Home » Intelligent Design » Gödel, Human Intuition, and Intelligent Design

Gödel, Human Intuition, and Intelligent Design

This is a great video on the interplay between the ideas of Gödel and Turing on what Gödel’s incompleteness means for the mind. This is of great importance to ID, because it indicates what it means for “design” as opposed to “mechanism”, and the limitations of any mechanistic/physicalist model of reality and humanity.

Kurt Gödel: Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition

Someone pointed me to this video a while ago, but I don’t remember who – thanks to whoever it was – it was certainly worthwhile! Also, does anyone know what video this is taken from?

For those interested in more modern advances on the subject, you might check out these talks on the subject from the recent Engineering and Metaphysics conference:

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

41 Responses to Gödel, Human Intuition, and Intelligent Design

  1. johnnyb, The video clip comes from this BBC documentary:

    BBC-Dangerous Knowledge
    http://video.google.com/videop.....4649921614

    video description: In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant mathematicians – Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing – whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide. The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics. He believed he was God’s messenger and was eventually driven insane trying to prove his theories of infinity.

  2. As to the Godel’s incompleteness of mathematics, Turing’s halting problem of computers, and, as Godel pointed out, the necessity of ‘human intuition’ to overcome the limitations imposed on material processes to ‘figure out’ greater levels of computational complexity, I believe this following paper drives the point firmly home about how all this relates to Intelligent Design in molecular biology:

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 2012
    Excerpt: “This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.”,,,
    Even with shortcuts like averaging, “any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system,” Koch said. “It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner.” He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:,,,
    “Allen and Greaves recently introduced the metaphor of a “complexity brake” for the observation that fields as diverse as neuroscience and cancer biology have proven resistant to facile predictions about imminent practical applications. Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge.”,,,
    Why can’t we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are “purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number.” The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. “None of this is true for nervous systems.”,,,
    to read more go here:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Of course, much more could be said, but for now, I think the paper pretty much says it all.

  3. I’ll suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree.

    As a mathematician, my assessment is that most mathematicians think that Gödel is important in mathematical logic, but has little or no relevance to their own primary field within mathematics.

    Roger Penrose has written several books, attempting to show a problem with AI (roughly, the thesis that cognition is computation). Penrose bases his argument on Gödel’s and Turing’s work. In my opinion, Penrose’s arguments are a complete failure. Personally, I disagree with computationism, so if anything I should be biased toward favoring Penrose’s argument. However, the problem is that the argument simply does not work.

    The Gödel proof does not actually show a limitation of logic. Rather, it shows problems with how we have attempted to extend logic to cover infinite realms. Any reasonable assessment would be that a cognitive agent’s interactions with the world are finitistic, and thus problems with extending logic into the infinite have no persuasive force, as applied to a cognitive agent.

    The only relevance that I can see to ID, is that this supports the view that ID is philosophy, not science.

  4. Neil:

    In my opinion, Penrose’s arguments are a complete failure. Personally, I disagree with computationism, so if anything I should be biased toward favoring Penrose’s argument. However, the problem is that the argument simply does not work.

    I’m sure you’re talking about the The Emperor’s New Mind. I’m curious why you think his argument fails. I found it convincing. We’ll probably not change the other’s view, but I am curious what you found lacking.

  5. To my knowledge, Penrose actually has three books on the topic. In addition to the one you mentioned, there are “Shadows of the Mind” and “The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.” My memory of the last of those is hazy – I didn’t spend as much time on it as on the other two. In “Shadows”, Penrose recasts his argument from “Emperor’s New Mind” so as to base it on Turing rather than on Gödel.

    Here are two problems that I have with Turing’s argument:

    1: The Gödel proof and Turing’s Halting problem are for infinite systems (the Peano axioms for Gödel, the Turing machine for Turing). However, any plausible account of the mind as a computer would be a finitistic one. That is, the mind would have to be seen as a finite automaton, not as an infinite Turing machine. And the halting problem does not apply to finite automata.

    2: The claim that humans can do better than the Turing machine, with respect to the halting problem, is an illusion. The Turing machine is a solipsistic system. It begins with data on its tape, but thereafter has no access to any data that might come from the real world. By contrast, real mathematicians are constantly visiting libraries, reading journals, having discussions with colleagues. And that gives the real mathematician a stream of new information that is not available to the solipsistic Turing machine.

    In short, the argument that Penrose uses does not work because it does not fit the actual problem.

  6. Neil snorted:

    The only relevance that I can see to ID, is that this supports the view that ID is philosophy, not science.

    Neil, if you really believe Darwinian evolution is ‘science’ and ID is merely philosophy, then why did you just provide further empirical evidence for ID by writing your post? You see Neil if you could get purely material processes to generate just a few sentences of the functional information, which you just ‘effortlessly’ did (‘effortlessly’ because it is evident you were not really thinking very hard when you wrote it :) ) ,,,when you wrote your post then you could actually provide a basis for Darwinism within science and forever silence the critics of Darwinism who maintain Darwinism is, in reality, nothing but a pseudo-science with no real empirical basis to appeal to to silence the accusation of fraud against it!

    Notes:

    the materialistic/Darwinian argument essentially appears to be like this:

    Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known.
    Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause

    On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows:

    “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.”

    There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs — intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter — a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).)

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis for the Intelligent Design Inference – video
    http://vimeo.com/32148403

    Book Review – Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
    Excerpt: So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it’s a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume.....k_726.html

    To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for ‘structured, functional information’:

    Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

    How many bits would that be:

    Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits

    Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski

    Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

    Here are the slides of preceding video with a clearer view of the calculation of the information content of the preceding sentence on page 14
    http://www.blythinstitute.org/.....t_info.pdf

  7. ba77:

    …, then why did you just provide further empirical evidence for ID by writing your post?

    Quite simply, I didn’t.

    If you want ID to be taken seriously, then you need to get away from ridiculous mischaracterization of what others say, and actually start working on real evidence.

    Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known.
    Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause

    If a Darwinist actually presented such an argument, they would be ridiculed, and rightly so.

    If ID is all about attacking a strawman, then I concede. The strawman that ID proponents attack really is as ridiculous as you say it is. But your victory is hollow, for it only serves to show how little there is in ID.

