Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

Thus, Schrödinger was USING THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION TO TEST THE WORTHINESS AND REASONABLENESS OF VARIOUS SCHOOLS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. A lot of early quantum theorists were disturbed by the implications of their own work, but history and experimentation has largely confirmed the most distrubing parts.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "What is it about the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment that YOU do not understand? Do you not understand that it concerns a superposition of two states, one where a particle has been emitted from a nucleus and one where no such particle has been emitted?" It is not I who doesn't understand the thought experiment of Schrodinger's cat. From Wikipedia's anti-ID website: "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses." For those Darwinists who do not understand the meaning of "reductio ad absurdum" [that would seem to be all of them] it is a way of using the law of non-contradiction to prove that a given proposition is ridiculous. Thus, Schrödinger was USING THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION TO TEST THE WORTHINESS AND REASONABLENESS OF VARIOUS SCHOOLS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. To try and turn that around to make it appear that he was appealing to a cat that was both dead and alive in order to challenge the same law that he was appealing to is, well, you have heard the word before---irrational.StephenB_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

PPS: Note, I advert to an intelligent extra-cosmic creator as a potential cosmic cause, in the specific context of the fine tuned complexity of our observed cosmos.kairosfocus_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

PS: I should underscore that I am pointing out that the presence of necessary factors is a causal constraint, and that the presence of a stable statistical pattern giving rise to a definite, measurable half life also points to a causal pattern. In the latter case, we have an underlying distribution of possible outcomes and an activation pattern, here with tunnelling involved [after all this is an energy process]. Tunnelling of course follows a definite pattern. Using Wiki's handy 101:
Quantum tunnelling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle "passes through" some sort of barrier which has higher energy than the particle. Classically, this type of event is impossible and observations of quantum tunnelling are part of the body of experimental evidence that backs quantum mechanical theory and the particle-wave duality of matter. Quantum tunnelling is an evanescent wave coupling effect that occurs in the context of quantum mechanics. Other names for this effect are Wave-mechanical tunnelling, Quantum-mechanical tunnelling and the Tunnel effect . . . . By 1928, George Gamow had solved the theory of the alpha decay of a nucleus via tunnelling. In classical mechanics, the particle is confined to the nucleus because of the high energy requirement to escape the very strong potential. Under this system, it takes an enormous amount of energy to pull apart the nucleus. In quantum mechanics, however, there is a probability the particle can tunnel through the potential and escape. Gamow solved a model potential for the nucleus and derived a relationship between the half-life of the particle and the energy of the emission. Alpha decay via tunnelling was also solved concurrently by Ronald Gurney and Edward Condon[1][2][3]. Shortly thereafter, both groups considered whether particles could also tunnel into the nucleus. After attending a seminar by Gamow, Max Born recognized the generality of quantum-mechanical tunnelling. He realized that the tunnelling phenomenon was not restricted to nuclear physics, but was a general result of quantum mechanics that applies to many different systems. Today the theory of tunnelling is even applied to the early cosmology of the universe . . . . For these effects to occur there must be a situation where a thin region of "medium type 2" is sandwiched between two regions of "medium type 1", and the properties of these media have to be such that the wave equation has "traveling-wave" solutions in medium type 1, but "real exponential solutions" (rising and falling) in medium type 2. In optics, medium type 1 might be glass, medium type 2 might be a vacuum. In quantum mechanics, in connection with motion of a particle, medium type 1 is a region of space where the particle's total energy is greater than its potential energy, medium type 2 is a region of space (known as the "barrier") where the particle's total energy is less than its potential energy. If conditions are right, amplitude from a traveling wave, incident on medium type 2 from medium type 1, can "leak through" medium type 2 and emerge as a traveling wave in the second region of medium type 1 on the far side. If the second region of medium type 1 is not present, then the traveling wave incident on medium type 2 is totally reflected, although it does penetrate into medium type 2 to some extent. Depending on the wave equation being used, the leaked amplitude is interpreted physically as traveling energy or as a traveling particle, and, numerically, the ratio of the square of the leaked amplitude to the square of the incident amplitude gives the proportion of incident energy transmitted out the far side, or (in the case of the Schrödinger equation) the probability that the particle "tunnels" through the barrier. The scale on which these "tunnelling-like phenomena" occur depends on the wavelength of the traveling wave. For electrons, the thickness of "medium type 2" (called in this context "the tunnelling barrier") is typically a few nanometres; for alpha-particles tunnelling out of a nucleus, the thickness is much less; for the analogous phenomenon involving light, the thickness is much greater.
(I adverted to this above also.) When these ideas are extended to cosmology, the usual idea is that the cosmos is an expanded singularity that happened on a statistical pattern, a vacuum fluctuation now of 13.7 BY duration once it has expanded. Of course, immediately we see an inference to an underlying unobserved energy-material-temporal cosmos. And, on observing the evident fine-tuning of our cosmos that facilitates c-chemistry cell based intelligent life, that becomes a highly significant issue. For, we now have a projected "cosmos bread factory" that is capable of baking a distribution of sub-cosmi that includes those habitable for the sort of life we are discussing. Thus, we have promoted the fine-tuning challenge and the informaiton-genration issue to one level higher. [That is we see the point on active information at work . . . once we have functional complex organisation and associated information, informationally passive unintelligent chance-necessity random walk type processes as a rule face insuperable search space challenges. There is no free lunch and active informaiton is best explained on an intelligent source. But a deeper issue lurks. We are now several levels deep into unobservables [deep past, singularities and claimed fluctuations, underlying supercosmos etc . . .], in a context of worldview grounding. This is not science, it is metaphysics or first philosophy. Indeed, we are now delving on the issue that he existience of a credibly contingent observed cosmos entails -- logically necessitates -- an underlying necessary being as its best explanation. So, candidates for necessary being now sit for job interviews to be creator or Creator . . . The proper method for that sort of fundamental issue is comparative difficulties across live options [as I linked on earlier this morning], and so it is arbitrary and censoring to try to exclude an Intelligent Creator a priori as an explanatory option.kairosfocus_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Oops, 507.kairosfocus_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It is increasingly clear that a basic problem we are facing is that many objectors to the design inference are committed to an a priori, Lewontinian evolutionary materaialist scientism, which serves as a quasi-religious ideology. In addition, they are often evidently quite ill-instructed in (a) the easily enough accessible limitations of scientific methods as methods of arriving at truth, (b) wider issues in epistemology and associated logic of warrant for knowledge or truth claims, (c) the nature of causality and its importance to not only science but general reasoning, (d) underlying worldview options and comparative difficulties analysis. This of course reflects major gaps in current science education, for students in primary or secondary school, for those trained to teach science, for those trained to become practitioners, and for many of their professors. (Unfortunately, too often there is an attitude of dismissive contempt towards such issues and reasoning as well. I have actually seen articles and books on this topic, where even eminent scientists write to dismiss empirically and historically well warranted philosophical constraints on scientific knowledge. This is sad.) One hopes that something like this basic "101" on philosophical methods and issues will help such. Now, too, we should observe how consistently the objectors to the inference to design have managed to avoid addressing the import of the observed FSCI in the cell, in the context of the only observed, directly known source of such (intelligence) and the associated issue that undirected forces and factors of chance and necessity would run out the resources of the observed cosmos long before scratching the surface of the sea of possible configs, i.e. the islands of function are hopelessly isolated in a vast sea of non-function for random search strategies across the config space to have a hope of success. Having underscored that, I note again how often my remarks and those of other design thinkers in this thread have been strawmannised and dismissed, or outright diverted from. I add a few corrective observations: 1] Petrushka, 503: Explain the operation of a transistor without reference to discrete energy states. More recent devices, found everywhere, require explicit use of quantum tunneling. Fails to obse4rve that I have pointed out explicitly that device physics is explored, characteristic curves or nomograms and equivalent circuit models are constructed, and design of circuits and systems as a rule is on the latter, not the quantum analysis. In the particular context of the 1960's my Millman-Halkias points to h-parameter ckt analysis [the parameters being presented as hfe etc, but underneath based on partial differential equation analysis in a sort of linearisation around operating points] and I think as well hybrid-pi analysis [which allows significant high frequency effects to come in]. Such circuit analyses, instantly familiar to those who have done electronics design, and as I have already noted, work in terms of two-port networks, with input and output networks incorporating a controlled fictitious generator [a controlled current source is common]. Thus we see how known false ["simplified"] models are often highly useful in ranges of validity, and more to the point, a vivid demonstration on how accuracy of prediction of observable outcomes is not at all a good warrant for inferring the truth of explanatory or modelling constructs. So, the bottomline is plain: scientific methods do not warrant the ultimate truth of theories and other explanatory or modelling constructs. This, I also showed more directly in terms of the underlying implication logic. 2] P, 505: Is there some implementation of electronics that doesn’t require devices? Strawman. As was explicitly pointed out, device physics is got out of the way as soon as possible, and the nomograms and equivalent ckt models are substituted. (Today's computer models such as Electronics Workbench are sophisticated versions of this, with maybe 40 parameters to model a transistor, last I checked.) Again, let us also not forget that a strawman is actually a subspecies of red herring: its purpose is distractive [and it often works to support a mischaracterisation of those whose thought is being caricatured, thence supports demonisation and denigration and bigoted dismissal], so cf my opening remarks in this post. 3] Gaz, 507: I generally agree with your thinking (minor quibble about protons being largely the same as neutrons but never mind I see what you’re saying) It is worth noting a point of agreement. I am quite aware of the distinction in quark compositon of p and n, but am pointing out that in the nucleus, they function as in effect nucleons of extremely comparable characteristics; with n providing additional strong force glue to hold nuclei together in the face of mounting electrostatic repulsion aqs p-no mounts. 4] 505, What you have actually shown is that there is a factor that maintains stability of neutrons when in stable nuclei. Yes? Precisely, and that means that there is a causal constraint at work: on more or less direct observation of atomic stability vs neutron decay when free, something in the interactions in the nucleus is stabilising the neutron complement of the atom. This means, on logic of cause, that radioactive decay of neutrons -- a beta decay process -- is not acausal. We may not know the sufficient factors that WILL cause decay once they are met, but we do know necessary factors the absence of which constrains decay. [Absence of being "free" constrains decay of he neutron complement of atoms, stabilising the elements in the famous belt of stability running up to Pb.] This further means that a classic radioactive decay is not acausal. 5] 505, Turning the issue back to you, when neutron are isolated how do you predict when and how a particular neutron will decay? First, I do not have to be able to do that for the relevant purposes of showing that causal factors are at work. That is, I am again underscoring that we have two different logical classes of causal factors: necessary ones and sufficient ones. When sufficient factors are present an effect WILL happen and/or be sustained (e.g. oxidiser, plus fuel plus heat for a fire). When one or more necessary factors are ABSENT or removed, an effect CANNOT happen or cannot be sustained. (E.g. we fight a fire by breaking the fire triangle, removing at least one leg: e.g. smother it to lock out oxidiser. BTW, this is also directly connected to some aspects of metabolism and life, which uses controlled oxidation . . . ) In the case of a population of free neutrons, we know some necessary factors, e.g they must be free. We do not know the specific sufficient factors, and observe a stochastic pattern, where spontaneous decay occurs such that half the population will be decayed in about 15 minutes. Such a regularity in even the spontaneous process is itself an order amidst apparent chaos -- a common enough pattern in quantum behaviour, statistical mechanics and related solid state or vacuum physics [think of space charge regions and the similarity between valves and FETs]. So, our lack of knowledge of the sufficient factors involved in the decay of a particular entity at a given time -- and I freely accept that position- momentum and energy - time uncertainty point to a fundamental lock-out on our ability to know them -- is irrelevant to the point that we have sufficient information to warrant the conclusion that it is not acausal. An acausal event would have to come out of nowhere, from nothing, with no constraints whatsoever. It would be a mark of chaos, not cosmos; and, there would be no stable statistical pattern. They physical situation we have analysed is exactly not such an acausal phenomenon. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus (499), Congratulations on getting the 500th entry. I generally agree with your thinking (minor quibble about protons being largely the same as neutrons but never mind I see what you're saying) until this: "o6 –> That is, I am here showing from a concrete example that causal factors are at work that influence beta decay processes for neutrons." What you have actually shown is that there is a factor that maintains stability of neutrons when in stable nuclei. Yes? Turning the issue back to you, when neutron are isolated how do you predict when and how a particular neutron will decay?Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "Thus, in an attempt to support your irrational world view." ---"Quantum theory is hardly irrational." I have never said that quantum theory is irrational or anything even close to that. Please read for context and comprehension. What is irrational is the mindless attempt to trash logical principles in the name of evidence, especially from those who proudly admit that they are ignorant of those principles.StephenB_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

PPS: Of course device physics is often predicated on quantum, solid state physics and vacuum physics.
Is there some implementation of electronics that doesn't require devices?Petrushka_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Thus, in an attempt to support your irrational world view
Quantum theory is hardly irrational. What some people don't like about it is that much of it is counterintuitive. Reason is still reason, even if the axioms and assumptions don't conform to your intuitive understanding of the world, the understanding based on rather crude and limited human senses.Petrushka_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Moreover, on my applied physics work experience, I would be very surprised that (apart from probably some sensors) a significant part of the design of the actual circuits and systems used to operate the computers and other electronic devices used in the Moon Shot were based on actual Quantum theory.
Explain the operation of a transistor without reference to discrete energy states. More recent devices, found everywhere, require explicit use of quantum tunneling.Petrushka_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

PPS: Of course device physics is often predicated on quantum, solid state physics and vacuum physics.kairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

PS: Do I need to further explicitly point out that when the proton number of a nucleus changes, the nucleus is that of a different atom?kairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Re Gaz, 493: I noted, on whether or not a neutron is in a nucleus, and what happens when it is outside:
“That is a causal factor, and it is associated with the beta decay instability of neutrons outside the nucleus [~ 900 s t1/2], which is of course a case of instability that is plainly contextually influenced: atoms do not last 15 minutes on average. (Last I checked protons were completely stable, and yet n and p are very closely similar.)”
The highlighted makes it plain that I spoke of neutrons within vs outside the nucleus. Now, you seem to imagine my onward reference to atoms is "garbled." This is astonishing, as the main constituents of atomic nucleii are of course neutrons and protons. My point should have been obvious to anyone who was not looking for a fault to try to dismiss the qualifications of a dispised design thinker. Let's pause and draw out the logic as I would with students who need a bit of spoon feeding: 1 --> N and p are of course very similar bosons, and as just described under certain circumstances, with a 15 min t1/2, extranuclear neutrons undergo beta decay to yield protons. 2 --> Beta decay, of course is a quantum-relevant radio-decay phenomenon. 3 --> Now, were this process wholly internal to the neutron and acausal otherwise [i.e. that one has a neutron to have neutron decay is a trivially necessary causal factor], then its location in or out of a nucleus would make no difference. 4 --> So, on that hypothesis, we would expect that neutrons in atomic nucleii (where,in effect they augment the strong force without adding to the destabilising electrostatic repulsions) would also undergo beta decay, t1/2 about 900s or 15 minutes. {And I am leaving off specific discussion of mesons as exchange force particles, which is related to the stability of atomic nucleii.] 5 --> General atomic instability would follow, as all atoms beyond H-1 have neutrons in their nucleii. So, there would be no belt of stability. 6 --> That is, I am here showing from a concrete example that causal factors are at work that influence beta decay processes for neutrons. 7 --> That is there is no general acausality in quantum mechanics. (And cf my remarks earlier on "wavicles" and our lab scale based maps, concepts and models -- waves, particles etc -- that let us peer into the quantum world.) 8 --> Moreover, this is specifically on the random process of radioactive decay; which was cited above as a case of acausal process. 9 --> In that context, I draw attention to the often overlooked point that necessary causal factors are causal factors. ___________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

--Gaz: "Thank you for finally getting to the nub of it. Your concern is, essentially, a religious one – and that is what drives your preconceptions about nature." My primary concern is rationality because rationality is the vehicle by which we arrive at truth. Your primary concern is irrationality because you would prefer not to arrive at the destination that truth will take you. Thus, in an attempt to support your irrational world view and to deny the phenomenon of design even when it is obviously present, you assert the most ridiclous propositions imaginable, such as the claim that sand, wind, water, and time can build beautiful perfectly formed sand models of a Corvette Sting Ray, or the ambitious hope that a natural cause, such as a tornado, cannot be distinguished from intelligent causes, such as a burglar. Indeed, in order to blur the distinction between the two, you were reduced to claiming that a tornado, like a burglar, could possibly run off with the stolen jewelry. As an encore, you will no doubt inform us that the tornado is equally likely to visit a pawn shop and hock the merchandise. If evidence could speak for itself, there would be no such disputes [about the causality of quantum events]. Thus, when I ask you why you believe that quantum events are uncaused, you simply answer, “because the evidence says so.” It says that to atheists, but it does not say that to theists.” ---I disagree. "There are plenty of theist scientists who say the same as me, i.e. that certain quantum events appear uncaused. You are projecting your own views on to others now." You missed the context again. The point is not that theists never believe that quantum events are uncaused but rather that an atheist is more likely than a theist to believe it because it serves his biased world view. If ideology can influence judgment about causality, the the evidence is not, as you often claim, speaking for itself. In any case, there are no theists who believe, as you do, that the universe was an uncaused quantum event. If they thought the universe was uncaused, it is obvious they wouldn't be theists. [That, by the way, was a logical deduction which you may not accept since it was based on the law of non-contradiction] The illogical proposition that quantum events are uncaused is not based on evidence but is rather a function of materialist ideology. ---"No, I’m afraid not. the real answer, of course, is that it is your own bias that requires a cause to everything as a matter of principle, not evidence." Until I make the equivalent claim that natural forces can build a perfect sand model of a Corvette Sting Ray or that a tornado can faithfully mimic the activities of a burglar, I don't think it will be MY bias that muddies the debate waters.StephenB_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Perhaps, you have a problem translating: “I’ wuk, but i’ wuk no mean i’ TRUUUE- true- true . . . ” [It means: It works, but that it works does not mean it is true.] I actually pointed out the logic of theories (T) being inferences to best explanation, and the point that, on abduction, we infer from initial observations (O1) to theoretical (explanatory) constructs, then we infer predictions and test them against further observations (O2), per Newton's remarks in Opticks, 31. I then pointed out the logic; perhaps a simple symbolisation will help:
T => O1, on inference to best explanation. T => O2, on prediction. But, (O1 + O2) =/=> T, affirming the consequent. ____________________ So: O1, O2 empirically support T, but do not establish it as true in the sense of corresponding to reality. (Science is in the end a faith-venture, i.e we walk by faith.)
Now, in fact the Ptolemaic system had a little corner of history in the Caribbean: using it, Columbus predicted an eclipse in Jamaica, and thereby obtained help from the Amerindians when he was marooned there for a year. That is, the theory was capable of making good enough predictions for many things. Also, by the time that Newtonian dynamics was used to design the rockets and trajectories used for the Moon shot, it was strictly known that it had been falsified, decades previously for the worlds of the very large and the very small. Moreover, on my applied physics work experience, I would be very surprised that (apart from probably some sensors) a significant part of the design of the actual circuits and systems used to operate the computers and other electronic devices used in the Moon Shot were based on actual Quantum theory. What is used in practice is equivalent circuit models that reduce amplifiers to controlled generators with input networks and loads. RTL and TTL logic would have in the main been based on saturated bipolar junction transistor amplifier calculations, and maybe up to something like a Hybrid-Pi model for really high frequency stuff. Beyond that, system design is really block diagram algebra, with differential equations transferred over to a complex frequency domain form, via Laplace or even Fourier Transforms (for comms work). Dynasar is old so maybe there was some mucking around with difference equations and primitive digital filters. Software is an even higher level of abstraction, with language elements being more important than electronic circuits, Fortran and punch cards being king. All of these focus on models that are strictly known false ["simplified"] but are validated for relevant ranges, much as Newtonian Gravitation is valid in the scope of the solar system with the minor exception of precession of Mercury's orbit. As for sensors and devices, the rule of thumb is get the device physics squared away, generate characteristic curves and back of the envelope models, then use nomographs and models. In short, you only succeeded in underscoring how useful known false models and "so-far" empirically reliable but not confirmed true theories are. Most of what I did above, was to highlight that science is incapable of warranting theories as true beyond possibility of correction, including Quantum theory. In that context, I simply pointed out that wave-particle duality {"wavicles") means that the actual unified quantum phenomenon or object, e.g an electron is something that is beyond what we know and understand from the lab scale. So, when we see position-momentum or energy-time uncertainty, or superposition effects,w e should remember that we are operating much like the blind men with the elephant: we have partial models that work well enough to give us desired results. But our methods are incapable of guaranteeing that we have the truth; i.e. a little epistemic humility will go a long way. When we bring to bear complex number math, we need to realise that this immediately takes us beyond the observable world into a model world. That is why I asked you to show me a physically realised case of i = Sq Rt (-1). In fact to gain a physically observable result, we have to do some sort of translation, often by estimating magnitudes or real parts or coefficients. I need hardly remind the onlooker that Quantum Physics calculations brim over with complex number quantities. Similarly, I observed on Schroedinger's cat that we never observe the superposed state. Observation makes the wave collapse. Going beyond that, I highlighted both the electron beam double slit experiment and the case of neutron extra-nuclear instability with t1/2 15 mins, to show how known quantum processes do in fact reflect causal constraints. I again underscore that a necessary causal factor is a causal factor, something that we are prone to forget; maybe save when we have a fire to fight and do so by trying to cut off access to air etc. And of course as I pointed out repeatedly here, origins science theories seek to reconstruct a remote unobserved and unobservable past by projecting from patterns in the present to explain various observations. One of the relevant causal patterns in the current observable time is: design by intelligences. Indeed, it is the only factor observed to cause digital, coded, algorithmically specific and functional complex information. So, when we see the same class of sysrtems in cell based life forms, we have good reason to consider this as a candidate factor; absent Lewontinain a priori censorship on our inference to best explanation, int eh name of so-called "methodological naturalism.". That candidacy is strengthened when we observe that the configuration spaces associated with the relevant entities are such that the observed universe acting across its lifespan does not have adequate search resources to scratch the surface of the space. So, we have a reason why we do not see undirected forces of chance and necessity spontaneously originating such systems. And, being familiar with intelligences, we know that imagination, knowledge, and creativity allow us to routinely bridge to deeply isolated islands of relevant function when we work with such systems. So, we can see that quantum theory is not a credible case of a-causal events, and that we still have but one observationally verified causal pattern for the origin of FSCI: intelligence. (Remember, the fossil moulds pushed forward a few days ago act by natural forces to replicate the shape information, they do not originate it. A 1963 Corvette Stingray in sand is still best explained by art, not undirected chance + necessity. And, one thing we do not try to explain it bay is the notion that it popped up out of nowhere, from nothing, by poofery. It began to exist and depends on other things to being existence, so it may go out of existence. So, as a contingent being it has a particular cause.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB: “It is not strange if one understands, as you evidently do not, that unpredictability is not synonymous with acausality.” Gaz: "I agree, but that isn’t the issue." ...thudUpright BiPed_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB (491), "It is not the case nor could it be the case that superposition invalidates the law of non-contradiction. Again, it seems evident that you do not understand your own claims even at the most basic level. Quantum superposition speaks to the subject of how something exists, where it exists, or in what form it exists—not WHETHER it exists. What is it about a thing existing in this or that state as opposed to existing and not existing at the same time that you do not understand?" What is it about the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment that YOU do not understand? Do you not understand that it concerns a superposition of two states, one where a particle has been emitted from a nucleus and one where no such particle has been emitted? "It is not strange if one understands, as you evidently do not, that unpredictability is not synonymous with acausality." I agree, but that isn't the issue. "It certainly follows that an expanding universe was smaller before it became larger, so I appreciate that penetrating insight. However, I am not so clear about how you know that the beginning of the universe was a quantum event." I don't, it's a model. But you miss the point: when the universe was small, i.e. at the quantum level, then quantum physics applied to it. "It appears that your reasoning is going something like this: I want a causeless universe, however there is no credible way of making that astounding claim without first asserting that quantum events are uncaused and then characterizing the beginning of the universe as a quantum event, hoping that no one will know that I am building speculation on speculation. Is that about it?" No! How many times do I have to say it? I don't give a flying f*** whether or not there are uncaused events - I'd rather there weren't - all I'm saying, all I've EVER said, is that the evidence suggests there are. It's you, not me, that wants a set piece to how the universe began: you want a Creator. "Obviously, your assessment about my curiosity is incorrect. I wish we knew the causal conditions for quantum events so that atheists would stop militating against reason by claiming that there are none. In any case, it is not necessary to know precisely how something was caused to know that it was caused." Your lack of curiosity is apparent for all to see, as well as your religious bias. It's not a case of knowing "precisely" how something was caused, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever, not even the inkling of an idea, and aren't bothered to put in the effort to find out what your own hypothesis (such as it is) might lead to. "At the same time, this is a hilarious development. On the one hand, you complain that I have no model to support my contention that quantum events are cause. On the other hand, you just finished asserting as fact, and offering no explanatory mechanism, that the universe appeared as causeless event." A fair point. A Nobel would come my way if I could.But check Victor Stenger on wiki if you want a model, I'm too bored dealing with you to go into it. "Again, that is obviously not the case. The lack of a model cannot explain your unwillingness to accept quantum causality. It is without a supporting model of your own, after all, that you boldly claim that the universe began as a causeless quantum event." As above.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Gaz, "No, I’m afraid not. the real answer, of course, is that it is your own bias that requires a cause to everything as a matter of principle, not evidence." This is such a preposterous claim. Even Methodical Naturalism claims to look for "natural causes" as the basis for scientific inquiry. How does MN infer this? Hint: it's based on right reason - everything that comes into being has a cause. You're leaving behind the principles, which even dictate your own assumed scientific methodology, when you claim that not all events require a cause. There are many phenomenon in nature, which at first appear counterintuitive. The best of scientists looked for a cause, and didn't resort to unreasonable suggestions that they must not have been caused. I.e., they didn't abandon the principle of causation simply because they couldn't determine a cause. Such intuition led to answers. Your position will lead to absolutely nothing that can be verified. Verification in science requires the assumption of causality. It isn't simply an assumed POV, but a principle upon which all science is predicated. In short, your position contradicts your own scientific methodology.CannuckianYankee_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus mate (488), Your message seems rather garbled, but if you want to condense it to something comprehensible I'll give it a go. I caught this though: "I strongly suggest that you treat calculation devices and models as models not reality itself" I agree entirely, and said tghe same to StephenB at 473.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus (478), "Go look up what happens under certain conditions to RA decay rates, remembering that there are several more exotic mechanisms as well beyond the classic alpha, beta gamma, including e.g. k-capture (the most notorious variable rate case, up to 1 – 4% IIRC); try out Be-7." Indeed, but as you are aware these -including the electron capture mechanism of Be-7 - are rather more rare than the main three. In any case, that isn't my point - I don't and never have claimed that all quaantum events appear uncaused, just that there are some that do. As you know you only need one contrary event to repudiate something as a "law". "The fact of composition in nucleons implies composite effects and causal factors, e.g. what makes a nucleon a proton vs. a neutron." We know this - proton is two up quarks and a down quark, neutron is two down quarks and an up quark. "That is a causal factor, and it is associated with the beta decay instability of neutrons outside the nucleus [~ 900 s t1/2], which is of course a case of instability that is plainly contextually influenced: atoms do not last 15 minutes on average. (Last I checked protons were completely stable, and yet n and p are very closely similar.)" I think you are very confused; StephenB said you were a professional physicist, I'd be interested to know what discipline because it doesn't seem to be nuclear. Your post here is wrong: neutrons are stable within a normal, stable nucleus. Atoms (I presume you actually mean "nuclei", NOT atoms) are stable, even with neutrons, unless they happen to be radioactive isotopes. The largest stable nucleus is lead-208, with 126 neutrons: according to you it shouldn't last more than a few minutes, but actually lead-208 will, if left undisturbed, survive for the life of the universe. "I repeat, there are any number of relevant causal factors and related laws for quantum events. Things are not happening nowhere, from nothing with no reason. Otherwise we would be seeing a chaos not a cosmos." And yet despite your and StephenB's posts, neither of you have come up with any plausible models for such causal factors.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB (477), "You now acknowledge that evidence must be interpreted but all your arguments are based on the earlier assumption that the evidence speaks for itself. Just reread your posts in this session alone. Do you not see this? Evidence does not speak for itself" Which is why I said it needs to be interpreted. What I disagree with is your requirement that the evidence must fit your preconceived ideas. "which is thy kairosfocus, a professional physicist" Really? What is his discipline? "has explained that quantum events are caused while the atheist physcists that inform your perspective insist that they are not." Thank you for finally getting to the nub of it. Your concern is, essentially, a religious one - and that is what drives your preconceptions about nature. " If evidence could speak for itself, there would be no such disputes. Thus, when I ask you why you believe that quantum events are uncaused, you simply answer, “because the evidence says so.” It says that to atheists, but it does not say that to theists." I disagree. There are plenty of theist scientists who say the same as me, i.e. that certain quantum events appear uncaused. You are projecting your own views on to others now. "The illogical proposition that quantum events are uncaused is not based on evidence but is rather a function of materialist ideology." No, I'm afraid not. the real answer, of course, is that it is your own bias that requires a cause to everything as a matter of principle, not evidence.Gaz_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "It is neither logical nor reasonable to claim that there is a “law” that something can be and not be at the same time, when in fact that may well be the case in quantum phenomena such as superposition." It is not the case nor could it be the case that superposition invalidates the law of non-contradiction. Again, it seems evident that you do not understand your own claims even at the most basic level. Quantum superposition speaks to the subject of how something exists, where it exists, or in what form it exists---not WHETHER it exists. What is it about a thing existing in this or that state as opposed to existing and not existing at the same time that you do not understand? I understand the math well enough to know three things: quantum events are unpredictable, quantum events are counterintuitive, and we don’t know why. ---"A strange statement from one who claims they must have a cause." It is not strange if one understands, as you evidently do not, that unpredictability is not synonymous with acausality. ---"Indeed, but if that is what happened [the beginning of the universe] then it would have been a quantum event." You are of course aware that the universe was very small – quantum size – in the earliest fractions of a second after the Big Bang?" It certainly follows that an expanding universe was smaller before it became larger, so I appreciate that penetrating insight. However, I am not so clear about how you know that the beginning of the universe was a quantum event. It appears that your reasoning is going something like this: I want a causeless universe, however there is no credible way of making that astounding claim without first asserting that quantum events are uncaused and then characterizing the beginning of the universe as a quantum event, hoping that no one will know that I am building speculation on speculation. Is that about it? ---Gaz: "Despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for them, you have no model for them, nor has anyone else. And I suspect you have not the slightest curiosity about it either." Obviously, your assessment about my curiosity is incorrect. I wish we knew the causal conditions for quantum events so that atheists would stop militating against reason by claiming that there are none. In any case, it is not necessary to know precisely how something was caused to know that it was caused. At the same time, this is a hilarious development. On the one hand, you complain that I have no model to support my contention that quantum events are cause. On the other hand, you just finished asserting as fact, and offering no explanatory mechanism, that the universe appeared as causeless event. ---"Oh, I am! It would be GREAT [if quantum events were caused]. Entirely new physics! I salivate at the prospect! No, the reason is that there is not a shred of evidence for it, nor even any model. When you come up with one I’ll look again." Again, that is obviously not the case. The lack of a model cannot explain your unwillingness to accept quantum causality. It is without a supporting model of your own, after all, that you boldly claim that the universe began as a causeless quantum event.StephenB_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Regarding epicycles: One could form an adequate predictive model of the solar system using epicycles -- one that would conform to observations of the planets' apparent motions, but without Newton's mechanics, one could not build space ships. Quantum theory is much more than a convenient mathematical fiction. It is the model of reality that enables and supports just about every technology found in industry and commerce. Without it microcomputers would be impossible, as would every device that relies on solid-state electronics.Petrushka_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

So, I strongly suggest that you treat calculation devices and models as models not reality itself.
Just as long as you acknowledge that the models generated by quantum theory form the basis of all modern electronics, and that no experiment has ever found disconfirming evidence. It's reasonable to assert that you can't really follow arguments in quantum theory without advanced mathematics. It's quite another to assert the theory is disconnected from reality.Petrushka_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Gaz: Your latest side-track is of course to be set in context that your side still has yet to provide good observational evidence that digitally coded, functionally specific complex information can originate -- per observation -- on undirected chance plus necessity, with particular reference to origin of cell based life using just such digitally coded functionally specific complex information to implement self-replicating automata. Having noted this yet again . . . Do, tell me, do we ever actually observe a "superposed" quantum state? (Or, does not the act of observation collapse the wave function, i.e. we find Schrodinger's cat alive or dead but not both. [What does a superposed live/dead state look like?]) Similarly, in a Young's doble slit electron beam experiment, we find a pattern of dots -- particle action -- distributed in accord with a wave phenomenon, interference, and that even when the beam rate is low enough that one particle at a time would be going. But to see the pattern we have to fire enough electrons to see a pattern. Last I checked, with this and other experiments, our actual observations are still Lab scale, and on lab equipment. We infer to unobserveds and unobservables, so we must first acknowledge that and differentiate our observations from our inferences on the unobserved, and from the truth of the world as it actually is, in part beyond our capacity to observe. Wiki has a useful basic 101 summary:
Quantum superposition refers to the quantum mechanical property which states that all particles exist in not one state but all possible states at once. Due to this property, to completely describe a particle one must include a description of every possible state and the probability of the particle being in that state. Since the Schrödinger equation is linear, taking into account all possible states will be a linear combination of each solution. This mathematical rule is known as the superposition principle . . . . The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a superposition of the two, where the amount of each configuration that is in the superposition is specified by a complex number.
Note first how some states are possible and otehrs are obviously not, u8nder the circumstances. All of this reflects: csausality and necessary conditions. Seems to me further that the real issue is that we are really dealing with "wavicles" and with statistical distributions further constrained by uncertainty. That is, we are trying to use lab scale concepts and models to save the phenomena, ending up pretty much in the position of Ptolemaic astronomers about 450 years ago. Y'know: cycles, epicycles, and epicycles on epicycles . . . vs. waves, particles and superposed wavicles in all possible states at once. (And while I am at it could you kindly show me the physically observable state denoted by i or j, i.e. sq rt(-1)? Useful mathematical construct and I can show you the rotation operator interpretation, and use s = sigma + j* omega to interpret system responses on differential equations routinely, i.e. I use exponential complex number form as readily as the next man, but I realise this is a clue that we are in a mathematical rather than strictly physical domain here. So, do not get too close to conflating such with physical reality. Differential equations capture interesting aspects of reality but they are not equal to that reality.) So, I strongly suggest that you treat calculation devices and models as models not reality itself. "Particle" does not strictly apply to quantum phenomena, nor really does "wave." Something else -- what, we know not and on the uncertainty principle may not be able to find out -- is going on, but Q-Theory is the best map we can come up with so far that is more or less [I sometimes suspect more of less than more] comprehensible and can give useful results. "I' wuk, but i' wuk no mean i' TRUUUE- true- true . . . " (Remember, again, scientific methods of warrant are strictly incapable of indisputable demonstration of truth, but may help us discover truth; formally there is a giant exercise in affirming he consequent when we reason from Theory to predicted or explained observations, and then say such observations support the theory . . . SO FAR. When it comes to the unobservables, we should be very careful not to be overly dogmatic. Save the phenomena and pass the quanta . . . ) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

"I suppose you have some specific argument in mind, but physics seem to say otherwise." LOL Thanks Petrushka for confirming Stephens position that reasons rules inform evidence. Now how about Gaz? Vividvividbleau_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

The evidence is that we have no evidence of superposition of states.
I suppose you have some specific argument in mind, but physics seem to say otherwise. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10894533Petrushka_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

"No, I think the onus is on you to give evidence supporting such an extreme claim." The evidence is that we have no evidence of superposition of states. All the evidence that we have shows that two things cannot be in the same place at the same time in the same relationship. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so give it and do so without using the rules of right reason and prove Stephen B wrong about reasons rules informing evidence. Vividvividbleau_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

---kairosfocus: "Stephen, my point is that even quantum physics has laws and what happens is happening somewhere, under certain conditions. It is not happening nowhere, willy-nilly, with no constraints. That is why I just gave neutron decay when free from a nucleus as a case in point. That we do not know the sufficient causal factors and on uncertainty may not be able to learn them, does not mean that events are happening without causal patterns." Right you are. Well said. Indeed, I used the words "unknown laws" @477, which coincidentally appeared at about the same time as your post. Design thinkers must confront materialist atheists both at the physical and metapysical level. As a physicist who is also trained in philosophy, you understand better than most the extent to which one-sided materialist indoctrination compromises a researchers capacity to intepret facts in evidence according to reason's rules.StephenB_{July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply