Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:43    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of The Future One of the biggest obstacles to accepting ID hypotheses as scientific endeavors is their appeal to magic-like mechanisms. But what if a magic-like aspect in nature has been around so long that we don't see it for the magic it is? I suggest what we think of as randomness is, for all practical purposes, magic. Let's take a hypothetical coin, we flip it, it comes up heads. We note that. We flip it again, it comes up heads again, We note the pattern (two heads in a row). We flip it again, it comes up tails. The pattern is broken. Why? Is it "magic"? We don't think of it that way because we are conditioned to expect flipped coins to "randomly" come up heads or tails even when we flip them in the exact same manner. The same would be true if we used a perfectly repeating mechanical device to flip the coin. Assuming the coin was perfectly balanced, the results would not be a pattern. A perfectly repeatable (deterministic) setup is impossible because quantum level effects are non-deterministic. However, are quantum level effects random? Before we try to answer that question, let's go back to flipping coins. This time we will flip three special coins. These special coins have an interesting aspect. They appear to respond to what is called. If "heads" is called at least one of the three coins will be heads. If "tails" is called, at least one of the three coins will be tails. After thousands and thousands of tests, the coins have never failed to do this. Further more, when "heads" are called all three coins will be heads one out of four times (not one out of eight). When "tails" are called all three coins will be tails one out of four times. At no time are all three coins heads when "tails" is called and at no time are all three coins tails when "heads" is called. The thousands of consistent and repeatable experiments convinces even the most skeptical of scientist that the special coins are, indeed, special. More experiments are preformed. It turns out that calling or "heads" or "tails" can be delayed until after the coins have landed (as long as no peeking is involved). Further experiments show that three different people can flip the three coins separately. This exposed an very interesting property of the special coins. If the three people all call the same (either "heads" or "tails") then at least one of them gets what they call and, sometimes, all three of them get what they called as would be expected. However, if they don't call the same, sometimes none of them get what they call (happens one out of four times). Once all the permutations are cataloged the special nature of the coins become even more apparent. The state of the third coin can be absolutely predicted after the first two coins are called and exposed. For example, imagine the coins flipped and on the table with each of the three people covering it with their hands. The first person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is tails. The second person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is also tails. The third coin will ALWAYS be heads regardless of what the third person calls. The experiment is reran, but this time the first two people call "tails" and their coins show tails again. The third coin will ALWAYS be tails regardless of what the third person calls. Note that the third coin's state depended on what the other two people called NOT the whether the coins were heads or tails. These special coins are special indeed. What natural explanations would explain the coin's behavior? Here are the non-metaphysical possibilities… 1. The third coin "magically" predicted the future. 2. The third coin "magically" changed state at the last moment 3. The coins are "magically" linked to people's consciousness The magic described here is basically the reality of Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states. Instead of calling heads or tails, the observers decide which quantum state (e.g. horizontal polarization) to measure. This magic-like effect has been experimentally tested and verified countless times. Its reality is not in question. Even though quantum effects are non-deterministic they aren’t random. You might ask what quantum level effects have to do with Intelligent Design. First of all, it goes to show that magic-like effects can be scientific. There is also reason to believe quantum effects where instrumental to function in early life on Earth (front loaded?). Recently, it was discovered that photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics. Photosynthesis is an extremely old biological mechanism. DNA is being used as building blocks for quantum computers and the DNA structure and “code” is optimal for processing search algorithms. DNA/RNA defines what is or isn’t considered a living organism. Finally, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness hypothesizes that consciousness is an artifact of quantum processing in microtubules. Microtubules are instrumental in living structures and organisms that appear to be aware of their surroundings. Personally, I have serious criticisms concerning the apparent motives and past actions of the ID Movement, but it would be a mistake to dismiss all challenges to orthodox thinking as simply an appeal to the metaphysical because it may turn out that the magic is real.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:49    WOO WOO ALL ABOARD THE DEPAK 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

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:23    A more complete description of the GHZ game.   Quote Even though quantum effects are non-deterministic they aren’t random. You might ask what quantum level effects have to do with Intelligent Design. First of all, it goes to show that magic-like effects can be scientific. There is also reason to believe quantum effects where instrumental to function in early life on Earth (front loaded?). They are also non-trivial, what mechanism front loads a probability distribution other than potential perturbations?

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:24    Quote Finally, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness hypothesizes that consciousness is an artifact of quantum processing in microtubules. Microtubules are instrumental in living structures and organisms that appear to be aware of their surroundings. Oh Telepathy ..why didn't you say so. I'd be interested to know how LSD changes the quantum wave functions or frequencies of sub atomic particles in the brain. Or is that a quantum interaction *snicker* -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:37    Hi Creeky Belly, Thank you for providing the link.  It is the best description of the GHZ states I have seen yet. I will probably use it in the future.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:37    When the doors of perception are cleansed, all will appear as it is- infinite. have you ever looked at your hand? I mean really looked at your hand? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:47    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2007,17:49) WOO WOO ALL ABOARD THE DEPAK CHOPRA EXPRESS. OH HA HA HA VERY FUNNY, I THINK YOU MEAN DR QUANTUM  HOMO -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:53    Is this a joke? No not the Chopra Express, you homos, the OP. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,11:03    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,09:43) We don't think of it that way because we are conditioned to expect flipped coins to "randomly" come up heads or tails even when we flip them in the exact same manner. The same would be true if we used a perfectly repeating mechanical device to flip the coin. Assuming the coin was perfectly balanced, the results would not be a pattern. A perfectly repeatable (deterministic) setup is impossible because quantum level effects are non-deterministic. You may be interested to learn that this is not true. Not that this really speaks to your main point, of course. Quote You might ask what quantum level effects have to do with Intelligent Design. First of all, it goes to show that magic-like effects can be scientific. There is also reason to believe quantum effects where instrumental to function in early life on Earth (front loaded?). I expect quantum effects are instrumental to function of everything, living and non-living. I fail to see how that ties in to ID. Quote Recently, it was discovered that photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics. Photosynthesis is an extremely old biological mechanism. When you get down to it, doesn't every chemical reaction use quantum mechanics? I imagine thermonuclear fusion uses quantum mechanics, and that's a much older 'mechanism.' What should we infer from that? Quote DNA is being used as building blocks for quantum computers and the DNA structure and “code” is optimal for processing search algorithms. Optimal how, and compared to what? Any citations? Are you suggesting this implies something related to ID?   Quote DNA/RNA defines what is or isn’t considered a living organism. Not really. At present, everything we know that's arguably living contains DNA and/or RNA, but lots of people think that life without DNA or RNA is at least theoretically possible. Quote Finally, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness hypothesizes that consciousness is an artifact of quantum processing in microtubules. Microtubules are instrumental in living structures and organisms that appear to be aware of their surroundings. Microtubules are found in pretty much all eukaryotes, are they not? That doesn't prove much. Lipids are also instrumental in living structures, but I don't think that's evidence that consciousness is an artifact of quantum processing in lipids. (Note - I realize there's more to the microtubule hypothesis, and I'm not attempting to refute it here. I'm only pointing out that the ubiquity of microtubules in eukaryotes tells us nothing about their role in consciousness.) Quote Personally, I have serious criticisms concerning the apparent motives and past actions of the ID Movement, but it would be a mistake to dismiss all challenges to orthodox thinking as simply an appeal to the metaphysical because it may turn out that the magic is real. Agreed. However, please note the key difference between QM and ID - evidence. As you acknowledge in your post, we can set up conditions where these seemingly magical QM effects can be conclusively demonstrated. We can state what observations are expected in certain situations, according to QM. ID does none of that. It makes no claims about what we should observe. It offers no demonstrations or concrete evidence. It merely claims evolution is inadequate, therefore ID. I don't reject ID because it seems too magical or counterintuitive. I reject it because it makes no claims, offers no predictions, and has no useful explanatory power.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,11:13    Shorter TP: There's stuff we don't understand. Could be frontloading.  Back to gazing at navel. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,11:40    Hi blipey, You asked... Quote Is this a joke? A lot of serious scientists have asked the same question. Here is a quote from the link Creeky Belly supplied... "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr "Quantum wierdness" and "spooky action at a distance" are terms used by the likes of Einstein. Even I am not too sure how seriously I take this stuff.  For example, I have added "aka Quantum Quack" to my login name when posting to science blogs. It is reality.  Whether or not it is a joke may depend on your Theism/Atheism status. "Hah! Let them try to figure THIS out."

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,11:41    The "magic" in your coin example is a result of your conflating macroscopic objects with quantum systems and asking us to expect that the properties of one "should" also adhere to the other. With no justification. Why should we expect quantum-scale systems to have the properties of macro-scale objects? If we in fact shouldn't, all the magic drains away. Granted, we are left with some counter-intuitive behavior at very small scales, but, in the same vein, that is only because our intuitions are based on our experiences, which all occur in the macro world. Similarly, appealing to quantum woo to explain the "mystery" of consciousness is persuasive only if you insist that consciousness is somehow so inexplicable as to seem magical. It doesn't to me, so I am unpersuaded that this is anything more than navel-gazing. (And yes, I've read Penrose on the subject.) -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,12:46    More magic: http://www.breitbart.com/article....1&cat=0 Multiple universes in with a shout. Looks like any bad Dembski math may be now SOL. Our numerator crushes your denominator. Oh, UPB becomes meaningless if true. -------------- "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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,13:13    Hi TP, I think you misunderstood me.  My joke reference was not in reference to QM.  As for being shocked by the theory of QM, shocked may not be quite the right word.  As I am not a physicist, I don't claim any special insight into QM, but I find it interesting.  My 15 hours of university classes in QM made me think it is cool, if difficult to wrap my brain around. I'm pretty sure my religious leanings have zero bearing on whether or not I think QM is cool.  When I was younger, I would certainly identify as a practicing Christian (though certainly not of the biblical literalism variety).  I no longer identify myself as such.  It is interesting to note, however, that my views on such scientific matters and their "coolness"  factor is the same now as it was then. My joke reference was more in reference to equating randomness with magic.  Your comment seems to indicate that you equate magic with stuff we don't know yet.  Fine, I guess I can go along with that in the same sense that Clarke meant it. However, the magic of ID is not this same thing; your analogy is bad. The magic of ID requires (at least at some level of recursivity) actual magic--something that is supernatural. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,14:01    Continuing... As C.J.O'Brien indicated, the reason quantum mechanics appears weird is because our intuition is based on our experiences in the macro world.  What if the quantum world is the one that is normal and it is the macro world that is weird? Our intuitions perceive matter as solid objects obeying the laws of Newtonian physics operating in a universe of Euclidean geometry.  The concept of time is like a frame by frame movie with each frame containing a copy of the entire 3 dimensional universe. In 1905 Einstein came along and started messing up this view.  I suggest the implications of what was started 100 years ago are just now beginning to fully manifest themselves. Einstein proposed Special Relativity as a temporary, and incomplete, explanation of scientific observations.  The idea was to suggest multiple frames of reference to deal with the constant speed of light.  No one frame of reference was supreme, everything was “relative”.  Dealing with the Twin Paradox was done by mumbling something about accelerations.  This allowed for keeping the Euclidean geometry view of the universe. General Relativity presumed a fixed, inertial frame of reference.  This model was also consistent with scientific observations.  It accomplished this by suggesting an entirely different geometry for the universe, Minkowskian Geometry (Minkowski was one of Einstein's teachers).  Space/time has four complex dimensions and is curved.  The shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line.  The Twin Paradox is solved as a geometry problem (the traveling twin takes a short cut). So we had two mathematical models that were consistent with scientific observations.  Which one was correct?  While General Relativity was pretty much presumed correct, when an experiment was conducted with a jet flying around the world (both East and West), no doubt remained.  Minkowskian Geometry is reality, Euclidean geometry is not. So what is the big deal about Minkowskian Geometry? In Euclidean geometry the change in distance (dL) can be calculated by taking the square-root of the sum of the squares. IOW, dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2. In Minkowskian Geometry, the equation becomes dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2. The fourth complex dimension, time, contains the square-root of negative one.  Squaring it results in a negative.  This is how the traveling twin can take a shortcut.  Things get interesting at the speed of light.  In the case of a photon traveling from a star light-years away to a detector on Earth, the Minkowskian distance traveled is ZERO! This brings us to quantum mechanics and GHZ states.  There is no mystery or even magic in understanding how three separate photons could be entangled in Minkowskian Geometry.  Heck, they can be thought of as the same photon! EPR paradox, superposition, etc all melt away once you combine General Relativity with Quantum Theory.  However, particles lose their identity in the process. There are two main prevailing quantum interpretations, Many Worlds and Copenhagen derivatives.  Penrose’s OR model is a Copenhagen derivative.  With Penrose, everything is a wavefunction.  For example, a “photon” is a standing wave in Minkowskian Geometry. Decoherence is the Objective Reduction (OR) of the wavefunction (other Copenhagen derivatives will refer to this as the waveform collapse). Many Worlds is a metaphysical/mathematical construct that is offered to allow for the dogmatic resistance against giving up the idea that materialist particles are operating in an Euclidean universe. Richardthughes provided a link supporting a mathematical model. Old habits die hard, but they do die...  eventually.

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:01    Quote The fourth complex dimension, time, contains the square-root of negative one. Actually, this is a misinterpretation of the concept of space-time. There are different ways of moving through it: time-like: t^2 >> x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects moving within same light cone. space-like: t^2 << x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects in different light cones (causally separated) light-like: t^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2 -> L=0 represents the space-time for objects at the speed of light (gravity, photons, etc) The GHZ game can be resolved by noting that in order to compare the states through causally separated entangled pairs (or trios) information must be exchanged which requires GR causality.   Quote In 1905 Einstein came along and started messing up this view.  I suggest the implications of what was started 100 years ago are just now beginning to fully manifest themselves. “Examples of this sort [Maxwell's magnetic flux experiment], together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover the motion of the earth relatively to the ‘light medium’, suggest the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.” -Einstein   Quote Heck, they can be thought of as the same photon! EPR paradox, superposition, etc all melt away once you combine General Relativity with Quantum Theory.  However, particles lose their identity in the process. In the classical sense they can't, only probabilistically can you tie them together.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:12    TP, (Unfortunate acronym, I'm sorry) This is sort of neat in a kind of swell sort of way but I'm confused. Are you saying that Dembski (et al) isn't a crank peddling snake oil? Because that seems unrelated to this topic and touches a few nerves. Kind of makes me get all tingly so I have to be alone for a few minutes y'know? Your quantum dealy is cool, fascinating and many other wonderful fabulous adjectives but relating it to intelligent design is a bit weird. I mean, how do you relate something so swell like quantum stuff with something so slimy and icky like ID? That's all. Thanks. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,17:00    Hi BWE, You wrote...       Quote TP, (Unfortunate acronym, I'm sorry) No apologies necessary.  I don't take my anonymous pseudonym that seriously. You wrote...       Quote This is sort of neat in a kind of swell sort of way but I'm confused. Are you saying that Dembski (et al) isn't a crank peddling snake oil? We are talking about dr-putting-pepper-on-boxing-gloves, right?   I am a very vocal critic of the ID Movement.  I am appalled by how Dembski is using his intelligence to manipulate people who earnestly believe his BS. Nothing would delight me more than to watch Dembski squirm at having a new scientific hypothesis emerge that diverges from strict "Darwinism", but doesn't support the existence of his personal God. Chances are some ID Scientists would get some credit.  Imagine Dembski’s dilemma if that would happen.       Quote Your quantum dealy is cool, fascinating and many other wonderful fabulous adjectives but relating it to intelligent design is a bit weird. I mean, how do you relate something so swell like quantum stuff with something so slimy and icky like ID? First of all, I am an engineer, not a scientist.  I like making models.  I like figuring things out.  I got curious with ID during the Dover trial (btw, the verdict was anti-climatic for me, it was that obvious).  In some ways, Behe appeared to have a spark of an actual idea.  So I starting investigating.  I started out searching through Behe's and Dembski's stuff but quickly got banned from UD.  This is when I got hooked up with Telic Thoughts. Joy may be insane, but she knew all this stuff.  Between internet searches and reading things from Stephen Hawking and Penrose and Hameroff, it has clicked in my engineering mind. I have presented this on several science blogs.  Let's just say the reception wasn't conducive for furthering conversation. Associating it with ID isn't that hard.  ID proponents have a very flexible definition of "Intelligence".  And, to them, design practically means "not random". My ideas are supportive of MikeGene's front loading. MikeGene supports it by letting me Guest Host on Telic Thoughts.  That irritates a lot of the religious Culture Warriors (I am clearly an Atheist in their eyes). It is pro-science. Best of all, it provokes thinking on both sides. Why not?

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,17:14    Why not indeed: carry on. Tis an interesting diversion and certainly causes fewer painful callouses. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,17:36    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2007,10:49) WOO WOO ALL ABOARD THE DEPAK CHOPRA EXPRESS. No, man, it's The Dancing Woo Woo Masters. It's The D'OH! of Physics. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,18:48    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,17:00) Associating it with ID isn't that hard.  ID proponents have a very flexible definition of "Intelligence".  And, to them, design practically means "not random". My ideas are supportive of MikeGene's front loading. No offense, but I don't think you've provided any evidence of such support. Not here, anyway. As far as I can see, your 'argument' on this thread boils down to: "If QM is real even though it seems supernatural, then ID and front loading could also be real even though they seem supernatural." That's not a valid argument, and I don't think it supports ID any more than it supports pixies and fairies. Have I missed something?

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,19:02    Hi Creeky Belly, As to Einstein's opinion on an interial frame of reference; From a paper titled Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether? "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..." To my statement "The fourth complex dimension, time, contains the square-root of negative one." You wrote...   Quote Actually, this is a misinterpretation of the concept of space-time. There are different ways of moving through it: time-like: t^2 >> x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects moving within same light cone. space-like: t^2 << x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects in different light cones (causally separated) light-like: t^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2 -> L=0 represents the space-time for objects at the speed of light (gravity, photons, etc) You might want to read Penrose's The Road to Reality. Penrose provides hypothetical geometries that could have been "real".  Using complex numbers for dimensional quantities isn't a problem.  Actually, not using complex numbers makes things unrealistic.  Otherwise, you end of trying to segment things artificially in an attempt to avoid negative square roots (like you did above).  Complex numbers are no more artificial than irrational numbers. There is no reason to be afraid of complex dimensions. On page 413, Penrose explains the space-like equation is... dl^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 He also indicates that the orientation of the complex numbers is arbitrary.  Therefore, the time-like equation is... ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ...which makes it easier to deal with things that stay inside the null cones (you called them "light cones"). The value of "ds" is equivelent to a watch or a clock.  This is why the solution to the Twin Paradox (Penrose calls it the "clock paradox") is easy in Minkowskian geometry. BTW, if you are suggesting their is no interial frame of reference, how do you explain the Twin Paradox?  The problem looks the same to both Twins.  Each twin is standing still in his/her frame of reference and the other twin is the one moving.  Why are the results different?   Quote The GHZ game can be resolved by noting that in order to compare the states through causally separated entangled pairs (or trios) information must be exchanged which requires GR causality. Say that three times fast.  Better yet, say it in terms the listening audience can understand. I think they may figure out you aren't saying anything that contradicts what I said.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,20:30    Continuing... Combining General Relativity with Quantum Theory isn't too controversial by itself.  Qetzal correctly pointed out this doesn't explain much, yet.  And blipey's question about the magic of randomness is still unanswered. Since we don't generally zip around at light speed nor deal with things at the sub-atomic level, this isn't very disturbing, yet.  With maybe the exception of thinking about about that wave/particle distinction. However, this is just the beginning.  The DEPAK CHOPRA EXPRESS has yet to build up a full head of steam. Arguing about whether photons are waves or particles is practically academic since photons are massless.  The Copenhegan school of thought was that photons started out as waves and collapsed into particles when appropriate.  At the time, the alternative was to take a wait-and-see attitude. Even when electrons where shown to exhibit wave/particle duality, they still are strange enough and small enough to accept as possible.  Ions?  Well...  Some people started to get nervous and got creative.  Everett came up with the idea of alternative realities being constantly created, the Many Worlds interpretation has born (1957)  Not many people liked the idea.  Most still held onto the Copenhegan school of thought, others continued to wait for a better explanation. When full fledged molecules (e.g. Bucky Balls) were shown to be both a particle and a wave, the Many Worlds interpretation started getting a lot of supporters (even if they had to hold their noses to do so). The alternative was to totally embrace the idea that there is no such thing as particles, just wavefunctions. As an electrical engineer, this isn't that strange.  A finite electrical square pulse can be thought of as a sum of multiple sine waves.  And it is more than just thinking of it that way, a square pulse IS the sum of multiple sine waves which can be separated using electrical filters. Once you get over the loss of particles, understanding quantum effects becomes easier.  The dual slit experiment is a piece of cake.  Two slits, interference pattern. One slit, particle-like behavior.  GHZ state?  Again, no problem.  The wave(s) are interconnected in Minkowskian space/time.  All observations and states are directly connected to each other and state changes occur wherever and WHENEVER they are needed. Continuing this line of logic forces one to realize that ALL quantum effects are interconnected in Minkowskian space/time.  And since time is just another dimension, the interconnection occurs across all space and all time. This makes the entire universe (space and time) one large wavefunction in Minkowskian geometry. Think of a Mandelbrot Set.  Here is one ithat claims to be as large as our universe.  And that is just one complex dimension with a very simple function. Are we having fun yet? I mention the Mandelbrot Set because it illustrates something that is non-changing yet chaotic.  In the dimension of time, it would give the illusion of randomness.  I suggest there is no such thing as natural occurring randomness. For a long time science was comfortable with Newtonian determinism.  The idea was that if the position and velocity of every particle could be known for a given time then everything could be calculated for the future and the past. This is similar.  Things only look random because they can be extremely complicated. I still haven't got to the ID part yet, but I think I need to break here before going on.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,20:34    TP so far you have only wasted space. Aside from rationalizing your political stance on untenable principles which is to say enabling the dishonesty and charlatanism of ID players which must make you seem a radical outside the box thinker...to you. *yawn* So far you have failed to improve the image that ID is a grab bag of flaky poseurs indulging in obscurantism aka religious theology for political ends aka theocracy. Less useless math please, its pure hand waving and trivial obscurantism PARTICULARLY when you REPEAT IT. The square root of negative one to you seems to be magic however it is only used to describe a rotating vector and collapse a dimension to make a physical problem amenable to mathematics. Get over it. If you are discussing the magic of ID you know yourself that no math is not only a requirement but an absolute necessity since their followers are barely literate let alone above boiling point on the IQ scale. You like love Penrose? How about taking up a better lost cause than ID and try for a Nobel for him………I think that has a better chance of success *giggle….gaffaw* -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,20:51    Quote Arguing about whether photons are waves or particles is practically academic since photons are massless. Yes but they have momentum and maybe you could explain why they can't escape a black hole. ....hey wait a minute this has what to do with ID ..again? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:25    continuing... Hearing no objections from my last comment (I waited a whole five minutes), I will presume everyone understands and agrees that quantum effects are interconnected both in space and time. The first thing about this that starts smelling like ID is the concept of a teleological universe. The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent. And, yes, I said that with a straight face. You may not consider it a very aggressive purpose, but it is a purpose and it is better than anything other ID proponents can forward without suggesting some intent of a designer or designers. The point is that the universe must have a consistent wavefunction with no discontinuities from the beginning to the end of time, or it wouldn't exist (see Anthropic principle). The wavefunction is purposeful design.  I don’t know who or what designed the wavefunction.  Since I embrace Gould’s NOMA.  I am of the opinion we will never be able to find out via empirical methods. However, to those inclined to believe in an omniscient, timeless designer we will call God for a lack of a better name, this provides a mechanism by which such a designer could operate. Whether via anthropic principle or divine whim, life may be necessary to make the teleological universe complete.  One wild idea is that life will bring an orderly end to the universe because some stupid scientists manage to create a naked singularity in their lab. If the universe needs something to be consistent, than interconnected quantum effects will make it happen and time order isn’t a restriction.  While quantum effects are inherent in both living and non-living material, living material is inherently more flexible. MikeGene’s front loading is essentially looking for a preponderance of clues that a future need was satisfied by a past feature. Retrocausality would be something that interconnected quantum effects would demonstrate.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:46    Hi K.E. You wrote...   Quote Yes but [photons] have momentum and maybe you could explain why they can't escape a black hole. If you are not careful, people might get the impression you understand and are interested in this stuff.   Gravity bends Minkowskian space/time.  Either that, or bends in Minkowskian space/time are what cause gravity. Either way the photon particle/wavefunction gets wrapped up in the fold. BTW, have you already figured out that gravity is the only thing left to possibly be considered real? I bet you have.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:02    How many unsupported assertions are you prepared to cram into one post?   Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,21:25) The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent. ... The wavefunction is purposeful design. ... Whether via anthropic principle or divine whim, life may be necessary to make the teleological universe complete. ... If the universe needs something to be consistent, than interconnected quantum effects will make it happen and time order isn’t a restriction. ... While quantum effects are inherent in both living and non-living material, living material is inherently more flexible. ... MikeGene’s front loading is essentially looking for a preponderance of clues that a future need was satisfied by a past feature. Retrocausality would be something that interconnected quantum effects would demonstrate. The ability to imagine or assert something is not evidence for its reality.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:17    Quote The wavefunction is purposeful design. Says you .....oranges are orange. Quote I don’t know who or what designed the wavefunction. Schrodinger Quote Since I embrace Gould’s NOMA.  I am of the opinion we will never be able to find out via empirical methods. From someone who boldly stated that the photon is massless what a pussy! You should know there is an upper limit on the mass of a photon and is only massless because no one has measured its mass yet. In any case same old obscurantism pages and pages of sciency gafflegab then "I believe in my faith". Why bother? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:17    Quote You might want to read Penrose's The Road to Reality. Penrose provides hypothetical geometries that could have been "real".  Using complex numbers for dimensional quantities isn't a problem.  Actually, not using complex numbers makes things unrealistic.  Otherwise, you end of trying to segment things artificially in an attempt to avoid negative square roots (like you did above).  Complex numbers are no more artificial than irrational numbers. What you added was meaningless. When events are space-like, they are not causally connected, so you don't interpret the result the same way. I chose to use an actual General Relativity text, in this case Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry which is based on the work of Thorne, Weinberg, Taylor, Wheeler, Hawking, Ellis, and Nash. There are actually different schools of thought on which convention to use, but the negative one is added to the metric, not the actual vector. If you want to classify imaginary numbers above as space-like separation that's fine, but you're arguing a convention, nothing more.   Quote BTW, if you are suggesting their is no interial frame of reference, how do you explain the Twin Paradox?  The problem looks the same to both Twins.  Each twin is standing still in his/her frame of reference and the other twin is the one moving.  Why are the results different? I never made such a claim, merely that relativity was built up from electrodynamics as a way of satisfying Maxwell's equations in moving reference frames. No point was being made, just wanted to share some of his words. The twin paradox represents and equivalence in space-time. In this case dL^2 must be the same for both the traveling twin and the stationary twin. In the earth's frame of reference (with the speed of light set to 1): Stationary twin: by definition x,y,z=0, let's say 1 year passes and the brother travels 0.5 light years, the observer will see L^2 = t^2 - x^2-y^2-z^2 = 1^2 - 0.5^2 -> L = 0.75 light-years Traveling twin: How much time has passed in his frame? L^2 = t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2 -> 0.75^2 = t^2 -> t = 0.75 years Time passed for stationary: 1 year. Time for traveling: 0.75 years.   Quote Say that three times fast.  Better yet, say it in terms the listening audience can understand. I think they may figure out you aren't saying anything that contradicts what I said. My point was that even though things like collapsing the wave function seem to violate relativity, they don't. You still need to compare the results, which will subject to the rules of space-time. I wasn't really trying to contradict, mainly to point out the practicality of so-called faster than light communication.   Quote This makes the entire universe (space and time) one large wavefunction in Minkowskian geometry. Quite. The structure of our universe was built up from density and tensor perturbations (quantum effects), much of that information can be found in things like the CMB. However, the unfortunate result from QM shows that as you increase the energy level, you revert to a classical state, in which case the wavefunction really becomes indistinguishable from a classical description.   Quote Hearing no objections from my last comment (I waited a whole five minutes), I will presume everyone understands and agrees that quantum effects are interconnected both in space and time. Unless you start talking about inflationary epochs, in which regions of the universe became causally disconnected as it expanded. I recommend Peacock's Physical Cosmology or Peeble's Inflationary Cosmology for more information.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:29    This one has potential. TP, welcome and thank you for spicing up a dull evening but I have a few issues. I sit firmly is the "no random acts" camp and if I interpret Gene correctly then life becomes inevitable as I also believe but to echo k.e., creeky, et. al. this falls well short of ID in any form. Even dropping "intelligent" you're still left with "design" and that means "intent".  Whether is is the "intent" of God, the Cosmic Mind or the Circle of Life doesn't matter because it is an unmeasurable property.  Using science to attempt to support the existence of an unmeasurable property violates NOMA in a very sneaky way.  Just because our ignorance creates the appearance of "magic" doesn't establish the possibility of other truly magical claims.  I fear you fall into the same trap as other IDers by extrapolating science outside of it's valid application. That being said, this is very entertaining and I await more.  Go ahead, convince me.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:34    Hi qetzal, If you have heard a better pro-ID presention, I would like to know where. I would even be interested in knowing about any that matched this one. Ok, let's play the game... "The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent." This is a falsifiable statement.  It is being tested each and every day.  It the universe should suddenly quit being consistent we will know it.  Then again, maybe we won't. "The wavefunction is purposeful design." This follows from the first statement and the reference to Anthropic principle that you skipped over.  Your problem may be in the word "design".  I had indicated earlier that design, for all practical purposes, means non-random. "Whether via anthropic principle or divine whim, life may be necessary to make the teleological universe complete." You did notice the word "may", right?  I provided an example of how it "may" be necessary. "If the universe needs something to be consistent, than interconnected quantum effects will make it happen and time order isn’t a restriction." I posted three long comments explaining this one. "While quantum effects are inherent in both living and non-living material, living material is inherently more flexible." Don't like the word "flexible"?  How about more utilitarian? "MikeGene’s front loading is essentially looking for a preponderance of clues that a future need was satisfied by a past feature." Are you demanding citations and references to MikeGene's works? "Retrocausality would be something that interconnected quantum effects would demonstrate." Interconnected via space and time, means interconnected via space and time.  Time is just another dimension that extends in two directions.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:58    Hi Skeptic, You wrote...   Quote This one has potential. TP, welcome and thank you for spicing up a dull evening Thank you and you are welcome.   Quote I sit firmly is the "no random acts" camp and if I interpret Gene correctly then life becomes inevitable as I also believe but to echo k.e., creeky, et. al. this falls well short of ID in any form. Getting past the "no random acts" is usually the tough one.  We are agreeing more than we are disagreeing. Quote Even dropping "intelligent" you're still left with "design" and that means "intent".  Whether is is the "intent" of God, the Cosmic Mind or the Circle of Life doesn't matter because it is an unmeasurable property. au contrare...  The lord of all things ID provides the measuring stick called CSI.  And, by eliminating all chance hypotheses (by eliminating randomness itself) I get a perfect score for calling this design. At least using Dembski's definitions.   Quote Using science to attempt to support the existence of an unmeasurable property violates NOMA in a very sneaky way.  Just because our ignorance creates the appearance of "magic" doesn't establish the possibility of other truly magical claims.  I fear you fall into the same trap as other IDers by extrapolating science outside of it's valid application. Are you sure you are not conflating "design" with "purpose"? I agree that I am hedging over the NOMA line a little bit to suggest a purpose.  But, gee golly, it is such a modest purpose.  At one time I played with the idea that the purpose of the universe was to exist.  But I thought that might be too cute and, besides, it amounts to the same thing as being intentionally consistent. Other than that, I have tried to be very respectful of the NOMA line.  At TT people complain that I am the NOMA cop.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,23:08    Here’s MY theory of ID. 1. It attracts cranks like no other theory. Whether this is a quantum property or not, their hand wave function is orders of magnitude larger than their mass 2. For each and every ID supporter there is an equal and imaginary number of ID theories (unless they have an IQ south of Dave Tard) 3. If ID succeeds the soldiers for christ will set their targets on changing the US Constitution to remove the church state separation ........and if ID doesn't succeed it will......oh never mind. 4. ID promoters will co-opt any science to promote their cause (scientism) 5. ID appears to be inflating …using the shrinking observer model. Interpretation of quantum mechanics -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,00:12    Quote Thought Provoker Posts: 55 Joined: April 2007  (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,05:46 ?   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi K.E. You wrote... Quote Yes but [photons] have momentum and maybe you could explain why they can't escape a black hole. If you are not careful, people might get the impression you understand and are interested in this stuff.   Gravity bends Minkowskian space/time.  Either that, or bends in Minkowskian space/time are what cause gravity. Either way the photon particle/wavefunction gets wrapped up in the fold. ......What again does ID predict in this case? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,00:33    Quote The lord of all things ID provides the measuring stick called CSI. When has anything been measured in CSI? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,00:58    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,22:34) Hi qetzal, If you have heard a better pro-ID presention, I would like to know where. I would even be interested in knowing about any that matched this one. Oh, I agree yours is as good as any and better than most. For what that's worth. ;-)   Quote Ok, let's play the game... "The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent." This is a falsifiable statement.  It is being tested each and every day.  It the universe should suddenly quit being consistent we will know it.  Then again, maybe we won't. No, "The universe is internally consistent" is a falsifiable statement. The fact that the universe is (so far) internally consistent does not demonstrate that consistency is the universe's purpose. It's the assertion of purpose that I object to, not the statement about consistency.     Quote "The wavefunction is purposeful design." This follows from the first statement and the reference to Anthropic principle that you skipped over.  Your problem may be in the word "design".  I had indicated earlier that design, for all practical purposes, means non-random. No, my problem is with the adjective "purposeful." It implies conscious intention in the design, an intention that you have not justified.     Quote "Whether via anthropic principle or divine whim, life may be necessary to make the teleological universe complete." You did notice the word "may", right?  I provided an example of how it "may" be necessary. Exactly. It may be necessary, or it may not. It's just a statement of possibility. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but that doesn't support anything one way or another.     Quote "If the universe needs something to be consistent, than interconnected quantum effects will make it happen and time order isn’t a restriction." I posted three long comments explaining this one. But you haven't justified that the universe needs something to be consistent. So, again, this is really just a statement of possibility.     Quote "While quantum effects are inherent in both living and non-living material, living material is inherently more flexible." Don't like the word "flexible"?  How about more utilitarian? I don't accept either. You haven't defined what flexible or utilitarian mean in this context, or shown how living material is more flexible/utilitarian, or shown how greater flexibility/utilitarianism relates to quantum effects, or tied that putative relationship to the overall ID hypothesis.     Quote "MikeGene’s front loading is essentially looking for a preponderance of clues that a future need was satisfied by a past feature." Are you demanding citations and references to MikeGene's works? No. I wasn't objecting to that sentence by itself. I quoted it because your next sentence refers to it. (Although I will note, in passing, that most people mean something much more specific by "front loading." If I eat that banana in my office tomorrow, my future hunger will have been satisfied by my past purchase of a banana. Would MikeGene consider that front loading?)     Quote "Retrocausality would be something that interconnected quantum effects would demonstrate." Interconnected via space and time, means interconnected via space and time.  Time is just another dimension that extends in two directions. Right. So if the purpose of the universe is to be consistent, and if the universe needs life to be complete, and if interconnected quantum effects allow for retrocausality, then that's consistent with a weak version of ID that boils down to "life was inevitable." Sure. If we posit those ifs and that version of ID, I agree. It's consistent. So what? To me, it seems like your whole point is to find a way to argue that some version of ID could be true, based on QM. If so, then you've succeeded. I, for one, will happily concede that certain versions of ID could be true, at least hypothetically. But hypothetically, there could also be a teapot in orbit around Mars. If I claim (without empirical evidence) that the universe may require a celestial teapot to be internally consistent, does that make the teapot's existence significantly more likely?

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,01:17    actually, I would disagree, that version of ID is nothing more than Monday-morning quarterbacking.  The fact that all these things may be true still does not mean design.  Just as non-random does not mean design it just means causation.  You may be using design in a completely different way but ID uses it to mean purposeful and deliberate which is not the same as inevitable.  Your proof may mean nothing more than the Universe appears to have designed itself when you look back from this point but there can be no definitive evidence either way.  I'll look up CSI to see what you're implying and maybe you should reevaluate "design" in the context you are using.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,01:59    Quote I'll look up CSI Here's a helping hand on that. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Occam's Toothbrush Posts: 555 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,03:55    Quote (qetzal @ Sep. 26 2007,01:58) So if the purpose of the universe is to be consistent, and if the universe needs life to be complete, and if interconnected quantum effects allow for retrocausality, then that's consistent with a weak version of ID that boils down to "life was inevitable." It's impressive what ID brings to the table in terms of synthesizing the imaginary evidence.  If you ever want to know what would be true if some new and completely made-up set of observations was taken, just ask an IDiot.  Assuming of course that the answer you're looking for is goddidit. -------------- "Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers ------ "You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,07:12    I didn't have time to read the link Wesley provided.  But I suggest Dembski might be a better authoritative source for how ID defines what is meant by "specification" and, therefore, design Here is a link to a Dembski paper on the subject. "Since specifications are those patterns that are supposed to underwrite a design inference, they need, minimally, to entitle us to eliminate chance. Since to do so, it must be the case that X = –log2[ 120^10 · S(T)·P(T|H)] > 1, we therefore define specifications as any patterns T that satisfy this inequality."

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,07:23    Stand back everyone TP's brain has just gone naked singularity!! TP You DID post that without the slightest hint of irony, right? Lets see if you can do a better job at Sancho Panzo to Don Quixote than Salvador Cordova could. This is going to be fun. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:42    Thanks Wes, I looked up his paper last night but your perspective will balance that out.  D's primary premise is unproven and maybe unprovable.  The question as to whether information is fundamental or just a construct of the human mind balances his whole house of cards.  I saw no evidence that this premise may be taken as fact.  Without that, CSI seems philosophy and not science.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,10:15    Hi qetzal, You asked...   Quote If I eat that banana in my office tomorrow, my future hunger will have been satisfied by my past purchase of a banana. Would MikeGene consider that front loading? My version of this is someone grabbing an umbrella when leaving in the morning because it might rain later in the day. I think it is an example of retrocausality.  We have had discussions about this on Telic Thoughts. I don't want to suggest what MikeGene thinks.  Personally, I think it goes straight to the point.  I think it is an example of life engaging in Front Loading.  It is such a trivial example that it is dismissed. That was the general topic of the opening post.  Some things are so common that we take them for granted. How are conscious decisions made? Libet's experiments shows 500ms of electrical brain activity occurring prior to a conscious decision being made.  This has had a profound impact on the study of consciousness.  It has gotten to the point that a significant portion of the community is suggesting that the idea of conscious control is an illusion.  At best, we might sometimes get to veto our body's automatic responses. But I digress. I have suggested to MikeGene that the Front Loaded property of life he is looking for is that life's actions are directly coupled to interconnected quantum effects. DNA evolved into a quantum computer, this makes for a significant link between the evolution of life and the interconnected quantum effects. If it is established that microtubules are also quantum computers, consciousness becomes an artifact of interconnected quantum effects. Whether or not it is microtubules, it is very likely that consciousness is directly interconnected with quantum effects because of observations like GHZ states.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,10:32    Quote ....it is very likely that consciousness is in directing interconnected with quantum effects because of observations like GHZ states. So what you are saying is if you think about GHZ states you will affect the thought *snicker*. And is that wishful thinking? Again how does LSD interact with that? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,11:34    Some musing on frontloading. All of the info for the complicated future creatures would be compressed somewhere in the simpler ancestor? This origional life was seen to be "very simple", I believe. The two seem at odds. Does frontloading have prior knowledge of future enviroments and pressures? If not then its looking more and more like NDE... -------------- "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: Sep. 26 2007,11:56    Hi Richard, Thank you for your comment. You wrote...   Quote This origional life was seen to be "very simple", I believe. Are you familiar with Vernanimalcula guizhouena? I posted a comment on a Telic Thoughts' thread about it (see Yet again…older than expected). Excuse me for this rather long copy, but it is interesting to me... While it is arguable that these are "older than expected" verses just old, the Vernanimalcula guizhouena are a significant find. Here is a link I found… Animals - in the form of microscopic yet complex organisms - may have existed millions of years earlier than previous estimates, according to a new study published in the June 3 [2004] edition of Science Express. … The animal in question is called Vernanimalcula guizhouena, Latin for “small spring animal” - a nod by the discovery team to the “spring” following the so-called “Snowball Earth” time period that ended roughly 600 million years ago when it’s theorized that most of the planet was entombed in ice. Vernanimalcula guizhouena - which was about the size of four human hairs laid side by side - is thought to have survived that period of extreme cold, Bottjer said. “It was a little button-shaped organism that probably scooted along the sea floor,” he said. “It had a little mouth, sort of like a vacuum cleaner. It was tiny, but microbes are even smaller so it probably sucked them up so it could eat them.” Aside from a mouth, Vernanimalcula guizhouena had an anus and paired external pits that the researchers theorized it used to sense environmental conditions, such as light. Here is the Pharyngula link that has some nice pictures. We now know these little critters had a hormonal signaling system. How do we know this? From the link in the opening post…"It is likely that [two types of hormone-secreting nerve cells] existed already in Urbilateria, the last common ancestors of vertebrates, insects and worms" The Vernanimalcula guizhouena descended from the Urbilateria. I don't know about you guys, but this kind of complexity is older than I had expected. 50 million years prior to the Cambrian we have a critter with a pair of "external pits" that were sensitive to light (can you say "eyes"?) a digestive system and a hormonal system. It looks like this little critter could SEE! Do you think I exaggerate? Also from the opening post link… "Both of the cell types studied in Platynereis and fish are multifunctional: they secrete hormones and at the same time have sensory properties. The vasotocin-secreting cells contain a light-sensitive pigment, while RF-amide appears to be secreted in response to certain chemicals." Hormones "…secreted in response to certain chemicals." Could it SMELL and TASTE too? Since even single celled organisms have a sense of TOUCH, I think it is safe to say our little critter probably had that too. Alright, I will admit the Vernanimalcula guizhouena probably had to hand out "I am deaf" cards to any verbalizing organisms running around, but all and all, for it's time the Vernanimalcula guizhouena were intellectual giants. That time was 600 MILLION YEARS AGO! As a champion of a Third Choice I will point out the challenge of this for the other two choices. First of all, what evolutionary pressures would there be to cause such a complex creature to evolve? How much complexity is needed to eat microbes? How complicated do early organisms have to get before it is admitted they just might be more complicated than expected? To the Intelligent Designer advocates. Other than an appeal to "mysterious ways", how did this all come about? How did God the Intelligent Designer implement the plan? Some ID proponents point to the Cambrian Explosion as something significant. To these proponents the complexity shown by the Vernanimalcula guizhouena may be "older than expected" for ID, not "Darwinists". A hypothesis that suggests consciousness at a fundamental level of living organisms would expect organisms with interacting sub-systems earlier than simple evolutionary pressures would dictate. I wonder how many microtubules were in a Vernanimalcula guizhouena.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:12    Its a shame for all these early creatures. They're full of front loaded goodness for us and others but are very minimal / crap themselves. THANK YOU FRONTLOADED CRAPPY CREATURES! -------------- "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: Sep. 26 2007,13:34    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2007,12:12) THANK YOU FRONTLOADED CRAPPY CREATURES! Hilarious! I wonder if Daniel can give us his interpretation of the data in this article, pointing out the evolutionary relationship of a bacterial protein (FtsZ) and tubulin. Are bacteria conscious?  What are they thinking? Probably something like "I have all of these really cool genes. Why am I living in this pile of stinking crap?" -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,13:57    Quote Here is a link to a Dembski paper on the subject. I thought it was an essay. Has it actually been published somewhere? If so, I'd appreciate the citation. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:01    As for links to Dembskiana, I have some more. Dembski and critics link page. Up until things got crazy with writing and defending my dissertation in 2002, I was pretty active in keeping these pages updated with pretty much any online resource of note concerning Dembski... and criticisms of his ideas. It's a one-stop shop for stuff to that point in time. Dembski dossier at AE -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:03    The one thing missing from TP's reply seems to be the answer to my question, Quote When has anything been measured in CSI? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:10    Hi Wesley, You asked... Quote I thought it was an essay. Has it actually been published somewhere? Hey, I'm an engineer, not a scientist.  Whatever it is supposed to be called, it was something I digested and understood to be Dembski's opinion on a topic that is fundimental to ID.  It is also recent (Aug, 2005).

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:14    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:03) The one thing missing from TP's reply seems to be the answer to my question,   Quote When has anything been measured in CSI? TP there are several threads that attempt to get a real world example of the EF (and therefore a measure of CSI is required). If you have something to add I'm sure I can find the links and you can add to the discussion's. -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:18    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 26 2007,14:14) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:03) The one thing missing from TP's reply seems to be the answer to my question,   Quote When has anything been measured in CSI? TP there are several threads that attempt to get a real world example of the EF (and therefore a measure of CSI is required). If you have something to add I'm sure I can find the links and you can add to the discussion's. Sadly the one at "The Sci Phi Show" (which Sal ran away from) is dead. I think the whole message board went down. -------------- "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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:27    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2007,14:18) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 26 2007,14:14) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:03) The one thing missing from TP's reply seems to be the answer to my question,     Quote When has anything been measured in CSI? TP there are several threads that attempt to get a real world example of the EF (and therefore a measure of CSI is required). If you have something to add I'm sure I can find the links and you can add to the discussion's. Sadly the one at "The Sci Phi Show" (which Sal ran away from) is dead. I think the whole message board went down. Oh? I keep meaning to go back but somehow never bothered. What always made me laugh was when I went to the website it would take 5-10 seconds to "start up" and then it was fine. Obviously the hard drive was going to sleep and only waking up when there was a visitor. Not many visitors :) I think the active ID loons that are linked to UD are down to a dozen or two now. I guess there are millions of random loons like the bloke I just created the thread for to try and entice in. The guy's a science teacher ffs, and that's what got me (FTK, take note). I mean, my science teachers were great in years gone by and the comparison from them to this bloke - well, he's down there in the FTK zone. It's a shame these sort of people get to call themselves teachers. -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:30    Old man, the big 1k is coming up for you, Celebrate with a special post, a virgin sacrifice (CarslonJok) and by paying homage to me. Mwuahaha. -------------- "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: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:53    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2007,14:30) Old man, the big 1k is coming up for you, Celebrate with a special post, a virgin sacrifice (CarslonJok) and by paying homage to me. How dare you suggest that I do not engage in carnal relations with members of the opposite gender. Why, I will have you know that today is my 15th wedding anniversary and it was just last.......... .......um...........err.........not that long ago....... hmmm......... Oh, never mind.   -------------- 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: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:01    I'M SUPRISED SHE LETS THAT MIDGIT RIDE YOU. -------------- "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: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:10    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2007,15:01) I'M SUPRISED SHE LETS THAT MIDGIT RIDE YOU. I am on a pretty short lead since she found a picture of me hanging out with one of Lou FCD's friends. -------------- 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!)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:19    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2007,14:30) Old man, the big 1k is coming up for you, Celebrate with a special post, a virgin sacrifice (CarslonJok) and by paying homage to me. Mwuahaha. I know! It's amazing. Hardly looked at the counter for a while. I registered here originally because I just had to say something to AFDave. And that was some time ago -------------- 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

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:22    Hi All, To the question... When has anything been measured in CSI? Dembski provided a partial analysis of a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in the essay I linked. See page 25. However, that isn't material to what I was saying.  The point is that according to the Dembski's definitions what I have proposed is a "design" in the sense meant for purposes of considering it an ID hypothesis.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:33    Quote Hey, I'm an engineer, not a scientist.  Whatever it is supposed to be called, it was something I digested and understood to be Dembski's opinion on a topic that is fundimental to ID.  It is also recent (Aug, 2005). If it is so fundamental to ID, how come at the Kitzmiller trial Dembski was able to drop out of being an expert witness, and the defense didn't bother to make a big issue of Dembski's ideas? Dembski has been discussing specification since 1996. I was there for his February 1997 presentation, and was able to introduce him to the idea of evolutionary computation by genetic algorithms, a topic that has consumed quite a bit of his attention since then. I reviewed his book, "The Design Inference", in 1999. I've been on stage with Dembski at events in 2001, 2002, and 2006. Yeah, Dembski has an opinion, but there is a body of criticism that goes with those ideas, of which I have contributed a portion. So when I ask, yet again, what is it that has been measured in CSI, it's not an idle inquiry. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:36    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 26 2007,15:22) Hi All, To the question... When has anything been measured in CSI? Dembski provided a partial analysis of a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in the essay I linked. See page 25. However, that isn't material to what I was saying.  The point is that according to the Dembski's definitions what I have proposed is a "design" in the sense meant for purposes of considering it an ID hypothesis. Just wondering, without a proper analysis of CSI how can the Explanatory filter have been applied? ID makes a big deal out of CSI "bits" and universal probability bounds. Isn't it all talk unless somebody does the math? For example, here Salvador Cordova gives an example of CSI as follows Quote Say we have 100 sentences to compare in a passage, and the sentences were 100 characters on average in length.   What would be the rough probabliy that two authors could independently arrive at the same 100-sentence passage based on the parameters suggested by Chomsky?    10^25^100? basic CSI with respect to the plagerism design is roughly log2(10^25^100)   bits   Does that make any sense to you? Usable? Richard, the forum is still there btw Link -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:40    Quote Dembski provided a partial analysis of a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in the essay I linked. Yeah, I already know of E. coli flagellum "calculation"; it seems to be Dembski's perenially unfinished masterpiece. Again, what is it that has been measured in CSI? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:01    Hi Wesley, I am somewhat aware of your background. I applaud your fight against the ID Movement. As I stated earlier in the thread, I found out about Intelligent Design through the Dover trial. I think Judge Jones' opinion was inevitable based on the material presented to him. However, not everyone who thinks of themselves as an ID proponent agrees with the definition found on page 99 of the book that was the focus of the Dover trial. For example, I think it is safe to say that MikeGene does not.  Furthermore, I’m sure MikeGene didn’t agree with the definition before the Dover trial and actually fought against ID being taught in schools. I consider MikeGene to be an earnest ID Scientist even though he feels that ID isn’t yet qualified to be called “science.” While I think MikeGene would be better off ditching the baggage associated with ID, that is his choice. The ID movement doesn’t deserve him. There is a lot MikeGene and I disagree about, but embracing Gould’s NOMA means that our philosophical differences can be set aside as long as we focus on the science. What I have been presenting here is what I call the Third Choice.  A choice other than the status quo and an unidentified Intelligent Designer. Many ID proponents claim ID isn’t about God.  I am giving them the opportunity to stand by their words.  Here is an ID hypothesis with scientific justification.  The reactions to it are informative. I am helping ID Science.  I am a vocal critic of the ID Movement.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:11    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 26 2007,15:22) The point is that according to the Dembski's definitions what I have proposed is a "design" in the sense meant for purposes of considering it an ID hypothesis. Also, according to his definition of "intelligence," natural selection is intelligent.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:16    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 26 2007,16:01) I consider MikeGene to be an earnest ID Scientist even though he feels that ID isn’t yet qualified to be called “science.” Baloney. "Mike Gene" is scared to death of doing anything that remotely resembles the testing of a hypothesis, probably because it might ruin his book sales. Earnest scientists set out to find the most stringent tests of their hypotheses, and then do them. If their hypotheses are wrong, new data are still generated.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:22    Hi OldMan and Wesley, You can find a conversation that I had with Salvador Cordova about this essay here Don't get too excited.  Salvador ended up retreating to his YEC stance.  Salvador gets himself in trouble because he actually tries to do the math and tries to build models.  He is an engineer.  He can't help himself. In that respect I think more highly of him than I do Dembski. BTW, I know Salvador quotemines horribly and, otherwise, does whatever it takes to promote ID.  So don't bother with retelling me this. I am suggesting that, sometimes, he at least tries. And no, I don’t know of any other examples of CSI being applied.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,17:09    Given that we don't have an example of measurement, isn't it somewhat premature to say, Quote The lord of all things ID provides the measuring stick called CSI. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,18:14    Quote Dembski provided a partial analysis of a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in the essay I linked. I think Dembski's calculations could be improved.  He assumes a 10^5 probability of each of the above concepts "bidirectional", "rotary", "motor driven" and "propeller". However if you take the "propeller" part as a given, how many choices are available for the other words?   Rotary?   Ok I guess it could be "linear" or "random" instead. "Motor Driven" could be "elastic band driven", I guess. "Bidirectional" could have been "unidirectional", or "non-directional" To compensate, I would add "super-dooper", "microscopic", "biological", "international standards based" -- and maybe do away with the analysis of English language concepts altogether as the basis of the calculations,  and consider  instead potential chemical and biological precursors.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,18:37    Hi SteveStory, Assuming you are listening,  I hope you found this outline of an ID hypothesis a little more substantial than your usual "cotton candy". However, it looks like things are reverting back to rehashing the Group Think approved talking points. I had hoped to get a chance to talk about the Vernanimalcula guizhouena since Richardthughes brought up the subject of the complexity of early life.  It doesn't look like that is happening. If anyone has any questions in the future, they can get a hold of me via my blog http://dfcord.blogspot.com/ My comments are open to anyone. Alternatively, I am a frequent contributer at www.TelicThoughts.com.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,21:29    Quote However, it looks like things are reverting back to rehashing the Group Think approved talking points. What does one say to that sort of sign-off? For myself, I think, "Good-bye," will be sufficient. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,22:19    You are right, that was rude of me. To those who showed an interest and asked earnest questions... thank you.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,23:30    You're welcome. I have to admit, I didn't always follow your thinking but I got a wee bit of fun from it. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,00:18    gone so soon, what a letdown.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,00:22    Jesting aside, I wish he'd addressed my concerns with "Front Loading". -------------- "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: Sep. 27 2007,07:12    Quote Jesting aside, I wish he'd addressed my concerns with "Front Loading". Jesting aside, I wish you had too. Do you want to talk about Vernanimalcula guizhouena now?

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,08:58    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 27 2007,07:12) Quote Jesting aside, I wish he'd addressed my concerns with "Front Loading". Jesting aside, I wish you had too. Do you want to talk about Vernanimalcula guizhouena now? It sounds very advanced for a "young" organism, but I don't think it's evidence for front loading, Nor do I have the right knowledge and perhaps intellect to discuss it in detail with you. Sorry  :( I can talk big picture, though. Here are some thoughts: one front-loaded ancestor, or many? If many, what where the time(s) of introduction? Was the designer aware of how future environments would  develop (so he could front load them specifically) or is it closer to NDE?  > This is important if you think of the interplay of the various species through time and environments, Genetically, what would a front-loaded ancestor look like vs. current life? I hope you find these Thought Provoking! -------------- "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: Sep. 27 2007,11:22    Quote It sounds very advanced for a "young" organism, but I don't think it's evidence for front loading, Nor do I have the right knowledge and perhaps intellect to discuss it in detail with you. Sorry  :( I can talk big picture, though. Are you sure? I am just an engineer with very little biological science training, but I can learn.  I learn by listening to people who explain things rather than telling me how and what to think. I provided a link to PZ Myer's pharyngula for a reason.  He explains why finding Vernanimalcula guizhouena was important.  It wasn't just "a" young organism that happened to be complex.  From the pharyngula link... The important point is that this animal possesses the rudiments of morphological characters that are going to erupt into a wide range of diverse specializations in the Cambrian, and it has them roughly 50 million years before the Cambrian 'explosion'. The phyletic innovations we have first seen so clearly in the Cambrian did not come out of nowhere, but have a solid evolutionary foundation in simpler animals. Chen et al.'s summary of their paper: "The morphology  of Vernanimalcula demonstrates that the evolutionary appearance of developmental programs required to generate a multilayered bilaterian body plan preceded the entrainment of the growth programs required for macroscopic body size. Furthermore, the organization of these fossils, taken together with their provenance, indicates that the genetic toolkit and pattern formation mechanisms required for bilaterian development had already evolved by Doushantuo times, long before the Cambrian. Therefore, the diversification of body plans in the Early Cambrian followed from the varied deployment of these mechanisms once conditions permitted, not from their sudden appearance at or just before the Cambrian boundary." This sounds a lot like MikeGene talking about evidence for front loaded evolution.  Which is why I included the Telic Thoughts link where he included this about the complexity of early organisms... In this week's issue of the journal Cell they report that hormone-secreting brain centres are much older than expected and likely evolved from multifunctional cells of the last common ancestor of vertebrates, flies and worms. and this... "These findings revolutionise the way we see the brain," says Tessmar-Raible. "So far we have always understood it as a processing unit, a bit like a computer that integrates and interprets incoming sensory information. Now we know that the brain is itself a sensory organ and has been so since very ancient times." By the way I understand the last common ancestor of vertebrates, flies and worms is called Urbilateria which was the predesesor to Vernanimalcula guizhouena. However, I am just an engineer, what do I know? Earlier, you wrote...         Quote All of the info for the complicated future creatures would be compressed somewhere in the simpler ancestor? This origional life was seen to be "very simple", I believe. Therefore, I thought you would be interested in discussing early life forms like the Vernanimalcula guizhouena. As to your questions...   Quote one front-loaded ancestor, or many? If many, what where the time(s) of introduction? Was the designer aware of how future environments would  develop (so he could front load them specifically) or is it closer to NDE? > This is important if you think of the interplay of the various species through time and environments, Genetically, what would a front-loaded ancestor look like vs. current life? First of all, I can only speak to the hypothesis I am proposing and not to the strawman stereotype you wish to hack up. There is no presumption of "the designer" in the hypothesis I have presented.  There is a presumption of a universal wavefunction that is timeless because time is just another dimension in space/time geometry. I don't know how the universe came to be, do you? I tend to believe in Common Descent in the sense mainstream biologists refer to it. Interconnected quantum effects are holistic from a time point of view.  Therefore, asking about "time(s) of introduction" makes no sense. Whether this is closer to NDE or ID depends on definitions.  If you ask a typical ID proponent, NDE is totally based on randomness.  If there is no such thing as randomness then NDE falls.  I tend to be more neutral, that is why I call it the Third Choice.  Presumes neither NDE, nor an Intelligent Designer.  It wouldn't bother me to have both sides claim it. As to what a front-loaded ancestor might look like.  It might look like a Vernanimalcula guizhouena.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:31    Paging Dr Pangloss, paging Dr Pangloss. posterior predictions are always 100%. -------------- 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

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:31    I'll elaborate a bit on that, Rich. The problem with frontloading is basically that evolution happens, and nothing (known) can really stop it from happening. Given this, the very idea invites an infinite regress, which is a really good sign that the idea is "not even wrong." Here's why: If you posit some frontloaded genetic material that does the organism no good in the present, but is being conserved somehow for future function, then you need some kind of regulatory structure or some as-yet unimagined mechanism for preserving these frontloaded sequences against mutation and selection. But your conservation mechanism does the organism no good in the present either, because the sequences it's conserving don't. So you need some kind of regulatory structure or some as-yet unimagined mechanism for preserving the sequences that preserve the frontloaded sequences. But your conservation mechanism does the organism no good in the present either, because the sequences it's conserving don't. So you need some kind of regulatory structure or some as-yet unimagined mechanism for preserving the sequences that preserve the frontloaded sequences. But your conservation mechanism does the organism no good in the present either, because the sequences it's conserving don't. So you need some kind of regulatory structure or some as-yet unimagined mechanism for preserving the sequences that preserve the frontloaded sequences. But your conservation mechanism does the organism no good in the present either, because the sequences it's conserving don't. So you need some kind of regulatory structure or some as-yet unimagined mechanism for preserving the sequences that preserve the frontloaded sequences... -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:34    So, when we see that 'time since introduction' is one of the most potent predictors of the spread of an introduced species, we are not really saying anything since the universal wave function of quantum effects make time nonsensical?   I find your ideas fascinating and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.   Woo Woo!!!  Woo Woooooooooooo!!! -------------- 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: Sep. 27 2007,11:48    To C.J.O'Brien - Interesting elaboration.  Something to think about. To Erasmus, FCD - Sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak (credit John Knowles)

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:52    Quote > This is important if you think of the interplay of the various species through time and environments, Not if you think that there is something very small and undetectable that keeps a map of life, the universe and everything in its back pocket and when no one is looking concocts T-Rex. It's a quantum god of the gaps unless you are an atheist in which case it’s still a god. And TP is not an atheist even if he says so. For some existential reason there are a great number of people who find the idea that life has evolved extremely unsatisfying. We've seen it time and again where there is a perception that even if Le Fromage Grand in the sky used some sort of Genetic Algorithm to create US then US must have been his purpose, otherwise why bother? That leaves the nagging question how can we recognize evidence for 'purpose' not just in US but in all life since everything evolved and therefore everything has a 'purpose'. No purpose therefore existential dilemma, IOW why am I here? In fact what is I. Mythology in the past provided strong answers for the group as to the correct conditions, and conditioning, for the ego. For example one of the creation tales in the Mahabharata starts with. The I (the ego) woke up and discovered it was all alone and it was scared, so it created Brahma (god). Then Brahma created the heavens and all the worlds as his dream. The question ‘what is the purpose of life’ is of course ridiculous. If one needs to project a personal doubt back through a chain of chemical ancestors to the year dot, science is not the answer. 40 days in the wilderness however has proved successful in the past, try it. City kids piss me off sometimes, some of them have no concept of what living breathing life actually is sometimes and sorry RTH the warm blooded ones are edible. TP UR SPEXIAL KO? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:05    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 27 2007,19:48) To C.J.O'Brien - Interesting elaboration.  Something to think about. To Erasmus, FCD - Sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak (credit John Knowles) oh boo hoo hoody hoo Stuffed shirt From someone who has spent their whole child and adult life not even considering infinite regression. The quote is normally credited to Shakespeare "If wit is a play on words then sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" I however, am agnostic about Shakespeare’s wit and would like to PERSONALLY GIVE ERASMUS FCD A HIGH FIVE !!!!! Sarcasm according to science is a reflection of intelligence Highest Brain Functions Handle Lowest Form of Wit (Intelligence Means Sarcasm) -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:09    To put that in context, the bard wrote: "If wit is a play on words then sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" After Sir Richard LeTarde mocked him; "YOU are going to be a writer, Mr. spells his name consistently? I'm sure you will be suuuuuupeeeer" Folks only roll out "... sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" after being cut down by sarcasm, which is one of the higher forms of wit. -------------- "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

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:10    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 27 2007,11:48) To C.J.O'Brien - Interesting elaboration.  Something to think about. To Erasmus, FCD - Sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak (credit John Knowles) TP, Using the "sarcasm is a tool of the weak" bit is a sign of a weak argument. (credit BWE) Please do expand on the frontloading issue. I too am curious. Is this an argument for special creation? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:35    Hi all, I was aware of the quote from Shakespeare.  My choice was intentional.  Knowles was making a dispassionate observation.  "Weak" verses "weak minded". Seeking the sanctuary of Group Think is also a sign of weakness. I was letting you know that actions like these isn't provoking anger.  Disgust and pity, maybe, but not anger. I am not interested in attempting to trade insults.  I concede most of you appear to be much more experienced at that than I. If you don't wish to have a discussion with me, all you have to do is ask me to leave.  Or better yet, don't participate in this thread.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:39    Hi K.E., You wrote... Quote It's a quantum god of the gaps unless you are an atheist in which case it’s still a god. And TP is not an atheist even if he says so. I agree I am not an atheist since I won't say there is no god.   Of course, Richard Dawkins also concedes there might be a God. Most people think Richard Dawkins is an atheist.  A lot of religious people think I am an atheist. Labels aren't important, ideas are. P.S. I like your signature line about conservatives.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:50    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 27 2007,12:39) Hi K.E., You wrote...   Quote It's a quantum god of the gaps unless you are an atheist in which case it’s still a god. And TP is not an atheist even if he says so. I agree I am not an atheist since I won't say there is no god.   Of course, Richard Dawkins also concedes there might be a God. Most people think Richard Dawkins is an atheist.  A lot of religious people think I am an atheist. Labels aren't important, ideas are. P.S. I like your signature line about conservatives. You can be atheist agnostic. Atheism is a position of faith, like theism. In many ways it has to be, as you can't prove a negative. Agnosticism answer the epistemological question, honestly. Believing isn't KNOWING. -------------- "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

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:54    But I want to know! Tell me about front loading. Forget group  think and just spell out your argument. It looks like a kind of vain attempt to put a place for some special God back into the schematic. Maybe it's just me... -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,13:16    Hi BWE,     Quote Is this an argument for special creation? I doubt my Third Choice hypothesis is. Think of lightening.  For lightening to be "created" it needs positive and negative potentials.  Is lightening pushed or pulled or both? I suggest, like lightening, evolution might result from being both pushed and pulled. NDE describes the pushing part.  Front loading would be the pulling part. And, while more important for philosophical discussion, the other similarity to lightening is that the circuit must be complete.  There must be a path from the beginning to the end of time, otherwise it doesn't happen. P.S. sorry for the delay, but sometimes I have to do real work.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,13:29    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 26 2007,16:01) What I have been presenting here is what I call the Third Choice.  A choice other than the status quo and an unidentified Intelligent Designer. Many ID proponents claim ID isn’t about God.  I am giving them the opportunity to stand by their words.  Here is an ID hypothesis with scientific justification.  The reactions to it are informative. Once again, I disagree that you've provided any scientific justification. To me (and to most working scientists, I suspect), scientific justification means some reasonable level of empirical data that supports the hypothesis. I don't think you've provided that at all. Instead, you've taken some observations about QM, made a series of assumptions, and shown that life is inevitable ("retrocaused") under those assumptions. The problem with that is one can show virtually anything with the right set of assumptions. I don't consider it scientific justification unless there's some evidence to support the assumptions. Now, maybe I still don't grasp what your Third Choice really says. So let me try to boil it down, and you can tell me if I've got the gist. 1.  Particles can be quantum entangled. This is demonstrated. 2.  Based on (1), you propose that the universe is interconnected across all of space and time due to quantum effects. 3.  For reasons that aren't clear to me, you further propose that living things (perhaps specifically intelligent living things) are required for the universe to exist. 4.  Thus, life developed because it had to. The requirement for (intelligent?) life at some point in space-time 'retrocaused' life to begin developing at some other point(s) in space-time. Is that approximately right? If not, feel free to correct my errors. If so, isn't this essentially just the Strong Anthropic principle? Regardless of the above, I don't consider your ideas to be equivalent to front loading. Here's why. In 'traditional' front loading, all of the 'information' needed to generate every possible future organism was loaded into the first organism. Proponents generally argue that it was all encoded into the DNA, but most of it was repressed. The key point is that it was all inherent in that first organism. You're arguing (I think) that the information needed to generate every possible organism was loaded not into the first organism, but into the universe itself. That's fundamentally distinct. You may choose to call that front loading, but it's not compatible with front loading as it's commonly understood.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,14:56    qetzal if that is true it further entails that either consciousness is not a property of organisms or that it is a property of matter. Woo-woo-woo-woo!!! -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:01    Just read upthread, don't be mad TP k? We all take the piss.  Woo-wear is just something that is easy to piss on.  I will never say that it's wrong.  It's not even wrong.  I mean, have you ever really looked at your hand?   -------------- 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: Sep. 27 2007,15:04    Hi qetzal, I will readily admit that the Third Choice is repackaged Anthropic principle.  As to whether it is weak or strong isn't as clear. Skeptic was right to indicate I am violating NOMA in suggesting a purpose, even if it is extremely modest.  I am not suggesting human life is key to the universe's existance.  For that matter, Earth, and all the life on it, many be a meaningless side effect of the universe being consistent with itself. Maybe it would help if I bring up Dawkin's..."Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." What happens to this if there is no such thing as randomness? Life results from the non-random survival of replicators that vary based on interconnected quantum effects that may, or may not, be needed for consistency in the universe. Science makes the presumption that the universe is consistent.  It is a small step over the NOMA divide to say the universe MUST be consistent (i.e. is its purpose).  Note, saying the universe has no purpose violates NOMA just as much as saying it does. With that, let me try to focus on the scientific arguments. Hypothesis - Quantum effects are interconnected in both space and time. Implication - All quantum effects are fixed.  There is no such thing as randomness, just the illusion of randomness in a highly complex situation. Hypothesis – Evolution has resulted in life on Earth taking advantage of quantum computing (e.g. DNA and photosynthesis). Implication – “Random” mutations are influenced by quantum effects interconnected to future quantum effects. Hypothesis – The appearance of life’s awareness (i.e. consciousness) is a direct artifact of life’s use of quantum effects. Implication - Microtubules are probably the primary mechanism for consciousness. I will say more in a follow up comment.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:39    Hi qetzal, You wrote...   Quote Regardless of the above, I don't consider your ideas to be equivalent to front loading. Here's why. In 'traditional' front loading, all of the 'information' needed to generate every possible future organism was loaded into the first organism. Proponents generally argue that it was all encoded into the DNA, but most of it was repressed. The key point is that it was all inherent in that first organism. You're arguing (I think) that the information needed to generate every possible organism was loaded not into the first organism, but into the universe itself. That's fundamentally distinct. You may choose to call that front loading, but it's not compatible with front loading as it's commonly understood. I understand that MikeGene and Krauze of Telic Thoughts are credited for pushing the Front Loading meme for a long time.  I can't speak for them, but I have noticed they have rejected similar characterizations of "traditional front loading" in past comments. MikeGene has suggested that the recA gene might be a front-loaded evolution gene.  Here is a link to a paper (essay?) MikeGene wrote in the subject (it was the one MikeGene offered when SteveStory came by on his visit to Telic Thoughts)... RecA is truly a remarkable protein. Even though it is only about 350 amino acids in length, it carries out the multiple functions of binding multiple DNA strands, coordinating their exchange, binding ATP and hydrolyzing it, and interacting with other proteins. In fact, according to one review, the functional domains responsible for these activities closely map together and may even overlap. How is all this carried out? I’ve left out one very important part of the story – RecA is not functional as a monomer, it only becomes functional when it forms protein fibers that wrap around the DNA. In other words, recombination occurs because tubulin-like proteins stretch the DNA by forming a dynamically lengthening tube around it. In this way, the growing protein tube can hold onto the single stranded DNA with one “hand” while using its other “hands” to unravel double stranded DNA such that the single-stranded DNA can be used to probe the unraveled DNA for regions that are complementary. You might have noticed I said “tubulin-like.” Is this simply because RecA forms a semi-hollow protein tube? No. There are several other features that have led one reviewer, for example, to note: The dynamic behavior protein under conditions of ATP hydrolysis is thus conceptually similar to that of other NTP-hydrolyzing, self-assembling proteins, such as actin and tubulin. Like tubulin, RecA formation starts slowing with a nucleation step, where a small number of monomers must form a seed that can then be extended. Once formed, like tubulin, RecA then grows at one end by the incorporation of RecA monomers bound to ATP (tubulin dimers add to one end and must be bound to GTP). Like tubulin, the NTP hydrolysis is not needed for assembly, but instead is needed for disassembly. This means that RecA, like tubulin, assembles at one end and disassembles at the other end, forming something like a treadmill. According to one team of researchers: We argue that RecA can “proofread” the ssDNA by its own binding fluctuations. These fluctuations are similar to microtubule dynamic instability. The assembly dynamics constitute a kinetic proofreading cascade that is a “hair-trigger” sensor of DNA length. Enhancing biomolecular precision by fluctuations, which may seem somewhat counter-intuitive in a deterministic world, is presented as a natural design principle in the noisy realm of the living cell. A microtubule-like structure is thus in charge of genetic recombination. Finally, if RecA is an evolution gene, this would lead to an obvious prediction - removal of RecA should compromise an organism’s ability to evolve. Could the RecA protein be another example of life taking advantage of the power of quantum computing for a key function?  I haven't found the time or resources to explore that, but MikeGene went out of his way to point out how his and my hypotheses were mutually supportive. Whether or not the Third Choice is considered part of the rubric called "Front Loading" isn't up to you or me.  It is up to those proposing the Front Loading hypothesis. Labels aren't important, ideas are.

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,16:22    Quote Could the RecA protein be another example of life taking advantage of the power of quantum computing for a key function? Maybe entanglement, but I doubt that it's an actual quantum computer because, again, decoherence at room temperatures will be a problem. For a quantum computer to be truly effective, it must entangle many lines and keep them coherent with a strong perturbation long enough to perform quantum operations (phase flips, rotations like the Hadamard, controlled NOTs, the Quantum Fourier Transform). The photosynthesis article you provided before talked about timing on the level of tenths of pico-seconds and temperatures of 77K (-223 C for those of you at home). This is well below an acceptable level for claiming that the proteins would be able to exhibit the same behavior. It also used a much simpler quantum process of entangling energy eigenstates, not performing true computation.   Quote Labels aren't important, ideas are. Except when you use labels incorrectly, such as "quantum computer".

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,16:33    Hi Erasmus, FCD, You wrote...   Quote if that is true it further entails that either consciousness is not a property of organisms or that it is a property of matter This approached a decent argument. If Dr Hameroff is right, the conscious perception of time is based on the rate of conscious events.  Human have about 40 conscious events a second.  A potato (which has microtubules) would have about one a month. The quantum effects in general matter isn’t organized to fire (massive decoherence) concurrently like living matter with microtubules are.  But suppose, for argument sake it is.  What is a rock with one conscious event a year going to do about it? P.S. on the extreme chance you are interested in this, you may want to look up Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,16:39    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 27 2007,15:39) I understand that MikeGene and Krauze of Telic Thoughts are credited for pushing the Front Loading meme for a long time.  I can't speak for them, but I have noticed they have rejected similar characterizations of "traditional front loading" in past comments. Whether or not the Third Choice is considered part of the rubric called "Front Loading" isn't up to you or me.  It is up to those proposing the Front Loading hypothesis. Labels aren't important, ideas are. Well, this is what MikeGene posted on 9/24/07: Quote For years, I have been trying to flesh out the conceptualization of front-loading evolution at the origin of life. A working hypothesis has been that the first cells (uni-cellular life forms) were front-loaded with information that would facilitate the evolution of multi-cellular life. link Isn't that pretty much what I said? In contrast, your version doesn't postulate front loading of information into the first cells per se. It postulates that the information is part of the overall wavefunction of the universe, right? I agree that concepts are what matter, but when the same label is used to refer to two different concepts, confusion is inevitable. Regarding RecA, you're in my sweet spot now! I agree it's an amazing protein. But being multifunctional and forming nucleoprotein filaments is not evidence that it's front-loaded. Not unless you're going to claim that it's "too complex to have evolved naturally." Whether recA is an "evolution gene" depends on what that means. It's a central player in a lot of DNA repair and recombination processes. Where there's repair/recombination, there's mutation. Where there's mutation, there's potential evolution. If that's all that's required to meet MikeGene's idea of an "evolution gene" then recA fits the bill. On the other hand, if MikeGene thinks RecA somehow directs evolution in a teleological way, he's wrong.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,16:42    TP I forgot to add - even though I think your ideas are mostly BS, props for getting RecA protein versus recA gene right! ;-)

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,16:52    Hi Creek Belly, It would have been nice of you to provide the link and quote it in context.  But this isn't about being nice is it? Here it is in context... Engel said one of the next steps for the Fleming group in this line of research will be to look at the effects of temperature changes on the photosynthetic energy transfer process. The results for this latest paper in Nature were obtained from FMO complexes kept at 77 Kelvin. The group will also be looking at broader bandwidths of energy using different colors of light pulses to map out everything that is going on, not just energy transfer. Ultimately, the idea is to gain a much better understanding how Nature not only transfers energy from one molecular system to another, but is also able to convert it into useful forms. “Nature has had about 2.7 billion years to perfect photosynthesis, so there are huge lessons that remain for us to learn,” Engel said. “The results we’re reporting in this latest paper, however, at least give us a new way to think about the design of future artificial photosynthesis systems.” It also would have been nice to think about what they were saying.  This isn't the first time nature has managed to do something that proves difficult to replicate artificially.  Are you suggesting plants operate at 77 Kelvin?

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:22    Hi qetzal, Thank you for your comment and thank you for providing the link.  As you pointed out, MikeGene said... "A working hypothesis has been that the first cells (uni-cellular life forms) were front-loaded with information that would facilitate the evolution of multi-cellular life." (emphasis mine) I have noticed MikeGene is pretty careful with his words.  The word "facilitate" makes a big difference IMO.  Life's use of quantum mechanics facilitates the evolution of multi-cellular life. Quote In contrast, your version doesn't postulate front loading of information into the first cells per se. It postulates that the information is part of the overall wavefunction of the universe, right? I agree that concepts are what matter, but when the same label is used to refer to two different concepts, confusion is inevitable. MikeGene is more careful with his words than I.  If I said the Third Choice is a Front Loading hypothesis then I was mistaken.  I have asked, MikeGene has not said one way or the other.  I have my opinion, but it is only my opinion. BTW, I am of the opinion that this is an ID Hypothesis based on the lose definitions used, but I could be wrong about that. Quote Regarding RecA, you're in my sweet spot now! I agree it's an amazing protein. But being multifunctional and forming nucleoprotein filaments is not evidence that it's front-loaded. Not unless you're going to claim that it's "too complex to have evolved naturally." Whether recA is an "evolution gene" depends on what that means. It's a central player in a lot of DNA repair and recombination processes. Where there's repair/recombination, there's mutation. Where there's mutation, there's potential evolution. If that's all that's required to meet MikeGene's idea of an "evolution gene" then recA fits the bill. I'm glad to hear from a knowledgable source. You can read MikeGene's paper for itself.  I won't speak for MikeGene. I look at the recA gene and, especially, the RecA protein as being in the unique position of having great influence over the evolution process in what MikeGene referred to as "deep time".  Pencils balanced on their tips could fall in any direction. I gentile breeze might not make a difference that is immeadiately noticable.  But if there are a lot of pencils over a lot of time, the pencils might be biased to tip a certain way. I understand the RecA protein acts very much like a microtubule (I am counting on your expertise to argue this point if applicable).  That is a rather convienent coincidence. I am not suggesting some human-like intelligence designed it that way.  Think of it as some unknown evolutionary advantage to having a quantum computer in charge of this highly important function. And thanks for noticing the recA gene and RecA protein.  I feel my efforts weren’t wasted.

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:24    Quote This isn't the first time nature has managed to do something that proves difficult to replicate artificially. Quite. Evolutionary algorithms are a good example of this (especially the "Macguyver solutions"). Quote Are you suggesting plants operate at 77 Kelvin? No, I'm suggesting that some of the ease of observing quantum effects were from keeping the plants cold (average energy state is lower, allows for longer coherence time), even then they were relegated to coherences of femto-seconds. The fact that plants operate at a higher average temperatures makes it difficult to determine how prevalent this quantum effect is when the temperature is closer to 290-300K (I believe the group is working towards this). In addition, it's a pretty basic quantum effect, in the sense that energy levels constitute well defined quantum state, with incident photons accounting for the measurement process. This is quite another thing from performing complex quantum operations; there's just not much from the data that suggests this is being done. And just to be fair and balanced: "By demonstrating that the energy transfer process does involve electronic coherence and that this coherence is much stronger than we would ever have expected, we have shown that the process can be much more efficient than the classical view could explain. However, we still don’t know to what degree photosynthesis benefits from these quantum effects." from the link.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,18:40    TP, Thanks for the reply (and the previous ones). It's nice to discuss this with someone who responds to the questions that are asked, even if we may disagree on the answers.   Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 27 2007,17:22) Hi qetzal, Thank you for your comment and thank you for providing the link.  As you pointed out, MikeGene said... "A working hypothesis has been that the first cells (uni-cellular life forms) were front-loaded with information that would facilitate the evolution of multi-cellular life." (emphasis mine) I have noticed MikeGene is pretty careful with his words.  The word "facilitate" makes a big difference IMO.  Life's use of quantum mechanics facilitates the evolution of multi-cellular life. Maybe, but in distinguishing MikeGene's (et al.) version from yours, I'd place the emphasis here: "A working hypothesis has been that the first cells (uni-cellular life forms) were front-loaded...."   Quote MikeGene is more careful with his words than I.  If I said the Third Choice is a Front Loading hypothesis then I was mistaken.  I have asked, MikeGene has not said one way or the other.  I have my opinion, but it is only my opinion. BTW, I am of the opinion that this is an ID Hypothesis based on the lose definitions used, but I could be wrong about that. Fair enough.   Quote I'm glad to hear from a knowledgable source. You can read MikeGene's paper for itself.  I won't speak for MikeGene. I'll try to look over his post(s) tonight. Can't promise though.   Quote I look at the recA gene and, especially, the RecA protein as being in the unique position of having great influence over the evolution process in what MikeGene referred to as "deep time".  Pencils balanced on their tips could fall in any direction. I gentile breeze might not make a difference that is immeadiately noticable.  But if there are a lot of pencils over a lot of time, the pencils might be biased to tip a certain way. Sorry, I don't follow that.   Quote I understand the RecA protein acts very much like a microtubule (I am counting on your expertise to argue this point if applicable).  That is a rather convienent coincidence. I don't really think so. There are similarities, of course. It forms filaments assembled from monomers, but it does so by assembling around DNA. Given its function of catalyzing strand exchange during recombination, and the linear nature of DNA, that's not particularly surprising. There are other proteins that form filaments in a generally similar way. Coat protein from tabacco mosaic virus is a good example, and that's a case where there's no reason to invoke any quantum computing. The simple explanation is that assembling monomers into helical filaments is a convenient way to generate long filaments from proteins. That's really the common theme I see. RecA needs to make linear filaments to coat linear DNA and promote strand exchange. TMV coat protein needs to make linear filaments to coat viral RNA. Tubulin needs to make linear filaments to provide structural support to the cell. Other geometries could also work, but they would be less efficient.   Quote I am not suggesting some human-like intelligence designed it that way.  Think of it as some unknown evolutionary advantage to having a quantum computer in charge of this highly important function. Except that you're pretty much begging the question. You've decided that quantum computers exist in biology, and you're using that to justify the hypothesis that RecA is a quantum computer. I see no evidentiary basis to do that.   Quote And thanks for noticing the recA gene and RecA protein.  I feel my efforts weren’t wasted. You're welcome! I tend to be a bit anal about that kind of thing, so I'm one to notice.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,19:49    Hi qetzal, Did you know this science stuff can be exciting?!? The internet isn't half bad either. One of the reasons I like arguing on blogs is it forces me to research my responses.  You wrote... Quote Except that you're pretty much begging the question. You've decided that quantum computers exist in biology, and you're using that to justify the hypothesis that RecA is a quantum computer. I see no evidentiary basis to do that. The RecA protein was a surprise bonus.  It isn't key to the hypothesis.  It is just an intreguing possibility.  Life's general use of quantum mechanics, especially in DNA and microtubules is enough.  And speaking of surprise bonuses when I went looking for the latest and greatest on life using quantum mechanics, I found that a new term is being coined "bio-quantum physics."  But that is not all, those fine folk at Berkeley Labs have an update... Like the peeling of an onion, the secrets of photosynthesis are being revealed layer by layer. Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. Green plants and certain bacteria are able to transfer solar energy almost instantaneously from light-capturing pigment molecules — for plants, the main photosynthetic pigment is chlorophyll — into reaction centers where solar energy is converted into chemical energy. The energy transfer happens so fast and is so efficient that less than five percent is lost as heat. How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." Quantum-mechanical effects enable a plant's photosystem to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways from pigment molecules to reaction centers and choose the most efficient one. However, as is so often the case in science, solving one mystery led to another. What is the source of this remarkably long-lived quantum coherence? A second team, again led by Fleming, believes it has found the answer. Preserving quantum coherence "From our investigation, we conclude that the protein environment in the reaction center works collectively to keep the fluctuations of excited electronics states of pigment molecules in phase, and therefore protects quantum coherence," says Hohjai Lee, a member of Fleming's research group and co-author of a recent paper in Science describing their work. "This is a brand-new function of the protein in the reaction center." link It's no longer a question of whether life directly utilizes quantum mechanics but how and in how many ways. I will be providing an update on DNA processing next.