Pressure on Gov. Jindal to support/deny academic freedom
| June 21, 2008 | Posted by William Dembski under Education |
Here are two emails I received, one from the Academic Freedom Consortium, which backs the recent Louisiana legislation allowing public school teachers to present material critical of Darwinian evolution, another from the skeptic society (Center for Inquiry), saying it’s all a ruse for sneaking religion into the science curriculum and therefore violates the First Amendment.
Please forward this information to our supporters. In Ohio, the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan was repealed partly because the state board of education received 14,000 emails opposing to it. The other side, as you can see below, wants to do the same here. Fortunate, Gov. Jindal has his head screwed on straight and Louisiana is not Ohio. Still, it will strengthen his hand if he sees our support.
FROM THE GOOD GUYS:
—– Original Message —–
From: AcademicFreedomPetition.com
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:00 PM
Subject: Tell Governor Jindal To Sign Academic Freedom Legislation——————————————————————————–
Tell Governor Jindal You Support Academic Freedom
Click here and send Governor Jindal a message of support and let him know Louisiana should lead the way to academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry by signing the LSEA into law.
Louisiana is on the verge of becoming the first state to enact academic freedom legislation that will protect a teacher’s right to present scientific evidence both for and against modern evolutionary theory. The Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) is sitting on Governor Jindal’s desk waiting for his signature. But, he needs to know you support it.
Dogmatic Darwinists are working overtime to bully the Governor into vetoing the act, going so far as to enlist activists from other countries to urge American’s to tell Governor Jindal to oppose the act.
We need the help of everyone in Louisiana, and everyone in America, who supports academic freedom to encourage Governor Jindal to sign the LSEA into law.
The LSEA is a home-grown measure. Drafted by Democratic state senator Ben Nevers, the bill was inspired by the Ouachita Parish School District Policy which was established almost two years ago. The LSEA echoes some of what Discovery Institute has called for in its sample academic freedom legislation, but the bill has been advanced by Louisiana citizens and has won overwhelming support from Louisiana legislators.
Darwinists are calling for help from around the world. A letter attacking the LSEA is being showcased and e-mailed all over the world by Richarddawkins.net. As usual the letter is full of falsehoods.
This bill is not about creationism or religion. That’s a red herring from desperate Darwinists. The bill is about allowing teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as some that challenges it.
So, please help us in supporting the LSEA.
Click here and send Governor Jindal a message of support and let him know Louisiana should lead the way to academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry by signing the LSEA into law.
You can also help by forwarding this e-mail to friends and family in Louisiana, or anywhere around the country, and ask join you and sign the Academic Freedom Petition at www.academicfreedompetion.com.
Click here for more information on the Louisiana Science Education Act
FROM THE BAD GUYS:
Greetings,
CFI Action Alert!
Help the Louisiana Coalition for Science Defeat Anti-Science Bill; Protect the Integrity of Science Education
Implore Governor Jindal to veto bill SB 733, LA Science Education Act
The Louisiana Senate has passed SB 733, a bill that creationists can use to force their sectarian views into public school science classes. The bill provides that, upon the request of a local school board, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) must permit appropriate supplementary instructional materials in science classes, but gives no guidance about the criteria BESE should use in approving such supplementary materials. Effectively, the legislation provides a means for creationists to promote their pseudo-scientific views in the classroom. The LA Coalition for Science (LCFS), a group of concerned parents, teachers and scientists, has called on Gov. Jindal to veto the bill through an open letter on its website at http://lasciencecoalition.org.
“This bill doesn’t help teachers. It allows local school boards to open the doors of public school science classrooms to creationism with the blessing of the state,” explains LCFS member Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University. “Governor Jindal surely knows that evolution is not controversial in the mainstream scientific community. He majored in biology at Brown University, and he belongs to a church that considers evolution to be established science and approves of its being taught in its own parochial schools. The LA Family Forum is pushing this bill over the objections of scientists and teachers across the state. The governor has a moral responsibility to Louisiana children to veto this bill.”
Paul Kurtz, CFI’s Chair, has stated that “SB 733 poses a serious threat to science education and represents yet another attempt by creationists to insinuate their religious doctrine into the classroom under the guise of promoting critical reasoning.”
We have reached the point at which the only possible measure we have left is to raise an outcry from around the country that Gov. Jindal has to hear. What is happening in Louisiana has national implications, much to the delight of proponents of “intelligent design.”
Please contact everyone you know and ask them to contact the governor’s office and ask him to veto the bill. Louisiana will be only the beginning. Your state could be next.
Here are the talking points:
Point 1: The Louisiana law, SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has national implications. So far, this legislation has failed in every other state where it was proposed, except in Michigan, where it remains in committee. By passing SB 733, Louisiana has set a dangerous precedent that will benefit the Discovery Institute and other creationists by helping them to advance their strategy to get intelligent design creationism into public schools. Louisiana is only the beginning. Other states will now be encouraged to pass such legislation, and the Discovery Institute has already said that they will continue their push to get such legislation passed.
Point 2: Gov. Jindal’s failure to oppose the teaching of ID clearly helped to get this bill passed in the first place. His decision to veto it will stick if he lets the legislature know that he wants it to stick.
Point 3: Simply allowing the bill to become law without his signature, which is one of the governor’s options, does not absolve him of the responsibility for protecting the public school science classes of Louisiana. He must veto the bill to show that he is serious about improving Louisiana by improving education. Anything less than a veto means that the governor is giving a green light to creationists to undermine the education of Louisiana children.
TAKE ACTION NOW! TELL GOV. BOBBY JINDAL TO VETO SB 733
Contact Information:
E-mail: http://www.gov.la.gov/index.cfm?md=form&tmp=email_governor
Phone: 225-342-7015 or 866-366-1121 (Toll Free)
Fax: 225-342-7099
44 Responses to Pressure on Gov. Jindal to support/deny academic freedom
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bornagain77,
Thank you for your references. You still appear not to have understood them. in (29), reference 2, the prediction of maximum value assuming no noise for a particular inequality was 2.0 for classical physics and 2.8284… (2 times the square root of 2) for quantum mechanics. The actual value obtained was 2.42. This was over 4 standard deviations above 2, leading to a highly statistically significant violation of Bell’s theorem, meaning that classical mechanics could not reasonably explain the results.
However, this is nowhere near 100% fidelity. Thus your statement that “I disagree. 100% information transfer, that tells a photon or atom exactly what to “be”, completely establishes primacy of information over matter/energy . . .” is a non-sequitur. At present it is not experimentally demonstrable to be 100%.
Now if you wish to hypothesize that in the ideal state it is 100%, and even that God can make it 100%, and even that God can teleport us with 100% fidelity without violating any of the laws of physics, I could agree. But let’s not confuse that with empirical demonstration. Let’s keep our faith-statements separate from what we can demonstrate experimentally.
I still haven’t read the Nature article, but if the series of slides summarizes the article, then there shouldn’t be any surprises. If not, I will update my comments.
Quoting Zellinger authoritatively about the implications of quantum mechanics is risky. Zellinger states, according to your quote, “Exactly. The only important thing are my properties, and they are based on the order of the atoms – that what makes me who I am.” That would seem to leave no room for something beyond the material in humanity. I somehow doubt that you would agree with this position, and therefore advise caution in your use of Zellinger as an authority. If you don’t believe everything you quote from him, let alone everything he says, why should anyone else be obligated to?
Part of what is happening is that you are having difficulty hearing what others are saying. I have agreed with you that information has priority over matter. Please re-read my last paragraph in (27):
The question is not, Does information remain constant in the mind of God? The answer to that question is happily conceded to be Yes. The question I asked is, is information in our universe always demonstrably constant in the same way that energy in the universe is demonstrably constant? You thus need to deal seriously with the examples I gave. Claiming that it is only in the mind of God may be true, but is not scientifically testable. Perhaps you need a law of informational entropy that will tell you that useful information in our universe will decrease with time unless added to by supernatural agencies (one kind of whom is humans).
Paul Geim you state,
“Perhaps you need a law of informational entropy that will tell you that useful information in our universe will decrease with time unless added to by supernatural agencies (one kind of whom is humans).”
Entropy and Genetic Entropy are the terms for the mechanisms, for information loss, that I use.
Or, in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about entropy in 1930, “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more”.
As well Paul, to me it seems you are misunderstanding that all properties (100% of characteristics) are being transfered (teleported) between photons/atoms by non-local means when the experiment is successful.
But, If you are saying quantum teleportation has not been demonstrated satisfactorily, and is possibly false because of the violation of Bell’s inequality, they use to demonstrate a non-local phenomena has occurred, is not great enough, that is fine. I strongly disagree with you but that is fine for your part. Yet the fact is, in spite of your hang up with the percentile violation of Bell’s inequality, that 100% of properties are transfered between photons when the “teleportation” takes place and is successfully measured. Just because they can’t do the teleportation 100% of the time, because of the extreme sensitivity of the experiment to outside disturbances and any other mitigating factors, this does not detract from the fact that 100% of properties of the photons that can possibly be measured are transfered when the teleportation is successful.
If you want to argue that 100% of the properties are not being transfered , I will defend against that for I feel I can rather easily defend myself on that count, but I will not defend against your unrealistic insistence that the extremely sensitive teleportation experiment work 100% of the time.
As well, I would like to point out that only under extremely tight circumstances can the first law even be tested and verified, and even in those experiments absolute 100% fidelity is an unrealistic expectation. In fact I remember reading sometime back that no experiment is absolutely 100%. There is always a margin for error built is. So should we throw out all experimental work since there is no such thing as 100% fidelity?
Paul , I’ve been wondering why you would choose to debate against my position, since it is in fact a Theistic position, and plus since all you have to work with is anomalies and the error rate of the teleportation experimentation. Then I realized, you are a Young Earth Creationists, so you probably from repeated habit, find solace in the anomalies and error rates for experimentation of dating techniques in order, to hold on to your preconceived philosophical bias of a young earth. That is no way to practice science Paul looking for anomalies and error rates in which to make your case!
bornagain77,
Since you are coming close to dismissing my point of view as a “preconceived philosophical bias” supported by quibbles about “anoomalies and error rates”, (33) not just in areas where we disagree such as dating techniques, but in areas where we fundamentally agree, there may not be much more to be said. But I will give it one more try.
As I hoped I had made clear by my last post (31–”Does information remain constant in the mind of God? The answer to that question is happily conceded to be Yes.”), philosophically I have no disagreement with the theory that information can be neither created nor destroyed. As stated this way, though, it is a theological rather than a scientific theory. It has zero argumentative value for those who do not share the premise that theological argumentation is of value. As such, it is (and from their viewpoint should be) waved off as a minor irritation, and you lose credibility. I would prefer, and hope that you would prefer, that your arguments be taken seriously by those with a different viewpoint. I am trying to point out where your argument is going to fall on deaf ears unless you rephrase it.
That, and not some reflex negativity, is the reason why I am disagreeing with your presentation.
When you say that information cannot be created or destroyed, that is not empirically verifiable, and so will not be taken as a law by your opponents. They will thus be unable to follow your logic when it leads to intelligent design, or further to God. You lose them, not because they refuse to follow the logic (although for some of them that is true also), but because they never assented to your starting point. That means that either you must convince them of the law of conservation of information, or you must find a different line of argumentation.
From a scientific point of view, several repeatable experiments were done to test the law of conservation of energy. Repeatable experiments were also done to establish the “law” of the conservation of matter, which still holds true except for certain small but important (nuclear energy) exceptions. The law of the conservation of information, while it may be true, is not nearly as demonstrable or widely accepted. You simply cannot expect to use it as a starting point in a discussion of anything, unless your discussant agrees with you. All I intend to do is to point this out, and to caution you as to your argumentative style. As I clearly stated, I do not disagree with you on the fundamental point.
My suggestion in this regard would be that rather than simply announcing that information can be neither created nor destroyed, you postulate that some have suggested that this is true on the quantum level. Then you suggest where this might lead. You concede the point that on a macroscopic level (useful information) this is not true, but you state as a testable hypothesis that on a practical level information cannot be created except by intelligence, and simply attribute what minor beneficial mutations happen to the information inherent in the interaction of the organism with its environment. Your assertion of the universality of genetic entropy will not be accepted as a law, but is wonderful as a testable hypothesis. Then just wait a few years, and smile as the experimental results come in. That’s the way to convince the skeptics, at least the fair ones.
Basically, what I am advocating is that you make less of theory and more of experimental backup. Speak softly and carry a big stick, as TR would say.
Your use of “100%” is similarly defective. It would be far better to say “information transfer with experimental fidelity approaching 100%” than the “100% information transfer” that you actually used. People who are skeptical but fair will appreciate the accuracy and avoidance of overstatement, and are more likely to at least tentatively give you the point and see where you go from there.
I value many of your contributions. I want them to continue. I am just asking that you be more careful about the way you say them.
It also helps if you get the details right. As an example, you wrote,
Here you misunderstood Bell’s inequality. Bell’s inequality sets a limit to the correlation that can be expected if classical mechanics is true. The fact that Bell’s inequality is violated proves that some process other than classical mechanics is operative. Quantum mechanics is one such process. Thus while the experiment doesn’t prove quantum mechanics, it is consistent with QM, and not with classical mechanics. If you had read my comment carefully and with comprehension, you would have seen that this was precisely what I said: “. . . a highly statistically significant violation of Bell’s theorem, meaning that classical mechanics could not reasonably explain the results.”
Finally, (and least importantly), it helps if you spell my last name correctly when you use it.
Again, I do not wish you to quit posting. I just hope that you can improve the persuasive power of your posts.
Paul,
I appreciate your constructive criticism:
Yet again, as with your YEC conjectures, I respectfully agree to disagree with you. The validity of my arguments for conservation of information is in fact based on repeatable empirics and concrete logic and is not based on popular opinions of what my crude mannerisms of presentation might appear to be to others.
IF you accept quantum teleportation as true (which I presume you don’t completely accept it, but for the sake of argument IF), then the demonstrated dom^in^ance of “information” over energy in the experiment necessitates that information, at the very least, have qualities that are equal to energy’s qualities. Thus the currently accepted empirics of quantum teleportation establishes that Conservation of Information must be true of logical necessity. It is simple logic Paul (It must be simple if I can understand it – LOL), simple logic derived from the experiment itself and from the first law. i.e. since energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any known “material means”) anything displaying complete 100% dom^in^ance of energy (telling energy exactly what to “be/do” in a successful QT experiment) must of logical necessity possess equal or greater qualities. Thus information cannot be created by any known purely material means also. It is so simple a caveman could do it Paul – LOL
I’ve been thinking over possible objections to this and the only ones I can think of would only refine this starting position of Conservation Of Information to some unknown entropic constraint (maybe it is some anomaly that I overlooked and you pointed out), or the objection would actually be a blatant violation of logic (such as information can te energy even though energy must create information (chicken and egg logic so to say)).
you also stated:
“Again, I do not wish you to quit posting.”
I am sure one of these days you will wish so. LOL
bornagain77,
Just to clear up a few things:
I actually believe that information has precedence over matter. I suspect that with careful enough technique entangled particles can transmit as close to 100% of the information of other particles as one wishes, although the practical problems will preclude the teleportation of people, or even bacteria, by humans for the foreseeable future. If you want to see my take on quantum mechanics, go here (or here [PDF]), especially pp. 38-53.
But in order make your syllogism work, one must believe that A. one property that makes a realm great is the inability of the members of that realm to be created or destroyed, and B. the law of conservation of energy is absolute. There is some doubt about A, and more importantly considerable doubt about B.
Before you step back in horror at my advocacy that the law of conservation of energy has been violated, let me explain. I believe that ordinarily the law of conservation of energy is strictly followed. Belief in that law has been fruitful for science, and there is a lot of evidence corroborating it and no definitive evidence disputing it for most of the history of the universe. But there are exceptions. When the universe started, there was a massive injection of energy. When Jesus fed the 5,000 bread and fish appeared out of apparently nowhere. Bread and fish have matter which has mass, which requires energy to form. It is possible that they were made out of thin air, but that implies a wind blowing into where they were being made, with no evidence for such a wind in the text. It is at least possible that when God decides to act, the law of conservation of energy becomes invalid.
If that is the case, it is possible that information, even though being dominant over matter, might share this property of matter; when God does not specially act, energy, and information, are conserved. However, when God acts, energy, and information, may appear or disappear. That would leave me affirming the conservation of energy, information, and most of the time matter, whenever God does not act specifically to change these laws (supersede may be a better term than violate, just as magnetic force may supersede gravity without actually violating the law of gravity, or more properly, general relativity).
Thus I think the theoretical framework you are proposing, while interesting, is not completely compelling. The complete truth may be beyond the reach of uneducated cavemen.
Paul you state,
Thus I think the theoretical framework you are proposing, while interesting, is not completely compelling.
You must deny that transcendent information is telling energy exactly what to “be/do” in teleportation experiments to deny the validity of my argument to the law of conservation of information. Do you deny that information has dom^in^ance in these experiments? If you don’t deny it then you have a flaw in your foundational logic. If you do deny it please explain your proposed mechanism for what is happening.
Paul,
Do you deny this statement of Dr. Zeilingers?
http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html
What are you doing?
Transferring the properties of light particles over certain distances onto other light particles, with no time delay. The procedure is based on phenomena which exist only in the quantum world, and is known as “quantum teleportation.”
Paul, as well, you state your objections to my argument as follows.
But in order (to) make your syllogism work, one must believe that A. one property that makes a realm great is the inability of the members of that realm to be created or destroyed, and B. the law of conservation of energy is absolute.
As you yourself admitted , as far as this material universe is concerned the first law holds with no violations; i.e. energy cannot be created or destroyed as far as material processes are concerned. But then again we have the Big Bang; the seeming “creation” or “transference” of energy from something or somewhere else. And here with Quantum Teleportation (QT), we have a elegant and coherent “baby” solution to the paradox of the big bang of “energy” (the seeming creation of energy) with the demonstrated nce of energy by “transcendent” information in QT experiments.
As for the alternative; energy came from nothing, I find the mystery of QT to hold a lot more promise and coherence of logic, thus I don’t see where objection has any merit.
In your objection B.”the law of conservation of energy is absolute.”
As somewhat illustrated above, if the domi^na^nce of information is indeed complete over energy, this will suspend the first law as far transcendent information is concerned. i.e. energy would only have to be conserved as far as the “material/energy realm is concerned but would yield its authority to what we could label the “proper” dom^in^ate transcendent information.
Follow?
Thus as far as your objections I can see no merit to concern my argument.
bornagain77,
We appear to be going around in circles, with you not understanding what I am saying. You seem to think that the sticking point, or at least a sticking point, is that I “deny that information has dom^in^ance in these [teleportation] experiments”. whereas what started out saying was that “I actually believe that information has precedence over matter. I suspect that with careful enough technique entangled particles can transmit as close to 100% of the information of other particles as one wishes”. When comments 37 and 38 make this mistake, and comment 39 starts out by saying, “as well”, apparently indicating that you still thought I was disputing the point and you were just answering a subsidiary caution (“objection” is too strong here), it is apparent that you are not comprehending what I had to say. Unless you can understand what I am saying, the conversation is pointless, and therefore I do not plan to continue this particular conversation.
If and when I see evidence that you actually understood what I wrote and are answering it specifically or agreeing with it, I will be happy to resume the conversation.
Paul,
If you believe that:
“I actually believe that information has precedence over matter. I suspect that with careful enough technique entangled particles can transmit as close to 100% of the information of other particles as one wishes”
and you also believe:
“Belief in that (first) law has been fruitful for science, and there is a lot of evidence corroborating it and no definitive evidence disputing it for most of the history of the universe.
yet in spite of your stated beliefs you also state:
Thus I think the theoretical framework you are proposing, while interesting, is not completely compelling.
Then your objection to the my inference to the truthfulness and validity of the law of conservation of information has no basis in logic and you are objecting because of some personal preconceived bias that has nothing to do with reality, logic, or science.
As a side note and somewhat related, I realized this morning that quantum non-locality actually, at first glance, gives support for the “omnipresent” universal constants being based on “imposed transcendent information” instead of any problematic presupposed material basis of materialism (Dark Energy/Matter).
As far as discussing this any more with me that is up to you, I just thought you might have had a valid objection since you seem to know this topic so well, but alas I find no consistency in your logic and conclude that my argument to the validity of the law of conservation of information stands impeached so far.
stands un-impeached so far.
Akiane Child artist/poet prodigy:
http://www.artakiane.com/akiane_art.htm#
http://www.inwestmoreland.com/.....Akiane.htm
excerpt:
Her originals are sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many are valued at millions, making Akiane the most successful living visual art child prodigy in the world. Many of the world’s leaders, ministers, priests, royalty, scientists, media, CEOs, entrepreneurs, celebrities, and government officials have become acquainted with her art or collecting it.
What also made Akiane so unique and famous is that she is able to portray the invisible and visible realms with such emotion and realism. Collaborating with quantum physicists she is now trying to find mathematical formulas for her concepts. Akiane believes that people in the future will be able to study her originals with special microscopes revealing quantum relationships of the deepest colors and stories in her works.
The fearless artist is not afraid to jump into the most enigmatic and thought provoking visual and literary debates comforting those that will to explore uncharted territories. People from all faiths and backgrounds seem to respond to her vision of love and unity like to no one else’s. Akiane feels that with God we participate in co-creating new experiences, and that as spiritual beings we chose this human experience.
“Our future is our present. If we take care of it, we take care of tomorrow. The start and finish line is love. I know I am just one person, but I wish that with each brushstroke and with each verse I could bring hope to those who have lost it.”
“In order to comprehend the truth-
we need to see the road it travels.
In order to trust the truth
we need to remove from its road -
the speed limit.”
Akiane, age 9
Of her painting “Quantum World” she writes:
Quantum World
This is only a microscopic part of the quantum world – inside and outside of time.
The gateway to billions of dimensions is the deepest secret of life that can be penetrated only with an accurate eternal perspective. Each symbol, code, and shape here relates to this mysterious world.
***
Perfection agrees to temporal imperfection…
We journal energy
while its smallest parts
split into their own romance.
For the bottom weighs the most…
Here we are opening ourselves to parallel universes.
And mirroring ourselves
we walk from dimension to dimension observing all levels.
They know us.
And only a rare fool would not reach the other side.
Anyone who is not thrilled
by quantum waves
does not understand them.
But everyone still interprets what is
incomprehensible.
Each invisible particle is communication –
the magnet of information anatomy.
Overcoming the world
by its own capabilities
we split other beginnings.
Constant light of a narrow path
is a sequence of secret combinations.
When we cannot look around
and explain anything
we are the quantum world.
Reflections for “Quantum World”
We cannot complain
to the possibility.
Chromosomes and quarks stare at me
while I am not looking at them.
To have a future
we have to live
and leave the present.
Just as you commit to this life
when it commits to leaving you.
No supernatural can exist
for the mankind
that does not want to believe it.
Wisdom chooses the unknown
to be its reason.
Hallucination is a raw climb
to a end.
An illusion can never go faster
than the speed limit of reality.
We chase gravity of the micro world,
but after leaving its world
we try to perfect the laws here
that do not exist there.
We hear inconceivable,
but cannot see the intangible.
Secret to time is beyond our reason.
Many imitate limits,
not unlimited potentials.
I broke down all conclusions
into illusions and confusions.
How much does the universe weigh,
when it fasts for infinity?
The results came in,
but I still do not know
if I am in the real or fiction world.
Behind each door we shake
is a reality.
A fermented mind –
according to nothing,
we are something.
I always knew I was a dust.
But I never knew
I was also a universe.
Miracle
is a misunderstood reality.
Everyone has a watched life.
Everyone is both
the observer and the observed.
Past is deaf.
Future is mute.
Present is blind.
—
Truly a very Gifted Child of God.
Of Interest:
Scientists: Nothing to fear from atom-smasher
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....y_collider
excerpt:
The collider basically consists of a ring of supercooled magnets 17 miles in circumference attached to huge barrel-shaped detectors. The ring, which straddles the French and Swiss border, is buried 330 feet underground.
The machine, which has been called the largest scientific experiment in history, isn’t expected to begin test runs until August, and ramping up to full power could take months. But once it is working, it is expected to produce some startling findings.
Scientists plan to hunt for signs of the invisible “dark matter” and “dark energy” that make up more than 96 percent of the universe, and hope to glimpse the elusive Higgs boson, a so-far undiscovered particle thought to give matter its mass.
The collider could find evidence of extra dimensions, a boon for superstring theory, which holds that quarks, the particles that make up atoms, are infinitesimal vibrating strings.
–
Anyone care to predict what they will find?
As for myself;
I predict they will find no evidence for “material particles” of Dark Energy/Matter as the materialistic philosophy has presupposed for the basis of unexplained gravity and for the unexplained cosmological constant. (I believe the answer for these will be found in referencing the transcendent realm of “information”)
As for the Higgs boson, I’m haven’t examined the evidence and am undecided, but my money is riding that it will not be found by the “atom smasher”just because it seems to be a unnecessary materialistic conjecture at first glance.
As far as validating super-string theories “extra-dimensions (note; this is not the transcendent dimension of Theistic philosophy), my initial reaction is that they have vastly overreached themselves in hypothesizing past what evidence is available and have developed a highly conflated and complex mod^el that will be found to be full of nothing but hot air. i.e. I believe that the materialistic philosophy forced them into complex contortions they would not have had to take if they would have started from a pure Theistic framework.
For a more devastating critique of sting theory:
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin.....0465092756