Foundations of ID

quote:

---

Let's go to the University of Sussex where Gribbins is one of my favorite dudes on this. Read this whole page, guys:

​

"It requires an observer intelligent enough to infer what is happening, and what would have happened if the particle had been heading towards the inner hemisphere (so a cat, for example, clearly would not be intelligent enough to cause this particular collapse of a wave function). Under these circumstances, the absence of an observation can collapse the quantum wave function as effectively as an actual observation can. At least, so says the Copenhagen interpretation.

​

This central role for the observer -- not just any observer, but an intelligent observer -- lies at the heart of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics."

---

Notice how he says, "so says the Copehagen Interpretation." There is no reason to think the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct. The only reason it is so widely accepted is because it was the first interpretation that could be made to work and it was forcefully promoted by Neils Bohr. Also, John von Neumann wrote a authoritative proof that an alternative theory, the pilot wave theory, couldn't be true. His proof was false but influenced the fate of the interpretation of QM. The pilot wave theory is only recently (past 20 years) being taken seriously.The Copenhagen Interpretation leads to so many absurdities, such as Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, that a lot of physicists only use it tentatively as a way to think about what's going on.So keep in mind that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't the only game in town, and there's no reason to accept it over other interpretations. All we can say is that for a certain experimental setup, certain results occur.By the way, I learned a majority of the information in this post from Gribbon's, "Schrodinger's Cats and the Search for Reality." From what I understand, Gribbon no longer accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation but opts for a pilot wave type theory. He also says that the value of the interpretations should be judged not on their ability add insight into the reality of the phenomena but on their ability to help people think about the phenomena. I don't think he believes there is one true interpretation on the phenomena.That's how I understood the book.This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-29-2005 12:31 PM

quote:

---

What's wrong with that? That's exactly the way I am using it. To get people to think about what's going on.

---

If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be using the interpretation to imply that there is a ultimate intelligent being collapsing the wave functions.I just think the caveat should be included which states, "if the CI is correct," which is by no means certain.

quote:

---

What's wrong with that? That's exactly the way I am using it. To get people to think about what's going on.

---

Again, I think the caveat should be added, and I think that really takes away from the heart of the argument. Other consistent models have been made(e.g. pilot theory and multiple universes).

quote:

---

I haven't read that book. I probably need to place that on my summer reading agenda. But I did do some Googling on the Pilot Wave Theory and enjoyed it immensely. The possibility exists that Bohm may have went way out there with this (after first being proposed 25 years earlier by Louis de Broglie, then also thoroughly rejected by him, and Einstein).

---

I highly recommend the book. I enjoy reading Gribbin more than any other author of QM.

quote:

---

For example, He proposed that particle behavior is determined by an unusual field or wave consisting both of classical versions of forces such as electromagnetism and an entirely new force-which Bohm called the quantum potential-that is responsible for nonclassical effects.

---

I don't see that as being a downfall. It's no different than proposing some sort of "probability wave" and supposing wave particle complementarity. These are taken as justified since they can explain the results, but there is no direct evidence for either of them, just as there isn't direct evidence for the quantum potential.

quote:

---

I don't think that his force has been discovered experimentally, to my knowledge, so there are some big "ifs" in there.

---

Just as the probility wave hasn't been discovered experimentally. They're all ad hoc explanations for results, and I don't see the one being more reputable than the other just because it has been around longer. If von Neumman hadn't made that mistake, the pilot wave theory would probably be just as developed and would have been apart of the QM orthodoxy.

quote:

---

"The Bohm interpretation is not popular among physicists for a number of scientific and sociological reasons that would be fascinating but long to study, but perhaps we can at least say here it is considered very inelegant by some (it was considered as "unnecessary superstructure" even by Einstein who dreamed about a deterministic replacement for the Copenhagen interpretation)"

---

The main reason Einstein disliked pilot wave theory is because it assumed non-locality, which goes against his theory of special relativity. But, with the Aspect experiment breaking Bell's inequality, you have to abandon either locality or reality (i.e., local reality cannot exist). This is the case no matter which interpretation you take. (I have admit that I don't understand the details of this experiment or inequality, but take the word of several authors, including Gribbin.)And just in case it isn't clear, "local" means no communication faster than light and "reality" means the world existing outside of observation.I'll try and dig up that book to see what else it has to say about the issue. The last chapter introduces his preferred interpretation which is definately not CI, but I forget the details.

quote:

---

I'm suggesting this as a likely possibility based on the evidence and the math we have achieved at this point, yes. But nothing in science is ever certain. Theories never prove anything and caveats are always applicable. I'm not disagreeing with you that I haven't proven anything as this is impossible in science.

---

Nothing in science is ever certain. But there's a difference between the caveat, "and since it is science, it may not be true as scientific knowledge is tentative" and the caveat, "there are competing interpretations for this phenomena and as of right now we can't rule any of them out or say one is more supported than others."

quote:

---

You obviously have a background in physics. It's true, probability waves have been proposed to explain this dilemma. All I would add at this point is that we know it takes an observer to collapse the wave function and this has been shown experimentally time and time again.

---

It really hasn't been shown experimentally to be true. What has been proven is that if you assume the existance of probability waves, which CI proposes, then an observer be needed to collapse them. This way of looking at phenomena can predict the results. But other interpretations can predict the same results.

quote:

---

Thus, in my opinion, this the best explanation of the phenomenon in question and this is as far as science can take it. Perhaps someday

---

I actually prefer Feynman's "sum-over-histories" approach to QM. It's a way of doing calculations that gets the results, but makes no attempt conflate the way they are getting the results with some actual physical process.It only deals with probabilities of events happening. So, in the two holes experiment, adding a detector in one of the holes adds another history you have to sum into the equation to find out where the photon is likely to go. When this is done, an interference pattern is unlikely.I reallly think this is as far as QM is right now. We know that if you have an initial experimental setup, you have a probability of getting a certain results.

quote:

---

we will know why this happens and discover the 'god' particle and all kinds of other cool things. But until then, this is all we know and it is from this conclusion and mathematics that I draw my designer hypothesis. Seems to work just fine.

---

You should think about whether the Copenhagen Interpretation is proven mathematically, or whether it is one way, of many, to predict results. Do we "know" everything exists as a superposition of states when there is no observer? Do we "know" probability waves are actual physical constructs as opposed to a mental scaffold?

John,After reading up on QM, I realize I've been misrepresenting CI. I've been saying it says there are physical probability waves. This is not true, it is the exact opposite. It conflates the state vector with "knowledge" and thus avoids the nonlocality associated with physical waves. It doesn't avoid nonlocality, though, since it still has what Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance" or entangled quantum particles.But the other tenents of CI are just as unprovable as the quantum potential of pilot wave theories.What we are talking about are interpretations of the mathematical formalism. As I said before, the CI does not trump other interpretations just because it was one that was first worked out. Pilot wave theories, multiples universe theories, and the Transactional interpretation have all been proposed. Yes, they have their share of metaphysical baggage, but no more so than the CI.This is what Gribbin was referring to in his book when he said the value of an interpretation shouldn't be whether it is "true" since there is no way of knowing. It should be whether it illuminates the phenomena for one trying to understand it. Gribbin's prefers the Transactional interpretation, which doesn't inflate the conscious observer to some special status, and offers other insights into the nature of the nonlocality in QM.For more information on the Transactional interpretation, you should check out the author's, John Cramer's, article at http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html. If that is too long or too indepth (which it was for me at some points), there is a link to a shorter article on that sight which sums it up. The site also have a fairly large section on CI and its implications and short comings.I hope that from reading about this more, you realize that the CI isn't a "proven" or "highly supported" view of QM, and that using it as a justification for supposing ID is correct is pretty tenuous.This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-01-2005 02:51 AM

quote:

---

Right...... Yawn....Sorry Justin. I'm growing very weary of our discussions and I'm sure the readers are, as they just seem to be droning on into infinity. I have agreed with you that there are other options, that science should always be questionable and we should always be cognizant of caveats. You have added nothing new to the discussion since then. Thanks for your contributions and have a great life!

​

Our discussion is over unless you have something new to bring to the table.

---

Those who develop the formalism have no trump over how to interpret it, which you seem to be implying by your constant appeals to authority and lack of reasoned argument.You should read that other link to Cramer's paper on the Transactional interpretation(in my previous post)and a lot more on QM and its history if you really want to understand what the Copenhagen Interpretation is and how it relates to the mathematical formalism of the science.Or, as you will probably do, you can go on using the same tired old argument "an ultimate observer collapses wave functions" without understanding how that interpretation came to be or understanding the science of QM in general.I'll leave you with two quotes from my favorite science teacher, Richard Feynman. and I appreciate you allowing me to take up your precious time, and hopefully one day, if I'm lucky, you will grace me with your attention once more.

I'll give you some advise Jerry. Don't act so condescending asshole because you obviously aren't knowledgable enough on the subjects of which you speak to justify it, and even if you were you'd still come off as a condescending asshole.

STOP IT. WE'RE TRYING TO CUT DOWN ON THE CRANKINESS AROUND HERE, AND SUCH IS NOT HELPING THE EFFORT.

​

ALSO, THIS IS OFF-TOPIC. NO ONE SHOULD REPLY TO IT. - Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2005 02:06 AM

This has been mentioned in previous posts, but I'll try and clarify.There are two concepts in evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradulism. The main difference between these two hypothesises (sp?) is the rate of evolution. PE supposes that major evolutionary changes occur during speciation events, and are punctuated by periods of stasis in terms of evolution. Phyletic gradulism supposes the rate is constant throughout a lineages time, and that speciation is the result of this constant changing.These are extreme ends of a spectrum. I don't know one phyletic gradualist or one pure punctuated equilibrist. Everyone, including Gould and Eldridge, admit that there are cases in the record which show constant evolutionary change. For instance:Sheldon, P.R. (1987) Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature, 330, 561-563.The arguments are for which rates are more prolific, not if they exist or not. Directional, disruptive, and stabilizing selection were known before Gould and Eldridge, along with allopatric speciation. In light of this, I don't think G & E's paper was a huge revelation, and many evolutionists didn't think so either.There is an equivocation going on with the word gradualism. There is phyletic gradualism (above) and "gradualism", i.e., evolutionary changes mainly occur through small changes in the genome which build up to a larger changes over time. Gould and Eldridge both support that kind of gradualism, but not phyletic gradulism, i.e., the rate of evolutionary change is constant throughout time. Gould isn't referring to marcoevolutionary jumps occuring in a few generations between periods of stasis. The jumps are short geologically speaking, in the order of 10's, 100's, or 1000's of thousands of years. They are not so short to preclude gradualism.I have the Ridley textbook you refer to, and it clearly states the equivocation of phyletic gradulism and gradulism in it's chapter on the rates of evolutionary change, so I wouldn't go quoting him in support of your position.I also apologize to the admin's for my previous post.This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-04-2005 03:26 AM