Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin’s Doubt author Steve Meyer on the film Gravity with Michael Medved

arroba Email

Darwin’s Doubt author Steve Meyer on the film Gravity with Michael Medved

Darwin's Doubt

On this episode of ID the Future, Stephen Meyer appears on the Michael Medved Show to talk about Gravity – both the film and the force. Listen in on a fascinating discussion about this new hit movie, as well as deeper questions concerning our current understanding of how gravity works and academic backlash faced by Sir Isaac Newton. What parallels can be drawn with contemporary arguments against intelligent design?

How dare Newton com along and solve a problem that academics had been profitably obfuscating for centuries?

Hear also: Michael Behe on UK’s The Mind Renewed: How the biochemist went from acceptance of Darwin to doubt

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

In regards to Gravity, I would like to draw attention to this fascinating experiment that is currently being developed to test the interface between General Relativity and Quantum Theory:
Physicists Eye Quantum-Gravity Interface -Oct. 31, 2013 Excerpt: Gravity curves space and time around massive objects. What happens when such objects are put in quantum superpositions, causing space-time to curve in two different ways?,,, Markus Aspelmeyer, a professor of physics at the University of Vienna, is equally optimistic. His group is developing three separate experiments at the quantum-gravity interface — two for the lab and one for an orbiting satellite.,, Many physicists expect quantum theory to prevail. They believe the ball on a spring should, in principle, be able to exist in two places at once, just as a photon can. The ball’s gravitational field should be able to interfere with itself in a quantum superposition, just as the photon’s electromagnetic field does. “I don’t see why these concepts of quantum theory that have proven to be right for the case of light should fail for the case of gravity,” Aspelmeyer said. But the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics itself suggests that gravity might behave differently. https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131031-physicists-eye-quantum-gravity-interface/ I agree with Aspelmeyer, since I hold consciousness, not material, to be shown to be foundational to reality, then I fully expect that gravity, just like photons and atoms currently do in our experiments, will be found to be in superposition prior to observation.
Footnotes of interest:
Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU
If you have trouble accepting the implications of the preceding video, don’t feel alone, Nobel prize winner Anthony Leggett, who developed Leggett’s inequality to try to prove that an objective material reality exists when we are not looking at it, still does not believe the results of the experiment that he himself was integral in devising, even though the inequality was violated by a stunning 80 orders of magnitude. He seems to have done this simply because the results contradicted the ‘realism’ he believes in (realism is the notion that an objective material reality exists apart from our conscious observation of it).
A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931
semi related: "Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?" Walter Bradley (Professor of Engineering) - (2012) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MTPtNJiTw "Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?" Walter Bradley - paper http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html bornagain77

Leave a Reply