Friday, March 23, 2012

I Just Found Out There Are Multiple Multiverses

An evolutionist just told me privately that there are multiple—as in a large number—multiverses and this is a game-changer. A multiverse is a large number of universes, which evolutionists now know really do exist. Evolutionists explain that the number of universes in a multiverse is “a large number” rather than infinity because certain mathematical and philosophical problems arise if you have an infinity of universes. With an infinity of universes evolution becomes a fact (along with everything else, of course, because everything happens when you have an infinite number of chances, and evolution is all about chances). But “a large number” is actually just as good, when you think about it. This is because “a large number” can be any number you want it to be. The only limit is infinity, but that actually is not a limit because, well, it is infinity.

Anyway, now it turns out that not only is there a multiverse (“a large number” of universes), but there also is “a large number” of multiverses. This is an incredible thought, when you think about it, and makes evolution beyond just a mere fact. There simply is no question that everything just happened to arise all by itself. It’s a real game-changer.

67 comments:

  1. Isn't this along the same line of thought that Godel used to prove the incompleteness theorem?

    Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335
    entire video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 1-10)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90

    Godel's story on the incompleteness theorem can be picked up here in part 7 of the preceding video:

    BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 7-10)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldUAw2Aux0

    As you can see, somewhat from the preceding video, mathematics cannot be held to be 'true' unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God. Thus this following formal proof, which was referred to at the end of the preceding video, shows that math cannot be held to be consistently true unless the highest infinity of God is held to be consistently true as a starting assumption:

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

    Godel also had this to say:

    The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century)
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

    Which is very interesting since Jesus, who 'played the role' of God as a person, actually brings 'completeness' to the reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity;

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is multiverse any more intellectually satisfiying than saying God did it? they are both supernatural. Multiverse just has the supernatural stuff happening somewhere else. And Multiverse is unfalsifiable, which naturalists usually find annoying. How can you say for sure that these uninverses we cannot detect don't exist? While "God did it" is said to be unfalsifiable, Naturalists claim to have falsified it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is multiverse any more intellectually satisfiying than saying God did it? they are both supernatural.

      Untrue. Multiverse theory is a naturalistic theory. It requires no supernatural intervention.

      How can you say for sure that these uninverses we cannot detect don't exist?

      Well we know of at least one universe - this one. Universes, evidently, can exist. We know that to be true. We can say no such thing for God.

      Once you know for a fact that a horse exists, it is more probably that a million other horses also exist than a single unicorn.

      While "God did it" is said to be unfalsifiable, Naturalists claim to have falsified it.

      Who makes that claim?

      Naturalists merely dismiss 'Goddidit' because it is not a natural explanation.

      Delete
    2. In these following videos, Alvin Plantinga reveals just how arbitrary this artificial imposition of materialism/naturalism onto science is;

      Alvin Plantinga: Divine Action - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5DPneR-Rtc

      Does Science Show That Miracles Can't Happen? (Alvin Plantinga) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcvSSQGYIu8

      Moreover Ritchie, please explain to me how the actions of quantum mechanics, which blatantly defy our concepts of time and space, and which completely undermine a deterministic view of reality, are to be construed as 'natural'. There is simply nothing within quantum mechanics which prevents divinely ordained miracles from happening!

      notes:

      the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpDwWetu66fBRlPM7zjA5BpHzcu5wBY7AdB7gOz51OQ/edit

      Delete
    3. born -

      In these following videos, Alvin Plantinga reveals just how arbitrary this artificial imposition of materialism/naturalism onto science is

      I'm not going to take the time watching those. Frankly, you have a habit of posting an entire bibliography every time you post. It's one thing to reference, or give a link if someone wants to follow up on a point you've made, but just leaving an index of links is very off-putting.

      There is simply nothing within quantum mechanics which prevents divinely ordained miracles from happening!

      Quantum mechanics mandates naturalism. As does every field of science. Without naturalism you simply don't have science.

      the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this

      That looks suspiciously like the First Cause argument. And that isn't a solid argument for God either.

      Why does consciousness need a 'special position within material reality' (as per point 2)? What IS this 'special, even central position'? What does all that mean? It just sounds like pseudo-spiritual gobbledegook.

      Delete
    4. Ritchie, the videos are very informative and show just how arbitrary atheists are in their use of the word 'natural'. Sorry uou don't have time to learn your flaws! But what really shows you are bereft of objectivity is when you state this:

      'Quantum mechanics mandates naturalism. As does every field of science. Without naturalism you simply don't have science.'

      Sorry to ruin your little atheistic dream world but the fact is that without God you can't practice science rationally:

      This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

      Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website
      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

      Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;

      Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
      Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
      http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

      What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

      Alvin Plantinga - Science and Faith Conference - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlMK9Ejhb0

      Philosopher Sticks Up for God
      Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

      Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.
      ~ Alvin Plantinga

      Delete
    5. I think this following article is particularly helpful at showing just how bankrupt 'naturalism/materialism is as a scientific worldview:

      Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

      Delete
    6. Ritchie:

      Multiverse says that there are othere universes where the laws of nature are different. That means that there are places where there are unicorns. That's supernatural.

      And people say that "God did it" isn't a good explanation becuase God wouldn't do it that way. Or else God is unlikely. That's sound like falsification to me.

      Delete
    7. born -

      Ritchie, the videos are very informative and show just how arbitrary atheists are in their use of the word 'natural'. Sorry uou don't have time to learn your flaws!

      If you have a point to make, then please try to make it briefly and succinctly. If you think a particular video/essay makes a point better than you can, then kindly highlight it. Just copy-pasting a wall of links does nothing but put people off.

      Sorry to ruin your little atheistic dream world but the fact is that without God you can't practice science rationally

      Categorically wrong. You cannot practice science rationally if you DO allow for a God (at least the miracle-performing sort who intervenes in the natural world). Allow for miracles and you lose the ability to trust the results of any experiments you do. Any observed phenomenon could be the result of miracles. Conclude that, and science is totally impossible.

      Delete
    8. nat -

      Multiverse says that there are othere universes where the laws of nature are different. That means that there are places where there are unicorns. That's supernatural.

      No it isn't. The multiuniverse theory says there are other universes. That's all. It doesn't state that every universe is different, or that anything that is possible to exist exists somewhere in one of them, or that impossible things exist. A universe is a perfectly natural concept. We are, after all, in one. It is perfectly reasonable to hypothesise a second also exists, and given that, it is perfectly likely that it is different is certain respects. And so on, for a third, a fourth, a hundred, or a billion. That is not even close to hypothesising unicorns. Is it entirely likely that unicorns are impossible creatures and therefore would not exist in any universe, no matter how many of them there were.

      And people say that "God did it" isn't a good explanation becuase God wouldn't do it that way. Or else God is unlikely.

      We have no idea what any God would or would not do. Unless you are claiming to know the mind of God (which, incidentally, is exactly what many religious people do) then there is no telling what any such being would or would not do.

      That is precisely the problem. Since there is no telling what God would or would not do, 'Goddidit' is entirely empty as an explanation. It cannot be falsified, it accounts for literally ANY state of affairs, and therefore it explains nothing.

      Cornelius would have you THINK evolution (or any other part of an athestic/scientific/naturalistic worldview) is built on the assumption of what a God would or would not do. He has championed this view more than once. But it is absolutely wrong. As is every conclusion he extrapolates from it.

      Delete
    9. Ritchie, perhaps you could be a little more critical of the 'randomness' which is the 'miracle worker' in your nihilistic atheism! It is clear that you have not looked at the links, and that you are just making the same false claims. So be it. The links are there and you have not addressed the substance!

      Delete
    10. born -

      'Critical of the randomness'? What do you mean by that, exactly?

      And no, I have not looked at the links because there is far too much to look at. I am not trawling through essays and hour-long videos to decipher your argument for you.

      If you have a point, please make it succinctly and accessibly. As it is you seem to be substituting quality for quantity.

      Delete
    11. Particularly this:

      Ritchie You claim:

      'You cannot practice science rationally if you DO allow for a God (at least the miracle-performing sort who intervenes in the natural world). Allow for miracles and you lose the ability to trust the results of any experiments you do. Any observed phenomenon could be the result of miracles. Conclude that, and science is totally impossible.'

      Which is exactly the reason why atheism fails as science and Theism succeeds!

      The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon
      http://vimeo.com/34468027

      And Dr. Gordon's last powerpoint is here:

      The End Of Materialism?
      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
      * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

      Moreover, the falsification of atheism as epistemologically defencible extends to a 'personal level' here:

      Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
      Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
      http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind


      The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

      Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011
      Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?)
      Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html

      Delete
    12. born -

      Which is exactly the reason why atheism fails as science and Theism succeeds!

      That makes absolutely no sense. How can atheism allow for miracles? It doesn't. Religion does that.

      And Dr. Gordon's last powerpoint is here:

      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.


      Well that's rubbish for a start. Events all have naturalistic causes.

      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.

      Utter rubbish.

      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason.

      Again, wrong. A theist may believe literally anything is a miracle - that is, a suspension or violation of natural laws.

      Basically you're quoting a man who is trying to say that it is atheists, and not religious people, who believe in miracles...

      This isn't even intelligent rubbish. It's just laughable from the start.

      Delete
    13. Ritchie you dogmatically state:

      "Events all have naturalistic causes."

      Okie Dokie state the completely naturalistic cause for the quantum wave collapse of a single photon or for the Big Bang. Here's a hint;

      Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

      Delete
    14. born -

      Okie Dokie state the completely naturalistic cause for the quantum wave collapse of a single photon or for the Big Bang.

      I don't know. And I don't believe anyone knows.

      What do YOU think the cause was?

      And now a question of my own: if I am a scientist and am performing an experiment, but I also believe in a God who interferes with the world, how can I be sure that God did not intervene to affect the results of the experiment I am doing?

      Seriously, please at least attempt an explanation. And I don't mean copy and paste a link to someone saying something you think is relevant. I want you to think for yourself and tell me what YOU think.

      Delete
    15. Ritchie, I've made my point and you have merely debied reality. But before I leave to do something, here are a few more points for you to ignore the relevance of:

      Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012
      Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html

      Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011
      This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
      http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

      Indeed we can even trace the source of 'randomness' in the universe down for the atheist, and what we find is not good for the atheists to say the least:

      Blackholes - The neo-Darwinian ‘god of entropic randomness’ which can create all things (at least according to them)
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxhJEGNeEQ_sn4ngQWmeBt1YuyOs8AQcUrzBRo7wISw/edit

      Delete
    16. In other words, you are not going to address my questions at all. You are merely going to evade and throw yet more links at me.

      I don't know why I expected anything else.

      It seems to me you really don't understand these points being made in these debates at all. You just link to ID-ers talking about things you think are related in the hopes that this is a substitute for actual comprehension. But I'm afraid it isn't.

      Delete
    17. Says the man who believes that random chance can create undreamed of levels of of order and complexity without so much as batting a eye at the sheer absurdity of it all!. Well Ritchie the last word is yours for I'm off to do something more productive that trying to reason with a dogmatic atheist,,,, perhaps talk to a brick wall! :)

      Delete
  3. Nat: Why is multiverse any more intellectually satisfiying than saying God did it? they are both supernatural. Multiverse just has the supernatural stuff happening somewhere else.

    In the absence of the Many-worlds interoperation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, you're left with a number of paradoxes, such as a single cat being both alive and dead at the same time the moon not existing unless someone is observing it, etc.

    However, the MWI resolves these paradoxes, leaving us with a number of classical universes, rather than a number of spooky behaviors occurring at the small scale.

    So, MWI does the opposite, as it demystifies what we observe.

    Nat: And Multiverse is unfalsifiable, which naturalists usually find annoying. How can you say for sure that these uninverses we cannot detect don't exist? While "God did it" is said to be unfalsifiable, Naturalists claim to have falsified it.

    There are a number of ways by which we can test the MWI. For example, anything that falsifies quantum mechanics also falsifies the MW theory.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Reception

    In fact, Bornagain77 unknowingly pointed out an example of research that strongly collaborates the MW theory.

    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

    From David Wallace, a MWI proponent…

    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0130/evprob.html
    "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says. Here, probabilistic is referring to the spooky sort of behavior implied in some interpretations of QM.

    So, again, I'd suggest that Cornelius' posts on the multiverse are parochial in that he has failed to point out the different types of multiverse theories, their implications and evidence that collaborates them.

    Apparently, presenting comprehensive arguments on the subject matter of his posts simply does not suit his agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, It appears your hero Deustch has made some very profound errors in his reasoning for a multiverse. No wonder he is 'nearly alone' in his thinking:

      The Parallel Universes of David Deutsch
      (As argued for in Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality) - A Critque by Henry R. Sturman
      Excerpt: 1.The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch's argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.
      2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.
      3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.
      4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.
      5. Deutsch's argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.
      http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html

      Delete
    2. Scott MWI IS A PROBABILISTIC INTERPRETATION!!!! Dogma leading the friggin blind here!!