  8. Neil you indignantly claim that I misrepresented the (your) atheistic/Darwinian position,,, a ‘strawman’ you called it. Yet the fact of the matter is that nobody has EVER seen purely material processes generate any non-trivial functional information, and Intelligent agents (humans) routinely, almost as a force of habit, generate non-trivial amounts of functional information (as your very own words testify to every time you write a post). In spite of this glaring deficiency of empirical validation for a (the) basic premise of the atheistic/materialistic/Darwinian position, and despite your seemingly insane denial to the contrary, Darwinists dogmatically cling to this unsubstantiated premise that material processes can create stunning levels of informational complexity (parallel processing) in life that our best computer programmers can only dream of imitating! In fact there is a name for this dogmatic belief atheists have imposed on science, it is called methodological naturalism! You don’t believe me??? Well here is a infamous quote:

    Darwinian Fundamentalist Manifesto: Richard Lewontin’s Commitment to Materialism
    Excerpt: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. – quote from Richard Lewontin’s January 9, 1997 article, Billions and Billions of Demons,
    http://darwinianfundamentalism.....festo.html

    Ironically this fear of atheistic materialists that ‘at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen’ is exactly what you get when you insist on methodological naturalism (purely material answers) and you deny God His rightful place as being the author of all reality, especially including, His rightful place being the author of all science!:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    http://vimeo.com/34468027

    Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video:

    The End Of Materialism?
    * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
    * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
    * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

  9. Neil -

    First of all, I think that either Penrose has changed his mind on this, or you misunderstood his point. I have not read his books, but I did listen to a recent talk of his on the subject. Your criticisms apply much better to my own views on the subject rather than Penrose’s.

    Penrose uses Godel/Turing to argue for a different Physics – one which depends on more complex dynamics than is available in a computable system. However, this is not the same as his argument for the mind. Penrose’s argument for the mind is that physics, as such, has nothing in it that contributes to understanding. That is, physics can calculate, but not understand or comprehend. It is very much similar to Searle’s Chinese Room argument.

    Now, regarding your arguments – you say that “any plausible account of the mind would be a finitistic one”. Rather than getting around the Godel/Turing result, it rather intensifies it. For the question is not about understanding our own mind, but about how we understand reality. Therefore, to make the mind smaller than a Godel/Turing machine, you actually place greater limitations on the ability of human knowledge than either of them did.

    The core of rationality is being able to reason to higher-level verities. If we do not have access to something greater than a Godel/Turing machine, then the ability to reason is itself suspect.

    As an example, most of number theory is reducible to Turing machines, and the ability to make progress in number theory is based on human’s ability to surpass the Turing limit.

  10. johnnyb#9:

    First of all, I think that either Penrose has changed his mind on this, or you misunderstood his point. I have not read his books, but I did listen to a recent talk of his on the subject. Your criticisms apply much better to my own views on the subject rather than Penrose’s.

    That’s a long talk, and I have not yet finished listening.

    I doubt that Penrose has changed his underlying intuition. I am inclined to agree with that intuition (if I understand it correctly). The problem comes when he tries to turn that intuition into a logical argument. And that always fails (as it did for Searle).

    His approach in his books, was to use Gödel to argue that formalistic mathematics is limited, compared to platonist mathematics. I agree with that on the intuitive level. And Gödel might have agreed with that, too. But you cannot turn that into a formal argument, because platonism is not formalized. If we assume that, as an intuitive conclusion, Penrose then argues that an AI system could only be a formalist mathematician but could not be a platonist mathematician. That argument fails, in my opinion. It depends too much on unpersuasive hand-waving.

    Let’s suppose that Penrose is correct, even though his argument does not work. That still would not help ID, as best I can tell. It might suggest a problem with a strict mechanistic materialist account of mind. But ID itself would seem to depend on a mechanistic materialist view. How else could a putative intelligent designer carry out an intelligent design process, except by reliance on mechanistic materialistic methods to carry forward the design?

    Footnote: I am about 20% through that Penrose video. Thus far he has given some of the reasons that support his intuition against AI. I mostly agree with that. He is now moving on to talk of mathematical truth. It looks as if he is about to argue: An AI system can only do formalist truth, and formalists truth is different from mathematical truth as understood by platonists. Therefore AI is wrong. But why not consider an alternative conclusion, namely our ordinary common sense notion of truth is incoherent and inconsistent. And that’s about my view. Mathematics and science work quite well, because they depend only on a restricted use of truth.

  11. ba77#8:

    Neil you indignantly claim that I misrepresented the (your) atheistic/Darwinian position,,, a ‘strawman’ you called it. Yet the fact of the matter is that nobody has EVER seen purely material processes generate any non-trivial functional information, and Intelligent agents (humans) routinely, almost as a force of habit, generate non-trivial amounts of functional information (as your very own words testify to every time you write a post).

    My own view is that information is not a natural kind; it is a human artifact. It follows that DNA is not information, though when we write down particular gene sequences as sequences of letters, that is information.

    The arguments about CSI all seem empty to me, because they critically depend on the dubious assumption that information is a natural kind.

  12. as to:

    ‘My own view is that information is not a natural kind’

    and yet:

    Like you, Rolf Landauer maintained that information in a computer was what he termed ‘physical’. To clarify, he held that information in a computer was merely an ‘emergent’ property of the material basis of a computer, and thus he held that the information programmed into a computer was not really ‘real’. Landauer held this ‘materialistic’ position in spite of a objection from Roger Penrose, and others, that information is indeed real and has its own independent existence separate from a computer. Landauer held this (what I find to be absurd) ‘materialistic’ position since he held that ‘it takes energy to erase information from a computer, and therefore, he falsely thought, WA LA information is ‘merely physical’. Yet now the validity of that fairly narrowly focused objection from Landauer, to the reality of ‘transcendent information’ encoded within the computer, has been overturned:

    Scientists show how to erase information without using energy – January 2011
    Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all. Instead, the cost of erasure can be paid in terms of another conserved quantity, such as spin angular momentum.,,, “Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it is physical has a broader context than that.”, Vaccaro explained.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    This following research provided solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it;

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    The preceding work shows that ‘classical’ information such as is encoded in a computer program, and yes even information as is encoded on DNA is, in fact, a real physical entity and is, in fact, a subset of ‘conserved’ quantum information. i.e. information is real!

    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

    Further comments:

    “Those devices (computers) can yield only approximations to a structure (of information) that has a deep and “computer independent” existence of its own.” – Roger Penrose – The Emperor’s New Mind – Pg 147

    “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
    Norbert Weiner – MIT Mathematician – Father of Cybernetics

  13. Like you, Rolf Landauer maintained that information in a computer was what he termed ‘physical’.

    But that is not like me. I hold that information is abstract, not physical. We represent information in physical arrangements, but the information is not the same thing as its physical representation.

    There are many different notions of information. In my view, Shannon information is the appropriate one for computing/information processing, and that’s what this topic and the Penrose argument are about. Landauer’s work in physics was about a differerent notion of information.

    Landauer held this ‘materialistic’ position in spite of a objection from Roger Penrose, and others, that information is indeed real and has its own independent existence separate from a computer.

    I would guess that my view of information is closer to that of Penrose, if I presume that by “real” he means in a platonic sense.

    I take Landauer’s work to be about the energy required for physical representation of information, rather than about what I refer to as information.

  14. Neil you state:

    But that is not like me. I hold that information is abstract, not physical.

    same difference as to what he meant by physical, he was a materialist at heart just as you are,,, and then you state:

    I would guess that my view of information is closer to that of Penrose, if I presume that by “real” he means in a platonic sense.

    and you, and Penrose if he holds strictly to that view, would both be wrong,, i.e. Classical Information is clearly having a causal influence in DNA and in computer programs, thus it is absurd to hold it as merely ‘abstract’. Moreover I showed the proof that shows classical information to be a subset of quantum information. This proof is of no small importance since quantum information is the primary entity from which material reality initial came and is presently sustained. i.e. quantum information is about as far away from a ‘mere’ Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions as can be had,,,

    The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world.,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, –
    Dr Bruce Gordon – Professor of Science and Mathematics – King’s College

    Notes to that effect:

    Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe

    From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!

    “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970
    http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” – (Paper announced at Hawking’s 70th birthday party)
    Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – January 2012
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....beginning/

    Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the ‘beyond space and time’ ‘information theoretic’ origin, and sustaining, of this universe,;

    Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it. i.e. one must now appeal to a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain the continued existence of photons within spacetime:

    ‘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

    The following experiments demonstrate that energy and mass both reduce to quantum information;

    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://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

    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

    ,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to ‘instantaneous’ teleportation:,,,

    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

  15. ,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed ‘instantaneous’, thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,

    Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/

    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

    Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information’s dominion over space and time (specifically time);

    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

    and this experiment:

    Here’s a variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights quantum information’s transcendence of time so as to effect ‘spooky action into the past’;

    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

    ,,,Whereas these following experiment shows that quantum information is ‘conserved’,,,

    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

    ,,Moreover, when the quantum wave state (superposition), which is defined as a infinite dimensional state, and which can be theoretically be encoded with infinite information, collapses to its particle state, the collapsed state of the photon yields only a single bit of information:,,,

    Wave function
    Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ctor_space

    Single photons to soak up data:
    Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201

    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

  16. The ‘information theoretic’ single bit state solved some mysteries

    Zeilinger’s principle
    The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics.
    http://science.jrank.org/pages.....z17a7f88PM

    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:

    ,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘conserved’ quantum information:,,,

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”

    ,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the ‘infinite information’ of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the ‘uncertain’ particle state,,,

    The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either precedes 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.

    Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    ,,,It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?,,,

    Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon
    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

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

    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

    Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as ‘physically real’ not abstract;

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction – June 2011
    Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....10120.html

    ,,,The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:,,,

    Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
    Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
    http://www.scientificamerican......vefunction

    The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011
    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

    Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! 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 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???

    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.

    ,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,

    The Word Is Alive – Casting Crowns – music video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/

  17. ba77#14

    …, he was a materialist at heart just as you are,,,

    I am not a materialist.

    Classical Information is clearly having a causal influence in DNA and in computer programs, thus it is absurd to hold it as merely ‘abstract’.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “classical information.” Everything has causal influences. Does that mean that everything is information?

    This thread is about the kind of argument used by Penrose. So what Penrose means by “information” should be exactly what this thread is about.

    If you want to insist that Penrose is wrong, then you should at least be saying that the base post of this thread is nonsense because it depends on Penrose’s wrong notion of “information.” Can we at least have a little consistency within a single thread?

  18. Neil:

    Very interesting subject. I have not looked at the video yet, but I have read carefully most of Penrose’s books. So, I would like to offer some comments here, and I hope we can deepen the discussion tomorrow.

    First of all, I think that Penrose’s argument about Godel’s theorem does work, but that it means something slightly different from what you suggest (and, maybe, even form what Penrose strictly affirms).

    Essentially, what Penrose is arguing is that human cognition is not wholly algotithmic. While that could be a general intuition shared by many, Penrose takes on the difficult task to show that for the most “algorithmic” field of human thougt, that is mathemathical knowledge.

    I have read many arguments against Penrose’s theorem, but I do believe that it remains valid. What it really means, IMO, is that all human knowledge is vastly intuitive, in the sense that it requires and depends on conscious representation. It is conscious representations, and only conscious representation, that allows the conscious perceiver to be in a “meta” position versus the things he is representing. Consciousness is essentially defined by the existence of a subject that is “meta” versus the objects, and therefore can perceive, represent and understand them. The same meaning of meaning rests on that.

    That is the essence of Penrose’s meaning: Godel’s theorem shows that even mathemathical knowledgge, the most “deductive” of all forms of human knowledge, heavily and completely relies on conscious intuition. It’s the fact that the conscious observer can always detach itself from its observed contents that allows the observer to know some truths about the observed system that a mere algorithmic approach cannot understand.

    For the concept of information, I essentially agree with you: essentially, it is a platonic concept, in the sense Penrose gives. But that does not mean that it has no “physical” counterpart that can be defined.

    In another recent post I wrote:

    “Well, let’s say that we are discussing objective information, that is information that is embedded in a material system, and can be “read” and understood by some conscious agent.”

    IOWs, even if information is a platonic concept, and “is not the same thing as its physical representation” (and I fully agree about that), still another concept, that I call here “objective information”, is a definite property of some material systems and arrangements, and can be defined according to the ability of those systems or arrangements to evoke specific representations and meanings in a conscious observer. Moreover, some aspects of that “objective information” have objective specific properties, such as complexity (that can be measured in a Shannon context) and complexity related meaning. That is the whole concept of CSI, and the real object of ID. that IMO you really misunderstand.

    ID is about objective information, the special form that physical systems need to assume to transmit complex and meaningful (functional) representations to conscious observers. It’s perfectly true that the concept of CSI, and all ID, heavily depends on the concept of conscious observers: but that is simply because all human representation of reality does.

    You say:

    Let’s suppose that Penrose is correct, even though his argument does not work. That still would not help ID, as best I can tell. It might suggest a problem with a strict mechanistic materialist account of mind. But ID itself would seem to depend on a mechanistic materialist view. How else could a putative intelligent designer carry out an intelligent design process, except by reliance on mechanistic materialistic methods to carry forward the design?

    But that makes no sense. Penrose is correct, because all human knowledge, startin form Godel’s theorem, strictly depend on conscious representation and conscious intuition. THat indeed suggests “a problem with a strict mechanistic materialist account of mind”. A very big problem, that can never be solved.

    And that does help ID. ID is essentially about that. It is about the fact that not only a putative designer, but any designer, can only design because he has conscious representations and intuitions. That is the difference between designers and unguided (unperceived) algorithmic processes. And even if design certainly relies in part on “mechanistic materialistic methods to carry forward the design” (which is certainly true), it is even more true that the design starts in consciousness, in meaning and intent. And Only design can impress some specific properties, like CSI, to physical systems.

    You say:

    My own view is that information is not a natural kind; it is a human artifact. It follows that DNA is not information, though when we write down particular gene sequences as sequences of letters, that is information.

    That would be correct, if it were expressed avoiding your heavy assumtpions. I will try to reformulate the concept according to my views:

    “My own view is that information is not an absolute kind (let’s avoid the word “natural”, that means nothing); it is a consciousness related concept. It follows that DNA is information if it was designed, and woiuld not be information if we could show (that we can’t) that it could arise by non conscious, unguided causes (something that has never been shown, either for DNA or fpr any other material system exhibiting CSI). Obviously, when we write down particular gene sequences as sequences of letters, that is certainly objective information, because we are writing them down from our conscious representations.”

    In your statement you make heavy ideological assumption that are not necessarily shared (certainly not by me):

    a) That material systems are “natural”, and conscious realities are not.

    b) That human artifacts are the only existing outputs of consciousness.

    c) That human cosnciousness is the only form of consciousness.

    d) That DNA, and biological information in general, was not designed by some conscious agent (which is, I believe, the main controversial issue that keeps us discussing in this place).

    You any right to believe those things, but they cannot certainly be assumed. For me, they are simply not true, and I have always been ready to discuss my reasons for that belief.

  19. Responding to gpuccio #18:

    I’ll comment on the first part now. I plan to comment on the later part (about information) after I have had some sleep.

    First of all, I think that Penrose’s argument about Godel’s theorem does work, but that it means something slightly different from what you suggest (and, maybe, even form what Penrose strictly affirms).

    Penrose’s argument is not a logically valid argument. It is an appeal to the intuition. I don’t find it persuasive, but I shall take it that you do. That probably reflects our different backgrounds.

    Essentially, what Penrose is arguing is that human cognition is not wholly algotithmic.

    Yes, that is what he is arguing. I agree with his conclusion, but I do not find his argument persuasive.

    While that could be a general intuition shared by many, Penrose takes on the difficult task to show that for the most “algorithmic” field of human thougt, that is mathemathical knowledge.

    That’s actually a misunderstanding of mathematics. In fact, mathematicians depend a great deal on intuition.

    Starting with axioms, we provide deductive proofs of theorems. But the axioms themselves are not a result of deduction. That is where intuition comes in.

    What it really means, IMO, is that all human knowledge is vastly intuitive, in the sense that it requires and depends on conscious representation.

    I disagree with that. My view is that our intuitive abilities come from a lot of knowledge we have that we did not gain via conscious activities.

    I’ll comment on the information part tomorrow (it is still late Saturday here). But let me add this. I am not driven by any ideology. I try to avoid ideology as much as possible. I’ll grant that I have some non-traditional views. These result from my study of and attempts to understand human cognition.

  20. Neil:

    Thank you for your answer. I appreciate your thoughts. While I wait for your further comments, I would like to offer a couple of clarifications on my views, that could be useful in the following discussion.

    You say:

    Penrose’s argument is not a logically valid argument. It is an appeal to the intuition.

    I could agree on that, in the sense that penrose’s argument is not a mere logical argument, and it obviously appeals to intuition, like most (or all) important human cognitions. That does not make it less valid, at least for me. And anyway, even if it appeals to intuition, it is however logically shaped, and I believe that its logical part is OK.

    Starting with axioms, we provide deductive proofs of theorems. But the axioms themselves are not a result of deduction. That is where intuition comes in.

    That’s certainly true. But every cognition is intuitive, because the concept itself of meaning, of truth, and of causal relationship are not logical deduction, but rather conscious intuitions (more on that later). However, Penrose’s theorem shows that even theorems, such as Godel’s, are fundamentally intuitive, and not merely logical (or at least, their “meaning” can be appreciated only intuitively).

    I am not sure what you mean with the following statement. I had written:

    “What it really means, IMO, is that all human knowledge is vastly intuitive, in the sense that it requires and depends on conscious representation.”

    You comment:

    I disagree with that. My view is that our intuitive abilities come from a lot of knowledge we have that we did not gain via conscious activities.”

    My idea is that intuitive knowledge is just perceived by consciousness, and not derived by logic or reason. You seem to suggest that intuitive knowledge in unconscious algoritthmic knowledge, if I understand well (please, correct me if I am wrong). If that is your point, I certainly disagree.

    I will make my point more clear. We perceive ourselves as conscious beings. That is intuition. In no way it is derived from algorithmic associations.

    We perceive the meaning of things. That perception is intuitive. Algorithm know nothing about meaning.

    We have a sense of truth and falsity. We cognize and act according to that. Intuition, again.

    We accept non contradiction, that foundation of logic. Why? Intuition.

    Now, if those cognitions came from unconscious algorithmic processes, we would have to show that non conscious algorithmic processes can generate those realities. Which, IMO, is not possible, for various reasons.

    There is no doubt, instead, that we know those cognition in our consciousness. We feel in our consciousness that some statement is true or false. We perceive in our consciousness the meaning of some concept, and always in consciousness we perceive intent.

    I have to make an important specification, however. When I speak of cosnciousness, I don’t mean only our usual state of consciousness, let’s call it “waking cosnciousness”. I mean the sum total of the representations of our self, at all levels and in all states of cosnciousness.

    So, if you mean that great part of our knowledge and cognitions come from representations that are not at the common level of waking consciousness, and ehat we usually isdentify as the reasoning mind, I certainly agree. But they come from cosncious representations just the same. For me, anything where there is a subject that represents or perceives something is a conscious representation.

    On the contrary, I don’t believe that “unconscious mental processes” really exist. If they are “mental”, they are in some way represented. Of course, the mind can become cosncious of previous non conscious processes, that will be completely objective and mechanistics before they are represented. But as soon as a process becomes “mental”, it is in some way, at some level, represented.

    Fimnally, I am very happy that you try to avoid ideology. I do that too. My views derive from many sources, and for all of them I am deeply grateful. But they are, by all means, constantly supported and shaped by my study and attempts to understand reality and human condition.

  21. Neil you state:

    Can we at least have a little consistency within a single thread?

    The only thing I find inconsistent in this thread, especially after reading your ‘I am not a materialist’ post, (all the while being from all I can tell a committed neo-Darwinist), is the way in which you play word games and waffle on definitions and meanings so as to defend your atheism. But at least you are consistent in ignoring the empirical evidence that is presented directly against your claims and, as well, you are consistent in failing to ever present any solid evidence to support your own position.

  22. Since it is already shown that ‘classical information’, such as what is encoded on the material substrates in computers, and even DNA, is a subset of Quantum Information (Vedral), It is now also interesting to point out that this ‘non-local’ Quantum Information/Entanglement has been found in molecular biology on a massive scale. This ‘non-local’ Quantum Information/Entanglement in molecular biology simply crushes any neo-Darwinian presuppositions that have been held up to now:

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Moreover this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, Quantum Information/Entanglement in molecular biology, besides blowing neo-Darwinism presuppositions clean out of the water, actually provides a very viable mechanism for the Theistic contention of a eternal ‘soul’:

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/29895068

    This following video interview of a Harvard Neurosurgeon, who had a Near Death Experience (NDE), is very interesting. His NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review (of note: though he had a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE, he retained ‘identity of self’ during his NDE and thus stayed within the primary Judeo-Christian framework and did not ‘become one with consciousness’ as is generally held in pantheistic circles).

    A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) – video
    http://www.btci.org/bioethics/...../vid3.html

    A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness – December 2011
    Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ciousness/

    Moreover the following video shows that Dr. Alexander has a ‘unique mechanism’ of quantum entanglement/information within the brain to appeal to in order to provide solid support for his claim of a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in video description)
    https://vimeo.com/39982578

    Here is an few more interesting pieces of evidence on consciousness:

    Self-awareness in humans is more complex, diffuse than previously thought – August 22, 2012
    Excerpt: Self-awareness is defined as being aware of oneself, including one’s traits, feelings, and behaviors. Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex. However, a research team led by the University of Iowa has challenged this theory by showing that self-awareness is more a product of a diffuse patchwork of pathways in the brain – including other regions – rather than confined to specific areas. The conclusions came from a rare opportunity to study a person with extensive brain damage to the three regions believed critical for self-awareness. The person, a 57-year-old, college-educated man known as “Patient R,” passed all standard tests of self-awareness. He also displayed repeated self-recognition, both when looking in the mirror and when identifying himself in unaltered photographs taken during all periods of his life. “What this research clearly shows is that self-awareness corresponds to a brain process that cannot be localized to a single region of the brain,”,,, http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....ously.html

    A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel
    Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body.
    http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel.....sponse.htm

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  23. A note to johnnyb, perhaps not in the right thread, just to say that I checked out several of the videos from the Engineering and Metaphysics conference a few weeks back and quite enjoyed them.

    Here’s a link to a short article I wrote on Adrian Bejan’s ‘constructal law’ and his theory of ‘design in nature,’ since it was also addressed at that conference.

    Whose notion of ‘design in nature’ do you accept?

    It might be interesting especially to Mike Holcumbrink here. Others are of course welcome to comment or contact me about it. Bejan’s focus on ‘flow’ makes his DiN theory/’law’ seem more ‘fluid’ than ‘mechanical.’ In any case, I wouldn’t trust Turing (British), Goedel (Austro-Hungarian-American) or Bejan (Romanian-American) for, as you say above johnnyb, a “model of (reality and) humanity,” which is not what Intelligent Design theory is about either.

  24. @Neil: “The only relevance that I can see to ID, is that this supports the view that ID is philosophy, not science.”

    “the view” which is the view of whom? “the view” which goes like “oh yes philosophy and science have nothing to do with one another”. The view that there is some kind of heavily guarded wall between compartments in which “science” and “philosophy” reside in some fashion? Never to interact? Am I seeing things?

  25. ba77#21:

    (all the while being from all I can tell a committed neo-Darwinist)

    No, I am not a neo-Darwinist.

  26. Neil states:

    I am not a neo-Darwinist.

    Right, not in real life, you just play one on TV :)

    Your actions are what I go by, i.e. basically in assessing your philosophical basis in the matter, I use the walks like a duck, talks like a duck, probably is a duck, method of deDUCKtion :)

  27. Of note: It might surprise some to learn that Godel’s incompleteness theorem actually supports the resurrection of Christ:

    first a little background:

    Centrality of Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879

    The centrality of expansion for every 3D point in the universe (4-D space-time of General Relativity), and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose).

    The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the ‘holy grail’ of the ‘theory of everything’ appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists (Please note; the ‘infinity problem’ is focused primarily in black holes)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/

    Moreover, this extreme ‘mathematical’ difficulty, of reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything’, was actually somewhat foreseeable from previous work, earlier in the 20th century, in mathematics by Godel:

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is, for all practical purposes, the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the entropic 4-D space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 – William Dembski PhD. in Mathematics and Theology
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

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

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Thus, when one allows God into math, as Godel clearly indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being ‘incomplete’, then there actually exists a very credible reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything’ with the resurrection of Christ! As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to this very interesting thing to say

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered by many to be among the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    further note on Godel’s incompleteness:

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
    1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
    2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
    3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.
    The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
    Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    Music:

    Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video)
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

  28. gpuccio#18:

    “Well, let’s say that we are discussing objective information, that is information that is embedded in a material system, and can be “read” and understood by some conscious agent.”

    IOWs, even if information is a platonic concept, and “is not the same thing as its physical representation” (and I fully agree about that), still another concept, that I call here “objective information”, is a definite property of some material systems and arrangements, and can be defined according to the ability of those systems or arrangements to evoke specific representations and meanings in a conscious observer.

    What is objective about what you call “objective information” is the physical arrangement of material that is used to represent information. But the same physical arrangement could be used to represent part of a rock music performance at one instant, and part of a digital picture at another instant. The physical arrangement is objective, but the abstract information being represented by that physical arrangement is a matter of intentions, not a matter of objective physical structure.

    Moreover, some aspects of that “objective information” have objective specific properties, such as complexity (that can be measured in a Shannon context) and complexity related meaning.

    No, we cannot measure the complexity or information content, based only on the physical structure. We need the protocol that encodes information in that physical structuring, before we can determine the information carrying capacity (or content).

    ID is about objective information, the special form that physical systems need to assume to transmit complex and meaningful (functional) representations to conscious observers.

    But what you are calling “objective information” is not information at all. It is just physical structure. And whether and how that physical structure is being used to carry information depends on the intentions of those using it.

    So I look at DNA, and I can divide it into discrete elements. But photons are also discrete elements. The cogs on a gear wheel are also discrete elements. Discreteness is not enough to say that it is information. The cogs on a gear wheel are important for their causal effects. The components of DNA are important for their causal effects. We should not conflate mechanical causation with information processing. They are not the same. I find the arguments about CSI completely unpersuasive, because they are based on the conflating of mechanical causation with information processing. Maybe ID will one day be able to make a CSI case. But right now, their arguments only look like bad philosophy.

    “My own view is that information is not an absolute kind (let’s avoid the word “natural”, that means nothing); it is a consciousness related concept.

    I used “natural kind” as a two-word name for a single concept. It makes no sense to object to the word “natural” there, as if it could be separated from the full name for that concept.

    By “natural kind”, I means something that should be detectable by any observer, whether an ant or a Martian alien. That is, it should stand out from everything else, independent of particular human knowledge. My point was that what we call “information” does not meet that requirement.

  29. gpuccio#20:

    My idea is that intuitive knowledge is just perceived by consciousness, and not derived by logic or reason. You seem to suggest that intuitive knowledge in unconscious algoritthmic knowledge, if I understand well (please, correct me if I am wrong). If that is your point, I certainly disagree.

    I was not suggesting anything about algorithms.

    It is my assumption that the type of knowledge we have and use via intuition, is likely also present in some form as knowledge of ants, bees, etc. It is very hard to say whether we should ascribe consciousness to ants and bees. So I want to avoid connecting that kind of knowledge with consciousness. And that was the point that I was trying to make.

  30. footnote to 27:

    Analogy between Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, and Godel’s Incompleteness (Page 2)
    http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poin.....Nagata.pdf

  31. Neil:

    What is objective about what you call “objective information” is the physical arrangement of material that is used to represent information. But the same physical arrangement could be used to represent part of a rock music performance at one instant, and part of a digital picture at another instant. The physical arrangement is objective, but the abstract information being represented by that physical arrangement is a matter of intentions, not a matter of objective physical structure.

    I agree. That’s why a conscious perceiver is necessary to detect “objective information”. And so?

    No, we cannot measure the complexity or information content, based only on the physical structure.

    Correct. We also need the conscious perceiver who can recognize the information. And so?

    We need the protocol that encodes information in that physical structuring, before we can determine the information carrying capacity (or content).

    Exactly my point. We need a conscious perceiver. One who undertsands the protocol and the code, and the meaning and function of the coded information. And so?

    But what you are calling “objective information” is not information at all.

    That’s why I call it “objective information”. I used that as a two-word name for a single concept. :)

    What I mean is, the objective property of that material system to evoke information in a conscious perceiver. I never said it is information in itself.

    And whether and how that physical structure is being used to carry information depends on the intentions of those using it.

    Correct. And so?

    So I look at DNA, and I can divide it into discrete elements. But photons are also discrete elements.

    But DNA codes for the information of a functional protein. In what sense do photons do something like that? The point is not just being digital but being digital and encoding useful information digitally and symbolically.

    The cogs on a gear wheel are also discrete elements. Discreteness is not enough to say that it is information.

    Exactly my point.

    The cogs on a gear wheel are important for their causal effects. The components of DNA are important for their causal effects.

    Correct. And the effect of DNA is to provide the correct information to the translation system, and to ensure the output of a functional protein.

    We should not conflate mechanical causation with information processing.

    Certainly not. Where have I done such a thing?

    They are not the same.

    Certainly not. Where have I said such a thing?

    I find the arguments about CSI completely unpersuasive, because they are based on the conflating of mechanical causation with information processing.

    In no way they are based on that.

    ID starts from the recognition of information from the material system through a specific process of racognition, which implies obviously information processing. That is the recognition of specification.

    Then ID evaluates the objective complexity in the material system (in the Shannon sense) that is necessary for that information processing to work correctly. That is the evaluation of the complexity required by the specification .

    A very simple empirical frame allows to use specified complexity as a marker of design, that is of a precious information processing that took place when the material system was shaped by the designer.

    There is no conflating at all. Each concept is clear and powerful.

    Maybe ID will one day be able to make a CSI case. But right now, their arguments only look like bad philosophy.

    No. You are simply wrong. And in no way you have explained or supported such a view.

    By “natural kind”, I means something that should be detectable by any observer, whether an ant or a Martian alien.

    Well, thanks for the clarification. In that sense, neither information nor objective information are a “natural kind”. Objective information requires, as you say, a specific process to be understood. A book written in english means nothing if the reader soed not understand english. No information is so universal that any observer can undertsand its informational content. And so?

    That is, it should stand out from everything else, independent of particular human knowledge.

    Well, information certainly does not do that. And so?

    My point was that what we call “information” does not meet that requirement.

    Agreed. And so?

  32. Neil (#29):

    I was not suggesting anything about algorithms.

    That’s good.

    It is my assumption that the type of knowledge we have and use via intuition, is likely also present in some form as knowledge of ants, bees, etc.

    Maybe. This is a difficult subject. But, in general, I can agree. But it is also possible that some behaviours by living beings are performed without any conscious intuition. For instance, our body builds functional proteins, but we seem not to know that by intuition. Instead, we know by intuition that we exist as consciouis perceivers, or that something can be false or true, and so on. There is no reason why bees or ants should be different. Mayve some of the things they are and they do imply intuition, and others don’t. But intuition, if present, always requires some form of consciousness.

    It is very hard to say whether we should ascribe consciousness to ants and bees.

    It is hard. But it is interesting, and important.

    So I want to avoid connecting that kind of knowledge with consciousness.

    Your choice. But IMO intuitive knowledge is always connected to consciousness. At various levels, and in various forms. I always refer to intuition in human cosnciousness, because that is the only consciousness we perceive and know directly (that is, intuitively). So I stick to things we know well.

  33. OT:

    Yosemite Range of Light – timelapse video
    http://vimeo.com/40802206

  34. Neil Rickert @19:

    Penrose’s argument is not a logically valid argument.

    I agree with his conclusion, but I do not find his argument persuasive.

    *scratches head*

  35. gpuccio:

    A book written in english means nothing if the reader does not understand english.

    Music to my ears.

  36. A few notes on the authenticity of human intuition. As to the lead off video in the OP,,,

    Kurt Godel & Alan Turing – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/

    ,,,It is interesting to note that although Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, he failed to realize that his idea for computers came to him, as he himself admitted, suddenly, ‘in a vision’, thus directly contradicting his claim and confirming Godel’s contention that humans had access to the ‘divine spark of intuition’. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits he, and Turing, had found in the incompleteness theorem (the halting problem) for computers, mathematics, and even for all material reality generally. Gifted people being able to instantaneously know answers to complex mathematical problems, as Turing himself did with his ‘vision’ of a computer, is something that argues very forcefully against the notion that our minds are merely the ‘emergent’ products of molecules in motion in our brain;

    In fact, the ability to ‘instantaneously’ know answers to complex problems (to instantly ‘intuit’ answers) has long been a very intriguing characteristic of some autistic savants. Of particular interest is the ‘calculating of primes’ by autistic twins even though prime numbers are notoriously difficult for computers to find by calculation:

    Is Integer Arithmetic Fundamental to Mental Processing?: The mind’s secret arithmetic
    Excerpt: Because normal children struggle to learn multiplication and division, it is surprising that some savants perform integer arithmetic calculations mentally at “lightning” speeds (Treffert 1989, Myers 1903, Hill 1978, Smith 1983, Sacks 1985, Hermelin and O’Connor 1990, Welling 1994, Sullivan 1992). They do so unconsciously, without any apparent training, typically without being able to report on their methods, and often at an age when the normal child is struggling with elementary arithmetic concepts (O’Connor 1989). Examples include multiplying, factoring, dividing and identifying primes of six (and more) digits in a matter of seconds as well as specifying the number of objects (more than one hundred) at a glance. For example, one savant (Hill 1978) could give the cube root of a six figure number in 5 seconds and he could double 8,388,628 twenty four times to obtain 140,737,488,355,328 in several seconds. Joseph (Sullivan 1992), the inspiration for the film “Rain Man” about an autistic savant, could spontaneously answer “what number times what number gives 1234567890″ by stating “9 times 137,174,210″. Sacks (1985) observed autistic twins who could exchange prime numbers in excess of eight figures, possibly even 20 figures, and who could “see” the number of many objects at a glance. When a box of 111 matches fell to the floor the twins cried out 111 and 37, 37, 37.
    http://www.centreforthemind.co.....hmetic.cfm

    This following man ‘saw’ pi as a landscape that he walked through to over 20,000 digits.

    Math Genius Computes in the Blink of an Eye – Daniel Tammet – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd1gywPOibg

    The following boy seems to live in a ‘stream of consciousness’:

    Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism – 60 Minutes – CBS News – video
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/w.....e1.channel

    Quote of note at the 12:00 minute mark of the preceding video;

    ‘The whole randomness thing, that’s like completely against all of physics’
    Jake Barnett – Math Prodigy

    At the 11:50 minute mark of this following video 21 year old world Chess champion Magnus Carlsen explains that he does not know how he knows his next move of Chess instantaneously, that ‘it just comes natural’ for him to know the answers instantaneouly.

    Mozart of Chess: Magnus Carlsen – video
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/w.....contentAux

    A chess prodigy explains how his mind works – video
    Excerpt: What’s the secret to Magnus’ magic? Once an opponent makes a move, Magnus instantaneously knows his own next move.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....er;housing

    This following man, though he dislikes the autistic label, also has a very ‘spooky’ ability at math that defies materialistic explanation;

    The Human Calculator – Ruediger Gamm – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200252

    This following man recieved a very spooky ability to see to world as mathematical fractals after being mugged in the head;

    Attack results in Savant Syndrome, Jason Padgett, Beautiful Mind, Fractals
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCvYKiNW4vQ

    The boy in this following video is a genius who composes flawless symphonies on the fly without trial and error:

    Bluejay: The Mind of a Child Prodigy – video
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7186319n

  37. Related notes on Savants;

    Derek Paravicini on 60 MINUTES – Musical Autistic Savant – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4303465

    Autistic Savant Stephen Wiltshire Draws the Entire City Of Rome From Memory – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200256

    Kim Peek – The Real Rain Man [2/5] (98% recall of every book he has ever read) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJjAbs-3kc8

    Also of note:

    Electrical genius Nicola Tesla was born in Serbia in 1856,,, his father was a clergyman.
    Excerpt: While walking in Budapest Park, Hungary, Nikola Tesla had seen a vision of a functioning alternating current (AC) electric induction motor. This was one of the most revolutionary inventions in the entire history of the world.
    http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html

    “Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed. I drew with a stick on the sand the diagrams of my motor. A thousand secrets of nature which I might have stumbled upon accidentally I would have given for that one which I had wrestled from her against all odds and at the peril of my existence.” –
    Nikola Tesla

    My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla
    Excerpt: At this time, as at many other times in the past, my thoughts turned towards my Mother’s teaching. The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work.
    One day, as I was roaming the mountains, I sought shelter from an approaching storm. The sky became overhung with heavy clouds, but somehow the rain was delayed until, all of a sudden, there was a lightening flash and a few moments after, a deluge. This observation set me thinking. It was manifest that the two phenomena were closely related, as cause and effect, and a little reflection led me to the conclusion that the electrical energy involved in the precipitation of the water was inconsiderable, the function of the lightening being much like that of a sensitive trigger. Here was a stupendous possibility of achievement. If we could produce electric effects of the required quality, this whole planet and the conditions of existence on it could be transformed.,,,,
    It seemed a hopeless undertaking, but I made up my mind to try it and immediately on my return to the United States in the summer of 1892, after a short visit to my friends in Watford, England; work was begun which was to me all the more attractive, because a means of the same kind was necessary for the successful transmission of energy without wires. At this time I made a further careful study of the Bible, and discovered the key in Revelation. The first gratifying result was obtained in the spring of the succeeding year, when I reaching a tension of about 100,000,000 volts—one hundred million volts — with my conical coil, which I figured was the voltage of a flash of lightening.
    http://www.lucidcafe.com/libra.....uto05.html

    Picture – Nicole Tesla sitting under a Tesla coil while it was emitting lightning bolts
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgen.....ronica.jpg

    Sir Isaac Newton stated this:

    I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. —
    Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time

    In fact, contrary to popular belief, almost every founder, if not every founder, of a discipline of modern science was Christian

    The Christian Founders Of Science – Henry F. Schaefer III – video
    https://vimeo.com/16523153

    A very strong piece of suggestive evidence, which persuasively hints at a unique relationship that man has with ‘The Word’ of John 1:1, is found in these following articles which point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than what should be expected from a materialistic perspective,:

    In the Air – Who says big ideas are rare? by Malcolm Gladwell
    Excerpt: This phenomenon of simultaneous discovery—what science historians call “multiples”—turns out to be extremely common. One of the first comprehensive lists of multiples was put together by William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas, in 1922, and they found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland. ,,, For Ogburn and Thomas, the sheer number of multiples could mean only one thing: scientific discoveries must, in some sense, be inevitable.
    http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....ntPage=all

    List of multiple discoveries
    Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of “multiple independent discovery”. Robert K. Merton defined such “multiples” as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....iscoveries

  38. Moreover:

    Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
    Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
    http://charltonteaching.blogsp.....-wife.html

    The following video is far more direct in establishing the ‘spiritual’ link to man’s ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:

    The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930

    Related notes:

    United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy)
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

    AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray – David Barton – graphs corrected for population growth
    http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

    Moreover it is impossible for Atheistic materialism to ground either morality or science

    The irrationality of materialism
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ov3GNroapS12eg3rH0RxvlOdAXiFGaf436IPg5W2ids/edit

    That atheism cannot ground science (or morality) really should not be that surprising. Indeed why should we ever consider the materialistic process, which is utterly incapable of ever generating any complex functional information at even the most foundational levels of molecular biology, to suddenly, magically, have the ability to generate our brain which can readily understand and generate functional information? No matter how much materialists may protest to the contrary, It is simply completely incoherent (insane?) to believe as such.

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video – (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/32145998

    Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? – referenced article
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

    Related note:

    This following study offers support that Humans are extremely unique in this ‘advanced information capacity’ when compared to animals:

    Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds:
    Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.
    http://www.mendeley.com/resear.....n-minds-1/

    Verses and music:

    Genesis 1:26-27
    Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

    John 15:5
    “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

    Phillips Craig & Dean – Revelation Song
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96p0S4GA4AY

  39. corrected link:

    Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. – 2008
    Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871). In the present target article, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531

  40. gpuccio:

    A book written in english means nothing if the reader does not understand english.

    You must have missed those arguments here at UD in which people asserted that information can be devoid of meaning.

    Yes, it’s true.

  41. Mung:

    Yes, I must have missed them :)

    I suppose much confusion derives from Shannon’s theory, which is not, and never has been, a theory about information, but is often considered as such.

    Contemporary thought, in the full splendor of its dogmatic reductionism, has done its best to ignore the obvious connection between information and meaning. Everybody talks about information, but meaning is quite a forbidden word. As if the two things could be separated!

    I have discussed for days here with darwinists just trying to have them admit that sucg a thing as “function” does exist. Another forbidden word.

    And even IDist often are afraid to admit that meaning and function cannot even be defined if we do not refer to a conscious being. I have challenged evrybody I know to give a definition, any definition, of meaning, function and intent without recurring to conscious experience. How strange, the same concepts on which all our life, and I would say also all our science and knowledge, are based, have become forbidden in modern thought. And consciousness itself, what we are, the final medium that cognizes everything, can scarcely be mentioned, if not to affirm that it is an unscientific concept, or even better a concept completely reducible to non conscious aggregations of things (!!!).

    The simple truth is: there is no cognition, no science, no knowledge, without the fundamental intuition of meaning. And that intuition is a conscious event, and nothing else.

    There is no understanding of meaning in stones, rivers or computers. Only in conscious beings. And information is only a way to transfer menaing from one conscious being to another. Through material systems, that carry the meaning, but have no understanding of it.

    That’s what Shannon considered: what is necessary to transfer information through a material system. In that context, meaning is not relevant, because what we are measuring is only a law of transmission.

    The same is true in part for ID. The measure of complexity is a Shannon measure, it has nothing to do with meaning. A random string can be as complex as a meaningful string.

    But the concept of specification does relate to meaning, in one of its many aspects, for instance as function. The beautiful simplicity of ID theory is that it measures the complexity necessary to convey a specific meaning. That is simple and beautiful, beacuse it connects the quantitative concept of Shannon complexity to the qualitative aspect of meaning and function.

    Simple, isn’t it. Even a child would understand it…

    Well, maybe not a darwinist child :)

Leave a Reply