Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Quora: Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligence was required to create life?

Categories
Intelligent Design
specified complexity
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Josh Anderson writes:

Yes, it is. Here’s the question you should ask yourself: Is symbolic code something that blind, intelligence-free physical processes could create and use? Or is mind alone up to the task?

The legendary John Von Neumann did important work on self-replicating systems. A towering giant in the history of mathematics and pioneer in computer science, he was interested in describing machine-like systems that could build faithful copies of themselves.

Von Neumann soon recognized that it would require both hardware and software. Such a system had to work from a symbolic representation of itself. That is, it must have a kind of encoded picture of itself in some kind of memory.

Crucially, this abstract picture had to include a precise description of the very mechanisms needed to read and execute the code. Makes sense, right? To copy itself it has to have a blueprint to follow. And this blueprint has to include instructions for building the systems needed to decode and implement the code.

Here’s the remarkable thing: Life is a Von Neumann Replicator. Von Neumann was unwittingly describing the DNA based genetic system at the heart of life. And yet, he was doing so years before we knew about these systems.

The implications of this are profound. Think about how remarkable this is. It’s like having the blueprints and operating system for a computer stored on a drive in digital code that can only be read by the device itself. It’s the ultimate chicken and egg scenario.

How might something like this have come about? For a system to contain a symbolic representation of itself the actualization of precise mapping between two realms, the physical realm and an abstract symbolic realm.

In view here is a kind of translation, mechanisms that can move between encoded descriptions and material things being described. This requires a system of established correlations between stuff out here and information instantiated in a domain of symbols.

Here’s the crucial question: Is this something that can be achieved by chance, physical laws, or intelligence-free material processes? The answer is decidedly NO. What’s physical cannot work out the non-physical. Only a mind can create a true code. Only a mind can conceive of and manage abstract, symbolic realities. A symbolic system has to be invented. It cannot come about in any other way.

If you think something like this – mutually interdependent physical hardware and encoded software  can arise through unguided, foresight-less material forces acting over time, think again. If I were to ask you to think of something, anything that absolutely requires intelligence to bring about, you’d be hard pressed to think of a better example. It’s not just that no one understands how it could be done, it’s that we have every reason to believe that it is impossible in principle. No intelligence-free material processes could ever give you something like this.

But wait, how can we be so sure this feature of life was not forged by evolution, built up incrementally by the unseen hand of natural selection? What’s to say this is beyond the ability of evolution to create?

The question answers itself. In order for evolution to take place you have to have a self-replicating system in place. You don’t evolve to the kind of thing we’ve been describing. That is, necessarily, where you begin.

The DNA and the dizzyingly complex molecular machinery that it both uses and describes did not evolve into existence. This much is clear. Any suggestion that it did is not based on a scintilla of empirical evidence or any credible account of how it could have come about in this way.

The conclusion is clear: The unmistakable signature of mind is literally in every cell of every living thing on earth.

Watch a few seconds of this to remind yourself of the kind of mind-bending sophistication in view here:

Quora

Note that John von Neumann mathematically showed that the information content of the simplest self-replicating machine is about 1500 bits of information. This is a vast amount of information, since information bits are counted on a logarithmic scale, and it cannot be explained by any natural process, since it far exceeds the information content of the physical (non-living) universe. Therefore, since self-replicating organisms obviously exist on Earth, their origin must come from the only known source of this level of information – an intelligent mind of capability far beyond our mental ability – consistent with the biblical view of God.

Comments
Bornagain77: Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them Nice quote mine. Clearly the point is that we do not currently have complete scientific explanations for the phenomena we observe. Again, Einstein's work could be said to be outside of Newtonian space and time but it's clearly subject to laws and predictions and not the whim of some undefined or undetected intelligence. So, our notion of space and time expand with new 'laws' and observations. As has been happening for centuries. PS: proof that you don't even look at the links you post, that one is broken. Why, why, why should we take any of your quote-and-paste screeds seriously?JVL
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
PM1 “Non-local” means “not restricted to one specific space-time region”, not “transcending all of space-time”. LOL, and JVL recently falsely claimed that NO ATHEIST has a problem with quantum mechanics. :) Hidden variables have been falsified six ways from Sunday,
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 28 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm Not So Real - Sheldon Lee Glashow - Oct. 2018 Excerpt: In 1959, John Stewart Bell deduced his eponymous theorem: that no system of hidden variables can reproduce all of the consequences of quantum theory. In particular, he deduced an inequality pertinent to observations of an entangled system consisting of two separated particles. If experimental results contradicted Bell’s inequality, hidden-variable models could be ruled out. Experiments of this kind seemed difficult or impossible to carry out. But, in 1972, Alain Aspect succeeded. His results contradicted Bell’s inequality. The predictions of quantum mechanics were confirmed and the principle of local realism challenged. Ever more precise tests of Bell’s inequality and its extension by John Clauser et al. continue to be performed,14 including an experiment involving pairs of photons coming from different distant quasars. Although a few tiny loopholes may remain, all such tests to date have confirmed that quantum theory is incompatible with the existence of local hidden variables. Most physicists have accepted the failure of Einstein’s principle of local realism. https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358
bornagain77
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Re 230. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence. Interpreting the significance of empirical evidence can involve one's worldview. And belief in God is a matter of faith. Some worldviews don't include that assumption.Viola Lee
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
I want to add something to @220 about mathematics and metaphysics. Every ancient Greek philosopher I know of, from Plato onward, was very clear that metaphysics could not be done in the way that mathematics was. Plato is especially clear about this: in mathematics we reason from axioms, whereas in metaphysics we search for first principles. Aristotle and everyone else followed him in this. The first major philosopher to argue that metaphysics should be done like mathematics was, of course, Descartes. He argued that the absence of clearly identified self-justifying axioms had prevented progress in metaphysics. But while some philosophers thought he was right about this, most didn't. Locke, most famously, thought that the lack of progress in metaphysics was due to not emulating the inductive method of empirical science. Meanwhile, the whole German tradition from Kant onward explicitly rejects mathematics as a model for metaphysics, and that culminates in Hegel's insanely ambitious project to develop a comprehensive metaphysical system with no presuppositions at all. (Over 200 years later and still no one can figure out if he succeeded!) My point being, I don't think that metaphysics was ever in any danger of being made axiomatic, even if Hilbert's program had succeeded in axiomatizing arithmetic. And it should be obvious that axiomatizing metaphysics, even if that were possible, would do nothing to avoid Agrippa's Trilemma.PyrrhoManiac1
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Viola Lee: ouroboritic Lovely! I've never heard the term before but knowing ouroboros I got it immediately.JVL
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
VL at 228, Empirical evidence requires a correct worldview, not one tainted with presuppositions. Evidence is fine but ignores another dimension - faith, and God. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."relatd
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Origenes: The fact that the two are connected nonetheless seems to point to the existence of a realm independent from space (and perhaps also time), capable of overriding the logic of our universe. More likely it means that there are forces or influences that we don't fully understand or that we haven't learned to detect or measure. It's not a question of overriding our current 'logic', it's a question of expanding our 'logic' to encompass new, heretofore undefined forces. Einstein didn't overridden Newton, he took on a larger and more expansive set of data.JVL
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Post 220 by PM is very interesting. I'd love to add my two cents, but have very little time. Briefly, I think the systems of understanding we make about areas where empirical evidence is lacking, like metaphysics and theology, we embed assumptions which create coherence via circularity, referring back to themselves as conclusions or by being used in what appears as logical arguments by appearing as accepted conclusions when they are in fact assumptions, by faith. They are ouroboritic belief systems, to perhaps coin a phrase.Viola Lee
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Jerry: Are you disagreeing with my assessment of arithmetic? Well, you did get the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic incorrect! To repeat: The fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem and prime factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 can be represented uniquely as a product of prime numbers, up to the order of the factors. And this can be verified everywhere.JVL
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
PM1 @224 What connects the two entangled particles? Not our universe. Our universe attempts to separate them (and fails to do so). The fact that the two are connected nonetheless seems to point to the existence of a realm independent from space (and perhaps also time), capable of overriding the logic of our universe. Is this realm where God resides? We don’t know.Origenes
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: As PyrrhoManiac1 has already explained, you have (once again) interpreted some mathematical and physics events and theories in a very idiosyncratic way that seems to support your theological stance. What is particularly odd about your skewed view is that you have been told about your biases many, many, many times before but you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that you have been 'corrected' many times. You have a strange double standard of knowledge: when you say it, it's undeniably true but if someone disagrees with you they must have not heard you or are intentionally disagreeing because they hate God or some such. Until you can learn to actually discuss the academics like a real academic I'm not sure why any of us should bother to point out that your views are extremely fringe. PS you don't have to 'talk mathy' or attempt to teach us about the mathematics; we already know.JVL
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
@222
Why not? Define the two and show how they differ fundamentally. Provide us with an argument.
Well, as I understand classical theism, God is utterly transcendent to the physical universe: He doesn't experience the passage of time, so He doesn't experience past, present, and future as we do. From the standpoint of eternity, all temporal moments are the same. The difference between then and now doesn't exist for Him. And likewise, He doesn't see the difference between distances, between here and there. (In semantic terms, I guess, one could say that He doesn't use indexicals as we do!) Quantum nonlocality, as I understand it, is that what happens in one spatial region can simultaneously effect what happens in another spatial region, without any need for propagation of information from one spatial region to another. Those just seem like really different concepts to me.PyrrhoManiac1
