Darwin vs. Einstein?

_{William Dembski

October 5, 2010

Culture, Science}

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

Frank Tipler writes at Pajamasmedia:

The current battle for America is, as Angelo Codevilla has recently emphasized in his seminal essay, a war between the majority of Americans and America’s ruling class. This conflict is a reflection of a battle between the two greatest scientists of the past two centuries, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. Einstein famously claimed that “God does not play dice with the universe,” whereas Darwin claimed that God does, indeed, play dice with the universe. Codevilla pointed out the self-image of the ruling class rests on its belief that humans are the unforeseen outcome of chance mutations acted upon by natural selection. Not so. God decreed the evolution of humans before time began. The ruling class stands with Darwin. We stand with Einstein.

MORE

Comments

Timaeus: He doesn’t notice that the “randomness” preached by quantum mechanics is actually as incompatible with free will as mechanical necessity is. If my decisions arise out of the random fluctuations of electrons in my brain, I’m no more free than if they are entirely determined by physico-chemical reactions. OK, I agree with you that QM in itself has nothing to do with free will, because it substitutes an essentially random mechanism (at least in its probability part) to the strict determinism usually assumed in traditional mechanics. Randomness is certainly not free will. But the important point, and probably the one BA too is making, is that the essential randomness of QM can be an interface for conscious activity. IOWs, a conscious being could well be able to interface his consciousness with the physical activity in the brain and in neurons, acting through subtle modifications in quantum randomness and "guiding" the collapse of neuronal wave functions in that way. For an outer observer, nor strict law would be violated. Probably, if we could observe things more deeply, we could demonstrate subtle violations of pure probabilistic laws at quantum level in the physical systems (the brain) acting as interface of conscious events. But nothing more. That is the line of reasoning shared by many who have seriously investigated the hard problem of consciousness, starting with John Eccles, and a similar approach can be found, at least in part, in some work by Penrose. I don't believe it is an unreasonable approach, and at present it is the only one which can scientifically bridge the essential properties of consciousness (including free will) with a conventional view of physics.gpuccio_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Peter: I think you are not completely correct about randomness in QM, unless you are one of the very few who still stick to an Einsteinian interpretation of it. I copy here a recent post of mine on that subject: "About randomness: I would say that there are two different kinds of randomness. The randomness we directly experience (that of a flipping coin or similar systems) is in no way a “violation” of necessity, but just an output which cannot be described realistically in terms of necessity because too many variable are implied. I don’t think anybody really believes that such randomness violates any order: indeed, the simple fact that these rendom events anyway obey to mathemathical laws of probability could be a strong argument in favour of a mathematically ordered reality. The second kind of radnomness is that imlied in quantum mechanics, the essentail randomness which gets measured results from the values of the wave function through a probabilistic law. In this case, the probabilistic interpretation seems to be integral part of reality, and has nothing to do with hidden variables (at least according to most interpretations). But QM interpretation is really an open problem. What is really a “violation” of what we observe in unguided events is complex pseudorandomness with a meaning or function. That is the certain mark of design." IOWs, the (by far) most common interpretation of the random component when we observe a wave function collapse is that randomness is an intrinsic property of the system, and is not the consequence of some variable we do not know or cannot compute. Einstein thought that way, but it is almost certain now that he was wrong, and Bohr was right on this aspect. All the modern discoveries about quantum entanglement have confirmed Bohr's vision against Einstein's. So, you are wrong (at least according to what most physicists now believe) when you say that: "There is a physical law which controls the electrons movement, we just don’t know what it is." It's not that way in QM. There is no law which "controls the electrons movement", and there is indeed no definite "electrons movement". Quantum entities are controlled by wave functions, which are strictly deterministic, and often well known, at least in simple cases. Only measurements "create" the usual categories we are accustomed to in traditional mechanics (position, and so on), through the (rather problematic) process which is usually called "collapse of the wave function". While the wave function is wholly deterministic, the results of the collapse are probabilistic, and the probability is directly derived from the values of the wave function. All that is well known, and works very very fine. QM is a triumph of the application of sophisticated mathemathics to non intuitive aspects of reality. The interpretation of the real "meaning" of QM, instead, is a very open issue. But I believe that the Einstein position of "hidden variables" is really an extremely minority one. Though I love minorities, in this case I am with Bohr.gpuccio_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, I hate to nitpick, but this statement of yours,,,,
He doesn’t notice that the “randomness” preached by quantum mechanics is actually as incompatible with free will as mechanical necessity is. If my decisions arise out of the random fluctuations of electrons in my brain, I’m no more free than if they are entirely determined by physico-chemical reactions.
,,,, is only true if you hold the consciousness emerges from the material basis of the brain instead of being of a preceding primary nature to the brain, and exercising dominion of the material basis of the brain. As for proof of my position, it is impossible for consciousness to ever emerge from 'uncertain' 3-D material particles which are dependent on a conscious observer to to collapse from a wave function in the first place: notes: In the following article, Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what quantum mechanics reveals to us about the 'primary cause' of our 3D reality: 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 (personally I feel the word "illusion" was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; "material reality is a "secondary reality" that is dependent on the primary reality of God's mind" to exist. Then again I'm not a professor of physics at a major university as Dr. Henry is.) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/ 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.pdfbornagain77_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Frost (#6): Thanks for your comment. I've tried correcting Allanius on Plato and other philosophers before, but he simply won't engage with me. Of course, if one reads the Timaeus, one sees that the Maker is utterly free from envy and therefore wishes to share the bountifulness of his being by creating a world. So much for the idea that he doesn't care about the world. And on another current thread, Allanius speaks disparagingly of Platonism (ludicrously linking it with Darwinism!), while speaking favorably of Aristotle -- whose God does *not* love the world. I have the impression that Allanius has read a lot *about* philosophers, but has read very few of the classic texts of philosophy, up close and personal, because he seems to have only a hazy idea of the teachings of the philosophers whose names he so casually drops. Allanius's attempt to apply the Kantian distinction of analytic and synthetic to Einstein and quantum mechanics respectively shows a lack of understanding of what Kant meant. I doubt very much that he's read *The Critique of Pure Reason*. He also trots out the frequently asserted but highly dubious proposition that somehow quantum mechanics snatched free will from the jaws of determinism. He doesn't notice that the "randomness" preached by quantum mechanics is actually as incompatible with free will as mechanical necessity is. If my decisions arise out of the random fluctuations of electrons in my brain, I'm no more free than if they are entirely determined by physico-chemical reactions. And what would Allanius do if the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics were disproved by the physics community tomorrow? He'd then have staked his religious faith in free will on shifting sand. "Sciencey" people continually make the same mistake of trying to solve age-old philosophical and theological problems with current scientific conceptions. Science is constantly changing, and attempting to rescue a favored theology by appeals to the latest science (usually cherry-picked science) is most unwise. Allanius, if you are reading, sorry to speak of you in the third person, but you never reply to me when I address you in the second. T.Timaeus_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

What we should realize that randomness is not a force but is used a mathematical model to describe events we do not understand. I can flip a coin and half the time it will be heads, but that says nothing of the force applied and the environment the coin is tossed in. Likewise for quantum mechanics. We do not know where an electron is and its momentum. There is a physical law which controls the electrons movement, we just don't know what it is. The same can be said for biological complexity. .Peter_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Allanius, Everything you wrote is pretty much incorrect. Einstein's God was Spinoza's God as Einstein said himself- and that God was in fact a grand designer that revealed himself through nature's symmetry. As far as relativity being analytic or synthetic, actually it is synthetic. It is an interpretation of the cosmos derived from mathematical (synthetic) reasoning NOT one that is intuited based solely on empirical self evident truth. Relativity is a synthesized theory and or interpretation of the universe. As far as Eisntein being a determinist- I do not think this is quite correct either- not that it is a major problem though given that religion and ID both have elements of mechanical necessity and fate involved along with them.Frost122585_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Who is this "we"? Sorry--Einstein and Darwin were both determinists. Tipler must be tippling. Interesting to note, however, that the ancient divide between "analytic and synthetic methods," as Descartes called them, raises its ugly head one more time in modern science, even after the death of God. Relativity, an analytic proposition, eliminates free choice; quantum mechanics, a synthetic construct, restores it. Also please note that Einstein's "God" is Plato's God: a grand transcendent phsyicist, unmoved and unmoving, certainly not the one who so loved the world. Why must men make God in their own image?allanius_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Actually I believe the multiple (parallel) universes, that Tippler speaks of as a 'mathematical necessity' from Schroedinger's equation, were in fact derived because of the inability to find adequate causation for quantum wave collapse. At least adequate causation that did not involve God.,,, Much like the multiverse conjecture arose because materialists could not find adequate causation for the fine tuning of the universe: notes: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[39] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics Perhaps some may say Everett’s Many Worlds in not absurd, if so,, then in some other parallel universe, where Elvis happens to be president of the United states, they actually do think Many Worlds is absurd,, and that type of thinking I find to be completely absurd!!! but that one example from Many Worlds is just small potatoes to the absurdity that we could draw out if Many Worlds were actually true. ,,,Einstein hated the loss of determinism that quantum mechanics brought forth to physics, yet on a deeper philosophical level, I’ve heard one physics professor say something to the effect that the lack of determinism in quantum wave collapse actually restored free will to its rightful place, or probably he said something more like this,,, ‘the proof of free will is found in the indeterminacy of the quantum wave collapse”.,,, And as is quite obvious, free will is taken as obviously true by all societies, or else why should we spank our children or punish anybody in jails if they truly had no free will to control their actions? further notes: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dr-bruce-gordons-article-on-stephen-hawking/#comment-365083bornagain77_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

And it is interesting to compare Einstein to Darwin in this sense- Einstein believed in a reality beyond himself- a god of order and symmetry and perhaps design- while Darwin took life simply at face value and tried to accept it within a shallow framework. It is no surprise that Darwin's theory lacks depth to explain all that he wanted it to. "A person starts to live when he can live outside himself." -EinsteinFrost122585_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

From the article:
"The existence of these other universes is a necessary mathematical consequence of the Schrödinger equation itself, or more generally, of Newton’s own mechanics in its most general form."
Firstly, correct me if I am wrong, I thought from my readings that the Uncertainly Principle was discovered before Schrodinger got involved with Heisenberg and Bohr. Secondly, I don't think that the Uncertainty Principle is a result of there being "parallel universes" as some claim to think. The principle simply shows that the universe is in a state of nature where no one thing thing can "exactly" know any other thing. This is more akin to a relative motion of all objects as opposed to multiple universes. What it really teaches us is that man is not the measure of all things- but that reality and things in it have an objective existence- measurable to varying degrees- which are independent of our own perception- though not of our existence. Man is therefore a key player in reality but not a master- and this is much like what Einstein believed which was that there existed an objective reality outside the one we know from our limited perspective. Thought Einstein could not prove that the proverbial tree does in fact fall when there is no one around to detect it- he said we know it is so by appealing to our intuition- which is also similar to what Kant was arguing for with transcendental dialectic.Frost122585_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Of course God plays dice with the universe. On page 184 in Things A Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About, Donald Knuth writes:
Indeed, computer scientists have proved that certain important computational tasks can be done much more efficiently with random numbers than they could possibly ever be done by deterministic procedure. Many of today's best computational algorithms, like methods for searching the internet, are based on randomization. If Einstein's assertion were true, God would be prohibited from using the most powerful methods.
Eventually, the physicists and the biologists will come to realize that, after theology, computer science is what will explain the universe.wrf3_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply