Astronomy Cosmology Intelligent Design News

A friend asks, are superclusters the new multiverse?

Spread the love

A friend asks, are superclusters the new multiverse? From Nature:

The supercluster of galaxies that includes the Milky Way is 100 times bigger in volume and mass than previously thought, a team of astronomers says. They have mapped the enormous region and given it the name Laniakea — Hawaiian for ‘immeasurable heaven’.

This is a completely new definition of a supercluster. Scientists previously placed the Milky Way in the Virgo Supercluster, but under Tully and colleagues’ definition, this region becomes just an appendage of the much larger Laniakea, which is 160 million parsecs (520 million light years) across and contains the mass of 100 million billion Suns.

Although the map is comprehensive over the Universe around the Milky Way, its distance measurements become less accurate, and less numerous, the farther out you go, says Lopes. This is currently the technique’s biggest potential source of error, he says, but adding more galaxy measurements will improve the map and could eventually help scientists to fully trace what is behind the motion of our local group of galaxies.

New multiverse? Depends. The reason the multiverse became an “item” in cosmology was to get rid of the idea of a beginning in a Big Bang and also of the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, mainly dueto their compatibility with theism.

It became obvious that many cosmologists were prepared to believe pretty much anything else, as the following stories show:

The multiverse: Where everything turns out to be true, except philosophy and religion

As if the multiverse wasn’t bizarre enough …meet Many Worlds

But who needs reality-based thinking anyway? Not the new cosmologists

Multiverse cosmology: Assuming that evidence still matters, what does it say?

So, the skinny: Superclusters won’t replace the multiverse unless they can do the multiverse’s main job: To make everything true, so that nothing is really.

Laniakea? Virgo? Dunno. They’re just superclusters, really, so far as we know.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

53 Replies to “A friend asks, are superclusters the new multiverse?

  1. 1
    johnspenn says:

    “…its distance measurements become less accurate, and less numerous, the farther out you go, says Lopes. This is currently the technique’s biggest potential source of error…”

    This is for measurements up to 520 million light years.

    Why then should we trust measurements out to 13-14 billion or more light years away?

  2. 2
    Popperian says:

    New multiverse? Depends. The reason the multiverse became an “item” in cosmology was to get rid of the idea of a beginning in a Big Bang and also of the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, mainly dueto their compatibility with theism.

    Thanks, News. I’m so glad you cleared that up.

    After all, I was under the impression those theories were proposed because adding a designer to the mix doesn’t actually explain anything. Any entity capable of fine tuning the laws of physics would have the very same properties for which it purports to solve. As such, it would merely push the problem up a level without actually improving it.

    I’m glad I stopped by so you could reveal our true motivations: to avoid theism, as to opposed to actually trying to solve problems.

  3. 3
    ppolish says:

    Popperian, Sir Isaac strove to understand how God moved the Heavens. Albert was obsessed with discovering the “secrets of the Old One”. Compare their success with the Scientists today that scoff at God.

    “Something from Nothing”. Oh, that’s helpful.
    “Really Big Landscape of Everything”. Oh, that explains everything. Thanks.

    Science needs a new “Father Big Bang” to get ideas focused again. Or a new raging Theist like Max Planck. C’mon Science.

  4. 4
    cantor says:

    Any entity capable of fine tuning the laws of physics would have the very same properties for which it purports to solve. As such, it would merely push the problem up a level without actually improving it.

    That is a very old and tired (I can even hear it sighing as I write this) argument of which we all (except you, apparently) are well aware.

    If you have any interest in expanding you horizons, try reading/watching/listening to some of BA77’s links about outside-space-and-time quantum effects. It may rock your materialist boat.

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    Popperian:

    After all, I was under the impression those theories were proposed because adding a designer to the mix doesn’t actually explain anything.

    Well you were just wrong about that then.

    Popperian:

    Any entity capable of fine tuning the laws of physics would have the very same properties for which it purports to solve.

    So no wonder you’re wrong about that too.

    Any entity capable of finely tuning a watch, or automobile, would have to have the same propertes as a watch or an automobile. Got it.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides superclusters, there were these recent following findings about the large scale structure of the universe that were very ‘surprising’. It turns out that, even though the earth is not central in our solar system or in our Milky Way galaxy, (findings which gave birth to what is called the Copernican principle), when looking at the large scale structure of the universe, the earth regains some of its ‘preferential’ position in the cosmos, for the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun, thus violating the Copernican principle:

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf

    Of note: The preceding article was written with WMPA & COBE data, before the Planck data came out, but the multipoles were actually further verified by the Planck data.

    A Large Scale Pattern from Optical Quasar Polarization Vectors – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.6118.pdf

    Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0924.pdf

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf

    The following is also of interest towards this topic

    The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale.....olor=white

    The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle.
    And for an even more extreme violation of the Copernican principle, it is found, (mainly through advances in quantum mechanics), that Life/Conciousness, not the earth or any other celestial body of the universe, holds the primary position of ‘centrality’ in the universe:

    The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe”
    Excerpt: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central, position within material reality. [14]
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15]
    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Moreover, from a slightly different angle, ‘Life’, with a capital L, is also found to be central to the universe in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation to the most profound enigma in modern science. Namely the unification of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (Quantum Electrodynamics) into a ‘Theory of Everything’:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/journals/i.....802004/271
    “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    Kevin Moran – optical engineer

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides superclusters, there were these recent following findings about the large scale structure of the universe that were very ‘surprising’. It turns out that, even though the earth is not central in our solar system or in our Milky Way galaxy, (findings which gave birth to what is called the Copernican principle), when looking at the large scale structure of the universe, the earth regains some of its ‘preferential’ position in the cosmos, for the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun, thus violating the Copernican principle:

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf

    Of note: The preceding article was written with WMPA & COBE data, before the Planck data came out, but the multipoles were actually further verified by the Planck data.

    A Large Scale Pattern from Optical Quasar Polarization Vectors – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.6118.pdf

    Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0924.pdf

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf

    The following is also of interest towards this topic

    The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale.....olor=white

    The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle.
    And for an even more extreme violation of the Copernican principle, it is found, (mainly through advances in quantum mechanics), that Life/Conciousness, not the earth or any other celestial body of the universe, holds the primary position of ‘centrality’ in the universe:

    The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe”
    Excerpt: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central, position within material reality. [14]
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15]
    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Moreover, from a slightly different angle, ‘Life’, with a capital L, is also found to be central to the universe in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation to the most profound enigma in modern science. Namely the unification of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (Quantum Electrodynamics) into a ‘Theory of Everything’:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/journals/i.....802004/271
    “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    Kevin Moran – optical engineer

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and special relativity(QED), with Gravity, (i.e. String Theory and M-theory), I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:

    Moreover, heaven and hell have far more observational/empirical evidence going for them than multiverses or parallel universes do (or even more than Darwinian evolution has, which is none):

    Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell
    Excerpt: “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

    Verses, Music, and ‘propitiation’
    John 8:23-24
    But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.

    Matthew 10:28
    “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video)
    http://www.vevo.com/watch/evan.....tantsearch

    G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video
    https://vimeo.com/20960385

    supplemental note:

    Here is a short defence of the 10^-4 centrality within the ‘scale of the universe’ claim:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-512622

  9. 9
    Popperian says:

    ppolish: Popperian, Sir Isaac strove to understand how God moved the Heavens. Albert was obsessed with discovering the “secrets of the Old One”. Compare their success with the Scientists today that scoff at God.

    First, Darwin’s idea was one of the greatest successes we’ve made in science. In fact, I’d suggest even more significant than even Newton’s.

    Second, ID’s designer is God after all? Thanks for clarifying.

    C: That is a very old and tired (I can even hear it sighing as I write this) argument of which we all (except you, apparently) are well aware.

    See my response to mung below.

    C: If you have any interest in expanding you horizons, try reading/watching/listening to some of BA77?s links about outside-space-and-time quantum effects. It may rock your materialist boat.

    I’ve seen BA77’s links regarding quantum mechanics. He doesn’t seem to understand the material he references. For example, many contain quantum woo, of the ilk of Deepak Chopra, while others conflict with each other and / or even conflict with BA’s own views – he just doesn’t seem to realize it.

    IOW, quantum mechanics doesn’t seem to be one of BA’s strong points.

  10. 10
    Popperian says:

    M: Any entity capable of finely tuning a watch, or automobile, would have to have the same propertes as a watch or an automobile. Got it.

    The issue Darwin addressed had been around since Socrates: the appearance of design was something that needed to be explained. However, Socrates never got around to defining what constitutes an appearance of design, and why.

    It wasn’t until William Paley make his argument for design that the issue was clarified. Specifically, he argued the sort of account that could explain a rock, or the raw materials a watch was assembled from, was not the same sort of account that could explain the watch itself. A watch couldn’t have spontaneously appeared. Nor could it have been laying there forever or be a raw material itself.

    Paley asked, “Why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as the stone; why is it not admissible in the second case as in the first?” Paley knew why. The watch not only serves a purpose, but is adapted to that purpose. Specifically, the aspect that needs explaining is that if a watch (or eye) was slightly altered it would serve that purpose less well, or not even at all. That is, the design is hard to vary.

    To quote Paley…

    “If the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

    While a rock can function as a paper weight, a construction material, etc., it was that the watch was well adapted to the specific purpose of telling time.

    So, merely being useful for a purpose, without being hard to vary, is not a sign of adaptation or design.

    The sun can be used to tell time. However, it could be varied significantly without impacting how well it serves that purpose. The knowledge of how to use the sun to tell time is within us, and our sundials, rather than in the sun itself. But the knowledge of how to tell time is embodied in the watch. And this is implied even more so in the case of living organisms.

    So the question becomes, how did this knowledge come to be embodied in these things? Paley could think of only one explanation:

    the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker […] There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end […] without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind.

    However, while Paley is to be credited with clarifying what needs to be explained, he failed to realize his solution didn’t actually solve the problem. Unlike the rock, his designer would be, by Paley’s own criteria, a purposeful entity – no less complex than a watch or living organism – that embodies the knowledge of how to, well, design organisms.

    Should we substitute Paley’s ‘ultimate designer’ for ‘watch’, we force him to the “[inevitable] inference […] that the [ultimate designer] must have had a maker”

    Paley’s designer has the very same properties of which it purports to solve. So, it would seem that his own argument contains a contradiction, at which point it doesn’t add to the explanation.

    IOW, Paley’s argument has universal reach for anything that has, by his own criterion, the appearance of design. Despite being the opposite of what Paley though he had achieved, none of us can chose what our ideas imply.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: “First, Darwin’s idea was one of the greatest successes we’ve made in science. In fact, I’d suggest even more significant than even Newton’s.”

    Really??? Contrary to what you have been deceived into believing, The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intell…/quote-of-the-day-8/

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, 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

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/…/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4

    HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce…/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

    Darwin’s Doubt – Chapter 12 – Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math – Dr. Paul Giem – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs

    See also Mendel’s Accountant and Haldane’s Ratchet: John Sanford

    Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8

    quote from preceding video:

    “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
    Dr. David Berlinski

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/…/nobel_prize-win056771.html

    Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.
    “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.
    http://www.creationscience.com/…/ReferencesandNotes32.html

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    How Einstein didn’t see the ‘personal’ hallmark of theism in the centrality in the universe of the observer must be one of the biggest mysteries of human history.

    We know what a massive deterrent the Shoa was to belief in a personal God for Jewish scientists of the time, surely, compounded by the background of the Tridentine Catholic church’s formal anti-Semitism, but for Einstein to keep making 2 + 2 equal 5….?

    Likewise, the likes of Bohr and eventually Pauli, I believe. It is obviously a measure of how viscerally traumatic such demonic, genocidal persecution must be. The pictures of those concentration-camp victims are close to traumatic for gentile children. So, to this day, it would be presumably much worse for Jewish children.

  13. 13
    ppolish says:

    Popperian, Darwin’s Idea was not even original let alone “the greatest ever”. Wallace’s Idea was better btw.

    Darwin wrote Pop “Science” Books. Although the last sentence in “Origin” is cool;
    “..,originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;…”

    Few forms, yes. Creator, yes.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    as to the charge of ‘quantum woo’, neo-Darwinian evolution should be so lucky to be verified to such stunning accuracy:

    And to further solidify the case that ‘consciousness precedes reality’ the violation of Leggett’s inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision:

    Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011
    Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model.The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,,
    https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf

    The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:

    Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

  15. 15
    cantor says:

    popperian writes: “quantum mechanics doesn’t seem to be one of BA’s strong points”

    Your argument takes the following form:

    premise: BA doesn’t understand QM

    conclusion: Therefore the QM links BA posted must be false

    Your argument is a complete non sequitur.

  16. 16
    anthropic says:

    I’ve heard the “Quantum woo” line before at another site, along with the irrelevant reference to Deepak Chopra. When I mentioned a few experimental results and asked for countervailing empirical evidence, I just got more sputtering about woo.

    Sounds like the same playbook here. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  17. 17
    Axel says:

    BA #14

    ‘As to the charge of ‘quantum woo’, neo-Darwinian evolution should be so lucky to be verified to such stunning accuracy:

    And to further solidify the case that ‘consciousness precedes reality’ the violation of Leggett’s inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision:’

    ROFL! They’re as dumb as a box of rocks! You couldn’t get a more perfect illustration of the imbecility, shamelessly, because ignorantly, purveyed to a bemused public by scientists’ intellectually-challenged fellow-travelers, could you. The non-local, supernatural, is here to stay! Get over it, dum-dums!

  18. 18
    Popperian says:

    C: Your argument takes the following form:

    premise: BA doesn’t understand QM

    conclusion: Therefore the QM links BA posted must be false

    I’m not following you. It’s the conclusion he’s reaching, such as aspect X of quantum mechanics collaborates Z, that’s I’m calling into question.

    BA could can be confused about the implications of a link, regardless if the contents are accurate or inaccurate in regards the details of quantum mechanics.

  19. 19
    Popperian says:

    A: And to further solidify the case that ‘consciousness precedes reality’ the violation of Leggett’s inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision:

    This is the sort of thing I’m referring to. That “consciousness precedes reality” is not part of the Copenhagen interoperation of quantum mechanics.

    The Copenhagen interoperation is an instrumentalist theory, which says it’s meaningless to ask if the wave function actually reflects reality, or is just a useful fiction to accurately predict observations (to 120 decimal places, no less). Nor is it part of the many worlds theory, in which observers are subject to quantum phenomena just like everything else and do not play a special role.

  20. 20
    Popperian says:

    BA: Contrary to what you have been deceived into believing, The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely)

    Short on time, but see this paper which describes Darwinian evolution in constructor theoretic terms.

  21. 21
    cantor says:

    popperian wrote:

    quantum mechanics collaborates Z

    What do you mean by “collaborates” in this context?

  22. 22
    cantor says:

    popperian wrote:

    “consciousness precedes reality” is not part of the Copenhagen interoperation of quantum mechanics,

    What is the Copenhagen “interoperation”.

  23. 23
    Mung says:

    Popperian:

    Short on time, but see this paper which describes Darwinian evolution in constructor theoretic terms.

    The very first sentence of that paper is untrue. Not an auspicious beginning.

  24. 24
    Popperian says:

    @cantor

    I apologize if, in my haste, a failure to notice incorrect spellcheck substations left you confused regarding the meaning of my comment. While I’m more than willing to provide corrections, if you would rather not wait for a response, Google’s search engine, while rudimentary, can often provide corrections based on the context of a sentence if you’re having difficulty.

    For example, entering “The Copenhagen interoperation is an instrumentalist theory” in Google returned the correct version: “The Copenhagen interpretation is an instrumentalist theory”.

    As for the second sentence, a slightly more explicit, corrected, version is…

    It’s the conclusion he’s reaching, such as aspect X of quantum mechanics corroborates theory Z, that’s I’m calling into question.

    If you need additional context, see this excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Karl Popper…

    The rational motivation for choosing a well-corroborated theory is that it is simply easier to falsify: Well-corroborated means that at least one kind of experiment (already conducted at least once) could (but did not) falsify the one theory, while the same kind of experiment, regardless of its outcome, would not falsify the other. So it is rational to choose the well-corroborated theory; it may not be more likely to be true, but it is easier to get rid of it if not.

  25. 25
    Popperian says:

    M: The very first sentence of that paper is untrue.

    From the abstract…

    Neo-Darwinian evolution theory explains how organisms with their appearance of purposive design came into existence without being designed. The centrepiece of the explanation is a physical object, the gene, and the processes it undergoes: mainly, replication and natural selection.

    Yet, the paper’s contents presents a rigid constructor theoretic formulation of Neo-Darwinism.

    Are you suggesting the explanation presented in paper has nothing to do with Neo-Darwnism? Or does it not contain an explanation?

    What is your criticism?

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    that paper is a far cry from a RIGID falsification criteria! ,,,, It is basically saying that Darwinian evolution is not impossible according to physics,,, Well DUH,,, that is the same unscientific argument that has always been put forth:

    Darwinism Not Proved Absolutely Impossible Therefore Its True – Plantinga
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    as to Leggett’s

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Verified to 80 orders of magnitude)
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

    Of course, if you think material came first, then you are more that welcome to solve the hard problem of consciousness

    David Chalmers is semi-famous for getting the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness across to lay people in a very easy to understand manner:

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

    a bit more in-depth look at the ‘hard problem’ is here:

    The impossible Problem of Consciousness – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FglKcWBKEu8

    Here are a few more comments, from atheists, that agree with Chalmers on the insolubility of ‘hard problem’ of consciousness,,

    Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science’s “Hardest Problem”
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
    – per UD News

    “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/pro.....9919758.do

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Popper,, The empirical evidence that conciousness precedes material reality is far stronger than you seem to realize,,,
    That consciousness is integral to quantum mechanics is fairly obvious to the unbiased observer (no pun intended). I first, much like everybody else, was immediately shocked to learn that the observer could have any effect whatsoever in the double slit experiment:

    Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit and Delayed Choice Experiments – video
    https://vimeo.com/87175892

    Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho

    Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/

    Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

    Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video:

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
    Anton Zeilinger

    Feynman said this in regards to the double slit experiment with electrons,

    “has in it the heart of quantum mechanics” and “is impos­sible, absolutely impos­sible, to explain in any clas­sical way.”
    http://thisquantumworld.com/wp.....xperiment/

    Which is interesting since, Darwinism is based on a reductive materialistic, i.e. classical, view of reality

    Feynman also stated this in regards to quantum mechanics,,,

    “…the “paradox” is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.”
    Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III, p. 18-9 (1965)

    Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:

    Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
    Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
    http://www.deanradin.com/paper.....0final.pdf

    Of course, atheists/materialists were/are in complete denial as to the obvious implications of mind in the double slit (invoking infinite parallel universes and such as that to try to get around the obvious implications of ‘Mind’). But personally, not being imprisoned in the materialist’s box, my curiosity was aroused and I’ve been sort of poking around, finding out a little more here and there about quantum mechanics, and how the observer is central to it. One of the first interesting experiments in quantum mechanics I found after the double slit, that highlighted the centrality of the observer to the experiment, was Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries. Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,

    Eugene Wigner
    Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
    http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_.....io/wb1.htm

    Wigner went on to make these rather dramatic comments in regards to his work:

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961

    Also of note:

    Von Neumann–Wigner – interpretation
    Excerpt: The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as “consciousness causes collapse [of the wave function]“, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.....rpretation

    “I think von Neumann’s orthodox QM gives a good way to understand the nature of the universe: it is tightly tied to the practical test and uses of our basic physical theory, while also accounting for the details of the mind-brain connection in a way that is rationally concordant with both our conscious experiences, and experience of control, and the neuroscience data.”
    Henry Stapp

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Then after I had learned about Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, I stumbled across Wheeler’s Delayed choice experiments in which this finding shocked me as to the central importance of the observer’s free will choice in quantum experiments:

    Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment – video
    http://vimeo.com/38508798

    “Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel”
    John A. Wheeler

    Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....choice.htm

    Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality
    Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the “hidden-variables” approach.
    – per Greer

    “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
    – John Wheeler – The Ghost In The Atom – Page 66-68

    Then, a little bit later, I learned that the delayed choice experiment had been extended:

    The Experiment That Debunked Materialism – video – (delayed choice quantum eraser)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKUass7G8w

    (Double Slit) A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser – updated 2007
    Excerpt: Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 (Detector Zero) at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....ly-web.htm

    And then I learned the delayed choice experiment was refined yet again:

    “If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.”
    Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000).

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
    According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

    i.e. The preceding experiment clearly shows, and removes any doubt whatsoever, that the ‘material’ detector recording information in the double slit is secondary to the experiment and that a conscious observer being able to consciously know the ‘which path’ information of a photon with local certainty, is of primary importance in the experiment. You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:

    Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

    And then, after the delayed choice experiments, I learned about something called Leggett’s Inequality. Leggett’s Inequality was, as far as I can tell, a mathematical proof developed by Nobelist Anthony Leggett to prove ‘realism’. Realism is the belief that an objective reality exists independently of a conscious observer looking at it. And, as is usual with challenging the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, his proof was violated by a stunning 80 orders of magnitude, thus once again, in over the top fashion, highlighting the central importance of the conscious observer to Quantum Experiments:

    A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008
    Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct.
    Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,,

    (to which Anton Zeilinger responded)

    When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate.
    http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._tests/P3/

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Verified to 80 orders of magnitude)
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

    As with the delayed choice experiment, the violation of Leggett’s inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision:

    Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011
    Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model.The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,,
    https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:

    Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

    The following video and paper get the general, and dramatic, point across of what ‘giving up realism’ actually means:

    Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU

    Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics – Brukner, Caslav; Kofler, Johannes
    American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, – March 5-9, 2007
    Excerpt: for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e., a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems.,,
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..MARB33005B

    But, as if all that was not enough to demonstrate consciousness’s centrality in quantum mechanics, I then learned about something called the ‘Quantum Zeno Effect’,,

    Quantum Zeno Effect
    The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

    The reason why I am very impressed with the Quantum Zeno effect as to establishing consciousness’s primacy in quantum mechanics is, for one thing, that Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:

    The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”

    How special was the big bang? – Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
    (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    For another thing, it is interesting to note just how foundational entropy is in its explanatory power for actions within the space-time of the universe:

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    In fact, entropy is also the primary reason why our physical, temporal, bodies grow old and die,,,

    Aging Process – 85 years in 40 seconds – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk

    *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
    * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
    *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
    Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
    *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
    Per John Sanford

    Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007
    Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,,
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.0030220

    And yet, to repeat,,,

    Quantum Zeno effect
    Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    per wiki

    This is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should conscious observation put a freeze on entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than the 1 in 10^10^120 entropy is?

    Putting all the lines of evidence together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that show that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Related notes on ‘interaction free’ measurement:

    Quantum Zeno effect
    “It has been experimentally confirmed,, that unstable particles will not decay, or will decay less rapidly, if they are observed. Somehow, observation changes the quantum system. We’re talking pure observation, not interacting with the system in any way.”
    Douglas Ell – Counting to God – pg. 189 – 2014 – Douglas Ell graduated early from MIT, where he double majored in math and physics. He then obtained a masters in theoretical mathematics from the University of Maryland. After graduating from law school, magna cum laude, he became a prominent attorney.

    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

    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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....xperiments

    Experimental Realization of Interaction-Free Measurement – Paul G. Kwiat; H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. Kasevich – 1994
    http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/pu.....994-08.pdf

    Realization of an interaction-free measurement – 1996
    http://bg.bilkent.edu.tr/jc/to.....rement.pdf

    The following video also clearly demonstrates that “decoherence” does not solve the measurement problem:

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

    Verse and Music:

    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song”
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNX

    Supplemental Notes:

    The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe”
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Two very different eternities revealed by physics:
    General Relativity, Special Relativity, Heaven and Hell
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

  32. 32
    BM40 says:

    Could it be that by comments 26 to 31 you have just killed another thread?

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    BM40, my intent was to prove that the empirical evidence that consciousness precedes material reality is far stronger than Popper seemed to realize. ,,, My intent was not to endlessly play patty cakes with the man, but to prove him wrong with empirical evidence!

  34. 34
    cantor says:

    popperian wrote:

    incorrect spellcheck substations

    Get a new spellchecker, or turn it off. Makes you look even more foolish than you probably are.

  35. 35
    cantor says:

    BM40 wrote:

    Could it be that by comments 26 to 31 you have just killed another thread?

    If providing links to actual experimental results to support one’s argument kills a thread, then all threads should be so killed.

  36. 36
    Axel says:

    BA, they’ll solve the ‘problem’ of mind, when they solve the ‘problem’ of life. And not before.

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    So, if they have confessed to being totally ignorant of the nature of life, they can forget theorizing about mind, and leave such matters to the theists and deists; who, in positing the role of the brain as a receiver, if not receiving confirmation from NDE’s, not falsification, either.

    However, dualism has been empirically established by them under rigorously-controlled conditions in the operating theatres.

    Both represent extremely significant advances – if only because jointly unique.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    But Axel, if materialists, as they insist, truly do not have a mind, then how will it ever be possible for them to ‘think’ about the problem, and thus try to solve the ‘problem’ of mind.

    i.e. they need a mind in order to prove they don’t have one! 🙂

  39. 39
    Axel says:

    Wow! I didn’t know they claimed not to even have a mind, BA!!! But could anything they do or don’t believe surprise us?

  40. 40
    Popperian says:

    While I do not have time to address each of BA’s links, I will reiterate a key misconception of quantum mechanics and point out how references conflict with his position.

    First, no theory of quantum mechanics assumes observers are immune to Schrodinger’s wave function (SWF). Yet, this is what BA must assume when appeals to any experimental result that corroborates quantum mechanics, rather than a hidden local variable theory.

    The Copenhagen Interpretation is an instrumentalist view because it does not concern itself anything beyond predicting outcomes. As such, it doesn’t say anything about reality, including whether the SWF actually describes any special role that observers actually play, which is again what BA assumes when it claims QM supports his conclusion. This is what I mean when I say that BA doesn’t seem to understand quantum mechanics.

    Furthermore, should we actually take quantum mechanics seriously, including the SWF, we actually end up with the many worlds Interpretation, not the claim that “consciousness precedes reality”. BA would need to present his own version of QM that explicitly includes the postulate that observers are immune from the SFW, along with an argument for why that modification should be made.

    Apparently, BA thinks experimental results that cannot be explained though classical means, such as containing hidden variables, means that an explanation is impossible. But this is a philosophical position, and a rather poor one at that.

    As for a few references…

    Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality?

    Instrumentalism is a way of avoiding taking QM seriously. it does so by avoiding the question if QM reflects reality in any sense, not just a a mind-independent reality. In this sense, it’s an anti-realist position, as indicated by the following quote.

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
    – Zeilinger

    You’re not allowed to talk about the photon in the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) because, as an instrumentalist interpretation, it avoids any conclusions about reality. As such, it supports no position about reality, let alone BA’s position.

    “has in it the heart of quantum mechanics” and “is impos­sible, absolutely impos­sible, to explain in any clas­sical way.”
    – Feynman

    Again, QM doesn’t include the postulate that observers are immune to the SWF, so this doesn’t imply what BA thinks it does. It’s as if BA thinks “consciousness precedes” reality must be true because classical explanations are impossible, which reflects the same objection he leveled against me in another comment.

    Of course, atheists/materialists were/are in complete denial as to the obvious implications of mind in the double slit (invoking infinite parallel universes and such as that to try to get around the obvious implications of ‘Mind’).

    This is bass akwards. BA is trying to get around the many worlds interpretation by saying the SWF is real, except in the case of observers, for some reason he has yet to argue for. As such, this represents making an ad-hoc change to QM to avoid the MWI.

    Again, the Copenhagen Interpretation avoids making this ad-hoc modification by taking the position it’s meaningless to ask if the SWF is true in reality or merely a useful fiction to predict observations.

  41. 41
    Popperian says:

    If providing links to actual experimental results to support one’s argument kills a thread, then all threads should be so killed.

    Except, as I point out, they do not support BA’s argument.

    Your attempt to distract from the relevant criticism I presented does not change this.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    but alas, I do not use the Copenhagen Interpretation but the Von Neumann/Wigner Interpretation, Moreover, If Popperian truly embraces many worlds he has given up falsification as true,,, Moreover,,

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

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    But then again, since Popperian believes in unguided Darwinian evolution then he has given up falsification a long time ago, far before he embraced the insanity of Many Worlds!

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
    Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm

    more simply, a photon is not a self existent entity but is always dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its continued existence within space-time. i.e. as Theists have always held, God ‘sustains’ the universe!

    i.e. Photons, on which everything in the universe is dependent on so as to derive their most minute movements, are found to require a beyond space and time, ‘non-local’, cause to explain their continued existence in space time. It is also very interesting to point out how these recent findings for quantum non-locality for photons, (and even for material particles), dovetails perfectly into some of the oldest philosophical arguments for the existence of God and offers empirical confirmation for those ancient philosophical arguments. For instance, quantum non locality provides empirical confirmation for the ancient philosophical argument for ‘being’, for ‘existence’ itself!

    Aquinas’ Third way – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V030hvnX5a4

    God Is the Best Explanation For Why Anything At All Exists – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjuqBxg_5mA

    As well, non local, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum actions provide solid support for the argument from motion. Also known as Aquinas’ First way. (Of note, St Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 7 March 1274.)

    Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As

    Aquinas’ First Way
    1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act.
    2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually.
    3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act.
    4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature.
    5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency.
    6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series.
    7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God.
    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/.....t-way.html

    Or to put it much more simply:

    “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”
    Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....first.html

    The following video is also very helpful in understanding the “First Mover” argument:

    The Laws of Nature (Have Never ‘Caused’ Anything) by C.S. Lewis – doodle video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

    Of related interest to ‘the first mover’ argument, in the following video Anton Zeilinger, whose group is arguably the best group of experimentalists in quantum physics today, ‘tries’ to explain the double slit experiment to Morgan Freeman:

    Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

    Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video that meshes perfectly with the ‘first mover argument’::

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
    Anton Zeilinger

    If that was not enough to get his point across, at the 4:12 minute mark in this following video,,,

    Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/

    Professor Zeilinger states,,,

    “We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between.”
    Anton Zeilinger

    Acts 17:28
    For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as also certain of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

  45. 45
    Popperian says:

    but alas, I do not use the Copenhagen Interpretation but the Von Neumann/Wigner Interpretation

    There are a number of outstanding criticisms of the Von Neumann/Wigner Interpretation, which resulted in even Wigner eventually discarding the theory himself.

    From Wikipedia..

    In a chapter of The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the universal wave function. Since something “outside the calculation” was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter (although this view was accepted by Eugene Wigner, it never gained acceptance amongst the majority of physicists).[28]

    But this assumes the wave function actually collapses. And in doing so, you need to ad the ad-hoc assumption that observers are immune from the wave function. That’s not taking QM seriously.

    Furthermore, it’s not clear what is or is not an observer in the case of collapse.

    Moreover, If Popperian truly embraces many worlds he has given up falsification as true,,,

    How does that follow? Something can be true in what appears to us to be particular “classical” world, but not another.

    Furthermore, the Everett interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (EQM) is what we get when we take QM seriously. Falsify the wave function and you’ve Falsified EQM.

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics

    Which has been resolved via decoherence. The criticism of decoherence as not explaining things was conveniently made in the absence of the EQM, which does provide an explanatory context.

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    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
    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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..xperiments
    Experimental Realization of Interaction-Free Measurement – Paul G. Kwiat; H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. Kasevich – 1994
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....xperiments
    Realization of an interaction-free measurement – 1996
    http://bg.bilkent.edu.tr/jc/to.....rement.pdf

    Quantum Zeno effect
    “It has been experimentally confirmed,, that unstable particles will not decay, or will decay less rapidly, if they are observed. Somehow, observation changes the quantum system. We’re talking pure observation, not interacting with the system in any way.”
    Douglas Ell – Counting to God – pg. 189 – 2014 – Douglas Ell graduated early from MIT, where he double majored in math and physics. He then obtained a masters in theoretical mathematics from the University of Maryland. After graduating from law school, magna cum laude, he became a prominent attorney.

    The following video also clearly demonstrates that “decoherence” does not solve the measurement problem:
    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
    Verse and Music:
    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
    Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song”
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNX

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    The Many Worlds interpretation is pure unmitigated hogwash!

    Here is, in my view, a excellent mini-overview of the many empirical problems with the Many Worlds Interpretation:

    The Parallel Universes of David Deutsch
    (As argued for in Deutsch’s book The Fabric of Reality) – A Critque by Henry R. Sturman
    Excerpt: 1. The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch’s argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.
    2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.
    3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.
    4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.
    5. Deutsch’s argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.
    http://henrysturman.com/englis.....verse.html

    A bit deeper look at the fallacies inherent in the Many Worlds Interpretation is here:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

    Is Shor’s algorithm a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation?
    Excerpt: David Deutsch is very fond of pointing out Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation. As he often asked, where else did all the exponentially many combinations happen?
    Are there any other alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which can explain Shor’s algorithm, and the Deutsch-Jozsa and Simon’s algorithm?
    ,,, this argument is totally wrong for a simple reason: the real Universe – our Universe – is a quantum system, not a classical system. So it is normal for quantum systems in a single Universe to behave just like the quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm. On the contrary, if we only use the classical computers, we exponentially slow down the computer relatively to what it could do. In this sense, Deutsch’s “argument” shows that the many-worlds interpretation is just another psychological aid for the people who can’t resist to incorrectly think about our world as being a classical world of a sort.,,,
    There is one more lethal conceptual problem with the “many worlds” explanation of the Shor’s algorithm’s speed: the whole quantum computer’s calculation has to proceed in a completely coherent way and you’re not allowed to imagine that the world splits into “many worlds” as long as things are coherent i.e. before the qubits are measured. Only when the measurement is completed – e.g. at the end of the Shor’s algorithm calculation – you’re allowed to imagine that the worlds split. But it’s too late because by that moment, the whole calculation has already been done in a single (quantum) world, without any help from the parallel worlds.
    (Many more excellent answers are on the site)
    http://physics.stackexchange.c.....rpretation

    Deutsch also claims that the ‘particle interfering with itself’ is another proof for many worlds, but the notion that particles intefere with themselves in the double slit was proven to be wrong by Stapp when he was a Jr. in college:

    A Conversation with Henry Stapp, Ryan Cochrane – March 2014
    Excerpt: As a junior in college, at the University of Michigan, (around 1950), I carried out, during Easter vacation a double-slit experiment where the photons were, on average, 1 km apart, and verified that effect was not due (to) different photons interfering with one another.
    Henry Stapp – Physicist
    http://social-epistemology.com.....-cochrane/

    If anyone is interested in how Dr. Stapp accomplished the preceding experiment, I e-mailed him and this was his reponse,

    The experiment was meant only to inform myself, and there was never any thought of publication, although I saved for many years the glass slides with the two photographic images, one below the other, of the two double-slit patterns.
    The U of M optics lab featured a double slit experiment. My modified version was not very ingenious: the lab had some calibrated color filters. I merely placed a stack of filters between the light source and the rest of the experiment, so that, using the stated absorption coefficients of the filters, the light was attenuated to an intensity that amounted to an average distance of 1km between photons, whose coherence length was supposed to be about a meter.
    The run lasted ten days. The two interference patterns, one just above the other, were, to my eye, indistinguishable. The “crazy” quantum mechanical prediction was apparently correct! Something very, very interesting was afoot.
    – Henry Stapp – Physicist

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Worlds also carries some very ‘heavy baggage’ with it to put it mildly. Moreover, it turns out that even the many worlds hypothesis allows for immortality. Atheists just can’t seem to catch a break anywhere in quantum mechanics!

    10 Mind-Bending Implications of the Many Worlds Theory – February 2013
    http://listverse.com/2013/02/2.....ds-theory/

  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the wave function being ‘real’

    Here is a more rigorous measurement of the ‘infinite dimensional’ wave function which establishes it as ‘physically real’:

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction – June 2011
    Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....10120.html

    The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiments and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities. Particularly incongruities with quantum entanglement that arose from a purely statistical, ‘abstract’, interpretation of the wave function.

    The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011
    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

    Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
    Excerpt: Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.,,, “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
    http://www.scientificamerican......vefunction

    On the reality of the quantum state – Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett & Terry Rudolph – May 2012
    Abstract: Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state truly represents. One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. However, there is a long history of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only knowledge or information about some aspect of reality. Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and in which systems that are prepared independently have independent physical states, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory. (i.e. Any model that holds the Quantum wave state as merely a abstract representation of reality, i.e. as not a real representation of reality, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory.)
    http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo.....s2309.html

    The preceding mathematical interpretation was empirically corroborated:

    Of Einstein and entanglement: Quantum erasure deconstructs wave-particle duality – January 29, 2013
    Excerpt: They concluded that since the two entangled systems are causally disconnected in terms of the erasure choice, wave-particle duality is an irreducible feature of quantum systems with no naïve realistic explanation. The world view that a photon always behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication, and should therefore be abandoned as a description of quantum behavior.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-e.....ructs.html

    The following experiment went even further:

    Quantum theory survives latest challenge – Dec 15, 2010
    Excerpt: Even assuming that entangled photons could respond to one another instantly, the correlations between polarization states still violated Leggett’s inequality. The conclusion being that instantaneous communication is not enough to explain entanglement and realism must also be abandoned.
    This conclusion is now backed up by Sonja Franke-Arnold and collegues at the University of Glasgow and University of Strathclyde who have performed another experiment showing that entangled photons exhibit,, stronger correlations than allowed for particles with individually defined properties – even if they would be allowed to communicate constantly.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.....-challenge

    The following establishes the quantum wave function as ‘real’ from another angle of logic;

    Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system’s wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ality.html

    Yet, it is also important to note that even the ‘real’ wave function must interpreted in a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, manner:

    Quantum Physics and Relativity 2: The visible comes into existence from the invisible. – Antoine Suarez – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxuOE2Bo_i0&list=UUVmgTa2vbopdjpMNAQBqXHw

  50. 50
    Mung says:

    It would be a full tine job to maintain a website containing all BA77’s links, but it’s an idea. 🙂

    Maybe after I retire, lol.

  51. 51
    Popperian says:

    Again, many of the links you referenced merely support QM, not collapse of the waveform. That’s an ad-hoc addition to the theory. See my comment here.

  52. 52
    Popperian says:

    Strapp

    2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.

    Shadow photons are photons in other words. The lack of the interference pattern is what the wave function indicates should occur when measuring devices (including observers) record measurements. This change cause the quantum state to diverge in the shadow world, in which the shadow photon exists. This divergence causes decoherence and the lack of an interference pattern.

    3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.

    You have to add something to a single universe “explanation”, including ad-hoc assumptions of collapse, etc. This is not the case with the WMI.

    Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.

    It’s unclear as to what, exactly, this is referring to.

    5. Deutsch’s argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.

    Sturman seems to be confused as shadow photons are not considered imaginary things. The multiverse is the whole of physical reality, but we cannot directly observe it all at once.

    Are there any other alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which can explain Shor’s algorithm, and the Deutsch-Jozsa and Simon’s algorithm?
    ,,, this argument is totally wrong for a simple reason: the real Universe – our Universe – is a quantum system, not a classical system.

    This doesn’t make any sense as, being quantum – not classical, observers are subject to the wave theory. So are quantum computers, etc.

    Deutsch also claims that the ‘particle interfering with itself’ is another proof for many worlds, but the notion that particles intefere with themselves in the double slit was proven to be wrong by Stapp when he was a Jr. in college:

    Again, you apparently do not understand quantum mechanics, and what Deutsch is saying here. Rather, you seem to have looked up something that merely sounds like it disagrees with Deutsch and posted it here thinking it supports your position.

    Namely what was being tested here was that some earlier or later emitted photon was interfering with a photon when emitted one at a time in serial.

    As a junior, I read a book Inside the Atom that described, in effect, the double-slit experiment, and I decided that this was a puzzle that I needed to solve. As a junior in college, at the University of Michigan, I carried out, during Easter vacation a double-slit experiment where the photons were, on average, 1 km apart, and verified that effect was not due different photons interfering with one another.

    This doesn’t conflict with the sort of shadow photos interfering with versions of the photon in other worlds.

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    perhaps this ‘simple’ video will help,,, It is excellent in its argument against the Many Worlds ‘ad hoc’ argument that Popper is using. As well it addresses some of his other lesser concerns,,

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

    ,,, techinical arguments aside for a moment,,,, my biggest crtitique against Many Worlds is that Popper has to deny the reality of his own conscious mind, ((the one thing that he can be most sure of existing, (i.e. Decartes, Chalmers, i.e. The ‘Hard Problem’)),

    David Chalmers on the ‘Hard Problem’ of Consciousness – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZaA_xoJiM

    as well Popper has to deny the reality of his own free will.,,, And in denying his own conscious experience/mind and his own free will he has, (whichever version of the quasi infinite versions of Popper I happen to be talking to 🙂 ), thus given up any right to use logic and reason to try make his case for Many Worlds. i.e. In some other parallel universe Popper find himself believing Many Worlds to be false and there is nothing ‘he’ can do to change his ‘mind’ since his mind and free will does not really exist .,,,,
    i.e Besides the inherent insanity of postulating a quasi infinite number of parallel universes, and Poppers, every time Popper looks at a single photon, he also ends up in the pit of epistemological failure from which there is no escape.
    A few notes on the inherent insanity of denying the reality of ‘mind’

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.)
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....&_r=0

    Is Atheism Irrational? By GARY GUTTING – NY Times – February 9, 2014
    Excerpt: GG: So your claim is that if materialism is true, evolution doesn’t lead to most of our beliefs being true.
    Plantinga: Right. In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable.
    Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.
    But to believe that is to fall into a total skepticism, which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs (including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!). The only sensible course is to give up the claim leading to this conclusion: that both materialism and evolution are true. Maybe you can hold one or the other, but not both. So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held.
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytim.....&_r=0

    “The failure of evolutionary naturalism to provide a form of transcendent self-understanding that does not undermine our confidence in our natural faculties should not lead us to abandon the search for transcendent self-understanding. There is no reason to allow our confidence in the objective truth of our moral beliefs, or for that matter our confidence in the objective truth of our mathematical or scientific reasoning, to depend on whether this is consistent with the assumption that those capacities are the product of natural selection. Given how speculative evolutionary explanations of human mental faculties are, they seem too weak a ground for putting into question the most basic forms of thought. Our confidence in the truth of propositions that seem evident on reflection should not be shaken so easily (and, I would add, cannot be shaken on these sorts of grounds without a kind of false consciousness).”
    ~ Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos (2012) Oxford University Press

Leave a Reply