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
For Jerry, through use of complements [think, two’s and nines], subtraction is reducible to addition, it is not just that multiplication is repeated addition and division repeated subtraction
I have no idea what this comment is about. Are you disagreeing with my assessment of arithmetic? If you are, I fail to see what this is about. It’s beside the point as people introduce irrelevant stuff all the time here. One of which is the introduction of arithmetic.jerry
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
PM1
... one particle of an entangled pair simultaneously affects the other particle, regardless of spatial distance between them. This by itself does not show that the quantum realm transcends all of space-time in the same sense that classical theism supposes that God does.
Why not? Define the two and show how they differ fundamentally. Provide us with an argument.Origenes
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
@216
experiments have now demonstrated “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time)
"Non-local" means "not restricted to one specific space-time region", not "transcending all of space-time". Quantum effects are nonlocal in that what happens to one particle of an entangled pair simultaneously affects the other particle, regardless of spatial distance between them. This by itself does not show that the quantum realm transcends all of space-time in the same sense that classical theism supposes that God does.PyrrhoManiac1
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
@213 I'm only going to respond to the first few points, since there's plenty to discuss right there.
1: As I documented in 174 – 6, there was a research programme led by Hilbert that sought to frame core mathematics in a unified, axiomatised, closed comprehensive deductive whole; which was shattered by Godel’s two theorems on incompleteness, irremovable potential for incoherence and resulting irreducible complexity.
Well, sort of. Hilbert's program was to clarify the foundations of mathematics by proposing a set of criteria: mathematics had to be formal, complete, consistent, and decidable. Although Godel showed that arithmetic could not satisfy completeness and consistency, Hilbert's program has not been a complete failure (see here).
2: This is already key, for had that programme succeeded, there would have been even more denigration of anything that did not meet the “gold standard”; that would echo the iron grip of the Euclidean axiomatic framework from the days of the Greeks.
I'm not sure about this. If Hilbert's program had succeeded, it would have established that all of mathematics can be derived from a finite set of axioms, just as geometry itself is. But would it have done more than that? I don't know. If Hilbert's program had been fully successful (which is a difficult counterfactual to maintain, since we know now that there is no possible world in which this is the case!) it would have at best established a complete axiomatization of mathematics. It would not have established a complete axiomatization of all knowledge.
3: The obvious “anything” would be politically incorrect inductive reasoning and things like worldviews analysis that highlights first plausibles at finite remove and resulting faith points then comparative difficulties analysis. Where, “faith” highlights that we recognise such things on trust.
This is where our disagreement begins, I think. Even in purely formal domains (logic and mathematics), axiomatization is a late development that clarifies the inferential relations in what has already been discovered. (Geometry was centuries old before Euclid!) In substantive domains, where we are concerned with theories about the world and not just formal systems, axiomatizing a fully developed theory does not mean denigrating other ways of generating knowledge. If anything, the axioms come subsequent to experimental results, as a way of clarifying them and removing inconsistencies, contradictions, and paradoxes.
4: That is, the infinite regress is impossible/an infeasible supertask, question begging circularity is self defeating, we have no realistic alternative but worldviews cross examined on comparative difficulties across alternative clusters of first plausibles defining various faith points, i.e. worldviews.
And this is where the real problems begin. Agrippa's Trilemma states that any putative claim to knowledge must either be derived from other clams that also depend upon it, or else justification must be endless, or else we must be dogmatists and take some claims as asserted but not defended. It seems that you want to impale yourself on the third horn of the Trilemma, when you refer to "faith points": some claims must be taken on faith and not justified. But you are, of course, intelligent enough to realize that knowledge that relies on unreasoning faith is no knowledge at all, which is why we need to ask which set of first principles are the most reasonable ones, the ones that legitimately compel our rational assent? But at this point you then say that we have no choice but consider " balance of merits on comparative difficulties" and "be willing to move on as the weight of comparative difficulties shifts the balance on the scales." But what does this mean if not assessing whether the systems built upon those first principles are coherent or incoherent? And if what ultimately matters is whether the worldview is coherent, then we are now impaled on the first horn of the trilemma (circularity). In other words: by recognizing why impaling yourself on the third horn of the trilemma (dogmatism) is not rationally satisfactory, you seem forced to impale yourself on the third horn (circularity). I'd be very interested to know how you see your criteria for evaluating the rational acceptability of a worldview as avoiding all three horns of Agrippa's Trilemma. As it is, I don't see how your proposal to assess based on comparative difficulties is really all that different from coherence, which seems to collapse into circularity.PyrrhoManiac1
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Bornagain @
... “The Universe Is Not Locally Real” is merely another way of saying that the physical universe is ‘contingent’ upon a ‘necessary’ ‘beyond space and time’ cause for its existence.
This idea, obviously, only makes sense for us theists. How it impacts the minds of the Sabine Hossenfelders of this world when they blurt it out, I have no clue and, frankly, I’m not sure I want to know.Origenes
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Origenes, "The Universe Is Not Locally Real" is merely another way of saying that the physical universe is 'contingent' upon a 'necessary' 'beyond space and time' cause for its existence. (i.e. It is actually a confirmation of the Judeo-Christian presupposition undergirding the founding of modern science that the universe is 'contingent' upon God for its existence)
“That (contingency) was a huge concept (that was important for the founding of modern science). The historians of science call that ‘contingency’. The idea that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise. Just as there are many ways to make a timepiece, or a clock,,, there are many different ways God could have ordered the universe. And it is up to us not to deduce that order from first principles, or from some intuitions that we have about how nature ought to be, but rather it is important to go out and see how nature actually is.” – Stephen Meyer – 5:00 minute mark – Andrew Klavan and Stephen Meyer Talk God and Science https://idthefuture.com/1530/
The confusion arises from the materialistic presupposition that material particles are self-existent within space-time, with no need to explain their continual existence within space time. In other words, the confusion arises from presupposing material particles to be 'necessary' in their existence instead of being contingent' upon God for their existence as they actually are. As the following article put the present dilemma facing materialists, "We must explain space and time, (and I might add even material particles themselves), as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics."
Living In A Quantum World – Vlatko Vedral – 2011 Excerpt: For instance, Columbia University physicist Brian Greene writes on the first page of his hugely successful (and otherwise excellent) book The Elegant Universe that quantum mechanics “provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the smallest of scales.” Classical physics, which comprises any theory that is not quantum, including Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, handles the largest of scales. Yet this convenient partitioning of the world is a myth.,,, Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do. These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected.,,, Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
As to “all possible states” does not include the state of a pink unicorn, right?" :) LOL Well in my single rational universe where God simply collapses the 'superposition' of the particle to a finite position, there are no 'pink unicorns popping into existence seemingly out of nowhere. Unless, of course, there might be a rational purpose for God bringing such a creature into existence. Yet in the atheists's conjectures of infinite Many Worlds and Multiverses, (which they put forth to try to avoid God), it is held that anything can, theoretically, happen for no reason whatsoever. Thus, they are not so lucky in avoiding Pink Unicorns popping into existence from seemingly nowhere
Why Most Atheists (must) Believe in Pink Unicorns - May 2014 Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.” By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales. Postscript While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning, finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.” https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/why-most-atheists-believe-in-pink-unicorns/ Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. Contemporary Physics and God - Part 2 - Dr Bruce Gordon - video (25:17 minute mark) https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=1517
bornagain77
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Bornagain @215
The position that there is “no physical world that is real in any way” is, of course, not my position.
So, we are in agreement here. Are you, like me, annoyed by sweeping statements, that cause nothing but unnecessary befuddlement, like:
”The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It“
And incoherent statements by the fundamentally discombobulated Sabine Hossenfelder on which I commented in #214?
Yet, prior to wave collapse, the particle, (in so far as a particle can be said to ‘physically’ exist as a ‘particle’ in its wave state), is held to ‘physically’ exist in an infinite dimensional/infinite information state. This ‘infinite dimensional’ wave state of the particle is held to be a ‘superposition’. A ‘superposition’ of the particle existing in all possible states. i.e. a ‘superposition’ of the particle existing in all possible positions as opposed to the particle existing in only one definite position of only one state, i.e. a particle existing in just only one position with the state of, say, spin up or spin down.
Here, my questions return …. “The particle … [exists in a] … infinite dimensional/infinite information state” does not resonate with me at all. “Infinite” as in no boundaries whatsoever? As in, the particle can collapse as everything, and everywhere, or be nothing at all? When you say “all possible positions” or “all possible states” you are referring to a finite set of positions [the particle is within the boundaries of a certain area] and a finite set of states are you not? Spin is either ‘up’ or ‘down’ right? There is no infinite ways for the spin to be, right? Similarly, “all possible states” does not include the state of a pink unicorn, right? Also here there are clear boundaries to what the particle can be, right? If so, it would be prudent to clearly point this out.
The ‘superposition’ of the particle existing in all possible positions is, obviously, ….
“… the particle existing in all ITS possible positions, [which is a finite set of possibilities].”Origenes
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
In fact, as referenced previously in post 182 (and in falsification of the atheist's Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), collapse of the 'superposition' wave function into a finite particle state of only one definite position, has now also been experimentally demonstrated. As the following article states, experiments have now demonstrated “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function”,, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”,, “the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected”,, and “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”,,
Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015 Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle. ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,, According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,, ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman. “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points. “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.” “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.” http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html
That a 'superposition' of a particle is not just some "abstract element", "primarily a conceptual entity" and/or a "mathematical tool", as was originally held, but is a physically real element of reality is also demonstrated by the fact that information can be encoded onto a photon while it is in its 'superposition' wave state. The following experiment, via Robert Boyd and company at the University of Rochester, encoded "an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,,"
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon – January 2017 Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,, http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
The 'superposition' particle simply does not exist as 'particle', in the classical sense, of having only one definite position.. And it is on this inability to ground the 'superposition' of a particle that the Atheist's reductive materialistic explanations of reality crash and burn. As Anton Zeilinger explains in the following video,
"We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between." - Anton Zeilinger Prof Anton Zeilinger Shows the Double-slit Experiment – video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgt69p_prof-anton-zeilinger-shows-the-double-slit-experiment_tech
And as Anton Zeilinger further explains in the following video,
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." - Anton Zeilinger Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
Considering Anton Zeilinger's honest confessions, I consider the following verse to be very apt
Job 38:19-20 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?”
Moreover, the so called 'measurement problem' in quantum mechanics is really just a 'problem for atheistic materialists in that they simply have no causal mechanism in order to adequately explain how it is possible for the 'infinite dimensional/infinite information' superposition wave function of a particle to collapse into a particle of having only one definite position, whereas Christians readily do have has a 'sufficient explanation' to explain how it is possible for a 'infinite dimensional/infinite information' superposition wave function to collapse into a particle of having only one definite position. Namely the infinite and omniscient Mind of God. (see posts 182 and 183). Clearly, to give an adequate explanation of the collapse of a 'superposition' particle, (a superposition particle which is mathematically defined as being is 'infinite dimensional' state, a state which also contains an infinite amount of information), into a finite particle of only one position, then, obviously, it is necessary to appeal to 'something' that has the 'causal adequacy' within itself to collapse a infinite 'superposition' particle into a finite state. And I argue that only God has the causal adequacy within Himself to explain how it is possible for an infinite 'superposition' particle to collapse into a finite particle of only one position. Quote and Verses:
“Every number is defined by its own character so that no number is equal to any other. They are unequal to one another and are different, and the individual numbers are finite, but as a class they are infinite. Does that mean that God does not know all numbers, because of their infinity? Does God’s knowledge extend as far as a certain sum, and end there? No one could be insane enough to say that. Now those philosophers who revere the authority of Plato will not despise numbers and say that they are irreverent to God’s knowledge, For Plato emphasizes that God constructed the world by use of numbers, while we have the authority of Scripture, where God is thus addressed, “You have set all things in order all things by number, measure, and weight.” And the prophet says of God, “He produces the world according to number’. And the Savior says in the Gospel, “Your hairs are all numbered”. Never let us doubt then that every number is known to him “whose understanding cannot be numbered”. Although the infinite series of numbers cannot be numbered, this infinity of numbers is not outside the comprehension of him “whose understanding cannot be numbered”.” – St. Augustine – “City of God” – 12th Book, 19th Chapter – Infinity: Aristotle, St. Augustine, Cantor, Gödel – video – 31:29 minute mark https://youtu.be/SMt2VtjMfrU?t=1889 Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Of supplemental note;
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.,,, Nov. 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/time/at-big-think-how-reality-is-shaped-by-the-speed-of-light/#comment-769891
bornagain77
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Origenes "If there is no physical world that is real in any way, if there is nothing independent of its observation, then it would be completely up to us what exists (what to bring into existence). Then we can decide to measure pink unicorns. I take it, that this is not your position. Or is it?" The position that there is "no physical world that is real in any way" is, of course, not my position. Nor, of course, is Solipsism my position. I, as a Christian, obviously, hold the infinite and omniscient Mind of God, not my finite and puny mind, to be the 'necessary' existence upon which all other 'contingent' physical existences depend. i.e. my position is not that 'physical existence' is not 'real', but is that the 'reality' of physical existence is 'contingent' upon the 'necessary' reality of God. To further distance myself from solipsism, my position, as I stated in 182, is that “the free will of an observer is shown to be an integral part, (although not a complete explanation), in bringing about wave function collapse.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-quora-is-it-possible-to-prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-that-intelligence-was-required-to-create-life/#comment-771833 Perhaps I should have more clearly stated, "“the free will of an observer is shown to be an integral part, (although not, by any means, a complete explanation), in bringing about wave function collapse.”?? As I went on to further explain in posts 182 and 183, I hold that it is fairly obvious that the omniscient/ominpresent Mind of God is required in order to provide a complete, and 'causally sufficient', explanation for the 'collapse' of the infinite dimensional/infinite information wave function into its particle state. A 'post-collapse' final particle state, which, via Zeilinger's principle, is held to be "an elementary system (that) carries just one bit of information".
Zeilinger’s principle Zeilinger’s principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1] http://www.eoht.info/page/Zeilinger%27s+principle In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist?Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.?http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-02/NS-Tmoq-1302101.php Quantum physics just got less complicated - Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,",,, http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html “From that position, the so-called measurement problem . . . is not a problem but a consequence of the more fundamental role information plays in quantum physics as compared to classical physics.” A. Zeilinger, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, S288 (1999)
Yet, prior to wave collapse, the particle, (in so far as a particle can be said to 'physically' exist as a 'particle' in its wave state), is held to 'physically' exist in an infinite dimensional/infinite information state. This 'infinite dimensional' wave state of the particle is held to be a 'superposition'. A 'superposition' of the particle existing in all possible states. i.e. A 'superposition' of the particle existing in all possible positions as opposed to the particle existing in only one definite position of only one state, i.e. a particle existing in just only one position with the state of, say, spin up or spin down. The 'superposition' of the particle existing in all possible positions is, obviously, antithetical to the entire reductive materialistic foundation of Darwinian atheists, which holds that material particles are the fundamental 'stuff' of the universe from which everything else derives. But anyways to go further, this 'superposition' of the particle existing in all possible states has historically been held to be merely "an abstract element" and "primarily a conceptual entity". Yet as the following articles touch upon, the 'abstract' and 'conceptual' entity of the particle existing in a 'superposition' wave function is now experimentally shown to be a physically real entity that can be measured prior to the 'superposition particle' collapsing to just one definitive position.
Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011 Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as <b<an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html The final topic to be described is work aimed at the direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction. Historically, the wavefunction has often been considered to be primarily a conceptual entity that can be measured if at all using highly inefficient methods such as quantum tomography. However, Lundeen and his coworkers have recently shown [9] how by performing a “weak measurement” followed by a “strong measurement” it is possible to perform a measurement of the wavefunction in a direct and efficient manner. In recent work, my own group has demonstrated [10] that it similar methods can be used to measure directly the wavefunction of a qubit, which is the fundamental unit of information in quantum information science. Robert W. Boyd – The Enabling Technology for Quantum Information Science 2013 - University of Rochester, Rochester, NY http://www.bostonphotonics.org/workshops/quantumoptics14/workshopseminar.aspx?seminar=202
As the following experiment found, (and contrary to the widespread belief that the superposition wave function was just a 'mathematical tool'), "there's definitely some reality to the wave function,"
Wave function gets real in quantum experiment - February 2, 2015 Excerpt: It underpins the whole theory of quantum mechanics, but does it exist? For nearly a century physicists have argued about whether the wave function is a real part of the world or just a mathematical tool. Now, the first experiment in years to draw a line in the quantum sand suggests we should take it seriously. The wave function helps predict the results of quantum experiments with incredible accuracy. But it describes a world where particles have fuzzy properties – for example, existing in two places at the same time. Erwin Schrödinger argued in 1935 that treating the wave function as a real thing leads to the perplexing situation where a cat in a box can be both dead and alive, until someone opens the box and observes it. Those who want an objective description of the world – one that doesn't depend on how you're looking at it – have two options. They can accept that the wave function is real and that the cat is both dead and alive. Or they can argue that the wave function is just a mathematical tool, which represents our lack of knowledge about the status of the poor cat, sometimes called the "epistemic interpretation". This was the interpretation favoured by Albert Einstein, who allegedly asked, "Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?" The trouble is, very few experiments have been performed that can rule versions of quantum mechanics in or out. Previous work that claimed to propose a way to test whether the wave function is real made a splash in the physics community but turned out to be based on improper assumptions, and no one ever ran the experiment. What a state Now, Eric Cavalcanti at the University of Sydney and Alessandro Fedrizzi at the University of Queensland, both in Australia, and their colleagues have made a measurement of the reality of the quantum wave function. Their results rule out a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics and suggest that if there is any objective description of the world, the famous wave function is part of it: Schrödinger's cat actually is both dead and alive.,,, There may still be a way to distinguish quantum states from each other that their experiment didn't capture. But Howard Wiseman from Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, says that shouldn't weaken the results. "It's saying there's definitely some reality to the wave function," he says. "You have to admit that to some extent there's some reality to the wave function, so if you've gone that far, why don't you just go the whole way?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26893-wave-function-gets-real-in-quantum-experiment.html
bornagain77
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Seversky, Bornagain @
One way to deal with the measurement problem is to argue that the wave-function does not describe a real object …,
Not a real object in any way? Not independent from observation in any way? As in, “there is no object at all.” As in, “there is nothing to describe.” As in, “it totally up to us what to bring into existence by way of measurement”? As in, "what do you want to measure into existence today, a pink unicorn perhaps or something entirely different"?
… but only encodes knowledge …
The knowledge of us observers? There is no object, there is just our knowledge? So, if we are to decide that our knowledge is that there is no moon, no moon will be measured?
… and that probabilities should not be interpreted as frequencies of occurrence, but instead as statements of our confidence.
Statements of our confidence about what? About nothing real, about nothing independent from us? Statements of our confidence about our knowledge of stuff that does not exist, in any other way other than concepts in our minds? - - - - - - - - - - I must say that I will be somewhat annoyed if the general answer to my questions is: “Well of course not, that is not what we meant. Don’t take what we say so literally”. It would be tempting for me to ask “Why the sloppy language?”Origenes
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
JVL, 193: >>Still doesn’t mean there is a ‘hole’ in the centre of mathematics>> https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-quora-is-it-possible-to-prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-that-intelligence-was-required-to-create-life/#comment-771824 [this is 174] 1: As I documented in 174 - 6, there was a research programme led by Hilbert that sought to frame core mathematics in a unified, axiomatised, closed comprehensive deductive whole; which was shattered by Godel's two theorems on incompleteness, irremovable potential for incoherence and resulting irreducible complexity. 2: This is already key, for had that programme succeeded, there would have been even more denigration of anything that did not meet the "gold standard"; that would echo the iron grip of the Euclidean axiomatic framework from the days of the Greeks. 3: The obvious "anything" would be politically incorrect inductive reasoning and things like worldviews analysis that highlights first plausibles at finite remove and resulting faith points then comparative difficulties analysis. Where, "faith" highlights that we recognise such things on trust. 4: That is, the infinite regress is impossible/an infeasible supertask, question begging circularity is self defeating, we have no realistic alternative but worldviews cross examined on comparative difficulties across alternative clusters of first plausibles defining various faith points, i.e. worldviews. 5: Chaitin, as cited in 176, extends this further and just as decisively, it is not some esoteric oddity, it is closer to hand than we may want to acknowledge:
Godel’s original proof of his incompleteness theorem is essentially the assertion that one cannot always prove that a program will fail to halt. This is equivalent to asking whether it ever produces any output. He then converts this into an arithmetical assertion. [-> Thus, the core of math pivoting on N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc with four rule operations and extensions, and computing are implicated, thus science and any other field turning on applied mathematics**] Over the years this has been improved; it follows from the work on Hilbert’s 10th problem that Godel’s theorem is equivalent to the assertion that one cannot always prove that a diophantine equation[*] has no solutions if this is the case. In our approach to incompleteness, we shall ask whether or not a program produces an infinite amount of output rather than asking whether it produces any; this is equivalent to asking whether or not a diophantine equation has infinitely many solutions instead of asking whether or not it is solvable. [Algorithmic Information Theory, 1987] _____________ * F/N: Britannica briefly defines: “Diophantine equation, equation involving only sums, products, and powers in which all the constants are integers and the only solutions of interest are integers. For example, 3x + 7y = 1 or x^2 – y^2 = z^3, where x, y, and z are integers." ** For Jerry, through use of complements [think, two's and nines], subtraction is reducible to addition, it is not just that multiplication is repeated addition and division repeated subtraction
. . . and:
God not only plays dice in quantum mechanics, but even with the whole numbers! The discovery of randomness in arithmetic is presented in my book Algorithmic Information Theory recently published by Cambridge University Press. There I show that to decide if an algebraic equation in integers [--> Diophantine, c.f. just above] has finitely or infinitely many solutions is in some cases absolutely intractable. I exhibit an infinite series of such arithmetical assertions that are random arithmetical facts, and for which it is essentially the case that the only way to prove them is to assume them as axioms [--> i.e. axiomatisation explodes into the transfinite]. This extreme form of Godel incompleteness theorem shows that some arithmetical truths are totally impervious to [--> axiomatised, deductive, presumably] reasoning. [Information, Randomness & Incompleteness (1987)]
6: So, we see in the Enc of Math, cited in 174 but buried under tangential remarks across yesterday:
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability Undecidability The non-existence of an algorithm or the impossibility of proving or disproving a statement within a formal system. Both aspects will be considered below. The non-existence of an algorithm for settling a given problem is often referred to as the unsolvability of the problem. Sometimes the two words “undecidable” and “unsolvable” are used as synonyms. (See Unsolvability.) Decidability results can be obtained in all areas of mathematics. They can be based on the intuitive notion of an algorithm. A problem is shown decidable by constructing an algorithm that, after receiving the data for an instance of the problem, produces the answer to that instance. A classical example is Euclid’s algorithm for finding the greatest common divisor of two natural numbers . . . . It was shown already by K. Gödel that the existence of undecidable propositions is not a shortcoming of any particular formal system, but rather a property inherent in all formal systems. Such an inherently undecidable proposition is the formal statement expressing the consistency of a given [–> complex enough] formal system. Later it turned out (e.g., due to the work of G. Chaitin [a1], [a2]) that undecidable propositions are far from being rare, but that they are very frequent, often very simple, and that some of them belong to the most elementary arithmetic. It is not anymore possible to disregard undecidable propositions as exceptional singularities that are not encountered in “real mathematics” . As Chaitin puts it: “Non-linear dynamics and quantum mechanics have shown that randomness is present in nature. I believe that I have shown that it is also present in pure mathematics, in fact even in the most elementary branches of the theory of numbers” . Undecidable statements cannot be ignored. They are not exceptional and pathological but numerous, nearby and palpable. For any formal system, there are genuine arithmetical statements whose truth or falsity cannot be established within the system, although it seems necessary that the statement is either true or false. E.g., such a statement concerns the solvability of a given Diophantine equation. One can construct a sequence of Diophantine equations with many variables, parametrized by, say, k.
7: Sideline and dismiss does not work, as core Mathematics is part of the logic of being, i.e. the logic of structure and quantity, which can be shown to be applicable to any possible world. 8: Note, logic of being, here, is synonymous with Ontology, a major sub branch of Metaphysics, roughly: the philosophical [= hard, core questions], critical study of worldviews. This then exposes your resort to loaded language: >>that you want to fill with theology.>> 9: Notice, your subject switch, from logic of being and worldviews analysis to what in this context is a loaded word that invites inference of "religion, not reason"? (Itself, a prejudice.) >>Some philosophers and logicians disagree with the philosophical conclusions that Chaitin has drawn from his theorems related to what Chaitin thinks is a kind of fundamental arithmetic randomness. The logician Torkel Franzén criticized Chaitin’s interpretation of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and the alleged explanation for it that Chaitin’s work represents.>> 10: Again, philosophy studies hard, fundamental questions without easy answers, on comparative difficulties. So, starting with the definition of philosophy itself, everything is disputed. The mere fact of a difference of opinion and resulting critique is indecisive. The issue is balance of merits on comparative difficulties. 11: where, in fact, the material point is that Godel's proofs established a fundamental result, axiomatisation for complex systems esp those involving core math cannot establish a closed, universal framework, or even that our limited frameworks are coherent and that others to Chaitin et al have shown that this is not an isolated dismissible oddity. Undecidability is a pervasive phenomenon. 12: So, hoped for closed rationalistic, axiomatic systems are fatally flawed, are in fact impossible. This leaves the worldviews, first plausibles, faith points approach as the last man standing after the demolition derby. Comparative difficulties, self evident first truths [which, thanks to Godel we know cannot span a full orbed worldview], established facts, theses proposed as they help unify and are fruitful, etc are all on the table. 13: In particular (and as I discussed some time ago here at UD and elsewhere) mathematical and computational systems set up abstract logic model worlds. Where, if key parts pivot on necessary entities fabric to any possible world [NZQRCR* etc is a case] then, answering Wigner, the answers are universal. In other cases, they need to be tailored to what is plausible and useful for a given world. Hence, Scientific frameworks, simulation models etc. 14: This duly chastened framework is useful, reliable, effective, but it lends no credibility to hoped for gold standard grand rationalistic-deductive comprehensive, closed schemes. 15: So, we all must live by worldviews, rooted in first plausibles expressing faith points, the issue is to recognise that, exercise comparative difficulties and be willing to move on as the weight of comparative difficulties shifts the balance on the scales. KFkairosfocus
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
The Problem with Quantum Measurements […] Let us then look at an actual problem, that is that we don’t know how a measurement happens in quantum mechanics. The discussion of this problem today happens largely among philosophers; physicists pay pretty much no attention to it. Why not, you ask? Because they have been told as students that the problem doesn’t exist. […] Quantum mechanics is today mostly taught in what is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation and it works as follows. Particles are described by a mathematical object called the “wave-function,” usually denoted ? (“Psi”). The wave-function is sometimes sharply peaked and looks much like a particle, sometimes it’s spread out and looks more like a wave. ? is basically the embodiment of particle-wave duality. The wave-function moves according to the Schrödinger equation. This equation is compatible with Einstein’s Special Relativity and it can be run both forward and backward in time. If I give you complete information about a system at any one time – ie, if I tell you the “state” of the system – you can use the Schrödinger equation to calculate the state at all earlier and all later times. This makes the Schrödinger equation what we call a “deterministic” equation. But the Schrödinger equation alone does not predict what we observe. If you use only the Schrödinger equation to calculate what happens when a particle interacts with a detector, you find that the two undergo a process called “decoherence.” Decoherence wipes out quantum-typical behavior, like dead-and-alive cats and such. What you have left then is a probability distribution for a measurement outcome (what is known as a “mixed state”). You have, say, a 50% chance that the particle hits the left side of the screen. And this, importantly, is not a prediction for a collection of particles or repeated measurements. We are talking about one measurement on one particle. The moment you measure the particle, however, you know with 100% probability what you have got; in our example you now know which side of the screen the particle is. This sudden jump of the probability is often referred to as the “collapse” of the wave-function and the Schrödinger equation does not predict it. The Copenhagen Interpretation, therefore, requires an additional assumption called the “Measurement Postulate.” The Measurement Postulate tells you that the probability of whatever you have measured must be updated to 100%. Now, the collapse together with the Schrödinger equation describes what we observe. But the detector is of course also made of particles and therefore itself obeys the Schrödinger equation. So if quantum mechanics is fundamental, we should be able to calculate what happens during measurement using the Schrödinger equation alone. We should not need a second postulate. The measurement problem, then, is that the collapse of the wave-function is incompatible with the Schrödinger equation. It isn’t merely that we do not know how to derive it from the Schrödinger equation, it’s that it actually contradicts the Schrödinger equation. The easiest way to see this is to note that the Schrödinger equation is linear while the measurement process is non-linear. This strongly suggests that the measurement is an effective description of some underlying non-linear process, something we haven’t yet figured out. There is another problem. As an instantaneous process, wave-function collapse doesn’t fit together with the speed of light limit in Special Relativity. This is the “spooky action” that irked Einstein so much about quantum mechanics. This incompatibility with Special Relativity, however, has (by assumption) no observable consequences, so you can try and convince yourself it’s philosophically permissible (and good luck with that). But the problem comes back to haunt you when you ask what happens with the mass (and energy) of a particle when its wave-function collapses. You’ll notice then that the instantaneous jump screws up General Relativity. (And for this quantum gravitational effects shouldn’t play a role, so mumbling “string theory” doesn’t help.) This issue is still unobservable in practice, all right, but now it’s observable in principle. One way to deal with the measurement problem is to argue that the wave-function does not describe a real object, but only encodes knowledge, and that probabilities should not be interpreted as frequencies of occurrence, but instead as statements of our confidence. This is what’s known as a “Psi-epistemic” interpretation of quantum mechanics, as opposed to the “Psi-ontic” ones in which the wave-function is a real thing. The trouble with Psi-epistemic interpretations is that the moment you refer to something like “knowledge” you have to tell me what you mean by “knowledge”, who or what has this “knowledge,” and how they obtain “knowledge.” Personally, I would also really like to know what this knowledge is supposedly about, but if you insist I’ll keep my mouth shut. Even so, for all we presently know, “knowledge” is not fundamental, but emergent. Referring to knowledge in the postulates of your theory, therefore, is incompatible with reductionism. This means if you like Psi-epistemic interpretations, you will have to tell me just why and when reductionism breaks down or, alternatively, tell me how to derive Psi from a more fundamental law. None of the existing interpretations and modifications of quantum mechanics really solve the problem, which I can go through in detail some other time. For now let me just say that either way you turn the pieces, they won’t fit together.
Seversky
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Bornagain @ Thank you. From the video:
" ... the observer plays a key role in deciding the outcome of the quantum measurements-the answers , and the nature of reality, depends in part on the questions asked." [Davies, Gribbin; 'The Matter Myth', p.307]
"In part" seems to be in line with my point, that only aspects of reality are not real. One cannot decide to perform measurements on an electron when only photons pass the measurement device. Put another way, one cannot make "photon probabilities" collapse into an electron. Right? Also from the video:
"Quantum theory thus denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation." [Rosenblum, Kuttner; 'The Quantum Enigma', p.7]
The first impression is that this claim goes much further than the previous one. However, it is not clear if they mean to say "partly independent." If there is no physical world that is real in any way, if there is nothing independent of its observation, then it would be completely up to us what exists (what to bring into existence). Then we can decide to measure pink unicorns. I take it, that this is not your position. Or is it? :)Origenes
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Well Origenes, I hold that 'realism' has been falsified at an even deeper level than what you are holding in that I hold that the particle doesn't even exist in a particle state until the 'infinite dimensional' quantum wave collapses into a particle state upon our 'free will' decision of what to measure and/or observe. I think the first part of the following video is good at getting this basic point across.
The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
bornagain77
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Bornagain WRT quantum mechanics, do you agree with me that only aspects of reality can be said to be not real? Allow me to explain my point:
When Alice measures one of her particles, she finds its spin to be either up or down. Her results are random, and yet, when she measures up, she instantly knows Bob’s corresponding particle must be down.
For Alice the particle has no spin directionality independent from her as an observer. IOW the spin directionality is ‘not real’ [not independent of her measurement]. However, what remains ‘real’ [independent of her measurement] is that we are dealing with a spinning particle. It’s spin can be up or down but we are dealing with a (real) particle either way. Only an aspect of the particle can rightly be called “not real”, namely it’s spin direction. It cannot be measured such that it is not a particle but a pink elephant. To say that the particle as a whole is not real, let alone to say “The Universe Is Not Real”, seems provocative and without basis to me. Do you agree? As an aside, it should also be noted that, once the particle is measured by Alice, Bob is confronted by a particle with "real" spin. His measurement has no bearing on the direction of the spin of his particle (or am I missing something?)Origenes
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
Yes, 200 by Sev is nice, especially the first two paragraphs,Viola Lee
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Man tries to exalt himself above God. To correct what God said as if his mind could, in any way, be greater than God's. It is written: 2 Timothy 3:1 "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty." 3:2 "For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy," 3:3 "unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good," 3:4 "treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,"relatd
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Contrary to what Zeilinger has falsely been led to believe by Darwinian atheists, science and Christianity are certainly not in a battle with each other. In fact, modern science was born out of, and is still very much crucially dependent upon, Judeo-Christian presuppositions.
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
As Paul Davies noted, "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
So thus, Zeilinger, in so far as actions speak louder than words, used an information-theoretic understanding of the universe to make fairly impressive 'experimental strides' into glimpsing into the undefinable and un-understandable". And that information-theoretic understanding of the universe, as Zeilinger himself conceded, (at least twice), is found at the beginning of John.,,, To point out the obvious, that is either a very astonishing 'coincidence' or else Judeo-Christian theism has far more going for it than Zeilinger has been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists. Zeilinger also stated.
"So far science is guided by the, in my eyes fallacious, Cartesian cut between res cogitans and res extensa. It is wrong to believe that the world out there exists independent of our observation. But it is equally wrong to believe that it exists only because of our observation.",,
I couldn't agree more with Zeilinger. See post 182, i.e. "the free will of an observer is shown to be an integral part, (although not a complete explanation), in bringing about wave function collapse." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-quora-is-it-possible-to-prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-that-intelligence-was-required-to-create-life/#comment-771833 And although, as a Christian, I am very comfortable with what Zeilinger stated in that passage, how a Darwinian/Atheistic materialists could possibly find any comfort whatsoever in anything Zeilinger wrote in that passage I have no idea. That passage is simply completely antithetical to the entire foundation of Atheistic Materialism.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10 11 16

Leave a Reply