Is "intelligent design" dead?

[doppelganger]

The mere fact that the Ptolemaic model is not accepted by you is evidence that thought models determine your reality. You are your own counterargument Jose. If your certainty that your models aren't actually models were true, it would still be the case that the Sun and the stars were perceived as rotating around the Earth. But they aren't. Why aren't they? Because a more accurate and simpler model was developed to predict their motions and thereafter by people who understood and accepted that model, the model became the means by which they perceived and interpreted the motion of celestial bodies. Is that model the actual reality of the movement of starts and planets? If you are certain that it is, then yes, it is - to you. But models change and the way we perceive and define things changes with them. Your rock included. Same with "wavefunctions."

I'm tired of this debate. You were dismissive and insulting and I reciprocated in kind and for that I sincerely apologize to you. At this point we are both responding emotionally and not trying to understand each other. Maybe we can discuss this rationally and respectfully some day in the future.

Have a great night Jose.

 

[Willamena]

That's your position, not mine. You think that you say about reality IS reality for everyone.

Show specifically where I stated that.

quote=The universe is what it is regardless of what model H. sapiens constructs to describe it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That sounds like Solipsism, am I wrong?

For me it is. It's good stuff, my friend.

 

[Jose Fly]

Doppleganger,

I would appreciate an answer to my question:

Were eigenstates resolved before the emergence of H. sapiens? If so, how?

 

[Jose Fly]

You think that you say about reality IS reality for everyone

The universe is what it is regardless of what model H. sapiens constructs to describe it.

Um, those two statements are the opposite of each other.

 

[Willamena]

That sounds like Solipsism, am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.

 

[Willamena]

Um, those two statements are the opposite of each other.

How so?

 

[Jose Fly]

How can I both think that what I--a H. sapiens--think about reality determines reality, and think that what H. sapiens thinks about reality has no effect on what reality is?

Those are polar opposite statements.

 

[blackout]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry
That way, "evolution" and "intelligent design" won't develop into rocks difficult to reshape, but will be supple materials fit for personal molding.

Dopp said...

Is religious tradition (or any established social institution or groupthink) really interested in supple materials fit for personal molding? But I heartily agree, the foundation of education should be epistemology, introspection and critical thinking.

NoDopp...
But for those of us for whom life itself is an ART FORM....:rainbow1:

Very interesting discussion,
thanks Willa, Dopp & GC.
I have no background whatsoever in epistemology,
and am enjoying your exchange tremendously.

 

[s2a]

Is "intelligent design" dead?

Not dead yet...but probably struggling for life like so much roadkill.

ID proponents have long ago moved beyond any prospective scientific arguments/predictions, and are left to (once again) argue more semantic appeals to concepts of "fair play" within a democracy that believes (or thinks it believes) in notions of balance and equality of "opinion".

What ID proponents have managed in the marketplace of ideas is a sense of "imbalance", ie. an "ideological war" of "science" VS. "faith"...that only exists (and sustains itself) within a predominantly religious society of Christian beliefs/instruction. Holy Scripture tenders AN explanation, but that "explanation" is extremely difficult to reconcile with the available evidences, and the scientifically-derived conclusions of estimable fact that suggest that a "God" (of any kind) could be requisite to the existence of the cosmos..but that beyond those faith-based claims...there's certainly no evidential reason to conclude that a claimed "god" (or "intelligent designer") was/is necessary to adequately explain the cosmos--based upon ALL of the available evidence.

ID persists (even in it's waning days and obvious failings) because adherents of faith-based claims want to BELIEVE that some relevant and scientifically-derived "explanation" will either serve to validate--or otherwise obfuscate--conclusions that can be measured, repeated through experimentation, and verified by objective means and observations. Since this alleged "Grand Designer" has left no obvious fingerprints, or UPC barcodes, or ANY other evidences of His/It's plan/design/influence, we can say..."maybe" the ID "guy" had a hand in things...but "maybe" Sponge Bob Squarepants did too...

Oh yeah? Can you prove that Sponge Bob isn't The "Intelligent Designer" of the cosmos?

If not, then what shall we look to in discovering the most plausible, the most likely...the best available answer today...in reconciling the contemporary available evidence, with modest conclusions that present testable hypotheses and predictions of prospective validation tomorrow?

How shall we test or confirm the "theory" that an "Intelligent Designer" exists?

 

[Willamena]

How can I both think that what I--a H. sapiens--think about reality determines reality, and think that what H. sapiens thinks about reality has no effect on what reality is?

Those are polar opposite statements.

You think, a la the former, that the latter is reality. (per post #95)

 

[Jose Fly]

s2a,

A very good post and I appreciate your attempt to get this thread back on topic. All I can add is that I agree with you on everything you stated.

 

[Jose Fly]

Willamena,

Thanks for your input.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

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.

Thank you for your explanation, it is appreciated. I don't want to trouble you, but do you have a source for your assertion? It is not my purpose to challenge you, but this topic interests me and I would like to read up on it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nick,

I will look and see what I can find. It may take a bit though.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nick,

I honestly don't have a whole lot of time to spend searching the internet for a linkable source. I tend to favor peer-reviewed, published sources but 1) not everyone has access to the journals, and 2) they are often extremely jargon-heavy.

So, I was able to find the following in my admittedly brief search.

This blog entry by a self-described "mathematical physics major" states the following:

Beyond that, there's actually good reason to believe that it isn't a human mind that causes the collapse of a wavefunction. Let's go back to the case of the double slit experiment, which is our best way of determining whether or not a wavefunction has collapsed. In this case, we'll be shooting electrons from an initial source through one of two slits. One foot beyond the slits is a detector screen. We know that if the electron's wavefunction is uncollapsed at the slits, we'll end up seeing an interference pattern on the screen, while if it's collapsed, we'll see the sum of two diffraction patterns.

If we just let the experiment run, without any detectors, we end up seeing the interference pattern (nothing's causing the wavefunction to collapse). If, instead, we put in detectors at each slit that will notify us if the electron passes through (say by blinking a light on the left or right side), we see the sum of diffraction patterns on the detector screen. Now, what if you were to try this: Have the detectors at the slits and turned on, but don't look at the lights. You could simply disable the feature that has it flashing the lights on the detectors and not store data of which slit the electron passed through, so no human could ever know which way it went.

In this case, we can expect to see one of two outcomes: Either we see an interference pattern, which means that without a human observing it, the wavefunction wouldn't collapse, or we could see a sum of diffraction patterns, which would mean the interaction of the electron with the detector (or some process within the detector after the detection) caused the collapse. This has in fact been done, many times. Very frequently, scientists did experiments using a detector but didn't care which slit was detected, and so they didn't set it up to tell them this data. The result of these tests? The wavefunction collapsed anyways, so human consciousness is not necessary to cause the collapse of a wavefunction.

I also found this website this website, which is a reproduced Scientific American article (and is rather dated...1992!), and states,

This design does not permit an observer to tell which way any single photon went after encountering the beam splitter. Each photon therefore goes both right and left at the beam splitter, like a wave, and passes through both down-converters, producing two signal wavelets and two idler wavelets. The signal wavelets generate an interference pattern at their detector. The pattern is revealed by gradually lengthening the distance that signals from one down - converter must go to reach the detector. The rate of detection then rises and falls as the crests and troughs of the interference wavelets shift in relation to each other, go in and out of phase.


Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.

The comparison of arrival times need not actually be performed to destroy the interference pattern. The mere "threat" of obtaining information about which way the photon travelled, Mandel explains, forces it to travel only one route. "The quantum state reflects not only what we know about the system but what is in principle knowable," Mandel says.

And of course, on top of all this is the ever-more popular notion of Quantum decoherence.

It's all quite fascinating.​