So you keep saying, LeGrande. Over and over.
For some reason you cite the Feynman path integral formalism on this question. But since the formalism sums an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a single quantum amplitude, I think the problem of "what is the 'adequate' frame of reference for this procedure?" comes to the fore.
Is it that of the localized particle, whose trajectory has been calculated as the sum of an infinite number of virtual histories (from its point of view, so to speak), which converts to a finite quantity?
Or is it that of the "configuration space" of the entire procedure which, because it is defined by an infinite number of possible trajectories, must itself be very large, indeed verging on infinity?
It seems clear to me that, on the above assumptions, the "frame of reference" of the localized particle, having been "reduced" to the finite, is ever much less than that of the total configuration space. Yet the local particle is part of that configuration space.
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the frame of reference we need to understand these phenomena is that of the entire configuration space. Certainly this is "larger" (or "higher") than that of the local particle's reference frame.
Just thinking out loud....
You wrote:
If ID and IC are correct, then there had to be distinct and separate creations complete and fully formed. Evolution from simpler to more complex organisms is ruled out. The Design had to be in place at the beginning, IC rules out modifications.I believe these statements might be true if the materialist/naturalistic/physicalist presuppositions regarding reality are valid. But these models give us no way to understand such widespread biological phenomena as consciousness, self-direction, intelligence, even the idea of information — let alone explain the process by which life comes into existence. And so we are questioning those models.... To the extent that the ToE depends on these models, it might have to be revised.
I happen to believe that all three of your statements are false. Maybe we'll get around to them one at a time, in due course.
Thank you so much for writing, LeGrande!
Give it up, LeGrande, the way you are using the term, a "frame of reference" is a set of axes in a coordinate system.
But "frame of reference" also refers to the system itself, e.g. Marxian frame of reference.
For there to be "no universal (higher) frame of reference" the property of infinity must apply to space/time and nothing could be either beyond the coordinate system or be the "frame of reference" for the system itself.
That is a metaphysical naturalist presupposition which I reject out of hand.
Space and time are finite. CMB measurements since the 1960's all point to the fact there was a real beginning of space and time in this universe.
That was the most theological statement ever to come out of science.
The 'frame of reference' would be information density.
Is it that of the localized particle, whose trajectory has been calculated as the sum of an infinite number of virtual histories (from its point of view, so to speak), which converts to a finite quantity?
Here is an example. Lets say the path of a single wavefunction is partially blocked by the letter A. Theoretically that single wavefunction now contains the history of that path. In theory the wavefunction contains the history of everything in in its path. The trick would be to extract the information without collapsing the wavefunction. This was the heart of Penroses Microtube theory, it didn't work, but the idea is interesting.
It seems clear to me that, on the above assumptions, the "frame of reference" of the localized particle, having been "reduced" to the finite, is ever much less than that of the total configuration space. Yet the local particle is part of that configuration space.
Now we are back to "time" for a wavefuntion that is traveling at the speed of light. The speed of light is the one invariant. If we are looking for God, this is where it will be found.
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the frame of reference we need to understand these phenomena is that of the entire configuration space. Certainly this is "larger" (or "higher") than that of the local particle's reference frame.
A wavefunction is not local (Einsteins spooky action at a distance). Time is local (frame of reference). A wavefunctions only constraint seems to be the speed of light event horizon. Many of the distant stars Hubble sees are already beyond the event horizon.
But these models give us no way to understand such widespread biological phenomena as consciousness, self-direction, intelligence, even the idea of information — let alone explain the process by which life comes into existence. And so we are questioning those models....
Questioning is good : ) It seems to me that the ID theory makes those questions meaningless. If we are created, then we are like Data the android on Star Trek. There is no self-direction or intelligence (separate from the creator).
I happen to believe that all three of your statements are false. Maybe we'll get around to them one at a time, in due course.
I am looking forward to that : )