Eric Hedin writes:
The famous American physicist John Wheeler did not shy away from seeking to understand the most fundamental aspects of our universe. Wheeler coined the aphorism “It from bit” to describe his conviction, born of the many discoveries in particle physics and cosmology in the twentieth century, that information (characterized by the computer storage term “bit”) preceded and produced everything else (“it”). He elaborated:
Otherwise put, every it—every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin.1
Thus, in Wheeler’s conception, information precedes and transcends matter, energy, time, and space.
We also know, as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has emphasized, that in every case where we are able to trace information back to a source, we arrive at an intelligent agent—a poet or computer programmer or composer or architect.2 When we couple the “It from Bit” insight with this observation regarding our uniform experience with information creation, we are led toward a conclusion that strongly echoes a core claim of theistic religion such as we find in the Hebrew scriptures announcing that nature “pours forth speech” and is the result of a divine mind’s spoken words “in the beginning”3—or, as one of the New Testament authors put it, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and “all things were made through him.”4
Quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger, in reviewing Wheeler’s contributions to quantum phenomena, notes this same connection between the discoveries of modern physics and what he terms “old knowledge.” Zeilinger states:
In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Then 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.’5
[1] John A. Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley, 1990).
[2] John Archibald Wheeler, A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1990). John Archibald Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links,” in Feynman and Computing, edited by Anthony J. G. Hey (Boca Raton, FL; Taylor and Francis Group LLC, 2002), 109.
[3] Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 394-395.
[4] Psalm 19, Genesis 1.
[5] John 1:1, 3a.
Excerpted from Canceled Science (ch. 12), by Eric Hedin.
If information is always about something else, how can it be a first cause since whatever the information is about must have preceded it?
IDvolution What is IDvolution?
IDvolution – God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc.. in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
Arrows show information flow.
IDvolution
ID=Intelligently Designed
volution – having a volute or rolled-up form.
Buffalo at 2,
God not only created the kinds, He made them adaptable but within limits. The Fall, a literal event, affected all of Creation. This caused not only deleterious mutations but a change in the function of some viruses and in the relationships of creatures toward each other. The first man, Adam, saw this happen along with the first woman, Eve. This broken relationship with Creation continued, but later, the Redeemer arrived and paid the price for sin by His sacrifice. Yet the effects of The Fall are still felt today and each person carries Original Sin. I don’t think IDvolution, as a name, is a good one. I think Intelligent Design by itself suffices.
“ If information is always about something else, how can it be a first cause since whatever the information is about must have preceded it?”
Gosh, Seversky, you’ve cracked it! You’ve annihilated ‘first cause” arguments. The very question that Aristotle made popular! And with an unanswerable child-like question too.
Let me be the first to shake your hand before CD and SG arrive to praise you.
Realtd, when did the fall happen? In a young-earth context, like 6000 or so years ago, or in an old-earth context, tens of thousands of years ago when it is believed the first fully-human creatures appeared?
Viola Lee @5,
While Relatd might have an opinion, the Bible has no direct statement on your question.
In 1650, Archbishop James Ussher famously computed the creation of the universe from the genealogy of Adam and his descendants from Genesis. However, there are significantly different interpretations of Genesis, which is a subject more appropriate for a theological website.
A scientific perspective is based on measurements, observations, experiments, and inferences. Following the science depends on the data obtained and its interpretation, which has and will continue to change, sometimes dramatically.
For example, consider polystrate fossils. A direct interpretation of fossilized polystrate trees would result in the inference that the trunks of such trees protruded from the earth for millions of years, which is not very likely considering contemporary observation.
https://earthage.org/polystrate-fossils/
Other issues include
https://earthage.org/sea-sloths-and-out-of-order-fossils/
Finally, I’d ask the question (on a different forum!), what is the length of one “day” as mentioned in Genesis? If the answer given me is 24 hours, I ask how long is one “hour,” and so on. The point is that without periodicity, there’s no way to measure time.
Science, which is always being updated by new discoveries, should not be used to criticize or to be reconciled with what’s written in the Bible. I believe these should remain in separate domains.
Furthermore, scientific theories (and so-called “facts”) should always be held loosely rather than becoming doctrinaire as seems to be common in academia.
The OP mentions
“Word” in Greek is Logos, a thought, concept, or communication:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
In other words, information. Currently, the concept of information is poorly understood from a scientific perspective. For example, you pick up two objects with different shapes. What’s the ratio of intrinsic information between them?
While this verse in the Gospel of John is very sweet to me, indicating the source of our existence (and compatible with the current understanding of quantum mechanics), I will take my own medicine and not make any scientific claims based on this passage in the Bible.
-Q
Seversky argues, “If information is always about something else, how can it be a first cause since whatever the information is about must have preceded it?”
Well Seversky, obviously, the flaw is in your premise. i.e. “If information is always about something else,,,”
Information is not “always” about something else’, information is “also” constitutive of what something is in the first place. i.e. Information, besides being about something, is also now shown to be what actualizes something and brings it into being in the first place,
In short Seversky, you have falsely presupposed that information is “always” and “only” about something else. Yet, information is “also” constitutive of, and is what actualizes, what something is in the first place. In this case, information is constitutive of “every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself” (J. Wheeler).
That information is “also” constitutive of, and is what actualizes, what something is is fairly easy to see with quantum teleportation experiments.
As the following article on quantum teleportation states, “In principle, however, the ’copy’ (atom) can be indistinguishable from the original, (atom that was destroyed)”
And as the following article states, “the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.”
And as the following article states, “the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,”
So not only can, as Seversky pointed out, information be about something else, but information is also now shown, via quantum teleportation, to tell atoms and photons exactly what to be. In short, information is shown to be constitutive of what something is in the first place. Information is not “always” and “only” about something else as Seversky falsely presupposed in his argument that information can’t be the ‘first cause’.
It is also interesting to note that, since “the original (particle) has to be destroyed” in quantum teleportation because “you can’t ’clone’ a quantum state”, then this teleportation of quantum information that tells a ‘new’ particle exactly what to be also lends fairly strong credence to the Christian’s contention that it is the soul, not the material body, that defines who we actually are as persons.
As Asher Peres himself, when asked by a journalist if quantum teleportation could transport a person’s soul as well as their body, answered, “No, not the body, just the soul.”
Quote and Verse
Supplemental note:
Also of supplemental note, Anton Zeilinger, is his recent 2022 Nobel prize lecture, stated, “That tells you something about the role of space and time (in quantum measurements). There’s no role at all.”,,,
Verse:
Querius/5
It’s ironic that you would make this observation, with which I agree:
Ironic insofar as you will rely upon this “perspective” to make the always problematic, plain language of Genesis “harmonize” with the reality of its complete inconsistency w/ deep time OoL and evolutionary biology. But the same courtesy is never extended to the ongoing development of evolutionary biology.
What is even more ironic is that you try to push it off to a “more appropriate” forum which is the intellectual equivalent of sweeping it under the rug.
As ridiculous as Ussher’s project to date creation was, at least he had the intellectual honesty to own it. From WJC’s “mytho-history” nonsense to Ken Hamm or Kent Hovind’s cartoonish, Ussher-esque portrayals of literal Genesis, this problem for Christianity is not going to go away. Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity, which, by all objective measures, is already on life-support……..
This lecture provides the proper perspective for considering Genesis in light of science. He provides the proper context for the length of days, etc.
Long, but worth your time. Q and A afterward. Lennox nails it.
CD, atheistic materialism is long dead and buried. The only reason it doesn’t feel that way to you is because you and atheistic members of the scientific community remain steadfastly committed to perpetuating the lie, at all costs.
You will know the truth after you take your last breath.
https://youtu.be/0FmO2XKMe6g
CD: “to make the always problematic, plain language of Genesis “harmonize” with the reality of its complete inconsistency w/ deep time,,,”
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is certainly not now, nor has it historically been, the ‘official’ position of the church, but YEC is a recent 20th century movement within protestant circles of Christianity.
St. Augustine himself stated, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine”
a few more notes,
BA77
With due respect, BA, I’ve seen this exegesis multiple times before and it is not persuasive….
CD, therein lies the problem. Nothing in you at the moment is willing to consider the possibility that you, not us nutty Christians, are the one who is wrong.
Ultimately, what is true will be true, regardless of your resistance. And your choice will be actualized for eternity. Seems to me, an error of that magnitude would produce in any reasonable person, now staring The Truth in the face, as he simply grants your lifelong wish, the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Seversky,
I checked your stats. You have posted 5, 286 comments. Since you use the site so much, you really should make a donation this year!!
Chuckdarwin @8,
Apparently, you scanned rather that read my comment. No, I RESIST trying to harmonize the Bible with current scientific theories precisely because science is always changing.
Please scan the above sentence again, focusing on the word RESIST.
I do recognize general compatibility and some interesting coincidences. In fact, the Bible contains an essentially complete description of the scientific method written about 2,800 years ago. In ANE and many other ancient traditions, the sun and moon are gods/goddesses. In Genesis, they are described as “lamps.” Imagine that.
This is only true if “evolutionary biology” is a religion rather than a science. Apparently this is true in your case, but for people who study science dispassionately, when a theory is falsified by new discoveries, when a theory repeated fails to make correct predictions, and when a theory needs to constantly be propped up with MUSTA and MIGHTA statements, it’s time to consider new alternatives, which is exactly what the Royal Society called for a revision in 2016 in light of devastating genomic evidence, not to mention that Darwinism served as an apologetic for racism and colonialism.
https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/
Again, I recognize a distinction between the scientific process and religious belief, while you appear to have merged them.
Funny that you should say that because this means that you broadly deny
1. https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
Note: the authors immediately distance the subject from the Biblical narrative of the first Adam and Eve, but not on scientific grounds. In other words, if the Biblical narrative is historically true, then the observed genomic results would also indicate a common ancestral pair of all humanity.
2. The existence of any evil in humanity. Good luck with that.
-Q
Regarding Sev’s initial silly comment: if I make a design for a new gadget, the plans (information) are “about” something that does not yet exist, but that I hope will exist in the future. Thus, not all information is about things that already exist.
Ba77 at 10,
The writings of various people, saints or not, do not appear to resolve this issue. Further, many have argued with the Church over the centuries over points like this so, for some, it is not a trivial matter. And some cling to the apparent vagueness to say the days in question could not have been 24 hour days. In the Catholic Church, and in the United States, Sunday was regarded a a day of rest. Most businesses were closed. People went to church. That was normal and average throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
But back to the subject. It cannot be ignored that God acted in His Creation. The Bible records things God actually did. So, if a day was longer than 24 hours during Creation then that is one possibility. However, the Church has no official teaching about this. Regarding evolution, various publications paint the Church as “evolution friendly.” That is not factual. When Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 about evolution, he referred to theories of evolution, plural. It was further stated in the document Communion and Stewardship that any of the various versions of the theories of evolution that deny to God a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe are incompatible with the faith.
Bornagain77 @10,
The concept of a “24-hour day” interpretation of the days of Genesis is problematic. We currently measure a “day” (by one of several scientific definitions) by the light-dark cycle of the earth’s revolutions with respect to the sun into 24 segments. However, the Genesis narrative asserts that the sun and moon were created in the THIRD day.
In the past, many people mocked Genesis for this reason. However, SCIENCE now tells us that light appeared before the formation of stars, currently thought to be about 400 million years AFTER the big bang. 400 million years after the creation.
BUT . . .
Is it possible that science someday conclude that stars appeared before light? Yes, it’s entirely possible!
And then some years or centuries later, is it possible that new discoveries will reverse the order again? Yes, of course it’s possible.
Science cannot take any shortcuts, but must carefully use evidence create hypotheses that can be tested against the existing evidence, make predictions, and withstand new discoveries. A strong hypothesis can eventually rise to the level of a theory or a model. It’s never considered a fact.
Except for the theory of evolution, of course. It’s taught as a fact without respect for continued discoveries of falsifying evidence. It’s enshrined on ideological prejudice alone.
A special thanks goes to AnimatedDust @9 for the link to John Lennox’s brilliant lecture, “Seven Days That Divide the World,” which I’m watching now (it starts at 9:43).
-Q
Fasteddious at 15,
Seversky is hoping to avoid thinking about human creativity in a way that supports its origin. Where did man get the knowledge to melt metals? To fashion jewelry? To build pyramids? To build gasoline engines? Random atoms bouncing around in people’s heads?
Relatd @16,
I’d add that a great question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Another good question is “Did the non-existent universe create itself?”
And a third question is “How can probabilities exist outside of time?”
-Q
This discussion reminds me of this version of the Kalam.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
1. Do you believe that the universe, including time, space, and mass-energy, had a beginning, or do you believe that it always existed?
Most scientists believe the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would have had to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and the universe would now have the maximum amount of entropy (disorder) possible, which it doesn’t.
2. Do you believe that the beginning of the universe had a cause, or was it uncaused?
Scientists believe that everything that exists or that occurs has a cause, and that without causality, nothing in science can be known (a). To put it another way, a major component of science is the rigorous, methodical study of causes and effects.
3. Do you believe that the cause of the universe was natural in accordance to the laws of physics, or was its cause something outside of nature?
It’s difficult to argue that the cause of the universe was due to a natural agent within the universe, before the universe even came into existence. The non-existent universe would have had to cause itself (b).
4. Do you believe that the agent of the cause of the universe, itself had a cause, or was it uncaused?
If the agent that caused the universe had a cause, what was its cause, and what was the cause of that cause, and so on. Thus, to avoid an infinite regression, there must originally have been an uncaused agent. The agent that ultimately caused time, and space, and mass-energy to come into existence cannot be within or bound to time, or space, or mass-energy.
5. What agent can bring the entire universe into existence, exists outside of nature, is not bound to the laws of physics, is timeless, and that has no cause for its own existence?
This agent sounds a lot like what people think of as God. It should be clear that we can only learn anything about God indirectly by observing the design in nature, speculatively by applying reason, or directly through the self-revelation of God (c).
NOTES
(a) Some people think of radioactive decay events as not having a cause, but they do. The cause is an unstable nucleus. However, a decay event is a statistical probability; it is not a predictable event. Non-predictable events are frequently observed in nature. Also, physicists believe that nothing can be observed earlier than roughly 10^-43 seconds (Planck time) after the start of the universe. However, causality in some form must have transcended this period, or the universe would never have started to inflate (the “big bang”).
(b) A mistake that many people make is that “empty” space is not the same as Nothing. The fabric of space itself is thought to have started expanding with the big bang, and is permeated with quantum foam as a result of the virtual matter that spontaneously forms and annihilates itself. The Casimir Effect is measurable evidence of the existence of virtual matter. Space also includes dark energy, dark matter, plasma, gravitational distortion, relativistic effects, and likely other things that we do not know about. Thus, the fabric of space is something that exists, and is not empty. In contrast, if there is Nothing, even time does not exist. There are no billions of years, no events, and there is no probability for anything to ever happen.
(c) Is it reasonable and likely that God would interact with the universe? When do you think God would have begun to interact with the human race? How would you expect God to interact with you, and for what purpose? Most religions are based on claims of events, revelations, or enlightenment, resulting in beliefs, observances, texts, teachers, and traditions. They can’t all be true. If one of them was true, what things would you expect might be different from all the others?
-Q
Querius/14
I did notice on my first pass through your post at 6 that you were claiming to invoke some type of quasi-NOMA position, but you don’t quite succeed, so I didn’t comment on it. Since you’ve brought it up, it’s evident that you will pay lip service to the purported independent domains of science and religion, then immediately violate your own circumscription when it suits your agenda:
The parenthetical material demonstrates my point. It also pops up in comment 20. It’s not just a wink and a nod, you explicitly fess up to being aware that you are doing it.
You are not the only ID supporter that does this, by any means. The practice is rife within the ID community and appears to only be getting worse. In fact, the religious commentary on this blog, at least from where I sit, seems to have increased substantially since Caspian became moderator.
In the grand scheme of things, I don’t care if you guys do or don’t continue to stress your biblical motifs vis a vis science. I just want to make sure that, like Bishop Ussher, you own it…..
Are you pointing to 4-5 individuals?
This site has about 10 people responsible for 90% of the comments/95% of the words written. Of this small number a few are extremely prolific.
Are you basing your objections to an entire discipline on a few people? And aren’t you equally guilty as these commenters are? After all a large percentage of your comments involve religion.
At 11, after pointing out the fact that “Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is certainly not now, nor has it historically been, the ‘official’ position of the church, but YEC is a recent 20th century movement within protestant circles of Christianity”, ChuckYD states, “With due respect, BA, I’ve seen this exegesis multiple times before and it is not persuasive….”
Well since ChuckyD clings to a Darwinian worldview that entails that he has no free will, and that he is, therefore, merely a meat robot, one is forced to wonder how a meat robot could possibly find anything persuasive and change his mind about it. According to ChuckyD’s Darwinian worldview, ChuckyD simply is not in control of his thoughts.
But anyways, that ‘little’ problem of ChuckyD not being in control of what he thinks or says aside, ChuckyD wants to hold Christians to a YEC interpretation of the Bible since he thinks Christians have some sort of ‘scientific’ problem with “deep time”.
But it is actually ChuckyD that has a problem with ‘deep time’, not the Christian Theist.
In fact, I could give ChuckyD the lifetimes of many universes and he still could not account for the origin of even a single functional protein molecule.
Moreover, that ‘little’ problem with ‘deep-time’ aside, ChuckyD has another ‘little’ problem in that information itself is immaterial in its foundational essence and is therefore beyond his materialistic explanations that rely on the pre-existence of matter, energy, time, and space.
As Caspian pointed out in the OP, “in Wheeler’s conception, information precedes and transcends matter, energy, time, and space.” and also “in every case where we are able to trace information back to a source, we arrive at an intelligent agent—a poet or computer programmer or composer or architect”.
And indeed, as I pointed in post 7 via quantum teleportation, information is constitutive of what a particle is and is what actualizes a particle and brings it into being in the first place.
So ChuckyD has the rather nasty problem of beyond space and time immaterial quantum information being the fundamental “stuff’ that compose the material particles that he is reliant on to try to explain the origin of the immaterial information we find in biology.
To put it mildly, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, things are not going well for ChuckyD supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of Darwinian materialism.
Things get much worse for ChuckyD when we go from physics and get to biology. It is now also found that this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum information, and/or quantum entanglement, (besides being constitutive of what a particle is), is also found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology,
The existence of quantum information, and/or quantum entanglement in ‘every important biomolecule’ is NOT a minor problem for the materialistic explanations of ChuckyD’s Darwinian worldview. Namely, because of quantum non-locality, “no story in space and time can describe” the quantum correlations we find in molecular biology.
ChuckyD’s appeal to ‘deep time’ is simply a non-starter in so far as explaining these quantum correlations that are ubiquitous within molecular biology. I could give ChuckyD all the ‘deep time he wanted, a billion years, a trillion years, a quadrillion years, it simply doesn’t matter since “no story in space and time can describe them”.
Things get worse for ChuckyD. Besides our body being based on quantum principles, our mind is also found to be intertwined with quantum mechanics, and is, therefore, also irreducible to ChuckyD’s materialistic ‘toolbox’ of matter, energy, time, and space.
“Duration”, and/or “persistence of self identity”, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
Henri Bergson, (a prominent philosopher of the early 20th century), as the following article points out, championed the primacy of ‘lived time’ over and above Einstein’s ‘spacetime’, Which is to say that Bergson championed ‘subjective experience’ over and above ‘objective reality’ in providing the proper definition of time. As the following article states, the subjective experience of “duration”, was “a major part of his (Bergson’s) thesis on time”.
In more clearly defining what Henri Bergson actually meant by ‘duration’, and/or “persistence of self identity through time”, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a ‘tiny’ island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us.
In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, (paraphrased) “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”
In further defining the immaterial mind’s attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
Several years after Einstein’s heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap.
In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
According to Stanely Jaki, Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
Einstein’s ‘categorical. denial that ‘the experience of the now’ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics.
For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was dome with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion “that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, 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!”
Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even go one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and, “Quantum correlations come first, space-time later.”
And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the implications and provocatively states that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), we find that “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
And as Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger (Oct. 2022) stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
And as Anton Zeilinger also pointed out in his recent 2022 Nobel lecture, when it comes to the various predictions of quantum mechanics that blatantly disregard space and time, “That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,
Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.
In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”
Thus in conclusion, ChuckyD can try to hide in ‘deep-time’ all he wants, but it simply does not matter. As far as the quantum correlations we find in molecular biology, and the quantum correlations we find with the ‘observer’, are concerned, “”no story in space and time can describe”.
ChuckyD’s Darwinian materialism is simply a non-starter in providing an adequate explanation for quantum correlations in our body and with our minds. ,,, As far as real empirical science is concerned, these consistent findings from quantum mechanics are NOT a minor problem for ChuckyD’s worldview of Darwinian materialism.
If ChuckyD were intellectually honest to the empirical evidence, he would, or at least should, drop his Darwinian worldview in a heartbeat
Verse:
Supplemental note:
Chuckdarwin @21,
Sorry, I don’t follow you at all.
I don’t know what a NOMA is, much less a “quasi-NOMA position.”
And yes, I freely admit that I don’t use the scientific method when playing music, taking my wife out on dates, sitting on the toilet, playing sports, eating a wonderful supper or many other activities that makes us human. I RESIST melding them together or rationalizing them. However, they are all COMPATIBLE within my human experience.
Same with the Bible.
My position is that I RESIST forcing current scientific beliefs into the Bible or vice versa. I notice that some of scientific beliefs currently appear compatible with the Biblical narrative, which is fine for now and enables me to resist the mockery of pseudo-scientific arrogance.
And just as the complexity of the chiral-induced spin selectivity in how electrons pass through molecules is beyond most people, how much more complex and different is the underlying truth behind the activities and thoughts of God?
So what? I’m open and aware that all that such examples that I provided demonstrate is a compatibility between what’s revealed in the Bible to what we’ve discovered using the scientific method despite the continuous assertions that science is somehow superior, obviating what the Bible addresses, which is pretty much everything that makes life worth living.
In contrast, let me be EMPHATIC that my objections to Darwinism aren’t based on the Bible. Please re-scan the previous sentence.
My objections to Darwinism are based on many observations and discoveries demonstrating that Darwinism is a crappy, outdated, frequently falsified, scientific theory generated to rationalize racism and colonialism from 150 years ago. It’s about as scientific as phrenology and the blatantly racist and genocidal eugenics movement against indigenous peoples started in 1883 by Charles Darwin’s cousin that was directly inspired by Darwinism. You need to own that.
There’s NOTHING in my comments that you can quote, in which I claim that Archbishop Ussher’s view of Genesis is something “I own.”
And you’ve evaded everything concrete that I posted shredding your hopeless position and demonstrating that your Darwinism is a religion to you, not science. Let’s see whether you can prove otherwise.
-Q
P.S. And while you’re at it, check out this article from Nature:
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a
-Q
NOMA is Gould’s separation of church and state.
Non-overlapping magisteria.
No, Jerry. NOMA is SJG’s concept to segregate science and religion. Given how freely Querius opines on evolution, I’m surprised at his unfamiliarity with the term.
How stupid can one get?
You missed my sarcasm about what NOMA meant. I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either. Nobody else here does.
Chuckdarwin @29,
Actually, I’m familiar with the concept, but not with the acronym. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
But in thinking about this, I can agree more with the dialogue model:
But in thinking about it, I’m aware of a number of examples of demonstrable overlap.
– I’ve already mentioned the comparison of the current description of the scientific method with a nearly identical instantiated description in the Bible written about 2,600 years ago.
– More directly, what do you do with this published report?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234287/
And you still haven’t responded to the information in my previous comments.
-Q
Jerry writes, “I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either. Nobody else here does.”
That is not a prudent thing to write.
Part of the evolutionary paradigm is that development, after life begins, is a long-drawn-out gradual process of minute changes and that the fossil record will show intermediate or transitional (part-way) forms before arriving at a stable form. Unquestionably, though, present data shows no prevalent pattern of gradual, minor, changes in the fossil record; instead, large gaps are observed.
This disconcerting observation led to a dramatic contradiction of a significant part of the evolution paradigm, namely, gaps are now to be expected.
The most important paper setting out that gaps are now to be expected, punctuated equilibria, is the hugely influential essay ‘Models in Paleobiology’ by Niles Eldridge and Steven J Gould.
That paper oddly begins with an ‘Editorial Introduction’ which states, “throughout the paper runs a larger and more important lesson: a priori theorems often determine the results of “empirical” studies before the first shred of evidence is collected. This idea, that theory dictates what one sees, cannot be stated too strongly.”
One way of interpreting the editorial introduction is that the editor warns that the two authors seek to do particularly what he warns against generally; in this specific case that they argue that they look at unavailability of evidence with an a priori belief of the paradigm of evolution.
In the paper, Eldridge and Gould proposed that the missing gradual little steps in the fossil record showed what they called ‘punctuated equilibria’ a term to mean that that this organism evolved from that organism but the transition happened too quickly in each case for preservation of fossils.
The authors put the case so:- “The extreme scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”
Now, depending on source, the Burgess Shale covers a period of 5 million to 20 million years but taking the lowest figure, no transitionals are seen in the Burgess Shale because 5 million years is too short a time to show the intermediate fossils.
Put differently, punctuated equilibria is a theory with a promise that missing evidence will be found one day. When found, it will explain why the fossil record is incomparably better at recording fossils of organisms than at recording fossils of intermediate forms of organisms.
That ChuckyD would try to hold Christians to a YEC interpretation of the Bible, and that he would be upset that Christians would, none-the-less, find significant overlap between empirical science and Christianity, is laughable. ChuckyD’s own Darwinian worldview, since he has no real-time empirical evidence for even a single functional protein arising by unguided Darwinian processes,,,,
ChuckyD’s own Darwinian worldview, since he has no real-time empirical evidence, happens to be crucially, even vitally, dependent on faulty theological presuppositions. (Which should not be surprising since all of modern science is itself vitally dependent on essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions; see Stephen Meyer, “Return of the God Hypothesis”)
From when Darwin first wrote “Origin”,,,
To today, evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going.
Without faulty theological presuppositions, Darwinian arguments simply collapse in on themselves,
As Dr. Cornelius Hunter noted, instead of a empirical science that is subject to testing, Darwinian is, in reality, best thought of as a “theological research program.”
In fact, as Dr. Hunter noted elsewhere, the only thing that is not forfeitable in Darwin’s theory is atheistic naturalism itself, other than that, and as far as empirical evidence is concerned, anything goes.
Darwin’s theory, at least how Darwinists treat their theory, is simply not falsifiable by empirical observation. Here are few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply ignore as if they do not matter,
Thus ChuckyD complaint that Christians ignore empirical evidence that falsifies a YEC interpretation of the Bible is laughable and is the height of hypocrisy. ChuckyD’s own Darwinian worldview has been repeatedly falsified many times over by numerous lines of evidence. All to no avail, since, in reality, as Dr. Cornelius Hunter pointed out, Darwinian evolution is, first and foremost, a ‘theological research program’ that is vitally dependent on false theological presuppositions, and the only thing that is not forfeitable in Darwinian evolution, the only thing that is truly mandated in the theory, is atheistic naturalism itself. Other than that, and as far as empirical science is concerned, anything goes.
In short, Darwin evolution is certainly NOT a empirical science that is subject to empirical falsification, but is, in reality, nothing but the religion of atheistic naturalism masquerading as a empirical science.
Verse:
But, no one here understands punctuated equilibrium.
It is a mechanism not an outcome. I have explained it a couple of times here and no one has picked up on it. It was pointed to by Alan MacNeil several years ago who believed in it.
Hint: a few years after his death a journal of evolutionary biology devoted an entire issue to Gould. The opening article of this issue describes the mechanism of punctuated equilibrium in detail.
Aside: I have said several times that this mechanism cannot explain Evolution. And there is a straightforward research approach that would solve the issue forever. It would also destroy Darwinian processes as a mechanism for Evolution. But no one is interested.
The most important question is why.
Everyone here focuses on Darwinian processes which are real and accepted by ID but cannot explain Evolution. Best examples are his finches.
Punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to overcome the obvious shortcomings of Darwinian processes to explain Evolution. But it too is lacking in explanatory power.
Let’s go Finches!
BA77
One of the nice things about the transition from vinyl records to CDs and MP3s is that we didn’t have to listen to broken records any longer. I think it’s time for you to update your technology and spare us all your collection of broken records…….
Vinyl is back.
It gives better sound.
Question: Is ChuckDarwin a broken vinyl?
Vinyl is back for like the next ten minutes. A fad is a fad–just like ID…..
ChuckyD repeats, like a broken record no less, the same refuted Darwinian lies over and over again, and then complains when someone bothers to repeatedly show that his endlessly repeated lies are bunk, and indeed that those endlessly repeated lies can actually be used against his Darwinian worldview with much greater effectiveness than they can be used against Christianity. In this case, Darwinists constantly making false religious claims in order make up for the fact that they have no real-time empirical evidence to support their atheistic worldview.
ChuckyD may not like the sound of my music, but refuting endlessly repeated Darwinian lies with the truth is sweet music to my ears.
Verse:
Dissenting voices provide a needful foil.
On rare occasions I find myself agreeing with a statement made by someone who does not share my worldview. Chuck Darwin writes @8:
“Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity …”.
With that statement I agree wholeheartedly.
And I must confess to being a “young earth creationist”. I agree with plant geneticist John Sanford at the 4:20+- mark of this video of his interview by James Tour:
https://youtu.be/i-y_dmi_oF4
Yet, if I understand the purpose of this Uncommon Descent website, it is not for us to debate the accuracy of or any interpretation of the Bible (there are many other websites which serve that purpose), but instead to focus on the scientific evidence and reasoning for and against intelligent design, as well as the reasoning for and against the viewpoint that everything we see around us has a materialist explanation.
I am thankful for the opportunity to check on this site and see recent scientific findings and interpretations announced and debated.
Jerry: Vinyl is back.
It gives better sound.
It gives a different sound than a pure digital recording and playback. But, I should think, a good equaliser could reproduce the ‘warmer’ tones of vinyl. Me, I’m tired of playing albums until they’re white and having to buy them again.
Jerry: But, no one here understands punctuated equilibrium. It is a mechanism not an outcome.
Actually, it’s neither:
Punctuated equilibrium is an explanation for what is sometimes seen in the fossil record: long periods of stability ‘punctuated’ by briefer periods of change. But, as Dr Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the real difference between PuncEq and classical gradualism is the speed at which change occurs.
WRT vinyl vs digital, there are a few things that trigger memories. Things like music and smells. They are so powerful that when we hear a digital version of a song that triggers a powerful memory, we get an emotional reaction when it doesn’t have the same crackles and pops that our vinyl did.
So far, no one can explain punctuated equilibrium.
Proves my point. It is based on a mechanism. I gave a hint as to how to find out what this mechanism is all about.
Obviously no one here knows nor do the writers of the articles that are cited.
Punctuated Equilibrium is a bed time story that Stephen Jay Gould told himself, and other Darwinists, so as to make the big bad wolf of a fossil record quit huffing and puffing, and threatening to blow their Darwinian house of cards down
Belfast @32,
Thank you for your articulate, cogent observations! Here are some comments:
Exactly! If Darwinian evolution were true, then both the fossil record and extant species would display innumerable features in progress and features in decline. Instead, they are significantly and unexpectedly absent.
Indeed! In psychology, this phenomenon is termed “situational/inattentional/change blindness” and “selective attention.” Numerous and sometimes hilarious experimental confirmations have been performed (the first one is iconic–you have to pay REALLY CLOSE attention):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrrVozZR2c
For ideological reasons alone, this interpretation was immediately embraced in Marxist circles. Such ideologically based uncritical acceptance is ubiquitous and all too human!
For this reason alone, punctuated equilibrium could be properly termed “closet creationism.”
Thank you again!
-Q
Blastus @39,
Agreed. It provides an opportunity to expose some of the more egregious fallacies of Darwinian evolution and various misunderstandings and disingenuous accusations against ID.
Notice that Chuckdarwin mocks a literal Adam and Eve, but uncritically accepts literal mitochondrial versions of the concept of a common ancestor for all humanity! When this was pointed out to him, he fled, hiding behind a flurry of fatuous comments.
As a person of Biblical faith, I accept the Genesis narrative completely, which does not pretend to be a scientific account, but provides an important set of perspectives. It also functions as a polemic against ridiculous mythological accounts of wars between gods and goddesses involving dismemberment and repurposed body parts.
As a scientifically oriented person, I recognize that my acceptance of Genesis does not obviate my interest and curiosity of HOW things work, uncovering the spectacular love and design brilliance in the creative power of YHWH!
By analogy, students of ancient history will read that Alexander the Great conquered the known world of his time. However, they don’t imagine that he accomplished this feat all by himself and all at once! They ask questions about HOW this military genius was able to accomplish this with a relatively small force and many details around his accomplishments, including the aftermath.
Thank you so much for providing the link above! I’m watching it now.
Exactly!
Same here. Thanks again!
-Q
JVL @41,
No, not the “real” difference. The “real difference” also includes a putative though inadequate mechanism for gradualism and the non-existent Magical MUSTA ™ mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.
-Q
Blastus at 39,
Then you miss the entire pint of UD. Once design was established as a property of all living things, Darwinism is no longer true. It is no longer an accurate description of reality. You also miss the point of the science. Scientific research does not stay in the lab. It is applied. So, if a scientist tells you that you are designed, what do you do with this information? Nothing? The average person takes the next step: Average people identify the designer. It is God. Now, this is extremely dangerous. It can and will lead to public school textbooks that mention design. This puts atheism at risk. Once more people understand ID, atheists can only deny God, not design.
To put it another way, ID as science, cannot name the designer. Average people can. The Catholic Church can. That is why you see religion combined with science.
Still no one understands punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium predicts breaks in the fossil records. So what is seen there supports punctuated equilibrium. Allen MacNeil who used to comment here frequently said Darwinian processes were debunked. He believed in punctuated equilibrium.
So those trying to associate punctuated equilibrium with Darwinian Evolution are barking up the wrong tree.
Again, I am not promoting punctuated equilibrium, just an understanding of what it is. It is similar to Darwinian Evolution in some ways but extremely different in other ways. For example, both predict long time periods for significant change to happen, but Darwinian processes are genetics and punctuated equilibrium is not.
The same research approach will debunk both theories.
Punctuated equilibrium has a very real mechanism, one that ID accepts because it’s observable in nature. It just doesn’t produce what is claimed.
Jerry @49,
Really? So what’s the mechanism that produces punctuated equilibrium, supposedly presenting fully evolved features in a short-enough time frame to elude fossil evidence?
Let me again assert that punctuated equilibrium is actually closet creationism. After all, the observed results are identical.
-Q
Jerry: So far, no one can explain punctuated equilibrium.
I did give you the definition of punctuated equilibrium. There is no ‘mechanism’ beyond inheritable variation and different types of selection to explain.
For example, both predict long time periods for significant change to happen, but Darwinian processes are genetics and punctuated equilibrium is not.
That is completely false. They both depend on heritable variation which is genetics.
Have you actually read stuff that Gould wrote about punctuated equilibrium? It’s all well and good for you to choose to interpret things a certain way but if you’re going to discuss an idea promulgated by someone else then you must first look to their definitions and explanations as opposed to your own.
Querius: No, not the “real” difference. The “real difference” also includes a putative though inadequate mechanism for gradualism and the non-existent Magical MUSTA ™ mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.
Clearly that is not what Gould and Eldridge were thinking when they proposed punctuated equilibrium. I’m not sure why you think the basic mechanism has to change.
Relatd: To put it another way, ID as science, cannot name the designer.
Why? Maybe not the particular individual but the type of being. Just like archaeology can look at the pyramids of Giza, consider all the evidence, and conclude that human beings that lived around 2500 BC were responsible for constructing those edifices surely ID can make similar proclamations after looking at the available data.
Querius: As a person of Biblical faith, I accept the Genesis narrative completely, which does not pretend to be a scientific account, but provides an important set of perspectives. It also functions as a polemic against ridiculous mythological accounts of wars between gods and goddesses involving dismemberment and repurposed body parts.
You seem to be taking a nuanced approach, which makes sense. What insights into the actual events surrounding the beginning of life on Earth do you think the Biblical creation story provides? How can the Biblical narrative inform and enlighten us regarding what actually happened? How should the Biblical tale be compared with the scientific data that has heretofore been discerned?
“I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either.”
In the editorial introduction, the editor warned that Eldridge and Gould had offered no evidence for their hypothesis. Essentially, with no evidence themselves they affected to explain why there is no evidence.
Darwin in ‘Evolution of Species’, explicitly stated he had no evidence but was confident the fossil record would vindicate his theory.
It didn’t. So the authors completely removed this aspect of the theory so that, that instead of long slow changes, the changes happened too quickly to be recorded in the fossils.
That any theory will undergo variation is scarcely unheard of, but it is passing rare that the broadest plank in the middle of the platform, the slow-tiny-changes-over-millennia plank, can be removed yet evolutionists will maintain that the platform remains to carry its load.
Worse, evolutionists maintain that the plank is still there, it’s just that we can’t see it!
There are two main ones.
One produces new information in the genome. MacNeil called the mechanism, engines of variation. Nothing really new here except where the variation takes place. There are about 50 of these sources of variation and they affect all parts of the genome. Slowly over time, part of the non-coding part of the genome changes until at some time an area becomes coding and interacts with other coding areas to produce something new. Could take millions of years.
People tend to focus on changes to the coding parts of the genome and then it is Darwinian change or genetics. Changes here will be subject to the viability of the organism because they will already be coding.
Then the second mechanism takes place and is called exaptation. Punctuated equilibrium is about changes to the non-coding areas and not subject to the restrictions of genetics.
The theory is that after a long time the changes will produce something new and will be exapted and then subject to natural selection. If successful, it will often appear as a sudden change to species.
A special edition of the journal Paleobiology was issued in 2006 in honor of Gould. The first article was
This is the theory behind punctuated equilibrium.
Again, I doubt it has produced anything of consequence but the theory if true explains the sudden appearances in the fossil record. It like Darwinian Evolution is easily tested with the right research programs. Both Darwinian Evolution and punctuated equilibrium would leave forensic trails if true in the various genomes of related species.
Belfast @55,
Thank you for the additional background. It reinforces my view that punctuated equilibrium was originally proposed as a Magical MUSTA ™ and was equivalent to closet creationism.
Jerry @56,
Thank you as well for the additional background on the recognition of the above, and what I’d consider an honest attempt to hypothesize genetic mechanisms that might take millions of years before suddenly manifesting in the phenome. It occurs to me that should such a mechanism be discovered, it could also account for novel epigenetic options.
The possible use of portions of what was previously assumed to be useless “junk” DNA as a genetic scratchpad is possible . . . at least those parts that are not already involved in the immune system and other recently discovered non-coding DNA functions.
Still missing are:
1. A viable, observed mechanism that produces non-random directed variation. Random chance is unlikely to produce, for example, echolocation ex nihilo.
2. A viable, observed mechanism that evaluates when, perhaps after millions of years, that a novel feature is ready to be expressed. Or perhaps, such genetic changes emerge automatically at very infrequent intervals as genetic analogues of “hopeful monsters.”
3. Observed punctuated features in progress that are nearly ready to be expressed.
Although horizontal gene transfer might be a better alternative, all of these seem worthy subjects of further investigation in my humble opinion.
As to leaving genetic trails, that was the hypothesis of Susumu Ohno in his 1972 “So much ‘Junk DNA’ in Our Genome” paper. Maybe, such trails will be discovered in the future after all.
-Q
Jerry wrote: The theory is that after a long time the changes will produce something new and will be exapted and then subject to natural selection
Sounds like making thousands of software changes without any testing, then trying it all at once? If so, would be like pure luck, which seems less rigorous than darwinism version.
Reductive Materialism, and with it Genetic Reductionism, i.e. the belief that the ‘blueprint’ of an organism’s ‘biological form’ somehow resides in the genetic instructions of DNA, and that random changes to DNA can then therefore, somehow, in a ‘bottom-up’ fashion, account for the observed sudden appearances of brand new body plans in the fossil record, i.e. punctuated equilibrium, is now known to be a false belief.
As Stephen Meyer put the insurmountable problem for Darwinists, “you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan.”
There simply is no ‘blueprint’ for ‘biological form’ in DNA as is presupposed in the genetic reductionism model of Darwinian evolution. As Antony Jose stated, “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life, It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times.”
And as Jonathan Wells succinctly put the irresolvable dilemma for Darwinists, “I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Likewise, researchers, from Princeton University no less, express their amazement that, “It is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment.”
In short, it is ‘biological form’ that dictates how the parts get used, it is not the ‘bottom-up’ parts that dictate what form the organism will take as is falsely presupposed within Darwinian theory.
Perhaps the clearest experimental demonstration that DNA cannot possibly be the ‘blueprint’ of an organism’s ‘biological form’ is the following.
As Stephen Talbott noted, “Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern.”
In short, and in conclusion, the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution is at a complete loss to explain biological form in the first place, much less does Darwinism have any coherent explanation for how a ‘transformation of biological forms’ may take place.
As Brian Miller noted, “life (is) “transcomputational” — beyond the realm of any theoretical means of computation”, and. “the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself” and “life is fundamentally different from simple physics and chemistry. It embodies the Aristotelian category of final causation, which is closely related to the idea of purpose. The conclusions of these scholars challenge materialistic philosophy at its core.”
Verse:
Except that the proponents claim they have discovered new coding sequences that arose this way.
I have tried to get an evaluation of these claims by ID biologists but they went on deaf ears. My personal reaction to the claims for success is that they are too little to make any difference. Especially since DNA is probably not the place to find major changes in body plans.
It should be evaluated but the odd thing is how little people in ID are aware of the claims. It’s exaptation not adaptation that is claimed as the major source for Evolution. Both are supported by ID but both are seemingly inadequate for anything major.
@59
Looking to the ideas of Talbott, Rosen, or Noble in support of the irreducibility of biology to physics is just too funny.
I can pretty much guarantee that if you were to ask Stephen Talbott, Denis Noble, or J. Scott Turner what they think explains the irreducibility of biology to physics, they would all say something about emergence.
And every time I mention their idea in support of an organism-centered biology that’s irreducible to physics, I get mocked and belittled here.
If you were consistent, you would mock and belittle Talbott, Turner, or Noble if they were to show up here at all. You would attack them if they showed up here, so please stop pretending that you are on their side.
As you should for proposing nonsense.
The others you cite don’t bring this silliness here. Now, if one had repeatable examples, that would be different.
PM1 @61
And I know for a fact that Stephen Talbott is a Christian, who has no need for ’emergentism’ and who regards the irreducibility of biology to physics as a powerful argument against materialism.
Origenes/63
Talbott is welcome to his opinion but our current inability to reduce biology to physics may be more a measure of our ignorance than a fundamental truth.
What we observe is that living organisms are instantiations of the same matter and energy as the rest of the observable universe. As with consciousness, we have no credible examples of incorporeal living beings.
Seversky @64
On the contrary, to think that materialism can explain consciousness, freedom, rationality, and biology is a display of ignorance and shallow thinking. So, we are indeed dealing with a fundamental truth here.
Aren’t you part of the ‘observable universe’? Can you observe your thoughts, your feelings, your intentions, the “I”? If so, tell me, do you observe ‘matter & energy’ anywhere when you observe your inner self?
What would the world be like if we did have evidence of such beings?
If there was an incorporeal existing being behind it all, would that being reveal themself? We also have no credible evidence that no such being exists or couldn’t exist. If such a being exists, it would explain a lot of things.
“Brainless But Not Mindless”, article by T.M.Verny, ‘Psychology Today’.
. . . . .
@63
This suggests that his Christianity is either incompatible with emergentism or renders it unnecessary. I’m not sure why one would think either of those.
As I see it, there aren’t too many options on the menu, philosophically speaking:
1. scientific pluralism: we should reject the very idea that there’s a single metaphysical theory that unifies the sciences — instead, just accept that physics, chemistry, biology, etc are different sciences and they can’t be unified in a single comprehensive worldview.
2. reductionist scientific monism: we can unify the sciences by reducing all the sciences to physics. Here we need some argument about why physics is privileged, and if it’s all of physics or just some of it. (I consider reductionism to be utterly unworkable, and I think I’ve been pretty clear about why.)
3. non-reductionist monism: there is a single metaphysics that unifies the sciences, but it needs to account for the irreducibility of biology to physics (and arguably other kinds of irreducibility as well).
3a. divine interventionism: the reason why biology is irreducible to physics is because biology requires a special kind of divine interference that physics does not require.
3b. emergentism: the reason why biology is irreducible to physics is because nature exhibits dialectical transformations within itself that allow for the emergence of ontologically novel degrees of complexity and organization.
As I see it, 3b is compatible with theism. That was Teilhard de Chardin’s view, as I understand it — it was certainly the position of Hans Jonas, and it’s mine as well.
@62
Fair enough, I do appreciate consistency.
I’d appreciate it even more if you pushed back against bornagain77 whenever he mentions anti-reductionist organism-centered theoretical biologists (Talbott, Rosen, Turner, Noble) and also against Evolution News and Views for promoting them.
Just posted . . .
Dr. Tour BURSTS Oil Bubble Chemistry and More – Cronin, Part 03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3A8_ezYlZY
Wow, this is amazing!
-Q