Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Heh... you busted out with "kiddo," I figured "geezer" was a fair rejoiner. ;^)
Yes, dug up! Not necessarily new.
That humming, twanging sound you hear is semantics getting stretched to the breaking point.
Head... Too many... Ow... [POP!]
(Punchline overload)
LOL! Good one. Now you sure don't mind if I'm going to steal it? ;^)
I vigorously disagree and assert that it is the subject of much scientific inquiry….
A-G, this is way outside my field; so I may not be “ready for prime time” here. But I do have some observations, and a question that arises therefrom, that I suspect both you and Nebullis can help me sort out. Here goes. If there is something defective in evidence or reasoning here, please don’t hesitate to apprise me.
Observation 1: It appears that an “algorithm from inception” indeed implies intelligent design. For all algorithms are products of intelligence; that is, of consciousness.
Observation 2: The “from inception” part refers to the initial condition that specifies the universe. Physics tells us that all potentiality is implicit in the initial singularity. That is, the initial condition must be comprehensive enough to account for all subsequent evolution of reality in all its constituent parts. In Aristotelian language, we are speaking of a First Cause unfolding its effects in time. If an effect is not implicit in the First Cause, then it cannot come into existence. That is to say, reality is structured by the “contents” of the initial condition, which, in effect, is the algorithm from inception.
Observation 3: It seems to me that the problem of consciousness is deeply embedded in the entire structure of quantum mechanics. I am thinking of the Copenhagen School here, whose fundamental insights have been repeatedly corroborated by the many and various tests of Bell’s Theorem. As I understand it, Bell tried to show that the basic constituents of reality have objective position and velocity independent of an observer. But all experimental tests of this thesis have disconfirmed it. Instead, the Copenhagen School’s concept of quantum theory has been repeatedly and authoritatively validated: subatomic reality really is a fuzzy sea of stochastic possibilities that cannot become “meaningful” without the intercession of an observer. And the act of observation all by itself leads to “state vector collapse” (a radical transformation of the object being observed by virtue of a cognitive intervention) – in effect, the reduction of all possibilities to whatever can be captured in the moment, in the “freeze frame” of conscious intervention.
Observation 4: The reality that quantum mechanics explores depends on there being an observer to explore it. And yet….
Observation 5: And yet quantum mechanics has relegated the problem of the observer – of consciousness, when you boil down this problem of the “observer” to its first principles – to the cognitive sciences, or to philosophy – to anybody else but physicists, in order to keep “their hands clean.” That is, the instinct among physicists has been simply to say that this problem really lies outside the field of physics. Which is nutz: For quantum theory squarely puts the idea of the (conscious) observer smack-dab right in front of the eyes of physicists doing quantum mechanics….
Observation 6: Why don’t they “just look” and understand the implications of their theory? Alternatively, why do (some?) physicists seem to want to “look away” from the obvious meaning of their own system?
Observation 7, which gets us back to the “algorithm from inception”: As long as the Copenhagen School’s “observer” can be reduced to his “act of measurement,” no one needs to deal with the problem of consciousness. Any act of measurement refers to nothing more substantial than any given potentiality within Schroedinger’s Equation that has been recorded by a suitable "measuring device."
Observation 8: But this result will not do, because quantum mechanics puts the observer so “out front” in the mix -- quantum theory itself puts the observer in the role of constituting the reality that his experiment will engage; alternative testable realities fall away in that instant of selection.
Observation 9: Which means we are all in very serious trouble, those of us who are interested in the truth of reality. Unless there is something in the “quantum mechanical picture” that is akin to the singularity – to the “algorithm from inception,” which is clearly a product of Mind, which is the epitome of consciousness.
Observation 10 (this one is an hypothesis on my part): It is precisely the correspondence between initial singularity and its manifestation in time as understood by quantum theory that is key to the understanding of reality. And this is so, for BOTH fundamentally are operations in consciousness, like akin to like, their “mutual vibration” constituting the Truth of the universe that science – and philosophy – have been tasked to penetrate.
The “beginning” is intelligible, because it is an act of Consciousness (widely understood to have been a Word spoken in the Beginning, as the case may well prove in the end). The tools given to us (i.e., quantum mechanics) imply that we who receive them (through our own hard-won efforts, as the case may be) are also intelligent and conscious. Otherwise, we would have no use for the tools, no “handle” on the Truth constituted in the singularity….
So much for the observations. Now for the question threatened at the beginning of this essay: Why is there such reluctance to deal with the problem of the “null” or “empty set?”
It seems to me that, in order for there to be a “beginning,” whatever “beginning” is, it must arise out of a something that it is not, or it would only be a “continuation” of something that was there before it. Thus we are given the idea of a “beginning” arising out of a “nothing.”
Which is a quite “classical” idea. The Israelists, the Hellenes, and the Christians have all articulated this vision before now. That is, by now, three distinct historical cultures have more or less independently developed the idea that our experience of Reality is constituted and driven by Consciousness.
Perhaps – given their own structure of the basic paradigm (i.e., quantum theory as adduced by the regnant Copenhagen School) -- it’s time for the physical sciences to do the same????
tpaine, on this question, he doesn't. At least, I don't see any connection so far. But just give me time.... :>)
But how could you have possibly read, let alone digested, what I just put up not 30 seconds ago??? And then, there you are! (May God ever bless you.)
Happy New Year, dear friend!
LMAO!
Amen, brother!
Other useful words: spellcheck, proofread
...brought to you by the letter "D"
"Man's mind stretched by a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
I agree. I also think you misunderstood my point. "There is nothing new under the sun" is a battle cry for lethargy and stagnation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.