Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Mario the Lothario]

Your video misrepresents the interpretation.As do many of the new agers.

How?

Clearly you didn't understand 'my logic' whatever the ferk that means.

I never said something beside human observation is at play.

Okay, let me revisit your earlier statement:

That saying that the double slit experiment empirically proves that human observation/(consciousness ) can collapse matter.

What is the alternative? The field of potential is waiting for us to look before springing forward in to matter?

I'm just as happy with that conclusion.

 

[evo]

That is the worst insult I have ever seen on Big Footy!!

It seemed to fit....

In 1998 Deepak Chopra was awarded the parody Ig Nobel Prize in physics for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness."[31]. He received this 'honour' for such writing as:

Quantum healing is healing the bodymind from a quantum level. That means from a level which is not manifest at a sensory level. Our bodies ultimately are fields of information, intelligence and energy. Quantum healing involves a shift in the fields of energy information, so as to bring about a correction in an idea that has gone wrong. So quantum healing involves healing one mode of consciousness, mind, to bring about changes in another mode of consciousness, body.

—Deepak Chopra

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

And what if someone believes in ID in principle, but not in god?

Take, for example, the theory that we are eternal beings that merely imagine ourselves into 'life' as we understand it. The material world.

Does that fall under ID? Am I using the wrong term to describe some of the thoughts I have on the subject?

I would not classify that as ID. It appears to be a theory of design, but I would not classify it as ID. As I have mentioned elsewhere, ID is a very specific political tool of Christian fundamentalists. I would avoid using the term ID as it taints (and politicises) the beliefs you are proposing.

 

[evo]

How?

Mainly because the jury is well and truly still out....

Recent study of quantum decoherence reduces the emphasis on the "macroscopic observer" originally introduced in the language of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory for most systems. Quantum decoherence does not, however, apply to systems governed by a quantum control. Modern scientific discourse has evolved to try to quantify how quantum systems decohere due to their interactions with their surroundings. This provides a unified view which treats neighboring quantum systems, thermal baths and the measurement apparatus on the same footing. Although decoherence gives new insight on how quantum mechanics gives rise to the classical world in general, decoherence is not a philosophy and it does not give, nor claim to give a resolution to the philosophical aspects of the problem of measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse.


<snip>

Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Mainly because the jury is well and truly still out....





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

That doesn't prove nor disprove anything.

Creationist board.

 

[FIGJAM]

Recent study of quantum decoherence reduces the emphasis on the "macroscopic observer" originally introduced in the language of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory for most systems. Quantum decoherence does not, however, apply to systems governed by a quantum control. Modern scientific discourse has evolved to try to quantify how quantum systems decohere due to their interactions with their surroundings. This provides a unified view which treats neighboring quantum systems, thermal baths and the measurement apparatus on the same footing. Although decoherence gives new insight on how quantum mechanics gives rise to the classical world in general, decoherence is not a philosophy and it does not give, nor claim to give a resolution to the philosophical aspects of the problem of measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Ahhh, wonderful! I told you it would be pretty!!

"Quantum decoherence" and "punctuated equillibrium" are my two favourite scientific terms to explain anomolies in observation that (atheistic) scientists didn't want to find.

I'll paraphrase quantum decoherence: "A poor tradesman always blames his tools.".

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

That doesn't prove nor disprove anything.

Creationist board.

ID is a form of creationism.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

ID is a form of creationism.

I was referring to the word creationist in a sarcastic manner.

All evo is doing is throwing up theoretical notions to support his predjudices. It's no different to some of the silly conclusions that Christians reach for.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I was referring to the word creationist in a sarcastic manner.

All evo is doing is throwing up theoretical notions to support his predjudices. It's no different to some of the silly conclusions that Christians reach for.

Apologies. Continue on.

 

[evo]

Ahhh, wonderful! I told you it would be pretty!!

"Quantum decoherence" and "punctuated equillibrium" are my two favourite scientific terms to explain anomolies in observation that (atheistic) scientists didn't want to find.

I'll paraphrase quantum decoherence: "A poor tradesman always blames his tools.".

*shrug*

I was just trying to point out to you that your gurus are using quantum mechanic interpretations decades out of date, but as I said it is certainly not my field of expertise.

Goodluck with your quest to get science to support your metaphysics.

 

[evo]

All evo is doing is throwing up theoretical notions to support his predjudices. It's no different to some of the silly conclusions that Christians reach for.

Ok,well I think that is precisely what you and Figgy are doing.

Anyway.

Peace.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Goodluck with your quest to get science to support your metaphysics.

What metaphysics?

1) The results of the double slit experiment have withstood repeated trials.

2) The results surrounding the role of the observer in the double slit experiment have withstood repeated trials.

Isn't that what people like you like to refer to as "science"?

 

[evo]

2) The results surrounding the role of the observer in the double slit experiment have withstood repeated trials.

What is "the result"?

Because as I've tried to patiently explain to you from my reading in this field there is no conclusive interpretation that says than an observer can alter matter that has been accepted by scientific connsensus.

Apparently thats because they are all atheist,according to Fig,but anyway.

Decades ago it was speculated upon in the 'Copehnhagen interpretation' but since then there have been a number of other interpretation of "the result". The most popular of which i just linked you to.

 

[FIGJAM]

I was just trying to point out to you that your gurus are using quantum mechanic interpretations decades out of date, but as I said it is certainly not my field of expertise.

It's not out of date. The measurement problem continues as admitted by your own link!

Goodluck with your quest to get science to support your metaphysics.

It's already done that! It's the interpretation of observation accross broader society that is out of kilter.

We are all connected within a unified field. Separation is only an illusion because everything is interconnected. Consciousness influences how matter manifests. Etcetera...

 

[evo]

It's not out of date. The measurement problem continues as admitted by your own link!

Right the jury is still well and truly out as I've said all along.Yet,New Agers and Spirtiulists have seized on an early intepretation because they may be able to manipulate it to suit their world view.Any subsequent interpretations (by that same scientific community) that follow are seen as "atheist bias"

You see no flaw in this thinking?

. Separation is only an illusion because everything is interconnected.

Well funnily enough,I actually agree with you on that.

Consciousness influences how matter manifests...

If by manifests you mean 'appear' then I agree.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

What is "the result"?

Unobserved = wave functions, or nothing.

Observed = collapsed wave functions.

 

[eagleskickass]

[Originally Posted by eagleskickass View Post
Regardless of which stance you take(creator or no creator), somewhere, in some time, something was created out of nothing.

Something 'broke the rules' and 'just appeared'.]

Are you certain?

Why?


What a suprise.

Am I certain? - Yes

Why? Because somewhere, sometime, 'something' went from not existing...to existing. Was it God or was it matter? could be either. I (not surprisingly) choose to believe it was God. Others choose to believe it was 'matter' (or whatever)

Either way, SOMEWHERE existence as we know it 'appeared'

 

[evo]

Am I certain? - Yes

Why? Because somewhere, sometime, 'something' went from not existing...to existing. Was it God or was it matter? could be either.

You haven't explained why though.You have just reasserted your premise.It seems to me begging the question.
Why can't God or matter or whatever you want to call it have always existed?

In fact isn't that what a theist really has to believe if the their religion is going to explain existence in any sort of non contradictory fashion?


Wouldn't God have needed to have always existed? Otherwise we have the problem of 'his/its' cause.

 

[eagleskickass]

You haven't explained why though.You have just reasserted your premise.It seems to me begging the question.
Why can't God or matter or whatever you want to call it have always existed?

In fact isn't that what a theist really has to believe if the their religion is going to explain existence in any sort of non contradictory fashion?


Wouldn't God have needed to have always existed? Otherwise we have the problem of 'his/its' cause.

I'll pay that. Perhaps matter 'has' always existed. true. Because I would say, myself, God always existed because he is outside the so called 'laws' of the universe.

I guess what I mean is I myself, struggle to comprehend matter 'always existing' because it doesn't seem to FIT with how things work now. But I also assert I could be wrong. And I am ok with that. I don't feel the need to be able to 'explain' everything.

 

[Richo83]

It is interesting though how the act of observation shapes physical reality (eg. twin slit experiment).

What are you saying, that humanity shapes existence through thought? As I said, existence precedes human existence.

I think you like the athropomorphic idea "God" because it permits you to dismiss it with prejudice.

Figgy, you said it yourself, consciousness. This ID requires a thinking, creating, designing god. Anything which designs or designed needs a cognitive ability. The theistic theory is that this cognitive being made materialist existence.

"God" (and I'd rather not use any word) is cognitive. As evidenced by the twin slit experiment, consciousness is required for manifestation of elemental particles.

"God" is the "scientific" forces of energy, which are in effect laws, and "God" is also another force and is mind.

[YOUTUBE]rd2wqiUriuM[/YOUTUBE]

Hardly proven beyond doubt. You say that god is the scientific laws of energy, that's mightly close to spiritual atheism fig. The reason why I suggest that god isn't just gravity or such is that it is disingenuous to call someone who believes that the material universe came about from eternal factors of energy, space and time is equal to someone who says that said universe came about from a thinking god creating existence. The two ideas are different, present different ideas and have different conclusions. You know that, stop pretending otherwise.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Nick, re: our convo about healing/faith - check out this week's TIME magazine lol.

What a coincidence.

 

[Corpuscles]

Time is a human construct/perspective.

We homo-sapiens have no objective way of determining/understanding/proving... "always".... it it all "philisophical"


The Cambrian period "explosion" over a mere 10 mill years which apparently produced much of the so called "evolutionary" process of creating new species, is insignificant relative to the estimated 2+ billion cycles round the Sun previous to that.

errr....us Homo-sapien newbies, don't even register a blip on that scale


Maybe the ants or grasshoppers or crocodiles have a better understanding?... could someone please ask them?

 

[Niximus]

Nick, re: our convo about healing/faith - check out this week's TIME magazine lol.

What a coincidence.

Haven't seen it but I anticipate it refers to the placebo effect. You get the same thing if people believe you're giving them a magic tic-tac.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Haven't seen it but I anticipate it refers to the placebo effect. You get the same thing if people believe you're giving them a magic tic-tac.

Haven't read the article yet, so I don't know which way it leans - but I'll be reading tonight and be sure to give you a breakdown of it.

Headline is: How Faith Can Heal

So I'm tipping ti might back my argument up a little more than yours. Placebo effect may well be the reason, but that would still be backing up my stance on faith helping with peoples health.

 

[Niximus]

Haven't read the article yet, so I don't know which way it leans - but I'll be reading tonight and be sure to give you a breakdown of it.

Headline is: How Faith Can Heal

So I'm tipping ti might back my argument up a little more than yours. Placebo effect may well be the reason, but that would still be backing up my stance on faith helping with peoples health.

There is a difference between getting relief from a ailment through thinking you are being healed (whether through praying or placebo pills) and gaining regular health benefit simply from believing in the supernatural.