Intelligent Design Uncensored hot off the press

_{William Dembski
May 3, 2010

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

My newest book, Intelligent Design Uncensored, co-authored with Jonathan Witt, is now available. You can purchase it here at Amazon.com. It provides a nice overview of the scientific issues at stake but then also deals with the cultural spillover as it relates to both the theistic and atheistic evolutionists.

Comments

you know jt you just about summed up the whole problem with materialists, and what you said is strongly reflected in this statement from one of the opponents of Stephen Meyer in a debate last friday night: Which Steve said "design is an excellent and irrefutable explanation"? Excerpt: Stephen Matheson: I’ll offer the acknowledgment: [pause] Design will always be an excellent and irrefutable explanation. How can it [pause] I just don’t see how it couldn’t be. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/which_steve_said_design_is_an.html Basically your position is called the ABG position jt,,, ANYTHING But God.bornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Is anything, ever, assumed by you to not be the result of unknown material processes?
I don't assume anything, even to the point of saying you may be right and there may be an Intelligent Designer. What I require though is positive evidence for a position, not negative evidence against an opposing position. I don't rule out an unknown immaterial process either. In either case, my ignorance of a valid explanation, material or immaterial, in no way rules it out.Toronto_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

BA77 [174]: It seems you're drawing some extremely far reaching conclusions merely from the phenomenon of entanglement, that for example instantaneous travel is taking place, and since matter cannot even travel at the speed of light, whatever is responsible for entanglement must be all powerful (and also all-knowing), in essence, God. So basically you're saying the only acceptable explanation is God. From another site I read, "Entanglement is a real phenomenon (Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance"), which has been demonstrated repeatedly through experimentation. The mechanism behind it cannot, as yet, be fully explained by any theory." However the fact that hidden variables as defined in some sense are ruled out doesn't mean that no theory is possible to explain entanglement, or that people have decided that its pointless to look for a theory to explain it (short of invoking God.) I mean it seems for anything you could potentially say, "what we're observing is impossible according to existing physical theories and since only God is powerful enough to do the impossible the only possible explanation is God." Well the best explanation is the simplest possible explanation (simplest operative explanation.) So I would say an adequate explanation for entanglement short of invoking God has to be possible. And to end on a lighter note (assuming what I wrote above isn't considered kind of a joke), You wrote: “An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality” Akiane – Child Prodigy ---------- "A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on." Mark Twain - Adult ProdigyJT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

@bornagain Thanks for the reply. I'm still unclear as to what the role of light is in all this. Is it simply a medium of transmitting the information or is it comprised of information. To play the devil's advocate once again, can the materialist claim that light IS information in it and of itself? I apologize if my questions are redundant or confusing... I am still a little confused myself.above_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

above, ID mainly deals with information that is encoded onto a material basis. What the excerpt shows, in a general way, is that "transcendent information" is the foundational basis (highest dimension) of all known material reality (lower dimensions).bornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

@everyone else + bornagain -"That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel (entanglement) is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus “pure information” is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions." I've been following the discussion in regards to information in OOL rather closely as I found the argument to be very interesting. My question to everyone who has supported this notion is, in the above except provided by bornagain, what exactly is the nature of information talked about as it pertains to light. It is said that light transmitts information instantenously in QM. How can light transmit information without a mind to provide said information? I'm a little confused here as to what QM and ID are trying to say and how they relate to each other. Am I missing something?above_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

jt, let's see what we can infer since you at least accept the action is instantaneous; as well I take it for granted that you accept special relativity:: excerpt - Let There Be Light: Further reflections on the "infinite transcendent information" framework: Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum teleportation (or entanglement) is concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, "past and future folding into now", framework/dimension of time. This higher dimension "eternal" inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not "frozen within time" yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/best-brainac/article37176-2.html "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this "timeless" travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework/dimension of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation (or entanglement) though the "time not passing", eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel (entanglement) is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus "pure information" is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which It resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy John 1:1bornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Toronto,
Why is it not possible that an unknown material process for let’s say X, exists, but has simply not been discovered by us?
Is anything, ever, assumed by you to not be the result of unknown material processes? Would you please name me one example of just one thing that is not reducible to material processes? Or does your belief system preclude it? What's ironic is that this belief system itself is not reducible to chemical processes given that "valid inference" is not reducible to material processes, given that the laws of logic and reason are not material, nor are moral declarations. You cannot get an ought from an is, even in logic.Clive Hayden_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

BA77 [165]: God Vs. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser In the above in the OP he goes through a series of description of the double slit, and then the erasure experiment, and the delayed erasure and then culminates with the following statement: So, it is the knowledge of which-path information that determines which way the photons behave. First of all, my eyes start to glaze over a little bit in certain details of the delayed erasure experiment, but to the best of my knowledge his statement above is not correct, unless by "knowledge" he means "knowledge" inherent in the experimental setup, i.e. its not dependent on some human or intelligent agent coming along and acquiring some realization of some state of affairs -that is irrelevant. Now am I incorrect - I dont think so.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

doesn't lend supportJT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

The lack of hidden variables don't lend support the Copenhagen interpretation any more than they do the Many Worlds or a Transactional interpretation. That's all I can say with certainty at the moment.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @167,
but this is all beside the point jt, the fact is that you have instantaneous actions occurring that CANNOT possibly be explained by material processes
A native on a South Seas island might believe a photograph to be magic until the material process of photography that we already understand, was explained to him. Now the native has a material explanation. Why is it not possible that an unknown material process for let's say X, exists, but has simply not been discovered by us?Toronto_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

BA77 [165]: I wll go over that site again, although you posted it previously to someone else and I did scan it. But as far as the site I mentioned on the Quantum erasure experiment, that is about as clear and concise a description of it I've encountered. Just to review, because of the way the experiment is set up physically, if a particle hits detector D1 or D2 its entangled particle will definitely exhibit interference. If a particle hits D3 or D4 its entangled particle will definitely not exhibit interference. And all this occurs regardless of whether or not a conscious observer is present. So my question to you is, do you agree wth that, after reviewing the experiment yourself, and secondly and more importantly, given what you had read previously, would you have assumed that to be the case previously. That BottomLayer sight I actually devoted a couple hours to it a few months ago, before finally realizing it wasn't reliable. The fact is that quantum theory attracts so much public interest, that there is all sorts of misinformation perpetuated by well-meaning people, and real researchers just kind of roll their eyes and ignore it.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

And the term "big bang" was invented by Hoyle to lampoon the origin of the universe. ,,,The point being is,,, is the wave collapsed if you never look? but this is all beside the point jt, the fact is that you have instantaneous actions occurring that CANNOT possibly be explained by material processes. None other than Einstein himself championed your materialistic position with hidden variables, and hidden variables were overturned by Alain Aspect, as well as more recent work. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm This was the second time Einstein had been burnt by his base materialistic philosophy. the first is when he added a "fudge factor" to the General relativity equation to reflect a static universe rather than entertain the thought of a beginning of the universe, as had naturally flowed from his equation. Einstein & The Belgian Priest; Georges Lamaître - The "Father" of the Big Bang - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662/bornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

BA77 [164]: I actually learned something from Wikipedia just now that I did not know previously:
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, often described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. ...Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.
So apparently it was constructed to essentially lampoon the Copenhagen interpretation.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

jt this site had a bit more fun look at the delayed erasure experiment: God Vs. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser http://onemorebrown.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/god-vs-the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/ you know jt I bet you will wrestle over this quantum stuff and think you got it all figured out to a materialistic basis, but the damn thing about quantum mechanics is there is always a loose thread that comes along and unravels the whole doggone thing. The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. The Mental Universebornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

jt, and is the cat alive or dead until you open the boxbornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Of course, there is the nonlocality aspect of quantum phenomenena, where physical phenomenena remote in time and space from each other affect one another.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

So IOW, once again, its specific physical attributes of the expermental setup that cause the waveform collapse - not whether some conscious entity is involved.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Here's just one example from TheBottomLayer (which is quoted in that link you provided):
Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at (Detector) D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment. (i.e. This experiment clearly shows that a conscious observer being able to know which path a photon takes is primary to the wave collapsing to a particle. The act of a detector detecting a photon at an earlier time in the experiment does not determine if the wave will be collapsed at the end of the experiment. That is what he meant by “we the observer are shocked to learn”)
This is really misleading. It doesn't matter whether or not a "conscious observer" actually gathered the results at time 4. Only that the experiment was set up such that the results could be gathered.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

ba77 - it seems to me there are a number of wildly misleading and blatantly incorrect statements in that (http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/), Seriously. I'm not saying that to score debate points. "The BottomLayer" I concluded in the past was not reliable.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

BA77 just now saw your last remark.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

OK, is this correct - if the path to D0 (in that experiment I reference above) is shorter than to the other detectors, that means an interference pattern will be detected even before the which-way information is erased (on the longer path to the other detectors). And this interference pattern will form because the which way pattern is going to be erased (in the future.) How could you not look at that and see at work some sort of strict determinism in the universe (as opposed to some mysterious non-determinisitc observer's influencing events through conscious observation.)JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

here is my link that may help you jt: http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/ The first part of the paper goes over much of it: For me, the whole “mystery which cannot go away”, as Feynman said, found resolution when I limited myself to finding a sufficient cause for ALL of the effects I was witnessing.bornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

I need to take another look at the delayed erasure experiment, which I think I've understood before, but just rereading the wikiepedia example, I'm not getting it yet. But even with the delayed erasure, my impression has never been that a human gets up and walks away from the experiment, that the experiment has different results. Everything has to do with details of the actual experimental setup, not whether or not there is a human there to observe it. Am I wrong about that.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Just as an addendum, how could you say that one interpretation, The Copenhagen Interpretation is consistent with Christian Orthodoxy, and promote it to the exclusion of all other interpretations. (Many-Worlds, Transactional, etc.) To me the transactional makes a lot of sense, of course it has distrubing implications regarding free-will I thinkJT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

jt, Question: Care to tell me, (in terms of this specific experiment) what I’m missing. Answer: Godbornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

BA77: re: conscious observers, quantum experiments. As I stated, I'm not an expert, and if I get away from it for a bit I tend to forget some details. So to get back up to speed I found this ariticle which is pretty clear (much more so than Wikipedia which in my experience tends to obscure rather than clarify, imo.) (Note - I think this is the standard erasure experiment not delayed erasure, but the principle will be the same.) But the relevant quote is as follows:
In this experiment, the “which-way” information of the particles is found without disturbing their wavefunction. The reason of the interference loss is the quantum information contained in the measuring apparatus, by means of the entanglement correlations between the particles and the path detectors. The experiment shows that if such quantum information is afterwards erased from the system then the interference reappears ...
So iow, what is relevant is the quantum information existing in "the system" i.e. "the measuring apparatus". Whether or not there is a "conscious observer" of the experiment is irrelevant. In the experiment if a particle hits d3 or d4 its entangled particle (detected by d0) will definitely not form an inteference pattern. However, if a particle hits d1 or d2 its entangled particle will definitely form an interference pattern. And this process as described in the previous two sentences occurs whether or not there was an observer or conscious observer of the experiment. Or rather, the observer as I percieve it is actually the experimental setup itself. (And I presume you're not saying the experimental setup has concious awareness.) So to reiterate my point, it makes no difference in the above experiment whether there is a concious observer as you construe such a concept. Care to tell me, (in terms of this specific experiment) what I'm missing.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

jt, the experiment is as it is and straightforward in implications (actually it gets much deeper as to a primary consciousness i,e, God). As to you saying that consciousness is never mentioned in quantum mechanics their are a few people that disagree with your blanket assertion,,,, "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. The Mental Universe jt I put the evidence out there and you can accept it or reject. But I am solid on this point whether you think I am or not. since your challenge is found to be without merit I will also file your criticism as to my formating in the same porcelain file as I do the quantum critique.bornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Anyway, my point being that the original experiment obviously wouldn't have anything to say about conscious observers. If you want to editorialize like that you would have to use a bracket '['. If you are seeking to educate people unknowledgeable about quantum mechanics, then you shouldn't lead them astray but presenting editorializing comments of your own about "conscious observers" as if they were part of the official results of an experiment conducted by someone else. But let me edit your own quote to remove the "conscious observer" part and it results I believe in a fair characterization of the Copenhagen interpretation: "This experiment clearly shows that being able to know which path a photon takes is primary to the wave collapsing to a particle. The act of a detector detecting a photon at an earlier time in the experiment does not determine if the wave will be collapsed at the end of the experiment." Its the "potential to know" by virtue of the experimental setup that is what is at issue (not "consciousness"). No one (except maybe you) has ever suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation someone establishes duality or the nonmateriality of consciousness or what not as integral to quantum experiments. Of course, a lot of people by default tend to think of "consciousness" in these terms, but that's baggage they bring to the table on their own - not something established through quantum experiments. But at any rate more recent experiments like the Afshar experiment (do a google search - you'll immediately hit it) seriously challenge even the Copenhagen interpretation (Though by the way I'm not presenting myself as an expert in all this.)JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply