DNA as Digital Technology

_{Barry Arrington

November 19, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Which Bible thumping ID nutbag wrote the following:

There is a sense, therefore, in which the three-dimensional coiled shape of a protein is determined by the one-dimensional sequence of code symbols in the DNA…. The whole translation, from strictly sequential DNA ROM [read-only memory] to precisely invariant three-dimensional protein shape, is a remarkable feat of digital information technology.

Comments

Petrushka,
Nor is there any theory of how a designer would know how predict the outcome or utility of a coding string or a change in a coding string. That is why there is no theory if ID, nor any prospect for a theory.
What do you have against Szostak and others who are explicitly attempting to synthesize new life? Most darwinists take them seriously. They are actually in the process of attempting to intelligently cause life. I don't know how far they will get, but at least they are trying.
It is amusing to watch ID proponents sneer at physicists and string theorists, then with absolutely no sense of irony, assert that at some mystical time in the future, we will be able not only to predict protein folding, but will be able to predict the utility of non-coding regulatory effects and their utility in changing ecosystems.
I'm astonished at your anti-science position that just because technology doesn't exist, it never can and never will. (This is not the same as questioning whether a natural explanation for life will be found, because if the event never occurred then there is no explanation to be found.) We're accused of being anti-science, science-stoppers, arguing from ignorance, etc. I'm perplexed that you base reasoning on the assumption that something can't be figured out because, well, it's just too hard. Thinking like that would have kept us in the dark ages indefinitely. And apparently it still seeks to hold us back.ScottAndrews2_{November 25, 2011
November
11
Nov
25
25
2011
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

The problem I see is that biological evolution doesn't exhibit goals or purpose. If evolution were able to steer toward functionality, experiments like Lenski's would not have to explore every possible point mutation in order to find a solution to a change in food source. Such a steering has never been observed. Nor is there any evidence for it in the past, since the overwhelming percentage of species have gone extinct rather than adapt. Nor is there any theory of how a designer would know how predict the outcome or utility of a coding string or a change in a coding string. That is why there is no theory if ID, nor any prospect for a theory. It is amusing to watch ID proponents sneer at physicists and string theorists, then with absolutely no sense of irony, assert that at some mystical time in the future, we will be able not only to predict protein folding, but will be able to predict the utility of non-coding regulatory effects and their utility in changing ecosystems.Petrushka_{November 24, 2011
November
11
Nov
24
24
2011
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

It really makes no difference to evolution whether the origin of the genetic code was a natural occurrence or a miracle. Even Darwin acknowledged that.
Nothing makes any difference - not the origin, the result, or anything in between. Design is just like evolution, except for the process, the method, the increments, the, purpose, and the results. And war is really just another type of peace except for the gunfire, bombs, and death. Lots of people die either way, so both are just methods by which people die.ScottAndrews2_{November 24, 2011
November
11
Nov
24
24
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Petrushka @ 2.2.2.1.2.
It really makes no difference to evolution whether the origin of the genetic code was a natural occurrence or a miracle. Even Darwin acknowledged that.
Translation: "The evidence does not matter, I will believe what I wish, with or without it." And by the way, Darwin didn't even know of the genetic code, so stop putting words in his mouth.
What is important to TOE is how populations change over time.
In case you have not been reading the scietific literature over the past decade or so, that "how" is under constant assault by various specialists as their knowledge of the systems increases - even those who have absolutely no, shall we say, religious convictions (ie; Margulis, Shapiro, Koonin, etc) as well as those who have religious convictions which they temper with physical evidence (eg: Behe, Johnson, Axe, etc), as well as those who are ambiguous on any such convictions (eg: Abel, Denton, etc). In other words, physical evidence matters in science, even to the trusty old claims and ideas from the mid 1800's.
What’s important to any theory of ID is whether coding string can be decoded without trying them in living populations. In other words, can a putative designer predict the results of codes without truing them out.
Faced with the unambiguous physical evidence of a semiotic state in protein synthesis, you are simply left to say something in order to have anything at all to say. Your choice has been to repeat this dreadfully anthropocentric attempt to move the goalpost for the design inference. It does not go un-noticed that it has been the ultimate success of the design inference which prompted this respsonse. This paints you as an ideologue who attempts to protect him/herself from physical evidence. These attempts are now on full display.
Until this can be done, there is no theory of design and will not be a theory of design.
In total, your response addresses absolutely nothing of the physical evidence of a semiotic state in protein synthesis. Your self-serving proclamations have therefore grown stale by comparison (ie: physical evidence always trumps hot air). Perhaps you should give it a rest.Upright BiPed_{November 24, 2011
November
11
Nov
24
24
2011
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

It really makes no difference to evolution whether the origin of the genetic code was a natural occurrence or a miracle. Even Darwin acknowledged that. What is important to TOE is how populations change over time. What's important to any theory of ID is whether coding string can be decoded without trying them in living populations. In other words, can a putative designer predict the results of codes without truing them out. Until this can be done, there is no theory of design and will not be a theory of design.Petrushka_{November 24, 2011
November
11
Nov
24
24
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Apologies for not putting this post in its proper place in this thread.Eugene S_{November 24, 2011
November
11
Nov
24
24
2011
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, Overall, I think what you are saying is akin to alchemy or perpetual motion. As to 1%-99% ratio, absolutely, but how valuable that 1% is! A similar quote from Tchaikovsky: success = 1% of genius and 99% of labour. It just shows the degree of non-linearity of the problem. Intelligent insight is key to science and to all that science has produced to date. Compared to the importance of what you present as examples of automation (which are of course valid by all means), the invention of the possibility to automate it plus the invention of how to make it possible is perhaps even more skewed that 99 to 1. What you keep resisting is the obvious thing that intelligence drives the search for solutions in vast configuration spaces towards regions where solution (solution clusters) are situated.Eugene S_{November 24, 2011
November
11
Nov
24
24
2011
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, you need to focus. The evidence of a semiotic state is staring you in the face. It has physical entailments. They are observable. These entailments place requirements on any explanation proposed as to how they came about. It is not my job to provide you with examples of anything. The evidence is observable, and the observations are coherent. It is your job to show how material causes can satify those physical requirements.Upright BiPed_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Wow, looking back on that thread now, Petrushka, I notice that Larry Moran and Dr Liddle were the only two ID opponents making any comments at all - and one of them bailed on the topic, and the other has yet neglected to respond. So either you were making claims up out of thin air, or you are incredibly mistaken. In case you weren't mistaken, can you please once again tell me who "tried to educate [me], to no avail.". (And yes, I do thank you for bringing that point out into the open).Upright BiPed_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Well you could start by giving me an example of how to decode an arbitrary DNA sequence without "running the program" in a living thing. If it's information in the usual sense, you should be able to tell me how to translate a completely novel sequence into its effects on the organism.Petrushka_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, that was an amazingly lame attempt to skirt the evidence. And who exactly are you talking about? Is it Larry Moran? He decided not to engage the issue at all, and said so straight up. Or are you talking about Dr Liddle, who as of this very moment hasn't responded to a post on her own website (decicated to that specific topic). So who is it, you say? I mean, come on, you do realize these conversations are recorded and dated, right? And what about you Petrushka, what's your excuse for ignoring observable physical evidence? Will you now tell me more about your excuse, or will you finally address the evidence as we actually find it operating in nature?Upright BiPed_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Seems to me a number of people on that thread tried to educate you, to no avail. Good of you to remind everyone.Petrushka_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Well then, Petrushka, by all means; feel free to address the physical evidence in earnest. Enough of your silly proclamations. Educate me on that which your position simply assumes. earnest: 1) a serious and intent mental state [a proposal made in earnest.] 2) a considerable or impressive degree or amountUpright BiPed_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

But a GA has a goal- to solve the problem/ meet the specification.JoeG_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

That position is one that says “because I cannot” anticipate a function, one cannot be anticipated.
As it stands the situation stands as follows: Mainstream evolution has all the necessary processes it needs. They have been observed. They fit the available time frame. There are, of course, gaps in historical knowledge. ID has nothing. Nada. Zip. No designer. No attributes for the designer. No instances of design. No proof of concept that the effects of coding strings can be anticipated. ID's primary spokesmen, Behe and Axe are on record saying there are no shortcuts to anticipating protein folding.Petrushka_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

I notice that no one has jumped in with an example of anticipating the utility of an arbitrary coding string.
I certainly know how you feel. I notice that you haven't jumped in to explain how the semiotic basis of that string came into existence in the first place. And your claim that the function of a string "cannot be anticipated" (and therefore cannot be designed) comes from a fairly weak (and terribly anthropic) position. That position is one that says "because I cannot" anticipate a function, one cannot be anticipated. Not only does this come off as 'swinging at anything', I am not sure the reasoning itself will fly (if ya know what I mean).
It would seem that not only is the ID movement without a designer, it is also lacking a conceptual framework that would make design possible
If you already know everything that must be known on the subject, then by all means, say whatever you wish about what "makes design possible." But as for what we actually know to be true: the framework which makes design implementable was discovered at various points in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. (Francis Crick, James Watson, Marshall Nirenberg, Heinreich Matthaei, Mahlon Hogland, Paul Zamecnik, etc). It is the input of information in a system operating under formal conditions. If you'd like to offer the material origin of formal systems, then please be my guest. I'm all ears.
Is that the best you can do?
I am not sure what you meant here, but what has been told to you (by me and others) is enough to demonstrate that your entire position rest upon an unsupported assumption. You blatantly assume what it is to be explained, and you do so with an interesting tone of certainty.
Poof?
That is an interesting comment coming from someone who's entire explanation based on poof.Upright BiPed_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

It's true that GAs are not as smart as biological evolution. Nor "imaginative." But evolution isn't imaginative either. It has no foresight and no goals, so in that sense a GA is analogous.Petrushka_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ, since all 'logical' things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today (indeed perhaps all of science), of a ‘unification into a theory of everything’ for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have in hand that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.
Psalms 16:10 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.” Brooke Fraser - Hillsong: “Lord Of Lords” (HQ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB4Tc5zJMUc
further note: It should also be pointed out that Special and General Relativity reveal two very, very, different ‘eternalities of time’ within space-time. The ‘entropic eternality of time’ revealed for black holes is rather disturbing for those of us of a spiritual persuasion:
On The Mystery, and Plasticity, of Space-Time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FFKL3FeyebpNNyal1DQ64y20zlplVrjkaLXrM0P5ES4/edit?hl=en_US
further notes:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose). The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists (Please note; the ‘infinity problem’ is focused primarily in black holes) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/
Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 - William Dembski PhD. in Mathematics and Theology Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
,,,Also of related interest to this ‘Zero/Infinity conflict of reconciliation’, between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is the fact that a ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information,,,
Wave function - wikipedia Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single (photon) qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not 'physically real' but was merely 'abstract'. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon 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. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
The following mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment:
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
,,Moreover there is actual physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, that we find between the infinite density of black hole gravity, of General Relativity, and the 'infinite dimensional' realm of Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ,,,
THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Holographic Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.” St. Augustine
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Scott, you may find the following very interesting as to establishing Christ's dominion over all of reality, including all of science: Centrality of Each Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Plausible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics A ‘Christian’ interpretation offers a very plausible, empirically backed, reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics: First a little background on 'the problem': ,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;
The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
,,, for a while I tried to see if the expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
,,,Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.,,,
4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/
,,,yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘thought experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so I dug around a bit and found this,,,
The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity – Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity – While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf
,,,and also ‘serendipitously’ found this,,,
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel’s personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein’s seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, “the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point.” This means that “a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel.” In fact, “Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements.” Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
,,,But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation is! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,,
This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the ‘spooky actions’, for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are ‘universal and instantaneous’ for each observer: Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the “hidden-variables” approach. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori
,,,Shoot, there is even a experiment that shows the preceding quantum experiments will never be overturned by another ‘future’ theory with more predictive power,,,
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this (quantum theory). http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0133
,, and to make universal Quantum Wave collapse that much more ‘personal’ I found this,,,
“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
,,,Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: The “information” determines the production of proteins, but chemistry determines the utility of a given protein...
The information of how to build a wing will determine whether or not your plane will fly, but it is the flow of air which will keep it off the ground. Quite obviously - and there can be no doubt about this - the flow of air is therefore the source of the plane. Aircraft are an emergent property of air. ID has been falsified.
...and utility is what cannot be anticipated.
The airplane is a result of blind trial and error. It cannot be the result of intelligent causation for the stunningly obvious reason that its usefulness cannot be anticipated. ID has been falsified yet again.Upright BiPed_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Scott, Jesus is alive right now and possesses all authority in heaven and earth:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth."
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

BA77,
...I’m fairly certain that makes Him the greatest living master science teacher of all reality.
I'm sure he would be if he taught any science. Are you saying that he 'defeated the death of his human body' through science? I thought he was dead and God resurrected him.ScottAndrews2_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Just how human was Jesus? Wasn't He suppose to be omniscient? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d105FgGQgI
bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Well Scott,, since science is basically a 'spiritual endeavor' on the part of man, using reasoning, logic, and 'directed experimentation' to master, and understand, the material world around him, and since Christ, through 'spiritual endeavor', defeated the material death of his human body, and was given 'all power in heaven and earth' as a result, as all Christians hold as true, I'm fairly certain that makes Him the greatest living master science teacher of all reality.bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, Could I refer you to Chaitin on the explainable because (a) your reasoning about this seems somewhat naive and (b) you are definitely not taking our word for it. Chances are life will never be explained because it is not reducible to physics and/or chemistry (as was hypothesised decades ago by Niels Bohr). Chaitin looks into the theory of algorithmic information and is a co-founder of this entire field of mathematics (together with Kolmogorov). He has shown that there are an infinite number of mathematical truths that cannot be proved. As he put it, the renowned Goedel's theorem is just the tip of an iceberg. The bottom line is, not everything is capable of being explained. Reality is infinitely richer that our understanding of it can ever get.Eugene S_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

2. They are sufficient.
Petrushka, evolution as we know it to exist and operate is dependent upon recorded genetic information. One is wholly dependent on the other, not vise versa. This recorded information exists in a semiotic state. This state has physical entailments which are entirely observable and coherently understood. For you to suggest that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain these observations is patently false. By 'patently false' - I mean there is absolutely no scientific (empirical, clinically observable) evidence that the process of evolution can cause these required (observed) physical entailments to come into existence. This observation stands without a single demonstrable exception of any kind whatsoever. If you think this to be false, then by all means, please demonstrate the process by which evolution causes matter to become discretely arranged in order to cause a specific effect within a dedicated system, and where a second arrangement of matter becomes coordinated in a way to establish the (immaterial, yet) physical relationship between the representational arrangement and the resulting effect - without physically interacting with either, as they themselves remain discrete. If you cannot do this (without assumption or equivocation), then you alternately demonstrate that such a process is as unknown to you as it is to everyone else on the surface of the planet. (In other words, there are no scientific findings whatsoever to support your claims). At which time, you will be left to the dynamic physical evidence as it actually exists - which I suggest is probably a good thing. But in any case, to get to that point, you'll be required to actually address the physical evidence as it is found in nature. If you can do so, then do so.Upright BiPed_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Scott, once again, if I were you, I would not be so quick to dismiss Christianity as a vital catalyst in science. Especially since Christ REALLY DID, from the best evidence I can gather, rise from the dead.
I am a Christian. For the life of me, I cannot see the connection between these two sentences.ScottAndrews2_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Scott, once again, if I were you, I would not be so quick to dismiss Christianity as a vital catalyst in science. Especially since Christ REALLY DID, from the best evidence I can gather, rise from the dead. (That IS NOT a trivial thing Scott!) If you question the studies I listed and think they are jerry rigged, I suggest you do your own research, but when I do this I always find, surprisingly, that time after time, the evidence comes down in favor of Christianity!bornagain77_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

BA77, The question of origins alone is where I see a difference. If a Christian is more likely that an atheist to have designed the microcells in my plasma TV, it's only because there are more Christians than atheists. To compare SAT scores between Christian private schools and public schools is blatantly loaded. Who are they kidding? Of course private school students score higher than public school students. Where's the comparison of Christian private schools to non-specifically-Christian private schools? How ironic that they would publish a statistic that appears to value education while simultaneously underestimating my intelligence.ScottAndrews2_{November 23, 2011
November
11
Nov
23
23
2011
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply