RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Comparing Dembski and Mike Gene, Story of two attempts to infer design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2008,22:07   

Let me start by asking for forgiveness for the length of this post.  It will take a lot to show the difference between smoke and mirrors BS and what I think it an honest attempt.

Unlike most people I think there is some room for giving the benefit of a doubt to a select few ID proponents.  Specifically, Mike Gene.

Mike and I disagree on a lot of things.  But I think he is sincerely trying to approach the ID question honestly.  I think of him as an ID scientist even though Mike doesn't claim ID is science.

My opinion of Dembski probably matches those of you who detest the ID Movement.

Here is your chance to reward sincere effort, even if you think the effort is valueless.  Listen and understand what I am presenting.  For those of you who only want to blindly defend the status quo, please don't bother those willing to think for themselves.  I wish you all the luck in fighting the Culture War against those who are your mirror opposites.  You all deserve each other.

Mike Gene's book, The Design Matrix finally came out a month ago.  I have read it.  It is not bad.  It is the best pro-ID book I have seen by far (wasn't that hard).  Mike actually presents his arguments.  They are understandable.  Discussing it isn't like nailing jello to the wall.  Mike builds to his conclusion in the last chapter (Chapter 10) which is a proposed methodology for inferring design. Please consider getting Mike's book and reading it for yourselves.  It is available for $16.47 at Amazon

"The Design Matrix is a method by which you can score a particular feature according to four different criteria to assess and quantify the strength of a design inference."

The four criteria are…

1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?

By necessity, this is going to be an oversimplification of Mike's process. I very much encourage people to get The Design Matrix to read how Mike explains that, while subjective, this method has similarities of scoring in the Olympics along with medical and other scientific circumstances.

Mike chooses to use a system of scoring -5, -4, …, -1, 0, +1, …, +4, +5 for each criteria. In addition to matching the duck versus rabbit theme prevalent throughout the book (-5 = "looks like a duck", +5 = "looks like a rabbit") it also allows for the balanced position being "0".

Mike's first example is to test the book, itself, for a design inference.

"Since the book is perfectly analogous with other books that are known to be designed, we can give it a Analogy score of 5. As for Discontinuity, I can safely say that there is no hurricane, volcano, beam of energy, or any other non-teleological force that can substitute for me as author. As such, the writings found within are fundamentally discontinuous with anything known to be caused by non-teleological processes found in nature. The book thus deserves a Discontinuity score of 5. When we turn to the criterion of Rationality … I'll humble myself and take a mere score of 4. … I'll give myself a Foresight score of 3."

Mike's explanation for the Foresight score is longer than I wish to type. I guess you will just have to get the book if you want to know.  ;)

The resultant score for inferring the book itself is designed is 4.25, near a "strong" indicator of design.

Mike provides 6 other examples of the Design Matrix method being applied to real world situations.

"[A] pseudogene, a string of nucleotides that has no function [has a] Design Matrix score of -4.5".

"I would give the genetic code an overall Design Matrix score of 3."

In the book, Mike goes into detail as to how he arrived at these numbers.

Right away you will note Mike's approach is significantly different from Mr-I-don't-do-pathetic-details.

In 2005 Dembski wrote a paper called Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence

While Dembski has filled it with a lot of bombastic smoke and slight of hand, there is enough meat to actually understand it which I have taken the time to do.  I believe there are several critiques demonstrating the weaknesses of this paper.

However, until Mike Gene's proposal, it was the only game in town.  Asking IDists to give it up was like... well... asking them to repudiate God.

We have been having an interesting discussion over a Telic Thoughts comparing Dembski's method to Mike's.

When I couldn't shame any Dembski supporter into providing an example like Mike did, I supplied my own and used both methods to attempt to infer design.  Here is the updated version (the one in TT had some minor errors)....

------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s play YAHTZEE!

For those unfamiliar with the game. Yahtzee is a dice game where you roll five dice in an attempt to get certain patterns. Each player gets three chances to get a pattern they need.

In the real Yahtzee game there are 13 different patterns to choose from. For this exercise, we will simplify it to four patterns. The four patterns are…

1. Yahtzee = all five dice are the some (i.e. five of a kind)
worth 50 points

2. Straight = five dice in a sequence (i.e. 1 thru 5 or 2 thru 6)
worth 40 points

3. Full House = pair and three of a kind (e.g. Two 4s and Three 6s)
worth 25 points

4. Chance = none of the above
worth the total of the dice

As in the real Yahtzee game players must score one of the patterns each turn. A score of “0” must be used if the pattern does not match. In our simple game, the maximum total score is 145 points (50 + 40 + 25 + 30). The player with the highest total score wins.

My little sister and I used to play Yahtzee alot. Being the brat she was, she would cheat if she thought she could get away with it. In this hypothetical example, I will be using the two design inference methodologies to detect cheating by my sister.

From page 21 of Dembski's paper…

X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)]

Where…
X = "context-dependent specified complexity"
M = Number of throws
N = Number of dice
T = Pattern
?S(T) = Number of T-like patterns in the Semiotic agent’s lexicon.
P(T|H) = Probability of pattern T happening according to H

The Semiotic agent’s basic lexicon is…
“Yahtzee” (five dice all the same)
“Straight” (five dice in sequence)
“Full House” (a pair and a three of a kind)
“One”
“Two”
“Three”
“Four”
“Five”
“Six”

The lexicon provides for different patterns having different probabilities yet be able to fully describe any single throw. For example the “One”, “Two”, “Three”, “Four”, “Five” throw could be simplified to “Straight” whereas “Two”, “Five”, “One”, “Six”, “Four” can’t be reduced to a simpler pattern. Both throws have equal probably but one is more specified than the other.

First Turn

The practical application is a situation where my sister and I are playing Yahtzee in the livingroom. We set up the game and I go to the kitchen to get a drink. My sister rolls the dices and yells out that she got “Four”, “Five”, “One”, “Six”, “Four”, I say “fine”. Mathematically ?S(T) is 7779 (3+6^5) since the lexicon we are using doesn’t allow for a pattern reduction in this situation.

X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)]
M = 1 (first throw)
N = 5 (five dice)
?S(T) = 7779
P(T|H) = 1/7776 (five dice have 7776 permutations)

X = –log2[ 1 • 5 • 7779 • 1 / 7776 ] = slightly negative, definitely less than 1

My sister shouts, “I’m keeping the fours” and rolls the three dice then says “I got another four, a six and a two”. I say “fine”.

X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)]
M = 2 (second throw)
N = 4 (average four dice per throw)
?S(T) = 7779
P(T|H) = 1/216 (three dice have 216 permutations)

X = –log2[ 2 • 4 • 7779 • 1 / 216 ] = negative, less than 1

My sister shouts, “I’m rolling the last two dice” and rolls the pair of dice then says “I got a pair of fives, full house!”. I say “you got lucky”.

X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)]
M = 3 (third throw)
N = 3.33 (average 3.333 dice per throw)
?S(T) = 9
P(T|H) = 1/36 (two dice have 36 permutations)

X = –log2[ 3 • 3.333 • 9 • 1 / 36 ] = negative, less than 1

According to Dembski’s methodology I should not infer that my sister cheated.

What about the Design Matrix?

Analogy – this situation isn’t similar to how my little sister cheats. She usually isn’t that subtle, however I am in the kitchen. We will score it a -2.

Discontinuity – The full house evolved over three throws. Score it a -4

Rationality – Big help to my sister’s score but not the best, Score it a +3

Foresight – Full House isn’t that hard to get, doesn’t overly predict a future need, score it a 0

Average score = -0.75 Looks like a lucky duck

Both methods infer that my sister didn’t cheat.

Second Turn

After this I take my turn and notice I forgot to put ice in my drink and return to the kitchen. My sister rolls again and yells out that she got a “Three”, “Three”, “Three”, “Three”, “Three”. I respond with “I think you cheated”. This time the lexicon allowed for pattern reduction to something the Semiotic agent (me) could recognize as a “Yahtzee”. In this case ?S(T) is 9.

X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)]
M = 4 (fourth throw)
N = 3.75 (average 3.75 dice per throw)
?S(T) = 9
P(T|H) = 6/7776 (only six of the 7776 permutations are a Yahtzee)

X = –log2[ 4 • 3.75 • 9 • 6 / 7776 ] = 3.26 = greater than 1

Dembski’s method suggests Design (cheating) should be inferred

What about the Design Matrix?

Analogy – this situation is exactly how my little sister usually cheats. We will score it a +5.

Discontinuity – First roll means scoring it a +5

Rationality – The ultimate help to my sister’s score, another +5 score

Foresight – A straight is actually harder to get than a Yahtzee, but a Yahtzee is still hard and, therefore, useful for the future. Score it a +3

Average score = +4.5 Looks like a wascally rabbit (who cheats)

Both methods infer that my sister cheated.

Third Turn

Being the nice brother I am, I let my sister get away with it and we continue playing. To my utter amazement, on her very next turn she throws five ones.

X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)]
M = 5 (fifth throw)
N = 4 (average 4 dice per throw)
?S(T) = 9
P(T|H) = 6/7776 (only six of the 7776 permutations are a Yahtzee)

X = –log2[ 5 • 4 • 9 • 6 / 7776 ] = 2.85 = greater than 1

Dembski’s method suggests Design (cheating) should be inferred

What about the Design Matrix?

Analogy – my little sister has never cheated this well before, but maybe she has practiced. We will score it a -4.

Discontinuity – First roll means scoring it a +5

Rationality – This doesn't help my sister since she already has a Yahtzee, a -5 score.

Foresight – She needs a straight, this is of no future help, another -5 score

Average score = -2.25 making it a duck

Dembski’s method infers my sister cheated.

The Design Matrix infers she did not.

What do you think?

As Fox News would say “We report, you decide”

-----------------------------------------------------------

Other than mixing "Design" with "Context-sensitive Specified Complexity" I feel I have appropriately applied Dembski's method.  Please ask for clarification on either method and I will try to explain it the best I can. Like I said, I have taken the effort to understand Dembski's paper.

I don't want to get too far into trying to defend Mike's method.  My point here is to point out that Mike is making an honest effort at communicating a real idea as compared to the snake oil salesman approach of Dembski.

Here is the link to the Telic Thought thread where we are discussing it.  You might want to take a look at it.  I think some people might be squirming over the comments.

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2008,23:06   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 04 2008,22:07)
Let me start by asking for forgiveness for the length of this post.  It will take a lot to show the difference between smoke and mirrors BS and what I think it an honest attempt.
...

"The Design Matrix is a method by which you can score a particular feature according to four different criteria to assess and quantify the strength of a design inference."

The four criteria are…

1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon? ...


In other words, the Design Matrix is ("It looks that way to Mike Gene")^4.

That isn't all that different from, say, Dembski's approach in NFL of calling the same probability three different things and multiplying them together to get some measure of improbability.

So, which is the smoke and mirrors?

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,01:06   

Copied from Telic Thoughts.link

Hi Bradford,

Several comments ago, you asked me a curious question...
 
Quote
Are you being coached?


I didn't know what to make of it at the time, if I understand your meaning the answer is "No, I am not being coached."  After reflecting on its implication I am taking it as a compliment.

Yes, what you see is what you get. I have no one backing me up.  I did the research myself,  These are my actual opinions.  These are my words (sometimes misspelled).  I am an "army of one".

No one is whispering instructions in my ear.  Practically the only e-mail "Thought Provoker" gets comes from the Thought Provoker blog.  No one on either side of the ID debate knows who I am other than through these two contact points.

Now, you have contacted my Thought Provoker e-mail to setup my Guest Hosting on your blog, twice (and I appreciated that).

The only ID critic to ever directly contact Thought Provoker was Creeky Belly to question me about my thoughts concerning quantum physics.

Since day one, my clear agenda has been to provoke independent thinking.  I am not asking people to follow me.  I don't want people to follow anyone.  The cure to dogmatic thinking is discouraging group think.  You don't do that by engaging in group think yourself.

It could be argued that Joy has coached me this the past.  But all our conversations have been public.  Joy has made it quite clear that she thinks I am wasting my breath here.

She has tried to patently tell me that this is one big arena where everyone has chosen sides and will forever remain faithful to their dogma to the bitter end.

Maybe she is right.  But I am enough of a Don Quixote type that I get satisfaction out of trying my best.  People may laugh at my tilting at windmills but damn if I am going to be accused of not trying hard enough.

People on both sides are finding comfort in their group think havens.

How can you think independently surrounded by a bunch of people nodding their heads whenever you repeat the same old lines over and over?

And for your information, while I have first posted this on Telic Thoughts, I will also be posting this on After the Bar Closes.

I have presented a comparison of the two Design inference methods there also.

There is already a comment making a sweeping pronouncement that all attempts at trying to infer design are equally bogus.  This is further confirmation of the charge ID proponents make about their critics.  That is that ID critics are dogmatic in their belief in randomness.  The default position is randomness can do anything and everything.  It is randomness in the gaps.

Hey ID critics, try putting aside your dogmatic belief long enough to come up with your own ID proposal.  How would you go about testing for a lack of randomness?

Are you capable of thinking independently enough to put together a serious suggestion?

As for the ID Proponents…

It has been suggested in this thread that ID has a framework on which you are trying to build a legitimate proposal.

What framework?

Whether you want to admit it or not, I have a pretty good understanding of Dembski's inference methodology that was the subject of this thread.  Aside from a few timid questions about me personally and a suggestion my example may be a misapplication, my analysis stands and Dembski's model is found wanting.

Truth be known, Mike Gene's model is pretty weak too.  But I think it can be salvaged. The part about Foresight has potential.  However, the biggest thing going for it is that it has realistic expectations.

There is no magic bullet.  There is no absolute yes/no answer.  It you can pardon the terminology, the answer is going to be an evolutionary process if it even exists.

So, if you want to continue to have faith in an ID Movement and let their leaders do your thinking for you, don't expect much sympathy.  You will deserve what you get.

Mike Gene has put together a new framework.  A recognition that ID Science isn't about replacing Mainstream Evolutionary Theory, it is about augmenting it.  That it will take a "Consilience of Clues" to detect the answers buried in deep time.  And the answers will undoubtedly be a continuum, a mixture, of design and non-design.

This way ID proponents can tell their critics to go pound salt when they make accusations about ID being anti-science, because it won’t be.  The alternative is to do it the way Dr. Wells envisions it…

 
Quote
"The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid."

link

Personally, I would think both sides would rather DO SCIENCE!

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,08:22   

It's ironic that you link to a discussion of Dembski's essay on specification.  One the one hand, you try to illustrate differences between Dembski and Mike Gene, with the claim that Dembski is the weaker of the two.  But, so far, you give us as many similarities as differences.  I've shown you one similarity.  The link to the essay on specifications brings up another.  

Mike Gene's laundry list is quite akin to a "method" for deriving a specification.  How does this set him apart from Dembski?  Why is Dembski so wrong and Mike Gene less so?

Also, what the heck does randomness have to do with ID?

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,08:26   

I'm a scientist, not a mathematician.

When either Dembski or this new guy get around to doing some experiments based on their notions, and publishing the results of those experiments in peer-reviewed journals rather than books, let me know.

thanks.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,10:10   

Yawn. "Thought Provoker" might be an apt pseudonym, but the thoughts he provokes in me make me want to take a nap.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,10:50   

Hi All,

The big banner in the upper left hand corner says "Antievolution, The Critic's Resource".  It led me to believe there might be an interest in what I had to say.

If you have no idea why the concept of "randomness" is being challenged by ID proponents, frankly you need to get a clue.

If you just sit here waiting for people to make serious presentations just so you can pontificate that it isn't good enough, you shouldn't be surprised that no one capable of offering you a challenge will post here.  By the time ID gets to the level of peer reviews and experiments, they won't have to come to you, you will be coming to them because they don't have to work very hard at all to get a following.

I happen to be a free-lance independent with anti-religious leanings.  Those more loyal to the ID Movement would be perfectly happy for you to continue napping in you Group Think induced stupor.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,10:53   

Now its group think not to accept meaningless numbers and quantum woo!

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,11:05   

TP, I'm very aware of the antipathy that ID proponents have for the concept of randomness. IMO, this stance reflects a distinct lack of critical and careful thinking, as randomness really is beside the point when it comes to ID.  ID proponents who think otherwise simply haven't thought things through.

Just trying to provoke some thought here   :p

Edited by Art on Jan. 05 2008,11:13

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,11:10   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,10:50)
Hi All,

The big banner in the upper left hand corner says "Antievolution, The Critic's Resource".  It led me to believe there might be an interest in what I had to say.

If you have no idea why the concept of "randomness" is being challenged by ID proponents, frankly you need to get a clue.

If you just sit here waiting for people to make serious presentations just so you can pontificate that it isn't good enough, you shouldn't be surprised that no one capable of offering you a challenge will post here.  By the time ID gets to the level of peer reviews and experiments, they won't have to come to you, you will be coming to them because they don't have to work very hard at all to get a following.

I happen to be a free-lance independent with anti-religious leanings.  Those more loyal to the ID Movement would be perfectly happy for you to continue napping in you Group Think induced stupor.

Baloney. Please address the issues raised rather than whine about them. And nobody cares if you are religious or Satan himself; we're talking about the RESULTS of your ideas.

Science consists of more than "serious presentations". And yes, I will always say that ID "isn't good enough" until there is EMPIRICAL evidence that it can produce testable hypotheses, test them, and subject the results and conclusions to the crucible of peer review. Books, blogs, and equations are not "good enough", and won't be. Papers in peer-reviewed journals are the coin of this realm. Sorry if that offends, but it is a fact nonetheless.

This has been pointed out to the IDists innumerable times, and yet they continue to publish crappy books and whine about how misunderstood they are. ID has had over a decade to produce experiments and submit the results to peer reviews. If they haven't done it by now, they never will. And the simple reason for that is the notion of ID, as currently formulated, is completely untestable and thus unscientific. Period.

As for ID proponents challenging "randomness", that is not news, nor is it important. It is yet another instance of IDists attacking a strawman version of an evolutionary concept and pretending that this attack somehow supports their notions, which remain, permanently, evidence-free.

So thanks for the serious presentation. If it makes you feel better about ID, that's great. I'll still be waiting for some serious RESULTS. But I won't be holding my breath.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,11:12   

A postscript for Thought Provoker - my comments aren't about TDM, but rather your claims that Mike Gene is making a better argument than Dembski.  If you cannot stand serious criticism of an assertion you apparently take to be gospel, you should stick to places like Telic Thoughts.  The participants here are not going to roll over and wonder in amazement at your contradictory claims.  TT participants more likely will.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,11:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,10:50)
I happen to be a free-lance independent with anti-religious leanings.  Those more loyal to the ID Movement would be perfectly happy for you to continue napping in you Group Think induced stupor.

You have predictably misidentified the soporific agent.  ID proponents who have trouble with the idea of randomness demonstrate on a regular basis that either they don't understand the concept, or do understand it and use it to to provoke amenable thoughts in those who don't.  Your quantum navel-gazing adds nothing of substance.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,12:44   

Hi All,

I am at work today so I can't spend much time replying.

You might want to take a look at Telic Thoughts thread.

Your mirror opposites are having similiar reactions.

How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?

link

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,12:50   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,12:44)
Hi All,

I am at work today so I can't spend much time replying.

You might want to take a look at Telic Thoughts thread.

Your mirror opposites are having similiar reactions.

How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?

Excoriated by both sides?  Can you believe it?  

You must love it so.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,12:52   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,12:44)
How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?

Sorry to be the first to point this out to you, but it doesn't appear to me that you are "stirring up the status quo".

If you would actually propose and test an ID-derived hypothesis, that would definitely be novel.  As it is, you seem to be just stirring up the same old muddy waters as before.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,13:13   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,12:44)
How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?

"...Status Quo people are comfortable with" is a pleonasm.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,23:51   

Thoughtless Provoker wrote:


Quote
How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?


No.  How dare you try to bamboozle us with bullshit.

Tell you what, TP, give me a definition of design that would unambiguously identify a Henry Moore sculpture without any reference to Henry More or sculpture in general.  In other words, given a Henry Moore sculpture found in a field, step me through the proof of design.

Do the same for an abstract painting designed by me and paint spilled on a canvas in my garage following an earthquake.

I want an objective definition of design that even my cat could apply.

Meanwhile, TP, I'll content myself to the songs of crickets.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,00:08   

I'll give em credit - even the guys at Telic Thoughts know a quantum quack when they see one, apparently.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,00:52   

Quote
How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?

Indeed. How dare you teach them a third chord.  It'll be the end of civilisation, I'm telling you.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,01:04   

de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur
-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-du
r-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-d
ur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-
dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de
-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-de-dur-d
e-dur-de-dur-de-dur.

Another #1.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,02:12   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 05 2008,14:13)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,12:44)
How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?

"...Status Quo people are comfortable with" is a pleonasm.

A benign pleonasm or a malignant pleonasm? My friend's dog got a lump recently. Yes, it was doggie breast cancer. The cytology came back malignant. They did a doggie mastectomy, but the prognosis is bleak. "She's uncomfortable," my friend said. "She has trouble lying down. But we're going to give her pain pills and just try to keep her chasing squirrels until the inevitable happens."

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,10:28   

Hi All,

Bob O'H wrote "How dare you teach them a third chord." accompanied by Richardthughes' "de-dur-de-...-dur-de-dur-de-dur Another #1"

I have to hand it to you guys.  At least you provide some quality entertainment.

Maybe, you are on to something.  Maybe, I've just fallen victim to thinking "even I could do better than this and I don't believe in the stuff" and then getting so carried away trying to make a convincing case, I started convincing myself.

BTW, my main focus is still bioquantum physics and the Hameroff/Penrose Orch OR model.

However, Dembski, DaveScot and their flock of well-trained followers  managed to get me riled up with their hypocritical treatment of Mike Gene and his book.

In case you missed it, here is the Uncommon Descent link to the thread I am talking about.

I am engaging in a little payback effort.

Instead of a Henry Moore sculpture, would there be interest in a Design Matrix analysis of the proverbial finding a Mount Rushmore scenario?

This has been suggested in the Telic Thoughts thread.  I could hit two birds with one stone that way.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,10:32   

But its not science, is it? It's arbitrary rankings.
You might as well have

Does it look designed?
Would someone design it?
Is it a good design?
Does it look like another designed thing?

Rank them 0-7.

Right, I'm off to write a shoite book. My specialty is Tard fleecing.




PS BUY MY BOOK.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,11:06   

Hi Richardthughes.

You wrote, "But its not science, is it?"
Mike Gene agrees with you.

"It's arbitrary rankings."
Mike argues otherwise.

Are what Olympic judges and medical professionals do "arbitrary"?

They maybe somewhat subjective, but not arbitrary

Edit: Well... most of the time... well... it is what they are SUPPOSED to do most of the time...

I will tell you what.  You write a book and sell it for less than $20, I will buy it.  Deal?

Design Matrix is $16.74 on Amazon

BTW, I would like to make use of your "Critic's Resource" to find out what you guys have on a RogerRabbitt.

He has been around since the ARN days.

If you wish to tell me privately.  I can be reached at dfcord (at) hotmail.com

Thanks

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,11:23   

Sorry, TP-Behe, Rushmore has been done.

Clearly, the Moore sculpture was designed.  We know that because there are records of Moore doing the work.  That's not the point.

Given a Moore sculpture found in a field demonstrate to me, scientifically, objectively that it was designed.

But, let's not be coy, TP.  You can't.  Neither can Behe nor Dembski.  That's because you have no clear, objective, unambiguous, measurable, independently observable metric of "design."

All you have is "well, it looks designed to me."

Until you come up with something concrete, or dare I say it, bronze, Jack, you ain't got jack.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,11:25   

why isn't it 0-13, or a percentile, or 5-25. Oh, it would be arbitrary.. Why are they all the same.

Are they collectively exhaustive, functionally equivalent, mutually exclusive?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,11:35   

No database hits on RogerRabbitt?

No one has a clue on who he is?

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2008,11:47   

Instead of just "studying" Mt. Rushmore, why not perform a parallel Design Matrix analysis of Rushmore and New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain.  Limit the analysis to information you can obtain from no closer than one mile away, and with the naked eye.  (This approximates the level of analysis of biological systems that Telic Thinkers are happy with.)

Edited by Art on Jan. 06 2008,11:50

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,07:17   

Quote (Art @ Jan. 06 2008,11:47)
Instead of just "studying" Mt. Rushmore, why not perform a parallel Design Matrix analysis of Rushmore and New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain.  Limit the analysis to information you can obtain from no closer than one mile away, and with the naked eye.  (This approximates the level of analysis of biological systems that Telic Thinkers are happy with.)

Unfortunately, from the point of view of most IDists, both mountains were designed. Dembski has given that the official imprimatur by noting that the Christian God is the Designer. He designed everything.

Thus, there are no appropriate negative controls that can be used to calibrate the designometer.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,09:09   

Quote
1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?


Interesting that 'analogy' is #1.  Anti-evolutionists actually seem to employ analogies as evidence, which Gene appears to be doing by using it as a primary criterion for establishing Design.  

The ONLY potentially objective criterion is #2 - the others are pure ID gobbledegook.

I will not be buying this garbage.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,10:11   

Hi Slpage,

For what it is worth, I personally agree that Analogy (#1) is weak.  It shouldn't be equally weighted with the others.

I agree that Discontinuity (#2) is strong.

However, I think Foresight (#4) is as strong, if not stronger.

As an illustration, I take out a deck of cards and shuffle it.  I ask you to cut them.  I look you in the eye as I pick up the cards and prompt you to agree or disagree that they are mixed up.

I then tell you that I can predict the first five cards and tell you what they will be.  Sure enough, the cards are what I predicted.

I suggest the prediction is one of the strongest indicators that the appearence of the five cards was not the product of chance and that design should be inferred.

This example also provides a little credit for analogy.

I will explain later.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,10:40   

However, if there is some force that causes the cards to tend to line up in the way you predicted, and you knew this beforehand, your point is completely worthless.

Like, say, natural selection.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,11:09   

You're ducking the question, TP.

What's the objective metric for design?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,17:39   

Hi Doc Bill et all,

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.  I am not trying to convince you that Mike Gene's isn't valueless (i.e. "garbage").  I am just trying to demonstrate Mike Gene's method is less offensive than Dembski's <fill-in-your-choice-of-description>

Got to run, will comment more later.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,17:41   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 07 2008,18:39)
Hi Doc Bill et all,

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.  I am not trying to convince you that Mike Gene's isn't valueless (i.e. "garbage").  I am just trying to demonstrate Mike Gene's method is less offensive than Dembski's <fill-in-your-choice-of-description>

Got to run, will comment more later.

Pointless, misleading, bullshit is bullshit no matter who spews it.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,18:28   

All forms of poop stink, though some examples might smell less offensive than others, it's still poop when you bite into it.

Mike Gene and Bill Tard Dembski are promoting pure tard.  No predictions, no testable hypothesis, just baselss claims that pretty much boil down to "suspend your critical thinking and see it from my lense".  Then they go on to claim persecution when you point out how full of shit they are.  That's not how science works.

We have resident creationists here at AtBC who say the same things, they just spare us the fuzzy numbers.

Get back to us when you (or Mike Gene) have a testable theory, one that makes predictions.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,20:04   

Hi all,

Even if you aren't interested, I will keep my promise to explain how I think Mike's methodology would have scored my previous example.  Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.

As I pointed out the prediction is the major clue to realizing the card trick had more of a telic aspect than not.

One of the things Mike attempts to do is provide a continuum from chance to "design".  Nothing is absolutely totally chance or totally "design".

This is something Dembski does not do.

The significance of this can be shown in the card trick example.  It was possible that the amature magician doing the card trick could have messed up and the cards would not have come out as they did.  There was a chance the trick would have failed.  Dembski presumes design is NOT a "chance hypothesis".  This presumption exposes Dembski's presumption of a perfect design (from a perfect designer).

With Mike's method, the prediction could have been close, but not perfect, causing a minor shift of the score towards the "chance" end, not a total reversal.  It is more realistic to recognise that chance and "design" is a mixture, not an either/or.

However, in the hypothetical the prediction was spot on, causing a +5 for the Foresight catagory.

The Rationality of this is to provide entertainment.  Score it a +3 (not that good of entertainment value).

The Discontinuity was mostly null.  The card pattern didn't develop over time but the pattern looked random.  Score it a 0.

For the Analogy, even though the exact mechanism wasn't known (reversed cut?  Switched decks? Palmed cards?, etc).  The aspects of the situation had an analogous feel of other card tricks.  I had attempted to provide a slightly unusual version, score it a +4.

For a total score of 12/4 = 3.

We are reasonably sure this was "Design".

I have been putting "Design" in quotes for this comment because I agree that is a loaded word.  "Not-by-chance" would be a better term in my opinion.

Either way, it is less useless than Dembski's method, IMO.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,20:48   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 07 2008,20:04)
Hi all,

Even if you aren't interested, I will keep my promise to explain how I think Mike's methodology would have scored my previous example.  Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.

As I pointed out the prediction is the major clue to realizing the card trick had more of a telic aspect than not.

One of the things Mike attempts to do is provide a continuum from chance to "design".  Nothing is absolutely totally chance or totally "design".

This is something Dembski does not do.

The significance of this can be shown in the card trick example.  It was possible that the amature magician doing the card trick could have messed up and the cards would not have come out as they did.  There was a chance the trick would have failed.  Dembski presumes design is NOT a "chance hypothesis".  This presumption exposes Dembski's presumption of a perfect design (from a perfect designer).

With Mike's method, the prediction could have been close, but not perfect, causing a minor shift of the score towards the "chance" end, not a total reversal.  It is more realistic to recognise that chance and "design" is a mixture, not an either/or.

However, in the hypothetical the prediction was spot on, causing a +5 for the Foresight catagory.

The Rationality of this is to provide entertainment.  Score it a +3 (not that good of entertainment value).

The Discontinuity was mostly null.  The card pattern didn't develop over time but the pattern looked random.  Score it a 0.

For the Analogy, even though the exact mechanism wasn't known (reversed cut?  Switched decks? Palmed cards?, etc).  The aspects of the situation had an analogous feel of other card tricks.  I had attempted to provide a slightly unusual version, score it a +4.

For a total score of 12/4 = 3.

We are reasonably sure this was "Design".

I have been putting "Design" in quotes for this comment because I agree that is a loaded word.  "Not-by-chance" would be a better term in my opinion.

Either way, it is less useless than Dembski's method, IMO.

*raises hand*

Questions!

What does a a score of 3 mean in terms of statistical confidence of design?

What's to stop different people scoring differently

Each measures equal weight in the reckoning means they are equally important. How do you know that?

Want to buy a bridge?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,21:14   

I'm thinking that the title of this posting topic says it all.  

If you are compared to Dembski, in any way, shape or form, you just might be a Design Proponenetist.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,21:57   

Excuse me, TP.  Two questions.

What is design?

Since you seem to have a corner on the manure market, what do you charge per square yard to mulch my garden?

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,06:50   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 07 2008,20:04)
Even if you aren't interested, I will keep my promise to explain how I think Mike's methodology would have scored my previous example.  Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.


Sure, we know shit, when we smell it, and guys, aren't we smelling shit right now?

 
Quote
One of the things Mike attempts to do is provide a continuum from chance to "design".  Nothing is absolutely totally chance or totally "design".


I always try to tell my project leader that  ;)


- pwe

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,11:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 04 2008,22:07)
The four criteria are…

1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?

1. Analogy -- how do you measure "[h]ow similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed"? Isn't that rather subjective? For the average ID-guy, a bacterial flagellum may be the spitting image of the motore+screw of their toy boat, but for the rest of us, the analogy may be a wee bit less striking.

2. Discontinuity -- gee, I dunno how this could be done, and I'm a genius, so it's as irreducibly complex as can be.

3. Rationality -- purposeful, as judged by who? Humans are notoriously bad at guessings ieach other's purposes, so whakes anyone think we can guess purposes elsewhere?

4. Foresight -- Doesn't Mike Gene know that's undecidable?


- pwe

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,12:04   

TP, I think the issue is regardless of how Mike's approach differs from Dembski's, it's still pure pseudoscience and you're going to have a difficult time finding anyone here get enthusiastic about pseudoscience.

Maybe Mike's version of IDC is less offensive than Dembski's, it's still pseudoscience and therefore offensive to anyone who values good science.

Just sayin'...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
EoRaptor013



Posts: 45
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,23:24   

Quote (Art @ Jan. 06 2008,12:47)
Instead of just "studying" Mt. Rushmore, why not perform a parallel Design Matrix analysis of Rushmore and New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain...

You do know the Old Man died? He fell off the mountain and all the king's horses, etc.
Just sayin'.

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,07:03   

Quote (EoRaptor013 @ Jan. 15 2008,23:24)
Quote (Art @ Jan. 06 2008,12:47)
Instead of just "studying" Mt. Rushmore, why not perform a parallel Design Matrix analysis of Rushmore and New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain...

You do know the Old Man died? He fell off the mountain and all the king's horses, etc.
Just sayin'.

Sounds like planned obsolescence to me.

That settles it - The Old Man was designed.

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,09:38   

FYI, here is a follow up comment I made on Telic Thoughts.  Our discussion got the attention of a lot of old timers from the ID camp.  This gives me the impression that Dembski might be looking in on this one.

Here is the Link for those who are interested.

One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena.

1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws
2. Unspecified, via Chance
3. Specified, via Design
4. Unknown

The paper that is the subject of the thread focuses on infering category number 2 is "less likely than not".

That leaves the other three catagories.

What if the second explaination doesn't apply to any phenomenon? What if true randomness doesn't exist? Only the appearance of randomness, similar to a psuedorandom number generator.

Fifth Monarchy Man spoke like the ethical NOMA rejecting Theist he is and indicated that would be fine by him. Either a designer or a law giver, they all point to God.

On the other side, Valerie wrote…

Quote
A flipped coin and a falling coin are both deterministic events in the sense that their outcomes can be predicted, in theory, with a sufficient knowledge of their initial conditions (and assuming that quantum-mechanical uncertainty does not become a factor).


Which was a very good variation of the point I am making. I noted she talked about quantum-mechanical UNCERTAINTY, not randomness.

I suspect this was a reference to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which was a general description of quantum weirdness at the beginning of tbe study of quantum physics. However, it appear the uncertainty is not due to hidden local variables as many scientists were presuming back in the 1920s.

It is the lack of our ability to describe quantum effects algorithmically that makes it uncertain. Countless quantum experiments show that non-local measurements effect the outcome. Measure the linear polarization of two out of three entangled photons and you know, with certainty, the circular polarization of the third. However, measuring the circular polarization of the first two, results in the opposite circular polarization of the third. This paradox is real and is not random. So real that we are developing quantum computers based on it.

This non-local quantum interconnectness occurs regardless of how separated the measurements are in either space or time.

Any uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge, not randomness or "chance".

IMO, there is no such thing as "Chance Hypotheses". Everything is via natural law or interconnected quantum effects.

Who or what is behind the interconnected quantum effects is as metaphysical as discussing who or what created the universe and its laws.

Some people, myself included, consider the exploration of these kinds of questions to be philosophy and not science. When it comes to philosophy, I take a page from Socrates' book and suggest it is the wise man who knows he doesn't know the Truth.

On the other hand, Creationists and people like Fifth Monarchy Man feel they do know the one and only Truth. Which is fine as long as they don't try to hide this agenda. They are entitled to their belief and even entitled to use tax-free charitable donations to do whatever research they feel is appropriate in support of their belief.

Now, one of the questions in this thread is to discuss whether Dembski provided a "sound" analysis that makes a modest scientific suggestion or is the science here just a "cheap tuxedo" disguise in an attempt to promote a belief in a "Designer", aka "Creator", aka God.

When taken as a modest scientific suggestion, Dembski's analysis provides support for something I call the Third Choice. That is that neither randomness nor God should be considered the default explanation. The obvious, experimentally supported, explanation is that interconnected quantum effects is the fundamental organizing force of the universe.

Interconnected quantum effects is the suggestion that is backed up with a positive “warrant”. Simply attacking opposing hypotheses is too easy and doesn’t provide affirmative support. Even more so, when it is done with a hand-waving flourish that it is sufficient to consider only a single hypothesis (the most likely) instead of the entire set of hypotheses AS A SET (not divide and conquer).

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,09:57   

Quote
The obvious, experimentally supported, explanation is that interconnected quantum effects is the fundamental organizing force of the universe.


In practical terms, what does this mean? It sounds like a quantum version of determinism. Is that what you're suggesting?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,10:04   

"Thought Provoker" writes:

Quote

Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.


Then,

 
Quote

One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena.

1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws
2. Unspecified, via Chance
3. Specified, via Design
4. Unknown


There is no such option as "unknown" in Dembski's GCEA.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2008,10:09

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,10:23   

Hi Wesley,

I wouldn't disagree with you.

That is why I hedged my description with "three or four".

It appears Dembski does like projecting more certainty than is warranted.  This is normal for people trying to lead a movement. "Hell no, we might not go" just doesn't have the appeal a movement needs.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,10:41   

Hi qetzal,

You wrote...
   
Quote
In practical terms, what does this mean? It sounds like a quantum version of determinism. Is that what you're suggesting?


Yes and no.

Would a Mandelbrot Set be considered deterministic even if its equation was unknowable?

Not "unknown", but "unknowable".

Sir Roger Penrose proposes that quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Quantum effects are artifacts of one giant multidimensional wave function in the space-time geometry that is our universe. Think of an unknowable, multidimensional Mandelbrot Set. Here is a Mandelbrot Set claimed to be the size of the known universe.

To back up his proposal, Penrose points to the implications of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems.  This, along with his background in mathematically modeling Black Holes for a living and figuring out non-algorithmic things like aperiodic tilings that showed up in quasi-crystals, makes for powerful support that if there is anyone qualified to understand this, it would be Penrose.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,11:31   

Ah, TP, you have returned.

Let's get back to basics.

Please provide us with an objective definition of "design" and a metric or metrics with with to measure it.




As for your quantum ramblings you might want to investigate stochastic localized quantum coupling which is quasi-random, but corresponds closely with alpha and beta wave activity in the brain.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,12:45   

Hi Bill


 
Quote
Let's get back to basics.

Please provide us with an objective definition of "design" and a metric or metrics with with to measure it.

As for your quantum ramblings you might want to investigate stochastic localized quantum coupling which is quasi-random, but corresponds closely with alpha and beta wave activity in the brain.


My definition of "design" is probably not the same definition that either Dembski or Mike Gene uses.  I consider the Mandelbrot Set to be not only a design, but a real world example of "design".

I have no proposed "metric or metrics with with to measure it".  However, I happen to be of the opinion that Mike Gene is at least making an honest attempt to provide a metric. Whereas, Dembski's method is more an argument than a metric or definition of "design".

As for my "quantum ramblings" and their relationships with brains and quantum consciousness.  I bumped my "The Magic of Intelligent Design" thread for you.

But I will warn you.  Real Life is still taking a big toll on my time.  I doubt I will be able to get into it heavily again.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,12:50   

Quote
My definition of "design" is probably not the same definition that either Dembski or Mike Gene uses.  I consider the Mandelbrot Set to be not only a design, but a real world example of "design".

Yes, but what is your definition?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,13:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2008,10:04)
"Thought Provoker" writes:

Quote

Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.


Then,

 
Quote

One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena.

1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws
2. Unspecified, via Chance
3. Specified, via Design
4. Unknown


There is no such option as "unknown" in Dembski's GCEA.

Off-topic, perhaps but --

Dembski's list (which yes, does not include "unknown") also does not include evolution, as evolution involves both chance (variation) and necessity (natural selection) repeated many times in a population and over many generations.  Early in NFL he says he's going to deal with that, but I don't think he ever does, or I can't find where he claims to deal with it amid the dreck.  If, in evolution, a biological system arises from the combination of chance and necessity, why does the EF rule out that possibility from the get-go?

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,13:40   

Hello, TP, glad to see you're busy.  Idle hands are the Devil's plaything, or something like that.

If the Mandelbrot Set meets your definition then so would the Cornish-Pastie Set, or this

f(x) = x + 1

Sorry, TP, but you don't get to pass GO without giving us a definition of design and metrics with which to measure it.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,15:28   

Hi Doc Bill,

Did you expect me to object to anything you said in your last comment?

Maybe you aren't aware that I am an Atheist in the same vein that Richard Dawkins is an Atheist.  Technically, I am agnostic concerning fairies, orbiting tea pots and God.

Yes, I consider a straight line "design".

Yes, I consider everything in nature "design".

Obviously, many ID proponents have the presumption that design must come from a designer, but once they allow the terms to be separated for whatever reason (ethical or not) then everything has detectable "design".

The arrangement of the stars is "design".  The arrangement of ice crystals in a snowflake is "design".  The shape of a simple stone is "design".

In my first toe-to-toe debate with an ID proponent, I asked for a definitive example of something that is not designed.  He was, of course, stumped.  It was obvious he believed everything was designed by God.  Since then it has been obvious to me that most ID proponents have the same issue.  Some are just more tenacious in avoiding the issue.

To me design is something to be discovered like existence.  Think of light.  You might question its state of existence, but once you start understanding things like Maxwell's equations and quantum physics its hard not the appreciate its design.

Note, Mike Gene is one of the few ID proponents offering examples of things he considered undesigned (more accurately "less designed" on a continuum).



P.S.  Here is an online dictionary definition for "design"...
Quote
design

noun
1.  the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or outline or plan); "he contributed to the design of a new instrument"  
2.  an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for seating guests"  
3.  something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt" 4.  a decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors"  
5.  an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"
6.  a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; "the design of a building"  
7.  the creation of something in the mind


I think the second definition is probably closest to what I am talking about.

As for metrics.  Can you provide me a metric for the term "existence"?  Because if it exists, I say it has the property of “design”.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,19:33   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 20 2008,10:41)
Hi qetzal,

You wrote...
     
Quote
In practical terms, what does this mean? It sounds like a quantum version of determinism. Is that what you're suggesting?


Yes and no.

Would a Mandelbrot Set be considered deterministic even if its equation was unknowable?

Not "unknown", but "unknowable".


Yes.

Quote
Quantum effects are artifacts of one giant multidimensional wave function in the space-time geometry that is our universe.


So you're saying everything is part of a single wave function, so all is predetermined. Yes?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,20:12   

Hi qetzal,

You asked...
Quote
So you're saying everything is part of a single wave function, so all is predetermined. Yes?


"Predetermined" doesn't make much sense for something that transcends space and time (no before or after).  "Fixed" might be a better term.

The web of interconnected quantum effects are fixed in the space-time geometry that makes up our universe.

And yes, this concept has implications to the subject of "free will".  However, I have gotten used the the idea.  It doesn't make any difference to my actions.  The situation from a personal point of view hasn't changed.  To us, time flows.  To the space-time universe, time is just one of multiple dimensions.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,20:56   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2008,20:48)
Questions!

What does a a score of 3 mean in terms of statistical confidence of design?

What's to stop different people scoring differently

Each measures equal weight in the reckoning means they are equally important. How do you know that?

Want to buy a bridge?

Again, TP...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:08   

Hi Richardthughes,

As it so happens, I know how Mike Gene would respond to your questions.

Quote
Here’s a skeptical response from someone on another forum who did not read the book

“What does a a score of 3 mean in terms of statistical confidence of design?”

Nothing. The Matrix does not pretend to be a statistical test.

“What's to stop different people scoring differently.”

Nothing at all. Just put your score on the table. And then explain and defend it. Complaints about the Matrix are just that – complaints. Ya either play or come up with all kinds of nervous excuses for not playing.

“Each measures equal weight in the reckoning means they are equally important. How do you know that?”

We don’t. But you have to start somewhere. The Matrix is all part of “the beginning of a journey.” We could indeed try to assign more weight to some criteria than others. Yet remember that I did not invent these criteria. All four criteria have been used by ID proponents in one context or another. And more importantly, all four criteria have been used by anti-design thinkers in one context of another. An assault on the Matrix is an assault on *both* ID and anti-ID arguments from the last 100 years.


I should have asked Mike's permission to do this, but I didn't.  You see, you don't respect him and I suspect the feeling is mutual.

As for what Mike would tell you to do with your bridge, I will leave that up to your imagination.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:10   

So you dance this dance to say "subjectively, it looks designed to me"?


All Science so far!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:24   

Here's what I expect, TP.

I expect that you deliver an objective definition of design and the metrics with which to measure it objectively.

Applying those metrics to a smooth pebble and a Moore sculpture should identify the sculpture as designed and the pebble as natural.

Applying those metrics to a can of paint I deliberately threw on my garage floor against a can of paint that fell off a shelf should identify my toss as design and the fall as natural.

But, I toy with your tiny, uneducated mind.  I apologize for being cruel and unfair.

The fact is that ID proponents like Dembski, Behe and the anonymous coward "Mike Gene" have no clue, as in "are clueless" as to what design is.  Sorry, but knowing it when you see it is not scientific.

Behe's "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a totally useless definition.

So, what you have, TP, old bean, is a bunch of nothing.  And, furthermore, if you think you can pull quantum mechanics out of your diaper and bamboozle me with sci-cho-babble you are sadly mistaken.

Tell you what, you get Zuul to conjure up Jessica Alba in my office and then we'll talk.

Until then, spend your energies on growing up.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:24   

Hi Richardthughes,

Out of curiosity, what answers did you expect to your questions?

Did you have your instant response already queued up?

BTW, in the introduction of his book Mike Gene made it clear he considers ID to be neither science nor something that should be taught in public schools.

He caught quite a bit of heat over that at UD.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:28   

Quote
Out of curiosity, what answers did you expect to your questions?


I actually expected you to dodge, so kudos for playing, but the answers were poor.

 
Quote
Did you have your instant response already queued up?




 
Quote
BTW, in the introduction of his book Mike Gene made it clear he considers ID to be neither science nor something that should be taught in public schools.

He caught quite a bit of heat over that at UD.


Of course. The Tard cake only has so many slices and the rubes only have so many bucks.

Edit? YES!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:34   

Hi Richardthughes,

You wrote...
Quote
I actually expected you to dodge, so kudos for play, but the answers were poor.


Mike's answers were honest.

Thank you for at least a little recognition of the earnest attempt.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:37   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 20 2008,22:34)
Hi Richardthughes,

You wrote...
Quote
I actually expected you to dodge, so kudos for play, but the answers were poor.


Mike's answers were honest.

Thank you for at least a little recognition of the earnest attempt.

Are they Mike's answers or what you think Mike would answer? I'm a little confused.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:38   

To Doc Bill,

Frankly, I don't care what you expect.

And while I don't expect you will do so, I suggest you take your own advice about expending energy towards maturation.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:41   

Hi Richardthughes,

Those were Mike's words.

I copied them without his permission.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:42   

Can you get him to sign them?*

*Full disclosure, they are so damning (to him) I'm sure they'll do the rounds....

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:56   

Please, TP, cry me a river.  I've been dealing with creationists for over 30 years which is why I'm so cranky.

"intelligent design"

You can't define design, you can't identify the intelligence.  

Simple math:  0 + 0 = 0

Mike Gene sez:  60% of my calculation indicates that looks like a zero.

Dembski sez:  If it's not 1 it's got to be a zero.

Behe sez:  Zero appears to be a purposeful arrangement of zero parts.

TP sez:  The quantum probability of zero on my screen could tunnel into a quantum reality on your screen.

Now, if my deliberately insulting behavior pisses you off, then you're close to realizing how we all feel about you, TP, old bean, and your constant flow of drivel.

(taking unwarranted liberties to speak for the group; apology in advance.)

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:57   

Hi Richardthughes,

First of all, I wouldn't have copied it if I thought the quote would hurt Mike.

Either you or I do not understand the situation.

Mike Gene and Telic Thoughts are fairly independent of the Discovery Institute and Dembski.

While they are not enemies, I have reason to believe Mike's tolerance for giving voice to critics of the ID movement (e.g. Zachriel, Raevmo and myself) hasn't gone over very well.

And Mike's book received a very cold reception at Uncommon Descent.  This was more than simple competition.

If you think evidence of Mike's independence and honesty is damaging to him...

..like I said, either you are or I am misunderstanding the situation.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,23:01   

They are really stupid / scientifically naive answers. But then again, they are trying to defend really stupid / scientifically naive concepts. Sadly I need him to sign off on them before the mocking can begin in good faith.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,23:33   

Quote
Complaints about the Matrix are just that – complaints. Ya either play or come up with all kinds of nervous excuses for not playing.


cut / paste

Quote
Complaints about the javelin catching are just that – complaints. Ya either play or come up with all kinds of nervous excuses for not playing.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,07:31   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 20 2008,22:56)
Now, if my deliberately insulting behavior pisses you off, then you're close to realizing how we all feel about you, TP, old bean, and your constant flow of drivel.

(taking unwarranted liberties to speak for the group; apology in advance.)

No apologies required here; I vote in favor of that sentiment.

If Mike Gene's sole redeeming characteristic is that he allows some dissenters to post at his blog, and that is supposed to convince me that he must be more correct about the world than Dembski, I have to say I'm still not convinced.

As noted before, TP, it's ideas, not people, that warrant serious discussion. And those ideas have to lead somewhere besides in circles. They have to lead to testable hypotheses and new insights based on the results of experiments testing those hypotheses. Neither Dembski nor Mike Gene have gotten to step one in that sequence (ideas that stand up to that discussion). Behe has jumped the shark. Your "third way" fails at step one as well. If you don't think so, then get to a lab and do something; I'll be much more prone to listen if any of you guys ever did that, even once.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,11:16   

Hi Richardthughes,

So what was the purpose of you asking questions concerned the finer points of something you consider equivalent to "javelin catching"?

You didn't ask just once, but twice.

Was it just so you could mock?

Of course it was.

How you choose to respond to those with opposing view points influences the perceptions of their followers.

It is of little wonder as to why people like Dembski and Wells are able to sustain the ID Movement.  There is no benefit in making honest attempts.  In fact, it is detrimental to their cause.  All they need is to show is that the only choices are to reject your science or reject their God.

And they don't have to work very hard, since your actions make it all too obvious this is the case.

Quote
The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.
link

Around 400 AD, there was a movement lead by people like Cyril and Augustine.

The scientists of the day included people like Hypatia of Alexandria who taught...

Quote
“Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child-mind accepts and believes them, and only after great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after-years relieved on them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth – often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”
link

For those not familiar with the history, Hypatia and other scientists from the Library of Alexandria were labeled pagans and/or heretics and killed.

Cyril and Augustine were sainted by the victors.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.  I would rather not have my children and their children suffer through another Dark Age.   Paying off our national debt should be punishment enough.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,11:40   

The javelin catching cut and paste was to show what a "non argument" was offered. I can only mock if I'm presented with baseless nonsense.

Wah wah ID's "honest attempts". The backdoor evangelist bastard son of creationism makes honest attempts? Sir, you are grossly misinformed.

And the you link to WND.

*sigh*

Of course, ID is enlightenment, not a dark age. Here's how it plays out:



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,13:16   

Did that make you feel better?

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,13:27   

Fact is TP, the base of both Mike's and Dembski's method is complete pseudo-science, like this list in your opening post:
Quote
1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,13:27   

I find it quite refreshing when a creationist self-destructs and his little neurons float down like a spring rain.

Hypatia was a scholar, not a scientist.  That is not a nit pick.  You are simply wrong, TP, again.

As for Dembski's and Wells' honesty, where do we start?  Copyright infringement?  Lies?

What happened to your "science?"  Where are your quantum hand-wave fluctuations?

Seems like you've gone off on a creationist bender to me.  What happened to the argument.  Oh, I forgot, you don't have one.  But you are funny,  I'll give you that.

But, not funny ha-ha, alas.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,14:02   

Hi Doc Bill,

So did it help your self-esteem and maturation to correct me?

Personally, I think of people who deal with applied mathematics and astronomy as being more than just a scholar.

But I have never been big on worrying about correct terms.  Are her ideas or my point any less valid because you think her appropriate label is "scholar" instead of "scientist"?

However, if your intent was simply to engage in an ad hominem logical fallacy, you succeeded.  Which is pretty funny (the "ha ha" kind) considering I am an anonymous non-person.

Meanwhile…

Which version of reality do you think you live in?

Do you embrace the Many Worlds quantum interpretation?

Or do you think quantum physics exists in a totally separate realm that you can safely ignore when engaged in what you think of as real science?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,14:23   

Who's Jessica Alba?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,14:27   

Never mind. googled.

That was an interesting journey. Besson is somewhat under-rated.Anyone else enjoy The Big Blue?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,14:35   

Hi TP.
Do you really believe
Quote
The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.


?

If so, how would you explain the fact that this particular malaise only appears to be affecting a select few parts of the world?

Will "Darwinism" only fall in some places?

If so, er, international conferences will be more fun!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,14:37   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 21 2008,14:02)
Do you embrace the Many Worlds quantum interpretation?

Or do you think quantum physics exists in a totally separate realm that you can safely ignore when engaged in what you think of as real science?

Not speaking for DB, of course, but I think it's not a question of whether QM can be safely ignored; it's whether anyone should pay any attention whatsoever to someone who hasn't evinced the intellecutual capacity to even be wrong.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,14:51   

Hi oldmanintheskydidntdoit,

I am surprised that it there would be confusion over whether or not I support either Dembski or Wells.

I do not support them.

I think they are potentially dangerous.

The potential goes up the more you force an either/or choice.

As for concern over international conferences, I am more concerned over international conflicts when a country will support an obviously incompetent leader just because he (or she) has the "right" beliefs.

Bush claims to have used God's guidance in executing the war in Iraq.  What if the next nut uses God's guidance in deciding what to do with our nuclear missiles?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,15:11   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 21 2008,13:16)
Did that make you feel better?

No, I'm still feeling godless atheism nihilism stuff.

Seriously though, get a grip, fella.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,15:22   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 21 2008,15:11)
 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 21 2008,13:16)
Did that make you feel better?

No, I'm still feeling godless atheism nihilism stuff.

You need one of these to go with that spiffy chapeau of yours.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,15:26   

Do they have cheesypoof orange on white?


*tends mushrooms*

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,15:44   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 21 2008,14:02)
Do you embrace the Many Worlds quantum interpretation?


I embrace the Many Albas quantum interpretation...

It is much more stimulating, and I can not wait until I get a handle on it.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
trilobite



Posts: 1
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,17:00   

Ok Thought Provoker,
Why do I get suspicious that you are, in fact, Mike Gene, the author of this latest, ho-hum ID tract?  Could it be that you've always used an alias and provide little background info as you spam across the evolution/creation web? Who really is Mike Gene and Thought Provoker?
We're aware that Mike (or, perhaps, his loving mom) spammed the Amazon religion and science forums for weeks about the radical new design paradigm offered up in the Design Matrix. Of course, those who tracked the thread never got clear answers from Mike about what was being presented... just a lot of "buy the book and see" excuses.
Let's see, shameless self-promotion - deceptive marketing techniques and hidden identities. I would go easy on Dembski and Wells. These guys might be your only hope in eventually getting attention to your book.
Try some intellectual honesty for a change - attributes that IDiots are seemingly devoid of.



:angry:

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,17:04   

I'm with "trilobite". I've never gotten the impression that "Mike Gene" and "honesty" were such a great pairing. Of course, one would have to survey MG's "Julie Thomas" persona as well as the interactions on the Calvin "evolution" list to have a bit of the experience I've had.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,17:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2008,17:04)
I'm with "trilobite". I've never gotten the impression that "Mike Gene" and "honesty" were such a great pairing. Of course, one would have to survey MG's "Julie Thomas" persona as well as the interactions on the Calvin "evolution" list to have a bit of the experience I've had.

Thirded.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,18:10   

First of all, I am not Mike Gene.

Of course you have no way of really knowing that.

Any more than I could really know if trilobyte is actually Dembski dissing Mike and his book.

I guess you will have to make a subjective judgment based on the logic and consistency in my presentations both here and on Telic Thoughts.

It doesn't matter.  Most of you guys are going to believe what you want to believe regardless.

However, I have noticed a few of you have found some of my blatherings interesting enough to explore.

It is equally interesting how few of you are independent enough to march to your own beat in the face of the Group Think that holds court here.

For example, how many of you really do think I am Mike Gene now that it is becoming a group decision to think so?

And if you don't agree, why would you be afraid to say so?

Something to think about.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,18:47   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 21 2008,18:10)
First of all, I am not Mike Gene.

Of course you have no way of really knowing that.

Any more than I could really know if trilobyte is actually Dembski dissing Mike and his book.

Frankly, I don't care if you're Mike Gene, Mike Behe, or Mephistopheles.  All I care about is if you have decent ideas to discuss. So far you have provided exactly nothing in that domain.

Discussions about your personal attributes are just plain pointless, but that seems to be all you have to discuss lately.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,22:30   

TP, the fact you think the design matrix is worth sharing is a modern tragedy, but I can't help you. It's a soft, arbitrary framework that has no scientific value but may move some books to intellectual lightweights.

Did you buy into 'Bible code' when that was doing the rounds?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,22:36   

TP wrote in part regarding my correction that Hypatia was a scholar, not a scientist:

Quote
Personally, I think of people who deal with applied mathematics and astronomy as being more than just a scholar.

But I have never been big on worrying about correct terms.


Well, that's the problem with creationists, isn't it?  You just make stuff up.

As for your assertion that I engaged in an ad hominem attack, that is just plain false.  I never said what you wrote was wrong because you are an idiot.  That's an ad hominem attack.  I said what you wrote was wrong.  Period.

I could go farther by saying that both what you wrote and what Mike Gene wrote is fiction.  Neither is that an ad hominem attack.

But, then, you play fast and loose with definitions so I guess it doesn't matter on your planet.

So, getting back to definitions, what is the definition of design?  How is design measured?

"Intelligent design," TP, is stuck firmly on this basic point.  It simply can't be blown off.  If you can't define design and provide a metric to measure it, you don't have a theory.  Neither does Dembski, Wells, Behe or Gene.

Flap your gums about multiverses and quantum Albatrons all you like, but here you are stuck and here you will remain stuck until you can answer my question.

Define design.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2008,23:52   

Hi Richardthughes,

You asked me about "Bible code" and mentioned intellectual lightweights.

Something called "Bible code" wouldn't interest me.  I probably wouldn't have had any interest in Mike Gene's book either had I not been posting at Telic Thoughts.

Personally, the type of book that interests me and one I think other people should try to read is Penrose's book...

The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe

It is over a thousand pages the takes you step by step through the math needed to understand our universe.  It isn't for "intellectual lightweights".  By the time you are done, you actually understand the significance of General Relativity and space-time.

A lot of people think of the Special Relativity answer to the Twins Paradox when they hear "relativity" or "space-time".  That version is so incomplete that I consider it wrong.  Did you know our GPS satellites automatically adjust for General Relativity?  If they adjusted for Special Relativity they wouldn't keep time accurately.  Special Relativity was a stop gap calculation that was known to be wrong by Einstein when he proposed it.

I think the main reason for the prevalence of this incomplete/incorrect concept is that it is easier to explain and understand.    The complex, non-Euclidean geometry of Minkowskian space-time isn’t something you try to introduce in a high school physics class (Minkowski was an Einstein contempory, actually one of his teachers).

The point of this wandering comment is that it is difficult for me to sympathize with your complaints about books that target “intellectual lightweights” when I see everyone picking and choosing where to focus their energies.  Are you in the position to discuss the finer points of General Relativity?  For example, could you explain the geometry behind the Twins (or Clock) Paradox?  (hint; the traveling twin takes a short cut).

I think Mike Gene’s book has the potential of provoking independent thinking in individuals that would otherwise be in mind numbing awe of Dembski’s smoke and mirrors mathematics.

Don’t you see the difference between suggesting an incomprehensible analysis reaches a specific conclusion verses encouraging people to apply an understandable method themselves to reach their own conclusions?

I understand you think the search is useless and the method is bogus.  But I see it as a start, a glimmer of hope.  Maybe if ID proponents start thinking for themselves they might start looking to better methods and stronger evidence.  Who knows, they might work their way up to understanding General Relativity and perform actual scientific experiments.

P.S. to Doc Bill - get a dictionary and define "design" for yourself

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,00:09   

Comparing Mike Gene to Roger Penrose?

Give me a break.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,00:26   

Hey, every IDiot gets a fanboy...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,00:39   

Yeah well, wake me up when one of them does something useful, like, oh I dunno, some research.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,00:59   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 21 2008,23:52)
I think Mike Gene’s book has the potential of provoking independent thinking


Ah, but here's the  thing.

Scientists really do like thinking.

For starters.

But then, you have to start testing.  The longer you "think" without collecting data, making and breaking hypotheses, the more likely it is that your "thinking" is completely unmoored from physical reality, and is likely to have you believing things that are wrong.

So, what experiments does Mike Gene have under his belt to prove this all his innovative thinking has a basis in physical reality?  Why don't you show us the hard data underlying his claims?

In short, what good is it to provoke "independant thinking" if he can't demonstrate that anything he's thiking about isn't flat out wrong?

Quote
Maybe if ID proponents start thinking for themselves they might start looking to better methods and stronger evidence.


Umm, if they aren't looking for evidence now, 10 years into the ID movement, they obviously don't think that it's something they should be doing.  And it's not something they want to do, or that furthers their interests.  ID advocates make money writing books telling the gullible what they want to hear.  The gullible wallow in feeling that Jesus designed them, so they are special.

That phenomenon just isn't going to mutate into science.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,09:22   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 22 2008,00:52)
A lot of people think of the Special Relativity answer to the Twins Paradox when they hear "relativity" or "space-time".  That version is so incomplete that I consider it wrong.  Did you know our GPS satellites automatically adjust for General Relativity?  If they adjusted for Special Relativity they wouldn't keep time accurately.  Special Relativity was a stop gap calculation that was known to be wrong by Einstein when he proposed it.

Thats, funny, because GR includes SR. You can't compensate for general relativity without also compensating for special relativity.

General relativity is an attempt to unify Newtonian gravity with special relativity. It depends on it and does not work without it.

SR does not work when dealing with gravity. Its not supposed to - thats what GR is for. The GPS satellites must operate within a strong gravity field and thus must use GR.

For someone who likes to berate others for not understanding your quantum woo, you are rather ignorant of the way things actually work.

Where is your evidence to show that the measurements by actual scientists - which confirm both to the limits that we can measure - are wrong?

Don't have any? Didn't think so.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,09:25   

Stupidity can provoke thought. Anything can, really.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,10:42   

TP stomps feet and writes:

Quote
P.S. to Doc Bill - get a dictionary and define "design" for yourself


That is creationism in a nutshell:  appeals to authority and dictionary definitions.

Nice.  But, it's not science.  It's not for me to define "design" because I make no claims that there is design in nature.

Without a definition of design and metrics with with to measure it the "Design Matrix" is a completely and totally useless exercise.  Although, you may be right that it's the best ID book on the market.  The Design Matrix explains nothing, predicts nothing and has no more scientific value than Battlefield Earth.

There is no difference between Gene and Dembski in their attempt to create a "theory" of ID other than Gene lacks academic credentials, accreditation and any attempt at mathematical rigor.  And both are far less entertaining than L Ron Hubbard.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,11:11   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 21 2008,14:27)
Never mind. googled.

That was an interesting journey. Besson is somewhat under-rated.Anyone else enjoy The Big Blue?

If it's the film I think it is, I saw it on a small crappy TV, so it just came over as being rather boring.  I guess I should get the DVD and borrow a projector from work.

Bob
P.S. your new avatar makes me think you might be interested in a few more cats.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,12:26   

Hi Nerull,

In his book Penrose explains the Twins Paradox (i.e. Clock Paradox) is a geometry problem.

He demonstrates how using the Minkowskian geometry of General Relativity ALL BY ITSELF solves the paradox.  Note, a generalized Twins Paradox problem doesn't include gravity.

People feel more comfortable saying and thinking of General Relativity as just a minor upgrade to Special Relativity.  You can even find lots and lots of people with impressive credentials saying just that.

If you are absolutely intent on saying I am wrong by modifying definitions and equations to separate Special Relativity and General Relativity just so you can recombine them, you can probably do that.

May I suggest reading this piece titled The Inertia of Twins?

"It is fundamentally misguided to exercise such epistemological concerns within the framework of special relativity, because special relativity was always a provisional theory with recognized epistemological short-comings. As mentioned above, one of Einstein's two main two reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" exists only (aside from its historical importance) as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the phenomenological justification for those formulas can only be found in the general theory."

The title is a play on words.  The term "Special Relativity" and its role in the Twins Paradox continues because of the social inertia powered by people not wanting to let go of it.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,14:01   

Quote
I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,16:33   

Since I am on a roll.  Let me offer you something sure to cause a loud howl from the Group Think mentality that holds court here.

The reason for the introductory lesson in Minkowskian geometry and General Relativity is to awaken you to the reality of shortcuts in space-time.  You see the Twin Paradox shows that shortcuts exist.  Things moving at the speed of light take the ultimate shortcut, instantaneous travel.  Once you realise this, it logically follows that all quantum effects could easily be interconnected in both space and time.  I suggest it not only can happen, it does happen.

Here is something from Stuart Hameroff that I just posted on Telic Thoughts in a comment.  It mentions "Intelligent Design" by name...

Quote
The evolutionary origin of centrioles, cilia and flagella (which have the same basic structure of nine microtubule doublets or triplets arranged in a larger cylinder, but with additional motor proteins) is unclear. According to the endosymbiotic theory,57 our eukaryotic cells arose from symbiosis, an invasion of simple bacteria-like prokaryotes by mitochondria which supplied energy, and by flagellates (e.g. spirochetes) which brought cytoskeletal proteins providing structural support, compartmentalization and internal organization, movement and perhaps intelligence and eventually consciousness. The origin of flagellates is unknown.

There is some question as to whether centrioles, cilia and flagella (i.e. flagellates) could have evolved purely by natural selection, as they are said to exhibit “irreducible complexity”.58 Darwin said in The Origin of Species:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Innumerable small, randomly chosen steps of incremental changes in proteins to form tubulin, and tubulin to form microtubules, and microtubules to form centrioles, cilia and flagella would seem to offer no advantages “along the way”. Consequently centrioles, cilia and flagella have been suggested as examples of “intelligent design”.58 Designed by what, or by whom? This question leads some to “Creationism”. But there is also the view that intelligent design reflects the type of Platonic information embedded in the Planck scale suggested by Roger Penrose.59,60 If so, then via quantum states living systems are in touch with a deeper reality. Does this imply that quantum information devices, for example, would also be “alive”? Not necessarily, as only organic molecules and cytoskeletal protein lattices may have the inherent flexibility to harness ambient energy for quantum coherent states, interact with the Planck scale via quantum gravity processes, and utilize photons as phase-ordered matter.
link (warning, long download time)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,16:53   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 22 2008,16:33)
Since I am on a roll.  Let me offer you something sure to cause a loud howl from the Group Think mentality that holds court here.

Interesting pre-emptive strike, but also a red herring. Whether one or thirty people question your ideas is not the point; the point is, as noted before, if the ideas have any merit.
         
Quote
The evolutionary origin of centrioles, cilia and flagella (which have the same basic structure of nine microtubule doublets or triplets arranged in a larger cylinder, but with additional motor proteins) is unclear. According to the endosymbiotic theory,57 our eukaryotic cells arose from symbiosis, an invasion of simple bacteria-like prokaryotes by mitochondria which supplied energy, and by flagellates (e.g. spirochetes) which brought cytoskeletal proteins providing structural support, compartmentalization and internal organization, movement and perhaps intelligence and eventually consciousness. The origin of flagellates is unknown.

There is some question as to whether centrioles, cilia and flagella (i.e. flagellates) could have evolved purely by natural selection, as they are said to exhibit “irreducible complexity”.58 Darwin said in The Origin of Species:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Innumerable small, randomly chosen steps of incremental changes in proteins to form tubulin, and tubulin to form microtubules, and microtubules to form centrioles, cilia and flagella would seem to offer no advantages “along the way”. Consequently centrioles, cilia and flagella have been suggested as examples of “intelligent design”.58 Designed by what, or by whom? This question leads some to “Creationism”. But there is also the view that intelligent design reflects the type of Platonic information embedded in the Planck scale suggested by Roger Penrose.59,60 If so, then via quantum states living systems are in touch with a deeper reality. Does this imply that quantum information devices, for example, would also be “alive”? Not necessarily, as only organic molecules and cytoskeletal protein lattices may have the inherent flexibility to harness ambient energy for quantum coherent states, interact with the Planck scale via quantum gravity processes, and utilize photons as phase-ordered matter.

followed by untested quantum woo...

A troika of brief group-think points/questions.

1) Presumably you are aware that "irreducible complexity", contra Darwin's 19th century perspective, can arise from well-known evolutionary mechanisms. If not, see here and here. In other words, there is no necessity for a design inference based on this notion of IC.

2) So when are you going to define design and tell us how you measure it, as requested? Passing the job off on those of us who are not arguing for design is frankly dishonest. You are arguing that there is design; you need to define your terms and metrics.

3) And if not, when are you (or anyone) going to test some predictions derived from the quantum woo above? Given that these allegedly IC systems can arise from standard evolutionary processes, the onus is again on you to prove that your notions are a better explanation. That will require predictions and experiments and publications, as per the usual group-think that happens when scientists get together...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,17:29   

Ahhhhhh I do so love false and nonsensical accusations of groupthink! They're so...so...so...comforting a hallmark of an obvious kook.

TP,

Here's a provocative thought for you:

Is it possible(just possible, nothing more) that the reason people here at dear old AtBC give your shallow misconceptions such short shrift is because they are vacuous drivel delivered in a condescending and pompous manner by someone incapable of answering the most basic questions about what they (erroneously) claim to be a fascinating and useful scientific set of ideas?

Is it possible that your great pretentions of scientific sophistication and supercillious fauxerudition are actually neither fooling nor impressing anyone? Is it possible that your behaviour and "ideas" (let's not overly elevate them shall we?) are actually transparent?

Shock, horror, I'd argue it was more than merely possible, but I'm happy for the mileage of other to vary on the matter, and equally happy to be wrong.

So, do us all a favour, steer away from attempts to confuse the issue with stuff gleaned from the latest popular science book you've misunderstood. Equally steer away from attempts to play the "I'm on your team" anti-Dembski/creationist crap, it also fools no one, this is not a team game, it's about evidence and the demonstrable utility and validity of ideas and claims (this may have been pointed out to you by others before). Also equally steer away from pitting one kook (Gene) against another (Dembski) as if your interpretation of their characters has any bearing on the validity of their claims. I doesn't matter if Gene is honestly attempting to advance some claim already demonstrated to be false and Dembski is a snake oil salesman, the claim is still demonstrably false.

Try answering the questions asked of you, you'll find it helps improve the conversation immensely. Sometimes, just sometimes, people give one's ideas and oneself short shrift because the ideas are wrong and one is behaving like a pompous twat, not because they are scared of the correctness of the ideas and one is a misunderstood and persecuted genius and soothsayer.

They laughed at Gallileo, they laughed at Copernicus, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Get over yourself.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,19:17   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2008,17:29)
Ahhhhhh I do so love false and nonsensical accusations of groupthink! They're so...so...so...comforting a hallmark of an obvious kook.

TP,




Sometimes, just sometimes, people give one's ideas and oneself short shrift because the ideas are wrong and one is behaving like a pompous twat, not because they are scared of the correctness of the ideas and one is a misunderstood and persecuted genius and soothsayer.

They laughed at Gallileo, they laughed at Copernicus, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.


Louis - You have been away from Merry Old England too long, old chap!  He is a pompous twit not a pompous twat!  

You are sentenced to 3 gin and tonics, monocle, cane and bowler hat wearing for a week, along with watching 2 cricket matches.

However, it is good to see you almost back to form, and to be fair, maybe you can work your way up to a right ballsy rant after a couple more weeks back.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,19:33   

I would bet money Thought Provoker isn't Mike Gene. Mike Gene is, or was, an actual scientist. I don't think TP has that level of experience.

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,20:26   

I guess I should be honored.  Louis AND SteveStory!

You are right Steve.  I am not a scientist, just an interested bystander.

I am more comfortable with quantum physics than biology.

As for "nonsensical accusations of groupthink", I have reason to believe the peer pressure might be a little more oppressive at AtBC than you suggest.  I have had more than one person quietly e-mail interesting articles in support of my quantum quackery.  Some have even asked me for futher explainations of my ideas.  These people were from AtBC.  People at Telic Thoughts don't have to hide their interest.

I am not suggesting that I have special insight to the ultimate Truth.

I have been honest and open both here and in Telic Thoughts.  As for answering questions, I attempt to do so.  However, I explained I had no interest in trying to defend Mike Gene's method.  I also am not interested in defending the ID Movement, quite the opposite.

I explained all this when I provided a definition for "design" but, of course, that was ignored.

If what I am saying is truly worthless, I suggest the best thing to do would be to be to ignore it.  Let those who might be interested ask questions or make constructive suggestions.

Or is everyone conditioned to second and "thirded" anything that smells like it might challenge the Status Quo?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,20:51   

Be honest. Do you wear a tinfoil hat?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,21:06   

People support him in email; that's all we need to know.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,21:07   

Quote
If what I am saying is truly worthless, I suggest the best thing to do would be to be to ignore it.  Let those who might be interested ask questions or make constructive suggestions.


Another option is to mock you.  I'm up for that! Do we have a consensus?


And mocking Telic Thoughts and Gene's book and any other form of pseudoscience/creationism/nonsense math/mumbo jumbo you want to puke up for us as you portray youreself as a persecuted victim of group think (that is fucking hilarious btw).

Charge!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,21:08   

Hi Albatrossity,

As I explained before, I consider the term "design" to be a property of everything that exists.  The design of light can be understood by understanding Maxwell's equations and quantum physics.

I also think "design" is a loaded term exploited be the religious-based ID Movement to hide their agenda of promoting a belied in a "Designer", aka "Creator" aka God.

As for experiments people like Jack Tuszynski have been doing quite a bit.  Others are looking into quantum effects in biology like Patel.  And then there is Berkeley labs...

Quote
“We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis,” said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. “This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one.”

link

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,21:16   

Re "groupthink"

Funny, I had the notion that "groupthink" involved ideas held by members of a group because of social pressure of that group on its members. If the ideas are held because of supporting evidence, the "groupthink" concept doesn't apply.

Henry

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,21:39   

Hi Henry,

What does the "supporting evidence" of quantum experiments that demonstate Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger quantum states tell you?

You have a limited number of choices...

1. Ignore evidence that has been repeated by countless experiments.

2. Assume a metaphysical construct of your choice (you might as well say "God did it").

3. Recognize General Relativity and Quantum Physics combine to provide a complete, if disturbing, explanation.

All quantum effects are interconnected in Minkowskian space-time.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,22:19   

Quote
What does the "supporting evidence" of quantum experiments that demonstate Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger quantum states tell you?


That quantum mechanics is weird. Or it would have told me that if I hadn't already known it.

Henry

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,22:23   

TP, have you met Sherry?

I think you should introduce yourself, you have a lot in common.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,22:32   

I'm here strictly for the mocking, TP.

Hopefully, it will earn me tickets to a cricket match which will make your stupidity worthwhile reading.

First of all let me say that I always capitalize quantum physics.  Always.

Second, here is my Quote o' teh Weak:

Quote
I am more comfortable with quantum physics than biology.


My school was so poor it could only provide quantum mechanics.  We were so poor we could only afford the first two terms of a Taylor series.  We were so poor our delta pi gamma function was in lowercase.

What is the main purpose of a delta pi gamma function, TP?  Any clue?

You getting any of this, TP?

Finally, please don't get the impression that we don't like you, TP.  Far from it!  You're the best thing for creationism since UFO's built by Satan.  Hang in there.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,23:40   

Hi Henry,

Ok, so you are of the opinion Quantum Mechanics is weird.

In a way I have the same opinion (hard not to).  However, Quantum Mechanics makes quite a bit of sense as long as you constrain your study to only Quantum Level effects.

In other words, Quantum Mechanics can be thought of as normal, and it is the macro world that is "weird".

In the Macro World,  the time dimension flows in only one direction, how weird is that?  It's like saying we can only go North and not South.

I find it telling that combining Quantum Mechanics with Cosmological things like Black Holes is easier to model and explain than simple decoherence.

Why do BuckyBalls exhibit superposition but baseballs don't?  Why is the Schrödinger's Cat puzzle so difficult to solve?

Of course the peanut gallery following I seem to be accumulating isn't going to be impressed with just questions.

But it is late and I have to get up early tomorrow.

So let me offer that Sir Roger Penrose has a hypothesis for decoherence that is testable and is being tested.

It is a derivative of the Copenhagen Quantum interpretation called Objective Reduction.

Other people have similar Copenhagen-like quantum interpretations by other names, but basically they all presume quantum effects are artifacts of waves in space-time.

The main opposing theory is held by people unwilling to give up on the existence of particles.  So much so, they are willing to embrace the constant generation of multiple universes containing all the different possibilities.  It is called the Many Worlds Quantum Interpretation.  Personally, I think it is more metaphysical than simply claiming "God works in mysterious ways".

The other option is to ignore it and hope someone will come up with a more acceptable explanation.  I suggest it is obvious that we have waited long enough considering we are starting to build encryption devices and computers based on the reality of Quantum Mechanics.

Even though it is "weird" it is time we accept it.  We have an explanation that isn't metaphysical.  The problem is that accepting it will greatly disturb the Status Quo in many scientific fields, including Biology.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,01:07   

Yo, TP, still cutting and pasting I see.

Since you gave up on a definition of design, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on your personal interpretation of the delta pi gamma function.

I don't expect any math since you're a poser, but a layman's description would be a good start.

How about something easy?

Given a triple integral of delta bounded zero to one, dx, how would you apply the dpg function?

Granted, this is graduate level quantum mechanics, but take a stab anyway.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,01:13   

Quote
We were so poor we could only afford the first two terms of a Taylor series.

Ah, you certainly wasn't one of those squares, then.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,02:13   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 22 2008,23:32)
We were so poor we could only afford the first two terms of a Taylor series.

LOL.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,06:22   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 22 2008,21:08)
Hi Albatrossity,

As I explained before, I consider the term "design" to be a property of everything that exists.  The design of light can be understood by understanding Maxwell's equations and quantum physics.

I also think "design" is a loaded term exploited be the religious-based ID Movement to hide their agenda of promoting a belied in a "Designer", aka "Creator" aka God.

As for experiments people like Jack Tuszynski have been doing quite a bit.  Others are looking into quantum effects in biology like Patel.  And then there is Berkeley labs...

   
Quote
“We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis,” said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. “This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one.”

link

That's pretty much a non-answer.

A few more of those and I'll probably join the mockingbirds too.

As for your photosynthesis example, since it has nothing at all to do with your previous hand-waving about centrioles, that's pretty much a non-answer too.

You are definitely provoking something, but it doesn't feel like thought. More like pity.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,06:37   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 23 2008,01:17)
Louis - You have been away from Merry Old England too long, old chap!  He is a pompous twit not a pompous twat!

Dearest J-Dog,

No, no, I really did mean twat (for those unfamiliar with the term see here ). Playing the "Lurkers support me in email" card is a good twat indicator on the part of TP (aptly initialled since he seems to have great familiarity with shit and is seen regularly cuddling up to an arsehole).

The thought hasn't occured to TP that perhaps one reason that the Telic Thoughts crowd is more curious about his drivel than the average ATBCer is because the Telic Thoughts crowd are less scientifically literate than the average ATBCer*. TP's smoke and mirrors game with big words impresses them more than it does us.

Any time someone proposing "design" (or indeed any claim) refuses to, or cannot, define the very basic terms in said proposition/claim unambiguously and meaningfully then they are wasting everyone's time. Wanking on about how "honest" Mike Gene is compared to Dembski or how the Telic thoughts crowd is more open to TP's quantum effluvium than the ATBC crowd is just so much irrelevant concern trolling. We don't need to discuss Hameroff's ideas (for example), TP has yet to present an idea coherently enough to reach "Spot the Dog and the Big Red Ball" let alone postgrad level quantum physics and neurology. This is another thing he seems to be missing. By a long margin too.

Shorter version for TP:

1) Sometimes intelligent people mock you/your ideas or are not receptive to your ideas/presentation of those ideas because the ideas are false/wrong/bad and you present them badly/irrelevantly etc. Sometimes people try to point this out to you out of a kind of frustrated helpfulness. Think about it. Mockery is sometimes a clue!

2) Sometimes you need to walk before you run. Start at the level of "forming coherent basic idea" before trying to "synthesise myriad complex concepts poorly understood from popular science books" or "revolutionising all of science".

Louis

* Editted to add: this is something of an understatement IMO. From the little reading of Telic Thoughts I have done, the average TTer is less scientifically literate than a severely mentally impaired house plant. With learning difficulties and a disadvantageous childhood. And a poor teacher. And Attention Deficit Disorder. And lead poisoning. And a frontal lobotomy. And a serious head injury brought on by being beaten about the head and neck with a stout pipe. And by virtue of being a fucking PLANT!

--------------
Bye.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,09:21   

Rats!  I think Louis is going to win the cricket tickets.


I so wanted to see Huddersfield play Lower Gramble.

Pity, that.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,09:31   

I'll give them to you Doc Bill, I couldn't prevent you from seeing the mighty Lower Gramble.

I don't intend to be so mean but in the words of Bill Hicks, I'm in such a mood, I think it's this haircut, every time I see it I think "Someone has to die!". ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,10:42   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2008,06:37)
Shorter version for TP:

1) Sometimes intelligent people mock you/your ideas or are not receptive to your ideas/presentation of those ideas because the ideas are false/wrong/bad and you present them badly/irrelevantly etc. Sometimes people try to point this out to you out of a kind of frustrated helpfulness. Think about it. Mockery is sometimes a clue!

2) Sometimes you need to walk before you run. Start at the level of "forming coherent basic idea" before trying to "synthesise myriad complex concepts poorly understood from popular science books" or "revolutionising all of science".

I'm afraid TP is constitutionally blind to the limits of his own understanding.  

For instance, in this thread at Telic Thoughts, he:

1. Misidentifies gravitational redshift and Mercury's orbital precession as motivators for Einstein's theory of special relativity.
2. Confuses inertial reference frames with absolute reference frames.
3. Mistakenly claims that general relativity is needed to resolve the twin paradox.
4. After all of the above are pointed out to him, proceeds to lecture Zachriel and me on the twin paradox, getting it totally wrong.

Eventually Zachriel, amused by TP's intransigence, portrays him as Starfleet's version of Captain Queeg.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:23   

Hi Albatrossity et al,

Excuse me for the brief reply but I want to take advantage of the opening Keiths made for me.

I had provided a definition for "design" back on page 2 of this thread, but it was ignored....

 
Quote
Here is an online dictionary definition for "design"...

design
noun
1.  the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or outline or plan); "he contributed to the design of a new instrument"  
2.  an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for seating guests"  
3.  something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt" 4.  a decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors"  
5.  an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"
6.  a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; "the design of a building"  
7.  the creation of something in the mind

I think the second definition is probably closest to what I am talking about.

As for metrics.  Can you provide me a metric for the term "existence"?  Because if it exists, I say it has the property of “design”.


Of course this is a side issue for what I am suggesting. I am not Mike Gene.  I am certainly not Dembski.  If you want to know their definition of design you will have to ask them.  The idea I have been presenting is that...

"All quantum effects are interconnected in Minkowskian space-time."

I will, and have, answered any questions of my definitions and why I think this is true.

Even the main point of the provocative Stuart Hameroff quote wasn't about "design".  It was suggesting...

"...organic molecules and cytoskeletal protein lattices may have the inherent flexibility to harness ambient energy for quantum coherent states, interact with the Planck scale via quantum gravity processes, and utilize photons as phase-ordered matter."

On the Group Think situation.  It wasn't whether Telic Thoughts or AtBC is more or less accepting of my ideas (believe me, there are plenty of TTers who do NOT like it).  It was the differnce in the effectiveness of peer pressure.  Frankly, I was surprised that some people from AtBC were actually afraid to approach me publicly and chose to do so privately.

Of course there are others who are independent and strong willed enough to overcome the pressure and have shown their interest publicly on AtBC.

Now on to Keiths.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:35   

Quote
Of course there are others who are independent and strong willed enough to overcome the pressure and have shown their interest publicly on AtBC.





--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:47   

Hi Keiths,

Thank you for your comment.  It provides me an excuse to repost something I think will help explain things I want explained.  You see, Zachriel was trying to deflect the point of my Star Trek based story with his.  Here is mine...

     
Quote

Captain's Log, star date 2006.1004,

We are on assignment in the Alpha quadrant to study planet cluster 623.

I have ordered the navigator to make it appear the planet cluster is moving in a circular pattern relative to the ship. Side note, I find it interesting that when the navigator does this it looks like the entire universe is spinning at the same rate, fascinating.

I have ordered Ensign Keiths to my ready-room.

Here he is now (wearing a red shirt, of course).

Ensign, we are sending down several survey teams to various planets in this cluster. This operation will occur over two years, ship time. The first year we will be dropping off teams the second year we will be picking them up.

However, it won't appear to be a year for you. Since, as you know, "…there is no absolute frame of reference…" and "…that the laws of physics are identical in all…" local frames of reference. Based on the ship's frame of reference, you will be constantly traveling at warp 0.9. At nine tenths the speed of light time will go slower…. err… um… or does it go faster? Hmmm, let's do the math…

ds^2 = dt^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
= (1 year)^2 - (0.9 light-years)^2
= 1.0 - 0.81
= 0.19

ds = 0.436 years

Ah yes, that’s it. Less than half a year. Therefore, we will provision your shuttle to last you and your team half a year. We will be back before you know it.

Ensign Keiths?

Do you have something to say?


I wrote this in response to your claim that...

     
Quote
I think the problem is that you're confusing the concepts of absolute vs. inertial reference frames. Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed. In fact, special relativity recognizes an infinite number of inertial frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them.


BTW, I never claimed there were "no inertial frames" and defy you to point out where I did.

The paradox in the Twin's Paradox is in choosing which frame of reference to use.  You say it doesn't matter.  I say it does.

The interesting part of your and Zachriel's "lecture" is that you were arguing in exactly the opposite directions.

Here is how I ended the off-topic discussion...

     
Quote
Hi Zachrial and Keiths,

It looks like Zachriel rejects the Math Page article and keiths thinks the "…author of the Math Page article confirms that special relativity resolves the Twin Paradox."

This has become too much of a distraction.

For the record, I reject Zachriel's, Keiths' and Lasky's suggestion that Special Relativity is complete enough to explain the Twin's Paradox without an implicit or explicit preferential choice of reference frames. I embrace the Math Page article's assessment…

"As mentioned above, one of Einstein's two main two reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" exists only (aside from its historical importance) as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the phenomenological justification for those formulas can only be found in the general theory."

If we continue to disagree, we continue to disagree. However, hopefully by now you understand my position even if you don't like it.
Link

So Ensign Keiths, have you figured out how to explain things to a captain thinking he can use his frame of reference and only Special Relativity?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:53   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,11:23)
Hi Albatrossity et al,

Excuse me for the brief reply but I want to take advantage of the opening Keiths made for me.

I had provided a definition for "design" back on page 2 of this thread, but it was ignored....

And I provided this on the very first page of the thread, but unfortunately I ignored it myself.  
Quote
I'm a scientist, not a mathematician.

When either Dembski or this new guy get around to doing some experiments based on their notions, and publishing the results of those experiments in peer-reviewed journals rather than books, let me know.

thanks.

I will first point out that there is still a failure to provide any rational and consistent metric to describe "design" in any of the posts TP has written. I will then point out that three out of the four non-numerical Mike-Gene-derived criteria for design (2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?; 3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?; and 4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?), cited in TP's OP have either been refuted as evidence of design (IC), or are completely impossible to prove scientifically. This is simply not science.  

Then I'll take my own advice and pay attention to all of this again when somebody does some experiments and gets them published in a peer-reviewed group-think journal.

Carry on.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:18   

Time for a show of hands...

How many people think our universe is totally without any kind of absolute reference frame?

How many people think our universe has a reference frame that is the non-Euclidean geometry formulated by Minkowski?

How many people want to ignore this as unimportant to understanding our reality?


From the a paper titled Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?  (Warning, long download time)
"In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous. In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the “absolute world”. The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after 1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined Minkowski’s absolute world concept and Mach’s ideas on rotational movements…"

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:46   

I wrote:
Quote
Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed.

TP replied:
Quote
BTW, I never claimed this were "no inertial frames" and defy you to point out where I did.

Here you go:
Quote
The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used. If everything was relative and there was no "ether" (inertial frame of reference) then this was a problem.

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:48   

I have a better question,

1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about?

2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think?

3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid?

Show of hands please.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:55   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 23 2008,18:48)
I have a better question,

1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about?

2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think?

3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid?

Show of hands please.

Ooooh Oooh Me Me!

Does that make me a bad person?

Anyway, TP did give some seriously good advice earlier up this thread: ignore him and his drivel.

I'm off to do just that.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:06   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 23 2008,13:48)
I have a better question,

1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about?

2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think?

3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid?

Show of hands please.

1) *raises hand*
2) *raises hand*
3) *raises hand*

(But only after I made sure everyone else was thinking the same.)

:)

TP, I hate to break it to you, but you're beginning to remind me of AFDaveyDoodles.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:24   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 23 2008,12:48)
I have a better question,

1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about?

2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think?

3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid?

Show of hands please.



--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:32   

Hi Keiths,

If that was your best shot I am quite comfortable with leaving that decision up to those in the listening audience, most of whom appear to have reasonable reading comprehension skills.

So, tell everyone one more time...

"Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference [but] recognizes an infinite number of inertial frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them."

And then, Ensign Keiths, explain why your captain must work the problem from a specific frame of reference in order to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Wouldn't it be easier, and more correct, to recognise the existence of the single, absolute reference frame General Relativity describes?

You might arrive at an approximately correct answer if you use Special Relativity.  You could also end up with a totally incorrect answer if you choose the wrong reference frame.

General Relativity gives you the correct answer because the universe is, in fact, the "absolute world" Minkowski described when he formulated the non-Euclidean geometry Einstein eventually embraced and has been successfully used by physicists like Hawking and Penrose.

BTW, Penrose has a whole chapter is his book,The Road to Reality, that is dedicated to explaining Minkowskian geometry and how it applies to things like the Clock Paradox (aka Twin Paradox).

You might want to consider reading it.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:53   

TP, have you shared your special insight with skepti, afdave or vmartin?


I think they would have an appreciation for your ideas...And methods too!  "Like minds" and all.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,14:33   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,13:32)
If that was your best shot I am quite comfortable with leaving that decision up to those in the listening audience, most of whom appear to have reasonable reading comprehension skills.

It was hardly my "best shot".  To demonstrate your confusion, I merely had to quote you.
Quote
You might arrive at an approximately correct answer if you use Special Relativity... General Relativity gives you the correct answer...

The issue isn't whether general relativity is a better theory than special relativity.  Of course it is -- why would Einstein "improve" on special relativity by developing and publishing an inferior theory?

The issue is (and always has been) whether general relativity is needed to resolve the twin paradox. At Telic Thoughts, you claimed that it is:
Quote
The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used.

Listen carefully.  The solution does not depend on which twin's reference frame is used.  Zachriel and I understand that.  Lasky (the author of the Scientific American article) understands that.  The author of the Math Page article understands that.  You are the only one who apparently does not understand that.

Read the Lasky article again, and try to comprehend it this time.  Find an intelligent friend who can explain it to you, if necessary.

If you succeed in understanding the Lasky article, the following claims should make sense to you:

1. Special relativity is able to resolve the twin paradox.
2. The solution does not depend on which twin's reference frame is chosen.  That's why it's called "relativity".
3. None of this implies that general relativity is inferior to special relativity.
4. General relativity also resolves the twin paradox.

Now stop, pause, and take a deep breath before your wounded ego propels you into an ill-considered response.

Read and understand the Lasky article first.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,14:35   

Quote
Why do BuckyBalls exhibit superposition but baseballs don't?


TP, I've explained this to you before, it's a product of the deBroglie wavelength and coherence. If you read that paper I sent you on decoherence, you'd know this already. The fact that you still bring this up makes me think that you would rather keep the question mysterious in your head rather than actually examine the literature.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've corresponded to TP by email a few times. I felt like the physics discussion, despite pages of afdave's drivel, was best left to PM's. My personal opinion is that too often "quantum" gets invoked anytime we want to explain something mysterious. It's requirement for any of the phenomena he presented (specifically Hameroff's model), seemed tenuous from the evidence presented. I provided peer reviewed literature that supports my contention exactly: the Coulomb interaction between 2 protons and 2 electrons is sufficient to cause decoherence.

Personally, I think you should follow up their experiments. You need a better grasp of quantum physics and mechanics beyond the people who popularize it; maybe look for an evening Master's program in physics. I'm sure there are plenty of institutions with access to laser tables, and you could probably secure neural cultures through a biology lab. You have the opportunity to show me I'm wrong, but you need to first recognize your own deficiencies.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,14:58   

Hi Mr Christopher,

I am somewhat familiar with AFDave and less familiar with Vmartin.  I don't know about skepti, but from your reference I could give a good guess.

At this point, I probably could claim the earth is round and have it taken as a creationist argument.

I am just curious as to how long you guys will let me play the straight man to your taunts.  I have an audience.  I am on solid ground with what I am suggesting.

General Relativity and Minkowskian Geometry properly solves the Twin Paradox because Minkowski's "absolute world" model of our universe was correct and has been substantially verified.

Do you really think taunts and comparisons to creationists will make my arguments any less valid?

It's my hope and expectation that at least some people will be provoked into some internal re-evaluation in the face of this continuing ridiculousness.

General Relativity is real.  Special Relativity was a temporary stop gap that has outlived its usefulness.

This is a creationist argument?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:07   

Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 23 2008,20:35)
In the interest of full disclosure, I've corresponded to TP by email a few times.

OH NOES!!!!

NOW YOU MUST BE PERSECUTED FOR VIOLATING THE GROUPTHINK!!!!!!

{Whoosh}

Noooooooobody expects the AtBC Groupthink Gestapo. Our main weapon is mockery. And consistency. Our two main weapons are mockery and consistency. And intimidation. Our three main weapons are mockery, consistency and intimidation. And a fanatical devotion to philosophical naturalism. Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as mockery, consistency, intimidation and a fanatical devotio.....I'll come in again.

{Whoosh}

Nooooooooobody expects the AtBC Groupthink Gestapo! Our main weapon is mockery. That's it, just mockery. Now Person Who Conversed With A Demonstrable Kook By Private Mail, how do you plead?

Cardinal LouFCD! Poke him with the Soft Cushions!

.....have you got all the stuffing up one end?

Etc.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:13   

Hi Keiths,

I see you have finally posted what you should have long ago.

Occam tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses.

Now, would you agree that the Twin Paradox is a geometry problem and that the traveling twin takes a short-cut in the non-Euclidean space-time geometry?

Or would you like to complicate it to make it less understandable?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:26   

Hi Creeky Belly,

Thank you for stepping forward.

I did enjoy and read what you sent me.  Thank you again.

As you know, Sir Roger Penrose doesn't agree with your understanding of what causes decoherence.

As to the ramifications of this.  We will get there slowly assuming this line of discussion continues.

First things first.  

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.

Agreed?

Minkowskian space-time geometry easily allows for the interconnection of things that travel at the speed of light.  It practically forces it.

As uncomfortable as it might make you, would you agree to that too?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:32   

Quote
P.S. your new avatar makes me think you might be interested in a few more cats.


Thanks for the link, Bob. The subject is Ginger (how we struggled to come up with that). I have a few more photos (in the drier, in my wife's knicker drawer etc. ) but alas, Ginger is no more...

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:41   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 23 2008,16:32)
Thanks for the link, Bob. The subject is Ginger (how we struggled to come up with that). I have a few more photos (in the drier, in my wife's knicker drawer etc. ) but alas, Ginger is no more...

Your wife's knicker drawer is an odd place to keep pictures of your cats.

Never mind, I'm going to quit right there.

;)

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,16:19   

Quote
First things first.  

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.

Agreed?

Minkowskian space-time geometry easily allows for the interconnection of things that travel at the speed of light.  It practically forces it.

As uncomfortable as it might make you, would you agree to that too?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable; the conservation of the speed of light forces space-time to be what it is: a hyperbolic geometry. This is only scratching the surface, though. If you want a proper treatment you need to introduce affine connections, something that hints at the dynamics. It's the only way to resolve things like Mach's principle.

Also, quantum information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, I think that was a corollary of Bell's experiment. However, classical transmission of information faster than the speed of light is still forbidden.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,16:53   

Quote
...quantum information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, I think that was a corollary of Bell's experiment. However, classical transmission of information faster than the speed of light is still forbidden.


On this we agree.

Quantum information is not "classical transmission of information".  Therefore, it can not result in a causal paradox.  Quantum information can travel forward and backwards in time along with instantly traveling to anywhere in the universe.

In other words, quantum information can propagate to any point in the universal space-time geometry from the Big Bang to whatever happens at the end (Big Crunch?).

Penrose's OR hypothesis suggests that not only can quantum information propagate everywhere and everywhen, it does.  All the quantum information (i.e. quantum effects) are just exposed parts of one giant wavefunction that is our universe.

What things like Bell's experiment and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger states show us is that whenever any quantum information is exposed as classical information, the entire universal wavefunction (past and future) is forced into consistency with that exposed information.

However, the wavefunction only needs to be dynamic if the choice of what gets exposed is random.

Newtonian physics is deterministic.  It doesn't generate randomness.  The only apparent true source of randomness appears to come from the decoherence of quantum effects.

I suggest the game is rigged.

Of course this opens up some curious ramifications to the concept of free will and consciousness.

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:11   

Arggh. One draconian law I would support is you can't discuss QM unless you have a Ph.D. in physics. And you can't discuss free will and QM ever. It should be the unpardonable sin. Maybe it is.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:13   

GET BACK TWO WORKIN ON YOU"RE SPACE TELESCOPE.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,15:13)
Hi Keiths,

I see you have finally posted what you should have long ago.

Occam tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses.

Now, would you agree that the Twin Paradox is a geometry problem and that the traveling twin takes a short-cut in the non-Euclidean space-time geometry?

Or would you like to complicate it to make it less understandable?

TP,

Your comment is one long non sequitur.

Did you read the Lasky article?  Do you finally understand why you are wrong to claim that special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:15   

Geeze, Heddle, I find myself agreeing with you more and more.  That doesn't mean we're going steady, though!

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:19   

To add to keiths' comments (and for TP's benefit):

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise

And to answer the question TP Posed to me regarding me trying to invalidate his arguments, TP you do a nice job of that all by yourself.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:22   

Hey, TP, a couple of further comments.  First, you wrote:


Quote
Do you really think taunts and comparisons to creationists will make my arguments any less valid?


No, your arguments couldn't possibly get any less valid than they are right now.

Second, I've decided to promote you from Creationist Moron to Creationist Moron First Class with a Dishonest Fig Leaf Cluster (stolen from Dembski).

Your original "point" of this thread was to discuss Dembski and Mike Gene, but when that turned into a cluster (literally) you then claimed that your point was to discuss another topic about which you know nothing, quantum mechanics.  You're dishonest.  And a moron.  However, as I pointed out earlier your arguments are not moronic because you are a moron.  That would be ad hominem.  The two events are independent.

So, tell me, Quantum Boy, how fast would you have to walk through a 3-foot wide doorway to diffract?  Please return in two years with experimental results.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:32   

WOO WOO. ALL ABOARD THE DEEPAK CHOPRA EXPRESS!



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:50   

Quote
how fast would you have to walk through a 3-foot wide doorway to diffract?


Doesn't the wavelength of the object have to be comparable to the width of the opening for diffraction to happen?

Henry

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:08   

Hi Keiths,

 
Quote
Did you read the Lasky article?


I read it the first time you presented it to me and I told you then that I disagreed with it.

 
Quote
Do you finally understand why you are wrong to claim that special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox?


It doesn't matter whether you or Lasky can twist Special Relativity into a form where it might resolve the Twin Paradox.  You finally admitted that...

 
Quote
4. General relativity also resolves the twin paradox.


Special Relativity is superfluous.  General Relativity is a complete explanation.  Special Relativity no longer needs to be a consideration.  Occam's razor suggests we should discard it.  That is what I am doing.

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.

Minkowski's concept of a single reference frame and "absolute world" has been shown to be correct.

If you want to quibble about semantics, be my guest if that will help your ego.

Meanwhile, I suggest the ramifications of Minkowskian space-time geometry is rather interesting in its explanatory power.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:28   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,18:08)
Meanwhile, I suggest the ramifications of Minkowskian space-time geometry is rather interesting in its explanatory power.

Just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile the alleged explanatory power of Minkowskian geometry with the inarguably contrary implications of Henderson-Darling oscillation and reciprocal inversion? You are aware of Penrose's misgivings in this regard, I assume?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:51   

Hi Jim Wynne,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I suspect it is just gibberish.

Was this a test?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,19:21   

I vowed not to return but since I'm the only person on this thread with a PhD from a reputable university I will step in on this point.

Yes, TP, it was a test and you failed miserably.  You see, the Internet has a lot of stuff on it but it doesn't have all the stuff.  Us old geezers used paper and pencils in the last century and much has not been digitized and made available over the Web.

Henderson did a sabbatical at Cambridge in the 60's where he met a young physicist, Stephen Hawking.  Henderson was working on quantum fluctuations associated with interstellar gasses and it was Hawking who introduced Henderson to the mathematics that would lead to the characterization of black holes.

It turns out that Darling, also working at Cornell with Henderson, was finishing his PhD dissertation on mass balance of interstellar gasses, and, although his data was accurate he was concerned that it wasn't accurate enough.  Something else was going on and Henderson, via Hawking, provided a clue, and that was quantum oscillation.  

Quantum oscillation called for "tunneling" between energy potential wells in interstellar space.  Remember, at this time tunneling was a new concept which was later demonstrated and is the basis for things like solid-state lasers.

Penrose's concern was that there was not an energy source that could drive tunneling in interstellar space.  The distances between particles was great, it was nearly zero Kelvin and calculations could not deliver the heat, so to speak.  Enter Hawking and black holes.  Suddenly it all dropped out.  Small black holes, on the order of a solar mass or less, but more prevalent in interstellar space, especially where there were large dust accumulations, such as nebula, could not only provide the power for oscillations, but the mass balance calculations all but proved the concept.

Of course, identifying small black holes has been a problem, and that may always be the case, and that's Penrose's concern, however, the math solves the mass balance problem.

So, the search is on for small (some people call them micro) black holes and time will tell.

An interesting side note is that the new supercollider being built has as an objective to create a micro-micro black hole.  The sponsors of that project are none other than Henderson and Darling.

Pretty cool, eh?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:11   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 23 2008,19:21)
I vowed not to return but since I'm the only person on this thread with a PhD from a reputable university I will step in on this point.

Hey!  I resemble that remark. I may not have a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics, and Stanford may be about to lose SLAC, but I do have a Ph.D. from a reputable university!

Oooh. I forgot. I'm not a participant in this thread any longer...

Carry on. I do so want to hear more about quantum tunneling as an explanation for microtubule function, and pantsfrontloading, and how Mike Gene is gonna kick Dembski's books right off Amazon and such.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:27   

TP

I'd just like to add my two rupees to say "Jeeeeeesus what the fuck are y'all goin on about" and to add that there is nothing like some physics to make ordinary folks feel plumb ignernt.  YouknowhutImeanTP.  God-dam decoherence, the Monroe-Martin decoherence, the Reno Single String Theory, Round Peak Relativity vs Clinch Mountain Frail, hell I give up.  I'll keep to poking VMartin with the ugly stick.

Don't get me wrong.  Although I have only lightly kept up with this thread, I'm impressed that you are somewhat less trollish and ignorant than some of our other cranks.  You may have a point.  I could never tell.  It seems that the educated lot amongst us disagree but that's the way it goes.  These days I'm cynical enough to say if you ain't an IDiot or a young earth moron you're probably halfway sane.  Then again, there is Deepak.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:44   

Hi Doc Bill,

Yes, it does sound cool.  Dangerous, but cool.

My training is as a glorified grease monkey, an electrical engineer.  In the '70s our professors struggled to explain the physics behind tunneling diodes much less the more intense stuff.

I had some interest in physics and showed enough promise that one of the professors from the physics department tried to convince me to change majors.  I went for the money instead (microcontrollers).

So, besides doing my usual over simplification, would you agree that I am presenting Penrose's OR hypothesis reasonably accurately?

I am not asking you if you agree with Penrose, I am interested in how well you think I am understanding it.

BTW, thank you for the explaination about who Henderson and Darling are.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:45   

Albatrossity2, you are one sick puppy cynical bastard.  Did I leave anything out?

But, you stumbled (God knows you didn't figure it out.) on an interesting development that we were pursuing with Rice University before I retired.

Oh, and before I go too far, I had this dream of a jayhawk carrying a cat-like critter in it's beak before dropping it in a cornfield from 50,000 feet.  Ever have that dream?

Anyway, it turns out that nanotechnology will be the key to our next generation of ultra-light, long-life batteries.  Imagine a laptop that can go for a month without a charge, but weighs less than 3 lbs?  The batteries exist but they cost $100,000 each at the research stage.  The key is to use carbon nanotubes to position dual lithium crystals using chelation, similar to EDTA binding metals, like copper.

In fact, the original design used EDTA and copper but we couldn't figure out how to stabilize the nanotube once the liquid was removed.  It just collapsed.  Paired lithium through ionic bonds proved to be more stable.  Not unlike salt, NaCl, actually.

Grown in solution the nanotubes form helixes that align when lithium is introduced and the supporting liquid evaporated.  The helixes align the paired lithium which crystalizes and is stable at room temperature.  The resulting di-lithium crystal structure provides 3.5 V at 12 milliamperes which isn't bad.  By sandwiching the nanotube lattices you can increase the current capacity at the same voltage.

Research is ongoing, but we think there might be a tunneling activity that supports stability of the structure.  Because the current drain is constant as we change temperatures, we think tunneling could account for that.  But, don't know for sure.  On paper we could power a car for a month using a di-lithium crystal nanotube battery the size of a shoebox.

Personally, I think the engineering is 5 years away from being practical.  But, there you have it.  Real life quantum mechanics and a practical application.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:55   

Hi Erasmus,

Thank you for your comment.

 
Quote
...some physics to make ordinary folks feel plumb ignernt.  YouknowhutImeanTP.


Yes I do.  ;)

Do you have any idea how hard it was to struggle through 1000 pages of Roger Penrose level math when you have been out of college for over 30 years?

I am trying to explain my understanding as well as I can.  I get the impression I am not too far off, but I can't know for sure.

Obviously my explaination is incomplete.  I am just trying to figure out what I have got flat out wrong.

Is there anything in particular that you would like me to try an explain better?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,21:17   

I dunno what you could explain to make me believe that quantum effects would have anything to do with macroscopic phenomena, much less biological evolution.  It all sounds like the Chopra, the Matrix, Dancing Wu Li, water molecules can tell when you are sad, Steve Hurlbert's Demonic Intrusion term in ANOVA, infinite wavelength radiation ad hoc b.s. to me.  But I'll be brutally honest and admit that I could easily be fooled, my parsing of physics is probably akin to the coarse palate of the English (everything is boiled to mush with the parsnips).  

I just wanted to say that whether or not you are a crackpot you are a jolly good sport and that is admirable!

/lurk

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,22:15   

Hi Erasmus,

Thank you again for your comment.

I don't want to convince you.  I want you to decide for yourself.

Part of my provocative style is so if people come to see things the way I do, they will do it in spite of my arrogance.  I want people thinking for themselves.

As for data...
Here is something interesting from Berkeley Labs...

"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis,”

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:09   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,18:08)
I read it [Lasky's Scientific American article on the twin paradox] the first time you presented it to me and I told you then that I disagreed with it... It doesn't matter whether you or Lasky can twist Special Relativity into a form where it might resolve the Twin Paradox.
 
Then it should be easy for you to show us what's wrong with Lasky's graph, and to explain to us why he should have gotten different answers for each of the twins:

(Note that the time axis should be labeled in years, not light-years)


How about it, TP?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:26   

Quote
Anyway, it turns out that nanotechnology will be the key to our next generation of ultra-light, long-life batteries.  Imagine a laptop that can go for a month without a charge, but weighs less than 3 lbs?  The batteries exist but they cost $100,000 each at the research stage.  The key is to use carbon nanotubes to position dual lithium crystals using chelation, similar to EDTA binding metals, like copper.

That's really cool. I'm working in a ChemE lab this quarter, trying to create batteries with thin films (~10nm). We're using a polymer spin-coated onto a silicon wafer to suppress the crystallization (ruins the electrolyte properties of the polymer), and a scanning force microscope to probe the mechanical properties. The next generation of LEDs will most likely stem from the same research, using the crystal properties of polymers to draw thin nano-sized wires. The field is pretty much wide open at this point, as the technology has really only been utilized in the past decade or so.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:31   

What's really funny is that TP's idol, Roger Penrose, explicitly contradicts him on the twin paradox.

From The Road to Reality, p. 422:
Quote
It used to be frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong... The astronaut is allowed to accelerate in special relativity, just as in general relativity. [Emphasis mine]

Okay, TP, let's hear your explanation of how Penrose is wrong, how Lasky is wrong, how the author of the Math Page article is wrong, how Zachriel and I are wrong, but you -- who can't even keep the differences between special and general relativity straight -- are right.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:32   

What is quite interesting about Keiths' graph is how similar it is to the lithium carbon microtube power cell that's being developed.

The lower curve with the positive knee is close to the power consumption curve of a mono-lithium microtube battery.

The central curve corresponds to the standard lithium hydride battery that you can buy at WalMart.

But the upper curve with the negative knee is exactly the kind of power curve we see with a di-lithium crystal.  Exactly the same response.

We think it's a quantum effect, but perhaps TP can shine some electrical engineering expertise on the problem

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,03:13   

Quote
Enter Hawking and black holes.  Suddenly it all dropped out.

Surely not if it entered a black hole.

:-)

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,07:34   

Hi Keiths,

Thank you for your response.  I think it helped me with my presentation, a lot.

The difference between you and Zachriel is that Zachriel approaches his discussions like he would a military maneuver.  He is careful not to over-extend.

You may yet win the battle of convincing people I made a semantic mistake in my use of the term "General Relativity" but it may cost you the war in that you end up demonstrating that my efforts are honest and rational.

Page 422 of The Road to Reality is part of Chapter 18 which is titled "Minkowskian geometry".

Starting at the top of Page 420...
"In passing from [Euclidean geometry] to [Minkowskian geometry], there are also changes that relate to inequalities.  The most dramatic of these contains the essence of the so-called 'clock paradox' (or 'twin paradox') of special relativity. ... if we accept that the passage of time, as registered by a moving clock, is really a kind of 'arc length' measured along a world line, then the phenomenon is not more puzzling than the path along which this distance is measured.  Both are measured by the same formula, namely [integral of ds], but in the Euclidian case, the straight path represents the minimizing of the measured distance between two fixed end-points, whereas in the Minkowski case, it turns out that the straight, i.e. inertial, path represents the maximizing of the measured time between two fixed end events (see also 17.9)." [emphasis Penrose's]

Penrose goes on to explain how in the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean geometry is a straight line and how that is not true for Minkowskian geometry.

This is why I say the traveling twin took a short cut.

Page 421 has some pictures explaining all of this.  Penrose also explains why this is NOT due to accelerations and is purely a geometry problem.

Continuing on page 422...

"It is frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong.  The answer for the clock times is obtained using the formula [integral of ds] (with ds>0) in both theories.  The astronaut is allowed to accelerate in special relativity, just as in general relativity."

Penrose was trying to explain a concept using terms people understand.  I was focused on Penrose's concept.  If you want to claim victory over semantics, be my guest.

As for how to "fix" your chart.  Simply re-label the chart to read...

   
Quote
Traveler's clock as seen by Homebody

Traveler's clock

Homebody's clock


You and Lasky are handwaving a preferential choice of a frame of reference.  What is the basis of this choice?  Acceleration?

I suggest that is why Penrose was trying to explain that worrying about acceleration was "completely wrong".

The Twin Paradox is a geometry problem.

And it doesn't matter whether you want to mouth the words "Special Relativity" or "General Relativity" in the process of figuring out the arc lengths.

The traveling twin took a short cut.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,11:41   

Of course, the alleged paradox is caused by failure to account for the traveler changing from one inertial frame of reference to another at the far end of the trip. Time dilation is a relationship between inertial frames, so moving from one frame to another changes the amount of time dilation that the traveler observes in the stay-at-home. Account for that and the paradox goes away, whether the accounting is done using S.R. formulas, G.R. formulas, computing when each twin receives radio signals sent by the other, or by slapping a label of "short cut" on it.

Henry

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,19:03   

Hmmm, it’s gotten quiet all of a sudden.

Hi Henry,

Thank you for your comment.

I had put together the Star Trek example in anticipation of the standard "changing inertial frames" argument.

It is the landing party that is going out and back, not the Captain on his ship.  At least from the Captain's frame of reference.

You are using acceleration to choose a preferred frame of reference.

Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.  Oops, special relativity breaks down and then the hand waving begins.  Why make exceptions for an antiquated concept that has outlived its usefulness?  Nostalgia?

Did you understand what Penrose was talking about with "'arc length' measured along a world line"? Minkowski brought Einstein and physics back to the "absolute world" of a single, non-Euclidean reference frame. The integral of ds is the summation of the path taken by the respective twin.  The path taken by the traveling twin is shorter in the single, "absolute world" that is our universe.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,19:08   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 24 2008,20:03)
Hmmm, it’s gotten quiet all of a sudden.

Hi Henry,

Thank you for your comment.

I had put together the Star Trek example in anticipation of the standard "changing inertial frames" argument.

It is the landing party that is going out and back, not the Captain on his ship.  At least from the Captain's frame of reference.

You are using acceleration to choose a preferred frame of reference.

Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.  Oops, special relativity breaks down and then the hand waving begins.  Why make exceptions for an antiquated concept that has outlived its usefulness?  Nostalgia?

Did you understand what Penrose was talking about with "'arc length' measured along a world line"? Minkowski brought Einstein and physics back to the "absolute world" of a single, non-Euclidean reference frame. The integral of ds is the summation of the path taken by the respective twin.  The path taken by the traveling twin is shorter in the single, "absolute world" that is our universe.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,19:46   

Quote
You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.


But, but, but, how could anyone who struggled through a 1000 page book not know more than professionals?  It was a thousand pages!  Sure, getting a PhD in physics means that you know more that someone who only read a 400 page book, but spending 5 years of your life training to learn the math, and how to apply it correctly, and living hip-deep in the latest in experimental data doesn't give you half the expertice as someone who struggled through a thousand page book!

And how could Penrose be wrong about...anything?  He wrote a 1000 page book!

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:09   

Hi Nerull,

You wrote...
Quote
You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.


All I can do is my best.

ds = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)


For homebody; dt = 2 years, dx = dy = dz = 0

Homebody's clock = sqrt(2^2) = 2 years.


For traveler; dt = 1 year, dx = 0.8 light years (trip out)
                  dt = 1 year, dx = -0.8 light years (trip back)

Traveler's clock = 2 x sqrt(1^2 - 0.8^2) =  1.2 years.

No acceleration, no preferential frame of reference.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:31   

Hi swbarnes,

Like I said, all I can do is my best.

I'm an engineer.  Maybe if you presented some easy to understand equations that don't imply a preferential frame of reference, I would understand better.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:31   

Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 24 2008,19:08)
You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.

You're being generous, Nerull.  TP doesn't even understand Newtonian physics.  For example, he thinks a ship in orbit experiences no acceleration:
Quote
Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.

TP, didn't you take physics in engineering school?  I did, and we learned in our first semester that circular motion requires a constant acceleration of v²/r, where v is the speed and r is the radius.  Elliptical orbits also require a continuous inward acceleration, though the magnitude of the acceleration varies with distance from the center of mass.

Why keep embarrassing yourself?  Take some time off from the blogs, get a nice freshman-level physics text, and learn the basics.

People won't take you seriously as long as it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:33   

Quote
Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.


That was a rewrite of the whole story of the twin "paradox". If you want to argue that the question in the original version of the twin "paradox" isn't answered by referring to the change of reference frame, you'll have to do it in the context of the original story.

Henry

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,22:10   

Hi Henry,

That was a couple of comments too late.

I have done it both ways.

The Star Trek example exposes that special relativity only works for "special" situations.

For the typical twins paradox I calculated the two arc lengths.  The traveler's arc length (ds) is shorter than homebody's.

The traveling twin takes a shortcut.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,22:12   

Quote
All I can do is my best.

ds = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)


For homebody; dt = 2 years, dx = dy = dz = 0

Homebody's clock = sqrt(2^2) = 2 years.


For traveler; dt = 1 year, dx = 0.8 light years (trip out)
                 dt = 1 year, dx = -0.8 light years (trip back)

Traveler's clock = 2 x sqrt(1^2 - 0.8^2) =  1.2 years.

No acceleration, no preferential frame of reference.

No acceleration? Look carefully. How did the velocity vector go from rest to +0.8c? How did the velocity vector go from +0.8c to -0.8c? How much force would be required to do this instantaneously? How much force would be required to change the momentum of a 1 kg object by -1.6c in 8 seconds? What is the average acceleration?

Shh, don't help him. He's getting so close to answering his own question, but TP needs to recall a few principles from Newtonian dynamics.

EDIT: You probably need the relativistic momentum to solve this problem, but the principle is the same.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,22:47   

Hi Creeky Belly,

Ok you got me.  I made a stupid mistake.  I should have used the Penrose quote Keiths pointed out....

"It is frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong.  The answer for the clock times is obtained using the formula [integral of ds] (with ds>0) in both theories."

Of course Penrose might be totally wrong that all we have to do is calculate the arc lengths.  And what kind of name is Minkowski anyway?  Einstein was probably just being polite and pretending that he agreed with his old teacher's "absolute world" silly idea.

I don't usually like resort to sarcasm, but it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,23:13   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 24 2008,22:47)
It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

Quote
...it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

You see, it's not TP's fault that he's spouting off about things he knows nothing about, telling all of us that we're wrong and he's right.  It's our fault for not educating him properly.

We keep asking him to pick up a textbook and learn some physics, which is so unfair.

Stop whining, TP.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,23:16   

Quote
I don't usually like resort to sarcasm, but it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

I don't mean to withhold the answer from you, but this is the way I was taught physics. Simply giving you the answer is unsatisfactory to me; you start from your base assumptions and work your way up. You asserted that there was no acceleration, and logically deduced that the implication was that there exists no preferred reference frame. Your logic was fine, but your conclusion was based on false assumptions. So how do you know you were incorrect? Apply the concepts of Newtonian dynamics.

Now, of course, with the hubris you showed the rest of the commenters on this board, perhaps I took a little schadenfreude in getting you to admit your mistake. On the other hand, you didn't come here looking for answers, you came to spout off about your theory. You then proceeded to tell everyone how wrong they were about physics, and now it's some wonder when they throw it back in your face. I think you're genuinely interested in the science, but I don't think you do yourself justice when you can't be humble enough to ask for help.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,23:25   

and....


MIKE GENE'S BOOK IS STILL SHOITE.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,07:08   

Hi all,

As for picking up textbooks and trying to figure this out for myself.  That is what I have done.

As for trying to get help in my understanding, that is what I am doing.

As for humbly accepting other people's understanding as correct without understanding it myself, that is what I am NOT doing.  If I don't understand it, I don't know it.

All I can do is my best.

What I see is that if curved space is a reality, then we should be able to calculate paths through it.  We could (and would) do this by summing up the arc length segments that make up the path.

For four dimensional space-time, the arc lengths (ds) would be a function of dt, dx, dy and dz.

It is my understanding that the arc length function that matches experimental data like GPS satellites is...

ds = SQRT( dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

It is my understanding that clocks are a kind of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) for curved space.  Clocks measure the path lengths through space-time.  The more accurate the clocks, the more accurate our measurement.

I have managed to understand how this concept relates to Newtonian Physics in that Newtonian Physics is a limited, special case where dt is much, much larger than dx, dy and dz.

To me, this makes things like velocity and acceleration just interesting mathematical artifacts that fall out of the fundamental reality of a more complete view of curved space-time.

I consider it a good thing that my understanding is consistent with Newtonian Physics, because if it wasn't my understanding would be obviously flawed.

To me, the traveling twin takes a short cut because the calculated path through space-time is shorter than the calculated path of the homebody.  This has been confirmed experimentally with the space-time measurement devices commonly known as clocks.

To me Special Relativity, like Newtonian Physics, is limited to only "special" situations.  I consider it an unnecessary detail when we have a more comprehensive solution that is easy to apply.  The traveling twin takes a short cut in space-time.  QED

I am all too aware of how easy it is to make simple things complicated.  As an engineer, I am generally trying to see the root causes and/or requirements of things.  I work with plenty of people with PhDs who more often than not tend to worry about unimportant details and side issues (e.g. semantics) when we are attempting to get our hands around a particular problem.

If I let PhD types do my thinking for me, we would never get anything accomplished.

So, in plain simple words this glorified grease monkey can understand...

Do I have a correct, if crude, understanding that space-time is curved and that some paths in its non-Euclidean geometry are shorter than others?

And, furthermore, the path taken by someone traveling only along the time dimension is NOT the shortest path?

In other words, is the idea that the traveling twin takes a short cut wrong or not?

Thank you.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,08:13   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,07:08)
As for picking up textbooks and trying to figure this out for myself.  That is what I have done.

As for trying to get help in my understanding, that is what I am doing.

If you were trying to get help, you wouldn't be pompously lecturing people on subjects you know nothing about.
Quote
As for humbly accepting other people's understanding as correct without understanding it myself, that is what I am NOT doing.

None of us have asked you to take our opinions on faith.  
Quote
I consider it a good thing that my understanding is consistent with Newtonian Physics, because if it wasn't my understanding would be obviously flawed.

Your understanding isn't consistent with Newtonian physics.  You claim that an orbiting ship will undergo no acceleration, remember?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,09:28   

Hi Keiths,

In one sense an ORBITING spaceship doesn't experience force because of the gravity well it is in.  Therefore, it doesn't experience acceleration.

It is my understanding the concept of "centripetal acceleration" is an artificial explanation for dealing with the reality of curved space.

That is what I meant about my understanding matching Newtonian Physics.  It also exposes the limitations of "special" relativity (i.e. only works in special cases).

As for my "lecturing", why on earth would you consider an anonymous non-person to be an authority on anything?

All I have are my arguments.  I think they are valid.  I think they might help others re-think what they do and don't really understand.  My provocative style forces people, like you, to defend their understanding.

If you are successful, it helps me.  If you are not, it helps others.  Either way, it makes for a positive development.

It causes people to think for themselves.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,10:49   

ahhh freakin double post...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,10:53   

Quote
It causes people to think for themselves.


Wrong again,  It causes people to conclude you're a mindless tard.

Instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, why don't you ask questions and listen to the answers for once.

Seriously, stop arguing your idiotic points and start asking intelligent questions.  You are surrounded by people far more knowledgable than you, an intelligent person would realize that and attempt to profit from their insight.  Instead you go on and on like some idiot who's read far too much from AIG.

Who knows, you might actaully learn something and forge some friendships in the process.

That is how normal (non-tard) people do it.

In spite of your tard approach, you seem to be a bright (capable) guy.  Grow the fuck up TP and it will amaze you what you might learn.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,11:33   

Quote
In one sense an ORBITING spaceship doesn't experience force because of the gravity well it is in.  Therefore, it doesn't experience acceleration.

It is my understanding the concept of "centripetal acceleration" is an artificial explanation for dealing with the reality of curved space.

That is what I meant about my understanding matching Newtonian Physics.  It also exposes the limitations of "special" relativity (i.e. only works in special cases).

You don't need to bring in any concept of curved space to see that it undergoes an acceleration. Since velocity is a vector quantity, you can apply the definition of average acceleration(vector) in this context as the change in the velocity(vector) in a period of time. For a circular orbit, you'll notice that even though the magnitude of the velocity does not change, usually the direction will (the special case is one revolution, the average acceleration(vector) will be zero, since the direction and magnitude of the velocity will be the same). This link shows you how to derive the instantaneous acceleration from the limiting case of average acceleration (just like Newton). In general, when the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity, you will see a change in the direction of the velocity vector, but the magnitude will be constant.
   
Quote
As for my "lecturing", why on earth would you consider an anonymous non-person to be an authority on anything?

All I have are my arguments.  I think they are valid.  I think they might help others re-think what they do and don't really understand.  My provocative style forces people, like you, to defend their understanding.

If you are successful, it helps me.  If you are not, it helps others.  Either way, it makes for a positive development.

It causes people to think for themselves.

Here's the problem: this isn't about thinking for yourself, it's about the sound application of basic physics principles. If your assumptions are wrong, then your conclusions are tenuous. I'll admit that your mistake is particularly common among students first introduced to the concepts of Newtonian dynamics with vectors, and I'm sure it's helpful to those who might not be familiar with the concepts to learn about them. On the other hand, you came here to promote your point of view. If I can't trust that you know what you're talking about (you clearly don't), then I, like others on this board, have no reason to listen. You need to take the initiative: put down the popular books, pick up a textbook, work out some examples, and convince us that you have a mastery of the basics before you even think about relativity.

EDIT: added 'velocity' qualifier

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,12:52   

Hi Creeky Belly,

Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Whether you believe me or not, I have spent years developing computerized models that deal with the non-linear equations inherent in real-world six-degree of freedom situations.  This not only included force, acceleration, velocity and position vectors in both absolute and relative frames.  I also had to deal with moments of inertial and quaternians with matrix transfer functions.

When I said "I work with plenty of people with PhDs" I meant it.  You can feel sorry for them now, because I have been the interface between them and turning their concepts into reality.

I am good at understanding things well enough to explain it to management and programmers.

But first I have to understand it.

I understand what Penrose is saying.

It makes sense to me.

It is logical, consistent and provides answers to all of the problems presented (GPS satellites, Twin Paradox, orbiting space ships, red-shifted sunlight, etc).

I am too old to start over in academia and begin sucking up to the established prima donnas by presenting everything in their terms pretending I think they are absolutely right while gently modifying the definition of terms to make a more consistent world view.

I am sorry but asking people to explain why in their terms only results in them telling me to trust them because they know more than I do.  I have long learned that letting others think for me does not work.

Tell me that I am misunderstanding Mankowskian Geometry, and I will try to understand it better based on your suggestions.

Tell me that I am misapplying Penrose's equations, and I will listen (and probably ask for an example of a proper application).

If you tell me I have to go back through the tortuous path of using outdated concepts and outdated terms just to prove I am worthy of the privilege of thinking for myself, then I am not interested, especially since I have already done that.

When someone tells me they understand Penrose's viewpoint well enough to point out the "inarguably contrary implications of Henderson-Darling oscillation and reciprocal inversion", I know I am not far off in my understanding of Penrose’s viewpoint.  However, I will look into this so I can understand it, because I suspect the answer will provide me a deeper understanding.

Creeky Belly, you have been reasonably supportive of me, especially in the e-mails.  I sense that you are earnestly looking for a better understanding yourself.  Let me ask you some probing questions.

Do you view the universe as a three-dimensional Euclidean Geometry that clicks by frame-by-frame as the time passes?

I suspect that is how most people think of the universe.

If you do too, how does that correspond with the concept of curved space-time, gravity wells, Black holes, etc?

Do you accept that time is one of four complex dimensions?

I am presuming you understand the Euclidean arc segment of…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

...right?

Presuming you don’t have a problem with complex numbers then dt could (and would) have a SQRT(-1) factor.  Coming up with the arc length segment of the four dimensional space results in…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2)

So far so good?

Penrose calls this ”space-like”, but that is just his convention.  Another convention he uses is to flip the complex dimensions to the perpendicular orientation.  Resulting in a “time-like” arc length segment of…

ds = SQRT(-dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 + dt^2)

or

ds = SQRT(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Which is the equation I used to solve the Twin Paradox.

Final question, do you understand and accept truly four dimensional space-time, or are you really thinking a 3+1 modification of Euclidean Geometry because you don’t want to let go of familiar concepts?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,15:10   

Hi Mr Christopher,

You wrote...

Quote
Seriously, stop arguing your idiotic points and start asking intelligent questions.


Ok, seriously.

What is your understanding on the significance of Minkowskian goemetry?

Did I misapply this equation Penrose presented in The Road to Reality?  (chapter 18 is titled "Minkowskian geometry")

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Is curved space-time truely a four dimensional geometry, or is it just three dimensional geometry with time being limited to frame-by-frame snapshots of the 3-D geometry?

Finally, if curved space-time is truely a four dimensional geometry, doesn't that mean the traveling twin can and does take a short cut compared to the homebody twin?

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,15:19   

Quote
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Whether you believe me or not, I have spent years developing computerized models that deal with the non-linear equations inherent in real-world six-degree of freedom situations.  This not only included force, acceleration, velocity and position vectors in both absolute and relative frames.  I also had to deal with moments of inertial and quaternians with matrix transfer functions.

When I said "I work with plenty of people with PhDs" I meant it.  You can feel sorry for them now, because I have been the interface between them and turning their concepts into reality.

I am good at understanding things well enough to explain it to management and programmers.

It's quite evident from your statements about orbits that you don't have the first clue about vector calculus or Newtonian dynamics. I've been trying to focus on the science, you turn around and focus on people. I don't care what you've done in the past, I don't care about Roger Penrose. If you spout nonsense about physics, I'm going to call you on it.
     
Quote
Creeky Belly, you have been reasonably supportive of me, especially in the e-mails.  I sense that you are earnestly looking for a better understanding yourself.  Let me ask you some probing questions.

Do you view the universe as a three-dimensional Euclidean Geometry that clicks by frame-by-frame as the time passes?

I suspect that is how most people think of the universe.

If you do too, how does that correspond with the concept of curved space-time, gravity wells, Black holes, etc?

Do you accept that time is one of four complex dimensions?

I am presuming you understand the Euclidean arc segment of…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

...right?

Presuming you don’t have a problem with complex numbers then dt could (and would) have a SQRT(-1) factor.  Coming up with the arc length segment of the four dimensional space results in…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2)

So far so good?

Penrose calls this ”space-like”, but that is just his convention.  Another convention he uses is to flip the complex dimensions to the perpendicular orientation.  Resulting in a “time-like” arc length segment of…

ds = SQRT(-dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 + dt^2)

or

ds = SQRT(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Which is the equation I used to solve the Twin Paradox.

Final question, do you understand and accept truly four dimensional space-time, or are you really thinking a 3+1 modification of Euclidean Geometry because you don’t want to let go of familiar concepts?

I understand Minkowskian geometry, moreover I know when it's applicable. When you gave your example of the traveling twin, I showed that the solution came from both accelerating to +0.8c and -0.8c, you can show that the traveling twin enters a non-inertial reference frame and thus the conflict is resolved. The fact that you're still arguing about physics from special relativity is telling, you need general relativity at least to have any knowledge of gravity.

Here's the catch with Minkowskian geometry: space-like separated events are not causally connected in the classical relativistic picture. If you want to argue that they are, you can perform some experiments to test this. The fact that you can flip signs around doesn't mean anything unless there's a physical effect that we can measure.

Look, I've been reasonably supportive to the point where I'm genuinely interested in the physics research you present. However, when you say things that are demonstrably false, and chide people for holding on to outdated scientific dogma, I get a little annoyed. You complain that we're arguing from authority (I'm not, I'm arguing from the principles of physics), then you turn around and do exactly that. Man up and show me you know what you're talking about.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,16:07   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,13:52)
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Given your track record thus far, you should be able to see why it might be a fairly safe bet.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,17:18   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 25 2008,16:07)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,13:52)
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Given your track record thus far, you should be able to see why it might be a fairly safe bet.

My sister assumes our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space and she can't even balance a checkbook.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,18:41   

Quote
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?



Considering that you think the universe is a giant beach ball that you can take a short-cut through, yes, you don't know vector math.  Furthermore, TP, you have no idea short of a Vanity Fair treatment of what is meant by space-time.

You, sir, are a clueless idiot.  Clueless because you don't have a clue, and an idiot because you persist in demonstrating your cluelessness.

Otherwise you wouldn't be at a BIOLOGY forum on a thread YOU started comparing Mike Gene (who?) and Dr. Dr. Dembski (the wacko dimwit from Waco) discussing your pathetic understanding of physics.

Why don't you go hang around your local WalMart and bug shoppers?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:00   

Hi Doc Bill,

Feeling encouraged by your admission that I'm giving at least a Vanity Fair treatment of this subject.

I have started another thread.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:17   

Ignorance is bliss, part deux.

Thread closed.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
  204 replies since Jan. 04 2008,22:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]