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]

Hi QED,

I've been pretty busy. It's my hope to scale back significantly the time I put in here, but let me try and answer this issue.

Thanks for your reply Harvey. I'm sort of on holiday for a couple of weeks(vacation to you!) so I might be slow in replying. I know you wanted to have this debate as a one-on-one and I'm now feeling a little bit guilty at turning you down. However, this is the only way I can participate so let's make of it what we can.

I think there's a few areas where we find apparent IGUS processsing existing in nature that selection did not apparently cause:

There are two things that stand out to me in your statement above. First I would say that there are more than just a few areas where we can find apparent IGUS processing! The analogy is nearly always used when explaining the operation of some mechanical or electronic system to newcomers to the subject. We use this sort of analogy to help make certain engineering concepts more familiar to people who already know what it is to make observations and adjustments as a human being. Clearly then we can identify many things that have a superficial appearance of acting like we might dobut we need something else to establish that these things are consciously aware at the same sort of level as we are. We can explore what this might be later on but I would like to remind you that I am sympathetic to the notion of micro-consciousness in simple systems (accumulating towards higher levels of consciousness of the sort we experience as human beings when sufficient interconnectedness is in place).

Second 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? Without arguing whether or not everything might be the product of selection (an interesting argument all the same perhaps!) there may well be a greater range of selected products than the ones we are immediately familiar with.

Now to the examples you have offered. In considering these I am struck by one common theme (other than the Quantum!) ...we seem to be looking at systems without volition. The actions taking place in response to observations seem to be fully determined. These look to me to be no different in essence to the micro-conscious thermostats, transistors and collections of transistors that are logic gates and operational amplifiers mention in other discussions. In my most generous way of viewing these things (i.e. assigning a microscopic, infinitesimal, degree of consciousness) I am unimpressed by the possibility for any collective accumulation towards the higher levels of consciousness required to express will as we know it. If there is any consciousness in your examples then it seems to be of the lowest degree. I daren't even Google for "Quantum Consciousness" but it's tempting!

[harvey1]

I'm sort of on holiday for a couple of weeks(vacation to you!) so I might be slow in replying.

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.

...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. 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? The term "selection" is based on our base notions of logic and mathematics (e.g., game theory), and if we argue against those notions as fundamental, then we have short-circuited our ability to talk about those concepts in any meaningful way. In addition, even if the laws were selected for, these examples still represent interactive IGUS behavior which indicates that this capacity to be IGUS-like is as fundamental as the universe itself.

...we seem to be looking at systems without volition. The actions taking place in response to observations seem to be fully determined. These look to me to be no different in essence to the micro-conscious thermostats, transistors and collections of transistors that are logic gates and operational amplifiers mention in other discussions. In my most generous way of viewing these things (i.e. assigning a microscopic, infinitesimal, degree of consciousness) I am unimpressed by the possibility for any collective accumulation towards the higher levels of consciousness required to express will as we know it. If there is any consciousness in your examples then it seems to be of the lowest degree. I daren't even Google for "Quantum Consciousness" but it's tempting!

The level of consciousness in these examples depends on how tricky the experimenter is at trying to trick nature. Here's an experiment where the experimenters forced a much more conscious response from nature:

Unlilke all previous experiments the present work takes advantage of two-photon imaging. A photon passes through a standard Young's double-slit for its complementarity examination. The quantum correlation between this photon and its entangled twin allows the formation of a "ghost" image of the double-slit on the side of the entangled twin. Thus, the which path information is completely passed to the entangled twin photon and can be erased by the detection of the twin. After the detection of the photon which passed through the double-slit, a random choice is made on the Fourier transform plane of the "ghost" image between "reading complete information" or "reading partial information" of the double path. [...] On the Fourier transform plane, the photon counting dectector D2 either reads the full transformed function or erases most of it. Knowledge of all the coefficients of the Fourier expansion is sufficient to reconstruct the two-photon image function of the double-slit that means knowing the which-path information. On the other hand, if only the DC term of the Fourier expansion is read, it will never be possible to reconstruct the structure of the image function f(x1). Consequently, the which-path information of the signal photon is erased. Thus, the wave behavior will be learned by the observation of the interference.[My emphasis]

Now, notice how clever nature is. Nature allows the ghost image information to be read and still see the wave interference if only if the information that is read will not make which-path knowledge possible! This is not just some primitive consciousness as you suggest, it would require a mathematician and mind reader to know the implication of what those experimenters are trying to do by tricking nature to giving up which-path information without destroying the wave interference pattern. I think this experiment demonstrates that nature has a high IQ. (Although, I should point out that the experiment suggests omniscience and omnipresence of this IGUS behavior on the part of nature because the reading and erasing condition is randomly determined--and not decided by the experimenter. Hence, nature knows a random outcome prior to it occuring *and* it knows the full impact that a random outcome has for determining the which-path of the photon through the double-slit.)

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Now, notice how clever nature is. Nature allows the ghost image information to be read and still see the wave interference if only if the information that is read will not make which-path knowledge possible! This is not just some primitive consciousness as you suggest, it would require a mathematician and mind reader to know the implication of what those experimenters are trying to do by tricking nature to giving up which-path information without destroying the wave interference pattern. I think this experiment demonstrates that nature has a high IQ. (Although, I should point out that the experiment suggests omniscience and omnipresence of this IGUS behavior on the part of nature because the reading and erasing condition is randomly determined--and not decided by the experimenter. Hence, nature knows a random outcome prior to it occuring *and* it knows the full impact that a random outcome has for determining the which-path of the photon through the double-slit.)

A much more plausable scenario(as opposed to a "genius level" nature) is a coupling through the folded up dimensions(indicated by the math) by a as yet undetermined force and a dead stupid nature. Sorry, this just doesn't pass the smell test.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

A much more plausable scenario(as opposed to a "genius level" nature) is a coupling through the folded up dimensions(indicated by the math) by a as yet undetermined force and a dead stupid nature.

That doesn't strike me as more plausible because the separation of the photon and its entangled twin is not just distance, it is also through time. The photon passes through the double-slit, and then after that the photon is destroyed upon hitting the detector. After the photon is destroyed, a decision is made to read or erase the twin's information. If read, no interference pattern shows. If erased, the interference pattern shows. However, the photon already went through the double-slit and is destroyed. The choice of having an interference pattern or not is determined after the fact.

If the "folded up dimensions" is a coupling between past and future, as it would need to be, then that means the future already exists. This would mean that humans are predestined to exist in the universe. And, not just that, but that we were predestined to have this discussion before the universe began. That seems like a bizarre conclusion compared to the universe just conforming to math equations.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

That doesn't strike me as more plausible because the separation of the photon and its entangled twin is not just distance, it is also through time. The photon passes through the double-slit, and then after that the photon is destroyed upon hitting the detector. After the photon is destroyed, a decision is made to read or erase the twin's information. If read, no interference pattern shows. If erased, the interference pattern shows. However, the photon already went through the double-slit and is destroyed. The choice of having an interference pattern or not is determined after the fact.

If the "folded up dimensions" is a coupling between past and future, as it would need to be, then that means the future already exists. This would mean that humans are predestined to exist in the universe. And, not just that, but that we were predestined to have this discussion before the universe began. That seems like a bizarre conclusion compared to the universe just conforming to math equations.

Once again you prefer the explanation that requires a paradoxial solution(time travel, predestination, little IGUSs everywhere), while I can accept that we do not yet understand the coupling and can await further information. I have seen nothing in physics that REQUIRES time travel. Indeed current thought is that it is not possible in this universe(except in the forward direction).

The 11 dimensions of the math generated by string theory could very well explain the anomomous behavior of photons in your example. It is far more likely than little IGUSs making descisions for every photon in the universe(mighty small gaps you got going there).

Grumpy

[harvey1]

The 11 dimensions of the math generated by string theory could very well explain...

That's not correct, Grumpy. String theorists have not provided a string solution to the delayed choice experiments. In fact, Brian Greene who is a string theorist said he was just as bewildered by those experimental results as anyone else.

[harvey1]

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

Just as aside, this would mean that both all of time exists. That is, at the big bang there would exist 13.7+ billion years of future remaining. That means from the BB⇔Now all this time would just BE. We could then travel back to anywhere in that past since there is something "there" to travel back to.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Just as aside, this would mean that both all of time exists. That is, at the big bang there would exist 13.7+ billion years of future remaining. That means from the BB⇔Now all this time would just BE. We could then travel back to anywhere in that past since there is something "there" to travel back to.

Where do you come up with these HUGE leaps beyond what a situation demands??? And beyond that allowed by the properties of the universe. And why 13.5 billion, when the current indications are that the expansion is accelerating and time will go on and on forever. 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, thus paradox IS NOT POSSIBLE. You cannot murder your own grandfather because the universe will not even allow you the chance.

In actually, there is only the now. The past is gone, never to be experienced again. The future is yet to be. So your apparent time problem between a pair of photons is just an effect that you do not understand yet, or at least that is a more likely explanation than the violation of the properties of the universe.

I like to think of time as a half a Dimension. In all other Ds you can move forward and back, or up or down, left or right. But in time you can only move one way, it seems the universe forbids ANYTHING traveling backward in time(that's why tachyons were abandoned, by the way).

That's not correct, Grumpy. String theorists have not provided a string solution to the delayed choice experiments. In fact, Brian Greene who is a string theorist said he was just as bewildered by those experimental results as anyone else.

Yet!!!

Grumpy

[harvey1]

Where do you come up with these HUGE leaps beyond what a situation demands???

You said that travel into the past is prohibited and travel into the future is not ("except in the forward direction"). That's an assumption.

In actually, there is only the now. The past is gone, never to be experienced again.

Between now and the big bang is 13.7 billion years. From the perspective of the big bang the future exists; which means from the perspective of the big bang we exist. That means the past "exists" by your own lights.

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, thus paradox IS NOT POSSIBLE. You cannot murder your own grandfather because the universe will not even allow you the chance.

If the past exists, then why isn't it possible? How do you know it is not possible? What if we promised with fingers crossed that we'll only kiss our grandfather (with him sleeping of course)?

The future is yet to be. So your apparent time problem between a pair of photons is just an effect that you do not understand yet, or at least that is a more likely explanation than the violation of the properties of the universe.

Again, we can always claim ignorance and thereby eliminate any IGUS. Materialists can claim ignorance and thereby claim that there is no such thing as a real IGUS. Everything is just particles bouncing about.

that's why tachyons were abandoned, by the way).

They haven't been abandoned.

Yet!!!

I don't share your faith.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Grumpy wrote:
Where do you come up with these HUGE leaps beyond what a situation demands???

You said that travel into the past is prohibited and travel into the future is not ("except in the forward direction"). That's an assumption.

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

Between now and the big bang is 13.7 billion years. From the perspective of the big bang the future exists; which means from the perspective of the big bang we exist. That means the past "exists" by your own lights.

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.

If the past exists, then why isn't it possible? How do you know it is not possible? What if we promised with fingers crossed that we'll only kiss our grandfather (with him sleeping of course)?

The past DOES NOT EXIST ANY LONGER. There is nothing to travel to. It is only a memory, those conditions no longer exist. That is why you will never have the chance for your paradox. The paradox exists only in your mind experiment(Another example of speculation exceeding what the universe will allow).

Grumpy wrote:
The future is yet to be. So your apparent time problem between a pair of photons is just an effect that you do not understand yet, or at least that is a more likely explanation than the violation of the properties of the universe.

Again, we can always claim ignorance and thereby eliminate any IGUS. Materialists can claim ignorance and thereby claim that there is no such thing as a real IGUS. Everything is just particles bouncing about.

Ignorance??? We've only been at this science thing for a couple of centuries(at least seriously, Plato et al set the scientific world back centuries what with his perfect shapes, etc.). So we don't know everything, does that mean you think we know nothing. And trying to slip intelligence into every little crack hasn't worked so well(actually at all) in the past, yet you have more faith in that than in sciences ability to eventually figure it out??? I don't think your money is on the winner in this one.

Grumpy wrote:
that's why tachyons were abandoned, by the way).

They haven't been abandoned.

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.

Yet!!!

I don't share your faith.

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

Grumpy