Complex Specified Information Intelligent Design

Natural Sources of Information?

Spread the love

Excerpted from Canceled Science, by Eric Hedin:

The Environment

In systems which are far from thermodynamic equilibrium, differences or gradients in various thermodynamic variables may exist within the system and between the system and the environment. It has sometimes been mistakenly assumed that these gradients could generate the information found in living systems.[i] However, while thermodynamic gradients may produce complexity, they do not generate information. The foam and froth at the bottom of a waterfall, or the clouds of ash erupting out of a volcano, represent a high level of complexity due to the thermodynamic gradients driving their production, but for information to arise, specificity must be coupled with the complexity. Biological systems are information-rich because they contain a high level of specified complexity, which thermodynamic gradients, or any other natural processes, act to destroy rather than to create.

During a non-equilibrium process, statistical fluctuations become negligibly small for systems with even more than ten particles, which easily applies for any system relevant to the origin and development of life.[ii] Charles Kittel, writing on the topic of thermodynamics, considers a system composed of the number of particles in about a gram of carbon. This amount is relevant to origin-of-life scenarios since physical constraints on the need for localization of the raw ingredients leading to life mean that considering larger amounts of carbon-based ingredients wouldn’t affect the outcome of this argument. Kittel emphasizes that even small statistical fluctuations from the most probable configuration of such a system (with its particles randomly mixed) will never occur in a time frame as short as the entire history of our universe.[iii] This means that any appeal to statistical fluctuations as the source of new biological information flatly contradicts the physics of statistical mechanics. It is therefore not possible to have “an accumulation of information as the result of a series of discrete and incremental steps,” as has been postulated.[iv] Again, for systems with as many constituent atoms as biomolecules have, the information content will decrease with time, and never increase.[v]

Nonetheless, others have tried to suggest that certain natural processes can, in fact, generate new biological information. At times this opinion rests on misidentifying increasing information with decreasing thermodynamic entropy.[vi] Decreasing thermodynamic entropy can only be leveraged into information if a design template and the mechanism to employ it already exist. In this case, the desired information is not being created by the action of the low-entropy energy source; it is merely being transferred from the template to an output product. An example of such a system is a printing press—it takes energy to make it run, entropy increases during the process, and information is printed. But the important point to understand is that the whole process produces no information beyond what pre-exists in the type-set template of the printing press mechanism.

Our sun is a low-entropy source of thermal energy that the Earth receives via electromagnetic radiation. This thermal energy is useful energy in the thermodynamic sense because it can be used to do work. The same is true of energy released by gravitational potential energy being converted into kinetic energy or heat. Waterfalls and solar collectors can produce energy for useful work, but they are sterile with respect to generating information.

In fact, sources of natural energy (sunlight, fire, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) universally destroy complex specified information, and never create it. What will happen to a painting if left outside in the elements? What happens to a note tossed into a mulch pile? They degrade by the actions of nature, until all traces of information disappear. Or consider an unfortunate opossum killed on a country road. Will its internal, complex biochemistry increase or decrease with time due to the effects of natural forces? We all know the answer. If not eaten by scavengers, it eventually turns to a pile of dirt.


[i] Jonathan Lunine, Earth: Evolution of a Habitable World, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 151.

[ii] Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, 143.

[iii] Charles Kittel, Thermal Physics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), 44–45.

[iv] Robert O’Connor, “The Design Inference: Old Wine in New Wineskins,” in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, ed. Neil A. Manson (Abingdon: Routledge, 2003).

[v] Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, 153.

[vi] Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), 175; Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 228–229.

47 Replies to “Natural Sources of Information?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Darwinian evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy, Darwinian evolution, besides contradicting the general principle behind the second law, and unlike every other scientific theory that man has ever devised, evolution has no physical law that it is based upon.

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same point as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    And Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    Even wikipedia itself, no friend of Intelligent Design, honestly admitted that, “Whether or not Natural Selection is a “law of nature” is controversial among biologists”, and also honestly admitted that there is the “problem of interpreting a principle of natural selection as a law.”

    Scientific law
    Excerpt: Whether or not Natural Selection is a “law of nature” is controversial among biologists.[17][18] Henry Byerly, an American philosopher known for his work on evolutionary theory, discussed the problem of interpreting a principle of natural selection as a law.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_biology

    And this lack of a rigid physical law to base their theory upon has prevented Darwinists from ever building a realistic mathematical model for their theory, and has thus prevented Darwinism from ever becoming a true, and testable, hard science,

    “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law that is considered one of the, if not THE, most fundamental laws of science, almost directly, if not directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had, and/or ‘naturally selected’ for, over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    This contradiction in claims between evolution and entropy is not a minor problem for Darwinists.

    As Granville Sewell asked,

    Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas – El Paso – May 2012
    Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....econd-law/

    Video: Why Evolution is Different – Granville Sewell – 2020
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJua-0FpmnI

    And as Arthur Eddington himself explained, ” if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

    “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
    – Arthur Eddington, New Pathways in Science

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. Brian Miller has done an excellent job of explaining exactly why entropy presents an ‘impossible’ barrier for unguided Darwinian processes to overcome.

    Physicist Brian Miller: Two Conundrums for Strictly Materialist Views of Biology – January 2020
    Excerpt: Nothing in nature will ever simultaneously go to both low entropy and high energy at the same time. It’s a physical impossibility. Yet life had to do that. Life had to take simple chemicals and go to a state of high energy and of low entropy. That’s a physical impossibility.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/physicist-brian-miller-two-conundrums-for-strictly-materialist-views-of-biology/

    “‘Professor Dave’ argues that the origin of life does not face thermodynamic hurdles. He states that natural systems often spontaneously increase in order, such as water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles (e.g., spheres or bilayers), He is making the very common mistake that he fails to recognize that the formation of the cell represents both a dramatic decrease in entropy and an equally dramatic increase in energy. In contrast, water freezing represents both a decrease in entropy but also a decrease in energy.
    More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure.
    Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom.
    No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”
    – Brian Miller, Ph. D. – MIT
    – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour
    https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434

    Brian Miller – Thermodynamics, the Origin of Life, and Intelligent Design
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAXiHRPZz0s

    Darwinists try to get around this ‘impossible’ barrier that entropy presents to Darwinian evolution by invoking what is known as the ‘compensation argument’.

    In their compensation argument, Darwinists claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not contradict Darwinian evolution as long as you have energy entering the ‘open system’. In this case the open system is the Earth.

    But as Dr. Eric Hedin, PhD physics, pointed out in the OP, pouring raw energy into an ‘open system’ actually increases the rate at which things will become disordered within the ‘open system’

    “In fact, sources of natural energy (sunlight, fire, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) universally destroy complex specified information, and never create it. What will happen to a painting if left outside in the elements? What happens to a note tossed into a mulch pile? They degrade by the actions of nature, until all traces of information disappear. Or consider an unfortunate opossum killed on a country road. Will its internal, complex biochemistry increase or decrease with time due to the effects of natural forces? We all know the answer. If not eaten by scavengers, it eventually turns to a pile of dirt.”
    – Eric Hedin

    Clearly, in order for energy be useful for life, and to overcome the disordering effects that pouring raw energy into an open system will have, energy must somehow be harnessed, and/or constrained, in such a way so as to be useful for life.

    This first level of ‘constraining/harnessing’ of energy is accomplished via the Earth’s atmosphere.

    As the following video states, “These specific frequencies of light (that enter the earth’s atmosphere and that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.”

    “These specific frequencies of light (that enter the earth’s atmosphere and that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.” – 8:12 minute mark
    – Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) – video (2016) –
    https://youtu.be/NIwZqDkrj9I?t=384

    As the preceding video highlighted, visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the electromagnetic spectrum allowed to filter through the atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are all, almost, completely absorbed by the earth’s magnetic shield and by the earth’s atmosphere.

    As well, the size of light’s wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also give every indication of being tailor-made for each other, In the following article, Dr. Walter Bradley notes that:

    “The visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (~1 micron) is the most intense radiation from the sun (Figure 1); has the greatest biological utility (Figure 2); and easily passes through atmosphere of Earth (Figure 3) and water (Figure 4) with almost no absorption. It is uniquely this same wavelength of radiation that is idea to foster the chemistry of life. This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design.”
    – (Walter Bradley – Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe – –
    http://www.leaderu.com/offices.....dence.html

    Moreover, even though the energy allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, that still does not fully negate(as Dr. Hedin pointed out in the OP), the disordering effects that pouring raw energy into an open system has.

    To offset this disordering effect that pouring raw energy into an open system has on objects, the raw energy from the sun, which I remind is already finely-tuned to 1 in 10^24, must be further ‘harnessed’ to be of biological utility.

    This harnessing of raw energy is accomplished in biology by the elaborate process of photosynthesis which converts sunlight into ATP.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    To say that the elaborate process of photosynthesis, and ATP production, defies Darwinian explanations is to make a rather dramatic understatement: For instance,

    Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin:
    The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....5610a.html

    Scientists unlock some key secrets of photosynthesis – July 2, 2012
    Excerpt: “The photosynthetic system of plants is nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine,” said Lakshmi. “It converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current man-made solar technologies.,, “Photosystem II is the engine of life,” Lakshmi said. “It performs one of the most energetically demanding reactions known to mankind, splitting water, with remarkable ease and efficiency.”,,, “Water is a very stable molecule and it takes four photons of light to split water,” she said. “This is a challenge for chemists and physicists around the world (to imitate) as the four-photon reaction has very stringent requirements.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-s.....hesis.html

    Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase – 2011
    Excerpt: F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms.,,
    Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea.....hort?rss=1

    The ATP Synthase Enzyme – an exquisite motor necessary for life – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4

    Enzymes Are Essential for Life; Did They Evolve? – Olen R. Brown – August 22, 2018
    Excerpt: “The average male human uses almost 420 pounds of ATP each day … to power his activities… there is less than about 50 grams of ATP in our bodies at any one time; that involves a lot of recycling… each molecule of ATP must be regenerated at least 4,000 time each day.”2 This means that 7 x 10^18 molecules of ATP are generated per second. By way of comparison, there are estimated to be only 100 billion stars (1 x 10^11) in our galaxy, the Milky Way. To efficiently regenerate a molecule of ATP (recharging the cell’s battery) requires a specific enzyme. To create a molecule of ATP is even more complex. The citric acid cycle is only one important part of this process and it has eight enzymes. As the name “cycle” implies, these enzymes must function in sequence. The absence of any one enzyme stops the process. How the interdependent steps of a cycle can originate is left without explanation. Life in Darwin’s hopeful, warm, little pond is dead in the water.,,,
    – Olen R. Brown is Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/enzymes-are-essential-for-life-did-they-evolve/

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Thermodynamically achieving a high level of energy efficiency is one of the primary goals in engineering. Yet, man-made objects are no where near the efficiency of life in terms of energy efficiency.

    The thermodynamic efficiency of computations made in cells across the range of life. – 2017 Dec.
    Excerpt: Here we show that the computational efficiency of translation, defined as free energy expended per amino acid operation, outperforms the best supercomputers by several orders of magnitude, and is only about an order of magnitude worse than the Landauer bound.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133443/

    The astonishing efficiency of life – November 17, 2017 by Jenna Marshall
    Excerpt: All life on earth performs computations – and all computations require energy. From single-celled amoeba to multicellular organisms like humans, one of the most basic biological computations common across life is translation: processing information from a genome and writing that into proteins.
    Translation, it turns out, is highly efficient.
    In a new paper published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI researchers explore the thermodynamic efficiency of translation.,,,
    To discover just how efficient translation is, the researchers started with Landauer’s Bound. This is a principle of thermodynamics establishing the minimum amount of energy that any physical process needs to perform a computation.
    “What we found is that biological translation is roughly 20 times less efficient than the absolute lower physical bound,” says lead author Christopher Kempes, an SFI Omidyar Fellow. “And that’s about 100,000 times more efficient than a computer.”
    https://phys.org/news/2017-11-astonishing-efficiency-life.html

    Life Leads the Way to Invention – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” This and other amazing facts lead to an obvious conclusion: inventors ought to look to life for ideas.,,, Essentially, cells may be viewed as circuits that use molecules, ions, proteins and DNA instead of electrons and transistors. That analogy suggests that it should be possible to build electronic chips – what Sarpeshkar calls “cellular chemical computers” – that mimic chemical reactions very efficiently and on a very fast timescale.
    https://crev.info/2010/02/life_leads_the_way_to_invention/

    Cell-inspired electronics – February 25, 2010
    Excerpt: “A single cell in the human body is approximately 10,000 times more energy-efficient than any nanoscale digital transistor, the fundamental building block of electronic chips. In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.”
    http://phys.org/news/2010-02-c.....onics.html

    Moreover, life is designed in such a sophisticated way so that it never reaches a ‘thermodynamic dead end’..

    Synthesizing Life in the Laboratory: Why is it not Happening? –by George T. Javor – July 26, 2021
    Excerpt: Even though in living cells each reaction is pushed toward equilibrium by an enzyme (so as to forestall the possibility of slower, random non-biological chemical events), if any of the hundreds to thousands of chemical processes could actually reach equilibrium, an irreversible metabolic block would result. Multiple such equilibriums would kill the cell. However, in live cells there are no isolated reactions and the problem of equilibrium is avoided. Rather, chemical events are linked into pathways, so that the products of reactions do not accumulate, but immediately react with another substance.
    The end products of metabolic pathways are either utilized immediately or they are secreted from the cell. Moreover, regulatory systems such as “feedback inhibition” help maintain homeostasis.,,,
    Building artificial cells in a modular fashion will inevitably result in the onset of chemical equilibrium within each module. Once equilibrium is reached, the artificial cell, figuratively speaking, “runs into a brick wall”. It is no longer capable of growth or accomplish any net chemical process.,,
    Until the construction of cell-like structures harboring metabolisms in homeostatic non-equilibrium states become reality, the most sophisticated efforts of synthetic biology will come to naught.
    https://www.grisda.org/synthesizing-life-in-the-lab?mc_cid=5a79992abf

    With such ‘thermodynamic marvels’ in life confronting us, the question naturally arises, “Just how far out of thermodynamic equilibrium is life?”

    Well, when working from a thermodynamic perspective, it is found that a ‘simple’ cell contains 10^12 bits of information.

    Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit

    ,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
    – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy

    It is also important to note that Perry Marshall recently, via Erwin Schrödinger, defined a bit of information in life as being 1 bit of negative entropy, ‘negentropy’. Which he further clarified as a “Choice between two sides of a coin = 1 bit of negentropy,,,”

    Biology transcends the limits of computation – Perry Marshall – Oct. 2021
    Excerpt: Table 2
    Computational Choices
    Information is measured in bits, not kilograms, meters, seconds, joules, or other physical quantities. A bit is a record of a choice. All codes and communication systems reflect choices (Pattee, 1969). A 64-Gb USB stick holds 549,755,813,888 bits, which yield 2^549,755,813,888 choices or degrees of freedom.,,,
    Negative Information Entropy or Negentropy
    In “What is Life?” Erwin Schrödinger introduced the term ‘negentropy’ or ‘negative entropy’ (Schrödinger, 1944). He states, “It is by avoiding the rapid decay into the inert state of ‘equilibrium’ that an organism appears so enigmatic ….What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy.” Negative entropy is necessary to create information (Schrödinger, 1944)
    Negentropy is extensively discussed in the literature, and after 75 years, the consensus has barely changed (Davies, 2019) from Schrödinger’s views. Choice is negative information entropy (i.e., the opposite of noise) because it converts uncertainty to certainty, order out of chaos.,,,
    Negative information entropy is measured in bits, just as in information transmission.
    Coin toss = 1 bit of entropy
    Choice between two sides of a coin = 1 bit of negentropy,,,
    5. Discussion
    5.1. Choices by definition are not computable
    Choice is intrinsic to information theory (Shannon, 1948), where one bit of information is a choice. This paper takes as axiomatic that choice is not an illusion. This axiom is ubiquitous and essential in society, from consequences for committing crimes to the ability to propose and debate mathematics and scientific laws.
    I have not arbitrarily defined codes, goals, inductive reasoning, and evolution as choices, and presumed them to be non-computable. The very definition of choice and the observed behaviors of agents dictate that they are necessarily non-computable. Thus, there is a vast chasm between life and non-life, and things as “ordinary” as language and abstract mathematics do not exist, and in principle cannot exist, without cognition (Pattee, 2012). This chasm is an inevitable consequence of Gödel, Turing, and Shannon. It is interesting to compare this with proposals by Chalmers (1995) and others that consciousness is an “irreducible fundamental property of mind with its own laws and principles” (Walker et al., 2017).
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610721000365?via%3Dihub

    Thus, when working from a thermodynamic perspective, it is found that 10^12 ‘choices’ had to be made, and bits of information created, in order for a bacterium to come into existence, and in order to explain the “negentropy” (Schrödinger, 1944) of a ‘simple’ bacterium, i.e. in order to explain why a ‘simple’ bacterium is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, Marshall’s claim that “A bit is a record of a choice” is not just some abstract academic discussion, but has now been empirically demonstrated.

    Specifically, it has now been empirically shown, via experimental realization of the Maxwell demon thought experiment, that a bit of information, i.e. “a record of a choice”, has a quote-unquote ‘thermodynamic content’,

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,
    In Maxwell’s thought experiment a partition with a small trapdoor is placed in the box, and the trapdoor is guarded by the imaginary being who, without expending energy, selects which molecules go through to the other side.,,,
    Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location.,,
    The results also verified the generalized Jarzynski equation, which was formulated in 1997 by statistical chemist Christopher Jarzynski of the University of Maryland. The equation defines the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit, (i.e. a bit), of information.
    https://phys.org/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html

    As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit, (i.e. a bit), of information’, stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    Moreover, as if that was not devastating enough to Darwinian presuppositions, the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    In fact, the Maxwell demon thought experiment has also now been extended to build a refrigerator that is powered, not by energy, but by, of all things, information.

    New Scientist astounds: Information is physical – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-physical/

    On top of that, and via ‘using only information about the particle’s position’, researchers have now built a quote unquote ‘information engine’ and have achieved “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells, and speeds comparable to fast-swimming bacteria,”

    World’s fastest information-fuelled engine designed by SFU researchers – May 11, 2021
    Excerpt: The information engine designed by SFU researchers consists of a microscopic particle immersed in water and attached to a spring which, itself, is fixed to a movable stage. Researchers then observe the particle bouncing up and down due to thermal motion.
    “When we see an upward bounce, we move the stage up in response,” explains lead author and PhD student Tushar Saha. “When we see a downward bounce, we wait. This ends up lifting the entire system using only information about the particle’s position.”
    “Guided by this insight, we picked the particle mass and other engine properties to maximize how fast the engine extracts energy, outperforming previous designs and achieving power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells, and speeds comparable to fast-swimming bacteria,” says postdoctoral fellow Jannik Ehrich.
    https://www.sfu.ca/university-communications/issues-experts/2021/05/world-s-fastest-information-fuelled-engine-designed-by-sfu-resea.html

    As far as empirical science is concerned, the inference to intelligent design could hardly be more direct.

    These experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment go to the very heart of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate and completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, (presuppositions about immaterial information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water.

    A ‘bit’ of Information, i.e. “a record of a choice”, i.e. a bit of negentropy, contrary to what Darwinian materialists hold, is not emergent from some material basis, but a bit of information is now shown to be its own distinct ‘physical’ entity in that a bit of information, i.e. “a record of a choice”, is now shown
    to be “a property of an observer who describes a system” and to have a causal thermodynamic effect on matter and energy.

    Moreover, on top of all that, (as if that were not already more than enough to falsify the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists), classical information is now shown to be a subset of quantum information.

    In the following site entitled “Quantum Information Science”, a site where Charles Bennett, (of quantum teleportation and reversible computation fame), himself is on the steering committee,

    Quantum Information Science
    Steering Committee
    C. H. Bennett IBM
    D. P. DiVincenzo IBM
    N. Gershenfeld MIT
    H. M. Gibbs University of Arizona
    H. J. Kimble Caltech
    J. Preskill Caltech
    U. V. Vazirani UC/Berkeley
    D. J. Wineland NIST
    C. Yao Princeton University
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm

    On that site, they have this illustration showing classical information to be a subset of quantum information

    Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif
    below that illustration they have this caption,
    “Figure 1: The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.”

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, this quantum information, of which classical information is found to be a subset, is now found to be ubiquitous within life.

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    The absolutely fascinating thing about finding quantum information to be ubiquitous within life, “in a wide range of important biomolecules”, is that it takes a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, cause in order to explain quantum correlations, (and/or quantum information) in the first place,.

    As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of ‘hidden variables’, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or quantum information that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.

    Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
    Excerpt: In 1959, John Stewart Bell deduced his eponymous theorem: that no system of hidden variables can reproduce all of the consequences of quantum theory. In particular, he deduced an inequality pertinent to observations of an entangled system consisting of two separated particles. If experimental results contradicted Bell’s inequality, hidden-variable models could be ruled out. Experiments of this kind seemed difficult or impossible to carry out. But, in 1972, Alain Aspect succeeded. His results contradicted Bell’s inequality. The predictions of quantum mechanics were confirmed and the principle of local realism challenged. Ever more precise tests of Bell’s inequality and its extension by John Clauser et al. continue to be performed,14 including an experiment involving pairs of photons coming from different distant quasars. Although a few tiny loopholes may remain, all such tests to date have confirmed that quantum theory is incompatible with the existence of local hidden variables. Most physicists have accepted the failure of Einstein’s principle of local realism.
    https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358

    Christians, on the other hand, readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is physically conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, cannot be created nor destroyed, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of theological, even personal, significance.

    As Jesus once asked his disciples along with a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Supplemental notes,

    Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm.
    – December 25, 2021
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/50-christmases-later/#comment-743334

    The ‘infinite’ entropic divide between special relativity and general relativity (and Christ’s resurrection from the dead as the correct ‘theory of everything’)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fine-tuning-of-the-universe-the-strong-force-and-the-fine-structure-constant/#comment-726659

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    A few thoughts. I study science a great deal. I, personally, cannot say with any certainty that quantum mechanics describes a purely spiritual construct – the soul. God creates souls for each of us. God creates. Is quantum mechanics part of the spiritual realm, I cannot say.

    Since quantum events, for lack of a better term, occur, and these events involve sub-atomic particles and wave functions, like the strong and weak electromagnetic forces, then these events occur with every created thing. Everything is linked to the quantum world, not just humans with souls. I would warn against the appearance of endorsing animism: “the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.”

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Rel: in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a purely materialistic/physical, i.e. ‘non-spiritual’, explanation, you would need to invoke hidden variables of some sort. Yet, as I explained in my post(s). All test for hidden variables over the past several decades have failed to find any evidence for hidden variables.

    In short, Eugene Wigner’s observation that “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness” remains very much on the table, as even the late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, reluctantly conceded. (And is one of the primary reasons that Weinberg, again an atheist, ‘threw in the towel’ and said something to the effect of ‘to hell with it’ in regards to Quantum Mechanics)

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    Allow me to create a few analogies. Let’s turn measuring in quantum mechanics into a device called superposition. Like the field of a magnet detecting metal, the quantum thing to be measured detects the person doing the measuring. I will, for the sake of this example, propose the following: observation through the eyes or some instrument is not the source. The particle or wave in superposition is not detecting the eyes of the observer, Instead it detects his brain. A wave function, just like a transmitter, is emitted by the brain in the form of a thought: I want to measure you. This thought intention is detected by the thing to be measured and affects it. When a person chooses to measure a quantum object, it can detect this at the moment the choice is made. This type of interaction cannot occur at the macro atomic level or what is called ‘classical physics.’

    What I am proposing is that quantum particles and waves can be affected by thoughts created by human beings. They detect them and react. I further propose that the number of possible reactions is finite.

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    Finally, a fascinating discussion minus the vacuous troll baiting! Ahhhh! 🙂

    Thanks for the excellent comments and references, Relatd and Bornagain77. Here are some of my musings.

    A fundamental problem is the lack of specific, measurable definition of the nature of information.

    Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom. -Clifford Stoll

    While the universe is filled with complexity at high entropy, it’s not data until it’s measured and humans are not independent of that measuring system and measuring process.

    There also seems to be an energy limit on specificity of data related to Planck length, and related to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle through what are known as complementary variables or complementarity (for example, the location and momentum of a particle).

    So, the potential amount of data that can be extracted from an arbitrarily small volume of space-time is fuzzy but likely constant. It’s also likely to be probabilistic in nature and chaotic “at the edges” of all interactions. Reversibility of the interactions at quantum scales is questionable in my view—how would you reverse pair annihilation to a unique pair?

    The information related to that data is not measurable as far as I can tell. The so-called “Shannon Information” is related to data compressibility, and not a measure of information.

    If information cannot be created nor destroyed, where did that initial information come from? Incidentally, I’d argue that information passing over the event horizon of a black hole or out of our reach due to the speed of light, is simply inaccessible to our observation, not destroyed.

    Finally, I find it remarkable that the collapse of the wave function depends on human-initiated choice and observation/measurement, which might initiate a cascade of collapses according to Von Neumann.

    Of course all of this is vigorously debated and denied primarily on ideological grounds (deterministic materialism) rather than dispassionate physics.

    -Q

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    I’m starting to watch Dr. Rieper’s presentation that Bornagain77 provided (https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE). She is most likely brilliant, but I have an issue with her definition of information as being “negative entropy.” Here’s a thought experiment to illustrate my objection:

    Let’s choose the phrase

    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

    Next we use a simple encryption algorithm on the phrase. The two strings contain an identical amount of information, but the encrypted string has greater entropy than the original.

    Ah, but you object that information was transferred to the encryption algorithm.

    Correct, but that additional procedural information will be identical regardless of the length of the string being encrypted. This demonstrates that another string, the complete works of Shakespeare, when encrypted and compared falsifies the objection that the encryption algorithm makes up the difference.

    Thus, whatever information is, it’s not identical with negative entropy.

    -Q

  13. 13
    EDTA says:

    To get anywhere here it seems like we need a standard way to measure the substance we’re interested in. (Sorry if I confuse your info versus data ideas here…not trying to.)

    I think you are quite correct that Shannon entropy is not the right thing to use, as it merely measures probabilities of the bits/bytes that appear when we write the information down or transmit it: On the one hand, we say that the amount of the substance in the unencrypted and encrypted strings are the same, yet in another sense they are not the same.

    So whatever way we choose to measure the substance of interest, it seems like it should have a few properties:

    1. Be convertible to probability somehow, because we want to be able to compare it with universal probability bounds (10^-150, for instance).
    2. If it changes, then the probability needs to change to take into account the additional (un)likelihood that the transformation would have taken place or would have changed the information in the way that it did, etc.
    3. Be invariant under reasonable transformations that shouldn’t affect the probability.
    4. Be reasonably invariant to how we express it or record it, if that isn’t fundamentally “transforming” it.

    This appendix to the paper “Syntactic Measures of Complexity” lists over 40 measures of information/complexity/data that might suggest some starting places: http://cfpm.org/pub/users/bruce/thesis/appen1.pdf. I haven’t reviewed it in quite a while, and plenty more ideas have been hatched since this was written.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius, “There also seems to be an energy limit on specificity of data related to Planck length, and related to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle through what are known as complementary variables or complementarity (for example, the location and momentum of a particle).”

    That reminds me of this study which found that “The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system.”

    Quantum physics just got less complicated – Dec. 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum ‘uncertainty principle’ in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,,
    “The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,”,,,
    “It was like we had discovered the ‘Rosetta Stone’ that connected two different languages,” says Coles. “The literature on wave-particle duality was like hieroglyphics that we could now translate into our native tongue. We had several eureka moments when we finally understood what people had done,” he says.
    Because the entropic uncertainty relations used in their translation have also been used in proving the security of quantum cryptography – schemes for secure communication using quantum particles – the researchers suggest the work could help inspire new cryptography protocols.
    In earlier papers, Wehner and collaborators found connections between the uncertainty principle and other physics, namely quantum ‘non-locality’ and the second law of thermodynamics.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-q.....cated.html

    And also reminds me of Zeilinger’s principle

    Zeilinger’s principle
    Zeilinger’s principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1]
    http://www.eoht.info/page/Zeilinger%27s+principle

    In the beginning was the bit – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Zeilinger’s principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron’s spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....302101.php

    And Anton Zeilinger is not shy about voicing the ‘Theological significance’ that comes about when thinking about quantum physics in terms of information.

    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 mechanics
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    49:28 mark: “This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,,
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969

    constitutive
    1. having the power to establish or give organized existence to something.

    And Anton Zeilinger is not alone in his claim that the fundamental definition of reality should information, not matter or energy.

    “it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time 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 a bottom—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 all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – John Wheeler (1911–2008) Princeton University physicist (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    – Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    And of course since Darwinists, in their reductive materialistic framework, hold that matter and energy is fundamental, and that information is derivative from matter and energy, then this finding in quantum mechanics that information is fundamental is a direct challenge to the entire reductive materialistic framework that Darwinian evolution itself is built upon.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Also of note, William Dembski himself holds that “the fundamental stuff of the world is information.”

    “The thesis of my book ‘Being as Communion’ is that the fundamental stuff of the world is information. That things are real because they exchange information one with another.”
    – William Dembski –The Thesis of Being as Communion – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYAsaU9IvnI

    Also of note from Dr. Dembski

    The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence – William A. Dembski
    – Presented at Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, 10 August 1998.
    Excerpt: God, in speaking the divine Logos, not only creates the world but also renders it intelligible.,,,
    Consider too Einstein’s celebrated dictum about the comprehensibility of the world. Einstein claimed: “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” This statement, so widely regarded as a profound insight, is actually a sad commentary on naturalism. Within naturalism the intelligibility of the world must always remain a mystery. Within theism, on the other hand, anything other than an intelligible world would constitute a mystery.
    http://www.arn.org/docs/dembsk.....eation.htm

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    EDTA @13,

    To get anywhere here it seems like we need a standard way to measure the substance we’re interested in.

    And to measure it, we first need to understand what it is–I don’t think anyone has a good grasp of what information actually is, only what it seems to be related to and how it’s manifested.

    From the paper you linked to:

    The amount of information a system encodes or the amount of information needed
    to describe a system has a loose connection with its complexity. As noted above, there is a
    close connection between the amount of information and disorder.

    Maybe you can see why I’m trying to bludgeon any definition of “information” through examples and counter-examples.

    For example, the number 42, might a random ball drawn in a lottery, the answer to 6 x 7, the missing number to a safe combination, the atomic number of Molybdenum, the key to a cryptogram, the temperature of an object in degrees C, or the incorrect digits in the U.S. nuclear codes. Thus, information requires context as well for it to have any meaning.

    What information can be squeezed out of the sentence, “Did you understand the equation on page 42?”

    The string “mmmmm” doesn’t seem random, but I can link it to the following numbers:
    20 5 3 2 38. How? These are the word numbers of the first appearance of the letter “m” on the first pages (Chapter 1, pages 1-5) of Tim Wu’s excellent book, “The Master Switch, The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.”

    Or vice versa. The numeric string corresponds to the following pseudo-random list words:
    machine small time freedom improve

    These words could be inserted in place of the missing words of this sentence:

    “We have a [1] that needs only a [2] amount of [3] to give us [4] to [5] access.”

    Where does the information reside?

    -Q

  16. 16
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @14,

    Thanks for the quotes and for the link to Dembski’s video, which just watched where he posits Information as the “glue” of reality, a “relational ontology” in contrast to uninteresting particles bumping into each other.

    -Q

  17. 17
    EDTA says:

    Querius,

    Yes, most practical, real-world information is contextual. So the context has to be brought into the measurement process somehow.

    If information is a way of measuring choices made (or eliminated) (one definition I’ve heard), such as in a 1-out-of-n choice, that might make it easier to include the context.

  18. 18
    Querius says:

    EDTA,

    Yes, information is highly dependent on context and nearly always conveyed at some level of abstraction:

    The boy hit the ball is an abstraction of “the 12 year old boy located at (address) hit a baseball with an aluminum bat.” Also, the resulting 1 in n choices are different between “the boy hit the ball” and “the ball hit the boy.”

    The amount of information conveyed by a string can be greater or less than the information conveyed by a different string.

    For example, 42, 101010, and forty two convey the identical information but use 2, 6, and 9 characters respectively. Thus there’s not good correlation between string length and information.

    -Q

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius, “information is highly dependent on context”,,,

    To further solidify the connection between quantum mechanics and ‘information’, and Interestingly, and via ‘quantum contextuality”, 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.,,, Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. 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.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    Further notes

    Quantum contextuality
    Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. ,,,
    Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem.[1],,,
    1. S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, 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.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    The Free Will Theorem of Conway and Kochen
    Excerpt: Since the free will theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed (pre-determined) independently of the choice of measurements.
    Conway and Kochen describe new bits of information coming into existence in the universe, and we agree that information is the key to understanding both EPR entanglement experiments and human free will.,,,
    ,,, it is essential to solutions of the ‘problem of measurement’ to recognize that the “cut” between the quantum world and the classical world is the moment when new information enters the universe irreversibly.,,,
    https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/free_will_theorem.html

  20. 20
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Translation of one type of stimulus into another type is not natural because imply coding-decoding mechanism realized only by functional information.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Perhaps the easiest way to validate the claim that “the fundamental stuff of the world is information (Dembski),” is with quantum teleportation. With quantum teleportation, (and directly contrary to the Darwinian materialist’s claim that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis), we find that it is the information that is actually ‘defining’ photons and atoms to be what they are. As the following article states, “the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.”

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ’clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ’copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original, and the process can take place at the speed of light. So it’s as if the original atom vanishes at one place and reappears elsewhere, sent there at light speed. In other words, this is a form of teleportation.,,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Further notes,

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016
    Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world.
    Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,,
    This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,
    ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another.
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR

    First Teleportation Between Distant Atoms – 2009
    Excerpt: For the first time, scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart – a significant milestone in the global quest for practical quantum information processing.
    Teleportation may be nature’s most mysterious form of transport: Quantum information, such as the spin of a particle or the polarization of a photon, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium. It has previously been achieved between photons over very large distances, between photons and ensembles of atoms, and between two nearby atoms through the intermediary action of a third. None of those, however, provides a feasible means of holding and managing quantum information over long distances.
    Now a team from the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the University of Michigan has succeeded in teleporting a quantum state directly from one atom to another over a substantial distance
    https://jqi.umd.edu/news/first-teleportation-between-distant-atoms

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Sept. 2022 – Perhaps the easiest way to validate the claim that “the fundamental stuff of the world is information (Dembski),” is with quantum teleportation. With quantum teleportation, (and directly contrary to the Darwinian materialist’s claim that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis), we find that it is the information that is actually ‘defining’ photons and atoms to be what they are. As the following article states, “the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-sources-of-information/#comment-765131

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ’clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ’copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original, and the process can take place at the speed of light. So it’s as if the original atom vanishes at one place and reappears elsewhere, sent there at light speed. In other words, this is a form of teleportation.,,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Further notes,

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016
    Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world.
    Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,,
    This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,
    ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another.
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR

    First Teleportation Between Distant Atoms – 2009
    Excerpt: For the first time, scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart – a significant milestone in the global quest for practical quantum information processing.
    Teleportation may be nature’s most mysterious form of transport: Quantum information, such as the spin of a particle or the polarization of a photon, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium. It has previously been achieved between photons over very large distances, between photons and ensembles of atoms, and between two nearby atoms through the intermediary action of a third. None of those, however, provides a feasible means of holding and managing quantum information over long distances.
    Now a team from the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the University of Michigan has succeeded in teleporting a quantum state directly from one atom to another over a substantial distance
    https://jqi.umd.edu/news/first-teleportation-between-distant-atoms

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    In simplest terms, form, must be informed.

  24. 24
    Querius says:

    Excellent posts! And no one has complained about God yet (i.e. shouting squirrel at a dog show).

    Regarding context, information and its consequences are also highly Bayesian in that if I can control the contextual environment, the information is of necessity skewed.

    This applies both to the introduction of additional, adjacent information as well as additional detail or granularity of the current information.

    So, this is why in any discussion or argument, the framing of the argument, presuppositions and assumptions, and information allowed into it often determines the outcome. Let’s look at several related pieces of information:

    1. A man was shot and killed on the street.
    2. Five people nearby are interviewed by police, but none of them said they observed the murder.
    3. One of the five has a firearm in his possession.
    4. That person was observed by two of the other people arguing with the victim.
    5. The firearm has been recently fired and the owner’s hand had powder residue on it.
    6. Police arrested the person with the firearm.
    . . .
    7. The firearm was .22 caliber, but the wound and the recovered bullet was .45 caliber.

    One cannot predict whether some tiny detail, if true, can falsify the conclusion.

    -Q

  25. 25
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 19,

    “Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.”

    Once the conditions and method of measurement are defined in the quantum world, any “weirdness” disappears. There are only finite outcomes.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Relatd, “Once the conditions and method of measurement are defined in the quantum world, any “weirdness” disappears. There are only finite outcomes.”

    Well, if you consider the fact that “we are not just passive observers” to not be ‘weird’ then I guess your statement might have a ring of truth about it.

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, 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.
    – Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    Quantum contextuality
    Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. ,,,
    Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem.[1],,,
    1. S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality

    ,, but if, like the late atheist Steven Weinberg, you consider the fact that “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure”, to be unacceptably ‘weird’, then your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact the late Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    For prime example, in 2018 Anton Zeilinger and company have now pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are (indeed) brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as the late Weinberg himself honestly admitted, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    That humans, via the free will of their immaterial mind, should be “brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” should not be all that surprising for us to find out.

    Specifically, the ‘contingency’ of the universe was a necessary presupposition that was essential for the rise of modern science inn Medieval Christian Europe.

    Namely, a necessary Judeo-Christian presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science was the belief that the universe is not ‘necessary’ in its existence, as atheists hold, but that the universe is ‘contingent’ upon the will of God for its existence.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s inductive methodology)
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    As Stephen Meyer stated elsewhere, “(the order of the universe) is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise.”,,

    “That (contingency) was a huge concept (that was important for the founding of modern science). The historians of science call that ‘contingency’. The idea that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise. Just as there are many ways to make a timepiece, or a clock,,, there are many different ways God could have ordered the universe. And it is up to us not to deduce that order from first principles, or from some intuitions that we have about how nature ought to be, but rather it is important to go out and see how nature actually is.”
    – Stephen Meyer – 5:00 minute mark – Andrew Klavan and Stephen Meyer Talk God and Science
    https://idthefuture.com/1530/

    And indeed, the belief in ‘contingency’, and/or ‘divine will’, played an integral role in Sir Isaac Newton’s founding of modern physics.

    Newton — Rationalizing Christianity, or Not? – Rosalind W. Picard – 1998
    Excerpt: The belief that it was by divine will and not by some shadow of necessity that matter existed and possessed its properties, had a direct impact on Newton’s science. It was necessary to discover laws and properties by experimental means, and not by rational deduction. As Newton wrote in another unpublished manuscript, “The world might have been otherwise,,” (see Davis, 1991)
    https://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/personal/Newton.php

    ‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.”,,,
    – Sir Isaac Newton – (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49).
    https://thirdspace.org.au/comment/237

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Specifically, “Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of,,”

    “Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991)
    Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science,,,
    Newton’s voluntarist conception of God had three major consequences for his natural philosophy. First, it led him to reject Descartes’ version of the mechanical philosophy, in which matter was logically equated with extension, in favor of the belief that the properties of matter were freely determined by an omnipresent God, who remained free to move the particles of matter according to God’s will. Second, Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do.
    http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm

    And since Newton also held the orthodox belief that man is made in the image of God,,,

    Priest of Nature – the religious worlds of Isaac Newton – R. Iliffe (Princeton University Press, 2017)
    Excerpt page 5:
    “The analogy between the human and the divine would remain at the heart of Newtons theological metaphysics. In the essay on God, space, and time that he penned in the early 1690s, the analogy between man and God played a key role. Was it not most agreeable to reason, he asked, that Gods creatures shared his attributes as far as possible as fruit the nature of the tree, and an image the likeness of a man, and by sharing tend towards perfection? Similarly, was it not reasonable to believe that God could be discerned in the more perfect creatures as in a mirror? Such a view also enabled humans to understand the being and attributes of the divine.”
    https://www.yoono.org/download/prinat.pdf

    ,,, and since Newton also held to the orthodox belief that man is made in the image of God, (and since he explicitly rejected the mechanical and/or necessitarian philosophy), then I hold that Newton would be very pleased to see the recent closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole within quantum mechanics.

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

    December 2021 – When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741600

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Verses:

    Matthew 26:39
    And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    Or, one can try to process the following observation concerning quantum contextuality:

    In 2014, Mark Howard, et al. showed that contextuality characterises magic states for qudits of odd prime dimension and for qubits with real wavefunctions.

    along with a parade of the complete Greek alphabet and then some.

    But many of these theorists are convinced that deterministic materialism just gotta be true, despite “magic states” and that conscious human choice determines quantum outcomes which also control conscious human choice.

    Gack! It seems that nature preserves its modesty by means of a fan dance that limits what we can know.

    But as Bornagain77 notes,

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics . . .

    . . . it allows conscious human attention and choice to have a tiny, independent effect on reality, which is in humbling contrast to the Creator through whom all things hold together.

    -Q

  29. 29
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 26,

    I don’t know why you question my statement. A few facts. The universe, as understood by “classical physics,” is intelligible. Entirely. Once we get into the sub-atomic, or quantum realm, we see different rules in play but it is also intelligible with finite outcomes. Once the rules of the game, so to speak, are understood, it has exactly the same intelligibility as the macro, classic physics world. The only surprise or “weirdness,” is that the rules do not follow classical physics. That is my point.

    IBM could not have made quantum chips or built quantum computers without an understanding of the quantum world and its rules. Once those were understood, and that these rules were predictable, they could build devices that will only increase in terms of functional power.

  30. 30
    relatd says:

    Querius at 28,

    “. . . it allows conscious human attention and choice to have a tiny, independent effect on reality, which is in humbling contrast to the Creator through whom all things hold together.”

    Not quite. Man has been integrated into the very fabric of reality. In the quantum world, we not only see things but we can affect them; we are needed to produce outcomes. It was designed by God to be this way.

  31. 31
    Querius says:

    Relatd @30,
    Just to be clear, I’m not denying we’re an integrated part of reality and quantum experiments.

    What I’m trying to say is that our decision as to what, when, and how we observe something at the quantum level is NOT also initiated at the quantum level, otherwise we wouldn’t observe quantum entanglement or von Neumann chains. Our decisions (aka the “Heisenberg choice”) emerge from from outside our physical environment. Here’s a paper on the subject:

    https://philarchive.org/archive/CAPQMO

    The note on page 3 reads as follows:

    We recall that von Neumann’s quantum theory is a formulation in which the entire physical universe, including the bodies and brains of the conscious human participant/observers, is represented by the basic quantum state. The dynamics involves three processes. Process 1 is the choice on the part of the experimenter about how he will act. This choice is sometimes called the “Heisenberg choice”, because Heisenberg emphasized strongly its crucial role in quantum dynamics. At the pragmatic level it is a “free choice”, because it is controlled, at least at the practical level, by the conscious intentions of the experimenter/participant: neither the Copenhagen nor von Neumann formulations specify the causal origins of this choice, apart from the conscious intentions of the human agent. Process 2 is the quantum analog of the equations of motion of classical physics, and like its classical counterpart is local (i.e., via contact between neighbors) and deterministic. This process is constructed from the classical one by a certain quantization procedure, and is reduced back to the classical process by taking the classical approximation. It normally has the effect of expanding the microscopic uncertainties demanded by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle into the macroscopic domain: the centers of large objects are smeared out over large regions of space. This conflict with conscious experience is resolved by invoking Processes 1 and 3. Process 3 is sometimes call the “Dirac choice”. Dirac called it a “choice on the part of Nature”. It can be regarded as Nature’s answer to a question effectively posed by the Process 1 choice made by the experimenter. This posed question is: will the intended consequences of the action that the agent chooses to perform actually be experienced? (e.g.,will the Geiger counter be observed to be placed in the intended place? And, if so, will the specified action of that device be observed to occur?) Processes 1 and 3 act on the variables that specify the body/brain of the agent. According Stapp, the “Yes” answer actualizes the neural correlates of the intended action or associated feedback.

    -Q

  32. 32
    relatd says:

    Querius at 31,

    Human beings are involved directly in affecting the quantum world. To put it another way, we are linked to the quantum world. This is automatic and always on. Our very existence, and the existence of all things in that they are composed of atoms and all atoms are made of sub-atomic particles, are linked to the quantum world.

    I propose that an active link to the quantum world by human beings is different than the link of unintelligent things like plants and rocks. I further propose that this will be discovered through experiment. The human link is separate from the animal link and these are separate from the link maintained by non-living things. Our human consciousness through our choice to observe has an automatic effect on the quantum world. The interaction for animals is based on instinct. For non-living things, it involves a steady state interaction.

  33. 33
    Querius says:

    Relatd @32,

    I propose that an active link to the quantum world by human beings is different than the link of unintelligent things like plants and rocks. I further propose that this will be discovered through experiment.

    Wavefunction collapse is initiated by conscious human observation, possibly resulting in a
    Von Neumann chain of additional wavefunction collapses. It would be interesting to experimentally determine whether a trained animal can collapse wavefunctions as well as humans.

    An interesting experiment, currently out of reach, is whether wavefunctions have gravitational attraction before collapse.

    -Q

  34. 34
  35. 35
    Alan Fox says:

    Hey, Querius, I owe you a response on DNA degradation but didn’t bookmark the thread. Do you happen to have a link? TIA

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    A Darwinist pointing to dandelions as evidence for Darwinian evolution?,, Really?,,, All I can say is, nice ‘own goal’ buddy.

    A study has now shown that the dandelion seed’s aeronautical design is more efficient than any man-made parachute.

    2-MINUTE WONDERS: Uplifting Story
    https://vimeo.com/401099079

  37. 37
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77,
    Sweet and amazing! Thank you.

    Alan Fox,
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-big-think-can-we-predict-evolution/

    -Q

  38. 38
    Alan Fox says:

    A study has now shown that the dandelion seed’s aeronautical design is more efficient than any man-made parachute.

    An excellent example of the power of natural selection and the environment as designer.

  39. 39
    asauber says:

    “environment as designer”

    AF,

    I’m going to channel my Inner JVL and ask you, exactly when did the environment design the Dandelion and where can we see the schematic?

    Andrew

  40. 40
    Alan Fox says:

    exactly when did the environment design the Dandelion and where can we see the schematic?

    What an odd question! Everyone here seems satisfied with evidence-free “Intelligent Design”. You have no idea how the “Design” process works yet you want every last detail for evolution. Anyway, selection is a continuous process. Differential reproductive success is cumulative, making small changes due the composition of the dandelion’s gene pool. Evolution and selection never sleep.

  41. 41
    asauber says:

    “What an odd question!”

    AF,

    Not at all. Are you saying the environmentally generated design is always changing?

    Andrew

  42. 42
    Seversky says:

    The environmentally generated designs, they are a-changin’!

  43. 43
    asauber says:

    “The environmentally generated designs, they are a-changin’!”

    Sev,

    How can you tell?

    Andrew

  44. 44
    Seversky says:

    If we have only known of the quantum world for about a hundred years, who or what was doing all the observing/measuring before that?

    Most of us cannot observe/measure the quantum world directly. We don’t have the sensory apparatus. Only a relatively small number of scientists have the equipment to do it. So where is all this other observation/measurement coming from?

    The blessed Sabine Hossenfelder says that a conscious observer is not required to perform observations/measurements, unmanned instruments will work, even interaction with environmental particles will suffice. So, no observer – human or otherwise – required.

  45. 45
    Querius says:

    Seversky,
    Have you heard of the double slit experiment?
    https://youtu.be/Q1YqgPAtzho

    Human observation makes ALL the difference.

    Sabine Hossenfelder hasn’t proved that a human observer is not required. It’s her opinion. For all she knows, our observation of instruments simply sets off a Von Neumann chain of collapsing wavefunctions. She also (grudgingly) admits that non-deterministic random events do exist in the universe.

    This is also similar to Darwinists when they presuppose that no intelligence is needed to explain the appearance of design, let’s say, the human immune system, and then they conclude that none is required since random undirected genetic drift MUSTA resulted in the incredibly complex and effective result, But they have never been able to demonstrate the spontaneous creation of NEW design information, but simply parade around degradations of what was already present, announcing that change is the same as progress.

    Again, randomness is not data, and data is not information. But what exactly is information? Information is carried by data but not closely bound by data as I demonstrated previously.

    One can measure data compression with the misnamed Shannon Information, but what are the units of measure for INFORMATION? Candelas? Calories?

    -Q

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states;

    The blessed Sabine Hossenfelder says that a conscious observer is not required to perform observations/measurements, unmanned instruments will work, even interaction with environmental particles will suffice. So, no observer – human or otherwise – required.

    The “blessed” Sabine Hossenfelder? “Blessed”??? And exactly how is “blessed’ sainthood supposed to be achieved in your Atheistic worldview Seversky? 🙂

    But anyways regardless of her status as a ‘blessed’ saint, and although Sabine Hossenfelder has shown herself willing to fight against evidence-free theories such as String theory, Sabine Hossenfelder has also, unfortunately, chosen to ignore empirical evidence when it conflicts with her a-priori commitment to Atheistic Naturalism.

    Specifically, Sabine Hosenfelder herself, instead of accepting experimental results from quantum mechanics, via Zeilinger and company, that now show we have complete free will in determining the measurement settings in our quantum experiments,,,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    ,, Hossenfelder, instead of accepting those experimental results, has instead opted to say that events in the remote past, prior to the formation of the earth itself, were somehow ‘superdetermined’ prior to the Big Bang.

    Sabine Hossenfelder Proposes Superdeterminism” To Replace Quantum Mechanics
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sabine-hossenfelder-proposes-superdeterminism-to-replace-quantum-mechanics/

    Moreover, these ‘superdetermined’ events somehow ‘conspire’ to fool us into erroneously believing our experimental results that show us that quantum theory is correct (and that we do have the free will necessary to choose our measurement settings).

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112515.htm

    To call such a move on the part of Sabine Hossenfelder, (i.e. the rejection of experimental results that conflict with her apriori philosophical belief in Atheistic Naturalism), unscientific would be a severe understatement. It is a rejection of the entire scientific method itself. She, in her appeal to ‘superdeterminism’, is basically arguing that we cannot trust what the experimental results of quantum mechanics themselves are telling us because events in the remote past ‘conspired’ to give us erroneous experimental results today.

    As should be needless to say, if we cannot trust what our experimental results are telling us, then empirical science is, for all practical purposes, dead.

    Likewise, Sabine Hossenfelder’s claim, (via Seversky), that “a conscious observer is not required to perform observations/measurements, unmanned instruments will work, even interaction with environmental particles will suffice” is also found to be in direct conflict with empirical science.

    Specifically, interaction free measurements, “Renninger-type” experiments, falsifies ‘decoherence’ as a explanation for the ‘measurement problem’.

    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.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0

    An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment (Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment, and in the double slit experiment, the Detector can be placed at one slit during the double slit experiment and yet the photon or electron still collapses in the unobserved slit) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY

    Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester
    Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.[2] In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one.
    per wikipedia

    As well, the following video also clearly explains why decoherence does not solve the measurement problem:

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    So Seversky is once again, (for 10,000th time), found to be making claims that are in direct conflict with empirical science. And all this dishonesty on Seversky’s part apparently stems from his irrational hatred of God that he harbors in his imagination. (an irrational hatred of God which he has demonstrated a thousand times here on UD)

    You really need to deal with that irrational hatred of God Seversky. It is simply making a fool of you as far as empirical science itself is concerned.

    Romans 1:20-23
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

  47. 47
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77,
    Great videos, thank you and well said! When they were talking about context with respect to Quantum Mechanics, it reminded me of context with respect to Information as we were discussing. It strengthens the idea that Information doesn’t exist in isolation by itself.

    Regarding Dr. Hossenfelder, I also enjoy her videos and her candor with respect to “lost in math,” but as you noted, she suffers from ideological poisoning, which prevents her from accepting that probabilities are as real as a pair of dice and that just a dash of randomness, to which she admits, spoils her deterministic materialism with chaos rather than an impossibly complex initial condition in the universe.

    The real challenge is accepting that context, information, and free will seems to come from “outside” our material reality, or better yet, that our perceived reality is a very realistic illusion or simulation.

    So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? – Jesus as quoted in Luke 16:11 (NIV)

    -Q

Leave a Reply