This is a follow up to my previous OP Is Cosmic Consciousness responsible for reality?
There seems to be some confusion regarding the causes of collapse of wave function(which seems to creates reality) whether a conscious observer can collapse the wave function ONLY or can a designed robot/computer perform the same role. Instead of pointing out the facts, I’d like “the seekers of truth” to do it for themselves. Since apparently ‘a picture is worth 1000 words’, I attach 2 videos that cover 2 breakthrough experiments in the understanding of well known double-slit experiment and the implications of collapse of wave function by an observer on the nature of reality…
Things to watch for in the second video: At 13 min and 15 min mark the experiment identifies the difference between robot/Linux systems and humans’ effect on the double-slit experiment. At 32 min mark we can see the implications of the experiments on reductive materialism and materialistic philosophy as well as why the obvious change is necessary that resisted by the scientific community…
Things to watch for in the first video: At 2:30 min mark it is explained what exactly causes the collapse of wave function. Does an act of observing alone cause the collapse of wave function? Or rather, does the knowledge of which path determined by a conscious observer or knower do that?
The last part of the second video talks about implications of the experiment that are so mind boggling that I’m going to leave them out for another OP. For those who have curious minds, please pay a close attention to “behavior” of 2 entangled particles which either involves their knowledge of the future or we fully do not understand the concept of time…
You can prove that I’m being dishonest by simply demonstrating that you can function with out God.
Good luck with that one.
I’ll get you started if you like……………..
How do you know that I am a liar?
peace
What counts as evidence when it comes to demonstrating that other minds exist or not?
peace
I don’t have an argument except that perhaps that the existence of other minds is not provable yet their existence is granted by all of us.
It was OMagain who pointed out the absurdity of denying that other minds exist while at the same time acting as if they do.
I am merely following his lead.
He offered suggestions as to ways that a mind denier could demonstrate that they hold their belief consistently.
I have done the same when it comes to God. We certainly don’t need to cover that ground again
peace
Please elaborate. I am all ears.
peace
If materialism is true then I can not see how immaterial things like “worth” and “life” have any real existence.
😉
peace
GlenDavidson,
Life is made of cells. Trillions of them in some cases with many different variations. Until you understand how that structure is built at the cellular level you will never understand the design. Its like trying to understand a PC without knowing how a microprocessor works.
Look how both these PC’s have the same screen and the same keyboard keys. They must share a common ancestor 🙂
fifthmonarchyman,
I not sure I need this to be true but non the less we are on pretty solid ground with this one.
walto,
What claims do you think Gordon challenged? Did he challenge the parapsychology experiment? If you think so why don’t you lift the challenge that refutes the claim that a conscious observer can alter the wave function.
I’m sure you believe that about yourself, but since I’ve long since found it impossible to believe that you’re capable of arguing in good faith, I’ve found it easier to avoid engaging with you directly.
Lol. Gord challenged himself by misunderstanding the experiments or by deliberately cherry-picking the pieces of papers that in summary reemphasised the experiments anyways. Maybe both. My suspicion is that Gord has his thoughts of understanding of quantum mechanics in superposition, as he thinks that thought experiments are real experiments. It’s a waste of time…
Nobody here can grasp the fact that on subatomic level the nature of reality is timeless, distanceless, effect can precedes cause…etc.
That is fine, but I’m sure walto would be interested in your argument as well.
Besides, presenting the case for your conviction is not the same thing as engaging with anyone.
peace
It is.
Ka-BLAM!
Ka-BLAM!
BOOM! You see, KN, it didn’t take two days!
Interesting presentation. Thanks.
If measurement and entanglement are the same thing, as claimed in the video, how do you think measurement/entanglement effects the wave function collapse in Dean Radin’s experiment? Does the conscious mind of the one concentrating on the experiment get entangled with the particles in Dean’s lab over thousands of miles?
Your dishonestly is proven every time you speak. I do function without your imbecilic deity every single day.
Those things are not immaterial. Things are worth things to other beings, not the universe as a whole. When there are no more conscious beings, there will be no concept of “worth” in the universe.
The trouble you have is there is literally no difference between those things having a “real” or a “not-real” existence. To those in the reality based community real and not-real amount to the same thing. That you happen to think that unless there is some kind of deity who “remembers” those things to give them a “real” existence is neither here nor there.
You can demonstrate this quite simply – what is the difference to us mere humans if “worth” has a real existence or not. What difference does it make? How does that change anything?
I accept that I am a transitory collection of particles who happens to be self aware at this point. I don’t need your pathetic god to give that “worth” and I don’t need that “worth” to be objective and timeless. You are desperate to believe your life has some meaning outside of itself, and I can understand that given what a pathetic bastard you are.
You sure are no Einstein are you?
I need to understand how a microprocessor works to explain why PCs have a screen and a keyboard?
That’s nonsense. You don’t need molecular cell biology to understand that to develop a three digit limb there is no need to go through a five digit developmental stage.
ETA: I thought you were cool with common descent nowadays, so why the fuss?
It’s should not be hard for you to prove it then
For instance you could explain how you know you function every single day without God.
how much do they weigh exactly?
peace
I just did.
Easily.
Out if interest, do you know how much all the information on the internet weighs? Last time I looked it up, it was about the weight of a strawberry.
So, how much weight exactly ? I’d say about 1300 to 1400 grams on average. That’s how much human brains weigh. No brain, no concept of “worth”.
In other words, you don’t know anything about the design of life. That’s long been obvious. And you both lack explanation and any serious desire for one.
It’s like you believe in design, sans evidence. And so it is.
It’s too bad you don’t know the first thing about the evidence for evolution. If the keyboards are the same on different brands of computers, that’s evidence against biologic evolution. You remain oblivious to what evolution predicts and to what design predicts, for you would rather state creationist slogans than learn about these issues.
Glen Davidson
The archetype is general and all encompassing. The development from five digits to three digits is an expression of specialization witnessed by the narrowing of a more general form to a form which is more restricted in function.
Wow! Good thing we didn’t bet any money!
That would be Richard Owen’s vertebrate archetype from halfway the 19th century, I take it. Owen indeed recognized the homology of vertebrate limbs because he had an outstanding knowledge of comparative anatomy (homology had a different meaning from its modern usage). But why does the vertebrate archetype seem to be a functionally restricted form of the chordate body plan? And why does the chordate body plan seem to be … well, you get the idea.
@ Bill: Owen did not appear to require any knowledge of how limbs develop at the cellular level to reach his conclusions. Odd, isn’t it?
And how does he know that you ought not be a liar?
Is lying evil?
Isn’t happiness a mental state?
You “argue” against ID using guilt-by-association and by poisoning the well. You rant against ID and IDers. You appear incapable of separating your rather obvious disdain for ID and IDers from your arguments, so if your arguments exist they get lost in the weeds.
I’d like to suggest you take a different approach. You might find that people respond differently to you. I tried to engage you in your thread on The Genetic Code and got nowhere. So the OP came across as yet another rant against ID and IDers.
What argument?
How does anyone?
Define “evil”.
Corneel,
How you came up with this is beyond me.
You do if you want to understand what caused the change. The claim of evolution says you understand what caused the change. All animals start from a single cell.
Glens claim is not about common descent its about blind and unguided. To get from A to B change must occur at the cellular level. As far as I know he has not graduated from multicellular design school:-)
Nicely done sir! I have changed my mind. I now believe that when someone makes an assertion that they are in fact making an argument. I think that may warrant an OP.
Using the tools of science, how do you distinguish between a thinking process and an unthinking process?
Corneel,
I don’t need any knowledge of a microprocessor to make a baseless claim about PC design.
Okay, but then their argument constitutes a bare assertion fallacy.
It seems to me that in order for arguments to be persuasive (and not just be blanket statements), they should contain uncontroversial premises presumably agreed on by both the writer of the argument, and the argument’s intended audience, and some line of reasoning from those premises to the conclusion intended by the argument’s author.
There isn’t much value in just taking turns stating contradictory claims.
Evolution is true.
No, ID is true.
No, evolution is true.
No, ID is true.
… ad infinitum.
Are you aware of any three-digits limbs which do not go through a five digit developmental stage?
If not, how can you be so certain that no such need exists?
Oh, and it’s not a three-digit limb in the first place, it’s a five-digit limb that only looks like three digits. Q.E.D.
This is just another version of the ignorant creationist claim that if you don’t know everything you don’t know anything.
Of course we want to know the cause of the change, and to a degree we actually do. Above all, we know that genetic changes have to build on inherited material, and can’t just bring in an entirely new organ or system. That’s what you’re busily trying to spin away with your creationist claims.
Yes, if you don’t know the neurological changes involved in language evolution, you can’t recognize how languages evolved. That’s basically the level at which you’re “arguing.”
So your claim is that only blind and unguided evolution needs to show its work.
Well of course it is, you’re not saying that because you don’t understand how design happened at the cellular level that you have no idea about design, you’re just saying that anyone dealing with evidence must explain everything while you don’t have to explain anything.
And you don’t even see anything wrong with using completely different standards for your non-explanation and science’s evidence-based (but not complete) explanation.
Glen Davidson
Why bother calling anyone a liar, why not just fart instead?
Just another version of something that doesn’t even exist?
Can you provide an example of a creationist claiming that if you don’t know everything you don’t know anything?
GlenDavidson,
We can use the same standard.
Design is a far superior explanation for biological diversity then blind and unguided.
Since we now know that we go from a single cell with genetic code to a fully functional animal, design is the only viable explanation for this process.
Because we know how it works. Digits form by subdivision of a larger structure by local apoptosis of cells leading to the development of the individual digits. That could be done so it doesn’t have to pass trough a 5-digit stage. It’s really simple actually. It basically comes down to the controlled expression of certain signaling proteins such as FGF.
We are looking at historically contingent gene-expression patterns, not processes that are physically necessary. Sorry, but you feigning ignorance (actually let me take that one back, I think you’re genuinely ignorant about this) isn’t an argument here nor there.
I think the hope is that by calling someone out on behavior we don’t like, we might motivate them to not do it again. I don’t believe farting accomplishes that.
Now it’s your turn to actually answer my questions.
Why?
Just explain it all in molecular design terms.
Really, your repetition of your belief in design, along with your complete unwillingness to consider the evidence-based explanation, does not constitute an argument. It merely exposes the lack of any kind of evidence behind your beliefs.
Glen Davidson
No, it’s not.
Checkmate!
GlenDavidson,
If you don’t understand cause you don’t have a theory.
and you know what?
You don’t have a theory.
OMagain,
Yes, it is.
Checkmate right back at you:-)
Glen challenged you to give a Design explanation for certain pecularities of avian wing development. The stage where avian forelimbs go through a stage with five digits makes sense in an evolutionary framework (it is a remnant of the ancestral condition) but are counterintuitive from a Design point of view. Your demand for a detailed account of development at the cellular level is unreasonable in that respect. Especially since you are lacking yourself a detailed account of the design decision that gave rise to this situation in development.
Of course Glen’s claim is about common descent. The avian and human frontlimbs are homologous structures.
GlenDavidson,
Because design explains the origin of new functional genetic 4 bit code.
Blind and unguided only explains the destruction of functional genetic code.
Life’s diversity requires new code. And to go from land to air you need some really cool code.
Then what is the equivalent book that details that superior explanation? Darwin wrote a book many years ago that demonstrated “blind and unguided” was a superior explanation and that became the default understanding. There are many religious “Darwinists” that do fine science. Indistinguishable science from that those atheists are doing as a matter of fact. You IDCists been unable to convince either group and that is damming. Hence the court cases I suppose.
That superior explanation to what was known at the time book came out in 1859. What is the equivalent book that I might read that supports your claim that “Design” is a superior explanation for biological diversity?
Note that books that simply note how evolution could not do it are automatically discounted. I’m not sure if that leaves you any options, but I’m always willing to learn. So, let me know what the book is. I may already have it, you never know.
OK, you don’t understand cause. Actually, you don’t even know how to write in terms of cause, you just write praise unto your “design cause.” You don’t really know what causal thinking is.
And of course I actually discuss cause, while you just blather on with your nebulous non-causal praise for design.
Well, except for the one that takes cause and effect seriously in order to explain why chicken wings develop as they do.
You not only don’t have a causal explanation for that, all you can do is try to erase the causal explanation that you don’t like.
Glen Davidson
No, it does not.
And yet you yourself have admitted that degeneration is nowhere observed due to other mechanisms in play. And yet you still make the same claims. How do you think that makes you look? We’ve observed evolution in the same colony for decades, sequencing generations. If you’d only open your eyes and look you’d see something other then your preconceptions.
And if you went from land to air to land to air, would that also be really cool code? Or just inexplicable from any point of view other then evolution unable to backtrack?
You know that’s happened right? Just not the air…
All you can do is say that. You don’t even try to back it up.
Blank statement from someone who never deals with the actual issues, like chicken wing development.
Pretty pathetic.
So?
Why does the chicken wing develop as it does? Did the Wright brothers have to make wings out of the components of dinosaur hands?
Glen Davidson