Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: Scientists are unraveling the mystery of the arrow of time

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The flow of time from the past to the future is a central feature of how we experience the world. But precisely how this phenomenon, known as the arrow of time, arises from the microscopic interactions among particles and cells is a mystery—one that researchers at the CUNY Graduate Center Initiative for the Theoretical Sciences (ITS) are helping to unravel with the publication of a new paper in the journal Physical Review Letters. The findings could have important implications in a variety of disciplines, including physics, neuroscience, and biology.

arrow of time
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Fundamentally, the arrow of time arises from the second law of thermodynamics: the principle that microscopic arrangements of physical systems tend to increase in randomness, moving from order to disorder. The more disordered a system becomes, the more difficult it is for it to find its way back to an ordered state, and the stronger the arrow of time. In short, the universe’s tendency toward disorder is the fundamental reason why we experience time flowing in one direction.

These researchers have, with their acknowledgment of the principle of thermodynamics (“microscopic arrangements of physical systems tend to increase in randomness, moving from order to disorder”), completely undercut any theory suggesting that natural processes can generate the complex, functional biomolecules required for life.

“The two questions our team had were, if we looked at a particular system, would we be able to quantify the strength of its arrow of time, and would we be able to sort out how it emerges from the micro scale, where cells and neurons interact, to the whole system?” said Christopher Lynn, the paper’s first author and a postdoctoral fellow with the ITS program. “Our findings provide the first step toward understanding how the arrow of time that we experience in daily life emerges from these more microscopic details.”

To begin answering these questions, the researchers explored how the arrow of time could be decomposed by observing specific parts of a system and the interactions between them. The parts, for example, could be the neurons that function within a retina. Looking at a single moment, they showed that the arrow of time can be broken down into different pieces: those produced by parts working individually, in pairs, in triplets or in more complicated configurations

Armed with this way of decomposing the arrow of time, the researchers analyzed existing experiments on the response of neurons in a salamander retina to different movies. In one movie a single object moved randomly across the screen while another portrayed the full complexity of scenes found in nature. Across both movies, researchers found that the arrow of time emerged from the simple interactions between pairs of neurons—not large, complicated groups. Surprisingly, the team also observed that the retina showed a stronger arrow of time when watching random motion than a natural scene. Lynn said this latter finding raises questions about how our internal perception of the arrow of time becomes aligned with the external world.

“These results may be of particular interest to neuroscience researchers,” said Lynn. “They could, for example, lead to answers about whether the arrow of time functions differently in brains that are neuroatypical.”

“Chris’ decomposition of local irreversibility—also known as the arrow of time—is an elegant, general framework that may provide a novel perspective for exploring many high-dimensional, nonequilibrium systems,” said David Schwab, a professor of Physics and Biology at the Graduate Center and the study’s principal investigator.

Phys.org
Comments
See the Institute for Quantum Computing. https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/relatd
August 26, 2022
August
08
Aug
26
26
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Relatd: IBM understands quantum mechanics? Does that mean they understand double-slit experiments? That QM works, no one denies. But it's mathematical underpinnings are "axioms," that is, simply postulated. And why are they postulated? Because (1) no one knows exactly what goes on in taking a measurement, and (2) because the axioms help them get the right answers. Who, better than Feynman, would know all of this? And he says that he can safely say that no one understands QM. Manipulate, yes; understand, no.PaV
August 26, 2022
August
08
Aug
26
26
2022
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 38, "Darwinists will simply ignore the empirical evidence as if it is of no consequence." As you rightly point out, this, and other experiments, show Darwinism to be incapable of doing what it claims. However, the wall of promoters will stand firm, resisting all evidence. And like answering machines, will continue with the "evolution is a fact" message. In conclusion, there is no debate here, just constant repetition that has nothing to do with intellectual integrity or honesty. To all reading, that is the description of Propaganda.relatd
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Belfast perhaps it would have been better for me to use the word 'inference' instead of the word conclusion. And the sentence does indeed seem to read better that way, i.e. “the inference to a “soul” follows directly from the findings of quantum biology,…” and also seems to stay within provisional nature of the scientific method. In other words, I hold that an immaterial soul best explains the body of evidence from quantum biology. Whereas again, Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand quantum biology in the first place. As Eugene Wigner himself noted, “while a number of philosophical ideas may be logically consistent with present QM… Materialism is not.” As the old joke goes, 'You can't get there from here". Further notes as to just how antagonistic quantum biology actually is to Darwinian presuppositions, in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
To drive this point home as to how antagonistic this actually is to Darwinian presuppositions, in this follow up 2018 article the author stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
