Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Here your are trying to sneak in what you wish to prove. As your first step is invalid, the rest don't matter.
It may be wise to add a qualifier. As condorman pointed out to me, there is more than one way of viewing the Theory of Evolution. While a given theory may not necessarily involve a discussion or consideration of origins, under many circumstances it begs the question.
That is why the subject is of such deep concern, and that is why threads like this tend to generate much discussion, bringing in cosmology, and the other disciplines you mentioned.
Don't you think, if we were to take a basic high school biology or chemistry text book, a discussion of either evolution or creationism would detract from the academic results? That's one of the reasons I question whether this "disclaimer" idea is a good thing.
OTOH, If it were a textbook dedicated for the most part to "preaching" evolution, then I would think fairness demands that some emphasis be placed on the theorectical nature of evolutionism, and some air time given to competing theories with respect to what are perceived as natural processes.
At the same time, the skittishness of evolutionists whenever the subject of creationism is brought up has me wondering why they are so jumpy. They repeat this "creationism is not science" mantra so emphatically, dogmatically, and quickly it makes me wonder what exactly it is in the end that they fear. Are they that devoted to scientific integrity? Or is something else bugging them, like maybe they'll be faced with some ultimate truths they cannot bear to begin facing.
"Observer" is a technical term in quantum mechanics, there is no sense of conciousness. A photograph may "observe" a scene but a camera isn't concious (unless it's maybe one of the new Japanese computer controlled cameras.)
So you're a "Conservative Democrat?"
I don't mean to sound impertinent here, and I realize you are well-qualified in your field. But I have to ask even though I may mangle both logic and nomenclature: Do you know (if such a thing can even exist) what the proportion between "single atoms of impurity" and their counterpart might be?
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
And what support for evolution theory have you given on this long thread? What support have evolutionists given aside from a few bones?
It's all like that. Charlatans trolling for suckers.
It's all like that with you, insult the messenger. All that your insult proves is that you have no legitimate response to it. It is funny that paleontologists can ignore such an obvious problem when calling something the ancestor of another species. They also ignore all the bodily changes needed to make a species able to live all the time in water. The bones do not tell that story either.
I strongly agree that algorithms are products of intelligence and that reality is structured by the “contents” of the initial condition. Hence, I expect to see algorithm at inception – both at the inception of the physical realm (big band or from null in the multi-verse theories) and at the inception of biological life (abiogenesis.)
I also very strongly agree on the significance of null - the subject that started this discussion. Null is the issue deferred by multi-universe theories, and it lies at the heart of theology, philosophy, teleology. You said:
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????
The Hebrew word for God at creation, Ayn Sof, roughly translated means infinite null - that closely aligns to the properties of the number zero.
Not at all. The Theory of Evolution starts with the assumption that some form of simple, self-replicating life existed; it then proceeds to provide an explanatory framework as to how species derive from that. The theory in no way relies upon HOW that first life got there; whether it was via natural processes (abiogenesis), or was seeded by space Aliens, or was put their by the hand of God Almighty makes absolutely no difference to the Evolutionary model; it makes NO assumption whatsoever about it.
The analogy with Meterology is very apt. We can predict the weather without assuming anything about where moisture first came from. Meterology makes NO assumption about the origin of water, because it is irrelevant. The same is true of Evolution; the origin of first life is irrelevant to the theory.
Don't you think, if we were to take a basic high school biology or chemistry text book, a discussion of either evolution or creationism would detract from the academic results? That's one of the reasons I question whether this "disclaimer" idea is a good thing.
OTOH, If it were a textbook dedicated for the most part to "preaching" evolution, then I would think fairness demands that some emphasis be placed on the theorectical nature of evolutionism, and some air time given to competing theories with respect to what are perceived as natural processes.
Science education isn't about "fairness," it's about teaching the best current science we have available. All science theories are "just theories," so singling ONE out for "special treatment" (disclaimers) implies a connotation that THAT theory is somehow "different" from all others. There are currently no competing theories with evolution.
Creationism and ID are NOT scientific theories, no matter how much their proponents wish they were. There is no potential observation or discovery that can falsify Creationism; thus it fails the Popperian criteria for a scientific theory. Likewise ID "theory." OTOH, the classic falsification of Evolutionary Theory would be the discovery of widespread mammalian fossils in the Pre-Cambrian strata.
At the same time, the skittishness of evolutionists whenever the subject of creationism is brought up has me wondering why they are so jumpy. They repeat this "creationism is not science" mantra so emphatically, dogmatically, and quickly it makes me wonder what exactly it is in the end that they fear.
They fear science being pushed aside in favor of non-science.
Are they that devoted to scientific integrity? Or is something else bugging them, like maybe they'll be faced with some ultimate truths they cannot bear to begin facing.
If that were the case, then they would be trying to keep it out of ALL possible classes.... but they aren't. AFAIK, most evos are completely comfortable with religious ideas being taught in "Comparative Religions & Belief Systems" and similar classes.
One last point; time and resources are finite. We can't afford to teach every competing idea there is in the name of "fairness" or the kids will never learn the basics. We can't teach "ebonics" along side English grammar, astrology alongside Astronomy, Alchemy alongside Chemistry, Numerology alongside Math class, chiropractic "subluxation" theory alongside physiology, and so on....
We can only afford to teach what we think is the best current scientific theories, because there isn't enough time to teach the details of all the alternative ideas out there, "fairness" notwithstanding.
Anybody know if this is a record number of posts for a crevo thread?
And then you said: "Here you are are trying to sneak in what you wish to prove. As your first step is invalid, the rest don't matter."
Dear Doc, you have yet to show exactly how my stipulation that algorithms are (as inevitable products of consciousness winnowed out by the process of logic, experience, and reason) products of consciousness that have no support in observable reality. Indeed, to my way of thinking, if anything, observable reality tends to support the way I do this analysis.
What would you put in the place of this analysis, however humble, that would allow you, a scientist, to hold onto any idea of legitimacy for quantum mechanics? If quantum mechanics istelf wants to purge itself of the observer -- that is, of consciousness -- then doesn't the theory "gut itself" thereby? And thereby prove itself ineffectual, false?
The fact remains, IMHO, that the Copenhagen School insists on the primacy of the observer. This is not something I made up for myself, to gratify my preconceived notions about reality.... Quite the contrary: I have heard that this is precicely the stuff of "the standard model" of cutting-edge theoretical physics, these days....
So what, exactly, is your beef here?
He [Rocha] disagrees that his stuff supports any arguments from ID or Creationism.
LOL! If he were a supporter of ID or Creationism, I would not have used him as a authoritative source for my research.
Not that the scientists associated with ID or Creationism are lacking in credentials, but to determine whether or not there is merit to their views - I must look almostly entirely at conventional scientific endeavors.
I trust the integrity of scientists like Rocha. He will stand by his discoveries on their own merits, without prejudice. I am making layman's projections based on what he has already done. Time will tell if I am correct.
Okay. So you can look at all those fossils, for example, but you must be prohibited, in the interest of satisfying apparent "Popperian" definitions, from considering the question of how they got there, and how they got from one stage to the next.
If you want to limit evolutionism to a discipline similar to meterology, which takes the current state of affairs and tries to predict the future, then go ahead. The textbooks would certainly become shorter and less cumbersome, and creationists will have the same advantage of working from the current state of existence, observing and reporting just like Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc., while having no need to assume what is plain to even the eyes of a little child, namely that this stuff "ain't no undirected accident."
Furthermore, for all the talk about scientific method requiring predictability, they sure lose zeal for that idea when faced with a mass of gases that somehow came into being, exloded, and then brought about not only the universe as we know it but also scientists who can cogitate upon the same. Probability is a friend of true science, but it is certainly not a friend of evolutionists.
How so, Doc? Please provide details of your critique, especially with regard to this "unwarranted" business....
Take your time to think it over. My response thereto will have to wait 'til tomorrow. For I am just now going to bed.
And so i wish us both sweet dreams!
AS it appears that "Physicist" has retired for the night, I'll try to "fill his shoes" temporarily, as inadequate as I may be in that regard.
The entire point of "Physicist's" earlier reply to you was to point out that "observer" in the context of QM implies NOTHING about "consciousness." That's why he indicated that a lonely atom can act as the Quantum "observer."
The role of the "observer" in QM is fulfilled by anything that collapses the quantum state to a specific value. All that is required to do this is an interaction whose outcome is dependent upon the QM state of the particle whose QM state is in question. It doesn't matter if you call this an "observer" or a "detector" or a "zucchini." All that matters is that an interaction take place between the particle in question and something that is affected by the QM state of the particle in question. That forces the QM state to collapse to a specific QM value, and thus satisfies the requirement for a QM "observer."
Notice that at no time were the attributes of "consciousness" invoked in the process I just described.
Now, since I'm not a Quantum Mechanic, nor do I play one on TV, I must leave any more detailed inquiries for "Physicist" to respond to, perhaps in the morrow.
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.