Intelligent Design Uncensored hot off the press

_{William Dembski

May 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

PS: On cosmological fine tuning, isn't it interesting how evo mat advocates love to set up and knock over strawmen? WH, start here in my always linked and look here and here too as a 101, so you can see that the issue is that with very modest or even incredibly tiny tipping of cosmological parameters, we would have a cosmos radically unfriendly to C-Chemistry cell based life, starting with getting to stars that make the required heavy elements, and getting onward to a second generation of long lived stars in Galactic Habitable Zones with terrestrial planets; ours is indeed a privileged planet.kairosfocus_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Sorry I'll have to continue this in a moment after constructing the post off-line.JT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

BA77: A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser – updated 2007 Excerpt: 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”) You start with the term "Excerpt" and then what follows is a direct quote from the paper you say you are excerpting. So far so good. But then starting with the parentheses you inert your own opinions about conscious observers as if they are part of that excerpt. Why would you do that. If someone were not familiar with your tendency to do this that would reasonably assume that the original paper your quouting haJT_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

WH: Just a moment. The vNR is indeed not the simplest way to self-replicate [which was never proposed]. It logically defines a mechanism and requisites, that makes a machine capable of doing something real, to also replicate itself. Autocatalytic molecules and reagents and the like, of course fall through the problem of functioning as life forms that have metabolism driven action and interaction in an environment, and the related trap of THEN innovating a de novo language based irreducibly complex self-replication system, on autiocatalysis. Just so onlookers can appreciate what has to be explained as originating by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction,and surrounding the extracts in the animated video [which was cited to show that we have a digital, language and algorithm based process in action], I excerpt from Parker:
A cell needs over 75 "helper molecules", all working together in harmony, to make one protein (R-group series) as instructed by one DNA base series. A few of these molecules are RNA (messenger, transfer, and ribosomal RNA); most are highly specific proteins. ‘When it comes to "translating" DNA’s instructions for making proteins, the real "heroes" are the activating enzymes. Enzymes are proteins with special slots for selecting and holding other molecules for speedy reaction. Each activating enzyme has five slots: two for chemical coupling, one for energy (ATP), and most importantly, two to establish a non-chemical three-base "code name" for each different amino acid R-group . . . [Even more awe-inspiring, since the more recent discovery that some of the activating enzymes have editing machinery to remove errant products, including an ingenious "double sieve" system.[2],[3]] ‘And that’s not the end of the story. The living cell requires at least 20 of these activating enzymes I call "translases," one for each of the specific R-group/code name (amino acid/tRNA) pairs. Even so, the whole set of translases (100 specific active sites) would be (1) worthless without ribosomes (50 proteins plus rRNA) to break the base-coded message of heredity into three-letter code names; (2) destructive without a continuously renewed supply of ATP energy [as recently shown, this is produced by ATP synthase, an enzyme containing a miniature motor, F1-ATPase.[4],[5],[6],[7]] to keep the translases from tearing up the pairs they are supposed to form; and (3) vanishing if it weren’t for having translases and other specific proteins to re-make the translase proteins that are continuously and rapidly wearing out because of the destructive effects of time and chance on protein structure! [8]
In short the problem has been displaced, not cogently answered. (And of course the DNA-based cell is indeed a universal automaton machine,) Aside from such, the basic scientific problem is that the RNA world or the like are all in the air speculation: hypothetical unobserved "replicator" molecules with hypothetical life [similar to the computer simulations posing as life forms we have become used to seeing and common speculations on RNA worlds]. As a dose of reality from chemists etc who have had to fire up their bunsen burners and fill test tubes with reagents and see what can reasonably be achieved with plausible early earth etc conditions, here is the classic, revealing exchange on OOL between Shapiro and Orgel:
[Shapiro, Sci Am:] RNA's building blocks, nucleotides contain a sugar, a phosphate and one of four nitrogen-containing bases as sub-subunits. Thus, each RNA nucleotide contains 9 or 10 carbon atoms, numerous nitrogen and oxygen atoms and the phosphate group, all connected in a precise three-dimensional pattern . . . . [S]ome writers have presumed that all of life's building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case. A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life . . . . To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth . . . . Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA . . . [Orgel, PLOS:] If complex cycles analogous to metabolic cycles could have operated on the primitive Earth, before the appearance of enzymes or other informational polymers, many of the obstacles to the construction of a plausible scenario for the origin of life would disappear . . . . It must be recognized that assessment of the feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility . . . few would believe that any assembly of minerals on the primitive Earth is likely to have promoted these syntheses in significant yield . . . . Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of [[for instance] the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [[8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [[6]? . . . Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . . The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.
That is why science writer Richard Robinson has noted in his recent review article, that neither main model -- despite what we may sometimes read to the contrary in more popular writings or see and hear in "science news" articles (or even, sadly, textbooks) -- is "robust." And, when it comes to the idea of mutations as innovators of information, the strong evidence is that they are not going to get us to novel complex, biofunctional information. Just compare the limits on malaria parasite mutations [~ 2 - 3 points, it seems], in a context where the parasites have had more reproductive events in the period since modern antimalarials, than the entire collective of vertebrates. The strongly evident pattern is that mutations overwhelmingly adjust existing function, and in so doing they tend to destroy or reduce biofunction. Indeed, it seems that for instance resistant strains of bacteria lose vigour relative to the normals, and of course highly bred out dogs etc tend to have unusual incidences of defects. And, your first problem on config spaces is to get to the first island of biofunction relevant to observable life, then to innovate the 10's to 100's of millions of bases required to get to body plans, with required embryologically feasible development pathways. That is you are looking at integrated complexity, as Meyer's 2004 critical review noted:
Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200)
In short, after decades, what we really have is the imposition of a priori materialism, which makes materialistic evolution seem plausible by in effect implication. In that context, of course speculative models on "how" this or that might have happened seem persuasive, and illustrations from scant and over-extrapolated evidence [for which alternative causal explanations are excluded a priori] seem convincing. But in the end, all is based on grand question-begging assumptions dressed up as scientific hypotheses. As a basic reality check: have you seen codes, symbols and meaningful rules for constructing messages come about by chance and mechanical necessity? Have you seen the machines that work with algorithms and with informational messages come about by chance and mechanical necessity? Or, do you see such coming about by intelligent action? Why do you think that is?. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77 Somehow you missed this paragraph: Here it is most interesting to note, as do the authors in the published version of the paper, that the "choice" of which direction the photon will take at BSA or BSB is made by QM itself. That is, the path at this juncture is 50-50 random. As we will see, this "choice" will determine the information available at the conclusion of the experiment. (The authors note that in other quantum eraser experiments, the choice is made by the experimentalist. [3]) It is not the conscious observer, it is merely another set of detectors.Nakashima_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Warehuff since the detector is effectively removed as the cause of the wave collapse in this experiment, your "belief" is falsified: A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser - updated 2007 Excerpt: 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”) http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htmbornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

warehuff @ 136, what is so hard about proving materialism true??? there either is a solid material particle ("atom" as per the Greeks who formulated materialism) at the basis of reality or there is not. Since it is conclusively shown there is NOT a solid material particle at the basis of reality then materialism is falsified in no uncertain terms of its primary postulation. Whereas Christian Theism, in the same vein, postulated that "The Word" (Logos) was at the basis of reality, and reality does indeed conform to being "information based" in origin as Theism had postulated: "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 which 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 things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx Thus warehuff the question is why do you follow a falsified philosophy?bornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Crickets: Unless the weather is so bad that all of my plans are totally screwed up, I generally don't get online on the weekends unless I need some specific information, like a part number for a Mercury outboard which brought me to the computer last Saturday. Please check the calendar before going "Chirp, chirp, chirp . . ."warehuff_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 128: "Warehuff, you are severely mistaken if you think that: “No consciousness needed, just disturb the electron enough to measure its location and the interference vanishes.” Now how would you know that? You've shown that you've never heard of wave/particle duality which is a key part of quantum mechanics and vital to understanding Dr. Quantum's blunder when he detects which slot the electron goes through and is then amazed to find the interference pattern has vanished. Cutting and pasting quotes from various scientists and misunderstanding an experiment of Wheeler doesn't constitute knowledge of QM. Especially when Wigner was just flat wrong in the quote you use. And why should I write up my observations for a peer-reviewed journal? There's nothing new in them, just elementary and well known aspects of QM. Now if YOU were to write up YOUR understanding of quantum mechanics and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal, I think you'd really open some eyes.warehuff_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

KF @ 109: See yesterday's messages. 1: I explained your misunderstanding of von Neumann and his replicator. It was designed to be a universal replicator and it's not the simplest possible way to copy comething. 2: MUTATION (and sexual recombination and probably other things) is the SOURCE of information. Natural selection weeds out the bogus noise from useful information. When you talk about "isolated islands of function in a vast config space problem", are you referring to searching through the vast range of possible DNA sequences for a combination that produces a viable organism? Please please please say yes.warehuff_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 108: "[evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as “thoughts” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains." Evolution won't let you get away with that and the human brain is an evolved organ. Its operations have been subject to natural selection for maybe 400 million years. One of the chief functions of a brain in any organism is to help its owner cope with a hostile world. A brain that fails this task will get its owner dead in a very short time. If its actions were really irrelevant to purpose, truth or validity, its owner would be killed by the first bear it thought was cuddly or the first cliff it's owner thought he could step off of safely. If its thoughts were only true by lucky coincidence, none of us would live beyond infancy because nobody has that much luck. Our thoughts are not perfect. We're mortal, material beings trying to figure out a very complex world and we get things wrong. The messages in this thread prove that. But most of the time we get it right enough to stay alive and even prosper and the scientific tests, observation, experiment and measurement that you spurn are an effective check when they can be used. This whole post could only be written by someone who fundamentally misunderstands evolution. If Perry Marshall wrote it, don't waste money on his sure-fire adwords schemes.warehuff_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

KF @ 105: "Indeed, by the canons of scientific induction, we can see easily that it is inductively well warranted to infer that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence." Only if you assume that evolution cannot produce CSI. And of course, ID does assume exactly that. ID also says that it could only be intelligence or evolution. Then it says that evolution can't do it. This makes the ID argument circular. Proof that an Intelligent Being produces CSI: 1: CSI has to be produced by either Intelligence or evolution. 2: Evolution can't produce CSI. 3: Therefore, ID produces CSI. ID needs to work on #2 above. You also repeat your misunderstanding of natural selection, but I've covered that above.warehuff_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

jerry @ 104: Nobody is arguing that only natural processes can produce life. We're arguing that natural processes CAN produce life and that there was nothing else around at the OOL. If you think there was an intelligence on earth 3.5 billion years ago, where is the evidence?warehuff_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

jerry @ 103: ME: “Please show us the entry for “Is it caused by a combination of chance (mutations) and regularity (natural selection) –> YES –> Evolution There is none.” jerry: "That is not correct, it is the first option so your example comes under the “START Is it Highly Probable? –> YES –> Law”" No, that only measures chance, not chance and regularity.warehuff_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 102 "Can you please give me the formal proof that materialism is true?" I can prove that I exist - to myself. I can probably persuade most people that 2 + 2 = 4 if you will allow me to draw pictures. Just as you can't prove that God exists, I can't prove that materialism is true. However, it does seem to work pretty darn well and I know of no facts that suggest it doesn't.warehuff_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

KF @ 97: Let's look at what Darwin wrote: ". . . the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive ..." "Many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive." This is why mutations are "free". If a species is multiplying so fast that able bodied organisms must inevitably die because there aren't enough resources to feed them, a death from a bad mutation is "free" in the sense that the organism would have starved to death even if it was "normal". The "extinction" OF THAT INDIVIDUAL is free. Anytime bets are free and you get to keep all the winnings, you're going to be a big winner in the long run.warehuff_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler @ 96: "Somebody, anybody, just communicate something without using a language. Better yet, describe how that might be even possible." See my OOL life example above. No languages necessary, no symbols, the information is copied directly. Also see the punch I described earlier. Put the punch on the metal, hit it with a hammer and whatever information was engraved into the end of the punch is copied directly to the metal. Again, no language or symbols neededwarehuff_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 95: The "gross error" in 77-78 was where you assume that a von Neumann replicator was necessary at the OOL and that the first self-reproducer was large and complex. A von Neumann replicator is not the simplest replicator that will copy information. Current theory says the first self-reproducer was a very small self-reproducing molecule that would work something like this: imagine a small molecule made of several sub-molecules chained together ala a protein or RNA. If each sub-molecule attracts an identical submolecule and holds it to it's side and all of the new sub-molecules join together into a new chain which then breaks off from the original molecule, that molecule has just reproduced itself. No external storage for the information, assembly mechanisms or other von Neumann paraphernalia are needed. The embedded information in the original molecules (the electrostatic attractions that attract and hold identical sub-molecules and join sub-molecules end to end) does all the work If the molecule was reasonably small, it could form randomly without running into any of the enormous improbabilities you mention, which are for much much more complex molecules. Yes, natural selection is not 100 percent foolproof. You can be born the fittest individual that has ever existed and still get run over by a bus. But in the long run, natural selection weeds out bad mutations and keeps most of the good ones. I agree with you completely that natural selection is not the source of variations. Mutations create the variations. Natural selection takes the variations caused by mutations and weeds out the less fit and keeps most of the good ones. It doesn't matter if most mutations are bad - they cost a species nothing. Mutation and natural selection form a system where all bets are free and you keep only the winning bets. You say that mutations destroy information. What mutations caused which losses of information that transformed teosinte into corn? Google for teosinte and look at it - it's grass! It's only a few inches high. It's head has about ten kernels on it and each one is hard as a rock. It has almost no nutritional value. Yet a dozen or two mutations changed it into corn. Speaking of fine tuning, the only part of this solar system that will support life is the surface of the earth down to a few miles. Let's say the entire earth was capable of supporting life. The earth's volume is about 1 E 12 km3. The nearest star is about four light years away. As far as I know, if you draw a sphere with a four light year radius centered on the sun, the earth is the only place in that enormous volume that will support life. If my arithmatic is right, that would mean that about 0.0000000000000016 of the universe in this neck of the woods supports life. And we live in a very good neighborhook compared with intergalactic space or the center of the galaxy. With figures like that, I would not call the universe fine tuned for life. I would say that life manages to hang on by the skin of its teeth in the infinitismal portion of the universe that doesn't kill it instantly or in a few minutes. I don't care what Dembski was thinking of when he came up with the Explanitory Filter. The fact is that you can't even feed evolution into it. You can focus on individual aspects of evolution if you wish, but you can't feed it into the filter because the filter can't handle chance and law at the same time. The rest of message 95 repeats mistakes from previous messages which I have already addressed.warehuff_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

further note: A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Excerpt: 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 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") http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment Excerpt: The quantum "mystery which cannot go away" (in Feynman's words) of wave-particle duality is illustrated in a striking way by Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241bornagain77_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

But hey warehuff don't take my word it: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Niels Bohrbornagain77_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @122,
kairosfocus you stated: “Indeed, and notice how our evo mat advocates have been utterly silent in the face of the videos of what the Ribosome does with mRNA [and tRNA], and where its information comes from.” kairosfocus ,,, crickets chirping indeed,,, but don’t underestimate our resident genius atheist to come around in the morning and deny it means anything.
Speaking as an "evo mat advocate", I can't just decide to post something and have it appear after I hit submit comment. We both have to wait and hope it appears. When it does, it appears in posting order, not when it clears moderation. That means you have to know I've posted something before you see that I've posted something, in order to know that you should go back and look for it. Yes, we're silent and I'll be getting more silent all the time. Shorter posts, less posts, no posts, which would clearly prove your scientific arguments are more valid than ours.Toronto_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

further notes: Quantum mechanics is about as far away from the solid material particle, that materialism had predicted as the basis of reality, as can be had. Uncertainty Principle - The "Uncertain Non-Particle" Basis Of Material Reality - video and article http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ Electron diffraction Excerpt: The de Broglie hypothesis, formulated in 1926, predicts that particles should also behave as waves. De Broglie's formula was confirmed three years later for electrons (which have a rest-mass) with the observation of electron diffraction in two independent experiments. At the University of Aberdeen George Paget Thomson passed a beam of electrons through a thin metal film and observed the predicted interference patterns. At Bell Labs Clinton Joseph Davisson and Lester Halbert Germer guided their beam through a crystalline grid. Thomson and Davisson shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1937 for their work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction To top that off many of the actions of the electron blatantly defy out concepts of time and space: The Electron - The Supernatural Basis of Reality - video http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=922bb17d122f4b8e5995 Electron entanglement near a superconductor and bell inequalities Excerpt: The two electrons of these pairs have entangled spin and orbital degrees of freedom.,,, We formulate Bell-type inequalities in terms of current-current cross-correlations associated with contacts with varying magnetization orientations. We find maximal violation (as in photons) when a superconductor is the particle source. http://www.springerlink.com/content/e2830ur84h856618/ Double-slit experiment Excerpt: (Though normally done with photons) The double slit experiment can also be performed (using different apparatus) with particles of matter such as electrons with the same results, demonstrating that they also show particle-wave duality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Quantum Mechanics - Quantum Results, Theoretical Implications Of Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: Bohr proposed that electrons existed only in certain orbits and that, instead of traveling between orbits, electrons made instantaneous quantum leaps or jumps between allowed orbits. The electron quantum leaps between orbits proposed by the Bohr model accounted for Plank's observations that atoms emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation in quanta. Bohr's model also explained many important properties of the photoelectric effect described by Albert Einstein (1879–1955). http://science.jrank.org/pages/5607/Quantum-Mechanics.html "Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenbergbornagain77_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Warehuff, you are severely mistaken if you think that: "No consciousness needed, just disturb the electron enough to measure its location and the interference vanishes." What you so nonchalantly toss off as "just disturb the electron and the interference vanishes" glosses over several profound mysteries of wave collapse and ignores several other mysteries once the electron collapses, and indeed reveals your gross ignorance of quantum mechanics that you have accused me of. Though I am far from claiming complete knowledge of all things quantum, one thing I am sure of is that you have no real clue as to what you are talking about in this matter. But if you continue to insist you have all this quantum stuff figured out and that I and such luminaries as Wheeler and Wigner are all delusional, please feel free to write up this conclusive evidence for a purely materialistic view of quantum mechanics in peer-review so as to show the world your unmatched mastery of this subject. Myself I find your self-assured condescending tone in such a matter to be laughable: notes: ---------------- "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 Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm 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. Delayed choice quantum eraser http://onemorebrown.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/god-vs-the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/ of note; Consciousness must be INFORMED with local certainty to cause the wave to become a particle. We know from the Double Slit Experiment, with delayed erasure, that the simple fact of a detector being present is NOT sufficient to explain the wave collapse. If the detector results are erased after detection but before conscious analysis we see the wave form result instead of the particle result. This clearly establishes the centrality of consciousness to the whole experiment. i.e. The clear implication from the experiment is that consciousness is primary, and detection secondary, to the collapse of the wave function to a 3-D particle. Consciousness must precede 3-Dimensional material reality. This following study solidly refutes the "hidden variable" argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of this instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" found in quantum mechanics. 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. Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htmbornagain77_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Correction: Position and wave function are complementary – increasing knowledge of one automatically decreases knowledge of the other and vice-versa. 0 minutes left!warehuff_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 90 & 91: First, thanks to everybody for the excellent replies! Since I have a life outside the internet, I generally don't get on line on weekends, but I have exactly 23 minutes to write today and the rest will have to wait for Monday morning. I do want to reply to BA77 @ 90 & 91 first. bornagain, forgive me. From the way you fling citations around, I thought you more or less understood quantum mechanics, but these messages show that I was very much mistaken. There are several dualities in the quantum world. The Uncertainty Principle you mention in @91 is one of them. The more accurately you know a particle's position, the less you know about it's momentum and vice-versa. Another fundamental duality is between a particle's position and its wave function. (Sometimes referred to as particle/wave duality.) As you gain knowledge of a particle's position, you automatically lose knowledge of its wave function and vice-versa. Position and wave function are complementary - increasing one automatically decreases the other. So when Dr. Quantum's experiment detects which slit the electron goes through, it automatically destroys the wave function which caused the interference pattern. No consciousness needed, just disturb the electron enough to measure its location and the interference vanishes. Basic quantum mechanics. In slightly more advanced quantum mechanics, if you can destroy your position measurement before the electrons hit the screen, as in your delayed experiment, you get your wave function back and the interference pattern re-appears. Quantum weirdness, but it's repeatable weirdness and your measurements confirm the theory. I thought you understood this. Now I see that you don't and I'm beginning to better understand some of the oddities in your posts that puzzled me before. Two minutes to spare!warehuff_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

BA: Chirp, chirp, chirp . . . ___________ [Here is that key video again, dear resident rotating professor of The UD Lewontin chair of a priori evolutionary materialist atheism.] GEM of TKI PS: BA and above, could you please hit my link to my briefing note in the left hand col, under my handle; and use the contact to email me? There is a project that may be of interest to you.kairosfocus_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

above, come to think of it, I believe the resident genius atheist at UD is a rotating chair.bornagain77_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

@bornagain Who is the resident genius atheist? :Pabove_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus you stated: "Indeed, and notice how our evo mat advocates have been utterly silent in the face of the videos of what the Ribosome does with mRNA [and tRNA], and where its information comes from." kairosfocus ,,, crickets chirping indeed,,, but don't underestimate our resident genius atheist to come around in the morning and deny it means anything.bornagain77_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

BA. Indeed, and notice how our evo mat advocates have been utterly silent in the face of the videos of what the Ribosome does with mRNA [and tRNA], and where its information comes from. Going back to the stylised one with a commentary I have been putting up [note how the details get filled in from the more detailed scans], watch the silence in response. (And notice how the DNA codon table has been greeted with a loud silence too.] Gkairosfocus_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply