Home » Intelligent Design » Richard Lewontin in The New York Review of Books

63 Responses to Richard Lewontin in The New York Review of Books

1. 61

   kairosfocusMay 15, 2009 at 3:57 am

   Folks:

   Following up on qubits, entanglement and the like, starting with an interesting Wiki extract, focussed on particle pairs:

   ___________________

   Quantum entanglement is a possible property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations . . . .

   When pairs of particles are generated by the decay of other particles, naturally or through induced collision, these pairs may be termed “entangled”, in that such pairs often necessarily have linked and opposite qualities, i.e. of spin or charge. The assumption that measurement in effect “creates” the state of the measured quality goes back to the arguments of, among others: Schrödinger, and Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen . . . concerning Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and its relation to observation (see also the Copenhagen interpretation). The analysis of entangled particles by means of Bell’s theorem, can lead to an impression of non-locality (that is, that there exists a connection between the members of such a pair that defies both classical and relativistic concepts of space and time). This is reasonable if it is assumed that each particle departs the scene of the pair’s creation in an ambiguous state (as per a possible interpretation of Heisenberg). In such case, either dichotomous outcome of a given measurement remains a possibility; only measurement itself would precipitate a distinct value. On the other hand, if each particle departs the scene of its “entangled creation” with properties that would unambiguously determine the value of the quality to be subsequently measured, then a postulated instantaneous transmission of information across space and time would not be required to account for the result. The Bohm interpretation postulates that a guide wave exists connecting what are perceived as individual particles such that the supposed hidden variables are actually the particles themselves existing as functions of that wave.

   Observation of wavefunction collapse can lead to the impression that measurements performed on one system instantaneously influence other systems entangled with the measured system, even when far apart. Yet another interpretation of this phenomenon is that quantum entanglement does not necessarily enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light because a classical information channel is required to complete the process.
   ______________________

   So, looks like we are seeing differing views on an issue, with one side — that has made some big assumptions on what superposition of quantum states means [the heart of many ideas on Qubits] — sometimes presented as if it were the whole story. (Plainly, it is not.)

   On another side of the story, in some cases qubits are being stored as isolated electrons in quantum dots, e.g. in isolated dots embedded in the depletion regions of insulated gate field effect transistors. (NB: Ever since Millikan and his oil drops experiment, it has been possible to detect the action of a single electron electrostatically.) These dots can be coupled and treated as acting through superposition of possible states treated as in effect a basis in a coordinate/vector system.

   GEM of TKI

   PS: TGP, your instincts are sound. Indeed spontaneous information generation from “lucky noise” in a scope that makes random search on the gamut of our cosmos utterly implausible is the central unanswered issue for naturalistic theories of origins of life, body plans and minds.

   The problem, though, is that in the science and related high prestige, high power institutions, we have an establishment that is in significant parts deeply committed to materialism (and is in the politicised cliques, ruthlessly so). So a direct concentration of forces challenge within the institutions is predictably going to be a defeat on correlation of power — not on the actual merits of the issue. (Hence, the “expelled” phenomenon.)

   But, such elites are like the Spartans, ever in fear of an uprising. That is why they view efforts like UD as a threat — if the general public becomes aware of what has been going on (especially through the equivalent of a Luther and other Reformers objecting to the equivalent of a Tetzel’s sales talks), the game is up.

   Especially, if it leaks out that science is being censored and subverted from being an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world based on experimental and other observational evidence.

   And that is why Mr Lewontin’s statements in 1997 and in the new article are important, especially when paralleled with more official statements of the US NAS etc.

   Log in to Reply
2. 62

   jerryMay 15, 2009 at 9:52 am

   tgpeeler,

   Fantastic post. Maybe Barry should make this the center of a new thread.

   I have been studying this issue for about 10 years now. Each year brings a firmer understanding of the problems with naturalistic processes. My experience here in the last year is that information is the key. There is no answer for its existence or its build or its transformation that isn’t wishful speculation.

   Log in to Reply
3. 63

   glennjMay 15, 2009 at 8:36 pm

   To alan (7) and tgpeeler (59),
   Thank you for excellent posts. I found both posts thoughtful and full of insight.
   Thanks!

   Log in to Reply