Is "intelligent design" dead?

[lunamoth]

You know how teenagers are. Once those kids hit their teens and rebel against everything their parents stand for, they'll be running out to learn about this "forbidden knowledge" on their own. haha.

You know, you are probably right! Those homeschooled kids might be the next super-generation of evolutionary biologists.

 

[Yerda]

Regarding the philosophical discussion that's been going on, I'm simply going to say that I disagree and find the notion that things don't exist until one particular species of primate "senses" them absurd to an extreme degree. I'll also point out that no one arguing this position has offered any evidence to support their assertions.

I know this might be a wee bit old, but no-one is actually arguing this. There probably isn't a respectable physicist alive who would argue for such an anthropogenic universe. It isn't just humans or any other primate who make observations. The experiments of quantum physics have been made under strict lab conditions. The "real" universe makes all the observations needed on its own. Every photon that whacks an electron is deciding how reality should be.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jaiket,

no-one is actually arguing this. There probably isn't a respectable physicist alive who would argue for such an anthropogenic universe.

I suggest going back and reading through this thread. For example, I pointed out that the earth's orbital relationship to the sun remains the same whether humans observe it or not, or whether humans think one way or the other about it. Some of the posters here disagreed.

The experiments of quantum physics have been made under strict lab conditions. The "real" universe makes all the observations needed on its own. Every photon that whacks an electron is deciding how reality should be.

I agree, and that's what I've been saying. Unfortunately, others on this thread don't agree and seem to think quantum mechanics states that things aren't so until humans either observe them or describe them.

I personally think that's something far too absurd to argue about.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Jaiket,

I agree, and that's what I've been saying. Unfortunately, others on this thread don't agree and seem to think quantum mechanics states that things aren't so until humans either observe them or describe them.

I personally think that's something far too absurd to argue about.

Some things... not all things... depend for their state on observation.
It is counter intuitive for sure, but it has been shown by experimentation to be so.

 

[Jose Fly]

Look....I understand quantum mechanics and sub-concepts like wavefunction collapse. But I also understand that there's a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding out there about what it means, and one of those misunderstandings seems to be quite prevalent in this thread.

When physicists do things like the double-slit experiment and say the wavefunction collapsed upon "observation", the common misconception is that the wavefunction collapse was somehow the direct result of our looking at it and/or that the reality of the situation wasn't determined until a human looked at it. But that's not what quantum mechanics says at all. A simple tweak of the double slit experiment demonstrates that quite easily (set up the experiment so that the "observer" never knows which what slit was detected, and guess what? The wavefunction collapses all the same).

Therefore, to suggest that the relationship of the earth and the sun, or the physical properties of a rock are dependent on the observations of H. sapiens is absurd.

 

[Melissa G]

I think it was aborted pre-birth. But then, if life begins at conception . . .

As an attempt to mate God with Geology, Evolution and Biology, it fails lamentably. Dead as dodo I think.

~M

 

[Random]

As an attempt to mate God with Geology, Evolution and Biology, it fails lamentably. Dead as dodo I think.

~M

Lol! "Dodo". Haven't heard that in a while...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As an attempt to mate God with Geology, Evolution and Biology, it fails lamentably. Dead as dodo I think.

~M

Except to the individual that really believes it.

 

[Yerda]

A simple tweak of the double slit experiment demonstrates that quite easily (set up the experiment so that the "observer" never knows which what slit was detected, and guess what? The wavefunction collapses all the same).

Really? I read that set-ups that prevent the detection of which slit the photon/electron passed through result in interference.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

When physicists do things like the double-slit experiment and say the wavefunction collapsed upon "observation", the common misconception is that the wavefunction collapse was somehow the direct result of our looking at it and/or that the reality of the situation wasn't determined until a human looked at it. But that's not what quantum mechanics says at all. A simple tweak of the double slit experiment demonstrates that quite easily (set up the experiment so that the "observer" never knows which what slit was detected, and guess what? The wavefunction collapses all the same).

Please explain the "tweak" of the double slit experiment. I am not following your point.

 

[Jose Fly]

In the double slit experiment, you shoot electrons from one source towards two seperate slits. Just beyond the slits is a dectection device that tells us which slit the electrons passed through. If the wavefunction of the electrons is uncollapsed as it reaches the slits, we get an interference pattern on the detectors, whereas if it's collapsed we get the result of two diffraction patterns. If you conduct the experiment without the detectors, you get an inteference pattern because the wavefunction isn't collapsed, but if you put the detectors in the wavefunction collapses and you get the sum of the two diffraction patterns.

But if you run the experiment with the detectors in place but with the mechanism that signifies detection disabled (thus no one can ever know which slit the electron passed through), the wavefunction collapses all the same. This means that human conscious awareness is not what causes the wavefunction to collapse.

There are other ways to demonstrate this conclusion as well.

 

[doppelganger]

I agree, and that's what I've been saying. Unfortunately, others on this thread don't agree and seem to think quantum mechanics states that things aren't so until humans either observe them or describe them.

Straw man. Reality models are the result of a transaction between sensory input and memory. Your thoughts about reality are not some "objective" reality independent of your thoughts. What goes into maintaining "reality" for you is a product of your memories projecting form onto the "external world", but the only world you experience is the one constructed from this transaction. Where quantum mechanics comes into the equation is that it reveals experimentally that this transaction does indeed take place. Ecological systems reveal something similar. "Things" that are too big or too small to build feasible sensory-based models are where we begin to see the role that our own conscious thoughts play in the reality we experience. That's the implication of QM.

You don't have to take my word for that either. As I posted above, Niels Bohr, Erwin Shroedinger, Werner Heisenberg, David Bohm and other giants of QM all said essentially the same thing I've been saying throughout this discussion. I'm sorry, but I'll take their understanding of the QM theory they are responsible for developing over yours any day of the week.

You may think that it's too silly, but it suggests strongly to me that you don't understand the ramifications of quantum mechanics.

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. " - Niels Bohr

 

[Jose Fly]

Doppleganger,

Reality models are the result of a transaction between sensory input and memory.

I'm not talking about reality models; I'm talking about reality, and I've consistently been doing so since this whole subject first arose.

What goes into maintaining "reality" for you is a product of your memories projecting form onto the "external world", but the only world you experience is the one constructed from this transaction. Where quantum mechanics comes into the equation is that it reveals experimentally that this transaction does indeed take place.

Please provide the experimental data that demonstrates this.

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not talking about reality models; I'm talking about reality, and I've consistently been doing so since this whole subject first arose.

Reality is composed of reality models. So when you are talking about "reality" you ARE talking about "reality models." Take a careful look at the steps in the scientific method - all you have are reality models. They are stored in memory and determine the significance and meaning of sensory data.

Please provide the experimental data that demonstrates this.

Would an article summarizing a wide array of experimental evidence for this published in a respected peer-reviewed journal for the "hard" sciences be sufficient?

I bet it won't. You already have your mind made up . . . which actually just proves my point. Science cannot affect your reality except to the extent you allow it to do so. Your understanding of physics is way out of date, but getting you to understand that is an impossible task because you don't want to know what you don't know.

When you want to know, head to your local library and get Henry Stapp's Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, which details the experimental evidence for the role that consciousness plays in quantum models.

 

[Jose Fly]

Doppleganger,

Reality is composed of reality models. So when you are talking about "reality" you ARE talking about "reality models." Take a careful look at the steps in the scientific method - all you have are reality models. They are stored in memory and determine the significance and meaning of sensory data.

Again, I find this ridiculous. The universe is what it is regardless of what model H. sapiens constructs to describe it. I'm simply not going to argue this point anymore.

Would an article summarizing a wide array of experimental evidence for this published in a respected peer-reviewed journal for the "hard" sciences be sufficient?

Post it, and we'll see.

I bet it won't. You already have your mind made up . . . which actually just proves my point. Science cannot affect your reality except to the extent you allow it to do so. Your understanding of physics is way out of date, but getting you to understand that is an impossible task because you don't want to know what you don't know.

*shrug*

Either you can substantiate your assertions or you can't. Attempts to evade and insult on your part are meaningless.

When you want to know, head to your local library and get Henry Stapp's Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, which details the experimental evidence for the role that consciousness plays in quantum models.

Yet I just described experimental results that shows our consciousness has no influence on specific realities (in this case, wavefunction collapse). You did not address, let alone refute, that specific example. Therefore, it stands.

 

[doppelganger]

Again, I find this ridiculous. The universe is what it is regardless of what model H. sapiens constructs to describe it. I'm simply not going to argue this point anymore.

The fact is, there is a real debate between physicists about the role of consciousness in reality creation evidenced by a wide range of experiments including double-slit experiments (with interpretations of the same experiments going both ways - which in a round about way itself says something for the "consciousness causes collapse" camp). The fact that you think the Copenhagen interpretation and uncertainty are "ridiculous" is the only thing that's ridiculous in this discussion. Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing it with you any more either. But I'll post what I promised.

Post it, and we'll see.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/CMBarticle.pdf

Yet I just described experimental results that shows our consciousness has no influence on specific realities (in this case, wavefunction collapse). You did not address, let alone refute, that specific example. Therefore, it stands.

Actually, your description of wavefunction collapse still shows consciousness plays a role. You don't understand the experiments. Get Stapp's book and read it when you are ready to understand both interpretations of double-slit experiments. It's fairly obvious that discussing it with you right now is a waste of time.

 

[Jose Fly]

Doppleganger,

The fact is, there is a real debate between physicists about the role of consciousness in reality creation evidenced by a wide range of experiments including double-slit experiments (with interpretations of the same experiments going both ways - which in a round about way itself says something for the "consciousness causes collapse" camp).

Not much of one. From the Wikipedia entry you cited, "Most physicists regard this theory as a non-scientific concept, claiming that it is experimentally unfalsifiable, and that it introduces unnecessary elements into physics, rather than simplifying."

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/CMBarticle.pdf

That's the empirical support you post to substantiate, "What goes into maintaining "reality" for you is a product of your memories projecting form onto the "external world", but the only world you experience is the one constructed from this transaction. Where quantum mechanics comes into the equation is that it reveals experimentally that this transaction does indeed take place."?

There's nothing in there that shows that at all. Further, PEAR's work is questionable at best, furthered by the fact that they shut down this year without producing anything significant at all.

I'm more than a little disappointed.

Actually, your description of wavefunction collapse still shows consciousness plays a role. You don't understand the experiments.

LOL! I suppose that's so simply because you say it is.

Get Stapp's book and read it when you are ready to understand both interpretations of double-slit experiments. It's fairly obvious that discussing it with you right now is a waste of time.

Blah, blah, blah.....

Again, either you can support your assertions or you can't. So far all you've done is throw out a series of bald assertions, paste a link to a ESP research program that turned up nothing, and insulted me.

If that's all you're capable of, then I agree, this is a waste of time.

 

[doppelganger]

Doppleganger,
Not much of one. From the Wikipedia entry you cited, "Most physicists regard this theory as a non-scientific concept, claiming that it is experimentally unfalsifiable, and that it introduces unnecessary elements into physics, rather than simplifying."

You didn't follow the other link, dude. The Copenhagen Interpretation is accepted by most phycists and it carries the idea of the transaction between consciousness and physical reality that underlies scientific inquiry:

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.[1]
​

There is no definitive statement of the Copenhagen Interpretation[2] since it consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers at the turn of the 20th Century. Thus, there are a number of ideas that have been associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as the Copenhagen interpretation by different authors.[3]

Principles

1. A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)
2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function. (Max Born)
3. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ensures that it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities.
4. (Complementary Principle) Matter exhibits a wave-particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or wave-like properties, but not both at the same time.(Niels Bohr)
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure classical properties such as position and momentum.
6. The Correspondence Principle of Bohr and Heisenberg, saying that the quantum mechanical description of large systems should closely approximate to the classical description.

The meaning of the wave function

The Copenhagen Interpretation (sometimes abbreviated by CI in what follows) denies that the wave function is real, or is at least non-committal about its reality.
There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a "real" wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with positivism and some of Bohr's statements. Niels Bohr emphasized that Science is concerned with the predictions of experiments, additional questions are not scientific but rather meta-physical. Bohr was heavily influenced by positivism. On the other hand, Bohr and Heisenberg were not in complete agreement, and took different views at different times. Heisenberg in particular was prompted to move towards realism.[4]
Even if the wave function is not regarded as real, there is still a divide between those who treat it as definitely and entirely subjective, and those who are non-committal or agnostic about the subject.
An example of the agnostic view is given by von Weiszacker, who, while participating in a colloquium at Cambridge, denied that the CI asserted: "What cannot be observed does not exist". He suggested instead that the CI follows the principle: "What is observed certainly exists; about what is not observed we are still free to make suitable assumptions. We use that freedom to avoid paradoxes."[5]
The subjective view, that the wave function is merely a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of specific experiment, is a similar approach to the Ensemble interpretation.

The nature of collapse

All versions of the Copenhagen interpretation include at least a formal or methodological version of wave function collapse,[6] in which unobserved eigenvalues are removed from further consideration. (In other words, Copenhagenists have never rejected collapse, even in the early days of quantum physics, in the way that many worlds adherents do.)
An adherent of the subjective view, that the wave function represents nothing but knowledge, would take an equally subjective view of "collapse", as nothing more than an observer becoming informed about something that was previously ambiguous. The existence of collapse as an objective process, with obvious implications about the reality of the wave function, is more contentious.

I'm more than a little disappointed.

I told you that you would be. You already have your mind made up. PEAR demonstrated quite a bit actually. The link is there for those that want to read it.

LOL! I suppose that's so simply because you say it is.

That's your position, not mine. You think that you say about reality IS reality for everyone. Here's a simple exercise for you: list out the generally accepted steps in the scientific method to answer the question of how scientific theory constructs its conclusions.

Again, either you can support your assertions or you can't. So far all you've done is throw out a series of bald assertions, paste a link to a ESP research program that turned up nothing, and insulted me.

This is like arguing with a Creationist. Seriously . . .

Your little thought experiment is nothing more than a bald assertion on your part as well, and your conclusion drawn from it is flawed for a simple reason. The claim that you can measure information about a system with no conscious awareness of whether or not your measuring device was working, should be as if no measurement was even taken. The problem with your though experiment is: how do you measure something, prevent the observer from being aware of it, and still regard the information as having been detected by any measuring device? Your experiment is fine. The interpretation is flawed.

There's no way to separate the human observer from the effects of their apparatus on the system they're trying to observe/ignore. But you assume that taking measurements without detectors somehow validates the conclusion that the observer's thought model doesn't affect the perceived outcome of the experiment. If it were as easy as you suggest, the Copenhagen Interpretation would be laughed at instead of accepted by the majority of physicists.

I'm sorry, but it's you that's making the bald assertions.

If that's all you're capable of, then I agree, this is a waste of time.

I was more than politely trying to explain things for most of this discussion and repeatedly experienced having my posts referred to as "ridiculous" by you. So I think you need to stop being such a hypocrite. Saying that the Copenhagen Interpretation, which treats quantum mechanics in terms of mental phenomena is "ridiculous" is still the only thing in this discussion that is truly ridiculous.

 

[UnTheist]

That sounds like Solipsism, am I wrong?

 

[Jose Fly]

The Copenhagen Interpretation is accepted by most phycists and it carries the idea of the transaction between consciousness and physical reality that underlies scientific inquiry

That bald assertion is not substantiated by your copy-n-paste, which actually shows that the CI is ambiguous, contentious, and certainly unsettled.

How you went from "There is no definitive statement of the Copenhagen Interpretation", to "The Copenhagen Interpretation is accepted by most phycists" is beyond me.

PEAR demonstrated quite a bit actually. The link is there for those that want to read it.

I did read it and was already quite familiar with PEAR's work before I joined this group. The closing of the lab was greeted with a collective shrug by the scientific community and they produced nothing of significance. Certainly had their research produced anything at all compelling, they would have continued. Instead all we got were ambigious results that were statistically indistinguishable from chance and rather subjective interpretations of data.

LOL! I suppose that's so simply because you say it is.

That's your position, not mine.

?????????? My position is that I don't understand the double slit experiments? You're not making any sense.

You think that you say about reality IS reality for everyone.

Show specifically where I stated that.

Here's a simple exercise for you: list out the generally accepted steps in the scientific method to answer the question of how scientific theory constructs its conclusions.

LOL! Look, I've been a professional biologist for the last 13 years, so you can drop the "you don't understand science" BS.

Your little thought experiment is nothing more than a bald assertion on your part as well

It's not a thought experiment, it's a very real experiment.

The claim that you can measure information about a system with no conscious awareness of whether or not your measuring device was working, should be as if no measurement was even taken.

The assertion is that the wavefunction doesn't collapse until someone (presumably a human) "observes" it. But in the case I described, it is impossible for the destination of the electrons to be observed.

The problem with your though experiment is: how do you measure something, prevent the observer from being aware of it, and still regard the information as having been detected by any measuring device?

This entire thread I've been arguing that things don't become so simply because H. sapiens observe them. The counter-argument was that I was wrong and quantum mechanics demonstrates that reality is determined by the observations of H. sapiens. Yet in this experiment, quantum reality is resolved without observation by H. sapiens.

Now, if you want to argue that having anything in place that "measures" quantum states determines reality, that's a different argument. And I would counter that the universe has always had such things in place and quantum realities have been resolved for the 13.7 billion year history of the universe, and this would be the same whether H. sapiens were here or not. And actually, that's what I've been arguing all along.

But you assume that taking measurements without detectors somehow validates the conclusion that the observer's thought model doesn't affect the perceived outcome of the experiment.

You've offered no evidence that "thought models" affect the outcomes of anything.

I was more than politely trying to explain things for most of this discussion and repeatedly experienced having my posts referred to as "ridiculous" by you.

Let me ask you this: Were eigenstates resolved before the emergence of H. sapiens? If so, how?