Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bill Dembski: Trouble happens when they find out you mean business

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Continuing with James Barham’s The Best Schools interview with design theorist Bill Dembski – who founded this blog, we look at how he managed to not avoid trouble, principally with Christian academics:

WD: The problem is that within a month of publishing The Design Inference, I also published Mere Creation, the proceedings of a 1996 conference at Biola on creation and design. In that book, I did put my cards on the table regarding where I saw the methods developed in The Design Inference leading. So, Darwinists quickly made the connection and started going after the earlier book.

Another thing that worked against the book is that I was hired shortly after its publication to found and direct Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Institute. This gave me national prominence, to the consternation of Darwinists in- and outside of Baylor, and thus incentivized them to refute the book at all costs. When the Polanyi Center was dissolved a year later (more about this below), many who had their finger to the wind and wondered whether to back intelligent design, backed down. I stayed on at Baylor to complete my contract, but was persona non grata the entire time.

In 1999, I could still get a job in the mainstream academy on the basis of my work in The Design Inference. By the fall of 2000, my career was toast.

Okay, let’s hop to the Polanyi Institute. What happened there?

TBS: In 2000, after organizing and hosting a very successful and visible international conference (whose proceedings, coedited by you and Bruce Gordon, are now published as The Nature of Nature [ISI, 2011]), you were first demoted, then essentially fired, by Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Can you explain how this came about? What were the ramifications of Baylor throwing you under the bus for you personally? What do you think the long-term ramifications of this incident have been for our intellectual culture as a whole?

WD: The short of it is that Baylor hired me to start an intelligent design think-tank, the Michael Polanyi Center, we put on a tremendously successful conference, and three days after the conference the faculty senate voted 27–2 to shut the center down. Not immediately, but a few months later, the Baylor administration acceded to the faculty senate’s wishes.

When I protested the center’s dissolution, I was fired as director from a center that had already ceased to exist. This, at Baylor—an ostensibly Christian institution. But in fact, the science faculty at Baylor were probably more Darwinian than their secular counterparts, having to prove that they were as “reliable” in their science as those outside.

The whole story is available online, arranged chronologically in a series of news articles: “The Rise and Fall of Baylor University’s Michael Polanyi Center.” If I had it to do again, I would never have gone to Baylor. But the past is past. It’s all there. It made national news. And Baylor got a black eye for its failure to respect freedom of thought and expression. But massive institutions like Baylor can handle a bit of battering. Private individuals who get chewed up by them are less fortunate.

Mmmm. For many Christian academics, the worst news possible is that the atheists they are discreetly selling out to don’t have the goods anyway. They don’t hate anyone as much as they hate the guy who can demonstrate that fact.

Next: What Dembski is planning to do now.

See also:

Why Bill Dembski took aim against the Darwin frauds and their enablers #1

Why Bill Dembski took aim against the Darwin frauds and their enablers Part 2

Bill Dembski: The big religious conspiracy revealed #3

Bill Dembski: Evolution “played no role whatever” in his conversion to Christianity #4

So how DID Bill Dembski get interested in intelligent design? #5a

So how DID Bill Dembski get interested in intelligent design? #5b – bad influences, it seems

Comment on Dembski interview here.

Comments
Gregory, StephenB would be far better than I to discuss these nuances with.,,, I respect his penetrating insights and clarity on these issues very much.bornagain77
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
I, for one, would relish the opportunity to make peace and establish a meaningful and productive dialogue with anyone from the TE community. A dialogue, however, consists of mutual respect and bilateral disclosure. Many there are who relish the luxury of scrutinizing without accepting the burden of being scrutinized. Unilateral grilling is not my idea of a healthy interchange. Although your question was to Bornagain 77 and not to me, I would gladly respond to the point if I knew exactly what it is that you are asking. Clearly, I think we should follow where the evidence leads and clearly I hold that an author's own words constitute good evidence. Is there something in that mix that I or BA77 is perceived to disagree with? Is there something that Dembski said that, in your opinion, militates against logic or good sense? On the subject of the culture wars, I have no difficulty separating social values from scientific, philosophical, and theological discussions. At the same time, I am happy to enter into debate on either subject and even discuss the relationship between the two. Given Western society's rapid deterioration, I can't imagine how any educated person could be neutral or silent on the subject without providing aid and comfort to those who are most responsible for the deterioration.StephenB
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
The statement was meant to be puzzling and provocative. It marks an historical event. You are welcome to interpret it however you wish. Notice that BA77 did not follow-up my much clearer question about 'following the evidence where it leads' wrt the Dembski debacle at Baylor? To offer something clearer (but not too clear), I met a major figure associated with 'intelligent design' and we agreed on a strategy not currently considered by leaders in the IDM. It has the potential to fundamentally change the way 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' is discussed and understood by scientists and non-scientists. I would suggest to 'paragwinn' a bit more patience with his/her 'us/them' categorization. But in the culture war climate in USA, this might be too much to ask for. My preference is for good science, in dialogue with philosophy and religion/theology. Do we disagree on this? p.s. Inter-Disciplinary (I-D), Intelligent-Design (I-D) - thought that might have been an easy one to catch... = )Gregory
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
eigenstate; 'coincidentally', this video was just posted yesterday. Hope you have time to watch and enjoy;
God Speaks Through Creation (Lee Strobel) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40qMOtv_u4 "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet
bornagain77
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
The point is that Dawkins doesn't mind positing anything, no matter how outlandish, as long as it isn't God. Why are space aliens less outlandish than God? Now, I know there is an answer to this, but only because it is a standard answer, not because it makes sense or actually has any meaning. The problem is that the topic was origin of life! But Dawkins evades the question by punting it to the aliens.Brent
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
But there isn't any need for tinkering once the initial conditions are set, the resources granted, the targets set and the algorithm installed and running.Joe
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
I just realised I misread your post. Apologies. So you are asking whether I would be surprised if the information present in the environment had been put there, by an intelligent agent, at various times and places? I'm still not quite sure what you are envisaging. By "environmental information" I mean all the features of the current environment of an existing population, which includes, of course, the population itself. So I'm not sure what you even mean by it being put there on purpose. What, specifically, do you have in mind? As an example? Something like a meteor strike that affected the whole globe? Yes, I'd be surprised if that was thrown by an intelligent agent :) Certainly I'd be surprised if it was thrown by an agent with a specific end in mind!Elizabeth Liddle
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Asked another way, would intelligent intervention surprise you if you found out that it occurred?
Yes, it would. Or at least it would if the evidence for "intelligent intervention" took the form of evidence for an external intelligent agent tinkering with biological organisms. It would certainly be interesting! Oh, unless it was just evidence that we already have, of humans tinkering with genomes. That wouldn't surprise me, as I know it already.Elizabeth Liddle
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Fine. Forget Dembski. You acknowledge that natural environment has "information" present in it. So asked another way, would you be surprised if that information was purposefully put there at the beginning of life and at various intervals? Asked another way, would intelligent intervention surprise you if you found out that it occured?mike1962
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Well I am an Information Technologist with over 3 decades of experience working with active information.
And if your all the argument for ID is is that the conditions on earth that gave rise to life must have been put there by someone on purpose, then bang goes your inference from life itself that it must have been designed.
Then make your case- you don't just get to baldly say it. But I digress as that has nothing to do with anything I have said.Joe
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Obviously not, Mike. Nor would I answer the question "have you stopped beating your husband?" Your question presupposes that I accept the concept of "active information". I don't. Therefore I cannot answer it.Elizabeth Liddle
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Possibly, or possibly it is yours that is flawed And if your all the argument for ID is is that the conditions on earth that gave rise to life must have been put there by someone on purpose, then bang goes your inference from life itself that it must have been designed. You just undermined ID, Joe. :D Welcome to the dark side.Elizabeth Liddle
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Perhaps it is your grasp of active information that is flawed. And you are wrong as there is plenty of smuggling of information into GAs. nature? You are beghing the question, again- where did nature come from?Joe
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
You didn't answer my question.mike1962
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
I think Dembski's concept of "Active Information" is flawed. He seems to refer to information from the environment to which the evolving population is adapting. Yes, it is present in GAs and EAs, but equally, is present in nature. There is no "smuggling" into GAs of any information that is not also present in nature.Elizabeth Liddle
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Yes, we do and an all evolutionary algorithms are written by humans. There aren't any algorithms created by stochastic processes.
ID specifically precludes evidence for designers.
That is false. ID makes the designer(s) a separate question.
It merely infers designers from what it regards as evidence for design,
That is how it works- archaeologists infer an artist every time they observe an artifact- forensics infer a criminal when they uncover evidence for criminal activity.
making the fundamental mistake of assuming that something that serves a purpose must have been created on purpose.
Well mainly because we have eliminated other options and it fits the design criteria. OTOH your position has no methodology beyond "anything but design!" So put a sock in it or at least try to support your position with actual science.Joe
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle: You claim evidence for “design”, but no evidence that that “design” could not be the product of an algorithm such the evolutionary algorithm, which we know is a powerful design algorithm, so much so, that we actually use them ourselves to create novel designs.
Genetic Algorithms (or the wider class of Evolutionary Algorithms) contains lots of what Dembski calls "Active Information." (Dawkin's Weasel being a popular example.) Would you be surprised if there was intelligently placed active information at the origin of life and at various points of intervention? I'm not asking you if there were. I'm asking you if you would be surprised.mike1962
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
No, you don't. You claim evidence for "design", but no evidence that that "design" could not be the product of an algorithm such the evolutionary algorithm, which we know is a powerful design algorithm, so much so, that we actually use them ourselves to create novel designs. ID specifically precludes evidence for designers. It merely infers designers from what it regards as evidence for design, making the fundamental mistake of assuming that something that serves a purpose must have been created on purpose.Elizabeth Liddle
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
We said precisely the opposite: that we’ll consider a designer if we actually have scientifically verifiable warrant.
And we do. What we do NOT have is any evidence that stochastic processes brought all of this about- and there isn't any way to even test the claim.Joe
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Of course it isn't. How did you get that from what Dawkins or I said? We said precisely the opposite: that we'll consider a designer if we actually have scientifically verifiable warrant. Which we don't have.Elizabeth Liddle
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
eigenstate, perhaps this will help get the point across more clearly for you:
The Artists - The Artists is a short film about two rival painters who fail to see the bigger picture. http://vimeo.com/33670490
bornagain77
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
eigenstate you also dogmatically repeat your imaginary brick wall here:
Epistemology is the problem, and it’s an intractable problem for you, just as it is for me. You can’t get “outside the universe”, by definition. If you did get “out there”, you’d be “in there”, by definition. ‘Universe’ encloses our epistemology.
Once again, 'who's we pale face?' What in blue blazes prevents the minds's eye from looking beyond the material universe? Indeed, When you look at a written sheet of paper, or look at a work of art, is all that you see the material particles of the medium, and the material particles of the ink or paint thereon? Of course not, a small glimpse of the very mind of the author or the painter is revealed therein. It would be a completely bizarre person who could not detect the work of a mind, but only material particles, thereon! For you to say nothing can be, in principle, revealed of the Mind of the Creator by looking at the universe is completely bizarre, just as it would be completely bizarre for any person to deny anything is revealed of a mind when looking at a painting or written work.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Unto The King Eternal - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPYRhOQcCU
notes: as far as epistemology, I just happened to put together a short piece a few days ago:
Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998
bornagain77
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Why is the ToE the accepted anything seeing no one can produce any supporting evidence for its grand claims? All YOU or anyone else can do is point to circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence relies on one's personal biases.
Your explanation for bipedalism is: aliens!
That is false.Joe
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
For example, any evidence that leads to something beyond this universe.Joe
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
THAT is why no one take evolutionists seriously- no evidence to support their grand claims
No-one, you say? Well, I could have sworn that evolution remains the accepted paradigm. Someone takes it seriously, even if your own comprehension issues restrict your grasp of the subject. Now, why doesn't everyone take you seriously? Your explanation for bipedalism is: aliens! Your explanation for 'useful multi-protein configurations'? Aliens. Giraffes? Whales? Aliens! Aliens everywhere. I wonder how they got to be so complex? Why, there must be aliens all the way down...Chas D
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists (Please note; the ‘infinity problem’ is focused primarily in black holes) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/
Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 - William Dembski PhD. in Mathematics and Theology Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
,,,Also of related interest to this ‘Zero/Infinity conflict of reconciliation’, between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is the fact that a ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information,,,
Wave function - wikipedia Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single (photon) qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
The following mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment:
Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
,,Moreover there is actual physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, that we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ,,,
THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video (more references in video description) http://vimeo.com/34084462 “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.” St. Augustine
While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ since all things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a ‘unification into a theory of everything’ for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have in hand that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.
Psalms 16:10 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.” Brooke Fraser – Hillsong: “Lord Of Lords” (HQ) - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB4Tc5zJMUc
bornagain77
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
There is that imaginary brick wall again eigenstate, for I indeed did give references, that contrary to what you believe, does show consciousness to be 'central', special, positioned, specifically I referenced Wigner's work on symmetries, but to hash the proof out in more detail for you, (even though you will again probably just appeal to your imaginary brick wall as if that is evidence against reality itself); Centrality of Each Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Plausible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics A ‘Christian interpretation' offers a very plausible, empirically backed, reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics: First a little background: ,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;
The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U Job 26:10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
,,,Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.,,,
4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/
,,,yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘thought experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so I dug around a bit and found this,,,
The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity – Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity – While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf
,,,and also ‘serendipitously’ found this,,,
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel’s personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein’s seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, “the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point.” This means that “a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel.” In fact, “Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements.” Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
,,,But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation is! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,, This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the ‘spooky actions’, for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are ‘universal and instantaneous’ for each observer:
Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the “hidden-variables” approach. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori
,,,Shoot, there is even a experiment that shows the preceding quantum experiments will never be overturned by another ‘future’ theory,,,
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this (quantum theory). http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0133
,, and to make universal Quantum Wave collapse much more ‘personal’ I found this,,,
“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
,,,Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
Moreover, the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose).bornagain77
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
eigenstate @ 7.1.2.1.7, I appreciate your response, but it doesn't do that much for the case. The fact is, "law" is used both in the prescriptive and descriptive sense for a reason; namely, there are similarities. I mentioned 'metaphor', and I think it permissible to do so in this case. They are, in both cases, 'hard rules'. The problem is, as has been pointed out by others already, that these descriptive laws, just like prescriptive laws, do not have the reason for their existence in themselves. They both need an explanation, no matter if you try to say they do not. The bigger problem for you (assuming you are a materialist), is to actually say that these descriptive laws do not need an explanation! That defeats materialism! There are, then, real, non-material, i.e. supernatural, forces at work! For the materialist, then, there must be a material explanation behind the laws.Brent
January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
@eigenstate 7.1.2.1.12 Your objections seem misconceived. You yourself said the laws of physics were just descriptions of how nature behaves. I would agree with that. But that being the case, the laws of nature cant be transcendent in the sense that God is. How can there be descriptions of nature's behavior aside or apart from a universe they describe? Without nature there are no laws of nature. They are not transcendant and in fact have no causal power. Physical laws are not necessary since they are descriptions of a universe which need not have existed and indeed did not always exist. Also we dont need to worry about an infinite regress when we arrive at God. Remember, everything that exists has an explanation of its existence,either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature. There is no necessity in the nature of physical laws. They can fail to exist. They require an explanation in an external cause. And no one is saying that God has no explanation. His explanation lies in the necessity of his own nature. Again no analogy between God and laws since it hasnt been shown that laws must exist.kuartus
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
@BA77#7.1.2.1.13,
eigenstate, you certainly seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face when you state dogmatic stuff like this: we can’t investigate it even in principle As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger in that old joke, “who’s WE pale face???”, I find reality, especially in this day and age, very amendable to a curious mind that is willing to dig a bit!
Curiosity is not the problem. That's what drives science! Epistemology is the problem, and it's an intractable problem for you, just as it is for me. You can't get "outside the universe", by definition. If you did get "out there", you'd be "in there", by definition. 'Universe' encloses our epistemology. If that's the case, being CURIOUS won't help you at all. That's to totally misunderstand the problem. Curious or no, you can't get beyond the limits of the universe, and that means that epistemically, you cannot gain any dispositive evidence that will qualify one metaphysical conjecture and disqualify others. That was why I used the "in principle", there. If it were a matter of curiosity, it would just be a practical challenge, not a problem in principle.eigenstate
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply