Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In a characteristic display of scientific humility, PZ Myers announces, …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“Scientists! If You’re Not an Atheist, You Aren’t Doing Science Right!”

And what exactly are the achievements that the sage of Morris, Minnesota himself boasts, that justify such a pronouncement?

Note the unhinged comments from supporters at YouTube.

Like we said, the big problem with new atheism is not its conflict with traditional religion and philosophy but its growing conflict with liberal democracy and representative government.

See also: He said it: “There is more evidence for evolution than … the idea that things are made up of atoms”

Comments
William J Murray posted this:
Since you have made the claim that human intelligence contains no supernatural elements, I challenge you to support that claim.
Certainly. I can find no published scientific material on the subject of human neurobiology that supports the presence of any supernatural element in human intelligence. I could be wrong, or I could not have searched hard enough, but so far, none. timothya
Timothy: "My claim about causation is that human intelligance (as a cause) contains no supernatural elements." (1) Irrelevant. Nobody here (that I can see) claimed it did. Once again, the error is yours in assuming UB was contrasting "natural" with "supernatural", when he wasn't (which he has pointed out). This is called a straw man - you're making an argument against something nobody here claimed. (2) Since you have made the claim that human intelligence contains no supernatural elements, I challenge you to support that claim. William J Murray
William J Murray posted:
Calling intelligence “natural” doesn’t make a case that it is not necessary for the existence of the red plastic ball.
Talk about misrepresentation. I would never claim such a silly thing. My claim about causation is that human intelligance (as a cause) contains no supernatural elements. Human intelligence combined with natural materials and natural physical processes is sufficient to explain red plastic balls. timothya
Timothya, When you misrepresent the position of the person you are debating, and they (and others) point it out, and you continue to misrepresent their position, then it becomes obviously you are not interested in honest, meaningful debate. William J Murray
William J Murray asked:
BTW, where did anyone claim that superntural causes are required to produce red plastic balls?
See 58 in response to my 57. Upright Biped clearly thinks my statement of causation is insufficient. If he/she requires other types of cause, they must be supernatural. timothya
TA: "Artificial and natural are not necessarily antonymic, whereas natural and supernatural are. No supernatural causes are required to produce red plastic balls." No, "natural" can be seen as a subset of of "supernatural", so if one wishes to equivocate to the point of having terms that are essentially meaningless, then one can go that route as well. BTW, where did anyone claim that superntural causes are required to produce red plastic balls? William J Murray
Timothya, The ID argument is that some phenomena are, for all reasonable purposes, not plausibly explicable without an intelligence guiding events towards an end - such as the existence of red plastic balls. To subsume that necessary intelligence under the term "natural" only evades the point, it doesn't address it. It doesn't matter if you call that necessary, pro-active intelligence natural, supernatural, or fig pudding, the point is that without it, one cannot reasonably explain the existence of red plastic balls. Calling intelligence "natural" doesn't make a case that it is not necessary for the existence of the red plastic ball. William J Murray
Timothya: Then you don't understand the argument being presented, and/or are embarked on the same straw man that has been explained and refuted countless times here. William J Murray
William J Murray said this:
Apparently not, since you seem to think that human engineers and machine operators are part of a non-artificial, natural process.
Yup, you got it in one. Human beings are natural entities (and so are the artefacts they produce from their intelligence). Artificial and natural are not necessarily antonymic, whereas natural and supernatural are. No supernatural causes are required to produce red plastic balls. timothya
Red plastic balls are formed by (natural) physical and chemical processes under the direction of (natural) human engineers
If I were forced to willfully look past the understanding of terms, and simple assume my conclusions instead; if I my arguments required of me a tactical defense where I could not allow the use of a word such as "artificial" as a nominal distinction between the actual existence of, say, a space shuttle and a clump of mud, then I think I would simply change my beliefs. They would not be worth having. Upright BiPed
Timothya, Do you not understand that when UB uses the term "natural", it is in contrast to the opposing term "artificial"? Apparently not, since you seem to think that human engineers and machine operators are part of a non-artificial, natural process. William J Murray
Upright Biped said this:
What is the natural cause of a red plastic ball? The red plastic ball is made of material which is faithfully following physcical law, but is there anything in the plastic that would cause it to form a sphere and dye itself red?
No. Red plastic balls do not normally cause themselves to become round and red. Red plastic balls are formed by (natural) physical and chemical processes under the direction of (natural) human engineers and (natural) machine operators. Are you sure you meant to post this? timothya
"That natural effects have natural causes." What is the natural cause of a red plastic ball? The red plastic ball is made of material which is faithfully following physcical law, but is there anything in the plastic that would cause it to form a sphere and dye itself red? Is there? This is not a question beyond giving an answer. Upright BiPed
Mung shouted this:
WHAT IS YOUR THEORY OF CAUSATION?
That natural effects have natural causes. timothya
Mung said this (and Brent agreed):
If you believe that a natural entity can intervene in nature at any time, then no scientific experiment (of any kind!) can reliably tell us that X causes Y.
What is this comment meant to signify? If a natural entity "intervenes" in its natural environment, then (in principle, at least) science will be able to find evidence of the connection between natural cause and natural effect using the methods of normal science. Or was this meant to be a joke? timothya
@Mung, Exactly. Just why is there that "bit" about real science being able to be repeatable? Perhaps someone already thought of the possibility for anomalies??? Just maybe. Brent
If you believe that a natural entity can intervene in nature at any time, then no scientific experiment (of any kind!) can reliably tell us that X causes Y. Mung
Man, how did I miss this thread? Someone said:
If you believe that a supernatural entity can intervene in nature at any time, then no scientific experiment (of any kind!) can reliably tell us that X causes Y.
WHAT IS YOUR THEORY OF CAUSATION? Mung
TA: I shortly have to get out and set up for a coming trop storm. I will be brief. 4 --> I stated a matter of fact. This is the testimony of Boyle, whose life reflected just such a Christian commitment. 5 --> The Boyle Lectures from 1692 on as endowed in Boyle's will, were a matter of public record. Google it. 7 --> I linked the book, and have cited from it, There are several other works published across DECADES of a reasonably long (for the time) life. 8 --> A Google search will suffice to show that I am in fact citing from the given work. The onward remarks on those who would pretend to use science as a basis for atheism would be helpful to consult even today. 9 ii --> I spoke to scientists who are theists, and gave also an onward linked summary that will show that this is accurate. 9 iii --> In fact there are many scientists (and closely related professionals) who are theists, today and historically. 9 iv --> I am documenting a fact that you need to check out, in duty of care to fairness, before commenting adversely. 9 v --> Documented historically and in the contemporary world. Note the very term law of nature points to there being a lawgiver of nature. This can be seen in the already pointed out General Scholium to Principia and the Query 31 to Opticks, just to give the case with Newton. Your comment about atheistical scientists, has nothing to do with the fact of theistic scientists, whose position has enough historical impact that we still talk about laws of nature. KF kairosfocus
Kairosfocus: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. No. 5. Pass, you provided insufficient data to establish his motivation. 6. Yes. 7. Pass, I am not competent to judge what constitutes a serious Christian and a practising scientist. 8. Yes. I'll take your word for it. 9i. Yes. 9ii. No. Only some scientists think this, if I am reading your formulation correctly. 9iii. Pass, you provided insufficient data for me to agree or disagree with the term "many". 9iv. Pass, depends on 9iii. Insufficient data to hold a reliable opinion, depends on the definition of "many". 9v. Pass, depends on 9iii. Insufficient data to hold a reliable opinion, depends on the definition of "many". 10. Agreed with six, disagreed with two, insufficient data to form a judgement on five. Reason for disagreeing with 4: Whose characterisation of the experience am I being asked to adjudicate? Yours? His? An independent observer of the event? Who? Reason for disagreeing with 9ii: Your formulation conflates the term "scientist" and "apostle". If you mean scientists in general, then I disagree, since it is trivially true that there have been atheist scientists as long as science has existed as a human activity who denied the existence of a "lawgiver". timothya
Onlookers (and TA), I think I am going to take a leaf from Brent's book. Of course, in so doing, I note how -- having raised Boyle's law of the spring of the air as an example to try to counter the correction that the miraculous is quite consistent with a world that follows a usual course amenable to science -- TA studiously ignores the inconvenient truth about Boyle. I think this is a clear case to be put on the table in challenge to his prejudice against theists, that imagines us to be irrational devotees of chaos rather than cosmos, thus enemies of science. Let us therefore pose a few yes/no Q's: 1 --> Is is so that Boyle was a pivotal founder of science and especially of the priority of experiment? 2 --> Is it true that he was one of the 12 charter members of the Royal Society, the oldest Scientific Society, that still publishes the longest-running Journal? 3 --> Is it fair to conclude, then, that he was a founding champion of modern science? 4 --> Is it true that in light of a vivid sense of God and our accountability before him, occasioned by a thunderstorm (BTW, this is similar to the life of Luther), he had a clear conversion experience that -- never mind the inevitable struggles and stumbles of life -- profoundly shaped his life from that time on? 5 --> Is it true that he endowed a course of lectures in defense of the Christian faith from atheists and fellow travellers? (BTW, does this not also show that it was quite possible to be an open atheist or the like as a member of "Society" in those days?) 6 --> Did he or did he not, writing across decades, publish a series of works, not only on science and popular science [including pioneering publishing in the vernacular], but also on theology, philosophy and related apologetics topics? 7 --> Did he or did he not publish as one such work, The Christian Virtuoso, defending the legitimacy of being a serious Christian and a practicing scientist, using as a pivotal argument what Paul wrote in Rom 1 about how the evident order of the universe speaks to one and all so plainly about the Lawgiver of the Laws of nature etc, that those who reject it are without excuse before Him? 8 --> And in particular, is or is not the following an excerpt from this book? To wit:
I muft not [omit] that judicious Observation of one of the firft and greateft Experimental Philofophers of our Age, (Sir Francis Bacon) That God never wrought a Miracle to convince Athe-ifts, becaufe in his Vifible Works he had plac’d enough to do it, if they were not wanting to themfelves. The Reafon he gives for which Remark, I fhall confirm, by obfefving, that ’tis intimated in a paffage of St. Paul [Rom. i. 20.], afferting both that the in-vifible things of God are clearly feen from the Crea-tion of the World , as Tokens and Ef-fects, . . . and that his Divinity and Eternal Power may be fo well underftood by the things that are made, that the Gentiles, who had but the Light of Nature to lead them to the acknowledgment of the true God , were Excufelefs, for not being brought by that Guide to that Acknowledgment. And indeed, the Experimental Pht-lofophy giving us a more clear difco-very , than Strangers to it have, of the divine Excellencies difplay’d in the Fabrick and Conduct of the Univerfe, and of the Creatures it confifts of, very much difpofeth the mind, to afcribe such admirable Effects to fo incompetent and pitiful a Caufe as Blind Chance, or the tumultuous Juftlings of Atomical Portions of fenfelefs Matter and leads it direcly to the acknowledgment and adoration of a moft Intelligent,Powerful and Benign Author of things, to whom alone fuch excellent Productions may, with the greateft Congruity, be afcrib’d.
9 --> Is it not then fair to say:
i: that Theists can be, have been and are scientists of even world class rank [cf. Fritz Schaeffer here], ii: that the theism held by scientists and apostles alike sees the order of a universe working by laws as testifying to its lawgiver, iii: that many such scientists would assent to Kepler in his saying that in science we think God's [creative and sustaining] thoughts after him, and iv: that (following say C S Lewis and others) such will often hold something very much like the premise that miracles to stand out as signs pointing beyond the usual course of nature, are necessarily rare [and will be in a context of communication and relationship that highlights their revelatory significance], i.e. v: they would hold that we live in a cosmos that follows a lawful order that reflects an ordering lawgiver . . . ?
10 --> If you disagree, why, and on what evident facts? KF kairosfocus
Brent: You miss the point of what I said. I agree with you that it is logically possible for your proposed universe to exist (that is, one in which God need not interfere). If God, indeed, did not interfere, then such universe would be indistinguishable from one that was not created by God. We could not tell the difference between the two from any information available within the universe. timothya
Public Service Announcement There are different ways of dealing with people like Tim. One I'm finding effective, after giving the benefit of the doubt, is to ask yes/no questions. I could, of course, repeat my last question to Tim, not leaving him room to slither out of the side of the sandwich, but it is apparent that he isn't interested in being rational or coherent. He is satisfied with playing games. He is trolling. He stated his position which, on the surface, is clear. But he either cannot, or will not, show that his reasoning for his position has any rational or coherent foundation. So, in actuality, his position is unclear, which he obviously prefers, and for obvious reasons. He knows he has no foundation for his position. And to try to argue with someone who will not state a clear position is like fighting the wind. In this case, even the wind doesn't know where it's blowing. Brent
I asked:
Is it logically possible that God (a maximally great being) could have created a universe like this one in such a way that He needn’t interfere, but it would run according to rules “programmed in”? Yes/No
You answered:
Brent: Yes, but since there can be no information transfer across the singularity, we will never know one way or the other. Such a universe would be indistinguishable from one that poofed into existence on its own. So why prefer a more complicated explanation? Roger of Ockham is your friend.
So you again, very trolly, twist and manipulate my words into as self-serving a meaning as possible. I didn't say that God could not interfere, but that He need not. Goodbye, troll. Brent
,,,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 Information In Photon - Robert W. Boyd - slides from presentation http://www.quantumphotonics.uottawa.ca/assets/pdf/Boyd-Como-InPho.pdf Information in a Photon - Robert W. Boyd - 2010 Excerpt: By its conventional definition, a photon is one unit of excitation of a mode of the electromagnetic field. The modes of the electromagnetic field constitute a countably infinite set of basis functions, and in this sense the amount of information that can be impressed onto an individual photon is unlimited. http://www.pqeconference.com/pqe2011/abstractd/013.pdf
Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';
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 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 following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:,,,
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 The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011 http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0? state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing 'proof', at least as much 'proof' as empirical evidence will allow, that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,
The Word Is Alive - Casting Crowns - music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/
bornagain77
Zeilinger's principle The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. http://science.jrank.org/pages/20784/Zeilinger%27s-principle.html#ixzz17a7f88PM Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'conserved' quantum information:,,,
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the 'infinite information' of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the 'uncertain' particle state,,,
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit “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.
,,,Wigner stated this in regards 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.”,,, The following solidified Wigner’s work from another angle;
“I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. - Preceding quote taken from this following video; Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video) http://vimeo.com/37517080 Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 Nonlocal "realistic" Leggett models can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment - Antoine Suarez Center for Quantum Philosophy, - 2008 Excerpt: (page 3) The independence of quantum measurement from the presence of human consciousness has not been proved wrong by any experiment to date.,,, "nonlocal correlations happen from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that tells us how they happen." http://www.quantumphil.org/SuarezFOOP201R2.pdf
And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities were extended in 2010:
Violation of Leggett inequalities in orbital angular momentum subspaces - 2010 Main results. We extend the violation of Leggett inequalities to the orbital angular momentum (OAM) state space of photons, which is associated with their helical wavefronts. We define our measurements in a Bloch sphere for OAM and measure the Leggett parameter LN (where N is the number of settings for the signal photon) as we change the angle ? (see figure). We observe excellent agreement with quantum mechanical predictions (red line), and show a violation of five and six standard deviations for N = 3 and N = 4, respectively. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/12/123007
bornagain77
,,These following experiments offer further confirmation that the teleportation of information is indeed 'instantaneous', thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/ Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011 Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing
Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information's dominion over space and time (specifically time);
Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011 Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html
and this experiment: Here’s a variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights quantum information's transcendence of time so as to effect 'spooky action into the past';
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
,,,Whereas these following experiment shows that quantum information is 'conserved',,,
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
,,,Moreover, when the quantum wave state (superposition), which is defined as a infinite dimensional state, a wave state which can be encoded with pixelated information (University of Rochester), collapses to its particle state, the collapsed state yields only a single bit of information:,,,
Wave function 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single 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
bornagain77
timothya you make a very peculiar claim here:
there can be no information transfer across the singularity,
Now let's focus in on that word information that you so nonchalantly used and see what we can glean from it:
Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang and universe https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit
From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!
"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - (Paper announced at Hawking's 70th birthday party) Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - January 2012 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the ‘beyond space and time’ 'information theoretic' origin, and sustaining, of this universe,; Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it. i.e. one must now appeal to a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain the continued existence of photons within spacetime:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
The following experiments demonstrate that energy and mass reduce to quantum information;
How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to 'instantaneous' teleportation:,,,
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
bornagain77
F/N: Nor am I blind to how you would compare an opinion of a dominant school of thought with the EXPERIENCE of millions. FYI, there are no observations of Darwinian or similar macro-evo, for the excellent reason that we were not there. Think about how you are in effect equating a model of the unobserved past, with the experience of millions. The two things are not even in the same epistemic category. kairosfocus
TA: Remember, this is the context in which your dismissals come to me: I would not be here to converse with you had it not been for a miracle of guidance on the day when my mother cried out in despair to God after nursing me through yet another awful night. (I also testify to other cases of healings, including of myself. And let's just say that there is a reason why a recent notorious web skeptic site had to admit that a significant majority of physicians acknowledge the reality of healings.) Your skeptical dismissals and suggestion that my experiences are "fallacies" therefore ring very hollow to me. Second, I am astonished that you would imagine that in pointing to my own experience and that of quite literally millions across the world and for thousands of years, I am appealing to blind adherence to authority or to blind adherence to an opinion. Frankly, whatever you may explain away the vast body of experience and positive life transformation I speak of, that body of experience and how it is understood is a fact with as good a basis of testimony and record as anything you may encounter in any book of history or in any court room. Lastly, I would not so hastily dismiss the millions -- including some of the leading figures of our civilisation who testify to life-transforming encounters and relationships with God. (Pascal's night of fire, as just one case, is well known in history. Similarly, the whole twelve-step recovery movement pivots on life-transforming experience of God's help; accounting for thousands and thousands of cases. Remember, those who study such will consistently inform us how delusions are disintegrative, not integrative and healing.) If the human mind is that prone to delusion, you will find yourself in the same boat in dealing with your own perceptions and beliefs. It is not helpful to saw off the branch on which you are sitting, too. Please, think again. And, oh yes, on Boyle, a founder of the Royal Society, you may profit by reading in his The Christian Virtuoso [= learned scientist], to get a balance to the methodological Naturalism you have been immersed in. Let me clip (cleaning up a messy scan, I will leave in the f = s):
I muft not [omit] that judicious Observation of one of the firft and greateft Experimental Philofophers of our Age, (Sir Francis Bacon) That God never wrought a Miracle to convince Athe-ifts, becaufe in his Vifible Works he had plac'd enough to do it, if they were not wanting to themfelves. The Reafon he gives for which Remark, I fhall confirm, by obfefving, that 'tis intimated in a paffage of St. Paul [Rom. i. 20.], afferting both that the in-vifible things of God are clearly feen from the Crea-tion of the World , as Tokens and Ef-fects, . . . and that his Divinity and Eternal Power may be fo well underftood by the things that are made, that the Gentiles, who had but the Light of Nature to lead them to the acknowledgment of the true God , were Excufelefs, for not being brought by that Guide to that Acknowledgment. And indeed, the Experimental Pht-lofophy giving us a more clear difco-very , than Strangers to it have, of the divine Excellencies difplay'd in the Fabrick and Conduct of the Univerfe, and of the Creatures it confifts of, very much difpofeth the mind, to afcribe such admirable Effects to fo incompetent and pitiful a Caufe as Blind Chance, or the tumultuous Juftlings of Atomical Portions of fenfelefs Matter and leads it direcly to the acknowledgment and adoration of a moft Intelligent,Powerful and Benign Author of things, to whom alone fuch excellent Productions may, with the greateft Congruity, be afcrib'd.
In short, far from your caricature of a theistic chaos that undermines the possibility of science, we see here how theistic thought was a part and parcel of the confidence of founders of modern science in a rational and intelligible cosmos that reflected its Creator. KF PS: Onlookers, FYI, my worldview 101 level case on why I take the view I hold is here on in context. kairosfocus
1 2

Leave a Reply