I see that Nick Matzke has just declared war. Well, okay, if it's war he wants, it's war he gets. But I can see that his first shot is a good one and I'm not sure I can top the cuteness factor of Nick's incoming. But I will return fire:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
August 10th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Mike,
A guest host post candidate (if you are interested)…
The Magic of Intelligent Design
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of The Future
One of the biggest obstacles to accepting ID hypotheses as scientific endeavors is their appeal to magic-like mechanisms. But what if a magic-like aspect in nature has been around so long that we don't see it for the magic it is? I suggest what we think of as randomness is, for all practical purposes, magic.
Let's take a hypothetical coin, we flip it, it comes up heads. We note that.
We flip it again, it comes up heads again, We note the pattern (two heads in a row).
We flip it again, it comes up tails.
The pattern is broken. Why? Is it "magic"
We don't think of it that way because we are conditioned to expect flipped coins to "randomly" come up heads or tails even when we flip them in the exact same manner. The same would be true if we used a perfectly repeating mechanical device to flip the coin. Assuming the coin was perfectly balanced, the results would not be a pattern. A perfectly repeatable (deterministic) setup is impossible because quantum level effects are non-deterministic.
However, are quantum level effects random?
Before we try to answer that question, let's go back to flipping coins. This time we will flip three special coins. These special coins have an interesting aspect. They appear to respond to what is called. If "heads" is called at least one of the three coins will be heads. If "tails" is called, at least one of the three coins will be tails. After thousands and thousands of tests, the coins have never failed to do this. Further more, when "heads" are called all three coins will be heads one out of four times (not one out of eight). When "tails" are called all three coins will be tails one out of four times. At no time are all three coins heads when "tails" is called and at no time are all three coins tails when "heads" is called.
The thousands of consistent and repeatable experiments convinces even the most skeptical or scientist that the special coins are, indeed, special.
More experiments are preformed. It turns out that calling or "heads" or "tails" can be delayed until after the coins have landed (as long as no peeking is involved).
Further experiments show that three different people can flip the three coins separately. This exposed an very interesting property of the special coins. If the three people all call the same (either "heads" or "tails") then at least one of them gets what they call and, sometimes, all three of them get what they called as would be expected. However, if they don't call the same, sometimes none of them get what they call (happens one out of four times).
Once all the permutations are cataloged the special nature of the coins become even more apparent. The state of the third coin can be absolutely predicted after the first two coins are called and exposed.
For example, imagine the coins flipped and on the table with each of the three people covering it with their hands. The first person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is tails. The second person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is also tails. The third coin will ALWAYS be heads regardless of what the third person calls.
The experiment is reran, but this time the first two people call "tails" and their coins show tails again. The third coin will ALWAYS be tails regardless of what the third person calls.
Note that the third coin's state depended on what the other two people called NOT the whether the coins were heads or tails.
These special coins are special indeed. What natural explanations would explain the coin's behavior? Here are the non-metaphysical possibilities…
1. The third coin "magically" predicted the future.
2. The third coin "magically" changed state at the last moment
3. The coins are "magically" linked to people's consciousness
The magic described here is basically the reality of Greenberger"“Horne"“Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states. Instead of calling heads or tails, the observers decide which of quantum state (e.g. horizontal polarization) to measure. This magic-like effect has been experimentally tested and verified countless times. Its reality is not in question.
Even though quantum effects are non-deterministic they aren't random.
You might ask what quantum level effects have to do with Intelligent Design.
First of all, it goes to show that magic-like effects can be scientific. There is also reason to believe quantum effects where instrumental to function in early life on Earth (front loaded?).
Recently, it was discovered that photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics. Photosynthesis is an extremely old biological mechanism.
DNA is being used as building blocks for quantum computers and the DNA structure and "code" is optimal for processing search algorithms. DNA/RNA defines what is or isn't considered a living organism.
Finally, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness hypothesizes that consciousness is an artifact of quantum processing in microtubules. Microtubules are instrumental in living structures and organisms that appear to be aware of their surroundings.
Personally, I have serious criticisms concerning the apparent motives and past actions of the ID Movement, but it would be a mistake to dismiss all challenges to orthodox thinking as simply an appeal to the metaphysical because it may turn out that the magic is real.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 10, 2007 @ 12:24 am
August 10th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Your skills are no match for the Power of the Cute Side.
Comment by nickmatzke — August 10, 2007 @ 1:52 am
August 10th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Hi TP,
Sure, I'd be happy to guest host this. But, I'll probably wait until Monday, as our traffic takes a significant dip during the weekends.
Comment by MikeGene — August 10, 2007 @ 10:21 am
August 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Matzke:
Ha!!! All your cuties are belong to us, Sith dog!
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Awwww…
I hope Bambi doesn't hurt Thumper. It looked like he came close to stepping on him at one point.
Comment by Crandaddy — August 10, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Don't worry, Crandaddy. Godzilla's in the wings… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Hi TP. Your comment inspired this.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2007 @ 10:42 am
August 11th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I am glad you liked it.
I am often surprised when I say something that appears obvious to me and it turns out to provoke thoughts in other. [Yes, Doug, that sounded arrogant too]
Specifically, I wasn't sure about this one. I was attempting to present a less technical sounding explanation of quantum GHZ state experiments with something that people could relate too, flipping "magical" coins. It had the potential of being a "flop", instead.
I am encouraged by your response. It looks like you understood the point I have been trying to make.
MikeGene has generously offered to post this on TT. If it is not stepping on anybody's toes and MikeGene agrees, I wouldn't mind you, Bradford, posting it as a Guest Post because of your interest. Feel free to put your spin in the introduction.
Meanwhile I will post a comment on your blog.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 11, 2007 @ 11:06 am
August 11th, 2007 at 11:20 am
TP:
TP, I just enabled comments so you can post one.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2007 @ 11:20 am