This empirical finding is simply catastrophic for Darwinism. And yet, like a thousand other experiments before it that have falsified Darwinian claims, Darwinists will simply ignore the empirical evidence as if it is of no consequence. i.e. Darwinism, at least how Darwinists treat their theory, is simply unfalsifiable by any empirical observation, and therefore does not even qualify a real empirical science but is best classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
"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
As Denis Noble himself noted in his run in with Darwinists, "“If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble - President of International Union of Physiological Sciences https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
And as Imre Lakatos himself noted, "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific",
Imre Lakatos - Pseudoscience,,, In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he also claimed that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience
Again, Darwinism does not even qualify a real empirical science but is best classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
BA@25 and others “I told you what the empirical evidence consists of,,,, “the conclusion of a “soul” follows directly from the findings of quantum biology,…” A ‘conclusion’ is another word for a ‘deduction’. The conclusion may be right, wrong, or a hundred intermediate shades, but a ‘conclusion’ can never be empirical. evidence. The individual ‘findings’ may have been truly empirical observations, but they may have been ‘deductions’ and ‘conclusions’ themselves.Belfast
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Seversky, you cite a NCSE site. Yet NCSE, Eugenie Scott's old stomping ground, is a notorious Darwinian propaganda mill, But anyways, in the paper you cited from NCSE they list only one real time experimental evidence for the supposed speciation of bacteria. The other citations are just-so conjectures. Specifically, for real time evidence they cited Lenski's work. Yet in my post you were supposedly refuting, I specifically cited a paper that EXPERIMENTALLY refuted Lenski's claim for bacterial speciation. Shoot, Lenski himself has now walked his claim for bacterial speciation back. Here it the research I cited again,
Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. – Minnich – Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416
After that major faux pas on your part which proved my point exactly about you having no real time experimental support, you then have the audacity to claim that the real-time experimental evidence for Darwinian is widely available. That claim is straight up BS and you know it. As your own paper from NCSE makes clear, all Darwinists have is bluff and bluster. They have ZERO real time experimental support for their grandiose claims. You then launch into a paltry, and pathetic, rebuttal of my 14 claims Here is a defense of all 14 of my claims; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit Sev: "Neither of us are professional scientists so our opinions are equally inconsequential. But then no one here is doing empirical science" But alas, I referenced peer reviewed real-time experimental research to refute your Darwinian worldview, and you have no real-time research to reference that can withstand scrutiny, i.e. your Lenski bluff for speciation of bacteria being a prime example. To wit,
"If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Feynman
Sev: "What particular aspect of my worldview do you think has been falsified?" Every bit of it. To quote Colin Patterson, "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?"
The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/colin-patterson-can-you-tell-me-anything-about-evolution-that-is-true/
Sev: "Is your worldview capable of being falsified?" Yes. There is even a 10 million dollar prize for the first person who can falsify Intelligent Design by showing unguided processes creating a code.. (See Perry Marshall's 10 million dollar Origin of Life prize) Sev: "If you want to put the “soul” on an empirical basis you need to construct an operational definition of the phenomenon and suggest the means by which its presence might be detected if it exists. Can you do that? You yourself provided an 'operational definition' of the soul per Merrian Webster, "Merriam-Webster defines “soul” as 1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. 2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe." And I have repeatedly 'suggested' that the presence of the immaterial soul is now detected via advances in quantum biology, (coupled, or course, with quantum non-locality as well as conservation of quantum information). Whereas you, as a Darwinist Materialist, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand quantum biology in the first place.
Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states, ",, Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can't build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn't really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it." At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state: “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”. Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q
bornagain77
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Seversky at 34, LIAR. "Neither of us are professional scientists so our opinions are equally inconsequential." So inconsequential that you post here constantly. Quit lying. Just stop it.relatd
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/30
Sev states, “The problem is that proposing a highly tenuous inference from observed quantum phenomena to such a vague concept is not empirical science. It’s speculation at best.” You simply can’t make this up. Seversky, who has not one speck of real-time empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can transform even a single functional protein into another protein of another function,
Actually, in case you hadn't noticed, the question at issue was whether we could infer the existence of a soul from observed quantum phenomena, not evidence for evolution. Have you found any quantum physicists who endorse that belief?
, much less does Seversky have any evidence of one species of bacteria, via Darwinian processes, transforming into a new species of bacteria, (not to mention higher life forms)
If you Google on "bacteria speciation" you will find a number of papers discussing the topic.
Scant search for the Maker – 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282
From a paper on the NCSE site titled, strangely enough, "Bacterial speciation" :
As British bacteriologist Alan Linton has noted, "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Explore Evolution, p. 104-5
This claim is made to imply once again that natural evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for speciation. As worded, it again misrepresents what evolutionary biology actually claims, and what research has shown. Explore Evolution ignores the hundreds of papers which address the study of speciation in bacteria. The quotation offered is from a book review by a British microbiologist affiliated with the Biblical Creation Society, hardly a credible source. Recent research indicates that speciation in bacteria occurs when otherwise relatively frequent and genome-wide genetic recombination events become more limited.
,,, Seversky, who has not one shred of real-time empirical evidence to support his Darwinian worldview, and whose entire Darwinian worldview is, therefore, based on purely imaginative, and speculative, ‘just-so stories’,,,
The evidence for evolution is widely available in textbooks and websites as has been pointed out many times before. If you want to ignore or dismiss it in favor of your collection of cherry-picked quotes, then that is your choice but it is out there.
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.
Says who?
2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.
Darwin's original theory noted that if artificial selection or selective breeding could produce new varieties then environmental influences should be able to do the same thing over time. He was right.
3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.
Once again, Darwin knew nothing about DNA nor does the theory hold that all species will inevitably evolve into other species. And there is plenty of evidence that genetic mutations can affect morphology.
4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.
Once again, Darwin knew nothing about the genome so had nothing to say about the ratio of beneficial to detrimental mutations. It is now held that the majority of mutations are neutral or nearly-neutral, a smaller number are detrimental and a much smaller number still are beneficial. The neutral mutations are effectively invisible to selection, the detrimental mutations, being detrimental, are filtered out by selection leaving the beneficial mutations to proliferate in the population.
5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).
The nature of fossilization means that the fossil record is going to provide a fragmentary and coarse-grained image at best of the history of life on Earth. Darwin allowed that evolution could proceed at varying rates so the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record could simply be an artefact of its limitations. And what are all these fossils found in the "wrong place"?
7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
Does Axe seriously believe that soft tissue like genes or proteins are going to leave a detectable imprint in the fossil record?
8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”
You keep quoting this claim by Loennig but we've yet to see any examples of what he is claiming. Maybe he's not looking closely enough for advantages to the benefactor species.
9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.
Even Darwin could be prone to the Argument from Incredulity.
10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible.
To rule something impossible you have to be able to exclude all the possible causal chains that could have lead to it. If you don't know what all the possible causal chains are - and we don't in the case of evolution - then we can't declare something to be impossible. And claiming that the chances of a modern cell or protein springing into existence in one go - the tornado-in-a-junkyard argument - is so remote as to be impossible is pointless, since that isn't what evolution claims.
Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!
In case you hadn't noticed, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the ontology of mathematics but it doesn't matter since mathematics has the same utility in biology as it does in physics.
11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.
If our current understanding of how the brain works is correct then we all live within a model of what exists outside us created on the basis of information about that external reality gathered by our senses. It's imperfect and incomplete because our senses only gather a limited amount of information but it's good enough. It's not an illusion, unless you consider a model to be an illusion, but no model is the same as the thing being modeled, it's an abstraction but not a fantasy - at least we hope not.
12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.
So is information material/physical or not? You seem to be claiming it's both. Just what is "information" to you?
13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!
Truth is for philosophers and theologians. The theory of evolution, like all other theories in science, is a provisional explanation of how life diversifies through time and space. It's the best we have so far but there is nothing to prevent it evolving over time or being replaced if something better comes along
14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
We are social and teleological creatures. Our languages most likely developed in the first place to model our teleological behavior. That's why it's so difficult to express ourselves in non-teleological terms.
Tell you what Seversky, show me that you have ounce of intellectual integrity, and honestly admit that your Darwinian worldview is experimentally falsified from multiple different angles of experimental evidence, and then I will admit that you have, at least, the capacity within yourself to comment on whether or not the finding of quantum non-locality within molecular biology supports the reality of the immaterial ‘soul’ or not. Until then, your ‘scientific’ opinions on the subject are worse than useless as far as empirical science is concerned.
Neither of us are professional scientists so our opinions are equally inconsequential. But then no one here is doing empirical science except perhaps JVL trying - unsuccessfully - to get agreement on running test calculations of CSI and FSCO/I. My "worldview" has not been experimentally falsified overall but I'm just as capable of being wrong as the next person. What particular aspect of my worldview do you think has been falsified? Is your worldview capable of being falsified? If you want to put the "soul" on an empirical basis you need to construct an operational definition of the phenomenon and suggest the means by which its presence might be detected if it exists. Can you do that?Seversky
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 30, I think it should be obvious to you that Seversky, and a few others here, are not interested in 'intellectual integrity.' Their job - and that's what it is - is to promote Darwinism like it was one big advertising campaign. They need to confuse the people. Like this: Darwin or ID? They want to make sure people get confused and never choose ID.relatd
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Pav at 31, IBM understands quantum mechanics.relatd
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Relatd: I'll quote Feynman again: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." He won his Nobel Prize for his work on QED, the definitive version of quantum mechanics.PaV
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Sev states, "The problem is that proposing a highly tenuous inference from observed quantum phenomena to such a vague concept is not empirical science. It’s speculation at best." You simply can't make this up. Seversky, who has not one speck of real-time empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can transform even a single functional protein into another protein of another function,
"Enzyme Families -- Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - December 4, 2014 Excerpt: If enzymes can't be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,, Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/12/a_new_paper_fro/ Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme. Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start. This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic. Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/
, much less does Seversky have any evidence of one species of bacteria, via Darwinian processes, transforming into a new species of bacteria, (not to mention higher life forms)
Scant search for the Maker - 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. - Minnich - Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416
,,, Seversky, who has not one shred of real-time empirical evidence to support his Darwinian worldview, and whose entire Darwinian worldview is, therefore, based on purely imaginative, and speculative, 'just-so stories',,,
“… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism – The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
,,, Seversky whose entire Darwinian worldview is based on purely imaginative, and speculative, 'just-so stories', stories which have no real-time empirical support, wants to now tell us what qualifies as empirical science and what does not. Again, you simply can't make this up. Seversky, who simply ignores any and all empirical evidence that falsifies his Darwinian worldview, wouldn't know real empirical science if it bit him on the rear end.
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
Tell you what Seversky, show me that you have ounce of intellectual integrity, and honestly admit that your Darwinian worldview is experimentally falsified from multiple different angles of experimental evidence, and then I will admit that you have, at least, the capacity within yourself to comment on whether or not the finding of quantum non-locality within molecular biology supports the reality of the immaterial 'soul' or not. Until then, your 'scientific' opinions on the subject are worse than useless as far as empirical science is concerned.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
August 25, 2022
August
08
Aug
25
25
2022
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
Merriam-Webster defines "empirical" as:
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data. 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory. 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws.
Physics has been able to observe and measure quantum phenomena to a high degree of precision. That is empirical science. Merriam-Webster defines "soul" as
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. 2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.
This is not the only concept of "soul", either. The problem is that proposing a highly tenuous inference from observed quantum phenomena to such a vague concept is not empirical science. It's speculation at best.Seversky
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Thank you to Hoosfoos and PaV for the links. And as always many thanks to BA77 for his limitless source materials and comments.Blastus
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
R:, FYI I never brought up, nor bought, the claim that souls have weight, nor have I ever held that particular line of evidence to be scientific proof for the soul. Moreover, you still have not shown exactly why my conclusion from quantum biology is 'unscientific'. You seem to holding the erroneous belief that the soul can't 'be measured', and therefore it is unscientific. Yet 'non-local' quantum effects are 'measured' in molecular biology all the time now. For crying out loud, how in blue blazes do you think quantum effects were discovered in molecular biology in the first place if they were not directly observed and/or measured? Unless you can come up with anything solid to show exactly why my claim is unscientific, this is my last comment on the subject to you. I have much better things to do today.bornagain77
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Ba77, The speed of sound is set, with slight variation due to certain factors. The speed of light is set. I can reliably get into an airplane and go wherever I want. Applied science results in things that can be measured and used. Are you familiar with early experiments to discover a soul? A man who was dying was placed, bed and all, on a highly calibrated scale. It was thought that at the moment of death, the scale would record a slight weight loss. This loss would record the weight of the soul. At the moment of death, a very small weight loss was recorded. The scientists involved looked at every possibility for this. In the end, it was determined that the weight loss did not record the soul leaving the body. It recorded his last breath and the associated water vapor leaving the body.relatd
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
R: "What empirical evidence do you have for the soul? What does it consist of?" I told you what the empirical evidence consists of,,,, "the conclusion of a “soul” follows directly from the findings of quantum biology, which are, of course, coupled with previous findings of quantum non-locality and conservation of quantum information." I find it interesting that you jumped up and claimed “Your comment about the soul is not scientific” and yet you are, apparently, unfamiliar with the recent findings of quantum biology, etc.. Your claim that "since souls, like God, cannot be directly studied, it remains only an unverified possibility" simply makes no scientific sense. ALL conclusions in the inductive reasoning of the scientific method are held provisionally and never reach 'full verification', i.e. all conclusions remain 'unverified possibilities', no matter how much empirical evidence can be brought to bear in support of the conclusion. This is true for all theories of science no matter how well established they are. As Einstein himself noted
“The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “Yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.” – Einstein
It is called the principle of falsification, (i.e. Karl Popper) So thus, once again, it is up to you to either explain exactly why my conclusion does not follow from the evidence, and/or provide empirical evidence to the contrary of the empirical evidence in quantum biology that I based my conclusion for a ‘soul’ on. Until then, my conclusion for a ‘soul’ stands unrefuted.bornagain77
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Ba77, Unrefuted. Should be a movie title. What empirical evidence do you have for the soul? What does it consist of? It is spirit according to the Bible. I will continue to point out that it may -it may - not have anything to do with quantum mechanics. It can be compared to saying a description of God can be derived from quantum mechanics. Before the creation of the universe - I Am. God creates from nothing. Speaking from a theology perspective, the connection you are trying to make sounds reasonable, but on the science side, since souls, like God, cannot be directly studied, it remains only an unverified possibility.relatd
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Relatd, you claimed at 13 “Your comment about the soul is not scientific.”,,, I asked you at 14 to explain exactly why is was 'not scientific'. Yet your response at 20 did nothing to explain exactly why my comment about a 'soul' was 'not scientific'. My claim for a 'soul' was most certainly 'scientific'. Specifically, in my using the inductive logic of the scientific method, the conclusion of a "soul" follows directly from the findings of quantum biology, which are, of course, coupled with previous findings of quantum non-locality and conservation of quantum information. Seeing that a conclusion is held provisionally in the inductive reasoning of the scientific method, it is up to you to either explain exactly why my conclusion does not follow from the evidence, and/or provide empirical evidence to the contrary of the empirical evidence in quantum biology that I based my conclusion for a 'soul' on. Until then, my conclusion for a 'soul' stands unrefuted.bornagain77
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
PaV at 21, So we know nothing about quantum mechanics? Based on what? Your say so? IBM has quantum chips and quantum computers, which it is upgrading and increasing storage capacity. https://www.ibm.com/quantumrelatd
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Relatd: Richard Feynman said: "An electron in the sun vibrates and eight minutes later an electron in my retina vibrates." Yes, we're connected to life via quantum mechanics=light. This does nothing to explain quantum mechanics. Observers observe. When human observers observe, they do so using energy, and the energy that they introduce brings about changes in the system. Again, this doesn't tell us anything about quantum mechanics.PaV
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Ba77, Popcorn in hand? I believe in God. I'm Catholic. I believe in Heaven and Hell. These are real places. Does the soul follow "directly from the findings of quantum biology"? Well, does it? How do you know? I can really, truly understand your enthusiasm over the possibility but souls may be an entirely different thing/substance altogether. Has that occurred to you? I ask in all honesty. Trust me. I see your posts. I understand the words of the atheist, which go back to Biblical times, and which, to some, appear somehow more credible because of the discredited theory of evolution which every scientist and scientific institution must bend their knee to and give verbal and written agreement. Why do we invoke Darwin by Philip Skell should have been the last word. The final nail in the coffin. But no. The National Academy of Science calls "evolution" the 'cornerstone of biology.' Based on what? Atheism? Promoting atheism? That IS the only answer I see. So I'm not attempting to give aid or comfort to atheists. I am only trying to discern the truth. We, meaning you and I, may think that quantum mechanics is the end of the line. Yet another important achievement, and it is, but I doubt it is the last. And that doubt is based on previous important advances in science. I firmly believe a way will be found to travel faster than light, regardless of constant references to Einstein. Best.relatd
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Relatd, "Your comment about the soul is not scientific.",,, Really??? I know the fallacious atheistic arguments for why they consider such implications of God, the soul, the immaterial mind, etc.., etc..,, not scientific'. Yet you claim to not be an atheist. So do tell, since the finding of a transcendent component to our being, i.e. a 'soul', follows directly from the findings of quantum biology, exactly why is this implication from quantum biology 'not scientific' to you in particular? I'll get my popcorn. :)bornagain77
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 14, Regarding the soul and God. God's work can be seen in the things that were made and He made all things, including the unseen. Keep in mind that when making the universe, God did not use pre-existing matter. He created from nothing. The multiplying of the loaves and fishes showed that God still did this long after the universe was created. Raising Lazarus from the dead involved no "modern" medicine. Is the soul connected to the quantum world? There is no way to confirm this. However, experimental evidence shows that all life has a connection to the quantum world. Man, who was made in God's image, is above all other life. Only he can study the world and do science.relatd
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 14, Your comment about the soul is not scientific. The quantum world has strict, predictable rules. Quantum chips and quantum computers could not be built if at least some of these rules were not understood. The same is true for the macro world, and the events we know occur under certain conditions. It would be helpful to view the quantum world as having rules that work the same way every time. It is ordered, not chaotic. There is no "measurement problem." Whoever believes this should realize that any measurement involves a predictable reaction. So, in reality, no "problem" exists. Just because quantum effects are different than macro effects and go by different rules, it does not turn them into a problem.relatd
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Seversky at 13, Leave God out of this, OK? He made the rules, the universe, everything. You, and others, don't understand field effect. It does not matter how many observers there are. The sub-atomic world reacts to observers like a magnet reacts to the presence of metal. Once the sub-atomic world senses one or many observers, there is a predictable reaction. It appears to be independent of distance. In the macro world, this effect disappears. The rules change. This Hossenfelder person lacks imagination.relatd
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Astounding. In the face of the mountain of evidence put forth in the comments in this post alone, by BA77, Sev ignores Everest, and instead gravitates to his favorite like minded atheist scientist, Sabine, to help him assuage his terminal malady. As usual, BA responds and smacks him over the head with more Everest. Pathetic--fingers in ears yelling LALALA in his feeble attempt to deny reality.AnimatedDust
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Seversky claims,
Quantum theory describes the nature of material or physical reality at the sub-atomic scale. We are not just linked to it, we are made from it.
That is a claim for which Seversky has, as usual, absolutely no experiment evidence. Moreover, the fairly recent findings of pervasive quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information, within molecular biology proves that man has a transcendent component to his being, i.e. a 'soul', that is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation. Seversky continues,
If you look at what Sabine Hossenfelder has to say about the “observer problem”, one thing is that she and others prefer is to call it the “measurement problem” to get away from the idea that a conscious observer is required for any effect to happen when that is not necessarily the case.
Yet simply, (or is that simplistically?), relabeling 'conscious observation' as 'the measurement problem' certainly does not make the enigma that conscious observation presents to atheistic materialists go away.
"We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” - John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
Seversky continues,
For example, if there are several observers of the same experiment, each of which can influence the outcome by observing it, do they all always see the same outcome and, if so, why?
To wit, the recent experimental realization of the 'Wigner's friend' thought experiment, This recent experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment, (although they used photons to be ‘proxies’ for human observers in the experiment), found that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html Experimental test of local observer-independence – 2019 Excerpt: ,,, If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality – George Musser – Aug. 17, 2020 Excerpt: Now, researchers in Australia and Taiwan offer perhaps the sharpest demonstration that Wigner’s paradox is real. In a study published this week in Nature Physics, they transform the thought experiment into a mathematical theorem that confirms the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the scenario. The team also tests the theorem with an experiment, using photons as proxies for the humans. Whereas Wigner believed resolving the paradox requires quantum mechanics to break down for large systems such as human observers, some of the new study’s authors believe something just as fundamental is on thin ice: objectivity. It could mean there is no such thing as an absolute fact, one that is as true for me as it is for you. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality
Seversky continues,
Do you or I cease to exist whenever nobody is observing us? If not, why not?
That question presupposes that we are purely material beings that are subject to the same 'rules' that particles, atoms, and photons are subject to in quantum mechanics. Yet to repeat, and as advances in quantum biology have now shown, we are NOT purely material beings but we have a transcendent component to our being, i.e. a 'soul', that is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation. Seversky continues,
If you propose a Creator, how does He/She/It exist if no one else is observing them?
If Seversky does not mind, in order to answer Seversky's question I will borrow Edward Feser's response to Lawrence Krauss
Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: ,,, to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing
Also see Michael Egnor's response to Dillahunty's 'Divine hiddenness' argument,
The Divine Hiddenness Argument Against God's Existence = Nonsense - Michael Egnor -Oct. 4, 2021 Excerpt: We will set aside Scriptural revelation and personal experience (given that atheists like Dillahunty discount these anyway) and consider the ways in which God shows Himself in nature (i.e., the ten ways that God’s existence can be known that I listed during my debate with Dillahunty. Here are three excellent references for the details of these various arguments: Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, (Edward Feser), Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Edward Feser), and Letters to an Atheist (Peter Kreeft). These and other works cover evidence such as Aquinas’ First Way (by change in nature), Aquinas’ Second Way (by cause in nature), Aquinas’ Third Way (by contingent existence), Aquinas’ Fourth Way (by degrees of perfection), and Aquinas’ Fifth Way (by design in nature) as well as the Thomistic argument from existence, the Neoplatonic argument (from the order of things), the Augustinian argument (from abstract objects), the rationalist argument (from the principal of sufficient reason), and the argument for Moral Law (from the reality of objective moral obligation). Each of these proofs of God’s existence is revealed to us through our intellect. Is the information that God provides in these ways sufficient to convince a reasonable person of His existence? Consider the ten ways that simple everyday experience provides inexhaustible evidence for His existence: Every change in nature proves His existence. Every cause in nature proves His existence. Everything that exists in nature proves His existence. Every degree of perfection in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of natural design proves His existence. Every realization of possibility in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of organization in nature proves His existence. Every abstract concept proves His existence. Every reason for anything in nature proves His existence. And every twinge of human conscience proves His existence. Natural science provides massive evidence for His existence as well. The Big Bang — i.e., the creation of the universe from nothing in an immense primordial flash of light — is a remarkable confirmation of the beginning of the book of Genesis. Astrophysicists have discovered dozens of physical forces and properties in the universe that must have very specific values to permit human life — and of course these forces and properties do have exactly the values necessary for our existence (as if Someone rigged physics just for us). The DNA in living things is an actual code — in every meaningful sense like a computer code with letters and words, grammar and phrases, sentences and punctuation. And life forms’ intracellular metabolism is run by an astonishingly intricate and elegant system of biological nanotechnology. So my question to Dillahunty and to other atheists who endorse the Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence is this: What is it about God’s existence that you still consider hidden? https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/the-divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence-nonsense/
Verse:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77
August 24, 2022
August
08
Aug
24
24
2022
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Quantum theory describes the nature of material or physical reality at the sub-atomic scale. We are not just linked to it, we are made from it. If you look at what Sabine Hossenfelder has to say about the "observer problem", one thing is that she and others prefer is to call it the "measurement problem" to get away from the idea that a conscious observer is required for any effect to happen when that is not necessarily the case. For example, if there are several observers of the same experiment, each of which can influence the outcome by observing it, do they all always see the same outcome and, if so, why? Do you or I cease to exist whenever nobody is observing us? If not, why not? If you propose a Creator, how does He/She/It exist if no one else is observing them?Seversky
August 23, 2022
August
08
Aug
23
23
2022
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
PaV at 11, Disordered? No. The quantum world has its own rules. I am proposing that human beings are directly linked to it.relatd
August 23, 2022
August
08
Aug
23
23
2022
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply