In the properties of water the cosmos is revealed to be a transcendent unity, with life on Earth and beings of our biological design as its central aim and focus.
– Michael Denton
I love a good science book and this one is right up there. It’s both readable and informative. Water is truly unique in its properties and the way they conspire together to make life like ours on a planet like Earth possible. This book not only sets forth many of the unique properties of water but also explains why they are teleological, not only with respect to specific ends but also with respect to teleological hierarchies. Chalk up another one for Intelligent Design.
Chapter List
1. The Water Wheel
2. Tectonic Recycling
3. Preserving the Ocean
4. The Climate Machine
5. Water, Trees, and Light
6. Water and Human Physiology
7. Water and the Cell
8. Conclusion
http://WonderOfWater.org
You can add to the list, how does the designer do that which he does?
There are always reasons — as long as you are allowed to make up bullshit reasons.
That’s where religion comes in.
It seems to me that if the existence and properties of water is not implied by the Schrödinger Wave Equation, then that is a huge fact that calls all of quantum mechanics into question. Because then we have something that needs a new principle in physics to explain, and we’d better get on with it and find that principle.
I thank Michael Denton and Mung for making this clear. A lot of physicists now need to redirect their work and concentrate on this extension to, or contradiction to quantum mechanics. This is a great moment in the history of physics.
Either that, or Denton and Mung are wrong, and the SWE does imply water and its properties.
Which came first: water or Schrödinger? No doubt in my mind Schrödinger’s mathematical model of the electron in a hydrogen atom fits the evidence. But does the electron keep a copy of the equation handy?
The wave equation provides a description in the form of probabilities as to where the electron may be found. May be.
Now, is the description the same for every electron of every atom? If not, does the equation explain why one atom is different from another?
You have a way of telling one atom from another? 😯
He plays dice.
And whether Joe likes chocolate ice cream is inherent in the SWE too.
Did you mean electron?
I do like it. And Ming is quite correct, that is most likely inherent in the SWE.
Either would be an impressive ability!
First step in ID theory, design dice
You obviously missed a chapter:
9. Profit
It’s not just the ID folks who have noticed.
Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O
It all goes back to Lawrence J. Henderson’s book The Fitness of the Environment in 1913.
To an extent I agree with you. I actually have Henderson’s book. Denton refers to it repeatedly. But Denton also refers to sources even earlier than Henderson.
Henderson never mentions the SWE. 😉
ETA: Denton also refers to numerous works more recent than Henderson’s and points out things that Henderson did not mention.
It would have needed time travel for him to do so.
That means that he could imagine Someone tinkering separately with the properties of water.
Chapter 8 of the book I linked to earlier, Water and Life, is Counterfactual Quantum Chemistry of Water. Stay [finely] tuned.
I think your education on the theme goes even further back than 1913, quite possibly to the times of dinosaurs…
There is not need to tinker with the properties of water because hydrogen bonds are quantum in nature therefore they have quite short lifetimes, possibly even close to zero and not higher than 15 ps. This means that the structure of water clusters can change very rapidly in response to any environmental changes such as change of temperature. Due to the very short lifetime of hydrogen bonds water clusters can change the variety of structures, sizes, shapes; they can decay and form new clusters with the speed close to the speed of light…
This is one of the fundamental ways that ought to be considered when attempting to explain all the 67 anomalies of water…
No tinkering required…It’s all built into the laws of quantum chemistry explained by generalized Stokes–Einstein equation…
No Shrodinger Wave Equation has been mentioned…
“Quantum Cluster Equilibrium Theory of Liquids: Temperature Dependence of Hydrogen Bonding in Liquid N-Methylacetamide Studied by IR Spectra”
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp971575u?src=recsys&journalCode=jpcbfk
newton,
Here is one link:
http://quantum.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/prod/sites/default/files/presentiment_0.pdf#overlay-context=content/quantum-mind-time-flies-backwards
I can only add that the video meant to show how fine tuned water was to be in existence and this existence to biology/anything.
Thats their equation that is to demonstrate a complex/so created case.
Your saying, reductionist concepts, that the SWE trumps water as a fine tuned thing and its fine tuning to other things.
As I said before the water ius more then SWE.
Its information that includes SWE. It must be this way.
Your saying a desk is not a des created by a thinking being but is only a group of molecues/atomes.
So not evidence of a a creator(of the desk).
ID thinkers here are saying once again about information as something more then atoms.
They would not of thought to reduce water into the SWE
Or include that within the water BUT its still about fine tuning of water.
Don’t forget, Robert.
You find the evidence for presentiment convincing enough to reject the arrow of time?
If I don’t, then the other option left, as far as I know, is that subatomic particles do travel back in time…
Which one do you accept?
So God can create the entirety of the properties of matter, including ‘unique’ configurations such as water and carbon, from just a tiny handful of basic quantum particles and their parameters, but can’t generate a system that can evolve without having to constantly poke in and ‘twoing’ it? Hmmm, I say, and hmmmm.
“As argued before the results of the multi subject analyses are statistically marginal and would evaporate when multiple analyses are taken into account.”
J.B. Rhine redux.
There’s also this:
That was fifteen years ago. Neither author has published a follow-up.
It smells a lot like the famous dead salmon study:
This was a tongue-in-cheek study that made a very important point regarding the statistical analysis of fMRI results. From the poster:
Quote mining huh? Why? Why would you lie to yourself? Aren’t you curios why and how backwards time referral works? Or you are just a wicked skunk….
“4.1.4 Multiple Analyses
As argued before the results of the multi subject analyses are statistically marginal and would evaporate when multiple analyses are taken into account. However a number of exploratory analyses for single subjects suggest that on the individual level the results will stand the correction against multiple analyses. For instance increasing the cluster sizewith a factor ~30 for the analyses done for the single subject in fig. 4 results in an
increase of the t-value to 3.6 with a corresponding p-value smaller than 0.001 and a
reduction of possible analyses to ~ 10 while each of these 10 possible analyses produces a
significant larger BOLD preceding erotic than preceding neutral stimuli.
There is a problem though because analysis on the individual level might result in the
artefact sketched in paragraph 4.1.1. We therefore feel that the current study must be
seen as exploratory and should be followed up with replications using a precise to allow for the selection of ROI’s on an individual level while still allowing for pooling
of the data.
4.2 Relation with other brain imaging results
So far no brain imaging studies have been done directly investigating the so-called
presentiment effect. However some studies measuring event related potentials in a
guessing task might be interpreted as a studies investigating at least anomalous brain
behavior contingent on a future event (feedback of the target) although the task is a forced
choice guessing task (McDonough et al, 2002). The results indicate that the difference
between the normal evoked potential and the evoked potential generated by a picture of
the future feedback (target) is mainly in the form of a slow negative going wave at 150-
500 msec after the test-exposure. These differences were mainly located in the right
frontal cortex. These results seem not to relate to the current findings. We find the
anomalous anticipatory effects mainly located in the visual cortex although this could be
due to the procedure used to locate the regions of interest.
Further analysis of the current data using random permutation statistics (Blair et al, 1993)
is in progress and might reveal subtler effects for instance in cortical regions.
BTW: You don’t have to answer…You know what his means…
Just what I said. The anomalous effect will wash out with further study.
How about the neither option? The only link you provide to support your position is one about presentiment , if I recall the only statistically significant result was for a small group, larger groups not so much. Is that correct?
The one where you have not yet shown that particles travel back in time.
Exactly
J-Mac,
Did you read this? Don’t you find it odd that neither author published a follow-up paper?
How do you explain that? Did they forget to do a follow-up study? Did the evil Darwinists of the 24th century travel backward in time to prevent the study from taking place?
Or do you think that just maybe Bierman and Scholte redid the experiment, got a negative result, and declined to publish?
What seems most likely to you?
You don’t know what you are talking about…The double slit experiment proves that electrons travel back in time…If you don’t like it, then you have a choice of time being an illusion but you don’t like this ether…Instead of continues denial, educate yourself!
Here is a link where a neurosurgeon preformed experiments on patients where backward referral was proven time and time again…
http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/lecturenotes/DGB01%20ADD/libet-1999b.pdf
If you looked carefully, the previous paper referred to other experiments that have proven the same results…
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously
before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 28 February 97, 1293-
1295.
Bierman, D. J. & Radin, D. I. (1997). Anomalous anticipatory response on randomized
future conditions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 689-690.
Blair, R. C. & Karniski, W. (1993). An alternative method for significance testing of
waveform difference potentials. Psychophysiology, 30, 518-524.
Dalkvist, J., Westerlund, J. & Bierman, D.J. (2002). Simulations of expectation effect in
sequential presentations of activating and calm pictures. Proceedings of the PA-2002.
Everitt, J.W., (1990). Sexual motivation: A neural and behavioral analysis of the
mechanisms underlying appetitive and copulatory responses of Male rats. Neurosci.
Behav. Rev., 14:217-232.
Globisch, J., Hamm, A.O., Estevez, F., and Öhman, A. (1999). Fear appears fast:
Temporal course of startle reflex potentiation in animal fear subjects.
Psychophysiology, 36, pp. 66-75.
Laan, E., Everaerd, W., Bellen, G. van, & Hanewald, G. (1994). Women’s sexual and
emotional responses to male- and female-produced erotica. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 23, 153-170.
Lang, P.J., Bradley M.M., Fitzsimmons, J.R., Cuthbert, B.N., Scott, J.D., Moulder, B. &
Nangia, V. (1998). Emotional arousal and activation of the visual cortex: An fMRI
analysis. Psychophysiology, 35, 199-210.
Merboldt, K.D., Fransson, P., Bruhn, H. & Frahm, J. (2001). Functional MRI of the
human amygdala. NeuroImage, 4, 253-257.
McDonough, B. E., Don, N.S. & Warren, C. A. (2002). Differential event-related
potentials to targets and decoys in a guessing task. To be published in: Journal for
Scientific Exploration.
Morris, J.S., Ohman, A. & Dolan, R.J. (1998), Conscious and unconscious emotional
learning in the human amygdala. Nature, 393, 4 June 19989. 467-470.
Radin, D. I. (1997). Unconscious perception of future emotions: An experiment in
presentiment. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11 (2), 163-180.
nr – X Y Z Nvoxel t-contrast
vio-neu
stim
1 48 -67 3 876 7.025
2 -42 -67 1 1139 8.066
3 27 -7- 20 508 7.373
4 -24 -67 27 313 5.99
5 -39 -61 -8 501 10.207
6 -2 -27 -2 276 6.579
7 8 -26 -3 64 6.718
8 32 16 0 26 6.664
9 4 -30 12 527 -7.342
10 -32 -24 20 648 -7.386
11 -51 -21 5 290 -6.553
Table I ROI’s for contrast violent vs neutral, number of voxels in region, contrast
between responses on violent and neutral pictures
nr – X Y Z Nvoxel t-contrast
1 48 -63 0 1322 14.117
2 -42 -64 0 1331 13.355
3 -24 -65 28 383 7.158
4 27 -72 24 587 7.63
5 0 -20 9 189 6.333
6 -9 -75 -1 715 -7.264
7 -34 -26 21 1007 -9.347
Table 2. ROI’s for contrast erotic vs neutral stimulus
J-Mac, to newton:
No, it doesn’t. You are confused, J-Mac.
Not only doesn’t it prove that electrons “travel back in time”, it doesn’t even demonstrate retrocausality.
J-Mac,
Again, you’re confused. “Backward referral” isn’t what you think (or hope) it is.
Ponder this statement from the Libet paper:
There’s no retrocausal magic going on. Experience is simply delayed.
Delayed? What does that mean?
Your perception doesn’t actually happen when you perceive something, it happens after you perceive something?
He doesn’t understand the slightest thing about this concept…he can’t even read…
Don’t pay attention to his nonsense…
Watch the video on double slit experiment to understand the fundamentals…
BTW: I begin to believe that that keiths should have taken engineering of lopatologia …
Perhaps, the question remains whether you do
“Ma, Zeilinger, et al. have summarized what can be known as a result of experiments that have arisen from Wheeler’s proposals. They say:
Any explanation of what goes on in a specific individual observation of one photon has to take into account the whole experimental apparatus of the complete quantum state consisting of both photons, and it can only make sense after all information concerning complementary variables has been recorded. Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.”
Now it seems to me a skeptical view is warranted.
I agree that absolute time is an illusion but it does not follow that time itself is an illusion
Will look at it
Your conscious awareness of the the perception
So first I perceive, and then I am aware that I perceive?
phoodoo,
Yes, there are several studies which have observed the phenomenon
“Haynes and his colleagues imaged the brains of 14 volunteers while they performed a decision-making task. The volunteers were asked to press one of two buttons when they felt the urge to. Each button was operated by a different hand. At the same time, a stream of letters were presented on a screen at half-second intervals, and the volunteers had to remember which letter was showing when they decided to press their button.
When the researchers analysed the data, the earliest signal the team could pick up started seven seconds before the volunteers reported having made their decision. Because of there is a delay of a few seconds in the imaging, this means that the brain activity could have begun as much as ten seconds before the conscious decision. The signal came from a region called the frontopolar cortex, at the front of the brain, immediately behind the forehead.
This area may well be the brain region where decisions are initiated, says Haynes, who reports the results online in Nature Neuroscience1.
The next step is to speed up the data analysis to allow the team to predict people’s choices as their brains are making them.”
Not only do humans continually create new software, they continually create new hardware as well.
And just think of all the different evolutionary algorithms.
newton,
Iain McGilchrist and his thoughts on the different rôles the right and left hemispheres play might interest you. Here’s a TED talk by him.
So, Zeilinger gives up what he has seen and experimentally proven that photons communicate faster then the speed of light because of what???
“..Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely…”
Well, then it is understandable…because the theory of general relativity has been proven beyond any doubt…right? Wrong! But questioning GTOR would certainly ” assure “Zeilinger of his further funding… lol
And this is the very essence I have been talking about at UD and other blogs… is that quantum mechanics have never been proven wrong, and the theory of relativity can’t be unified with QM…
With the very few exceptions, most physicist bet and are willing to abandon the GTOR mainly because QM has never been proven wrong and one, either QM or GTOR, must be wrong…
Which one is it? Do you know?
Einstein, who formulated the GTOR,had his own doubts about it and knew that it had limits… What limits?
Why has Einstein mocked publicly time as being an illusion which was the very essence of his own GTOR?
“The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” – Albert Einstein
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins148814.html
Today we have scientific, experimental proof that again Einstein was right about the perception of time, which obviously means that the GTOR is at least incomplete or in some or many aspects dead-wrong…
Backward referral is just a small but extremely important piece of the evidence that reality is much more than even Einstein expected in his wildest dreams…
Today we know what Einstein didn’t know…He didn’t even dream about it; the expanding, accelerating universe caused by dark energy…
What would he do about GTOR if he had realized that spacetime could be the property of dark energy and not the other way around? Do you even know what that means if this is true?
This could mean that reality is nonlinear at least at the quantum level…
This could possibly mean that dark energy causes specetime to stretch, forward and backward “creating” dual vector, both forward and backwards in “time” (s) to allow things like backward referral…
Poor J-Mac. Hopelessly confused, and absolutely convinced that he isn’t.
phoodoo,
My apologies phoodoo,
It seems I accidentally linked you to the first part of the double slit experiment and not the second, which really applies to the thread. If, for some reason, it switches to something else, it is called:
How the Quantum Eraser Rewrites the Past | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
I hope it becomes clearer what I have been trying to convey…
I love this new plugin!
I can respond to the ignored without reading his nonsense and still let him know how I feel about his comments…:-)
Yes!
Only one problem Newton. Perceive means to be aware.
So its not possible to be aware and then be aware, unless we are giving up on English.