Home » Education, Humor, Intelligent Design » PZ Myers defends ID-Friendly University Course!

PZ Myers defends ID-Friendly University Course!

Jerry Coyne has infiltrated a heretofore secret ID operation at Ball State University. Since the secret is now out and in the hands of the Darwinists, I may as well report on it.

Ball State University, in Muncie, Indiana, is a public university (i.e., part of the state university system).

The course is taught by Eric Hedin, an assistant professor at Ball State’s Department of Physics and Astronomy. In one of its guises it’s an “honors” course, “Inquiries in the Physical Sciences,” which fulfills the science requirement for students as part of the University Core Curriculum:

Science Course at Ball State University

Look at the ID sympathetic bibliography:
Bibliography of the Syllabus

Coyne sounds the battle cry:

This has to stop, for Hedin’s course, and the University’s defense of it, violate the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“freedom of religion”) and which has been so interpreted by the courts. It’s religion taught as science in a public university, and it’s not only wrong but illegal. I have tried approaching the University administration, and have been rebuffed.

This will now go to the lawyers.

But PZ disagrees and defends the constitutional right for the course to exist:

No, sorry, not right — academic freedom is the issue here, and professors have to have the right to teach unpopular, controversial issues, even from an ignorant perspective. The first amendment does not apply; this is not a course students are required to take, and it’s at a university, which students are not required to attend. It’s completely different from a public primary or secondary school.

I have to disagree with Jerry Coyne

I thought I might never ever say this, but may the Intelligent Designer bless you PZ!

HT: WT Bridgman

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

73 Responses to PZ Myers defends ID-Friendly University Course!

  1. BSU is where I got my Master’s Degree. I may have to actually send them a financial gift of some sort! Like you, never thought I’d see the day when I’d say “I agree with PZ Myers!” (Wow, those words tasted bad coming out of my mouth!).

  2. Here is a link to the full syllabus:
    Master Syllabus ASTR151

  3. H’mm: A discussion course on origins science using fairly standard texts and those that explore design and natural theology issues. Evidently, not an indoctrination or an apologetic. Also, provides a spoonful of sugar to make the cosmology and astronomy etc go down — and anything that draws a crowd to study that will get a respectful nod from me. KF

  4. Coyne doesn’t realize that teaching evolutionism also violates the speartion of church and state as evolutionism is a religion.

  5. So, rather than starting bottom up by getting ID taught at the high school level, we should be encouraging more universities like Ball State to teach it. When enough academic inertia builds, it will inevitably spill down to high school.

    After all, ID takes a top/down approach to biology. Let it take the same pedagogical approach.

  6. The schools all belong to the people.
    The truth is the objective in subjects where its clearly the objective.
    Origin classes are about the truth.
    If something is censored then it either must be because its not the truth or despite it being a option for truth its still illegal.
    If they censor creationism(s) then the state is either saying its not true or its admitting to censoring it because it doesn’t like the religious connections.
    if the latter then the state is acting against the separation idea.
    Why is my logic wrong here??
    It isn’t. so creationism can’t be censored because it touches on religion.
    Takes a Canadian eh!

  7. even from an ignorant perspective

    Im not sure PZM is your friend.

  8. It’s religion taught as science in a public university, and it’s not only wrong but illegal. – coyne

    What is religion? In general: Isn’t it a set ideas one holds about reality, that also lead one on how to live?

    It seems to me that Coyne et.al. call intelligent design a religion ONLY because it has theological implications. But that is exactly what Darwinism does!

    If that is correct. Then, by Coynes reasoning, teaching Darwinism should be illegal.

  9. Wow… nice to see that PZ is capable of not being a complete douche bag for once.

  10. Methinks Jerry Coyne doesn’t know what religion is and he doesn’t know what science is…

  11. Jguy in #8

    It seems to me that Coyne et.al. call intelligent design a religion ONLY because it has theological implications. But that is exactly what Darwinism does!

    If that is correct. Then, by Coynes reasoning, teaching Darwinism should be illegal.

    To make matters even worse for Coyne is that the concept of evolution itself is tied to theology. In his book Darwin’s God, Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter makes a pretty good case that a lot of the impetus behind evolution is a “God wouldn’t have done it that way” mentality. The late Stephen Gould championed this idea in his book The Panda’s Thumb when he wrote:

    But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin.

    One wonder’s how Gould knows scientifically what a sensible God would or would not do. The point is that at root it is a theological argument, not a scientific one. The argument could be laid out thusly:

    Premise 1: We observe “odd arrangements and funny solutions in biological systems
    Premise 2: God wouldn’t have done it that way
    Conclusion: Therefore, evolution.

    I’m still waiting for the science to confirm the 2nd premise. Be that as it may, the point to be appreciated is that Coyne, Gould, and the rest of that lot want to exclude Design from any state sponsored curriculum on the grounds that is somehow a violation of the so-called constitutional separation of Church and State. (We’ll leave aside entirely for the moment that no such language exists in the constitution.) as Design is “religion”. Yet, all the while, they carefully sneak religious premises into what is supposed to be “just science”.

    Indeed one could argue that the entire premise of Naturalism – the basic idea that Nature is all there is and that the Cosmos and everything in it is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect – is itself a religious commitment of sorts. It is certainly a metaphysical one, and one for which there is no scientific basis whatsoever. So, what Coyne and others want is preference to be given to a particular metaphysical commitment for the sake of doing “science”. How is that not sneaking religion into the back door of Science?

  12. Inference to best explanation is not an implication. KF

  13. ‘Indeed one could argue that the entire premise of Naturalism – the basic idea that Nature is all there is and that the Cosmos and everything in it is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect – is itself a religious commitment of sorts. It is certainly a metaphysical one, and one for which there is no scientific basis whatsoever.’

    Worse than that, Naturalism unequivocally contradicts the Quantum Mechanics and its rigorously mathematical proofs. It is truly outrageous that they make their living from Quantum Mechanics, indeed, the modern world via leading-edge science depends upon it utterly, and yet they have the brass neck to tout their ‘dirt-worship’ as the proper ruling scientific (in truth of course, metaphysical) paradigm; while dismissing QM as, well, ‘very mysterious, you know’, and ID and theism (which QM validates in spades) on the grounds that, ‘well, we all know religion is just a fantasy thing’!

  14. What is it about, Naturalism? No. Materialism? No. Deism via QM? Yes!

    Even in its mystery, its paradoxes, QM points to the unknowable by the analytical intelligence. Dummies!

  15. A good analogy for the plight of the Materialist caused by QM, seems to me to be a footballer (soccer-player) who has been ‘nutmegged’ (ball passed through his legs) – inevitably very embarrassing – has spun round and is hopelessly racing back to retrieve the ball, and prevent the attacking team from scoring.

  16. How does Quantum Mechanics unequivocally contradict Naturalism? I know it contradicts determinism, I’m not sure I follow…

  17. What is religion? I’m rather fond of this definition from dictionary.com

    religion
    noun
    1.
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

  18. sigaba you ask,,

    How does Quantum Mechanics unequivocally contradict Naturalism?

    Well for starters sigaba, Materialism/Naturalism predicted that the basis of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space. Yet, Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -

    Double-slit experiment
    Excerpt: (Though normally done with photons) The double slit experiment can also be performed (using different apparatus) with particles of matter such as electrons with the same results, demonstrating that they also show particle-wave duality.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....experiment

    The Electron – The Supernatural Basis of Reality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5312315/

    The ‘Uncertain’ Non-Particle Basis Of Material Reality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172

    As well, Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness was an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus has no particular special position within material reality. Theism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Yet, Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality.

    ,,In fact, much contrary to what materialism/naturalism had predicted, the correct structure of reality is now found by modern science to be the inverse of what materialism/naturalism had predicted:

    1. material particles (mass) normally reduces to energy (e=mc^2)
    2. energy and mass both reduce to information (quantum teleportation)
    3. information reduces to consciousness (geometric centrality of conscious observation in universe dictates that consciousness must precede quantum wave collapse to its single bit state)

    Here are my references for the claim that mass “normally reduces” to energy:

    The reduction of matter to energy is comparatively easy to accomplish as is demonstrated by nuclear/atomic bombs:

    Atomic Bomb Explosion – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI

    *6.4 mg of mass converted to energy in Hiroshima A-bomb
    *4,400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs equivalent to one ounce of mass
    *1 drop of water equivalent to 10 Hiroshima A-bombs

    Whereas to convert energy to matter is a much more difficult proposition:

    ,,, it is important to note that a ‘simple’ atom is certainly not ‘simple’:

    Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy – June 2010
    Excerpt: Although they could confirm the effect qualitatively using complicated computations, they came up with a time offset of only five attoseconds. The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. “The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today’s supercomputers,” explains Yakovlev.
    http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.html

    And constructing a new atom from raw energy is certainly far more difficult than just adding enough raw energy to the mix:

    Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?
    Excerpt: “Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.
    It’s not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with ‘matter’ in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various ‘conservation laws’ of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter/anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.
    Also, Einstein’s equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d.....0724a.html

    Yet somehow, serendipitously, shortly after the big bang, and in the nucleosynthesis of stars, all the pieces of the puzzle spontaneously fell together to get these complex atoms to form spontaneously from energy (at least according to atheistic naturalists it was spontaneous):

    Big Bang
    After its (The Big Bangs) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    The Elements: Forged in Stars – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861

    “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_59-07_00

  19. Here are my references for the claim that “energy and mass both reduce to information”:

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    How Teleportation Will Work -
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

    Unconditional Quantum Teleportation – abstract
    Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,,
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....6.abstract

    It is also very interesting to note that the quantum state of a photon is actually defined as ‘infinite information’ in its uncollapsed quantum wave state:

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single 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/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting ‘material’ reality, as we experience it at its most foundational level, is ‘information’.

    “It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom – at a very deep bottom, in most instances – an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.”
    John Archibald Wheeler

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

  20. Here are my references for the claim that “information reduces to consciousness”:

    The argument for God from consciousness can now 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.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Leggett’s Inequalities, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice; Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries; )
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe”
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Of related note: The following site is very interesting to the subject of consciousness preceding ‘material’ reality:

    The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale.....olor=white

    Please note in the preceding interactive graph that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle;

    Further notes and references are here:

    The ‘Top Down’ Theistic Structure Of The Universe and Of The Human Body
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NhA4hiQnYiyCTiqG5GelcSJjy69e1DT3OHpqlx6rACs/edit

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-3
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    MercyMe – You Are I Am
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JI4CPfuLW0

  21. DG: To that, we must add that religions can be non-theistic, and that ideologies and philosophies or even movements and world pictures that do not amount to as much organised thought or institutionalisation can be functional equivalents thereto. Nor should we leave off cases were there are sad cases of people who worship at the altar of money or pleasures, or that of their own egos. And, I cannot ever leave off the idolatry of political messiahs. KF

  22. PS: In that context, it is possible for a state to erect a quasi-establishment of an ideology or a movement (and in particular in our day, evolutionary materialist scientistic radical secularism is such an ideology and activist driven movement), or the like. And such is as dangerous as ever was religious establishment int eh days of absolute kings.

  23. dgosse:

    1. There is a God.
    2. There is not a God.

    Which of the above is more concerned with God’s existence? Which is more about God than the other? Which sentence has more religious content?

  24. Re your the except, below, from your post #18, Philip:

    ‘ Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?
    Excerpt: “Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.
    It’s not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with ‘matter’ in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various ‘conservation laws’ of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter/anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.
    Also, Einstein’s equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d…..0724a.html

    Yet somehow, serendipitously, shortly after the big bang, and in the nucleosynthesis of stars, all the pieces of the puzzle spontaneously fell together to get these complex atoms to form spontaneously from energy (at least according to atheistic naturalists it was spontaneous):

    Big Bang
    After its (The Big Bangs) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    The Elements: Forged in Stars – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861

    “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom…..3_59-07_00′

    ———————————-

    ‘As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. -Max Planck

  25. I’m not sure naturalism makes any “predictions,” it’s a philosophy, people like Dawkins make it effectively into a kind of religion. Philosophies can never be proven wrong.

    I also don’t believe this account of naturalism is accurate. Naturalism is the belief that all that exists in the universe is matter, energy and physical laws, and that no supernatural force intervenes. I don’t see how the equivalence of mass and energy conflicts with this, as long as the exchange happens according to physical laws.

    I don’t know what you mean by “reduced to information,” your citations don’t support the idea that mass-energy and information are interchangeable. Matter and energy are not quantum states and are not transferred or converted by quantum teleportation. Your quote from an IBM research page (“destroyed in the process”), in context, is actually taken from a description of a science fiction teleportation machine.

    I don’t think you have any basis to claim that “information” in classical information theory is related to consciousness, your cited works don’t support the thesis.

  26. sigaba you erroneously claimed a bunch of unsupported premises, among which,,,

    “your citations don’t support the idea that mass-energy and information are interchangeable.”

    sigaba, I strongly suggest you have at least a clue about what you are commenting on before you start spouting a bunch of nonsense like you just did,,,

    notes

    How Teleportation Will Work -
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

    The Origins of Quantum Teleportation – Charles Bennett – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ZvkPgy7-Y

    Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves – April 2011
    Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
    http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....-computing

    Unconditional Quantum Teleportation – abstract
    Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,,
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....2/5389/706

    Information in a Photon – Robert W. Boyd – 2010
    Excerpt: By its conventional definition, a photon is one unit of excitation of a mode of the electromagnetic field. The modes of the electromagnetic field constitute a countably infinite set of basis functions, and in this sense the amount of information that can be impressed onto an individual photon is unlimited.
    http://www.pqeconference.com/p.....td/013.pdf

    Information In Photon – Robert W. Boyd – slides from presentation (slide 17)
    http://www.quantumphotonics.uo.....-InPho.pdf

    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.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,,
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

  27. None of your links say this. Go to them, half of them are just verbatim copies of what you put up the first time. Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter or energy into information; it’s been suggested that it may be possible but it’s never been experimentally verified.

    Even if it were true, I don’t understand how this relates to naturalism. I can grant you you’re right for the sake of argument but I can’t see how it makes a difference.

  28. sigaba, you are so far off base in you premises, I’m not going to waste my time.

  29. Maybe you’re saving both of us some time.

  30. sigaba, forget about information for the present. Naturalism is demolished by the various proofs in QM that mind precedes matter.

    Bornagain has summarized it, in his #18. The proofs are not controversial – just not accepted, though I’m right now looking for the tread where a materialist guru admitted what I had indicated here in a post last week, namely that QM renders controversy over the whole question of the age of the earth, for instance, fatuous – that empirically-established fact of mind being prior to matter.

  31. sigaba:

    Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter or energy into information; it’s been suggested that it may be possible but it’s never been experimentally verified.

    From your own wikipedia link (which was concerned specifically with quantum energy teleportation).

    The idea is a continuation of quantum teleportation which was originally proposed by C.H. Bennett, et al. in 1993[16] and experimentally confirmed by various experiments in the following years.[17][18][19] Protocols of the quantum teleportation transfer quantum information, but cannot teleport energy itself.

    It appears you are wrong on matter.

    And later in the wikipedia entry.

    However, if information about a local zero-point fluctuation, which carries a portion of the zero-point energy, is obtained by a measurement of a distant subsystem via ground-state entanglement, the energy becomes available, and can be extracted by a local operation dependent on the information.

    The clear implication is that information would be primary in energy transfer, just like it is in the transfer of matter, and this is BA’s point.

  32. What do you mean by “mind precedes matter”? Bornagain linked to many things but the interpretation of QM of privileging consciousness over material reality is not a generally accepted interpretation, and at best is just an interpretation and may not be physical. QM “proves” mathematical relationships between different, quite abstract, properties, which we try to describe but which probably have no relatable analogue to our experience. I don’t think QM “proves” that the mind is prior to matter in any sort of systematic way; not least because it has no formal definition of mind.

    Further, if QM had supernatural implications (as BA’s Electron video described), I don’t know if we can say this would make the mind supernatural. We don’t really have much evidence that quantum-mechanical effects influence the brain or vice versa, there have been proposals but no evidence.

  33. Phineas:

    The sentence states that Quantum Teleportation was confirmed, not Quantum Energy Teleportation. Those references are to papers of people who used QT to transmit information — you following quote is from the account of the hypothesis, not something anyone has actually done. That’s why the article ends with the rather clear statement:

    Experimental verification of the teleportation has not been achieved yet.

    As I said.

  34. I see in your post#42, a series of evasions. Of course you will never get a classical definition. You cannot take neolithic tools to operate the Hadron Collider at CERNE and record the data output.

    Mathematics and concepts would be the only appropriate means of investigating and coming to some sort of working understanding (which they have) of quantum mechanics, so your evasions are errors of category. You exhibit a quite fundamental repugnance for the direction in which QM has been moving and must continue to move; but you must get over it.

  35. You will wait a very long time indeed, longer than the age of the universe, for a formal definition of mind, which would acceptable to an atheist ‘scientist’.

  36. I’m not holding my breath.

  37. Right, but without a formal definition of the mind, how can you make any objective statements about it? I mean, you’re the one that said that QM “proves” that the mind is prior to matter — how can it do that without a formal definition of mind?

  38. sigaba:

    The sentence states that Quantum Teleportation was confirmed, not Quantum Energy Teleportation.

    Right. I pointed out this distinction in my post and even highlighted it with bold face. The reason I did so was in response to your claim:

    Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter…into information.

    Based on the article you linked, it would appear that at least part of your statement, above, is incorrect.

    That’s why the article ends with the rather clear statement:

    Experimental verification of the teleportation has not been achieved yet.

    In context, was it not clear to you that the teleportation it is talking about is only the teleportation of energy?

  39. S: There are various approaches to definition, and one of them fits right in with science: ostensive, by example. Indeed, arguably this is prior to precising definition, which seeks to more precisely define borders. We are not locked up to your implied infinite regress of definitions. and we can identify intelligence and volition, thence onward mind, adequately for relevant purposes. KF

  40. That’s very comical, sigaba, if I may say so.

    We’d be in a bad way, indeed, if our knowledge depended on formal definitions! When did you start relying on a definition of the mind to have a good idea of what it was?

    Just think of it as a thinking mechanism. Don’t worry about cogs and levers and springs.

  41. Must go the noo. Tomorrow.

  42. Phineas-

    I’m sorry I think I’ve misunderstood. My original point was that QET wasn’t a real thing, there’s a hypothesis but there’s no evidence that it’s actually possible. It must therefore be regarded as not possible for the time being.

    “Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter into information” is a completely accurate statement of current knowledge. I don’t think an unsupported hypothesis makes BA partially correct — that’d be like saying “Primordial Soup” abiogenesis is partially correct. Frankly, by stating that “energy-information equivalence” is a proven fact and using it to justify other assertions, I think he’s taking liberties with the the truth.

    kairosfocus-

    I’m not quite certain I implied an “infinite regress of definitions.”

    You guys have a whole internal vocabulary for this stuff.

  43. Goodnight Axel.

  44. sigaba, I never claimed that energy was being teleported in these experiments. In fact, from my current grasp of physics, I would hold that such is not possible. I claimed that energy is being reduced to quantum information in these teleportation experiments. I don’t hold quantum information and energy to be equivalent. I hold quantum information to have dominion of energy! Moreover, teleportation experiments are far from hypothetical:

    Quantum teleportation using active feed-forward between two Canary Islands – 2012
    Excerpt: Here we report the first long-distance quantum teleportation experiment with active feed-forward in real time. The experiment employed two optical links, quantum and classical, over 143 km free space between the two Canary Islands of La Palma and Tenerife
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3909

    To go into a bit of detail of what is happening in teleportation experiments:

    Measurement Of bell operator And Quantum Teleportation
    http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk...../bmB95.pdf

    We find in the preceding paper that they state in paragraph 2, below the Fig.1 detector reference and equations on page 2:

    “is effectively annihilating these photons to the vacuum state”:

    Looking up vacuum state we find.:

    Physics of optoelectronics
    Excerpt: “In QED, a state without any photons (the vacuum state) has an average electric field of zero, but non-zero variance (which is proportional to the square of the field).”
    http://books.google.com/books?.....;lpg=PA354

    Thus in quantum teleportation, photon “a” is effectively annihilated to the vacuum state whilst photon “c”, due to the quantum information being teleported, not due to the energy itself being teleported, becomes indistinguishable from what was photon “a”.,, sigaba, it is fairly unambiguous that energy is being reduced to quantum information in the experiment and that a photon is being ‘annihilated’ in the process. Do you disagree with that?

    supplemental notes:

    Unconditional Quantum Teleportation – Entire Article
    Excerpt: However, quantum teleportation is also possible for continuous variables corresponding to states of infinite dimensional systems such as optical systems or the motion of massive particles,,,, Third, finite-dimensional systems can always be considered as sub-systems of infinite dimensional systems,,,
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?....._dKuYIJXxg

    (Of note; by incorporating “Victor” into their scheme they are able to achieve a much more accurate measurement that insures the teleportation is “perfect”,,,”every state” is teleported, a state which is mathematically defined as infinite information)

    Teleportation of Continuous Quantum Variables – Samuel L. Braunstein – pg. 870 bottom left corner
    Excerpt page 870 at the bottom of the left hand column: that such ideal detectors provide “perfect” information about (photon equation), while all information about (photon equation) is lost. Furthermore, although (photon equation) contains a small amount of information about the fiducial state (photon equation), this information goes to zero for r goes to infinity!
    http://authors.library.caltech.....Aprl98.pdf

    further notes:

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system’s wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ality.html

    Moreover, A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its ‘infinite dimensional’ state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0? state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness, due to geometric considerations, is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, “Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon to its single bit state?

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-5
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    Skillet – Awake and Alive
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aJUnltwsqs

  45. corrected link:

    Unconditional Quantum Teleportation – Entire Article
    http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk.....etal98.pdf

  46. I’m sorry I think I’ve misunderstood. My original point was that QET wasn’t a real thing, there’s a hypothesis but there’s no evidence that it’s actually possible. It must therefore be regarded as not possible for the time being.

    Why do you keep equivocating between Quantum Energy Teleportation and Quantum Teleportation? Have you considered that abandoning this equivocation might make things a bit more clear?

    “Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter into information” is a completely accurate statement of current knowledge.

    No, it isn’t.

    I don’t think an unsupported hypothesis makes BA partially correct — that’d be like saying “Primordial Soup” abiogenesis is partially correct.

    Neither do I, but that statement has nothing to do with Quantum Teleportation, which has been successfully demonstrated a number of times. In fact, it has become ordinary enough that articles are now talking about setting records in Quantum Teleportation.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-04-p.....ubits.html

    TL;DR:

    - Quantum Energy Teleportation is theoretical, but as yet untested
    - Quantum Teleportation has been successfully demonstrated multiple times

    Clear?

  47. Darn html! …

    Real Article Link

  48. Thanks for the link Phinehas. Was a pleasant thing to wake up to and learn about.

    Physicists set new record for quantum teleportation with matter qubits – Apr 16, 2013
    http://phys.org/news/2013-04-p.....ubits.html

  49. Yeah I totally accept that, I never doubted it.

    “I hold quantum information to have dominion of energy!”

    What does it mean “to have dominion of energy”?

    I originally thought you meant “reduce” to mean commute or transform, because you used it right after saying matter “normally reduces” to energy, and then said literally “mass and energy both reduce to information.” ‘Reduce’ is taking on very different meanings there.

    And I still don’t see how this relates to naturalism…

  50. I don’t want to put words in BA’s mouth. He’s much more familiar with this subject than I am. However, I think the point is this:

    Given only information, matter can be produced.

    This is basically what is happening with QT. The experiments are taking all of the information inherent in a matter qubit (which basically destroys that matter qubit) and using it to recreate the matter qubit instantaneously some distance from the original. (Since there is no more or less matter in existence before the experiment than there is after it, the First Law of Thermodynamics is not really broken.) Since the only thing that is “teleported” is the information, and not any sort of matter, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that matter is composed of information, or, put another way, that information reduces to matter.

    This is the opposite of the materialist/naturalist position that says:

    Given only matter, information can be produced.

  51. F/N: Logically, given the matter-energy equivalence (e=mc^2), the above should hold true for energy as well.

  52. Phineas:

    I think you’re misunderstanding QT. When they “teleport” information, they aren’t creating or destroying any matter. They’re taking a quantum state from one photon and applying it to another.

    You have one subatomic particle “A”, and one subatomic particle “B” some distance away — before the teleportation particle “A” is in some known state vector, like (3,2,0), and particle “B” is of an undetermined state. After the teleportation particle A is of undetermined state and particle “B” is in state (3,2,0). No matter or energy actually moves, you have the same number of particles before and after, all that’s happened is you’ve moved the state from one particle to the other, and you’ve done it without transmitting any sort of signal and you’ve done it faster than the speed of light.

    So when he says “reduces,” it sounds sorta mystical. Information definitely plays a role in quantum teleportation, but it’s not interchangeable with mass or energy, it’s not mutually “conserved” or converted from one into the other, you can’t take information and make mass-energy out of it, not yet.

    I’d steer clear from that BA guy, his posts are like reading the label on a bottle of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap. All he does is splatter quotes from popsci journals intermixed with crank websites.

  53. Phineas:

    A separate matter:

    Given only matter, information can be produced.

    Can you elaborate on this? Is this wrong somehow?

  54. sigaba:

    What does matter consist of other than its quantum state? :)

    Underestimating BA’s knowledge and understanding would be a mistake.

  55. sigaba:

    Given only matter, information can be produced.

    Can you elaborate on this? Is this wrong somehow?

    Given your own standard (“…there’s no evidence that it’s actually possible. It must therefore be regarded as not possible for the time being”) I would say the above must be regarded as not possible for the time being.

  56. What does matter consist of other than its quantum state?

    On the quantum level, matter has momentum and mass-energy. These are distinct quantities from the quantum state vector, subatomic state is a mapping that operates on these values, it transforms them but they’re conserved over space and time. Further, while you can move quantum states from one particle to another, but you can’t assemble particles together using teleportation, or arrange them chemically. Chemical bonds and the large-scale organization of matter is part of the physical world, too, and no one remotely knows how to reduce these things to “information.”

    If you start with two photons at the beginning of your experiment, and you have two photons at the end, I think it’s pretty evident no matter was created or destroyed.

  57. phineas:

    But information is everywhere. Information, at least in classical information theory, is simply uncertainty, and anywhere you have a thermodynamic system you’re going to have gobs of information. I know Dembski has a different definition and a narrower concept called “specified information,” do you refer to that?

  58. sigaba:

    Information, at least in classical information theory, is simply uncertainty…

    Interesting. How certain are you about the origin of everything? Does this mean everything has its origin in classical information? :)

    I’m not talking about Shannon information. I’m talking about the kind of information that is being communicated through our posts.

  59. Phineas:

    Does this mean everything has its origin in classical information?

    I don’t know what this means. Something you guys keep doing is equivocating between information and physical reality.

  60. sigaba and Phinehas, The role of each conscious observer, and the choice(s) of each conscious observer, and the specific operations of logic that are used to achieve quantum teleportation in the teleportation experiments are summarized on the following site:

    Quantum Teleportation – A summary
    Excerpt: Assume that Alice and Bob share an entangled qubit ab. That is, Alice has one half, a, and Bob has the other half, b. Let c denote the qubit Alice wishes to transmit to Bob.
    Alice applies a unitary operation on the qubits ac and measures (i.e. consciously observes) the result to obtain two classical bits. In this process, the two qubits are destroyed. Bob’s qubit, b, now contains information about c; however, the information is somewhat randomized. More specifically, Bob’s qubit b is in one of four states uniformly chosen at random and Bob cannot obtain any information about c from his qubit.
    Alice provides her two measured classical bits, which indicate which of the four states Bob possesses. Bob applies a unitary transformation which depends on the classical bits he obtains from Alice, transforming his qubit into an identical re-creation of the qubit c.,,,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....#A_summary

    summary of logical operations
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....The_result

    But why in blue blazes should conscious observation (i.e. measurement) and the process by which one freely chooses to exercise operations of logic in a experiment have any effect whatsoever in the instantaneous teleporting of a material particle? with the only caveat being the classical communication channel that is necessary to decode the qubit? This simply makes no sense from the materialistic perspective in which it is held that everything (consciousness, free will, logic, life etc, etc..) ‘emerges’ from a material basis!
    As if that finding wasn’t bad enough to give the honest atheist nightmares, (yes there is such a critter as a honest atheist, i.e. Thomas Nagel), here is a variation of the teleportation experiment that demonstrates “teleportation in time” which should, by all rights, make any ‘honest’ atheist break out in sweats:

    Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement – January 2011
    Excerpt: In “ordinary” quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it’s possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call “teleportation in time.” “To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology,” Olson told PhysOrg.com.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....ement.html

    Defying not just only Space but Time itself? Now a materialist who doesn’t admit to being shocked by that experiment is just not connected to his materialistic roots! And it gets worse for the materialist. Much worse! It is good to go thru a bit of a review to show how bad it gets. Here Dr. Zeilinger, arguably the best experimentalist in quantum physics today,,,

    Prof. Dr. Anton Zeilinger
    http://www.quantum.at/zeilinger/

    ,,,goes over the double slit experiment with Morgan Freeman:

    Quantum Mechanics (QM) – Double Slit Experiment. Is anything really physical? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

    In the preceding video Dr. Zeilinger states something that is very interesting:

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passed through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. is a sentence that simply just does not fit into any materialistic scenario. Nor does the following finding find a place in materialism:

    Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,,
    “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142217.htm

    Of course, all this ‘quantum weirdness’ was originally revealed to us by physicists trying to understand why the wave collapses in the double slit experiment simply by us observing it. Materialist, of course, are at a complete loss to explain why conscious observation should play any role in the experiment. Whereas the Theist is quite comfortable with consciousness having a central role in the experiment. But rather than the mainstream atheists/materialists accepting the obvious falsification of their worldview from the double slit experiment, and accepting the possibility that God may be real, they have invented the unverifiable many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to try to ‘explain it away’. I guess it is just more comfortable for a atheist to think of an infinite number of themselves than to submit to almighty God! :) Needless to say (or at least it should be needless to say), the many-worlds conjecture of atheists is a view of reality that drives atheistic naturalism even further into epistemological failure than it already was (Boltzmann’s Brain; Plantinga’s EAAN).,,

    You don’t exist in an infinite number of places, say scientists – January 25, 2013
    Excerpt: But the scientists’ biggest criticism of the idea of infinite repetition in both proposals is the assumption that the universe is infinite. (i.e. all the evidence we have states the universe had a beginning),,,
    Soler Gil and Alfonseca note that, looking back at the history of physics, situations emerged where infinities seemed impossible to avoid, yet improved theories eliminated the infinities. Currently the two basic theories in physics, general relativity and quantum theory, both predict infinities. In relativity, it’s gravity singularities in black holes and the big bang. In quantum theory, it’s vacuum energy and certain parts of quantum field theory. Perhaps both theories are simple approximations of a third more general theory without infinities.
    Soler Gil and Alfonseca also note that, Paul Dirac once stated that the most important challenge in physics was “to get rid of infinity.”
    While Soler Gil and Alfonseca can’t disprove the proposals of infinite repetition, they emphasize that the point of their critique is to show that the idea remains in the realm of philosophy, mythology, and sci-fi tales, not modern cosmology. They call the speculation “ironic science,” a term used by science journalist John Horgan to describe options that do not converge on truth but are at best “interesting.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-d.....tists.html

    As to a “a third more general theory without infinities” that they were looking for, I would like to submit,,,

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    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.....of_xty.pdf

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The ‘Event Horizon’ On The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

  61. To continue on with the absurdities presented to us by atheists who insist on believing in ‘many-worlds’ which are presumably populated by a infinite number of atheists :)

    Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? July 2012 – Stephen M. Barr – professor of physics at the University of Delaware.
    Excerpt: The upshot is this: If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry.
    If, on the other hand, we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind?
    http://www.bigquestionsonline......elieve-god

    Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
    Excerpt: “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
    http://www.scientificamerican......vefunction

    To make matters even worse for materialists, further advances in the experimental techniques of Quantum Mechanics, experimentation which, by the way, could care less if the atheist is able to maintain his a priori worldview or not, have only dramatically underscored this ‘weirdness’ that is highlighted by the double slit experiment:

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    Of note to just how strongly ‘consciousness centered’ quantum theory is verified is noted here:

    “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.

    A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008
    Excerpt: So Zeilinger’s group rederived Leggett’s theory for a finite number of measurements. There were certain directions the polarization would more likely face in quantum mechanics. This test was more stringent. In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct.
    http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._tests/P3/

    As well, as with any other robust theory of science, there are several different ways consciousness is confirmed to be ‘central’ to reality by quantum mechanics other than just Leggett’s inequality:

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine our conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
    According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

    In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic), as the materialist holds, how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,, I consider the preceding experimental evidence to be a vast improvement over the traditional ‘uncertainty’ argument for free will, from quantum mechanics, that had been used to undermine the deterministic belief of materialists:

    Why Quantum Physics (Uncertainty) Ends the Free Will Debate – Michio Kaku – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw

    Moreover, it is shown in the following paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will, or conscious observation, as starting assumptions in Quantum Mechanics!

    Can quantum theory be improved? – July 23, 2012
    Excerpt: physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,,
    ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html

    of note:
    *What does the term “measurement” mean in quantum mechanics?
    “Measurement” or “observation” in a quantum mechanics context are really just other ways of saying that the observer is interacting with the quantum system and measuring the result in toto.
    http://boards.straightdope.com.....p?t=597846

  62. Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science! And to find that free will is a required assumption in out most successful scientific theory is nothing less than amazing and should receive far more attention than it has thus far received!.

    Of related interest, here is an exchange a philosopher had with Einstein:

    Einstein was asked (by a philosopher):

    “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”

    Einstein’s answer was categorical, he said:

    “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”

    Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video:
    Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now”
    https://vimeo.com/10588094

    The preceding statement was an interesting statement for Einstein to make since ‘the now of the mind’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, undermined Einstein’s General Relativity as to being the absolute frame of reference for reality. i.e. ‘the now of the mind’, contrary to what Einstein thought possible for experimental physics (being the determinist he was), and according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time. Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher in this way:

    “It is impossible for the experience of ‘the now’ to ever be completely divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”

    Since our free will choices figure so prominently in how reality is actually found to be constructed in our understanding of quantum mechanics, I think it is very fitting to reflect on the Christian perspective, on just how important our ‘free will’ choices are in this temporal life in regards to our eternal destiny:

    Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA

    Verse and Music:

    John 5:6
    “Do you want to be healed?”

    Red – Feed The Machine
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2uZO7xnus

    Myself, I like the argument for God from consciousness which is derived from the geometric considerations of the universe,,

    The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe”
    Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D 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, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15]

    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.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Besides all this evidence being completely contrary the atheist’s/materialist’s starting presuppositions, it is interesting to note just how tightly all this evidence fits into the Theist’s starting presuppositions. Presuppositions that were derived centuries ago. For prime example:

    The argument from motion is known as Aquinas’ First way. (Of note, St Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 7 March 1274.)

    Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As

    Aquinas’ First Way
    1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act.
    2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually.
    3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act.
    4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature.
    5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency.
    6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series.
    7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God.
    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/…..t-way.html

    Or to put it much more simply:

    “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”
    Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....first.html

    As well, not only is motion dependent on a “prime act”, i.e. on a ‘first mover’, but quantum non-locality also provides empirical confirmation for the ancient philosophical argument for ‘being’, for ‘existence’ itself!

    Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
    Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm

  63. Put more simply, a photon is not a self existent entity but is always dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its continued existence within space-time. i.e. God ‘sustains’ the universe!

    Aquinas’ Third way – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V030hvnX5a4

    God Is the Best Explanation For Why Anything At All Exists – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjuqBxg_5mA

    ,,, to me, as a Theist, finding QM to fit hand in glove to what was postulated centuries before is, of course, something to be very excited about. But even as a person, who believes in the objectivity of science to reveal truth to us about reality, and tries to follow the evidence wherever it leads despite what I would a priorily prefer to believe philosophically, I can only wonder as to what sinister motive would possibly drive a atheist, who claims to believe in ‘rationality’, to fight so hard against what is so obvious from our science? Exactly what is the payoff for fighting so hard against Theism for a false nihilistic view of reality?

    Of related note, even though QM takes precedence over the space-time of General relativity as to being a more complete description of reality,,,

    LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD – Vlatko Vedral – 2011
    Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics.
    http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchan.....611038.pdf

    ,,,even though QM takes precedence as the best description of reality, It seems that most Atheists, at least the ones I’ve interacted with, will not even accept this overwhelming evidence which is coming from looking at space-time itself:

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -
    Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – paper delivered at Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday party (Characterized as ‘Worst Birthday Present Ever’)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....beginning/

    Music and verse:

    Kari Jobe – Revelation Song – Passion 2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE

    REVELATION 4:11
    “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

  64. Bornagain, that account of QT has both individuals sharing observations in concordance, QT wouldn’t work otherwise. There’s nothing subjective in how QT works.

  65. sigaba, perhaps you would like to pull off a QT experiment without any conscious observers whatsoever to prove your point? Or do you just like proclaiming your materialistic beliefs to be so without any proof whatsoever. I, on the other hand, can show that you, once again, have no clue what you are talking about:

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0

  66. Robert Byers at 6:

    The schools all belong to the people.

    No, they don’t. Public schools, like Ball State, belong to the people. Private universities or religious schools (like the Jesuit university I attended) do not.

    The truth is the objective in subjects where its clearly the objective.

    This sentence makes no sense.

    Origin classes are about the truth.

    Technically, origin classes (your term) would discuss the origins of something, whether it’s the universe, the Earth, or humanity. Linus Pauling famously stated that science is the search for the truth. I agree with him.

    If something is censored then it either must be because its not the truth or despite it being a option for truth its still illegal.

    No. Something is censored because someone (or several people) find something in it that’s offensive. Truth has nothing to do with it. Neither does illegality.

    If they censor creationism(s) then the state is either saying its not true or its admitting to censoring it because it doesn’t like the religious connections. if the latter then the state is acting against the separation idea.

    The state “censors” creationism because it has been defined legally as being part of religious belief and, in the US, there is a wall of separation between church and state.

    Why is my logic wrong here??

    Because your premises are flawed.

    It isn’t. so creationism can’t be censored because it touches on religion.

    See above. Your argument fails on a couple of different levels.

  67. One of Coyne’s “arguments” is that books like “The God Delusion” should be included to give the course some sort balance.

    Hellooooooo, all the materialists crap is covered in the other courses offered at the university. This course is designed to show the students that there are contrary points of view to materialism.

    BTW Jerry, “The God Delusion” has been trumped by “The Devil’s Delusion”…

  68. Non-Locality and Free Will confirmed yet again:

    Nonlocality and free will vs. many-worlds and determinism: The material world emerges from outside space-time – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....Bs#t=2469s

    Empty waves, many worlds, parallel lives, and nonlocal decision at detection – Antoine Suarez – 2012
    Abstract: I discuss an experiment demonstrating nonlocality and conservation of energy under the assumption that the decision of the outcome happens at detection. The experiment does not require Bell’s inequalities and is loophole-free. I further argue that the local hidden variables assumed in Bell’s theorem involve de Broglie’s “empty waves”, and therefore “many worlds” achieves to reconcile locality with the violation of Bell’s inequalities. Accordingly, the discussed experiment may be the first loophole-free demonstration of nonlocality.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1732v1

  69. ‘“Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,,’

    Wasn’t that what I intimated a few months ago, when you remarked on the mystery of nothing being faster than the speed of light, yet photons at a distance from each other seemingly entangling simultaneously, Phil?

    Do you remember I said I’d never thought of the information as travelling at all, but that God’s Spirit, as the matrix of Creation was what would have effected the simultaneous correlated spinning (whatever that might mean!) As a sop to our scientismical fantasist friends, ‘God dun it’

  70. Yes, the level of control ‘non-locally’ displayed for even individual photons,,,

    ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
    Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm

    ,,,completely blows any Deistic premise, much less an atheistic premise, completely out of the water.

    also of interest:

    non-local (spooky action at a distance) quantum entanglement is possible without the physical interaction of the particles first:

    Qubits that never interact could exhibit past-future entanglement – July 30, 2012
    Excerpt: Typically, for two particles to become entangled, they must first physically interact. Then when the particles are physically separated and still share the same quantum state, they are considered to be entangled. But in a new study, physicists have investigated a new twist on entanglement in which two qubits become entangled with each other even though they never physically interact.,,
    In the current study, the physicists have proposed an experiment based on circuit quantum electrodynamics (QED) that is fully within reach of current technologies. They describe a set-up that involves a pair of superconducting qubits, P and F, with qubit P connected to a quantum field vacuum by a transmission line. During the first time interval, which the scientists call the past, P interacts with the field. Then P is quickly decoupled from the field for the second time interval. Finally, F is coupled to the field for a time interval called the future. Even though P and F never interact with the field at the same time or with each other at all, F’s interactions with the field cause it to become entangled with P. The physicists call this correlation “past-future entanglement.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-q.....ement.html

    i.e. Photons, on which everything in the universe is dependent on so as to derive their most minute movements, are found to require a beyond space and time, ‘non-local’, cause to explain their continued existence in space time.

  71. ‘Photons, on which everything in the universe is dependent on so as to derive their most minute movements, are found to require a beyond space and time, ‘non-local’, cause to explain their continued existence in space time.’

    That interface, Phil.

  72. Poor, old sigaba wants to retreat into Many Worlds, because he and his atheist confreres are brassed off with the mysteries of QM. But they’ve nowhere to go, have they?

    The progress made in QM, itself, from the moment of its inception, required a matter-of-fact acceptance of mysteries, and their incorporation in the framework of the normal, classical, scientific methodology.

    Anyway, what with all this non-locality and general proliferation of imponderable paradoxes, on top of the repudiation of the mechanistic-mindset, things have taken an ugly turn for them.

    Their inescapable recourse to paradoxes, unless oriented towards atheistic fantasies, such as the Many Worlds of nothing turning itself into everything AND ANYTHING, makes them like Shakespeare’s schoolboy, ‘the whining schoolboy with his satchel and shining morning face, creeping like a snail unwillingly to school.’

    Still… ‘one day, my son….’

  73. It struck me a while ago that the absolute speed of light indicates that, even though light interacts with space-time, and can even be be generated by us, space-time must belong to a subordinate level of reality to it.

    Does that make sense to you, Phil? Space-time relates to light, while light is arbitrary. Doesn’t need friends! Just beams alongs on its merry way.

Leave a Reply