yeah Tom, Schroedinger’s cat, read up on it, it’s fascinating.
Not only that, but it’s confirmed by experiment.
Read up also on the two slit electron experiments. 
| Quote (TomS @ Dec. 02 2005,16:29) |
| I still find the "primordial ooze we came from a single celled doo-hickey" stuff difficult to comprehend. Even Darwin noted in his observations that much was unexplainable without an intelligent creator. |
IN his private letters he made fun of the idea of God.
Didn't know that...
You think he's roasting in #### wishing he'd evolved Asbestos skin?
D
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| IN his private letters he made fun of the idea of God. |
And of course God got him back by stopping the evolution process cold in 1948, which led directly to the quandary going on today.
.
| Quote (phoo @ Dec. 02 2005,18:27) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
And of course God got him back by stopping the evolution process cold in 1948, which led directly to the quandary going on today. . |
Quandary?
A four humped camel?
Ummm. I’m an ignorant and silly guy, but I thought that the slit thing and the cat in the box showed a problem with observations?
I lost ‘faith’ in Intelligent Design of our transportation system tonight. Someone’s ‘free-will’ caused a multiple car ‘bang-up’ which backed up traffic for miles.
How do (some) scientists believe in a random event such as ‘big bang’, when the principle of the scientific method is founded on order and control?
There is mutation within a species, but does it show mutation from one species into another?
Where do thoughts come from?
There is a reason for everything. (In theory) Therefore there are no random events (other than miscalculations of our perception). Senseless reason (reason without observation) would indicate otherwise.
Ali, I have to agree with Toms assessment of ID and science being compatible. It may be beyond our understanding, but it is still possible that they are compatible. As far as your example of the atom moving in a random direction at a random velocity, it is only random until we understand what is controlling the velocity and direction. Then it is not longer random.
As far as God creating the universe then letting chaos take over… what is wrong with that plan. Haven’t you ever made dinner and put the left overs in the fridge to eat later only to find something growing in a few weeks/months. Maybe God never initially intended to create life on this little blue planet yet that was the end result. How could we humans possible know what God’s original intent was? Why does it even matter?
By the way… have you ever had scrapple? Ya think God meant for that to happen?
Mike
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| By the way… have you ever had scrapple? Ya think God meant for that to happen? |
He probably meant for it to happen, but I seriously doubt it was meant as food.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Ummm. I’m an ignorant and silly guy, but I thought that the slit thing and the cat in the box showed a problem with observations? |
First of all, quantum mechanics does not even try to explain the “why”, it’s just a model that just tries to explain what happens.
Tom, the cat thing is connected to observation, but perhaps in a way you haven’t considered yet.
So, the cat experiment involves putting a cat into a box, a box that observers are unable to “see” inside.
Then, some sort of thingy, “tosses a coin”.
If it’s heads, nothing happens, if it’s tails, then the cat dies; electrocution, poison gas, whatever.
But the thing to remember, is that the observers don’t know which way the coin landed, they don’t know if the cat was killed or not.
So, the big question; what is in the box?
The conventional answer is that we don’t know, and we won’t know till we open the box.
The quantum answer is that within the box exists two half-real cats, one dead, one alive, and then when we open the box, one of those “quantum ghosts” evaporates, and the other crystallises (to use quantum terminology), in other words, one of the half real cats becomes completely real, and the other disappears.
Well, it sounds a silly explanation, but, we cannot disprove it. But, it still sounds silly.
However, experiments, and I say experiments, not theory, not philosophy, but experimental evidence, indicate that it’s true.
The two slit experiment (which is performed repeatedly for 1st year university students) shows that an electron, or any other sub atomic particle, when presented with an equal choice of paths, chooses both.
Just imagine walking down a corridor and having a choice of two doors, and then walking through both of them at the same time, a semi-real Tom going one way, and the other semi-real Tom going the other way.
Weird innit?
But that’s what happens with electrons and other quanta. And as I said, this is not theoretical ideas of “what we think should happen” but rather, this is what actually happens.
But, to return to your observer thingy…
Obviously, people were very perplexed when this was first observed, and they tried to work out what the #### was happening by observing the experiment in process.
And surprise, surprise, when we watch the electrons, they only go through one slit or the other, not both.
But after we’ve completed the experiment, we find that the final result is totally different than the unobserved experiment.
Unobserved, we obtain a wavelike pattern, but observed, we obtain a particle pattern.
Two totally different results depending if we observe the experiment in progress, or just leave it and look at the results afterwards.
You want mysticism? Can you get more mystical than that?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Ali, I have to agree with Toms assessment of ID and science being compatible. It may be beyond our understanding, but it is still possible that they are compatible. As far as your example of the atom moving in a random direction at a random velocity, it is only random until we understand what is controlling the velocity and direction. Then it is not longer random. |
Mike, no, that is not the case. It’s not what happens, it’s not what reality is.
Heisenberg worked out from experimental data that there is a finite limit to what is knowable. And the reason it’s not knowable, is because there is a finite limit to what “is”.
And as I said in a previous post, that is not due to our limited abilities, but it’s the way the universe appears to work.
A particle does not have a precise position in space. A particle does not have a precise velocity. It’s just a sort of probability wave thingy.
So if you look at an electron close up, you don’t see a wee ball of something at a precise place and a precise velocity, it’s a fuzzy cloud of probability.
And I repeat, yet again, this evidence is not derived from theory, but from what actually is.
Josephson junctions, LED’s, etc., etc., etc., can only work if that is true. And, they work don’t they?
So the idea that two thingies, in the same initial state, will follow the same path, is meaningless.
Because two thingies, when looked at closely, are only fuzzy clouds of “maybe”.
And that is true in the macroscopic world too. If you flip a coin, then flip the same coin again with exacty the same conditions, you cannot say that both times will give the same result.
Chaos rules, Go Chaos!
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If you flip a coin, then flip the same coin again with exacty the same conditions, you cannot say that both times will give the same result. |
Do you want to bet on it
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| There is a reason for everything. (In theory) Therefore there are no random events (other than miscalculations of our perception). Senseless reason (reason without observation) would indicate otherwise. |
This is a version of the principle of sufficient reason - used by a number of philosophers through history to try to prove that God exists (not that that is why you mentioned it…
). It doesn’t work, however, for a couple of reasons. First of all, at best it shows that the cause of everything must be sufficient to produce it. As you have noticed, the universe is flawed, so at best we would get a very powerful but flawed creator - not the all powerful, all knowing, all good God of Christianity (again, not that that’s what you were arguing for). We’d do just as well with the God of some of the Christian gnostics - an evil god, e.g., who was himself created in a defective way, hence only able to create defectively. Check out the Secret Gospel of John if you are curious. Second, it is not at all clear that our intuitions about cause and effect in this world extend to claims about creation of the world. The PSR may not hold when we are talking not about how things work in the universe, but how creation itself comes about.
Anyway, Ali, I must seriously misunderstand the point of the cat in the box analogy, for I thought it was meant to illustrate how the act of observation was a part of what is observed. “Inditerminacy” is only with respect to observers. Mind you, I recognize how little I understand this stuff, so if you know a good book…
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If you flip a coin, then flip the same coin again with exacty the same conditions, you cannot say that both times will give the same result. |
The result will always be 100% predictable if one (a scientist) can completely calculate all of the physical variables of the environment and action which ‘create’ the coin flip.
If there are ‘spiritual forces’ at work in the (coin flip) event, science then needs to be redefined.
There can be no argument to support a ‘chaos theory’. An argument must follow a structure of order and logic, or it is only nonsense.
How can the imperfect make a judgement about perfection?
| Quote (Ali_G @ Dec. 03 2005,02:06) |
| Ummm. I'm an ignorant and silly guy, but I thought that the slit thing and the cat in the box showed a problem with observations? |
First of all, quantum mechanics does not even try to explain the "why", it's just a model that just tries to explain what happens.
Tom, the cat thing is connected to observation, but perhaps in a way you haven't considered yet.
So, the cat experiment involves putting a cat into a box, a box that observers are unable to "see" inside.
Then, some sort of thingy, "tosses a coin".
If it's heads, nothing happens, if it's tails, then the cat dies; electrocution, poison gas, whatever.
But the thing to remember, is that the observers don't know which way the coin landed, they don't know if the cat was killed or not.
So, the big question; what is in the box?
The conventional answer is that we don't know, and we won't know till we open the box.
The quantum answer is that within the box exists two half-real cats, one dead, one alive, and then when we open the box, one of those "quantum ghosts" evaporates, and the other crystallises (to use quantum terminology), in other words, one of the half real cats becomes completely real, and the other disappears.
Well, it sounds a silly explanation, but, we cannot disprove it. But, it still sounds silly.
However, experiments, and I say experiments, not theory, not philosophy, but experimental evidence, indicate that it's true.
The two slit experiment (which is performed repeatedly for 1st year university students) shows that an electron, or any other sub atomic particle, when presented with an equal choice of paths, chooses both.
Just imagine walking down a corridor and having a choice of two doors, and then walking through both of them at the same time, a semi-real Tom going one way, and the other semi-real Tom going the other way.
Weird innit?
But that's what happens with electrons and other quanta. And as I said, this is not theoretical ideas of "what we think should happen" but rather, this is what actually happens.
But, to return to your observer thingy..........
Obviously, people were very perplexed when this was first observed, and they tried to work out what the #### was happening by observing the experiment in process.
And surprise, surprise, when we watch the electrons, they only go through one slit or the other, not both.
But after we've completed the experiment, we find that the final result is totally different than the unobserved experiment.
Unobserved, we obtain a wavelike pattern, but observed, we obtain a particle pattern.
Two totally different results depending if we observe the experiment in progress, or just leave it and look at the results afterwards.
You want mysticism? Can you get more mystical than that?
Ali, I have to agree with Toms assessment of ID and science being compatible. It may be beyond our understanding, but it is still possible that they are compatible. As far as your example of the atom moving in a random direction at a random velocity, it is only random until we understand what is controlling the velocity and direction. Then it is not longer random.
Mike, no, that is not the case. It's not what happens, it's not what reality is.
Heisenberg worked out from experimental data that there is a finite limit to what is knowable. And the reason it's not knowable, is because there is a finite limit to what "is".
And as I said in a previous post, that is not due to our limited abilities, but it's the way the universe appears to work.
A particle does not have a precise position in space. A particle does not have a precise velocity. It's just a sort of probability wave thingy.
So if you look at an electron close up, you don't see a wee ball of something at a precise place and a precise velocity, it's a fuzzy cloud of probability.
And I repeat, yet again, this evidence is not derived from theory, but from what actually is.
Josephson junctions, LED's, etc., etc., etc., can only work if that is true. And, they work don't they?
So the idea that two thingies, in the same initial state, will follow the same path, is meaningless.
Because two thingies, when looked at closely, are only fuzzy clouds of "maybe".
And that is true in the macroscopic world too. If you flip a coin, then flip the same coin again with exacty the same conditions, you cannot say that both times will give the same result.
Chaos rules, Go Chaos!
Again, all these experiments and observations are bound by our perceptions/perspective.
People tend to see what they want to see, and either ignore or disbelieve what they don't.
keep shinin'
jerm
| Quote (TomS @ Dec. 02 2005,16:51) |
| It’s a category mistake to ask for empirical confirmation of a thing that is not empirical.
|
Tom, you are usually pretty good at picking up on sarcasm, this time you are being way to literal. There is a reason I am skptical to the invention of the God-o-meter… cause it can’t happen.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Again, all these experiments and observations are bound by our perceptions/perspective. People tend to see what they want to see, and either ignore or disbelieve what they don’t. |
True, but good science has yet to fail us. Internal combustion, antibiotics, electricity, etc. all seem to work pretty reliably according to science. I think the thing to remember is that science is not faith and faith is not science. Two different things completely. At this point, faith is generally what takes over when the road science has laid hits a road block. I’d encourage you to read some of the crazy medieval beliefs folks had of God doing or not doing and we now know were the results of natural processes. To toss science out is foolish. We know it works. Faith can’t be thrown out either because there will always be a limit to our knowledge and we’ll have to choose what camp we think/feel/etc. makes the most sense to us. I find these science versus faith arguments silly as it is apples and oranges. I can’t find any convincing argument to say science doesn’t work as everything we touch practically in our modern society is a result of science (iPods, TVs, computers, cars, airplaines… ) Though find a conviing argument for or against God… not many of them either… at the end of the day, you aren’t going to “see” God or measure him (sorry no God-o-meter). However, I think science is a powerful tool in changing how one thinks about God.
Bubba, guess I missed that one.
So…in what units would the meter on the God-o-meter be calcluated?
| Quote (TomS @ Dec. 04 2005,13:26) |
| So…in what units would the meter on the God-o-meter be calcluated?
|
Units of faith…
on the Deepak Chopra scale, 10 would be Mother Teresa and 1 would be Dick Cheney…
The full scale goes:
1= Dick Cheney
2= G.W. Bush
3= Bill Maher
4= Osama Bin Laden
5= Saddam Hussain
6= Wolf Blitzer
7= Shirley McClain
8= Benny Hill
9= Bill Gates
10= Mother Teresa
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| So…in what units would the meter on the God-o-meter be calcluated? |
Love units.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I find these science versus faith arguments silly as it is apples and oranges |
Could apples have evolved from oranges or oranges from apples?
Why am I here? Because scientists constructed flawed computers and software that keep crashing n-Track.
Where am I? An internet discussion forum. (virtually speaking)
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Anyway, Ali, I must seriously misunderstand the point of the cat in the box analogy, for I thought it was meant to illustrate how the act of observation was a part of what is observed. “Inditerminacy” is only with respect to observers. Mind you, I recognize how little I understand this stuff, so if you know a good book… |
Tom, your first point is very true. The observer and the observed are part of the same system, you cannot separate the two.
But, to say that indeterminacy is also solely part of the system appears to be less true.
It is part of the system, but not dependant upon it, i.e., indeterminacy appears to be fundamental to how the universe actually is. An observer merely helps to crystallise one of the possible realities into a personal “reality”.
But, I say “appears”, because that has been an argument ever since the first days of quantum theory.
Einstein said “God does not play dice with the universe”, and other eminent physicists have argued the same point, claiming that indeterminacy is a phenomenon of our very fallible human observations.
However, that idea did not remain credible for long, because it was not supported by experimental evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the indeterminacy is due to "that’s the way things are!"
And that is illustrated by the two-slit experiment, the electron is indeterminate when it is not observed, and only becomes a “real” particle when it is observed.
It’s like when you fall asleep at night, and the toys come out of the cupboard to play.
And to me that is crucial. No matter how “common sense” an idea is, if it conflicts with experiment, then we have to abandon “common sense”.
And the same goes for any philosophical idea; if it’s contrary to critical experience, then f*ck it!
As for books, well, start off with basic physics and higher mathematics, then work up.
I’m not being facetious Tom. It’s all well and good to read claims and explanations by other people, but unless you’re able to critically adjudge those claims yourself, then why should you believe them?
After all, Hesse’s Siddhartha did not “get it” by listening to anyone else, but only by sitting by the river and pissing in it himself, (in the Glasgow Press translation anyway!
). <!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Again, all these experiments and observations are bound by our perceptions/perspective. People tend to see what they want to see, and either ignore or disbelieve what they don’t. |
Well, that’s often true Jerm, but not always. And the world would be a much tidier place if it were completely true. However, indeterminacy happens when we don’t observe it, (q.v. two-slit experiment).
So, you can’t blame it on fallible humans. Blame it on the universe instead.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| The result will always be 100% predictable if one (a scientist) can completely calculate all of the physical variables of the environment and action which ‘create’ the coin flip. |
And Kenny, your proof for that is?
Or are you describing a universe that operates the way you want it to, rather than the one we actually live in?
Ali
Your argument is clear Ali. And I do not disagree. But I do fail to see how your argument proves that ID and science cannot co-exist. Just because the nature of the sub-atomic universe is random and chaotic, how do you know that is not exactly what God planned? Would it not take just that random chaos to develop humans out of primordial ooze?
Mike, I don’t claim to prove anything. All I’m suggesting is that there’s a few wee problems with the compatibility of ID and science:
If a god created the universe, and the development of it thereafter is controlled by random factors, then we cannot claim that a god created us, the human race.
Unless of course, he continually guides and controls the evolutionary process, not only the biological one, but the evolution of the whole universe too.
And if that is true, what happened to “free will”?
And if there is a controller, why isn’t there evidence of that?
There are a multitude of things that suggest that what the human race, the world, the universe is at present, is not an indication of any “Intelligence” whatsoever.
But, if there is a controller, and overriding that for humanity is something called “free will”, how does that work exactly? It’s not allowable in scientific terms, because it must be a “supernatural force”, and therefore not part of science.
So no, ID (any of theories of it) are not compatible with science, no matter which route you follow in the reasoning.
But, tell me; does “free will” only apply to humans?
If so, then the cancer-causing virus that enters a child’s body must be due to the controller, yeah?
And I should worship him! 