – the humble foot soldier of physics – in a manner that involves a fundamentally new force or law. Thus we are told that in the Benard instability, where fluids spontaneously form convection cells, the molecules organize themselves into an elaborate and orderly pattern of flow, which may extend over macroscopic dimensions, even though individual molecules merely push and pull on their near neighbours (see, for example, Coveney & Highfield, 1995). [also Bishop, 2008] This carries the hint that there is a sort global choreographer, an emergent demon, marshalling the molecules into a coherent, cooperative dance, the better to fulfill the global project of convective flow. Naturally this is absurd. The onset of convection certainly represents novel emergent behaviour, but the normal inter-molecular forces are not in competition with, or over-ridden by, novel global forces. The global system ‘harnesses’ the local forces, but at no stage is there a need for an extra type of force to act on an individual molecule to make it comply with a ‘convective master plan.’ [Paul Davies]
According to Davies, the answer is a resounding: “No.”
PM1: Moreover, it (the emergent phenomenon) cannot violate known laws of nature. Right, but notice that “cannot violate” is very different from “can be predicted from” or even “are entailed by”.
This is an incoherent notion. Strong emergence proposes the “emergence” (*poof*) of new laws with downward causation. How can they operate without influencing anything, without making a difference, without violating known laws of nature? You cannot have your cake and eat it: you cannot have new laws that operate from above without making a difference.Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Jerry asserts:
Explained several times.
News to me. Where can I find such an explanation.Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
KF: To me
1: there was a once future option [drinking water], 2: actualised as the present through my act of choice and 3: this chosen and carried out act is now the recent past.
So, god is omniscient and all knowing because he knows that you will, at some time in the future, drink water? By that logic I am as omniscient and all knowing as god.Sir Giles
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Yes indeed, except for a couple of points: 1) No-one who is an ID proponent can offer a mechanism or agent for the executor of “design”. Nor can anyone tell us how, when, where the “Designer” executes “design”. 2). Nobody can explain what FSCO/I is, let alone quantify it.
Why do you make up such nonsense? Explained several times. Is this the best that you can do? Are you here to promote ID by being stupid in your objections to it?jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
as to: "at no stage is there a need for an extra type of force to act on an individual molecule to make it comply with a ‘convective master plan.’ PM1: "I don’t see how quoting snippets of Davies is supposed to settle the question." In other news, PM1 also sees no problem with Baron Munchausen puling himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail
pull oneself up by one's bootstraps,,, Widely attributed since at least 1901 to The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen, (1781) by Rudolf Erich Raspe, where the eponymous Baron pulls himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail, though not by his bootstraps. The Adventures is primarily a collection of centuries-old tall tales, however, and using bootstraps may have arisen as a variant on the same theme. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pull_oneself_up_by_one%27s_bootstraps#Alternative_forms
bornagain77
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
For sure, design is the only empirically warranted source for FSCO/I.
Yes indeed, except for a couple of points: 1) No-one who is an ID proponent can offer a mechanism or agent for the executor of "design". Nor can anyone tell us how, when, where the "Designer" executes "design". 2). Nobody can explain what FSCO/I is, let alone quantify it. Apart from 1 and 2 above, it's all fine. ;) Though the Creator of this Universe, working through physical effects, using the niche environment as mechanism, could be the culprit, I guess.Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
@151 I don't see how quoting snippets of Davies is supposed to settle the question. For all I know, Davies could be setting up and knocking down a strawman view of strong emergence in order to defend a better way of thinking about it.PyrrhoManiac1
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
PM1 on strong emergence:
But I don’t think this is “magic”: I think it follows straightforwardly from the correct view about the nature of causation itself.
Paul Davies on an out-of-nowhere "emergent demon":
This carries the hint that there is a sort global choreographer, an emergent demon, marshalling the molecules into a coherent, cooperative dance, the better to fulfill the global project of convective flow. Naturally this is absurd. ... The global system ‘harnesses’ the local forces, but at no stage is there a need for an extra type of force to act on an individual molecule to make it comply with a ‘convective master plan.
Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Emergence = It just does Not science. Anti-Science. Andrewasauber
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
@148
PM1, you have no adequate causal mechanism. If you disagree, simply link your argument. KF
herePyrrhoManiac1
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
PM1, you have no adequate causal mechanism. If you disagree, simply link your argument. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
AF, many questions. The plausible model on the table is a molecular nanotech model and maybe retroviruses as a key tool. The issue as you know is there are strong signs of design in life from OoL up. What we do not yet or even may never know -- Godel haunts me -- should not block us from what we can and do know or should acknowledge. For sure, design is the only empirically warranted source for FSCO/I. The ideological imposition of patently inadequate mechanisms is now leading to poof magic stories by those who claim they lock out the supernatural. But then, any sufficiently advanced technology . . . KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
@143
I realize that I am somewhat off-topic here, but PM1 keeps bringing up strong emergence as if it provides a coherent naturalistic explanation for all things.
I would put it rather as follows: the only version of naturalism that is philosophically and scientifically acceptable would be a version that accommodates something like strong emergence. But I would need to read Chalmers carefully before committing myself to his language. At present, I'm only willing to say that I am inclined towards the view that life is strongly emergent with regard to inanimate nature. But I don't think this is "magic": I think it follows straightforwardly from the correct view about the nature of causation itself. I've addressed that a few times in UD and don't feel particularly inclined to repeat a point that's already been ignored more than once.PyrrhoManiac1
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
Origenes, some things need to be answered as to what is different from poof, magic, just so stories. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
AF, what is so difficult to understand about designing creatures in two complementary sexes, opening up many possibilities and advantages?
Not difficult to imagine, perhaps. But how, when, and by what mechanism? And by whom or what? ID proponents don't begin to attempt to answer such questions.Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply