On What Basis is an Intelligent God Possible w/o Evolution?

[harvey1]

On another thread in another sub-forum, QED asks:

[H]ow [can] a prime mover, or uncaused cause, such as [ to design, create and keep things on track] have so much intelligence -- a property we otherwise associate with the product of billions of years of evolution in challenging and complex environments like our own[?] Intelligence is only understood by us in these terms. This is mostly why I can't bring myself to jump on your gravy train. I want to know how the rational mind can conceive of disembodied intelligence in posession of all the necessary tools to build a universe.

Anyone have a response to QED?

[QED]

I thought you were a retired scientist? Everyday should be a holiday. I would be sipping margaritas on a Spanish beach if I were you.

That's why I said I'm sort of on holiday. It's more like a break from my regular routine.

...you say that selection did not apparently cause the examples you were about to cite. How do you know this? What is it about the the examples that set them apart from other things that are known to be the product of some form of selection?

Well, these phenomena are deeply related to the laws of physics.

Aren't they all?

Relatively simple mathematical expressions show why they are the case. If they are selected for, then that would suggest that our mathematics and logic are also selected for. In which case the whole notion of selection might be selected for (but that would be our logic). Do you get where I am going?

OK. Maybe the maths is simple because the phenomena are simple -- that's hardly something we would expect of any form of higher consciousness.

...we seem to be looking at systems without volition...

The level of consciousness in these examples depends on how tricky the experimenter is at trying to trick nature.

But this doesn't get us away from the "single minded" nature of all the paradoxical phenomena (pardon the ironic use of our anthropocentrically inclined language here).

To me it all looks very much like the sort of result we get whenever we try to fool nature into doing something "it doesn't want to" (more irony!). Normally we can see why this is so when we apply a little science -- but we simply lack the appropriate science when it comes to Quantum effects. If we dumb ourselves down to a point where we become ignorant of Newtonian Mechanics can we not imagine seeing the same apparent consciousness "pulling the ropes" in the larger world?

I would personally take the unfailing results seen in these phenomena as another indication that we are looking at a mechanical effect. As with Newtonian Mechanics we never catch it out (Quantum Mechanics) with our clever experiments. You might wish to put this down to omniscience but I think that that would be moot in this context.

I'm sure I've asked this before Harvey -- why is it still called Quantum Mechanics? If the phenomena were exhibiting any real traits of intelligence then we would surely expect a revolutionary movement -- starting off with a respectful change in name!

[harvey1]

Most particle physicists have abandoned the classical idea of tachyons, the neutrino is the darling particle now, especially since it appears to have a non-zero mass. The fact that you can find several(a dozen, a hundred) papers with tachyon(the word) in them means little.

Huh? Particle physicists are studying neutrinos and therefore they have abandoned tachyons even though there's hundreds of papers is of no consequence?! If there's hundreds of papers wouldn't that suggest that physicists haven't abandoned tachyons? Can we safely state that you were wrong about the status of tachyons in physics? Would you like to amend your statement?

The Big Bang occured 13.7 bya, it has no existence at present. The present is a result(was caused) by that event, but it does not mean it now exists. The BB is an event in the past, not in any way accessable or congruent with the present. It's gone poof, we are the smoke, and once an event is over the original conditions are no longer operative AND IT HAS NO PERSPECTIVE. Once you strike a match and burn it, it no longer has any existence and cannot be retrieved in it's original condition. The time arrow only points in one direction(thus a half a D. If it was a full D you MIGHT have a point.

But you said that travel into the future is allowed. If you travelled into the future from 2006 into 2008, then 2 years from now you would arrive in 2008. But, we would still be here in 2006 even though you were now living in 2008. We would be in your past and we would still exist. Are you now saying that travelling into the future is prohibited? Please clarify.

Actually Hawking agrees with me, if the choice is him or you, well...

And, it's still an assumption until shown otherwise, right?

Some people bet on the sure thing, some on the long shot. I think I'll stick with the sure thing.

Okay, if its a sure thing that string theory will resolve the delayed choice-quantum erasure experiments, at least give us a hint as to how this will be done that doesn't involve backward causation. How do you surmise that this is a "sure thing" with absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case?

[harvey1]

That's why I said I'm sort of on holiday. It's more like a break from my regular routine.

A break from your regular routine should be taking a parttime job. The regular routine would be sitting on a Spanish beach drinking margaritas.

OK. Maybe the maths is simple because the phenomena are simple -- that's hardly something we would expect of any form of higher consciousness.

We follow pretty simple logical guidelines, and often the more simple logical guidelines we follow the more intelligent people say that we are.

But this doesn't get us away from the "single minded" nature of all the paradoxical phenomena (pardon the ironic use of our anthropocentrically inclined language here). To me it all looks very much like the sort of result we get whenever we try to fool nature into doing something "it doesn't want to" (more irony!). Normally we can see why this is so when we apply a little science -- but we simply lack the appropriate science when it comes to Quantum effects. If we dumb ourselves down to a point where we become ignorant of Newtonian Mechanics can we not imagine seeing the same apparent consciousness "pulling the ropes" in the larger world?

But, alternatively, couldn't we view ourselves as machines entirely controlled by approximate Newtonian mechanical processes as LaPlace envisioned? In that case, nothing is an IGUS. We can eliminate IGUS talk entirely by talking about the biochemical stuff happening at the molecular level. For example, if we could see only atoms and nothing bigger than that, brains would have lots of movement and its atoms would have lots changes in energy states and emissions of photons, but it wouldn't look any more IGUS-like than a pot of stew.

The point of this illustration is to show that any interpretation of IGUS behavior must come from our real perspective as humans. And, from our real perspective, nature exhibits IGUS behavior. Sure, we can imagine scenarios where the IGUS behavior can be shown to be no smarter than a rock rolling down a hill, but that's true even of any IGUS. (In fact, I think your quasi-materialist philosophy commits you to a view that there are in fact no real IGUSes in nature: it's just all "particle stuff" moving about like pot stew.)

Granted, that might be correct if we knew everything about the world. However, we don't know it is correct, so we have to consider other options of it not being correct. The other option, as I presented, is that we ought to interpret the evidence of IGUS behavior as IGUS behavior. In that case, this answers your objection about there being no examples of IGUS behavior that wasn't selected for by natural selection. Here's these examples, and they are--I think--quite convincing examples because the other possibility of backward causation brings many problems with it and, I think, implies theism anyway (we can discuss how backward causation implies theism if you wish).

I'm sure I've asked this before Harvey -- why is it still called Quantum Mechanics? If the phenomena were exhibiting any real traits of intelligence then we would surely expect a revolutionary movement -- starting off with a respectful change in name!

I'm not arguing that these examples show intelligence of a willy nilly sort. (E.g., "I'm feeling a little lawful, I'll stop this experiment from obtaining which-path information this time.") Rather, I'm only arguing that it is an example of non-selected IGUS behavior. Even programmed robots are examples of IGUS behavior.

However, on a wider scale, the IGUS behavior seen in nature is exactly what Spinoza would have expected. Even theist philosophers of the past would have had no problem in seeing nature act lawfully. Afterall, the Hebrews had an infatuation with God as a lawgiver who wouldn't depart from the laws one iota.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Grumpy wrote:
Most particle physicists have abandoned the classical idea of tachyons, the neutrino is the darling particle now, especially since it appears to have a non-zero mass. The fact that you can find several(a dozen, a hundred) papers with tachyon(the word) in them means little.

Huh? Particle physicists are studying neutrinos and therefore they have abandoned tachyons even though there's hundreds of papers is of no consequence?! If there's hundreds of papers wouldn't that suggest that physicists haven't abandoned tachyons? Can we safely state that you were wrong about the status of tachyons in physics? Would you like to amend your statement?

No, I don't think I would. The tachyon is a theoretical particle envisioned to solve some problems with Quantum theory. Some of the solution to those problems comes when the neutrino has a non-zero mass, making the tachyon superfluous and unneeded. You can safely assume I am correct in my assesment of current thought.

But you said that travel into the future is allowed. If you travelled into the future from 2006 into 2008, then 2 years from now you would arrive in 2008. But, we would still be here in 2006 even though you were now living in 2008. We would be in your past and we would still exist. Are you now saying that travelling into the future is prohibited? Please clarify.

Well, what part of the time arrow pointing only in one direction has baffled you??? We all are time travelers, we all travel into the future. If I travel to 2008, then 2006 NO LONGER EXISTS FOR ME and, no "But, we would still be here in 2006 even though you were now living in 2008. We would be in your past and we would still exist." is not a true assesment of the situation. 2006 would be gone, leaving behind it memory, evidence, etc. but like the burnt match it can no longer be what it was.

I really am suprised you would argue this, after all the pain we went through about causuality. Causuality dictates the direction of time, otherwise nothing could happen!!! The chain of causes would not form and stasis would be all.

Grumpy wrote:
Actually Hawking agrees with me, if the choice is him or you, well...

And, it's still an assumption until shown otherwise, right?

I don't think Hawking just awoke one day and assumed that travel back through time was not possible, do you??? Since the quality of his work has earned my respect and the respect of the whole scientific community I will accept his REASONED opinion until shown sufficient reason not to. So, no, it is not just an assumption, Hawking has real reasons for his view, I trust Hawking.

How do you surmise that this is a "sure thing" with absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case?

Track record. All those baffling things that have come before have been explained by science, just because there are phenomina that have not yet been explained does not mean they never will be. I will be putting my money on the "Horse" with the almost perfect winning record, rather than the one that has never won a race(not one example of non-evolved intelligence to date).

Grumpy

[harvey1]

The tachyon is a theoretical particle envisioned to solve some problems with Quantum theory. Some of the solution to those problems comes when the neutrino has a non-zero mass, making the tachyon superfluous and unneeded. You can safely assume I am correct in my assesment of current thought.

So, what about those 300+ papers (i.e., 300 is the limit of a LANL search) that turned up? If you are correct, then why did all those papers turn up?

Well, what part of the time arrow pointing only in one direction has baffled you??? We all are time travelers, we all travel into the future. If I travel to 2008, then 2006 NO LONGER EXISTS FOR ME and, no "But, we would still be here in 2006 even though you were now living in 2008. We would be in your past and we would still exist." is not a true assesment of the situation. 2006 would be gone, leaving behind it memory, evidence, etc. but like the burnt match it can no longer be what it was.

Time travel is not compatible with presentism. Travel travel to the future means that there exists a future that one can travel to if one finds a wormhole in spacetime which allows one to connect to that future. So, are you amending your opinion that time travel into the future is possible?

I don't think Hawking just awoke one day and assumed that travel back through time was not possible, do you??? Since the quality of his work has earned my respect and the respect of the whole scientific community I will accept his REASONED opinion until shown sufficient reason not to. So, no, it is not just an assumption, Hawking has real reasons for his view, I trust Hawking.

Science is based on having experimental or observational evidence to back up one's assertions. What is the overwhelming evidence that suggests time travel is impossible? If you cannot cite that evidence, just one man's opinion, then it is an assumption.

How do you surmise that this is a "sure thing" with absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case?

Track record. All those baffling things that have come before have been explained by science, just because there are phenomina that have not yet been explained does not mean they never will be. I will be putting my money on the "Horse" with the almost perfect winning record, rather than the one that has never won a race(not one example of non-evolved intelligence to date).

What evidence do you have that string theory (i.e., utilizing 11-dimensional geometry) will solve the problems seen in the delayed choice-quantum erasure experiments? I have heard of no one in the string community making this claim.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

So, what about those 300+ papers (i.e., 300 is the limit of a LANL search) that turned up? If you are correct, then why did all those papers turn up?

Well, for one thing, when were those papers written? Is one author responsible for more than one of the references? Do the authors still hold the opinions expressed in those papers, or has new info made them obsolete or invalid? The finding that neutrinos do have a non-zero mass is less than 6 months old, have all these papers been updated to take that into account?

The fact that_(insert number here)_papers exist does not mean they are still valid. If interested you have a lot of research ahead of you. Me, I pretty well accept the experts word that tachyons are now not considered the answer to the problems it was conjectured to solve, due to the non-zero mass of the neutrino.

Time travel is not compatible with presentism. Travel travel to the future means that there exists a future that one can travel to if one finds a wormhole in spacetime which allows one to connect to that future.

What is it you do not understand about the fact that you and I are traveling into the future at the rate of one second per second?(of course, when we get there we call that moment the present) What about causuality directing the direction of the time arrow is giving you heartburn? Wormholes are not required for time travel, just patience. You could speed up the rate of time travel by traveling close to the speed of light, but when you got to the future I would not still be living in the past, I would exist in the future when you arived. And both of our pasts would no longer exist, nor could you go back to the non-existent past. You may have slowed the experience of that time passage for yourself and I would have experienced more of the ravages of time, but you would still only exist in the present, unable to travel to the past and being carried forward in time along with the rest of us.

So, are you amending your opinion that time travel into the future is possible?

Time travel to the future is unavoidable, it cannot be stopped(short of the event horizon of a black hole or travel AT the speed of light, though both of these only affect subjective experience, not actual time flow in the universe). The future is a conceptof our minds THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE, there is only the present. The past has gone poof, we are the smoke left behind.

What is the overwhelming evidence that suggests time travel is impossible?

Ask Hawking, he is the expert. Me, I take his word for it(I don't pretend to know the math as well as he does).

If you cannot cite that evidence, just one man's opinion, then it is an assumption.

If you're really interested google Hawking/time travel, your arguement is with him, not me.

What evidence do you have that string theory (i.e., utilizing 11-dimensional geometry) will solve the problems seen in the delayed choice-quantum erasure experiments? I have heard of no one in the string community making this claim.

I said string theory MAY give the answers, I do not know.

But here is a reasoned explanation of why the apparent time paradox is in reality not.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0303/0303036.pdf

Grumpy

[harvey1]

Well, for one thing, when were those papers written? Is one author responsible for more than one of the references? Do the authors still hold the opinions expressed in those papers, or has new info made them obsolete or invalid?

Check the dates on the abstracts. All of these papers were written from August 2006, July 2006, June 2006, etc.. The authors are all varied. Many haven't even been published yet. Of course, the earlier ones are being published. This is "hot" science.

The finding that neutrinos do have a non-zero mass is less than 6 months old, have all these papers been updated to take that into account?

This discovery was announced in 1998.

Me, I pretty well accept the experts word that tachyons are now not considered the answer to the problems it was conjectured to solve, due to the non-zero mass of the neutrino.

Look at the papers I referred you to. It is active scientific research which you seem to rule out based on certain assumptions you seem to hold.

What is it you do not understand about the fact that you and I are traveling into the future at the rate of one second per second?

Do you think anyone in their right mind would forbid "time travelling" as you have defined the term? The words would then be meaningless.

What is the overwhelming evidence that suggests time travel is impossible?

Ask Hawking, he is the expert. Me, I take his word for it(I don't pretend to know the math as well as he does).

Hawking doesn't believe that there is such evidence. He knows its an assumption that's why he called his chronological protection conjecture a conjecture. That's another word for assumption.

If you're really interested google Hawking/time travel, your arguement is with him, not me.

But, you said:

Indeed current thought is that it is not possible in this universe(except in the forward direction).

Then you said of my challenge to this statement:

Where do you come up with these HUGE leaps beyond what a situation demands???... There are real reasons why time travel into the past(other than seeing it through a telescope)is ruled out by the properties of the universe....

I'm asking for those reasons. What are they? Why are you still defending this statement?

I said string theory MAY give the answers, I do not know.

But, you said this:

Some people bet on the sure thing, some on the long shot. I think I'll stick with the sure thing.

It seems that here you state that string theory will find an answer to this issue as a sure thing.

But here is a reasoned explanation of why the apparent time paradox is in reality not.

Good job finding a conflicting view, however that's a different experiment. The experimenters in this case were able to get around the two detector problem by using ghost imaging so that they used only one detector. There doesn't exist the problem as this paper mentioned. In any case, as is often the case with science, there are no absolute truths here. This is simply evidence for IGUS behavior. I don't claim that these experiments are irrefutable. QED asked a question, I answered it. I assume the physics will take care of itself eventually, but I'm content to wait and see (or, as you call it, "time travelling").

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Do you even read the articles you cite??? Did you miss this little disclaimer in the 1998 article?

And although there have been indications from experiments for many years that these neutral particles actually have a small mass, there has been no definitive proof.

In the last 6 months that has changed

http://www.physorg.com/news62941548.html

The experiment started less than a year ago, the results were anounced march 30, 2006, so yes the non-zero mass of the neutron was confirmed within the last 6 months almost to the day.

Try to keep up, OK?

Grumpy wrote:
What is it you do not understand about the fact that you and I are traveling into the future at the rate of one second per second?

Do you think anyone in their right mind would forbid "time travelling" as you have defined the term? The words would then be meaningless.

Well, according to Hawking(who still gets my trust that he knows what he's talking about) it is the only type of time travel the universe allows(other than dialation effects). So my definition works very well, thank you very much.

Hawking doesn't believe that there is such evidence. He knows its an assumption that's why he called his chronological protection conjecture a conjecture. That's another word for assumption.

Conjecture and assumption have different conotations in physics, that's why he didn't call it the chronological protection assumption.

I particularly liked this paragraph as it boils it down to a nutshell.

However, the ideas of the chronology protection conjecture are completely serious. Many attempts to generate plausible scenarios for closed timelike curves have been suggested, and all seem either implausible, contradict other principles of physical law, or appear to be contradicted by experiment. The question then arises: is this apparent prohibition a global constraint of physics, in the same way as a conservation law, or is it a series of accidental coincidences?

Thus

There are real reasons why time travel into the past(other than seeing it through a telescope)is ruled out by the properties of the universe....

I stand by that statement!

Grumpy

[harvey1]

Do you even read the articles you cite??? Did you miss this little disclaimer in the 1998 article?

And although there have been indications from experiments for many years that these neutral particles actually have a small mass, there has been no definitive proof.

You misquoted that article:

And although there have been indications from experiments for many years that these neutral particles actually have a small mass, there has been no definitive proof. But evidence reported in the 24 August PRL has convinced many that atmospherically produced neutrinos oscillate--switch from one variety to another--which would imply that neutrinos indeed have mass.

The discovery was made in 1998, not 6 months ago. Heck, even NOVA had the story of the neutrino mass in 2003. You presented your information as if the discovery was only made 6 months ago which is incorrect. There will be more confirmations to come. By the logic you are using we should still be considering General Relativity as not yet discovered since there will be confirmations of it in the future.

Conjecture and assumption have different conotations in physics, that's why he didn't call it the chronological protection assumption.

So, conjecture means scientific proof?

However, the ideas of the chronology protection conjecture are completely serious. Many attempts to generate plausible scenarios for closed timelike curves have been suggested, and all seem either implausible, contradict other principles of physical law, or appear to be contradicted by experiment. The question then arises: is this apparent prohibition a global constraint of physics, in the same way as a conservation law, or is it a series of accidental coincidences?

Thus

There are real reasons why time travel into the past(other than seeing it through a telescope)is ruled out by the properties of the universe....

I stand by that statement!

None of those reasons rule out time travel into the past. You misunderstand the meaning of conjecture.

Now, let's get back to the tachyon issue. Do you now admit that science has not abandoned tachyons?

[Grumpy]

Grumpy wrote:
Do you even read the articles you cite??? Did you miss this little disclaimer in the 1998 article? Quote:
And although there have been indications from experiments for many years that these neutral particles actually have a small mass, there has been no definitive proof.

You misquoted that article:

No, I did not.

The discovery was made in 1998, not 6 months ago. Heck, even NOVA had the story of the neutrino mass in 2003. You presented your information as if the discovery was only made 6 months ago which is incorrect. There will be more confirmations to come. By the logic you are using we should still be considering General Relativity as not yet discovered since there will be confirmations of it in the future.

Actually, the conjecture was proposed in 1998, it was confirmed 6 months ago, March 30, 2006(by experiment).

So, conjecture means scientific proof?

No, it means that evidence indicates it might be true, it is NOT a guess. Assumption is a position taken on the assumption IT IS true.

None of those reasons rule out time travel into the past. You misunderstand the meaning of conjecture.

all seem either implausible, contradict other principles of physical law, or appear to be contradicted by experiment

Those, my friend ARE REASONS TO RULE IT OUT!!! In fact they are the BEST reasons to rule it out.

Thus

I stand by that statement!

Now, let's get back to the tachyon issue. Do you now admit that science has not abandoned tachyons?

Of course not!

Milton Rothman says it better than I can

About 25 years ago, a number of physicists suggested the possibility that there exist particles that normally travel faster than the speed of light. In order for this hypothesis to be consistent with relativity, the mass of such particles would have to be imaginary-that is, contain the square root of minus one. Gerald Feinberg gave this hypothetical particle the name "tachyon" and was most prominent in publicizing his brainchild, with the aid of an avid press corps. Mind you, the theory was a proper theory in the sense that it was mathematically consistent, and also because it predicted certain observable consequences-namely, that if tachyons existed they would emit a certain type of radiation (Cerenkov radiation) in a vacuum. This radiation was searched for, and none was found. So, after a flurry of excitement, physicists lost interest in tachyons and went on to more massive hypotheses, such as black holes. As far as physicists are concerned, tachyons do not exist. (But black holes do!)

Anything else I can bring you up to date on???

Grumpy