Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nuclear Power: A New Movement You Won’t Believe

arroba Email
I am going to tell you something unbelievable. It will sound like hyperbole or a parable contrived to make a point. It isn’t—it is true. You have heard of the many crazy things people believe but, believe it or not, there is a group that is certain that there is a way for the four fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force) to rearrange fundamental particles to form spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers. I am indebted to Granville Sewell for this information, and why it is important.  Read more
How can the blind forces of nature create spaceships, computer chips and nuclear power plants? Well the answer is....they can't! DesignFan
Thanks BornAgain77. DesignFan
off topic; two new video loads: Intelligent Design - Light and Water http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4669620 Intelligent Design - Symbiosis and the Golden Ratio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4669633 bornagain77
There is another rock Seversky, one that stands for eternity: Solid Rock - the 5th service band Featuring TRU-SERVA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4jD70Y-mQ0 bornagain77
Seversky asks: Question Can you stub your toe on information? Answer: Yes Well seversky seeing as the material of this universe is of a ethereal (wave/particle) nature: Uncertainty Principle - The "Uncertain Non-Particle" Basis Of Material Reality - video and article http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Special Relativity - Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674 The Electron - The Supernatural Basis of Reality - video http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=922bb17d122f4b8e5995 "Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenberg A material basis for the universe that was itself made out of trancendent information: Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ I would have to say that the most solid, unchanging, indestructible "things" in the atoms of a rock are the unchanging, universal, transcendent, information constants, that are holding the rock together, exercising overriding dominion of all quantum events. Transcendent information constants that have not varied one iota from the universes creation. Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,, http://www.reasons.org/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio Stability of Coulomb Systems in a Magnetic Field - Charles Fefferman Excerpt of Abstract: I study N electrons and M protons in a magnetic field. It is shown that the total energy per particle is bounded below by a constant independent of M and N, provided the fine structure constant is small. Here, the total energy includes the energy of the magnetic field. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2367659?cookieSet=1 Thus Seversky I would have to say that every time you have ever stubbed your toe in your entire life you have in fact stubbed you toe against a solid barrier of transcendent information. What is Truth? http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc8z67wz_3g3vnsmcn bornagain77
"I think we’ve all got the question now: how did all this happen? The problem is that some of us think that ‘Designer/God/whatever did it’ is much of an answer. It says ‘who’ not ‘how’."
The solution "God did it" is certainly not much of an answer to anyone seeking an explanation for how blind processes incrementally assemble complex functional nanotechnology and its supporting code. That's the problem: ID proponents aren't sure they can, and materialists appear threatened by that mindset. So if the question is, "How did life come about without any intelligent input?" The answer may be that it didn't. In other words, it may be the wrong question. That's the answer materialists won't accept, period. To the materialist, the notion that life requires an infusion of information that is meta-physical is simply not entertained, ever. It's taboo; it's anathema. A legitimate and necessary question is, "Does the formation of biological life require input that transcends law and chance, i.e., an intelligent agent?" It's the question that only ID proponents are willing to ask. If the answer is yes, then science forges on -- reverse engineering biological nanotechnology to the benefit of humanity; if the answer is no, science forges on in search of the laws that govern the spontaneous generation of complex specified information. If the answer is, "we don't know," then science still progresses, searching for evidence that leads in either direction. In any case, science continues unhindered. 'Goddiddit' isn't a barrier to the progress of human knowledge; if true, it's only a barrier to the advancement of materialistic explanations for life -- because if life isn't the result of law and chance, that is, purely natural causes, then the quest for that explanation is utterly desolate. Asking and answering "how" questions is permissible, regardless of whether life's source is rooted in oblivion, or purposeful input. The question, "How did spaceships come about as the result of law and chance?" isn't even appropriate if the question of whether or not they did is in exile. If it's true that life requires intelligent input, then the only dead end created is for materialist dogma: that only chance and necessity are permissible as explanations for life. Science will continue unhindered. Apollos
Can you stub your toe on information?
The issue is this: unless we want to say with Wheeler that all physics is information, which obviates the need for information talk specifically in genetics, at some point in the hierarchy of domains from physics to chemistry to biology to psychology, information arises as a property of systems that makes a difference. Information can’t be simply the copying of structure – all causation of physical structures involves this in some sense, and even clays and crystals “copy” structure, so the specificity notion of information is either not uniquely biological or is just causal, or both. We know there are objects that do have information; we are such objects, as information processors. The question is whether, as intentionalists claim, information arises generally in biology, and we have one kind in our heads, or whether it arises in our heads and heads very like them, and we apply it retrospectively to things that we interpret in intentional ways. Learning systems have intentional information. Do genes? Qua objects in the physical world, genes do not. We represent genes in terms of what we are familiar with and can manipulate conceptually. Explanations of genetic properties and behaviors in terms of information are therefore something of an anomaly. There is no irreducible need for causal information, since any causal account of a particular case can be recast in purely physical terms. Information therefore seems to appear only in the generalization of these tokens over types, in the modeling of systems. In short, types (alleles, sequences, etc.) are abstractions, and abstractions qua abstractions do not “exist” anywhere but in the abstract representation or model. Of course, any token of an abstraction exists somewhere – in a head or group of heads – but the abstract entity “information” exists nowhere in time and space.
--John S Wilkins. "Deflation of genetic information" Seversky
Seversky, seeing as reality itself is based on information, per John Archibald Wheeler and Anton Zeilinger, and not "particles", and that genetic entropy (loss of biological information) rules biological adaptations with a iron grip, the question right now for scientists to answer is not really so much "how" did the Designer do it, though quantum mechanics surely hints at such mechanisms, but more importantly as to "when" did the Designer do it. In my opinion clarifying when optimal information was implemented would go a long way in straightening out the mess that has been left over from "Darwin's legacy". bornagain77
I think we've all got the question now: how did all this happen? The problem is that some of us think that 'Designer/God/whatever did it' is much of an answer. It says 'who' not 'how'. Seversky
off topic; I think you will like this Dr. Hunter; This video really drew out the distinction of the basis of the "theological" argument from Darwinist's "perceived imperfections" of the world: The most inspirational video you will ever see -- Nick Vujicic http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=18d5fe4e6dcf04df1865 Attitude; Attitude is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education than money, than circumstances, than failures, than success, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company.a home. a relationship. The remarkable thing is we have a choice, every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for the day. We cannot change our past. We cannot change the fact that other people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90 % how I react to it. - Charles Swindoll Rascal Flatts - Unstoppable [Olympics Mix] http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=a7dba77b4d83eaad6701 bornagain77

Leave a Reply