The Laws of Physics support Intelligent Design

a reply to: cooperton

So for now I guess I am the only scientist to be making the case.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Bro you got to find some new meme templates. Your early 2000's clip-art is just depressing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You switch gears from a non-scientific definition of "observer", to talking about "quantum discovery". In the quantum realm, there is no peer-reviewed evidence to support what you say about "observer", though there's no shortage of new-age or religious sources claiming such special status.

There is no evidence that states that an observer can be a non living entity as well. Science is split on it and to me, anyway, the observer has to be something that has a cognizant ability to tell the state of something and realize when it has changed. I know of no other non-living thing that can do that, do you? As living things, we create our own reality and then step into it, do we not? This is suggested by quantum physics as well. What ever you think of, will eventually happen. Perhaps, but there is no official consensus in quantum physics that any peer reviewed evidence is reality, it is all still theory.

....The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being

If the observer is an "apparatus", then it is a mechanism developed or conceived by something living, which by proxy is a living entity doing the observing.

originally posted by: charlyv

If the observer is an "apparatus", then it is a mechanism developed or conceived by something living, which by proxy is a living entity doing the observing.

Yeah I think Wheeler's delayed choice experiment proved beyond doubt that it was human knowing/observation that causes the wave-function collapse. A huge philosophical and scientific milestone for our role in the universe.

a reply to: cooperton

The mathematical intricacies of physical laws does indicate intelligence though. A dog's not gonna do your math homework, it's more likely to destroy it. Similarly, unintelligence isn't going to create physical laws that uphold all matter, it would instead cause chaos.

I see the math as the description (evolving blueprint) of the physical laws as the universe evolved right from the big bang. Everything subsequently evolving based upon the enablement provided by a previous state of existence.


I think we are close in agreement in some ways but we differ in the definition of a creator and if it was really intelligent in our current definition of that term.

originally posted by: charlyv
There is no evidence that states that an observer can be a non living entity as well. Science is split on it...

I wouldn't put it that way and QM expert Sean Carroll doesn't. He says at time index 0:37:

Sean Carroll: we start talking about observers, but deep in the heart of almost every physicist is the conviction that that shouldn't really be important, right? That the existence of a person, which is what it sounds like when you say the word observer, that shouldn't be part of a real physical theory, so there's sort of a minority of physicists who've taken up the radical point of view that no no you can't even define quantum mechanics without really taking observers seriously as part of the fundamental ingredients of the theory.

The rest of us are trying to say, well what we really meant all along by observers, is something else; some part of the system that interacts with some other part of the system in another way. So I for one am happy to count video cameras, rocks, atoms, and molecules in the air, as quantum mechanical observers, for all intents and purposes.

Robert Kuhn: Well, because certainly, if we go back to the beginning of the universe a billion years ago, what is your observer causing the quantum decoherence and into classical happening then? I mean something has to happen at that point.

Sean Carroll: That's right!

Sean Carroll - What Are Observers?

and to me, anyway, the observer has to be something that has a cognizant ability to tell the state of something and realize when it has changed. I know of no other non-living thing that can do that, do you?

So ok, you're in the radical minority trying to make it into something the majority of non-radical physicists don't agree with. But you shouldn't present that as a mainstream view like you did or tried to do in your previous post, because it's not, as Sean Carroll explains in that video.

If the observer is an "apparatus", then it is a mechanism developed or conceived by something living, which by proxy is a living entity doing the observing.

That's a bogus argument. If the living entity that created the apparatus dies, the apparatus still works. And if the observer is a rock as Sean Carroll says is a perfectly valid observer the way quantum mechanics physicists use the term "observation", then no human is needed to create the rock.

Carroll also makes the point that it seems strange to claim that quantum mechanics hasn't worked in the 13 billion years the universe has existed before humans came along, or if you want to refer to "living entities" as you did, are you saying single-celled micro-organisms can be observers because they are living entities?

Speaking of rocks being observers, photons leave the sun, and 8 minutes later, the photons headed toward Earth strike the Earth. It's not possible for those photons to still be in a superposition of states after they strike the earth, so they MUST have been observed by the Earth when they struck the earth, in the quantum mechanical context of observed or observer. I don't see how anybody can make a rational argument that's not the case, and I've never heard a rational argument explaining why those photons weren't observed by the Earth. The explanations I've heard are all from people who don't understand the quantum mechanical context of what an observation means, which is like a collapse of the wave function. Once the photon struck the Earth, there is no more wave function of the photon since there's no more photon, so the photons wavefunction therefore must have collapsed when it struck the earth, which is in effect what is meant by "observation" in quantum mechanics.

originally posted by: charlyv


I see the math as the description (evolving blueprint) of the physical laws as the universe evolved right from the big bang. Everything subsequently evolving based upon the enablement provided by a previous state of existence.


I think we are close in agreement in some ways but we differ in the definition of a creator and if it was really intelligent in our current definition of that term.

Thats an interesting point because it would probably be indescribable to us temporal beings to accurately depict the process of this world's emergence. The big bang happening at every location at once is enough to blow your mind, it just doesn't even compute in our brains how all points in the universe are coming into existence simultaneously along with energy and matter.



This is the dipole image of the cosmic microwave background, looking remarkably similar to a yin-yang. I saw a great animation that shows a 3D depiction of a yin-yang, and i would even venture to guess this is the likely shape of an Einstein-Rosen Bridge (wormhole)

originally posted by: cooperton
No there's just a lot of things about the code that scientists don't know, and also parts of the code that are inactive while we are in the fallen state.

You cannot expect to have a rational discussion when you throw in nonsense like that. No one is in a 'fallen state', it means nothing, unless you are approaching this debate as a Christian, for which many people are not. Ansd this is in the 'Science & Tech' area, which religion is neither and the bible is not a factual document.

Base your comments on whats observable, whats testable, what's empirical. THEN we can have a proper discussion.

But all the while, when people try to discuss/debate with you, and you just bleat out religious nonsense - your points are immediately invalid.

originally posted by: noonebutme

You cannot expect to have a rational discussion when you throw in nonsense like that. No one is in a 'fallen state', it means nothing, unless you are approaching this debate as a Christian, for which many people are not. Ansd this is in the 'Science & Tech' area, which religion is neither and the bible is not a factual document. Base your comments on whats observable, whats testable, what's empirical. THEN we can have a proper discussion.

The fallen state is exhibited empirically in many ways, even consider lactose-intolerance, it is due to a faulty epigenetic expression of the lactase gene.

link

Now consider this same type of abnormality for more serious genes. The multitude of genes that constitute our genome. It would render an inability for humans to do things they should be capable of doing, i.e. the fallen state. Our bodies have all the means necessary to perpetuate ad infinitum, but for whatever reasons they begin aging quickly compared to the longevity described of our ancient ancestors.

But all the while, when people try to discuss/debate with you, and you just bleat out religious nonsense - your points are immediately invalid.

If someone has that high degree of prejudice, to close their ears merely at the mentioning of words they don't like, then I'd rather not converse with them anyway lol.

a reply to: cooperton
Now you're just trying to link religious christian themes to faulty genes.

And you can only do this AFTER science and technology have discovered them. It's fascinating that the religious books and tomes don't mention anything about DNA or cells or anything about genetic disorders or gene mutations. You know, all the things that mankind learned of through years of intellectual advancement, not God.

Yet somehow, people like you are able to find that, 'missing link', as it were.

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: cooperton
Now you're just trying to link religious christian themes to faulty genes.

And you can only do this AFTER science and technology have discovered them.

Well no, the Bible said it first. Now we're realizing scientifically the immense amount of our being that is untapped potential.

It's fascinating that the religious books and tomes don't mention anything about DNA or cells or anything about genetic disorders or gene mutations. You know, all the things that mankind learned of through years of intellectual advancement, not God.

The ancient cultures had a good grasp on infectious diseases, they just didn't have a microscope. I would go into detail but your fingers are strongly pressed into your ears.

You know, all the things that mankind learned of through years of intellectual advancement, not God.

Yet somehow, people like you are able to find that, 'missing link', as it were.

Ahh yes, 'praise lord science', bringer of the end of the earth. How much longer can this world endure industrialization? The fish are literally going trans from all the pollution in the water and people seem to be following suit. I could go on and on about the “man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.”

originally posted by: cooperton
Well no, the Bible said it first. Now we're realizing scientifically the immense amount of our being that is untapped potential.

Oh come on,man. That's nonsense and you know it. During the times the bible was written by men, they had no concept of cells, molecules, or sub-atomic particles. Hell, the skies were full of amgels and the ground full of demons.

You're just saying, 'Well of course the bible knew' well after the fact. Hindsight is great

The ancient cultures had a good grasp on infectious diseases, they just didn't have a microscope. I would go into detail but your fingers are strongly pressed into your ears.

Yes, my fingers are in my ears when it comes to religion being the voice of logic and reason, because it isn't.

Ahh yes, 'praise lord science', bringer of the end of the earth. How much longer can this world endure industrialization? The fish are literally going trans from all the pollution in the water and people seem to be following suit. I could go on and on about the “man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.”

Science and technology are the only ways mankind will evolve. That's a fact. Yes, it doesn't always deliver what is expected, and takes trial and error to resolve problems. And yes, people are abusive and sh*theads and ruin the planet with it. What do you mean 'beyond my comprehension'? That's a pretty pretentious statement. What makes you more aware of these 'science-y' things than me?

But 'science' isn't a thing. It isn't alive or sentient. It's a way of approaching investigation, discovery and learning. And it isn't to be praised. It's to be used to advance our knowledge out of the draconian ways people used to live, believing in burning bushes and ressurections.

Science and technology is the only way our species will evolve to clean(er) energy sources, better medicines, better textiles and ways to ensure we preserve our environment, all the while preparing us for the ultimate journey: beyond this planet and into space.

Will we fail along the way? Of course. Will ass*ole people abuse it? Sadly yes. Do we stop and say no and turn to archaic sky fairies for solice when we stumble? Hell no.

originally posted by: noonebutme
Oh come on,man. That's nonsense and you know it. During the times the bible was written by men, they had no concept of cells, molecules, or sub-atomic particles. Hell, the skies were full of amgels and the ground full of demons.

You're just saying, 'Well of course the bible knew' well after the fact. Hindsight is great

Well they got this one right. They also predicted epigenetic inheritance with 'the sins of your parents'. It was found in the field of epigenetic inheritance that you do in fact inherit 'memories' in a similar manner to Lamarckism. One of my favorite demonstrations of this effect is where mice are given a difficult trap to escape, and they found that each successive generation was innately better at solving the trap until a generation came that solved it immediately. This is also the mechanism for antibiotic resistance - subsequent generations maintain an increased expression for a detox pump, which allows it to handle higher toxic loads.

Science and technology are the only ways mankind will evolve. That's a fact. Yes, it doesn't always deliver what is expected, and takes trial and error to resolve problems. And yes, people are abusive and sh*theads and ruin the planet with it. What do you mean 'beyond my comprehension'? That's a pretty pretentious statement. What makes you more aware of these 'science-y' things than me?

'man-made horrors beyond your comprehension' is a Nikola Tesla quote. I wasn't saying you particularly, he meant everyone when he said 'your comprehension'. But yeah without science and industrialization our planet wouldn't be so polluted. It's nice and fun having all these luxuries allowed by science but in so many ways it makes us dumb, weak, and polluted. I don't see how science can solve the problems that science caused. Even greenhouses, solar panels, windmills, etc all require industrial processes that continue to destroy the natural world. With growing populations this is only going to get worse.

Science and technology is the only way our species will evolve to clean(er) energy sources, better medicines, better textiles and ways to ensure we preserve our environment, all the while preparing us for the ultimate journey: beyond this planet and into space.

Do we stop and say no and turn to archaic sky fairies for solice when we stumble? Hell no.

Humble living is actually one of the keys to turning around the trajectory of humankind. I'm not going to go and live in a tent harmonious with nature the rest of my life, but I can see why Moses living that way was archetypal, especially in that era.