Intelligent Design Uncensored hot off the press

_{William Dembski

May 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

My newest book, Intelligent Design Uncensored, co-authored with Jonathan Witt, is now available. You can purchase it here at Amazon.com. It provides a nice overview of the scientific issues at stake but then also deals with the cultural spillover as it relates to both the theistic and atheistic evolutionists.

Comments

KF [205-206]:
On the real issue, you obviously realise that one cannot transform one functional linguistic product into another through a random walk with acceptance of successful results at each stage.
I acknowledge no such thing.
My point being you place no limits on the knowledge of the thing analyzing the randomly and incrementally changed product, just as if your analyzer knows all english words, valid english words can be built up incrementally - e.g. go got goth gath gate grate grates gratis. Sentences can be built up incrementally like this as well, if the only restriction is valid english sentences. If one and only one goal is possible then issues of irreducible complexity exist, otherwise not. Anyway I do find this intuitively compelling. Maybe many others do not. And also the mere fact that the universe has to exist for a reason relevant to man, and if the universe were instrumental in the emgergence of Man, that would provide an explanation for the existence of the universe. Like I say, this is a matter of personal conviction as I'm stating it here.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

KF [205-206]:
On the real issue, you obviously realise that one cannot transform one functional linguistic product into another through a random walk with acceptance of successful results at each stage.
I acknowledge no such thing.
[JT] As far as writing an article, I really have found the best approach is just to dive in. Just write the first sentence that pops in your head. [KF]: In short you know that functionally specific complex information is routinely produced by intelligence. Intelligence is of course of a different order of causal capacity from chance, trial and error and mechanical necessity.
This is just nothing but continual adamant assertion by you. To me it is incoherent to treat cognition as something not governed by mechanical necessity. Or to treat is a causal category distinct form law and chance etc. It is utterly incoherent to me. A brain does of course have continual intake of new information over time so therefore it is a dynamic, changing and growing (and evolving) mechanical entity (not a static one) And its not just a solitary brain of course - its a brain in the context of a nervous system in the the context of a society, in a context of dynamically growing society, growing in terms of stored knowledge, etc. Why would you present your statement above, that obviously I understand that intelligence is some different category of cause distinct from chance and necessity, when I would think you obviously know I do not believe that. I think this idea of intelligence as a seperate category of causality is utter nonnsense. That is an honest an innate opinion. Its not me being perverse or espousing the New World Order or whatever. On Edison: http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/bulbexperiment.html: Thomas Alva Edison, a prolific inventor, and his team (yes, he did not work alone!) experimented with thousands of different filaments to find just the right materials to glow well and be long-lasting. Thousands of different failed attempts to solve a problem - I think nature does this too. Let's call nature intelligent too by all means. What a screw-up Edison was. If he were brilliant why couldn't he discern the correct filament type through his penetrating god-like insight in one fell swoop. And as far as goals in nature, as long as there are suboptimal conditions, just by existing a goal to fix them exists. Necessity is the mother of invention. Scarcity, necessity whatever. As long as people have wants as long as organisms have wants needs, etc. goals are created of their own accord and land in the lap of anyone or anything that is in the position to address them. And there is immediate demand for the solution once the solution exists, however the solution was found, through trial an error or whatever. FYI - I really don't enjoy arguing that much. Sorry for the piecemeal response.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

JT: I think I must be tired. I just noticed a bit calculation that is wrong; second inexplicable basic math error in several days. 7 letters per word avg, and 750 words is 7* 750 7-bit characters, or 5,250 128 state characters. This specifies a config space of 128^5,250, or 7.12*10^11,062. 200,000 7 letter words is 128^1,400,000 or 9.07*10^2,950,093 states. Gkairosfocus_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

PS: Did a little look-up at Wiki: ___________________ >> Thomas Edison began serious research into developing a practical incandescent lamp in 1878. Edison filed his first patent application for "Improvement In Electric Lights" on October 14, 1878 (U.S. Patent 0,214,636). After many experiments with platinum and other metal filaments, Edison returned to a carbon filament. The first successful test was on October 22, 1879,[25] and lasted 13.5 hours. Edison continued to improve this design and by Nov 4, 1879, filed for a U.S. patent for an electric lamp using "a carbon filament or strip coiled and connected ... to platina contact wires."[26] Although the patent described several ways of creating the carbon filament including using "cotton and linen thread, wood splints, papers coiled in various ways,"[26] it was not until several months after the patent was granted that Edison and his team discovered that a carbonized bamboo filament could last over 1200 hours. >> ___________________ So, we both have a point.kairosfocus_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

JT: Some notes: 1] Well I probably learned to talk that way – just stringing sounds together randomly and then trying without success to imitate a word I heard, until one day, as imperfect as the attempt was, it was close enough to receive positive feedback and reinforcement from the environement and praise and approval and so forth. Apart from being a red herring, in fact you need to look up on language acquisition. Our language learning is NOT a random process, language structures are inbuilt. On the real issue, you obviously realise that one cannot transform one functional linguistic product into another through a random walk with acceptance of successful results at each stage. DNA, being coded, is a linguistic product and is functional. 2] As far as writing an article, I really have found the best approach is just to dive in. Just write the first sentence that pops in your head. In short you know that functionally specific complex information is routinely produced by intelligence. Intelligence is of course of a different order of causal capacity from chance, trial and error and mechanical necessity. 3] you do “what if” scenarios repeatedely in your head and make the mistakes in the scenarios you’re running in your head, and avoid making them in reality . . . In short, you understand that planning is a purposeful, goal oriented intelligent exercise dependent on having a world model that you can run different tries against to see what is credible. Algorithms are step by step plans, and are complex. To express them in software and hardware requires complex functional organisation. All of this very rapidly runs past what blind chance, trial and error [and natural selection is glorified trial and error] and mechanical necessity can do. 4] you end up coopting all sort of objects using them for purposes for which they were never intended. You construct a plan bit by bit in your head that incorporates all these disparate objects, having gone through innumerable incomplete, or only partially complete or outright failed prototypes striclly in your head before finally coming up with something. In short successful co-optation is an intelligent process, once we have to deal with anything of even moderate complexity. 5] And to translate this to a biolgical scenario, if an animal is an environment where the only nutritive source is a contaminated with a toxin – is that a problem that the organism needs to find a solution for – yes it is. Is using a brain (i.e. a bodly organ) to map sensory data to an alternative internal format that can be easily manipulated so that multiple scenarios can be run – is that the only way to find a solution. How hard you struggled to avoid directly acknowledging that co-optation and adaptation of resources in a harsh environment to achieve desired ends is: intelligent. In the case of Nylonase etc, we have small mutational shifts in existing enzymes or the like, i.e. we have no account of the origin of said enzymes, which is of a different order of complexity. 6} how many failed prototypes of light bulb he [Edison] created ultimately just trying stuff completely at random out of frustration to make a filament (sewing thread coated in carbon was the winning solution according to the film I believe), all the while his oppoenents mocking him. Actually, Edison's invention was more that of a practical institutional or community scale lighting system from generator to lamps; using high voltages so that he could use low currents -- i.e. smaller copper wires [Cu has always been costly and scarce] -- while delivering enough power. (Similarly, Columbus' crucial discovery was the trade wind system: sail out in tropical winds from the east, sail back in the temperate zone westerlies.) He also missed the advantages of ac generation and transmission, though now that we have high tech electronics, we can do long run DC transmission; which is inherently more efficient in the use of Conductor materials in cables. (At one time the single largest capital asset of Bell Telco was the copper in its wires. There was even an investor who threatened to buy Bell to get the copper.) And, IIRC, it was charred i.e carbonised, bamboo fibres that were the original ticket to success. Also, he was not merely trying anything at random. He knew he needed something that was refractory and an electrical conductor, but not too brittle. Carbon has the highest melting point of any element, well beyond any metal. His problem was to find something that was not going to be too fragile. And that is why he was looking for a fibrous form of carbon that would not be too fragile. So, we see a tightly constrained random search across plausible candidates, with trial and error to look for a desired characteristic; which is a known design method. And carried out by a highly intelligent, world class designer. Co-optation is in other words most likely to succeed by the application of knowledgeable and resourceful intelligence. _____________ Cheers, GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

(cont.)
The notion that irreducible complexity can be got rid of by waving the magic want of co-optation first begs the question of getting he relevant parts in he first place, then the questions of adapting and organising components to fit and work together in a coordinated, functionally effective way that fulfills the purpose WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE ACHIEVED
How many things throughout history have been achieved when they needed to be achieved. I saw this movie about Edison starring Spencer Tracey and how many failed prototypes of light bulb he created ultimately just trying stuff completely at random out of frustration to make a filament (sewing thread coated in carbon was the winning solution according to the film I believe), all the while his oppoenents mocking him. Do you think Edison thought he invented the lightbulb when it needed to be achieved? What about centuries when existing societal structures effectively prevented any novel invention from taking place. Stuff hardly ever gets created when it needs to - until society reaches some critical threshold where inventions start being produced like crazy, but all as I result of the critical mass and leverage of people utilizing the inventions of other people.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

KairosFocus [202]:
Have you ever written a typical Newspaper column 750 word article [about 7 * 750 * 128 bits = 672,000 bits]? Did you do so by changing words at random, one letter at a time, for another article; making sense all the way from the first article to the second?
Well I probably learned to talk that way - just stringing sounds together randomly and then trying without success to imitate a word I heard, until one day, as imperfect as the attempt was, it was close enough to receive positive feedback and reinforcement from the environement and praise and approval and so forth. But once I met with success for a given series of sounds that success was recorded as a memory and that word or sequence of sounds preserved. So that was a remembered larger unit that could now be recalled and utilized at will. And then it was on to constructing strings of words to get stuff that I wanted and so on. And then whole sentences and subsentences would be store for recall later. As far as writing an article, I really have found the best approach is just to dive in. Just write the first sentence that pops in your head. And see what sentence seems to fit with that sentence next. Of course by the time I've written several sentences I may realize I'm writing a paragraph that by no means I should open with. But do I throw away that amount of work as a result - no. I save it and it may end up being the third or fourth paragraph. But as it is said every journey begins with the first step, so you must as well take it without thinking about it too much. Error correction is what this life is about. And then prepare for your work to be sliced and diced and edited and accepted and rejected by other people external to you, with their own agendas. And what is society anyway - a bunch of people with their own personal goals but somehow out of all these competing goals things emerge that none of them were planning for, and furthermore none of them could achieve on their own. Of course a lot of personal projects can end up chaotically without "planning" - but what is planning? Its mentally simulating reality in your head for the sake of efficiency - with the trade off being accuracy. So you do "what if" scenarios repeatedely in your head and make the mistakes in the scenarios you're running in your head, and avoid making them in reality.
The country had just had a hurricane, and considerable lengths of multistrand Al cable were lying on the ground, from knocked down power lines. At the school, students drank a lot of bottled juices, where the caps were metal for glass bottled drinks — now all is plastic save for premium brands. And cellulose cleaning sponges were sold in stores. Voila, I simply shook up a bag with Al wire, caps, pliers, scissors and sponges in it, making soldering iron holders. No problem. NOT! When you get up from rolling on the floor in laughter, you will know that I stripped apart the multistrand wires, having first clipped off about a 4? length. For each of these I got out my trusty needle nose pliers and bent the single strand wire into an M shape, with rounded feet so that they would sit across the diameter of the juice bottle caps, and support themselves. I clipped fitting pads of cellulose sponges with scissors. Dampen the sponges, rest he soldering irons in the V of the M and we have a workable solution that was heap enough that even if they walked they would not be a major loss. (Matter of fact, I have one of those to this day as my preferred soldering iron rest.) The notion that irreducible complexity can be got rid of by waving the magic want of co-optation first begs the question of getting he relevant parts in he first place, then the questions of adapting and organising components to fit and work together in a coordinated, functionally effective way that fulfills the purpose WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE ACHIEVED.
As I said previously the ability to plan means running through scenarios in your mind - first scanning your environment and looking for any thing in yout environment close enough to conceivably fullfill some task in a potential solution. So scanning visually around your eye lands on some object and you think is there any conceivable way that object could be employed - No don't see anything. So you continue thinking and simulating and scanning and so forth. And you end up coopting all sort of objects using them for purposes for which they were never intended. You construct a plan bit by bit in your head that incorporates all these disparate objects, having gone through innumerable incomplete, or only partially complete or outright failed prototypes striclly in your head before finally coming up with something. And to translate this to a biolgical scenario, if an animal is an environment where the only nutritive source is a contaminated with a toxin - is that a problem that the organism needs to find a solution for - yes it is. Is using a brain (i.e. a bodly organ) to map sensory data to an alternative internal format that can be easily manipulated so that multiple scenarios can be run - is that the only way to find a solution. Best I can do for now I guess. Later.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @202,
Have you ever written a typical Newspaper column 750 word article [about 7 * 750 * 128 bits = 672,000 bits]?
Shouldn't that be 7 * 750 * 8 bits = 42,000 bits?Toronto_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

JT: Have you ever written a typical Newspaper column 750 word article [about 7 * 750 * 128 bits = 672,000 bits]? Did you do so by changing words at random, one letter at a time, for another article; making sense all the way from the first article to the second? And did you get the first story by cutting up a great number of letters and words from magazine articles etc, then shuffling and picking them out of a bag at random; picking any string of letters that came out right to make a world, then repeating for words and paragraphs etc? Next, suppose your article went over really well, so that you wanted to expand it into a book, of say 200,000 words. This would give you now ~ 179 million bits. Can you expand such an article into a book, by a combination of random duplications, word shifts, and single letter changes etc, one step at a time -- making sense all the way? That is the proper analogy. And, when it comes to the co-optation idea that components a, b. c etc that work for jobs A, B, C etc can be rejuggled at chance and presto a new function appears, apparently those who suggest such have never had to match car parts to cars. Not even the right generic part will be a good fit until it is properly adapted to the parts it has to work with. (Matter of fact, sometimes not even the right part number, brand and year will fit! That is why a lot of mechanics insist on physically trying the claimed replacement part to see if it will work.) Or let me give a very simple example. "Store boughten" soldering iron rests with cleaning sponges are expensive and tend to "sprout legs and walk" in an education type environment. Waaay back, I was given the job to teach students to solder properly as part of a course I taught. To get that done to acceptable electronic parts assembly standard, one needs clean tinned iron tips, thus rests with cleaning sponges. And I needed about 20 - 30 of them. How the solution materialised:
The country had just had a hurricane, and considerable lengths of multistrand Al cable were lying on the ground, from knocked down power lines. At the school, students drank a lot of bottled juices, where the caps were metal for glass bottled drinks -- now all is plastic save for premium brands. And cellulose cleaning sponges were sold in stores. Voila, I simply shook up a bag with Al wire, caps, pliers, scissors and sponges in it, making soldering iron holders. No problem. NOT! When you get up from rolling on the floor in laughter, you will know that I stripped apart the multistrand wires, having first clipped off about a 4" length. For each of these I got out my trusty needle nose pliers and bent the single strand wire into an M shape, with rounded feet so that they would sit across the diameter of the juice bottle caps, and support themselves. I clipped fitting pads of cellulose sponges with scissors. Dampen the sponges, rest he soldering irons in the V of the M and we have a workable solution that was heap enough that even if they walked they would not be a major loss. (Matter of fact, I have one of those to this day as my preferred soldering iron rest.)
The notion that irreducible complexity can be got rid of by waving the magic want of co-optation first begs the question of getting he relevant parts in he first place, then the questions of adapting and organising components to fit and work together in a coordinated, functionally effective way that fulfills the purpose WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE ACHIEVED. Sorry, I am not buying that just so story. Nor will any experienced designer. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

JT, actually I didn't mean to discuss theological issues by asking you what the entity was that was entangling the photons, I just wanted to clearly point out to you that it was the "physical" entity of TRANSCENDENT INFORMATION, not matter or energy, which was entangling the photons: “Information is Information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to take account of this can survive the present day.” – Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and Father of Cybernetics Actually JT, it is not surprising at all to find transcendent information exercising dominion of matter-energy: Information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WytNkw1xOIc John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.bornagain77_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

BA77 [197]: JT, what is the name of the entity which is entangling the photons? Is this is an invitation to me to bring my spiritual view into it. I'll start by saying I think that Reality and God have to be synonymous. Also, the ideas of Zachriel, which he's presented convincingly elsewhere regarding that its easy to build up words and even sentences and even the entire work of Hamlet by random additions of letters, presuming you have some entity that at each step can say, "Yes that's a valid word [or sentence, etc]" or "No, it isn't". So you have the word 'on' and add one letter and it becomes "one" (and KairosFocus this is illustrative here only); "on" and "one" are completely unrelated functionally, and yet are both quite functional (this I think convincingly addressing the whole subject of "irreducible complexity"). So I do personally believe that random changes, accompanied by energy and accompanied by reality itself saying, "Yep that's a workable config" or "No, it isn't" That quite complex functionality can be built up, without any sort of previous plan as such. Of course to take it back to Zachriel's illustration, you're assuming some entity with the knowledge to say, "That's a valid English sentence." (or "That's a sentence from Hamlet" etc.) And with evolution, you're requiring some entity I think as well with some sort of intrinsic knowledge like that. Its just that this entity is Reality. By my thinking is that this entity is really operating in a passive mode, just blindly checking off on something if its workable. I think at the end of all this what has ultimately survived (at the end of the universe) will say something about what the goals of Reality (i.e. God) were to begin with. (And actually I wonder if for example angels in the Bible are not humans from the future or something.) But for the record I absolutely do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that those who believe in him are also son's of God destined to live for eternity. I absolutely do believe that for the record. But there's also the issue of, "Why on earth does this humongous universe exist if it really has nothing to do with us," iow, "If we are some sort of special creation of an intelligent agent (something anthropomorphic and comparable to us in some sense.) maybe some entity involved in a subjective art project of sorts in creating us, and if this being is responsible for the rest of the universe as well, why did he create the rest of the universe, what is the rest of the universe good for. OTOH it the stochastic resources of the universe and all its stellar energy were somehow harnessed so that ultimately life might emerge "by chance" in some exceedingly remote tiny little corner of the universe," then the reason the universe exists starts to make sense. I could go on and on from here but won't. (Does Miller say the same thing - I regret to say I actually haven't read any of us stuff.) But to take an entirely different approach to the question which I can't completely reconcile with the above, is as follows: If you have something that is the output of some process, then the process and the output have to equate - its so deceptively simple: You have a picture on your computer screen - well in memory it will be in some alternate form that bears no apparent resemblance at all to the form it is on the screen. But it makes no difference - if that thing in memory (a file of 1's and 0's) creates the image, then its the same as the image itself. So if you look at the sum total of physical causes that would have resulted in life as we know it, you're just looking at another form of life itself, and have just pushed back what needs to be explained. So proposing some set of physical causes as an explanation needn't turn you into an atheist, and just limiting the discussion to physical causes means I won't have to argue with Mormons for example about their spiritual beliefs. One other thing, I have a personal conviction that the time periods involved in the creation of life are probably a lot less than what is conventionally espoused in the current scientific consensus. I think that probably once life appeared, things started unfolding very fast. (But I could be completely wrong.) But I absolutely think its correct to treat the whole thing as a natural process. I also think evolution is probably a lot more Lamarckian than is currently accepted. I mean, take an octopus - it can sense its environment and using chromatafors and its own behavior completely duplicate in itself any texture or color or form in its surrounding. Well, why couldn't that sort of matching to the environment be taking place on a longer time scale - an organism "sensing" its environment and matching itself to it gradually through genetic changes. This thing I saw recently about plants actually exhibiting volitional activity but occurring on a much slower time scale than for mobile types of organisms I think is illustrative.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

BA: It's all about entangled wavicles in a cosmos that is apparently 90% dark matter or dark energy, where SPACE itself is expanding a la Hubble, where masses -- e.g. galaxies -- warp space-time [and fields give rise to another entanglement across space so we have action at a distance via space and invisible exchange particles below the Enegy-time Heisenberg-Einstein observation limit] and where the expansion rate of space for a certain period was evidently superluminal, and is now speeding up not slowing down. The good "news" is that if particles separated in our space-time are in effectively instant contact at effectively unlimited separation, we can at least possibly create superluminal communications systems . . . and "mebbe" hyperspace is more than a convenient science fiction device. And so there is an underlying polar point "on the sides of the north" where what is separate in our space-time domain is in contact; reflected in our entanglement. [Guess where Element J of Singleton Set G is said to live? And, going back to the Irish connexion, why is a Shamrock leaf one and yet three? Eyes properly crossed yet?] But then this broken down old applied physicist is simply looking on in awe as the weirdest world of all, the Quantum world, begins to point to "the sides of the north," like a compass. Muy interesante . . . GEM of TKI PS: And yes JT, electrons were the "the other way" wavicles. If I recall correctly, Thompson pere won a Nobel prize for work in 1897 for showing the electron is a particle, and fils thirty years later for showing it is a wave, by virtue of interference effects.kairosfocus_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

JT, what is the name of the entity which is entangling the photons?bornagain77_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

BA77 [191]: Regarding the link, http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ a couple of quotes:
" It is not accurate to consider these [entangled] photons as separate entities, but rather as one. They can travel very far away from each other, but they will not loose their correlation...The concept of locality does not hold for the entangled state like it does for everything in our experience. We encounter things that have a particular location, we can say that a particular thing is here and not there. We certainly do not encounter things that are in two places at once. However, this is possible on the quantum level"
This seems key to me to take it out of the realm of the inexplicable, as it says above, it is not accurate to think of entangled photons as seperate entities. They are in fact the same thing. For example, you wouldn't say, "How can this ball travel from its current location to the location it is now, instantaneously? It defies the laws of physics." In essence the entangled particles are not really seperated by any distance at all, despite appearances. Distance is gauged by how long it takes to travel from one place to another. And if takes 0 time there is no seperation.
It is not possible to observe the which-way information and the interference pattern at the same time. This is an example of quantum mechanics' principle of complementarity. There are pairs of quantities which can be measured and obtained individually, but never at the same time. You can know one precisely, but then you will know nothing about the other and vice versa
This is said to have been disproven by the Afshar experiment. ---------- But anyway regarding my original question in 187, I believe this paper, though describing an experiment which is somewhat different, seems to confirm that the which-way info (or lack thereof) is somehow determined in advance, though actually the original paper you referenced in 188 seemed to be questioning that in the Abstract (and I didn't have a subscription there) and actually, I found this quote in the Wikepedia article on delayed erasure:
Some have interpreted this result to mean that the delayed choice to observe or not observe the path of the idler photon will change the outcome of an event in the past. However, it should be noted that an interference pattern can only be observed after the idlers have been detected (i.e., at D1 or /D2).
But being Wikipedia, who knows.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

JT you state, "Rather it has to boil down to some very limited and specific attributes of the setup that are relevant." No JT, it does not have to boil down to "limited and specific attributes" (read materialism). That is the whole thing JT, QM displays many characteristics which blatantly defy our concepts of time and space, resolutely defying materialistic explanations. Myself, as well as the great majority of people in this world, find defying time and space to be a supernatural and miraculous event. Now JT, the way I see it, you can try to redefine materialism to include the "supernatural aspect of defying time and space, as warehuff is currently trying to do, or you can admit the obvious that materialism is bankrupt as an explanation of Quantum Events.bornagain77_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

BA77: In further response to 174, something that crossed my mind yesterday, with all your emphasis on light, were you aware that quantum phemonon are not limited to light but can occur for any kind of matter. (Probably are I guess.) Also when talking about infinite information and so on, in the context of the delayed choice quantum erasure for example, one might observe that something has knowledge of the experimental setup in order to inform instantaneously a particle of it so the particle can form an interference pattern. But I would say that there are an infinite number of details regarding that experimental setup that are irrelevant to qunatum phenomenon, so its not as if some omniscient being has to have knowledge of all those details for quantum phenomenon to occur. Rather it has to boil down to some very limited and specific attributes of the setup that are relevant. So just a couple of comment I wanted to make yesterday.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

JT, LOL,,, damn loose threads You can't fight genetic entropy - might as well let it run its course.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

thanks ba77. It seems there's some debate on this very point.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

JT, LOL,,, damn loose threads... this site is pretty clear JT: The path of beam p is lengthened (the polarizer and detector moved farther away from the BBO crystal), so that photon s can be detected first. The interference fringes are obtained as before. Then the quarter wave plates are added to provide the which-way marker. The interference pattern and lack of interference pattern from these runs are shown here.,,,,,,,,,,,Next the erasure measurement is performed. Before photon p can encounter the polarizer, s will be detected. Yet it is found that the interference pattern is still restored. It seems photon s knows the "which-way" marker has been erased and that the interference behavior should be present again, without a secret signal from photon p. ,,,,,,,,,,,How this happening? It wouldn't make sense that photon p could know about the polarizer before it got there. It can't "sense" the polarizer's presence far away from it, and send photon s a secret signal to let s know about it. Or can it? And if photon p is sensing things from far away, we shouldn't assume that photon s isn't. http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/bornagain77_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

18 --> That is, the proper, scientifically relevant contrast across empirically observed causal factors is not the strawman: Natural vs supernatural, but instead the empirically testable one that is in fact a routine part of science: natural [chance and/or mechanical necessity] vs ART-ificial [intelligent], on characteristic and observable signs of such factors. This, across the aspects of an object, phenomenon or process of interest. 19 --> Similarly, your dismissive "Behe’s figures are highly suspect" ignores the fact that the relevant figures are in fact published public health related statistics. But, I can safely direct you to Dr Behe's own blog here at UD [and/or onward at Amazon] to explore his rebuttals to selectively hyperseptical criticism, as these are not central to my concerns. 20 --> Where my personal volcano erupts explosively is when I see your: I’ve seen an Exclusive OR function come about by chance and necessity. That’s close enough for me. 21 --> WH, you know or should know that the software and hardware systems that set that sort of outcome up are patently intelligently designed, organised and programmed to achieve that result. If the gate was in Silicon or the computer on which the software was run was within several generations of current technologies, the required silicon was processed in a Billion dollar fab. 22 --> Worse, where there is a random search element involved -- e.g. in Avida -- you know or should know that the search spaces involved are many, many orders of magnitude within the complexity threshold I have been discussing. That is this is a willful strawman caricature to find a convenient excuse of dismissal. 23 --> As to:
The idea that mutations tend to destroy or reduce biofunction is a favorite ID/Creationist theme, based on a few examples of bacteria hastily evolving resistance to antibiotics.
23 --> Sorry, that one is plain dishonest. It is advocates of darwinian evolution who have been using such examples for decades, as I recall form as far back as my high school biology. In short, unable to refute the observed evidence that such point mutations and the like achieve minor improved function under specific stresses but at the expense of loss of information and general functional viability [recall how the suggestion on getting rid of hospital superbugs was to expose oneself to a natural environment so the superbugs would be simply replaced by more viable, more vigorous organisms?], you have resorted to clever turnabout rhetoric. 24 --> I will only pause to note on your implicit a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism, tot he point of trying to define science in terms of such materialism. 25 --> The capstone of unjustified, ill-informed dismissive contempt on your part, WH, is however, this:
Meyer just plain doesn’t know anything about evo-devo when he writes, “processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream.” Most of development consists of instructions that are relative to previous instructions, not absolute. If a mutation makes the bones in your forearm get longer [which, onlookers, begs the question Meyer addressed, i.e. inter alia the informational requisites and credible origin for the existence of a functional body plan that embryologically assembles animals with forelimbs . . . ], muscles and flesh will adjust automatically to the new size.
26 --> You plainly did not read or did not understand the context of Meyer's remarks, which are about the origin not of a longer forelimb, but of the architecture of chordates, or arthropods, and the other dozens of basic body plans ab initio. And indeed, such origin has to be integrated and embryologically feasible in light of the tight integration of tissues, organs, and systems in a viable organism:
The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or "complex specified information" (CSI) of the biological world. For over three billions years, the biological realm included little more than bacteria and algae (Brocks et al. 1999). Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993) . . . One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93) . . . the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types . . . New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . .
27 --> Thus, Meyer is more than justified to comment:
In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur.6
28 --> In other words, WH has ducked the question of origin of the functional bio-information to create an embryologically viable body plan, erecting and knocking over a convenient strawman [stretching a forelimb . . . which varies between individuals in a species] that is but one step removed from Meyer's reference to "fingers." __________________ Onlookers, take note of the level of response we routinely get -- WH's REMARKS ARE SADLY TYPICAL -- to serious questions on the origin of life and of body plans, and of the question on the empirically credible source of required bio-functional, complex information in digital codes and using molecular scale nanomachines in a self-replicating functional system. This, after 150 years of Darwinian evolutionary theory and 80+ years of OOL research, over sixty years since the Miller Urey experiment that showed that in unrealistic early planet conditions, a few component monomers could be synthesised and trapped out in intelligently designed, carefully controlled apparati. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

WH: Kindly, first reflect on the implications of the mutually destructive exchange between metabolism first and genes first theorists, as Shapiro and Orgel so amply demonstrate [cf 147 supra]. To help you do that, I will comment on:
WH, 184: The “problem” you pose is that a functioning cell is too complex to form “all at once” through random action in anything approaching the lifetime of the universe. The self-reproducing molecule and chemical evolution gets rid of that “all at once” problem because it can add information slowly in small amounts through evolution.
1 --> What is to be explained is not a hypothetical self-replicating, autocatalytic molecule or an imaginary "simpler" life that has not been demonstrated by observation or experiment. It is the actual observed cells of life, down to the "simplest"like Mycoplasma pneumoniae with 689 genes, which had been expected to be "stripped down," i.e. simplified. As Serrano of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory observed in Science Daily (link has a diagram):
"[a]t all three levels [investigated: (i) “the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA,” (ii) “the metabolic reactions that occurred in it,” and (iii) “every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced”], we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected." The article adds that: "When studying both its proteome [[set of proteins used by an organism] and its metabolome [[the metabolic reaction network that carries out the energy-related chemical life processes of a cell], the scientists found many molecules were multifunctional, with metabolic enzymes catalyzing multiple reactions, and other proteins each taking part in more than one protein complex. They also found that M. pneumoniae couples biological processes in space and time, with the pieces of cellular machinery involved in two consecutive steps in a biological process often being assembled together."
2 --> Like it or not, such cells -- down to the simplest with DNA sets of 100+ k bases to 1 mn bases (and the lower end below 300 - 500 k are essentially parasitic on existing life to provide a reservoir of parts) -- carry out the operations of metabolism-empowered life, and are self-replicating, embedding the irreducibly complex elements of a von Neumann Replicator:
i) an underlying code to record/store the required information and to guide procedures for using it, (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions, and (iv) implementing machines (and associated organisation and procedures) to carry out the specified replication (including that of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that provide required specific materials and forms of energy by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment.
3 --> Simple logic will show that parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating von Neumann universal constructor. 4 --> That is, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicator to exist. [Take just one core part out, and function ceases: the replicator is irreducibly complex (IC).] 5 --> This irreducible complexity is compounded by the requirement (i) for codes, requiring organised symbols and rules to specify both steps to take and formats for storing information, and (v) for appropriate material resources and energy sources. 6 --> So, immediately and by force of the relevant logic, we are looking at islands of organised function -- for both the machinery and the coded information -- in the wider sea of possible (but overwhelmingly mostly non-functional) configurations. 7 --> In short, outside such functionally specific -- thus, isolated -- information-rich target zones, want of correct components and/or of proper organisation and/or co-ordination will block function from emerging or being sustained. 8 --> This is compounded further by the need to account for the origin of the code as a system of symbols with rules for meaningful messages to be constructed, for devising of algorithms, and for the programs that express those algorithms in codes and data structures that can be executed by the actual observed machinery. 9 --> In that context, we note that just 125 bytes of information -- 1,000 bits -- (hopelessly small to effect a vNR) implies a config space of 1.07*10^301 states. The whole observed universe serving as a dynamic search process, would only carry out ~10^150 Planck-time states across its lifespan, and if we were to specify the fastest observed particle interaction times as a more practical limit, that shaves off a factor of ~~ 10^20 states. At the observed order of magnitude for simplest life forms, 100 k bases, 4^100,000 ~ 9.98 * 10^60,205 10 --> As direct consequences, the irreducible complexity logically imposes an all at once-ness on the achievement of the observed function, with five crucial factors to account for; while the search resources of the observed cosmos are utterly inadequate to sample a fraction of the states in the relevant config spaces that differs appreciably from zero. [At best 1 in 10^150 is so small a fraction that we cannot practically represent it, it is 1 in 10^70 smaller than the ratio of one atom to the number in the observed cosmos.] 11 --> So, a credible search in any prebiotic environment on the scale of the observed cosmos is infeasible. (And, WH, this is NOT a probability calculation, though you need to know that the sort of thermodynamic probability calculations that have often been presented are very similar to those of statistical thermodynamics, which carry with them the weighty justification of success. Your dismissals above are selectively hyperskeptical.) 12 --> So, while we have not as yet implemented a physical vNR [computational simulations have been done, but simulation and 3-D implementations with real world machines and materials is a different kettle of fish] we in principle know how to do it, and we know the observed, routine source of digital symbolic codes, algorithms, programs and executing machinery: intelligence. 13 --> For further argument, let us for the moment grant you your hypothetical autocatalytic self-replicator, say an RNA [and note Shapiro's strictures on getting RNA components built spontaneously in pre-biotic environments]. Okay, we have a world of self-replicating RNA molecules, presto. 14 --> How, then does such an RNA world transition to the observed world of vNR replicator based, metabolic life? 15 --> ANS: It would still have to erect the irreducibly complex vNR system, starting with codes, algorithms and executing machines. Executing machines that -- per complexity of the required cluster of dozens of enzymes [as Hoyle pointed out in crude form 30 years ago] -- are beyond the FSCI threshold discussed above. Ans that's the real "chirp chirp." 16 --> WH, you will therefore understand how incensed I am to see the following contempt-laced, strawman caricature from you:
And ID’s problem is that it’s not even equipped to speculate. How did life form? Goddidit. But how did God do it? “Chirp… chirp… chirp…” Nothing at all. Not a peep.
17 --> First, you need to read the weak argument correctives above top, RH column. Design theory is about inference to intelligent action on reliable empirical signs of design, not about inference to God. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

JT: This article may help: Time and the Quantum: Erasing the Past and Impacting the Future Abstract: The quantum eraser effect of Scully and Drühl dramatically underscores the difference between our classical conceptions of time and how quantum processes can unfold in time. Such eyebrow-raising features of time in quantum mechanics have been labeled "the fallacy of delayed choice and quantum eraser" on the one hand and described "as one of the most intriguing effects in quantum mechanics" on the other. In the present paper, we discuss how the availability or erasure of information generated in the past can affect how we interpret data in the present. The quantum eraser concept has been studied and extended in many different experiments and scenarios, for example, the entanglement quantum eraser, the kaon quantum eraser, and the use of quantum eraser entanglement to improve microscopic resolution. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5711/875bornagain77_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

JT [168]:
That BottomLayer sight I actually devoted a couple hours to it a few months ago, before finally realizing it wasn’t reliable.
It wasn't the entire site - Believe it was just "The Reality Program" by Ross Rhodes [158]:
OK, is this correct – if the path to D0 (in that experiment I reference above) is shorter than to the other detectors, that means an interference pattern will be detected even before the which-way information is erased (on the longer path to the other detectors). And this interference pattern will form because the which way pattern is going to be erased (in the future.)
Is anyone able to verify this - not sure I've got this right.JT_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

warehuff: states:, Materialistic Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. “Information is Information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to take account of this can survive the present day.” - Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and Father of Cybernetics Warehuff states: "The cat is dead if the poison vial was broken and he’s alive if it wasn’t. The gazillions of interactions between the atoms and molecules of his body keep any possible quantum effects at bay. Even if you never look." Are the gazillions of photons that are traveling to us, to our point in space from all the stars in the universe, traveling in a wave state or in a particle state? warehuff states: "QM counts as a material process. Your definition of materialism is wildly inaccurate." yet: “Information is Information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to take account of this can survive the present day.” - Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and Father of Cybernetics And QM (Quantum Mechanics) shows: "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx Warehuff states: "If the which-path information stays in the experimental system, you don’t get an interference pattern." And why in the materialistic world would the presence or absence of "information", there's that word again, be a sufficient cause to cause the wave to collapse, even regardless of the time concerns? Warehuff states: "ba77 also misunderstands something basic: quantum superposition can instantly change an entangled particle, even if it’s on the other side of the universe. However, it turns out that you can never transmit any useful information that way. To get information to that distant particle, To get information to that distant particle, you have to send it the conventional way, at the speed of light or slower." I understand this quite well actually warehuff. The speed of light travel of the "decoding bits" in quantum teleportation is the caveat that prevents everything from happening instantaneously in our space-time, i.e. it is the price WE pay for living in this temporal universe, none the less extensive work in entanglement has shown that the travel of "information", there's that word again warehuff, is indeed instantaneous. "IT IS WE OURSELVES" who are prevented from knowing that the information has traveled instantaneously because we live in (are bound to) this space-time. The information teleportation framework is real and your inability to recognize that the characteristics of that framework is probably the result of the blindness you suffer from refusing to relinquish your materialistic philosophy and "think outside the box".. http://ees-web.com/images/think%20outside%20the%20box.jpgbornagain77_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

above @ 175: Light doesn't transmit information instantaneously in or out of QM. Time runs slower as speed increases and stops completely at the speed of light, so if you were a photon you wouldn't know that time had passed, but if you are outside the photon travelling at less than the speed of light, you will note the passage of time as the photon transmits the information. ba77 also misunderstands something basic: quantum superposition can instantly change an entangled particle, even if it's on the other side of the universe. However, it turns out that you can never transmit any useful information that way. To get information to that distant particle, you have to send it the conventional way, at the speed of light or slower.warehuff_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 164: "jt, and is the cat alive or dead until you open the box" The cat is dead if the poison vial was broken and he's alive if it wasn't. The gazillions of interactions between the atoms and molecules of his body keep any possible quantum effects at bay. Even if you never look. ba77@ 167: "but this is all beside the point jt, the fact is that you have instantaneous actions occurring that CANNOT possibly be explained by material processes." QM counts as a material process. Your definition of materialism is wildly inaccurate. ba77 @ 172 If the which-path information stays in the experimental system, you don't get an interference pattern. If it doesn't, you do. No knowledge by an external observer needed either way.warehuff_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 147: The problem has not been displaced, it has been eliminated. The "problem" you pose is that a functioning cell is too complex to form "all at once" through random action in anything approaching the lifetime of the universe. The self-reproducing molecule and chemical evolution gets rid of that "all at once" problem because it can add information slowly in small amounts through evolution. "Aside from such, the basic scientific problem is that the RNA world or the like are all in the air speculation..." And ID's problem is that it's not even equipped to speculate. How did life form? Goddidit. But how did God do it? "Chirp... chirp... chirp..." Nothing at all. Not a peep. Go ahead and criticize science's version of how life may have started, but then please also give us ID's version of how life was created - what appeared, when and how. Of course, neither side can do that because nobody knows exactly what happened on a sub-microscopic scale billions of years ago. But ID criticizes science's speculations and doesn't even notice that it can't even come up with that much. "Just compare the limits on malaria parasite mutations [~ 2 - 3 points, it seems], in a context where the parasites have had more reproductive events in the period since modern antimalarials, than the entire collective of vertebrates." Behe's figures are highly suspect. See Cassandra's cite in the "Mathematics and the Creative Powers of the Blind Watchmaker thread. (BA77, please tell us that Matzke has been repudiated. Please.) Lenski's lab experiment flatly refutes Behe and he also proves that the double mutations didn't occur simultaneously, but many generations apart. The idea that mutations tend to destroy or reduce biofunction is a favorite ID/Creationist theme, based on a few examples of bacteria hastily evolving resistance to antibiotics. Meyer just plain doesn't know anything about evo-devo when he writes, "processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream." Most of development consists of instructions that are relative to previous instructions, not absolute. If a mutation makes the bones in your forearm get longer, muscles and flesh will adjust automatically to the new size. "Have you seen codes, symbols and meaningful rules for constructing messages come about by chance and mechanical necessity?" I've seen an Exclusive OR function come about by chance and necessity. That's close enough for me.warehuff_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 144: "warehuff @ 136, what is so hard about proving materialism true??? there either is a solid material particle (”atom” as per the Greeks who formulated materialism) at the basis of reality or there is not. Since it is conclusively shown there is NOT a solid material particle at the basis of reality then materialism is falsified in no uncertain terms of its primary postulation." I really wish I could believe that you're joking here, but I'm afraid you're serious. Here's the dictionary definition of materialism: n. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Note that there's nothing there about matter being composed of solid particles. Here's a simpler definition of materialism: Not magic. BA77 @ 145: Nakashima answered this. Thank you, Nak.warehuff_{May 19, 2010
May
05
May
19
19
2010
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

off topic song I just heard on the TV show NCIS: Johnny Cash - American VI: Ain't No Grave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3iQrUBpn5w This was Johnny's last hit: Johnny Cash - 'Hurt" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22eIJDtKhobornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

above you ask: Is it (light) simply a medium of transmitting the information or is it comprised of information. Light is comprised of information and it can also carry information. This is confirmed in two ways. First is this: 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/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf second is this: 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 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 to help you understand how a photon can both be made of infinite information and how it can be (theoretically) encoded with infinite information,, this following video is a great help: William Lane Craig - Hilbert's Hotel - The Absurdity Of An Infinite Regress Of "Things" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994011/ But Above there is one more piece of evidence that nails down the fact that light is made out of infinite transcendent information. It is found in a experiment called Quantum Teleportation in which one photon becomes another photon while the original photon is "destroyed" by the removal of its "infinite" 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.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706 Of note: conclusive evidence for the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics is firmly found in the preceding experiment (i.e. "every state" of the photon being teleported) when coupled with the complete displacement of the infinite transcendent information of "Photon c": http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzBmcjR0eG1negbornagain77_{May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply