Most significant current ID based research activity

No, my ideas on what quantum mechanics are is straight-out, mainstream QM from the QM physicists themselves. My application of those ideas to Intelligent Design may or may not be reflective of quantum physicists' view of the theory. Certainly, some have expressed that the clue to originating life may be found within QM, but generally they are not involved in the ID debate per se.Zeilinger did quote the gospel of John in saying the idea that information is central is a very old idea, but at the same time, he accepts evolution, I think.Nevertheless, pretty much standard QM is very favorable to ID ways of thinking, particularly the idea of physical reality stemming from immaterial reality.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, my ideas on what quantum mechanics are is straight-out, mainstream QM from the QM physicists themselves.

---

That isn't true. We resolved that in previous discussions.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, pretty much standard QM is very favorable to ID ways of thinking, particularly the idea of physical reality stemming from immaterial reality.

---

Not really. It's still just mindless physics.

No, you stopped accepting what quantum physicists say and insisted on your own ill-informed opinion. Quantum physicists, for example, say the operations of quantum mechanics are outside space and time. Every little point, all based on mainstream QM, I brought up, you insisted could not be so, and it grew tiring.I think this comment of your's shows the problem. Quantum mechanics is actually the most succesful theory in all of science with all of it's predictions being 100% accurate, no matter how wild those predictions were. It's as near to a fact as anything we know.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, you stopped accepting what quantum physicists say and insisted on your own ill-informed opinion

---

That isn't true. To be charitable the dispute was more over what the experts said. And the resident expert - Cavediver - did not agree with you.But rehashing that debate is a diversion which the new stricter adminstration will probably object to. So if you can support your point here and now with ectual examples of ID-based QM research that would be a far better way of supporting your assertion.And you misunderstand my point about QM. QM - like classical physics - deals with the operation of mindless entities. I never said or implied that it was incorrect (although we know that it is incomplete, because it has yet to fully incorporate gravity).

I do wonder at the fact that when trying to show how ideas are related to ID all you seem to do is go on about how they tie into religion, particularly christianity.Do you see no distinction between ID and the christian religion.TTFN,WK

Then explain it to me...

O, cavediver, thank the gods you're here.Correct me if I'm wrong, but ... ... isn't this a load of horse apples?

There's seems to be some uncertainty about these rules from the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

These two rules cover a lot of ground, but apropos for this thread they're saying that you shouldn't be telling people to go look up what you're supposed to be providing yourself. Outline your position, then provide the detailed arguments and evidence in your own words, then provide links to supporting references if appropriate.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Does it? I don't think Wheeler or a large group of quantum physicists would agree with that as they posit observation and observers are necessary, but that's probably getting off-topic.

I do see a difference, but I think there is an overlap. If you are trying to show the existence of a specific God, then you are also showing the existence of a general Designer, but you can infer a Designer without showing anything specific about Him/It except for the effect of creation.

As far as research, the Aspect experiments, or the quantum eraser experiments, or experiments on entanglement, or any experiment seeking to verify or illustrate the world of quantum mechanics, imo are helpful for Intelligent Design overall because they involve quantum operations outside space and time.To give you a specific example and illustration, when 2 particles are entangled, they act as one system regardless of time and space. If one becomes a distinct physical state, or in other words occupies a location within space and time via observation, the other particle is affected as if and indeed they are, one system.This, as you know, is something Einstein did not like. He called it "spooky action at a distance." He also disagreed with quantum physicists and the theory of quantum mechanics because like you, he was a determinist. Over time, however, QM has proven to be correct and Einstein incorrect.So what we have is an indication of mechanisms and design occuring outside any specific location and outside space and time and yet interacting with it. Imo, this points towards an ID mechanism and so I think it's significant research for the ID movement despite the fact those doing the research probably are not thinking of Intelligent Design, though perhaps some could be.There are other areas of explicit ID research, but the OP question was asking what each poster felt was most significant, and I think QM research is most significant. I think the development of quantum computers could, in fact, lead to the creation of consciousness in a machine, and I think consciousness is a significant aspect of reality and will become significant for Intelligent Design thinking and theories.

Hi Randman, good to have you back and I hope I'm interpreting your meaning correctly, here.To business. I don't think it is fair to say that the 'other partical is affected' as this would imply two seperate systems rathaer than one entangled system.And the information you could aquire from measuring one partical would be meaningless in the real universe because of decohearance.Saying that quantum entanglment can be observed under very precise conditions cannot really be seen as ID research.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

You are correct that it is one system. The "other partical" though is still the other entangled particle. But for my point, what you say is fine. Here we have a system whose operations occur outside time and space. The non-locality aspect of the entangled system defies local realism and locality.

No, they do not. Such a statement is not only wrong but meaningless. Quantum Mechanics operates perfectly well within space and time. All of these experiments, bizarre as they seem, merely confirm standard QM as we have understood it for nearly a century - the only people surprised or amazed by these experiments are those who do not understand QM (there is obvious respect and admiration for the scientists overcoming the technical difficulties in setting up the experimental apparatus.) Again, meaningless - what does 'regardless of space and time' mean? No, it is not. There is no observation that you can make that would enable you to conclude that the second particle had been 'affected' in any way. You only become aware of entanglement statistically - by making 100s of observations, and realising that the observed statistics reveal a (classically) unexpected correlation between particles 1 and 2. No, there is very big difference between Einstein's view and mine - that is why I agree with quantum physicists (not too surprising given that I am one) and quantum mechincs. No, we don't. We have quantum mechanics operating as quantum field theory very much embedded in space and time. I can see aboslutely no connection between this and any of the ideas in ID.

Ok, we've run into this problem before. You make these statements, and then I quote quantum physicists that disagree with you.Do you think, for example, that Anton Zeilinger understands QM? He is a fairly prominent quantum researcher, correct? Let's see if he is surprised or amazed at these experiments, or if he feels that we are dealing with operations outside space and time, or not? (Note: not saying he is an IDer because he mentions Darwin positively). Sounds pretty surprised and amazed here. Sounds amazed again and points out that this violates determinism. Sounds amazed here again, and more to the point, he categorically states it is "a process outside time and space". What he is saying and what Wheeler and Feynman say, and what you say are completely different things.I like this comment: Anton Zeilinger, Mathias Plüss, Regina Hügli: Spooky action and beyond (16/02/2006) - signandsight (note: all quotes from the same interview)That scientist he insulted wasn't you, was it?Edited by randman, : No reason given.