Home » Intelligent Design, Religion, Science » Many Worlds, One God? Shift Happens

Many Worlds, One God? Shift Happens

Shift Happens
________________

Quantum computers are a reality and they indirectly speak to the issue of intelligent design and the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics.


We don’t really comprehend what the equations of Quantum Mechanics signify, even though most scientists agree what the equations are. In human affairs we have written laws to govern our lives, but the courts argue endlessly over the interpretation of those laws. In like manner, we have a body of physical laws but scientists argue endlessly over the interpretation of those laws as well, especially the laws of Quantum Mechanics. In general, each interpretation yields identical experimental results, so the impasse has not found a resolution experimentally, yet….

From Wikipedia: Interpretation of quantum mechanics

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to answer the question, “What exactly is quantum mechanics talking about?”. Although quantum mechanics is widely considered “the most precisely tested and most successful theory in the history of science” (Jackiw and Kleppner, 2000), many feel that in spite of this the fundamentals of the theory have yet to be fully understood.

The link lists a sampling of 8 interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. One of those listed is the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). Another (my favorite) is the Transactional Interpretation (Single World Interpretation).

Quantum Mechanics reasonably accommodates the idea of MWI. This can be somewhat seen with the ability of a Quantum Computer to process several computations simultaneously in parallel, almost as if several computers in several worlds were working together in concert toward one goal.

Whether MWI is true or not, the picture of a Quantum Computer raises issues with ID at the cosmological scale, namely, if MWI is true, is ID false? Traditionally, MWI has often been used to argue against ID and many IDers presume MWI is an anti-ID position. However in this essay, I argue, that MWI on closer inspection is not inherently anti-ID, but at worst is neutral.

In the Peer-Reviewed Stealth ID Classic : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987), John Barrow and Frank Tipler argue the case for MWI. Several prominent writers presumed Barrow and Tipler’s book was generally unfriendly to ID. For example see Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design by William Lane Craig. I highly respect Craig, but I will argue that Barrow and Tipler are more friendly to ID than they have been given credit for.

What they actually conclude is that even if MWI is true, the ID hypothesis can and probably does hold. One can actually see an illustration of this in the case of the Quantum Computer. The many indeterminate states and lines of computing converge to one final teleologically prescribed state. All the parallel lines converge to one goal.

In similar manner, Barrow and Tipler argue that the Many Worlds (if they exist) must of necessity converge to the same goal at the end of time. What they demonstrated was that even if MWI is true, it can not ultimately be used as an anti-Design argument. They argue that even if MWI is true, QM predicts the one true God must exist. They refer to God however in their peer-reviewed Oxford book as “The Ultimate Observer”. I suppose that helped them get a favorable book review in the prestigious scientific journal Nature since they avoided the word God!

There is another body of ideas called Multiverses. I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss this except to say, Paul Davies (echoing Barrow and Tipler’s logic) points out that Multiverses can not ultimately be used to refute the Design argument either because one is then still confronted with the question of what caused all the Multiverses in the first place!

Some of the resistance to MWI has been theological. But theologically, for me, personally, I don’t know. The King James Version of the Bible gave me food for thought. It says:

[God] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

Hebrews 1:2

Worlds is plural in the King James. Any Koine Greek experts out there to offer an opinion? If the King James is accurate then, well, one can’t completely say the scriptures frown on MWI.

Finally, some physicists like John Cramer and Shahriar Afshar have claimed experimental refutation of MWI. See: Transactional Interpretation of QM.

I personally don’t think MWI is the correct interpretation, but my aim is to show these various objections might ultimately be un-necessary. MWI is no threat to the Design hypothesis and may not be at variance with anything in the Scriptures either.

So in sum, MWI poses no threat to the Design hypothesis for the universe either theoretically or even theologically.

Salvador
PS
I was very pleased to see Frank Tipler become a fellow at ISCID and to see his endorsement on Bill Dembki’s book No Free Lunch. Tipler also wrote a chapter in the book Uncommon Dissent edited by William Dembski. I find these positive developments since I think Barrow and Tipler’s work are far more ID-friendly than presumed earlier, even though they are advocates of MWI.

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

28 Responses to Many Worlds, One God? Shift Happens

  1. I find quantum physicists fascinating, so I welcome this entry! And your take on MWI is similar to my own – John Polkinghorne has some interesting things to say about it as well.

    Usually when I hear MWI cited, it’s to explain away the seeming anthropic nature of the universe.

  2. A song by the Police comes to mind…

    …One world is enough
    For all of us
    It may seem a million miles away
    But it gets a little closer everyday…

  3. Isn’t it a bit of a double standard to dismiss the evolutionist’s testable extrapolation of directly observed micro-evolution to macro-evolution, while whole-heartedly embracing the physicist’s untestable extrapolation of their models (who can’t even agree on different scales within our universe) to different universes?

  4. Salvador:

    The many indeterminate states and lines of computing converge to one final teleologically prescribed state. All the parallel lines converge to one goal.

    One can simulate any quantum computer with a Turing machine. The upshot is that quantum computers may solve problems faster than classical computers do, but they cannot solve any problem that a classical computer cannot. Thus I have two problems with your teleology:

    1. We know from Gödel and Turing that there are important problems that cannot be solved, and furthermore cannot be recognized as insoluble. The upshot is that some quantum computations never reach a “final teleologically prescribed state,” and it is impossible to tell by observing a computation whether it will terminate in the next step or continue forever.

    2. Some problems have many solutions. When there are multiple solutions to a problem, different quantum computers will find different solutions. The notions of “one final teleologically prescribed state” and parallel lines converging “to one goal” are mystically appealing, but they seem to me to fit the facts of computation poorly.

  5. Tom,

    Thank you for your comments.

    The issue of Godel’s incompletenets or computationally unsolvable does not preclude a final quantum state from eventually being reached. “shutting off” the Quantum Computer as it grinds away a potentially uncomputable problem effectively drives the computer to a teleologically prescribed state, thus forcing a collapse of the various parallel lines of computation (albeit toward an answer we don’t really want).

    The point is, even if the fact we can get the system to be in parallel is due to MWI, the Quantum Computer illustrates the parallel indeterminacy resolving to a single determinate state, which was akin to Barrow and Tipler’s thesis.

    I can understand how my comments may have caused you to interpret what I said a certain way.
    I was not using rigorous language, but at some point too much rigor in informal communication results in rigor mortis.

    Salvador

  6. Everyone who has read my earlier posts on observational evidence that contradicts standard cosmology know I have present alternatives, including what is considered a fringe science, the “Electric Cosmos”.

    Halton Arp, who is an adherent of a modified Steady State concept, was kind enough to communicate with me and he wrote the below. Again, I find it intersting that supporters of I.D. are delighted to “buck authority” when it comes with Darwin, but do not question or resent challenges to standard cosmology!

    Arp wrote:

    “I assume that this debate is taking place on
    Wikipedia. The criticism of intrinsic redshifts rests on misstatements of past and present research. I am in the process of writing up for
    my website two new observational disproofs of the standard model.

    ” I will try to make some comments also about past mis interpretations of the data.

    Regards, Halton Arp”

    http://www.haltonarp.com/

  7. P. Philips,

    “Again, I find it intersting that supporters of I.D. are delighted to “buck authority” when it comes with Darwin, but do not question or resent challenges to standard cosmology!”

    Of course, if you’re saying this as someone who bucks authority in regards to standard cosmology, but who wholly endorses the authority of darwinian proponents.. well, it speaks for itself.

    I think Salvador Cordova’s posts on MWI runs contrary to your assertion anyway. MWI is sometimes proposed to do away with the metaphysical problems of anthropic fine-tuning and the Big Bang. Cordova didn’t dismiss MWI as fringe nonsense (and it would be easy to do so) – he said that while he doesn’t necessarily buy into it, it poses no necessary challenge to a design hypothesis.

  8. 8

    Any Koine Greek experts out there to offer an opinion?

    I’m the furthest thing from an “expert”, but maybe I could shed a small bit of light on this passage. The word translated “worlds” here is αἰῶνας (ay-oh-nas). This can be translated as: 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age.

  9. There are many more ways to arrive at Many Worlds than just the Everett interpretation. John Leslie’s book “Universes” is still the best source for this (in my opinion). Leslie indicates that MWI and Design are not mutually exclusive, but the main point of his book is that anthropic evidence such as that Barrow & Tipler cite increase the liklihood of both Design and an atheistic MWI simultaneously.

    MWI should be viewed as a scientific idea if the criteria for science is falsifiability. A common criticism of anthropic reasoning is that it is not falsifiable, but in fact this is not so. MWI can be falsified via the “Boltzmann’s Blunder” problem. This is discussed in both the Barrow/Tipler book as well as in “Universes”. Essentially, if it can be shown that one type of life-amenable universe should be overwhelmingly represented within the multiverse, and we fail to observe that our our own patch of reality matches its characteristics, then it is likely that MWI is false. Roger Penrose 2004 book “Road to Reality” gives the most up-to-date use of the Boltzmann’s blunder argument to refute an inflation-driven MWI argument.

    The correct criticism of MWI is not that it is non-falsifiable; instead anthropic reasoning could tend to keep researchers from looking for physical mechanisms (like inflation, for example) that could resolve one or more of the anthropic ‘coincidences’.

    Within ‘hard science’ there are emerging two opposite poles: the anthropic reasoners and the ‘theory of everything’ crowd. The former advocate MWI and the latter advocate that ultimately a theory will be found that will remove all free parameters from the standard model and show that “the world is how it is because it is impossible for it to be otherwise”. The Design paradigm is largely in the middle; there are degrees of freedom open to a creator, but only one or some of these have been realized. Showing both that multiple degrees of freedom exist, then, and yet some are unrealized would then mitigate against both the MWI pole and the TOE pole.

    Within QM itself, the best description of the differing interpretation is given (in my opinion) by the book “Dancing Wu Li Masters” which references the work of philosopher Henry Stapp. Stapp breaks down QM interpretations into four categories:

    1) no models of reality are possible
    2) superluminal communication exists
    3) choice has no definite consequences
    4) choice is impossible

    The latter two options represent, at the quantum level, the MWI (anthropic crowd) and Superdeterminism (i.e. the philosophical objective the TOE crowd mentioned above).

    The first is the Copenhagen interpretation. The second would include interpretations such as Cramer’s transactional and DeBroglie-Bohm-Hilley.

    An emerging popular interpretation, Consistent Histories, fails to supply an ontology to its use of projection operators and is hence difficult to classify. It is also often conflated with the Environmental Decoherence option (which is a for-all-practical-purposes approach only). It is often used as an updated MWI by cosmologists.

    With regard to amenability to theism, Superdeterminism is definitely out since it denies God sovereignty. Whether a quantum MWI is amenable depends on how it is interpreted. An MWI such as that explicated by theorists such as David Deutsche and Julian Barbour where all the worlds always exist (have necessary being) is not amenable to theism. An Everett interpretation, where the many worlds are created through the evolution of physical laws, however, is amenable.

    Copenhagen is obviously amenable since it requires a disembodied observer outside the universe. The others (non-local deterministic) are certainly amenable to theism and, in fact, remove arguments for uncaused QM events due to its determinism. This helps theistic arguments such as the Kalam argument:

    1) That which begins to exist must have a cause.
    2) The universe began to exist.
    3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    As can be seen, a pure determinism would tend to help defend the 1st premise.

  10. Just so we’re clear on things:

    The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes that all values of the standard model for this universe. The “worlds” are individuated with respect to pathways of quantum events.

    On Smolin’s “multiverse” hypothesis, each universe differs with respect to the values assigned to the basic parameters themselves.

    The latter counts as an atheist response to the fine-tuning problem. (Although it is not without a theistic objection: what if God is making all the different universes?) I’m not sure the former, the MWI of QM, could count as an atheist response to the fine-tuning problem.

    The point here is that there are different versions of “many worlds” — even if one restricts oneself to physics.

  11. How’s this for an atheistic ID position: Suppose the designer was a being from one of these ‘other worlds’. It’s similar to panspermia, but with the bonus that the ‘other world’ may be more ameniable to self forming intelligence. (since we have no idea what the condition may be like in the ‘other worlds’.)

    Not really serious here. Just looking for ideas I could use in an ID based SciFi.

  12. Stepehn you might have a read of Robert Sawyers “Calculating God” that explores exactly this question.

  13. StephenA

    Your comment is not silly. If Multiverse believers think they can extract the anthropic principle from multiverses, atheistic ID supporterd may potentially get their Designer from there too. Fair is fair.

  14. StephenA: “with the bonus that the ‘other world’ may be more ameniable to self forming intelligence”

    Forget about “intelligence” for a moment. There’s the knotty problem regarding the nature of consciousness. It doesn’t fit within any conconceivable mechanistic spacetime bubble of some multiverse. It’s a clue that seems to go unheeded.

  15. Isn’t it a bit of a double standard to dismiss the evolutionist’s testable extrapolation of directly observed micro-evolution to macro-evolution

    Testable how?

  16. Dave, good question on testing. Also, nice redesign to you and all who helped! Especially preview, thanks!

  17. Re: Hebrews 1:2

    Greek word (phonetic) aion,

    Common translations:
    1 – forever
    2 – worlds, universe
    3 – period of time, age

    Example: Matt 6:13 (Lord’s prayer, long) “the power, and the glory, for ever, amen.”

    Other translations translate “worlds” as:
    NIV: universe
    NASB: world
    Young’s Literal: ages
    Amplified Bible: “the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time.” Hey, its amplified, what can I say.

    Sal, one can hardly claim that Hebrews 1:2 provides Biblical support for multiple universes.

  18. bfast observed:

    Sal, one can hardly claim that Hebrews 1:2 provides Biblical support for multiple universes.

    That sounds reasonable. In that case I will hardly claim that as well. :-)

    Thanks everyone for your thoughtful and informative posts. I for one learned a lot in this thread.

    nullasalus and sinclairjd,

    I believe this is our first meeting. Welcome to Uncommon Descent.

    Carl

    I don’t believe I’ve formally welcome you either. Welcome.

    Salvador

  19. Mr. Sinclair,

    enjoyed your paper, The Metaphysics of QM, http://www.reasons.org/resourc.....nics.shtml

    Salvador, my two sheckles on Hebrews 1.2? I am inclined two the literal – ages as Tribune7 posted, though I have no expertise in Greek, it appears the verse gives Yeshua as ‘heir of all things in the world’ first, then of the ages.

    The root of aeon is aei(ah-eye) – perpetual ages. Differing interpretations show it as singular or plural in Greek for world. Maybe someone can explain why in some instances, Aeon is translated world, and in other Kosmos = world too. Greek is frustrating to me in comparison to Hebrew.

    I would rest more on other statements in the Tenach. Or, that Yeshua said, He leaves to be with the Father and to prepare dwelling places in His Father’s house. In this case, the house = a dwelling place as well. And when all things(the stars, the heavens, the planets) are brought into being due to the Creator, then such a House and dwelling places can be wherever and whatever He deems it to be. And the dwelling places therin can simply be worlds in this universe or in other safe bubbles of existence outside our meager limitations to see thru the glass darkly. I may be stretching the heavens a wee bit, but if all creation is the Lords, then that pretty much covers any theory from QM even though I myself may be ignorant of the full application of the theory. But I think eternal existence is a better argument from apologectics. Scientificially, all things pour through His creation by His will, including our creative activity for good or evil. Whether the greatest scientist, philosophers and skeptics declare otherwise is trivial. Since none cannot explain the most simple issue of all – why there is some – thing instead of no – thing at all.

    If we truly believe in an all powerful, all knowing Creator, then multi-verses are passe’ already since even Paul speaks of the Third Heaven 2000 years ago. If, we believe it to be true revelation, then the proclamation of levels lends credence to more than what we see in our known universe.

    There are any number of ways the Word can account for existence of reality outside our known limitations, whether in the Third Heaven and above, or in the actuality of the existence of Eloheem from Alef-tav, Alpha-Omega, 4 eternal.

    If one is eternal, then multi-verses present great adventure and safari vacation plans for the entire family ;-).

    BTW, anyone seen RealVerse.com? Seems a little fig tree is blooming online in Nashville, TN. Might be a good avenue for ID in one of their VLog entries.

    … and I’m going to graceland, graceland, memphis, tennessee, sigh, I regret never seeing Mr. Simon perform in person. I still have two tickets from a canceled show in Houston years ago.

  20. Good thread- A refreshing change from the proliferation of Dawkins commentary. I enjoyed Hugh Ross’ take on cosmology. Actions that appear supernatural(ie walking through walls, triune beings) would be ‘natural’ in a >4 dimensional world. I know the idea is not new but it will be interesting to see if scientific support/m-theory continues or becomes a dead end. I don’t believe TOE is necessarily anti-ID rather it seems the ultimate ID. Also, any opinions on whether the addition of electromagnetic forces to star formation lends any support to plasma cosmology?

  21. Nullasallus (spelling? I’m just typing in a little “box” here) you can see my thoughts on these threads:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1654

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1651

    The last — I have no idea if John Davison will reply; I am not hostile to Intelligent Design but I don’t think the “evidence” points to the “God” of the Abrahamic faith — on that I’m agnostic.

  22. Remember Casey Luskin’s essay on “Many Worlds”; the link above leads to my point that even if I have an alternative “view” , both Bell’s Inequality and the one I prefer postulate an “interconnected” reality. Ultimately, I think the “Truth is out there” but beyond human comprehension.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1475

    But, Luskin writes, “National Academy of Sciences member and Nobel Laureate Leonard Susskind was given print-space–in fact he had a highlighted box-quote–saying that we should not reject the multi-verse hypothesis on the grounds that it isn’t testable.”

  23. Oh, this is the latest on observations on “Red Shift”:

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/t.....uintet.htm

    Sep 28, 2006

    Stephan’s Quintet Rekindles Controversy

    New images of the clustered galaxies of Stephan’s Quintet suggest interactions that should not be taking place. Astronomers have long assumed that one of the galaxies is far too close to us to physically interact with the more “remote” members of the group.

    What is obvious from this image is that if the ‘shock wave’ means dynamic interaction, then there are connections between the supposed ‘intruder’, NGC 7318B, (upper right), and both NGC 7319 (center left) and NGC 7320 (lower left). But the supposed distance of NGC 7320 from the others, based on assumptions about redshift, would preclude such interactions.

    Indeed, many characteristics indicate that the galaxies of Stephan’s Quintet are interacting as a group. Both galaxies on the left (NGC 7319 and NGC 7320) have tails that swing off to the northeast (upper left). (The tail on NGC 7320 requires a deep exposure to reveal it, as well illustrated by professor Don Scott in his discussion of NGC 7320.) A more unified perspective will see the larger pattern. The entire group is embedded in a radio lobe (a bridge of excited matter emitting radio waves) from the active spiral NGC 7331 to the northeast (out of the frame). An extension of this energetic lobe also encloses a group of three galaxies on the opposite side of NGC 7331 that have redshifts similar to the high-redshift members of Stephan’s Quintet. (Those familiar with Arp’s observations will immediately recognize the pattern as a pair of small-galaxy clusters primordially ejected from NGC 7331.)

    The ‘mashed together’ pair, NGC 7318A and B, which even conventional astronomers admit are interacting, are themselves a ‘discordant group’. B, on the left, has a redshift velocity 1000 km/s lower than A. The redshift-equals-distance assumption would place it in front of its neighbor and safely out of interaction’s way.

    It is also worth noting that the galaxy NGC 7319 (upper left in the image above) is the location of one of the most shocking challenges to the standard view of redshift. In front of the galaxy’s dense core lies a quasar, an object whose redshift implies it should be more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it. See Picture of the Day here.

    What does all this mean? If the measuring stick (standard interpretation of redshift) is flawed, so are the measurements and deductions that follow. And to one degree or another that includes almost all the themes of standard cosmology today. The redshift controversy is still very much alive.

  24. P. Phillips,

    You got the name right. I think the nature of ID makes it impossible to determine or rule out design in any aspect of creation – maybe the ID proponents will prove me wrong there. Personally – and I am a theist by a steel thread, as I like to say – I think that the Abrahamic God comes closest to my view of creation and its’ consistency/behavior, and hinted purpose. Others may disagree, and I have little to answer them with aside from philosophy.

    Perhaps I’m selfish – it could be I’m motivated by a want for objective moral truth and a continued existence and life after death. For those desires, the Abrahamic Faith is supreme. Is it correct? I suppose all I can do is pray. Funny how that works.

  25. Finally, two different views, only compatible, perhaps, if there is “interconnection”; again, it doesn’t matter to me what you believe. I think that this forum is good to raise thought provoking and perhaps ultimately unanswerable questions.

    However, I don’t believe human beings are close to any “Theory of Everything”.

    Not a “peer reviewed” essay, but perhaps worth considering…

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/t.....ssible.htm

    Dec 29, 2005
    Things That are Impossible

    Theoretical assumptions will always be a part of scientific inquiry. They ground what is thought to be impossible. But new discoveries often surprise us with possibilities that require different assumptions.

    Pictured above are a few things that were “impossible” under popular assumptions that held sway through much of the twentieth century. UPPER LEFT: An electrical discharge in a laboratory creates a ‘crater’ with all the anomalous characteristics of purported ‘impacts’ on other planets and moons. UPPER RIGHT: The familiar lightning of a thunderstorm is an electrical arc connecting two cells of oppositely charged plasma that calculations “prove” can’t be generated by wind. LOWER LEFT: Saturn’s auroras are electrical glow discharges powered by currents in its magnetosphere. LOWER CENTER: The jet of the active galaxy M87 is composed of hot plasma that is constricted to a filament thousands of light years long by the electromagnetic forces of the electric current flowing along its axis. LOWER RIGHT: Planetary nebulas are glow discharges powered by galactic electric currents, star-sized versions of laboratory plasma-discharge tubes.

    I

    You can’t get mass separation in space. Hence, the Big Bang is impossible.

    From a classical perspective, gravity is a solely attractive force arising from the property of mass that’s inherent in matter. When the quantity of matter in any volume exceeds a threshold such that the force of gravity is greater than any forces that resist compression, the matter will collapse without limit and become a black hole.

    From a relativistic perspective, space-time curves around matter so that bits of matter tend to move toward the center. When the quantity of matter in any volume exceeds a threshold such that the curvature of space-time is greater than any extensional properties, the matter will collapse without limit and become a black hole.

    Because the Big Bang theory postulates that all matter originated in the granddaddy of all black holes, to pull the matter out and to separate it into distributed bits would require more energy than exists in the universe. The universe as we observe it can’t really exist.

    “But,” the argument goes, “the theory doesn’t begin with the black hole. It begins with the observation that mass is already distributed, and it calculates back to the black hole. We don’t know what blew up the black hole; we only see the result.”

    II

    You can’t get charge separation in space. Hence, the Electric Universe is impossible.

    The attractive electrical force between the charges of an electron and a proton is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction between their masses. To separate the electrons from the nuclei of atoms in a spoonful of salt would require more energy than exists in the universe. An electron and an ion in space, with nothing between them but vacuum, will seek each other out as fast as they can and neutralize their electric field. Electrical phenomena in space can’t really exist.

    “But,” the argument goes, “the theories of the plasma universe don’t begin with neutral matter. They begin with the observation that charges are already separated. All the phenomena we see are visible because they radiate the energy that’s released as separated charges combine. We observe that they obey the laws of electrical circuits in plasma: formation of filaments, cells, and double layers; evolution through the characteristic sequence of instabilities as charges move toward equilibrium; coupling of larger-scale circuits to smaller-scale circuits. We don’t know where the largest-scale circuit gets its power; we don’t know why 99% of the universe is composed of separated charges; we only see the result.”

    The moral of this game? What you really can’t get is assumption-free explanations.

    And this, finally:

    In the mid-1980′s, astronomers discovered these four quasars, with redshifts about z = 1.7, buried deep in the heart of a galaxy with a low redshift of z = .04. (The central spot in this image is not the whole galaxy but only the brightest part of the galaxy’s nucleus.) When first discovered, the high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low redshift galaxy caused a panic. To save the redshift/distance conviction, gravitational lensing had to be invoked despite Fred Hoyle’s calculation that the probability of such a lensing event was less than two chances in a million!

    A change in brightness of the quasars was observed over a period of three years. Arp’s explanation is that the galaxy has ejected four quasars, which are growing brighter with age as they move farther from the nucleus. The lensing explanation is that the bending of the light varies when individual stars pass in front of the quasar. If the lensing explanation were correct, the quasars should brighten briefly and then fade as the star moves out of alignment.

    >> Hubble Space Telescope picture, in false color, of the Einstein Cross. At the wavelength of redshifted hydrogen Lyman alpha emission there is connecting material between the quasar D and the central galaxy core.

    With access to the primary data, Arp was able to show (above) that the high-redshift quasar was connected to the nucleus of the low redshift galaxy. The image shows trails of material from ejection and the tendency for orthogonal ejection from the parent galaxy.

    >> Theoretical calculations by Peter Schneider et al. of what gravitationally lensed quasars should look like. If resolved, the luminous isophotes should be extended by a factor of 4 or 5 to one along a circumference.

    Instead of being extended along the circumference, the well resolved quasars are extended toward the galactic nucleus. They are not gravitationally lensed images.

    Arp reports other professional scandals associated with the Einstein Cross. One is that the central galaxy would need so much mass concentrated in its central region that it should outshine by 2 magnitudes the supposedly brightest objects in the universe— conventional quasars. As an authority on galaxy classification, Arp points out that the central galaxy in the Einstein Cross is in fact a small, dwarf galaxy! There is no way it could satisfy the gravitational lens requirement.

    http://www.holoscience.com/new.....e=stb9s0ye

  26. How can quantum mechanics be discussed without reference to the work of David Bohm?

    Again, the view reiterates my contention of “interconnection”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....cate_Order

    In Bohm’s conception of order, then, primacy is given to the undivided whole, and the implicate order inherent within the whole, rather than to parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and continua. For Bohm, the whole encompasses all things, structures, abstractions and processes, including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures as well as those that involve metamorphosis of structures or things. In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and independent “sub-totalities”. The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is entirely separate or autonomous.

    Bohm (1980, p. 11) said: “The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow”. According to Bohm, a vivid image of this sense of analysis of the whole is afforded by vortex structures in a flowing stream. Such vortices can be relatively stable patterns within a continuous flow, but such an analysis does not imply that the flow patterns have any sharp division, or that they are literally separate and independently existent entities; rather, they are most fundamentally undivided. Thus, according to Bohm’s view, the whole is in continuous flux, and hence is referred to as the holomovement (movement of the whole).

    Quantum theory and relativity theory

    A key motivation for Bohm in proposing a new notion of order was what he saw as the incompatibility of quantum theory with relativity theory, with respect to certain features of the theories as observed in relevant experimental contexts. Bohm (1980, p. xv) summarised the state of affairs he perceived to exist:

    …in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events connectible by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness.

    Bohm maintained that relativity and quantum theory are in basic contradiction in these essential respects, and that a new concept of order should begin with that towards which both theories point: undivided wholeness. This should not be taken to mean that he advocated such powerful theories be discarded. He argued that each was relevant in a certain context—i.e. a set of interrelated conditions within the explicate order—rather than having unlimited scope, and that apparent contradictions stem from attempts to overgeneralize by superposing the theories on one another, implying greater generality or broader relevance than is ultimately warranted. Thus, Bohm (1980, pp. 156-167) argued: “… in sufficiently broad contexts such analytic descriptions cease to be adequate … ‘the law of the whole’ will generally include the possibility of describing the ‘loosening’ of aspects from each other, so that they will be relatively autonomous in limited contexts … however, any form of relative autonomy (and heteronomy) is ultimately limited by holonomy, so that in a broad enough context such forms are seen to be merely aspects, relevated in the holomovement, rather than disjoint and separately existent things in interaction”.

  27. nullasalus, you may enjoy my “find” — a web site with a good critique of Dawkins; the writer is evidently Christian, but that should not, I think, diminish his argument to those readers who are not, i.e., Jewish, Muslim, Bhuddist, since his argument is not from citation of scripture, but reason.

    http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/rdawkins.htm

Leave a Reply