Darwinists Running Scared

[Crispy]

"Particles" that continue to influence the behaviour of each other across hyperspatial distances, sounds like a pretty large-scale phenomenon to me.

But it's statiscally random at anything but the incredibly incredibly tiny scale. Information can not, by the very dfeinition and laws of such entanglement, flow between two points in space faster than light.

A metaphor - At any particular moment, there are trillions of air molecules hitting your body at incredible speeds. But they are randomly distriubuted and therefore the effect you feel is general and we call it air pressure. If all the local air molecules all sponanteously moved in the same direction at the same time, we would feel the force of their impact. This has not yet been observed to happen. Similarly, general action at a distance has not yet been observed either.

If evolution is guided, why does it make mistakes?

 

[ZWord]

I'm sorry crispy, believe what you like, but there is experimental proof that information is transmitted faster than light, and it has existed since at least 1983, and has been tested in a multitude of experiments, by alain aspect and others.

It's not statistically random at anything but the tiny tiny scale. It happens, across meters, across kilometres and across hyperspatial distances, = for want of a better word. This is why when Bell's theorem was first demonstrated mathematically was considered so bizarre that most physicists thought it was just a quirk of the mathematics that would have no application in reality, and why they were astonished by alain aspect's experiments demonstrating that bell's theorem does have experimental validity, in a whole series of increasingly sophisticated experiments designed specifically to prove that information can travel faster than light: the results are utterly astounding and led David Bohm among others to opine that, perhaps our view of reality needs to be radically reconsidered, and possibly -locality- (which as humans we take for granted) is more in the nature of illusion than reality.

 

[laptop]

there is experimental proof that information is transmitted faster than light

But there isn't.

And your refusal to answer a very simple question on the relevant thread strongly suggests that you are realising this.

 

[ZWord]

But there is, and it's been around since at least 1983, and your failure to realise this, is why I know your portrayal of yourself as a scientific expert is ... Bullshit.

 

[ZWord]

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm

 

[laptop]

Yeah, I read the Gribbin articles when they came out. I told the editor he should have hired me make them clearer, though.

This bit is particuarly apposite advice, from the first one - quoting an extremely reputable physicist:

Don't worry if you don't understand this. Richard Feynman didn't, and he warned "do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

The headline on the second is an excusable journalistic mistake. AFAIK it's not even Gribbin's - it was written by a sub-editor.

Though dear old John does tend to bigging up the mystery. It's how he makes his living out of comissioning editors who're thinking of that headline more than the scence.

As for the first link- that's yer man who started out convinced about telepathy and went looking for citations in "support". Ptui.

 

[ZWord]

Typically playing the man not the ball.

Even Einstein thought quantum mechanics was spooky, and implied telepathy. Not a reason not to believe in it, though, -- in fact given that many people think they've experienced telepathy, that's a whole extra branch of evidence to factor in and cumulative induction is perhaps a more openminded guide to the nature of reality than yours, that factors out whole trees of data on the grounds that they're a priori impossible, because they conflict with absolute scientific laws that you, in your papal hat, know are infallibly true.

And plenty of people do understand how it can be like that, that's why John Lilly and Ram Dass had a good go at persuading Feynman to try LSD, but in a forrest gump moment, he refused, which was probably wise as if he'd put all the pieces together, then he'd have you and the rest of the orthodox scientific community declaring him a fruitloop.

 

[laptop]

evidence to factor in and cumulative induction is perhaps a more openminded guide to the nature of reality than yours, that factors out whole trees of data on the grounds that they're a priori impossible, because they conflict with absolute scientific laws that you, in your papal hat, know are infallibly true.

Typically playing the man not the ball.

And inventing the opponent while you're at it. You have no idea of my philosophical commitments and scepticisms, do you?

Try searching for threads I've contributed to, for a start...

And plenty of people do understand how it can be like that, that's why John Lilly and Ram Dass had a good go at persuading Feynman to try LSD, but in a forrest gump moment, he refused, which was probably wise as if he'd put all the pieces together, then he'd have you and the rest of the orthodox scientific community declaring him a fruitloop.

Are you telling us that your conviction comes from an LSD experience?

But I ask too soon.

Now be a good lad and get over to the other thread and answer the fucking question.

 

[ZWord]

Typically playing the man not the ball.

And inventing the opponent while you're at it. You have no idea of my philosophical commitments and scepticisms, do you?

Try searching for threads I've contributed to, for a start...



Are you telling us that your conviction comes from an LSD experience?

But I ask too soon.

Now be a good lad and get over to the other thread and answer the fucking question.

yeah I'm just taking a leaf out of your book, as I learned plenty of time ago how full of shit you are, and that attempting to be intellectually honest and not rhetorical with you is just something you take advantage of.

Why are you here at all.?

 

[laptop]

Why are you here at all.?

I suspect it has something to do with evolution.

 

[cybertect]

You've not been reading enough Flann O'Brien, have you? I'd say his mollycule theory was pretty convincing.

I have some ready-thumbed books on evolution I can sell anyone here. For an extra 10/- per 100 I will annotate the margins.

 

[axon]

I may have missed something but does entanglement of particles give any evidence of telepathy ? Other than the whole "action at a distance" phenomenon. If you are relying on action at a distance then you could just as easily justify the existence of telepathy using much simpler phenomena that particle entanglement. You could use radio waves, or the wind. Both of wich show interactions between particles but still have just as much link to telepathy as entanglement.

 

[ZWord]

yeah I reckon it would have to be a fucking genius of an intelligent design to produce such a consummate windup artist as yourself.

 

[laptop]

For an extra 10/- per 100 I will annotate the margins.

I have a wonderful proof of telepathy, which unfortunately will not fit within this meagre margin

 

[ZWord]

I may have missed something but does entanglement of particles give any evidence of telepathy ? Other than the whole "action at a distance" phenomenon. If you are relying on action at a distance then you could just as easily justify the existence of telepathy using much simpler phenomena that particle entanglement. You could use radio waves, or the wind. Both of wich show interactions between particles but still have just as much link to telepathy as entanglement.

Except the brain isn't sensitive to radio waves -can't decode them- but probably -since the brain is made out of atoms which in turn are made out of subatomic particles/spirits or whatever they are, - the behaviour of the brain and the experience of the mind is quite likely affected by the behaviour and interactions of the stuff it is made out of.

 

[axon]

Except the brain isn't sensitive to radio waves -can't decode them- but probably -since the brain is made out of atoms which in turn are made out of subatomic particles/spirits or whatever they are, - the behaviour of the brain and the experience of the mind is quite likely affected by the behaviour and interactions of the stuff it is made out of.

But that just doesn't follow. Radio waves interact with matter. As you say, we have no way to decode radio waves, and I'd say we have no way of decoding any information that arrives vie entangle/detanglement of subatomic particles.
The thing with brains is that they rely on the movement of lots of ions or lots of big molecules to generate brain activity, things that are far too massive to be influenced significantly by quantum phenomena. This is not to say that quantum mechanics doesn't exist in the brain, just that the brain has no more quantum affects than any other piece of matter.

 

[laptop]

just that the brain has no more quantum affects than any other piece of matter.

Fee, fi, fo, fum, I smell the blood of a Hameroff

 

[Crispy]

You can't influence the waves with rain. If you see what I mean

 

[axon]

Fee, fi, fo, fum, I smell the blood of a Hameroff

Don't get me started, quantum schwantum.

 

[laptop]

Don't get me started, quantum schwantum.

Microtubules!

Sorry

 

[ZWord]

But that just doesn't follow. Radio waves interact with matter. As you say, we have no way to decode radio waves, and I'd say we have no way of decoding any information that arrives vie entangle/detanglement of subatomic particles.
The thing with brains is that they rely on the movement of lots of ions or lots of big molecules to generate brain activity, things that are far too massive to be influenced significantly by quantum phenomena. This is not to say that quantum mechanics doesn't exist in the brain, just that the brain has no more quantum affects than any other piece of matter.

No more than any other piece of matter is quite enough. Radio waves don't "work" on the brain because they'd have to affect it from the outside in.

Subatomic effects can work from the inside out, and telepathy is something that happens in the realm of the spirit, ffs.

 

[laptop]

Subatomic effects can work from the inside out,

Does this sentence have meaning? If so, what?

and telepathy is something that happens in the realm of the spirit, ffs.

So... you take "spirit" as a given - as an axiom?

So it's nothing to do with QM - it's your magical belief?

 

[gurrier]

No more than any other piece of matter is quite enough. Radio waves don't "work" on the brain because they'd have to affect it from the outside in.

Subatomic effects can work from the inside out, and telepathy is something that happens in the realm of the spirit, ffs.

Good grief, you're building an elaborate taxonomy and operational semantics for this telepathy thingee.

Which bit of radio waves isn't sub-atomic?

 

[Jonti]

information

Quantum entanglement does not offer a means of transmitting information faster than light. It may seem as if it ought to, but things just don't work out that way. There is, in principle, no way to control what turns up at the distant location.

That's it. Let it sink in.
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Pr-Re/...pionage-Intelligence-and-Security-Issues.html

 

[Jonti]

But this find is just as predictable by theories that evolution is intelligent,

So you say. Can you cite a case where IDers have proved the practical usefulness of their theology, please?

and in no way proves random mutation against any other theory of evolution as far as I can see, or if it does, maybe you'd explain how.

Well, it's just that the Theory of Evolution is based on the notion of random mutation.

Going back to when you wrote. " think Zword is referring to the the fact that, according to the Big Bang Theory, *all* quantum particles are entangled, with the consequence that the universe is all of a piece (one cannot act on any part, without also acting on all parts). Luckily, this doesn't seem to be too much of a problem when messing about seeing what happens when one bangs the rocks together...

Even so, this "all-of-a-pieceness", instantaneous action at a distance, across the whole universe, is certainly pretty mysterious. Magical is probably going a bit far, tho'."

You have said what I'm referrring to accurately. Strangely, you don't see how problematic this is for materialist accounts of reality. Is it going too far to describe instantaneous non-local connectedness across every part of the universe as magical?

I don't know what you mean by magic, really. The problem with the idea of magic is that, if a magical trick were repeatable, it would be technique and science, and nothing paranormal or supernatural at all.

But anyway, no. Non-locality is nothing to do with magic, the supernatural, or the paranormal. The materialist account of reality is that the World is non-local (in a precise and particular way). It's a Big Deal, I'm happy to acknowledge, that the question is settled, and settled in favour of non-locality. But no, it's not magic, it's materialism.

Frazier's the golden bough, describes magic as the primitive belief that two objects once in contact continue to affect each other at a distance. Which, although a primitive belief turns out to be true.

To see a World in a grain of sand ...
I would rather describe it as a poetic view. One can say things in poetry that one is unable to pindown in precise language.

 

[ZWord]

So you say. Can you cite a case where IDers have proved the practical usefulness of their theology, please?

Well, it's just that the Theory of Evolution is based on the notion of random mutation.

I don't know what you mean by magic, really. The problem with the idea of magic is that, if a magical trick were repeatable, it would be technique and science, and nothing paranormal or supernatural at all.

But anyway, no. Non-locality is nothing to do with magic, the supernatural, or the paranormal. The materialist account of reality is that the World is non-local (in a precise and particular way). It's a Big Deal, I'm happy to acknowledge, that the question is settled, and settled in favour of non-locality. But no, it's not magic, it's materialism.


To see a World in a grain of sand ...
I would rather describe it as a poetic view. One can say things in poetry that one is unable to pindown in precise language.

The idea that locality is an illusion is certainly not materialism, in any sense in which anyone who called themselves materialists over the last few centuries would understand it.

If it were materialism, then it wouldn't have encountered so much resistance from materialist physicists who were astounded by it.

 

[axon]

No more than any other piece of matter is quite enough. Radio waves don't "work" on the brain because they'd have to affect it from the outside in.

No radio waves do not "work" on the brain as we have no mechanism to detect them, not because they'd have to affect it from the outside. Things such as sound, pressure, and light all come from the outside and can all affect the brain.

Subatomic effects can work from the inside out,

I'll have to add along with laptop I don't know what you mean by this.

telepathy is something that happens in the realm of the spirit, ffs.

I don't think there is a realm of the spirit, ffs. Can you give any properties of this realm?

 

[Jonti]

The idea that locality is an illusion is certainly not materialism, in any sense in which anyone who called themselves materialists over the last few centuries would understand it.

If it were materialism, then it wouldn't have encountered so much resistance from materialist physicists who were astounded by it.

I wouldn't so much call locality an illusion as a handy approximation. If it is an illusion, then it is rather unsuccessful, as clearly neither Blake and Fraser bought into it. I find a lot of arts trained people do not understand why non-locality is so counter intuitive. It isn't counter-intuitive to them! In particular, the magical and religious imagination finds non-locality very easy to accept.

The difficulty is in coming to terms with the fact that rigourous scientific materialism obliges one to accept non-locality. But if the findings of science were not at least some of the time wildly counter-intuitive ... well, there wouldn't be any need for science in the first place, would there

And are you really saying that QM is not a scientific and materialist theory? That is plain wrong. QM is as rigourous and scientific as General Relativity. You will find its terms only refer to observables -- there are no hypothetical entities in QM!

Yes, many scientists have resisted the conclusion that the World is non-local. Scientifically, they were correct to do so, as it is fair enough to regard locality as the null-hypothesis. If we are to abandon that initial view-point, it is should only be under compulsion of reason and evidence.

That evidence has now been marshalled, and reason leads us to embrace non-locality. That's not the same at all as embracing magic, the paranormal and the supernatural.

 

[ZWord]

Well the reason why they resisted the evidence in favour of non-locality is precisely because they saw it as being tantamount to admitting that events that people have generally classed as in the ballpark of magic and the paranormal were perfectly possible, indeed quite likely within such a reality.

Before non-locality was admitted, there's a whole bunch of phenomena that humans experience, that scientists ruled out as a priori impossible, because they could see no physical way in which they could happen. Now that it is admitted, events that previously might have been considered magical, can now be considered perfectly plausible scientifically, and do not have to be called magical, using "magical" in the sense of -contrary to known scientific laws- But, just because some scientists have stopped being materialists, and have become more open-minded about what they admit is possible, that doesn't change the enormity of the change in viewpoint.

I don't see how you could call someone who admits non-locality as a materialist. Materialism to me means believing that the universe is made out of particles of matter, which have precise locations in space, and interact with each other through contiguity. When a particle turns out not to be a small piece of matter in this location alone, but turns out to have a location both here, and potentially on the other side of the universe, I don't see how you can describe it as a particle anymore, in fact, calling it a spirit would be just as appropriate.

 

[Crispy]

I don't see how you could call someone who admits non-locality as a materialist. Materialism to me means believing that the universe is made out of particles of matter, which have precise locations in space, and interact with each other through contiguity.

No, materialism is about constructing explanations of the universe through observations of it. Not through intuition, dreams, trips, meditation, faith, 'pure logic' or guesswork. Your definition of materialism seems, to me, to be a strawman of sorts to rail against.

Observe, predict, observe again. That's materialism, and that's science.

As a result, you get things like QM, which is weird. But we've observed it being weird and that's the rub. Plus, we've observed that the non-local behaviour of QM can have no causative effects. So it doesn't make these sorts of 'magical' phenomena possible.