An Atheist’s view of ID, Front Loading and Retrocausality
by JoyThis is a guest thread from our commenter, Thought Provoker.
________
The moderators at Telic Thoughts have kindly allowed me this post to provoke some thinking on both sides of the ID/Darwin debate. This action provides some tangible evidence IDists and an Atheists, like me, can cooperate in the name of science. While I am very critical of the methods and motives of the leaders of the ID movement, I can appreciate the earnest efforts of ID scientists like MikeGene even if I disagree with their common goal of trying to find an unnamed "designer". Christopher Columbus had a wrong-headed goal too. However, instead of finding a quicker route to India, he managed to discover something far more significant. The same may hold true for the intrepid ID explorers.
Front Loading is a popular hypothesis among the earnest ID scientists. Whether these scientists refer to it by name or just in general concepts, they are looking for the answer to ID's "innocuous question" by searching for biological solutions that presume later biological needs. In other words, a reversal of cause and effect or "retrocausality". In general, a retrocausal example can be trivial, like the action of someone taking an umbrella out of the closet and carrying it before it rains. In this case an identifiable "intelligent designer" is known. Some of the more industrious ID scientists are building databases of possible examples of retrocausality in living organisms.
To an Atheist, it doesn't matter how many interesting examples of retrocausalty are presented or how improbably improbable the non-retocausal explanation is, an explanation that includes a mechanism trumps no mechanism every time. The idea that "God works in mysterious ways", isn't an even slightly compelling argument for an Atheist. An understandable model needs to be found and presented. With the help of my friends at Telic Thoughts and Sir Rodger Penrose, I have a candidate that I am presenting here.
Quantum mechanics is the foundation of all matter, living or not. It has been understood since the 1930s that quantum mechanics expresses "quantum weirdness" which is more formally known as the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox. No matter which physicist's interpretation you use to resolve the paradox, it is obvious quantum effects are not random. Equally obvious is that these effects are also not deterministic. If all matter is fundamentally tied to a non-random, non-deterministic process then there is no such thing as "natural" randomness. It just appears to be random because an algorithm can't be determined.
Dr. Dembski's mathematical treatment of Specified Complexity and Darwinian evolution is tied around analyzing and rejecting chance hypotheses in favor of the "best" explanation, design. Ironically, my proposed mechanistic model would have the effect of automatically rejecting all "chance hypotheses" by virtue of the fact there is no such thing as "chance."
The other feature of this model is that it draws a clear demarcation boundary between the two magisteria (ala Gould's NOMA). "Non-deterministic" means the metaphysical will stay metaphysical. While design might be detectable, the design process or agent behind the design is not.
The Atheist and the IDist can shake hands and agree to a stalemate.
But even with this stalemate, there is plenty to talk and argue about. I will be presenting a lot more backup material, including Penrose's Orch OR model and the Penrose/Hameroff consciousness hypothesis in the comment section. Whether you are Atheist or IDist, I invite you to contribute to the discussion. You might even find the "other side" agreeing with you in your arguments of why I deserve the designation of Quantum Quack (received in a recent visit to Pharyngula).
June 16th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Thank You, Joy.
While I intentionally employed the marketing hook of me being an Atheist posting in an ID blog, it was my intent to have the opening post be as uncontroversial as possible, considering the subject.
If I have any control over this threads discussion, let me try to make one thing clear. We all know the "other side" are dogmatic, scum-of-the-earth low-lifes that claim to be using science when, in reality, they are trying to shape society to their liking. Both sides are claiming this and both sides are probably right. In this thread, let's try to focus on science, shall we?
Let's do Science!
First some links…
Here is a wikipedia link that described "quantum wierdness" and the EPR paradox.
While I am going to describe things using Penrose's terms (and therefore framing the scientific discussion) the ideas in this comment are basically agreed by physicists (please argue if you disagree).
Quantum Weirdness is real and experimentally validated. It includes"¦
1. All possible quantum states exist simultaneously (super position).
2. Something "chooses" which state is finally observed (objective reduction)
3. All observations, no matter how far apart, agree instantaneously (nonlocality)
There are different schools of interpretations of this that can be generally described by the different responses to the EPR and Schrödinger's cat paradox.
I consider three main schools of thoughts"¦
1. It doesn't matter what reality is as long as we have a working model.
(ignores paradoxes)
2. All possible realities exist with multiple universes being constantly created.
(multiplies the paradoxes)
3. Self gravity collapses multiple states into one state
(Puts a time limit on the paradoxes)
An example of Quantum Weirdness is experimentally show in the dual slit experiment. With only one slit electrons will make an even distribution pattern. A second slit some distance away will make a pattern that is significantly inconsistent with the one-slit pattern (takes away parts of the even distribution). Weirdness.
Another example of Quantum Weirdness is something I can't overly stress. In Quantum Mechanics, time is just another dimension inseparable from space-time. With nonlocality, retrocausality as a trivial given. More weirdness.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Just a thought, but isn't free-will (or conscious intelligence — if it is indeed free from purely mechanistic or purely random forces) the happy middle between pure mechanism and pure randomness?
In any case, what you are postulating appears to suggest that whatever the fundamental cause of our physical existence — quantum occurences –, it must be some type of will, or consciousness, whether our own, that of the universe itself, or a pre-universal consciousness, no?
Comment by CJYman — June 16, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Hi TP. Follow the evidence to wherever it leads and attempt to be as objective as possible. Atheism and theism ought not to dictate the discussion. I know though that that is an unrealistic expectation. I wish you luck in the pursuit of your idea but can tell you that if it gains popularity the opposition to it will intensify proportionately.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Im not so sure about that. I have thought for a long time that it isnt ID that brings on the wrath of the Darwinists rather it is the metaphysical implications that are unacceptable. If someone can come up with an acceptable proposal without the metaphysical baggage ID would be more acceptable.
Its just my opinion but if ID were to be the paradigm of the future it will not be embraced unless it does not indict "materilaism" Given this I would expect ID hypothesis like TP's will be more materialist freindly thus has the possibility of making inroads into the scientific community.
I commend TP for his/her attempt to put forth a model. I am still trying to get my arms around it.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 16, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Hi CJYman,
You wrote….
No fair getting ahead of the rest of the class. We will get there. I am cutting and pasting as fast as I can.
and Yes, questions of Free Will raise their ugly heads again, but I think they can be dealt with.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Hi Bradford,
Thanks for the support.
And I am counting on controversy. I like to argue.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Vividbleau, that's an interesting comment. You may be right about a theory that is somewhat materialist friendly but if it mandates a materialist interpretation I suspect we will find ourselves in the same situation we are in now. So much for objectivity right?
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Hi Vividbleau,
I compliment you on seeing what I see. I think there is something here if we can get past the 99.9% metaphysical and political bickering.
BTW, I am a "he".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Hi Bradford,
Either ID is about detecting design regardless of the designer or it is as they say "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". So far to the Darwinists ID is nothing more tha sneaking God under the guise of science. ID proponets object to this characterization. If this is so then I do not see why we would be in the same position we are in now? Are we fighting materialism or are we positing Intelligent Design?
TP will correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that TP is attributing intelligent design to account for the fine tuning of the universe and to certain features of the biological world. This design is carried out by intelligences through retrocausality attributable to the non localiy of time. In short the effect comes before the cause, ID ( the effect) happens before the cause ( intelligence). A closed loop with no appeal to non materialistic causes. To me this is a valid ID proposal.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 16, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Bradford:
I hear you. However, since I came into this whole dueling metaphysics mess from a physics direction, it was the animosity of the debates that made me cross that stupid line in the sand. I have stood with ID ever since, for reasons that don't have much to do with my own metaphysics, but with the outrageous behavior of reactionaries in the materialist camp. They can be (and often are) such jerks!
See, in quantum physics (any branch or application) the worker bees and theorists came to terms almost a century ago with their inability to force a particular metaphysical interpretation on the data. Yes, the data are certainly weird, but QM/RQFT represents the most successfully predictive scientific theory of all time.
So while you do see a lot of speculation and inventive mathematical games out there about multiverses and such (the hilariously non-materialistic interpretation of QM that materialists love because they can't admit reality might be a construct of consciousness), you don't see physicists barred from publishing papers, losing their jobs, not attaining tenure, etc. just because they TREAT the data as what it is. The working assumption for QM (most non-cosmological applications) is Copenhagen - reality is real, even if it's consciousness that makes it so.
They seem to be comfortable with the dueling metaphysics being a sideline, rather than the main event. It would be nice if biology would grow up to accept that metaphysics isn't its job.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Chapter 2.
The first Penrose Model is called OR (objective reduction) which quickly gives way to Penrose's Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) model.
But first, the OR model…
link
Penrose's suggests that objective reduction does, in fact, create reality (at least as real as "reality" gets).
While some physicists do not like this model because of what follows, but it is the best game in town. In nearly 100 years, no one has figured out a better alternative and this one is quantifiable and can be verified experimentally. So far, no experimental result has managed to falsify it. Even critics of Penrose's Orch OR model pretty much are forced to accept the OR model as reality.
The problem is that objective reduction is inherently both nonrandom and nondeterministic. It is not random because observation in one place forces a nonrandom answer in another. And it is nondeterministic because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and other quantum weirdness.
So what forces quantum states to be what they objectively reduce to? One experimentally observable answer is consistency with multiple observers. Which quickly leads to the concept of universal consistency of all objective reductions. In other words, Orchestrated Objective Reduction or "Orch OR" for short. Cue the Twilight Zone music.
But it isn't a TV show; it's a well known physicist talking about real world science.
Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems supports the possibility of non-algorithmic things existing in nature. IOW, there can be explanations that can't be explained.
Randomness is not an explanation of the unexplainable. Randomness can be simulated algorithmically (e.g. pseudorandom number generator). That would be deterministic. Quantum weirdness isn't deterministic.
Oh great, now what are we supposed to do? We do what scientists like MikeGene are doing. We look for clues.
Penrose presents aperiodic tiling as a possible clue. Mathematically, it was shown that it is possible to completely cover a two dimensional plane with a distinct set of shapes ("tiles") and not end up with a repeating pattern ("aperiodic"). Penrose figured out two shapes that solved this puzzle. A solution that Penrose claims couldn't have been accomplished without the aid of a non-algorithmic process (pseudorandomness isn't sufficient).
It might be tempting to dismiss this as just a mathematical exercise and, therefore, not "reality". However, a decade after Penrose demonstrated his Penrose Tilings mineralogists discovered quasicrystals. Naturally occurring aperiodic crystals that matched Penrose Tilings.
Penrose claims that his ability, as a mathematician, to conceptualize non-algorithmic things is inconsistent with a computer only capable of algorithmic processing. Are Penrose's instincts correct that he solved the aperiodic tiling problem instinctually instead of algorithmically?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I had a similar experience. My first exchange occurred in a non-monitored discussion group and I was shocked by the hostility directed at me. I stayed away for a few months but came back determined to express my views no matter what reaction I provoked. The jerkiness emboldened me in the long run. Rather than discouraging me it made me want to engage in further exchanges and eventually I got hooked on this stuff. I think the brass knuckle stuff backfires. At least it does with personalities like mine.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Chapter 3 - Penrose/Hameroff
In the first two chapters, Penrose is pretty much in his element. If anyone could translate quantum weirdness into reality, it would be a man who models Black Holes for a living (along with Hawking). And his Penrose Tilings was just something he did as a hobby.
This chapter deals with subjects that Penrose admits could be totally wrong but, in his opinion, are more likely correct than not. However, the ideas are experimentally verifiable. And there have been experiments that have produced some intriguing results.
While he has made some mistakes, they were minor and the Penrose OR and Orch OR models are going strong, IMO. However, Penrose's ideas about consciousness are meeting fierce resistance. I find it ironic that people rationalize that Penrose's ideas about consciousness are totally disconnected from his brilliant work as a physicist. I just don't see a logical discontinuity here.
However, biology isn't Penrose's strong suit, so he teamed up with Dr. Hameroff to produce the Penrose/Hameroff model of consciousness.
As an engineer, I like models. Building a working prototype makes a lot of sense to me. Even if it doesn't fly, you can learn a lot from the failure. I find it refreshing that someone like Penrose would be willing to risk the embarrassment of being clearly in error for the sake of advancing knowledge. I don't know that much about Hameroff other than he ""¦is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his promotion of the scientific study of consciousness". He also appears to be going to a lot of conferences these days.
The first part on the Penrose/Hameroff model depends on Penrose's theories concerning orchestrated objective reduction. The timing for objective reduction, T = ĥ/E, is something that can be tested and, undoubtedly, will be tested. Penrose has proposed an experiment FELIX in an attempt to test this hypothesis.
Even if Penrose is wrong about the details (and I don't think he is) there is a threshold where quantum effects appear to give way to Newtonian physics. We don't see the same quantum weirdness with throwing baseballs around as we do with throwing electrons around.
While this simplifies the situation for Schrödinger's cat it has the potential of complicating things for smaller objects like Tubular Dimers. I found this 1999 presentation where Penrose explains his chain of logic from basic physics to microtubules. However, this presentation is old and Hameroff has mostly taken over explaining the biological explaination and, therefore, I am not as confident that this anesthesiologist is presenting the quantum theory correctly. However, Penrose is obviously backing it and Hameroff generally indicates where he is going beyond what Penrose is supporting.
If I understand correctly, Penrose is supporting the concept that microtubules are probably subjected to quantum level effects that allow them to act as a non-algorithmic processors assisting/creating living consciousness.
Hameroff goes further and suggests that the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion marked the dawning of life's consciousness as a direct result of advantages of microtubule processing. Here is a link that provides a nice summary of the Penrose/Hameroff Model. I suggest anyone interested in understanding this to follow the link.
Here is a link to an experiment trying to verify Penrose/Hameroff…
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
TP, I have a question. Is my understanding correct that Penrose/Hameroff confines itself to explanations involving brain development?
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Hi Vividbleau,
You are my hero. You have made all this effort worth it. At least one other person is seeing what I see. Thanks.
I would quibble about your wording, but if I understand correctly, you are essentially correct about what I am hypothesizing.
As to whether or not this falls under ID. I have this quote from Dr. Dembski that I have been references since my first days at Telic Thoughts…
"…time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don't require God…"
So time traveling, orchestrated principles of quantum mechanics should apply, right?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
No. Penrose/Hameroff implies that any living thing with microtubules has the potential of accessing quantum effects and, therefore, may be "aware" of its surroundings even if it doesn't have nerves or a brain.
This is Hameroff's proposed explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. He suggests that when life on earth became "aware" it dramatically accelerating evolution.
And wait until you see what Hameroff and I have to say about DNA and cellular processes.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I'm looking forward to it. Is Hameroff a deterministic explanation as opposed to one with a stochastic element at its core?
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Chapter 4 - Thought Provoker's ID Model
In an earlier post I was arguing with Joy about whether or not God played dice. Joy responded with"¦ "God does not play dice. God plays a particularly mean game of billiards." I am convinced she is right.
God doesn't play dice because there are no dice.
Imaging playing a dice game on an algorithmic computer that uses a pseudorandom number generator to decide which numbers come up. Even though this game could still be enjoyed by humans incapable of calculating the next number, it is not really random. Pseudorandomness could be used to simulate anything from a dice game to an evolutionary process occurring over billions of years. It wouldn't be actually random, just a simulation of randomness.
Is there such a thing as "natural" randomness?
Leaving living things out of the picture for the moment, any inorganic randomness can be traced to quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics isn't random. It is just non-deterministic.
Quantum weirdness defies algorithmic explanation. Quantum effects are clearly interconnected in space-time to all other quantum effects. The universe is totally interconnected at the quantum level.
It is impossible for one observer to see Schrödinger's cat dead while another one sees it alive so the paradox is prevented from happening in the first place. How? Through non-deterministic NON-RANDOM quantum weirdness.
Don't living things act randomly?
That pool shooting hustler pulled a fast one there. When life needed a randomizer, where do you think she got one? Via quantum mechanics of course. Quantum mechanics has been sewn into the very fabric of what make living things appear to be acting randomly.
Observation doesn't cause "random" objective reduction. It is just quantum weirdness being consistent with itself. The observer isn't acting random.
God plays a particularly mean game of billiards. She uses an invisible cue stick inscribed with the words "quantum weirdness". Not only can't we verify the existence of either her or her cue stick, we aren't even allowed to see the balls until they "poof" into existence right before our eyes via objective reduction.
Dr. Dembski can talk about Universal Probability Bounds all he wants, but unless it is absolutely impossible, God can not only make the shot, she can do it in such a way you won't be able to tell she did it much less how.
And, oh yeah. time is just another dimension of space-time. Quantum consistency includes the past being consistent with the future. Past, present and future are all interconnected. If God needs to, she can reverse cause and effect, retrocausality.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Hi TP. There was a recent article in Nature in which a physicist named Anton Zeilinger had some comments that seem to support some of what is being said in this thread. Have you read the article?
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Bradford:
Mine too. I was a resident on a news corporation's science board, just plodding along with idle talk of dark energy and micro-holes, when a stray infidel happened upon the scene and started spewing the biggest pile of garbage I'd never encountered - your basic juvenile delinquent pretending to be what he wasn't, bringing the whole creationism vs. NDS thing to where it didn't belong.
Googled around a bit and discovered ARN. I lurked for a few weeks just observing who was who and who was saying what, while reading up on actual essays and papers ARN made available. I just couldn't figure out why the supposed 'science' end of the debates felt it had to sink to general bad behavior and outright lies. Weird!
I'd left science decades before after encountering a deep corruption I couldn't abide, but I grew up with science and loved it - that's why I went into science and why I blew the whistle. This new corruption (I'd never noticed it before) was almost worse, because it was such a total charade. Nothing scientific about it, and zero usefulness to humanity.
Meanwhile, I signed up for that UA course in consciousness, seeking whatever 'answers' or hypotheses toward answers science might have in the matter of the first legally adjudicated Miracle I've ever heard of. It was a miracle of consciousness that a dozen scientific experts had testified to in court, and here was a whole nasty public debate going on where the 'scientific' side claimed their theory "proves" God is dead and miracles can't happen. Ha! Lies, lies and more lies.
It was hard on my rusty mind, but the participating 'profs' were patient with my questions and quite engaging. Haven't studied that hard (you should'a seen the reading list!) in a lot of years, but I did learn a lot. What I learned is that science can't answer my questions authoritatively, but there are some very intriguing theoretics out there. Hameroff-Penrose is just one of 'em, but I like it. It sort of goes along with the way I think, even though I am not convinced there are such things as gravitons.
I like Matti Pitkaanen's 8-D TGD model too, because it explains more anomalies than Penrose is brave enough to tackle. He did give Matti some credit in his recent tome, though.
I participate in these discussions because the issues are indeed wide open, I genuinely enjoy the brain stimulation, and I do worry about the damage to science being done by this gross ideological corruption. I keep waiting for the sages to put their collective foot down on the juvenile delinquents, but apparently biology has no sages who aren't ideologically corrupted themselves. The rest of science ought to look into that, because they'll suffer too if the public decides to withdraw their support. It would be a shame if that happened, but it CAN happen if they're pushed hard enough. It won't be religion's fault, but they'll sure reap the benefits.
And like TP, I'm also fond of a good argument. The Irish in me, no doubt. §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I am not clear by what you men when you say that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic? Are you saying nothing determines quantum mechanics?
Vivd
Comment by Vividbleau — June 16, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Bradford, once you get past the "can this be serious?" stage you will find there are a LOT of articles, papers and experiments that support what is being said in this thread. Take a good look at Joy. She knew all of this. I only started looking into it because of the coy breadcrumbs she dropped. Do you recall her talking about "Ghosts in the machine" The first time I heard the term "quantum weirdness' was when she said it. Quantum mechanics are the ghosts of the evolutionary machines. And guess what? I think she was well aware of that.
The problem is that people don't want to believe this can be real and it takes a lot of hard work to understand it. Do you remember me talking about headaches? This stuff is hard to understand. It isn't something you can explain easily. I am giving the briefest of overview on it and it is taking CHAPTERS to explain.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
TP, Hameroff is a medical doctor who specialized in consciousness - as an anasthesiologist, he studied the mechanisms of agents used to 'remove' consciousness (but not life) from patients during operations. He began writing about MTs and their connection to consciousness back in the 1970s, having observed that MT dynamics are disrupted by anesthetic agents (or, the most reliable ones). He first published about the possibility of MTs as quantum computational processors in the early '80s. When it was all so very new, this massive parallel stuff, and you and I were stuck with our TRS-80s or our Vic-20s.
He definitely knows his stuff.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Hot damn, now we're getting somewhere.
First of all, I think it is wise to leave questions of theism versus atheism competely out of this discussion. As TP has pointed out, it's irrelevent in the extreme, and I completely agree.
Now, as to the content of TP's posts, here some first observations:
TP asked:
"Is there such a thing as "natural" randomness?"
Indeed, is there such a thing as "randomness" at all? Like purpose, we all seem to know exactly what we mean by "random," but when we have to explain what it is, or to give an unambiguous empirical method of detecting it, we're out of luck. As we decided toward the end of our evolution-design seminar at Cornell last summer, "purpose" is an extraordinarily slippery concept that seems quite literally to be in the eye (or rather the mind) of the beholder.
Let's take an extremely simple example: consider dropping Rev. Paley's stone (you know, the one he stubs his toe on while crossing the heath). Once it has left your hand, its motion is not random, right? It doesn't sometimes fly upwards, or off to one side, or whatever. So non-random is its motion that we can (like Newton) write equations that describe its motion, and use them to hit other planets with stone-sized devises, despite millions of miles of intervening nothingness.
And yet, despite the motion of the rock being obviously and inarguably non-random, it is also equally clearly not purposeful (once it has left the hand, of course). It does not fall "in order to reach the ground," IOW. So, we concluded that there are a multitude of processes in nature that are non-random, yet non-purposeful (i.e. not "designed").
The point? That non-randomness and purposefulness/design are not the same thing; while there are processes in which their domains overlap, they are not coextensive.
So, non-randomness is NOT necessarily purposeful/designed.
Next: are the domains of purpose/design and determination coextensive? Clearly, according to the empirical record of quantum physics as developed over the past century, the answer is NO. That is, there are events, especially at the quantum level, that are simultaneously non-random, yet non-determined. This observation/realization is at the heart of the "quantum revolution" in physics.
IOW, there are processes in nature that are simultaneously non-random, non-determined, and non-purposeful. Indeed, this is apparently what ALL events are at the quantum level. Why can I say this? Because the concept of "purpose" is necessarily time-bound; it depends on the determination of an "end" prior to the actions that constitute the "means" to that end. But if, as TP has pointed out, time is non-directional at the quantum level, then the entire concept of "purpose" (like the Baker) vanishes softly and suddenly away.
At the quantum level, IOW, means and ends are not separable; they come into being simultaneously.
Now what, pray tell, in biology functions so close to the quantum level as to be almost certainly affected by quantum processes? Why, something very small, made of a surprisingly small number of atoms, in which information is encoded and transmitted over time and space.
Right! The genetic material - DNA and RNA - function at the very surface of the seething ocean of quantum weirdness. Indeed, what natural selection appears to do is to reduce the weirdness of the genetic material to the point that living organisms become possible. Natural selection, in other words, is a non-random, nonn-purposeful, non-deterministic process that ultimately happens at the level of molecules that exist in the domain of entities affected by quantum fluctuations.
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 16, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
TP indicated he would address this issue. I've previously encountered claims impacting NS at a prebiotic level but where are the goods backing the claims?
And the evidence that molecular selection proceeds in the direction of a cell is where?
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Allen:
Ha! You've obviously never seen me try to throw a baseball! §;o)
Um… Now you've confused me. The rock had no purpose when Paley tripped over it, and it doesn't have its own purpose in or out of the hand that throws it. But if the thrower's aim is better than mine, he just might rustle up some dinner with that rock. THAT is a purpose, and all the physics of the force and the arc were plotted (formally or just by practice) by the thrower.
I don't know about you, but when I see a rock fly through my field of vision I don't consider it necessarily purposeless. I look for the person throwing it, in case they might be aiming at me.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Hi Vividbleau,
You asked…
Good question. What I mean is that WE can't determine the reason for a particular objective reduction. "Deterministic" is probably the wrong term. Penrose uses "non-algorithmic". There isn't an algorithm that can calculate an answer. Penrose relies on Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems to support the claim that the root cause of objective reduction will never be known for certain. I am explaining it as the universe being consistent with itself, but that is an observation, not a calculation. It will forever remain impossible for us to mathematically model the entire universe because we will never be able to see past quantum weirdness.
Other quantum interpretations talk about "hidden variables". Properties of nature that will always remain hidden from us. Heisenberg uncertainty principle was something scientifically established in the 1920s. This is old news.
What is potentially new to the evolution debate is that instead of arguing about what is possible via randomness, the question may be what is possible via non-deterministic processes that force consistency within space-time?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hi TP,
There is one part I'm having a little trouble with so far … how are we defining materialism here and where does an explanation break down and is no longer materialistic… ie: what cause is non-materialistic so that we may not evoke it as a valid scientific causation?
I'm only asking this because of the question posed by vividbleau: "are we fighting materialism or are we positing intelligent design." As far as I can tell, even within an atheistic interpretation (one that attempts to stear clear of G**) of ID, one still ends up with non-materialism, if I am understanding the definition of "materialism" correctly.
Of course this brings me back to my original question in this thread: does even this "quantum model" of non-determinism yet non-randomness require consciousness or will or some quality to pre-empt the material world of determinism and "randomness."
And, TP, if there is a way to "deal with free will" raising its ugly head, then my immediate knee jerk reaction is to say: why "deal" with it; why not accept it as fundamental? Or is this only a matter of interpretation and thus not subject to scientific scrutiny? One person may interprete the material and all information processing abilities to arise from some will or consciousness and someone else may interprete it as arising from some non-deterministic and non-random quantum reality. Really … what's the difference?
Oh, and BTW, just to set the record straight … I do not think that "G**" can be the intelligent designer … the universe itself must take that role. However, "G**" is really by definition the conscious designer, the will or the mind behind existence. However, I don't think that is a scientific assertion yet since we can neither model nor create consciousness yet and attribute it to anything pre-material, … yet.
I hope I'm making sense here …
Comment by CJYman — June 16, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hello again TP,
Furthermore if, as you state in you last posting above, that "we will never be able to see past quantum weirdness," and if consciousness is an effect of quantum occurences, then in keeping with my last post, consciousness must be accepted as fundamental. Does this possibly introduce G** thus shattering NOMA?
Just trying to return the favor and provoke some thought.
Comment by CJYman — June 16, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I previously mentioned Zeilinger because he suggested that matter may lack characteristics we have traditionally assigned to matter. Since God is the objection to ID, Zeilinger's views indicate that ID opponents need to be clear as to what is within the realm of the natural. If they are unclear about it in their own minds their "supernatural" conceptions may be likewise skewed. Materialism could be replaced with cause and effect and all would be better served IMO.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Hi CJYman,
You wrote…
Yes, you are. in my first draft of this, the next chapter was labeled "Noma still lives".
I believe you are getting entagled in metaphysical questions. Which is not surprising.
One of Joy's coy hints is that EVERYONE are going to have some of their precious walls come tumbling down. The word "materialism" has been making less and less sense as time goes on. Do you still think matter is matter? It is no more tangible than radio waves and maybe even less tangible than that.
Free Will?
I think that is on the other side of quantum weirdness forever lost from our understanding. I act like I have Free Will. And even if the universe is totally predetermined from beginning to end time, it wouldn't matter if it was since we can never know what the answer is because quantum effects are non-deterministic. And, on top of that, we can't know whether are not the universe is predetermined or not. These questions will forever remain safely on the other side of the NOMA divide.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
CJYman:
TP no doubt has an answer to this, but Penrose's Orch-OR indeed does postulate that consciousness is - or is linked intimately to - a fundamental parameter of space-time. This is panprotopsychism and correlates with that most notable weirdness of quantum weirdness - the fact that 'what' is measured determines 'what' the system collapses into being.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Hi CJYman,
You wrote…
This is where Joy and I start to part ways, I think. But most likely it comes down to definition of terms. Quantum weirdness has the effect to mixing up old concepts. Allen MacNeill touched on that in his comment. Is the universe consciously making things consistent or is it just happening that way? Did the universe have a choice?
In other postings I have said "The purpose of the telic universe is to be internally consistent." Another statement is "consciousness is an artifact of quantum effects".
Then we get into whether or not a rock is conscious because it obviously is affected by quantum effects.
As I stated earlier, there is still plenty to argue about.
BTW, there is a saying about how after their long hard climb up the mountain of knowledge they will find theists already at the peak.
That thought doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have to understand what I believe. A belief in something that happens to be true is not knowledge.
As an atheist, I have no doubt that the religious will spin this into proof of their righteousness. But for now, I suggest we have a cease fire on arguing the metaphysics just a little while longer.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I prefer the term "naturalism" to materialism in these discussions. Materialism implies that matter, or "stuff", in the everyday macro sense, is the bottom layer of reality, which is highly misleading at best. It connotes a host of holdovers from the Newtonian worldview which are obsolete.
Naturalism asserts that there is a single level of reality and there are no outside supernatural interventions in it, without implying that that level of reality is made out of "matter", or anything else. Naturalism is perfectly compatible with quantum mechanics no matter how weird it is, in fact, by definition it has to encompass it.
My sense of IDers is that they try to be noncommital about whether the designer is supernatural (God) or some natural force like aliens. If it's the latter, then of course you have to explain (eventually) how the aliens got there, so a non-supernatural ID doesn't really provide satisfactory answers to the important questions.
Re: retrocausality, iteration and selection can induce effects that look like retrocausality. For instance, anthropic selection among all possible universes looks to an observer as if consciousness has caused the universe to come into being, despite their being no causal link in the normal sense. In the biological process of natural selection, mutations that don't provide any advantage tend to disappear while the functional ones propagate, which can look to a naive observer as if some kind of purposeful generation is going on. But it's an illusion.
Comment by mtraven — June 16, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Chapter 5 - DNA, RNA and other squiggly, wiggly stuff
For the other chapters I had a draft copy. I am winging it for this one.
I haven't done a lot of research on specific models of quantum effects on DNA but it is obvious Hameroff assumes it happens.
Here is a Hameroff discussion titled Quantum Computing in DNA
Whether we are talking about a theist's pool shooting God or an atheist's universe just forcing consistency. Penrose's Orch OR model is practically running DNA processing according to Hameroff.
Another point that transcends metaphysical interpretation. Life is a natural outcome of enabling quantum mechanics. Living things can satisfy the needs of quantum consistency in ways non-living things can't.
Rocks aren't very efficient at doing whatever the universe need done.
OOL becomes easy to explain. The game is rigged. If it can be done, God or a mindless universe, has all the tools it needs with quantum mechanics. There is no such thing as randomness just forced consistency.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
June 17th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Chapter 6 - NOMA still lives
This is the last chapter. I have been attempting to have each chapter be a progression from the non-controversial known to controversial opinions. So the last part will be discussing various opinions.
While Chapter 4 was my model, I purposely tried to stay away from metaphysical implications like Free Will. I think philosophers will have no problem seeing Free Will in the model I described. Finding Free Will in this model will be a piece of cake compared to trying to rationalize Free Will in a model that includes an all-knowing, all-powerful, personal God.
Sobottka made a good stab at presenting a verifiable, single OMA truth based on this model. It bothered me when I first read it. However, during the second read-through I figured out where he crossed the NOMA line. I'm not saying Sobottka did anything unethical or even that he is wrong, just that NOMA continues to live because there are still unknown and unknowable Truths.
If quantum mechanics is truly the embodiment of consciousness then EAM the Truth by definition. Quantum mechanics is part of all matter that make up the universe. Personally, I am taking the more modest approach of assuming consciousness is just an artifact of quantum mechanics. I think of quantum mechanics as a non-deterministic, non-algorithmic, non-local process. A rock has little use for such a thing. It provides some value to quasicrystals. To wiggly, squiggly organic things it gives them an edge in the evolutionary process. To inorganic AI machines, it could cause a paradigm shift and probably will.
Personally, I am still holding on to my multiple NOMA Truths that include an Ultimate Engineer (or Science Fair project) and a purposeless predetermined Mandelbrot Set which I will explain in light of the new reality model.
To expose my Atheistic "true colors", I will start with the purposeless Mandelbrot Set"¦
A Mandelbrot Set appears to be chaotic and "random" yet exposes patterns and design. If you picture the universe from outside space-time you would see time as just another dimension, therefore the universe is unchanging. Past, present, future is all fixed and consistent with itself. There are no discontinuities because the non-algebraic "equations" don't provide for it. The past is interwoven with the future. Time travel/retrocausality can and does happen but it doesn't cause a conflict because the whole Mandelbrot picture is unchanging. The universe just is.
God is an equally valid as a metaphysical model, IMO…
I can easily hold the notion that the universe is the Ultimate Invention of the Ultimate Engineers. For this non-engineer, I sometimes refer to it as a Supernatural Science Fair Project. The more I understand the more I am impressed. Surely a creation like this is worth a blue ribbon. But I can't know since I have nothing to compare it to even if I did, I wouldn't be able to fully appreciate either. But what about the fine tuning argument? Do you still think chance has anything to do with this? There are no dice. At least none we can see. This universe may be the only Mandelbrot Set that works. It is also possible that a designer got to choose. Either way, we will never know.
I am content with understanding, and being impressed by, the invention. If there is an inventor, I think it is a reasonable assumption that this is the best way to show our appreciation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 17, 2007 @ 12:19 am
June 17th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Hi All,
That conclude the lecture portion of this thread.
I would hope for a fairly even balance of science and metaphysics but I know this is wishful thinking on my part.
What I really want is lots of comments. Say that you hate it. Say that you love it. Say that you don't believe it. Say that I am a quantum quack.
Just say something to show us you are thinking!
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 17, 2007 @ 12:26 am
June 17th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Hi mtraven,
You wrote…
I think I understand what you are getting at. But what do you call something that you know is unknowable and, therefore, untestable?
I am suggesting we will never be able to know what is on the other side of quantum weirdness.
Even Hawking is agreeing that his multiple universe concept is metaphysical.
Let me put it another way. What is left to be called "supernatural" E.S.P.? precognition? Ghosts? Communicating with the dead?
All of these are possibile with quantum weirdness but untestible because quantum weirdness is non-deterministic.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 17, 2007 @ 12:39 am
June 17th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Wow …Im speechless…I dont know what to say lol….
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 17, 2007 @ 3:20 am
June 17th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
Godel himself believed his incompleteness theorems showed that since non-algorithmic things exist, naturalism is, of logical necessity, false.
Rebecca Goldstein's fine little book explains his thinking quite nicely.
Comment by stunney — June 17, 2007 @ 5:27 am
June 17th, 2007 at 5:45 am
TP,
It is way cool that Joy's comments prompted all this research on your part and here we are having this nontypical thread.
I was also excited to read about the endogenous adaptive mutation theory because, while I probably don't fully agree with it, it is exactly the sort of idea my own intuitions are groping towards.
Free will or the lack thereof is beyond my ken…
Now-
CJYMan asks if our definitions of materialism leave material behind, and Bradford suggests that "matter may lack characteristics we have traditionally assigned to matter" thus leaving definitions of natural and supernatural ever more confused.
And you, TP, say that "The word "materialism" has been making less and less sense as time goes on. Do you still think matter is matter? It is no more tangible than radio waves and maybe even less tangible than that."
Meanwhile mtraven gives forth a most interesting sentence, which soared straight to the clouds and then took a disappointing nosedive without so much as a comma to warn me, before leveling off again:
And you want a ceasefire on arguing metaphysics?
What metaphysics? There are no metaphysics! There is only Reality. One reality. Not two. Whatever happens within it is obviously integral to it. This is where mtraven started out so promising. But what's this about "outside supernatural intervention" Of course there is no outside intervention, because there is no outside to reality.
First off, let's talk about natural versus supernatural effects. There is only one real divide I can see. We have that which inanimate forces and objects can come up with, and then there are sentient beings who do things to inanimate matter such as build birds' nests, or computers, or perhaps bring a universe into being. If a bird can gather twigs and build a nest, so should a universal quantum mind bring a universe into being without being rejected and relegated to some impossible realm called supernatural. There really can't be any division between matter and mind or spirit. Because if there was there would be no way through that gap, so that mind or spirit could never influence matter in any way. So, the idea of spiritual versus material lacks any meaning. Naturally, there may not be any fundamental consciousness or spirit, but if there is, it's not "outside".
What I like about this kind of scientific inquiry that you are doing and that I see going on in several disciplines (except academic Darwinistic biology) is that by starting out with a hardnosed and semi-atheistic stance, the ancient mystical notion of the unity of all reality is actually going to come back, like the person whose house was such a mess that he threw everything out in the yard and selectively took things back in one by one.
In an odd way, my monistic stance - everything is God; God is the only reality - is almost akin to atheism. The difference is, I think there's a lot more going on than they do.
My assessment of reality is that it is totally spiritual, yet I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of the nonphysical or nonmaterial, no matter how ephemeral matter turns out to be.
So this is where mtraven's sentence levels off again to an interesting idea, that of not labeling reality as material or nonmaterial. I have no doubt that ESP is real, and I have no doubt it is physical, and that we will uncover its medium. It is my understanding that those things which people are calling nonmaterial are simply workings of so subtle a nature that they are outside the purview of our senses, our new tools, or our knowledge.
I actually think, TP, and I hope this pleases you, that the tiny dimensions which have been proposed, and which may begin at planck length, are none other than the doorway into what has been called the spiritual or nonmaterial world.
But what stumps me and Anaxagoras and which I think your retrocausality loop does not really address is: Why existence? How existence?
It may seem amusing to say that matter is insubstantial, but yet to be physical in some way is really what existence is, and at the very least we can assert that it is not nothing.
Comment by onething — June 17, 2007 @ 5:45 am
June 17th, 2007 at 5:50 am
il stunno:
Godel himself also believed that his food was being poisoned and starved himself to death. Geniuses can be wrong on occasion.
Comment by Raevmo — June 17, 2007 @ 5:50 am
June 17th, 2007 at 6:36 am
That was a thoughtful comment onething. Trouble is brewing for empirical disciplines whenever one insists a particular metaphysical view is "reality." One of the difficulties with the natural concept is increasing difficulty in defining it at a quantum level.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2007 @ 6:36 am
June 17th, 2007 at 6:43 am
TP wrote:
Hi TP,
This is not an example of retrocausality. You grab the umbrella because you think it is going to rain. The thought causes you to carry the umbrella, not the future rain. Normal causality.
There are times when you think it is going to rain, but it does not. When you grab your umbrella on such an occasion, it is obviously because of the thought that it might rain, not because of the (nonexistent) rain itself.
Comment by keiths — June 17, 2007 @ 6:43 am
June 17th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Hi TP. This is a critical juncture for me. You wrote:
I do not doubt the utility of quantum based explanations for some features of DNA. But I have yet to see an explanation for the central defining feature of DNA found in life forms- its specificity in mapping sequential nucleotide order to biological function. An encompassing theory needs to account for the origin of this. Perhaps Penrose's Orch OR model does this but if so I have not seen the smoking gun. It could be that my eyesight is not good enough but at least my eyes are open and receptive to possibilities.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2007 @ 6:46 am
June 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hi All,
I like your comments. A nice father's day gift. Thank You.
I will reply to your thoughts individually.
However, please don't act like this is my idea. I am just an editor gathering up bits and pieces of what other people are saying and presenting it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 17, 2007 @ 10:50 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Undertanding the relationship between the codons in mRNA and the amino acids in proteins is the key to understanding the origin of life. There are logically only two possibilities for the origin of this relationship:
(1) The relationship between codon and amino acid is entirely arbitrary.
That is, the relationship between any given codon and the amino acid for which it codes is the same as the relationship between the English/Roman letter "A" and the sound we make when we see that letter. There is no necessary relationship between the letter "A" and the sound it signifies. If there were, the English/Roman alphabet would be the only one that could possibly exist, and no other letter (or ideogram, or whatever) could possibly be substituted for the letter "A" when the sound of the letter "A" is spoken. In this interpretation of the genetic code, the code is entirely symbolic; specific codons are symbols for specific amino acids, and the code could literally have been anything at all. According to this interpretation, for example, the codon AUG could just as easily have coded for serine or glutamate or tryptophan as for methionine. The fact that it codes for methionine is, IOW, a historical accident.
(2) The relationship between codon and amino acid is at least partially necessary.
That is, there is something about the chemistry (i.e. the arrangement and interactions between the atoms) of the various codons that determines which of the amino acids for which it codes. According to this interpretation, the codons are not arbitrarily associated with particular amino acids, and therefore the code as a whole has necessary relationships with the amino acids for which it codes.
The $64,000 question in OOL research is, which of these interpretations is more consistent with the data? The jury is still out on this question, but let us consider just one aspect of it, one that anyone who has spent some time musing over the genetic code eventually stumbles across.
What are the most important codes in any regulated process? They are the "regulatory codes" - that is, the codes that turn the process on and off. In RNA, these are the so-called "start" and "stop" codons. If the code were really completely arbitrary, then these should be completely random selections of the four bases in RNA: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and U (uracil). However, the regulatory codons in RNA are not random three-base selections from those four, they are:
AUG "“ the "start" codon, which codes for the amino acid methionine
UAA \
UAG "“ the "stop" codons, which do not code for any amino acid
UGA /
Are there any patterns noticeable in these four codons (i.e. is there anything about these codons that suggest that they are not entirely arbitrary)? Yes:
(1) They do not include cytosine at all
(2) Two of the stop codons "wobble"; that is, the third base doesn't matter in UAA and UAG (the third base can be left off without changing the codon's function)
(3) The stop codons all begin with U (uracil)
(4) Three of the four codons have all three bases; the exception is the first "stop" codon, which has only U and A
The point here is not to focus on the details, but to see the "big picture" "“ that the code is not entirely arbitrary, else there would be no patterns to these codons at all.
Further examination of the code and its relationship to amino acids indicates the following:
(5) Some amino acids have a selective chemical affinity for the base triplets that code for them (see Knight, R.D. and Landweber, L.F. (1998). Rhyme or reason: RNA-arginine interactions and the genetic code. Chemistry & Biology 5(9), R215-R220, a pdf of which is available here: http://bayes.colorado.edu/Pape...)
(6) Much circumstantial evidence has been found to suggest that fewer different amino acids were used in the past than today (see Brooks, Dawn J.; Fresco, Jacques R.; Lesk, Arthur M.; and Singh, Mona. (2002). Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19, 1645-1655)
Again, there is mounting evidence supporting the hypothesis that the genetic code is not arbitrary, but rather depends upon the chemistry of RNA and amino acids. If this is the case, then the origin of the genetic code does not present an "irreducibly complex" system that requires an intelligent designer. Rather, it simply requires the chemical elements as they exist in nature (with their respective chemical, physical, and topological properties).
Now, obviously, this can still be compatible with a "front-loaded" hypothesis of "intelligent design," but the "front loading" would therefore consist of simply specifying the various elements and their chemical, physical, and topological properties…which is perilously close to classical deism.
Which brings us once again to the philosophical implications of these observations. If the universe approximates the universe as described by deists, then it is a universe in which no "supernatural" entity or force participates in anything following its creation, and therefore one in which morals/ethics have no "built in" justification that can be grounded in the intentions of such a supernatural entity. It is, IOW, a universe in which the actions and intentions of a supernatural "intelligent designer" do not matter (pun intended, of course), and in which the interactions between natural objects and processes require no "outside" ordering input.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 17, 2007 @ 11:01 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:14 am
That is hardly obvious, and physicists do not agree. There are consistent interpretations that allow for true randomness, or not. There are consistent interpretations that allow for determinism, or not. Bell's Theorem implies that if quantum mechanics is true, then local realism is not"”except in multi-worlds.
There is, at this time, no way to empirically distinguish between these many different interpretations.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2007 @ 11:14 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Hi Stunney,
I thought Raevmo had an interesting come back. I don't know if either factoid is correct, but frankly I don't care. Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems stand by themselves regardless of what the originiator thought. This isn't an appeal to authority. They could be called Mickey Mouse's incompleteness theorems and they would still be usable.
Unfortunately, the incompleteness theorems can be misused and some people think Penrose is misusing them. Here is a link from Planet Math that talks about it…
This is where I pretend that I understand all of this and suggest there are limits to what Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems tell us. However, they do tell us that a system, like quantum mechanics can be forever "incomplete".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 17, 2007 @ 11:15 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am
You can't. And you're not.
Axioms are 'proven' by definition, and only after being added to the system as axioms. Or they are proven with reference to another system and its axioms. This is a serious conflation of the technical use of the word 'prove' and 'axiom' in logic theory.
PS. I'm not trying to rain on your parade. Some of your ideas are, indeed, thought provoking. But I'm sure you would agree that they garner more deserved interest if they are plausible rather than fanciful.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2007 @ 11:32 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hi Onething,
You wrote…
I understand that it is literally impossible not to get into metaphysical arguments when talking about quantum mechanics. Zachriel's comment touches on some of why. The terms Penrose chooses to use is framing a metaphysical argument.
I am still holding on to NOMA. I see a practical divide. For all practical purposes, the unknowable might as well be metaphysical. As far as mental dualism and monism is concerned, I am probably leaning more towards monism with quantum effects providing the power.
You call it a "doorway" I call it an impassible boundary. I clear boundary between the "physical" and the "metaphysical".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 17, 2007 @ 11:39 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:45 am
TP:
By Jove, you've managed quite the feat of reduction here! In a useful way, rather than the usual way of reductionist biology that likes to stop before it descends into weirdness.
Now the philosophizing steps up to dance, the icons of belief get (perhaps) rearranged in their order on top of the table. But before that goes too far, I'd like to interject that "other" weirdness you got somewhat excited about as these ideas lit a fire in your mind, then neglected in your model.
Perhaps they're not necessary for your purposes here. Perhaps they're too daunting and require headaches you'd rather avoid. But it is true that when I discovered the new multidisciplinary quest for consciousness, before I took the UA course with Hameroff and Penrose and Stapp and Chalmers and Scott [et al.], I was seeking whatever science might know about a Miracle.
That miracle really happened, right here in reality. It became a finding of fact in a court of law, attested to by some expensive 'scientific experts'. Science and medicine, the jury was told, have no explanations for such anomalies. Both would insist upon the impossibility of such an event, were it not abundantly evidenced and witnessed by so many.
And here is where there is serious requirement for "More." Not just more reality, but also more Mind. You say we cannot leap the sub-quantum divide, that this is not a realm beneath our table but is outside our little room entirely. I do not believe this is so, because I've been there. I've seen it in action.
We will never 'see' a graviton, we have no instruments fine enough to measure a Planck. Yet we use both to pin our theories, and our math describes for us their precise nature. You accept that Penrose has a theory relying upon this postulated realm, and that it explains very much. So I'll go ahead and insert here a caution about this realm…
There be monsters here. Whole new dimensions of influence, and of being. They might - it is theoretically possible - go on forever. You've met 4 dimensions and have nearly held time in your hand. Care to try for 8, or are 4 good enough for gub'ment work? §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 17, 2007 @ 11:45 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Now, as to the importance of microtubules. It is clear that microtubules are essential for the origin and evolution of eukaryotes, but they are essentially irrelevent to the origin and evolution of prokaryotes. Eukaryotic cellular structure, function, and especially reproduction (vio mitosis) would be impossible without microtubules. In other words, the origin of microtubules must precede (or at most be simultaneous with) the origin of eukaryotic cells.
This is interesting on two counts:
(1) Between the origin of life (about 3.8 billion years ago) and the origin of eukaryotic cells (about 1 billion years ago) stretches the vast majority of the history of the planet Earth. For almost three billion years the Earth was inhabited by pond scum "“ unicellular, prokaryotic bacteria-like organisms that had virtually no cellular organelles and which lacked the microtubules that give eukaryotic cells their extraordinary diversity in structure and function. This is a lot of time for the "engines of variation" and natural selection to come up with the basic eukaryotic cell plan. For example, it's about four times as long as it took for life to originate on Earth.
(2) It dovetails nicely with the emerging theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells, as most clearly worked out by Lynn Margulis. Lynn has pointed out that the membranous internal organelles of eukaryotic cells clearly have two separate origins: some of them (the nuclear envelope, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus, and microbodies) are derived from infoldings of the outer ("plasma") membrane, whereas the rest are derived from symbiotic prokaryotes (the mitochondria, chloroplasts, and undulapodia). Furthermore, she emphasizes a little-recognized property of the endoplasmic reticulum: it sequesters calcium ions.
Calcium ions interfere with the integration of tubulin units into microtubules. Therefore, without the endoplasmic reticulum, microtubules cannot form. With it, they can. This, in turn, results in the ability of the endoplasmic reticulum to regulate intracellular calcium. This is essential in eukaryotes, as calcium is necessary for some eukaryotic cellular processes, but toxic to others.
Cells that could sequester calcium ions in a relatively insoluble form (and dissolve it for later use) would therefore have a significant advantage over cells that could not do this. The obvious way to do this is to precipitate the stored calcium in the form of calcium salts, principally calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate.
And so the now-infamous "cambrian explosion" is not what it appears to be. Rather than marking a sudden increase in the diversity of eukaryotic organisms, it marks an increase in their fossils. This is because it coincides with the evolution of hard body parts "“ hard because they contain calcium salts, which resist decay following death and which allow the formation of fossils in a way that non-calcium containing body parts do not.
In other words, the "cambrian explosion" is simply a side-effect of the elaboration of the metabolism of calcium, which began a half billion years earlier in the evolution of the endoplasmic reticulum and its ability to regulate intracellular calcium.
Once again, all of this depends fundamentally on the chemical, physical, and topological properties of calcium and its salts. These chemical, physical, and topological properties are what we refer to as "natural" properties, by which we mean that they have no "hidden" or "supernatural" dimensions.
So, was the evolution of microtubules (and therefore the subsequent evolution of eukaryotes, including us) "necessary?" If by that term one means "natural" (as in explainable with reference to purely natural causes) the answer is clearly "yes." Does this mean that the evolution of eukaryotes was therefore inevitable, given the nature of chemistry, etc.?
Once again, that's the important question: personally, I am inclined to say "yes," based simply on the observation that it clearly happened (and may have happened more than once). In other words, the "engines of variation" that I have discussed elsewhere are not "random," but rather are constrained by the properties of matter, energy, and time themselves.
This means that the "equation" for evolution is:
"non-random engines of variation" + natural selection & massive genetic drift
i.e. not RM + NS
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 17, 2007 @ 11:47 am
June 17th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Hi Keiths,
You wrote…
It's my model and I can define "retrocausality" anyway I want to.
However, you are right. My example can be explained in the normal cause and effect relationship. But where did the "thought" come from? We are back to consciousness.
I will tell you what. If you can find an inorganic, artificial neural network that