      Delete
    3. Scott,

      String theory appears to be serious trouble as we start to analyze experimental evidence from the LHC:

      http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/lhc-black-holes-string-theory/

      http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110228/full/471013a.html

      BTW, do you agree with Leonard Susskind that if String theory fails we will be left with intelligent design as the only feasible alternative to explain the fine tuning of the Universe?

      Delete
    4. Again,

      Sturman is arguing that Deutsch cannot disprove that spooky behavior on the small scale happens because it could be possible that, "that's just how quantum mechanics works"

      This is bad a explanation along the lines of species have the adaptations they do because "that's just what God must have wanted."

      On the other hand, Deutsch provides an hard to vary explanation for what we observe on the small scale. And this explanation is accepted by a significant number of the top physics in the field of quantum mechanics.

      You can read the entire thread on the article, here, in which the assumptions in the article are addressed in detail.

      For example, Sturman's position doesn't explain why observation causes collapse. "That's just how quantum mechanics works." However, the MWI does, in that the act of observation causes the universes to become un-similar enough that they can no longer participate in the experiment. This ends the interference.

      So, in summary, the MWI explains more phenomena and simplifies quantum mechanics into multiple universes that observe classical physics, but interfere with each other on the small scale.

      Delete
    5. Scott, MWI has failed as a model from direct empirical evidence!!! Moreover, contrary to your blindness to God, there is a completely coherent explanation for why observation causes collapse!

      i.e. The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpDwWetu66fBRlPM7zjA5BpHzcu5wBY7AdB7gOz51OQ/edit

      “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.

      Preceding quote taken from this following video;

      Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video)
      http://vimeo.com/37517080

      Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
      Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
      Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
      They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

      Delete
    6. And to further make the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities were solidified in 2010:

      Violation of Leggett inequalities in orbital angular momentum subspaces - 2010
      Main results. We extend the violation of Leggett inequalities to the orbital angular momentum (OAM) state space of photons, which is associated with their helical wavefronts. We define our measurements in a Bloch sphere for OAM and measure the Leggett parameter LN (where N is the number of settings for the signal photon) as we change the angle χ (see figure). We observe excellent agreement with quantum mechanical predictions (red line), and show a violation of five and six standard deviations for N = 3 and N = 4, respectively.
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/12/123007

      Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University
      Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007
      http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

      What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! - APM - UD Blogger
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601

      Delete
    7. Scott I could also add Wheeler's delayed choice as well as this:

      "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
      http://eugene-wigner.co.tv/

      "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
      Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
      http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

      Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,

      Eugene Wigner
      Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
      http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm

      i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

      Delete
    8. But Scott, perhaps the most satisfactory evidence that consciousness precedes material reality is because quantum wave collapse explains the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe whereas General Relativity fails as an explanation! How about you stretching your MWI completely past the breaking point (once again) to explain that?!?!

      Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

      Delete
    9. WG, I do not know much about string theory. As such I do not have an option on it one way or the other.

      Delete
  4. Scott, to show just how misguided you are, Deustch does not hold that the wave function is 'real'. In fact it is a 'fatal flaw' in his argument in that he does not hold that a photon travels as a uncollapsed wave in the slit experiments;

    Excerpt: 'But that still doesn't solve the fatal flaw in Deutsch's argument: there is no experimental evidence that a photon goes through one particular slit when we see a four slit interference pattern.'
    http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html

    And yet Scott, even though Deustch himself does not hold that the wave function is 'real', you cite the paper I originally cited,,,

    Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
    Excerpt: the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

    as proof that MWI is correct!?! Scott, This evidence directly falsifies MWI!!!

    Further notes on the reality of the wave function which MWI denies:

    It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not 'physically real' but was merely 'abstract' as is held in MWI. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?

    Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon
    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,,
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

    Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011
    Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Born: Scott, to show just how misguided you are, Deustch does not hold that the wave function is 'real'. In fact it is a 'fatal flaw' in his argument in that he does not hold that a photon travels as a uncollapsed wave in the slit experiments;

    Again, this only illustrates that you have no clue as how to even read a critique of Deustch's position.

    From the article..

    Sturman: Excerpt: 'But that still doesn't solve the fatal flaw in Deutsch's argument: there is no experimental evidence that a photon goes through one particular slit when we see a four slit interference pattern.'

    The "real" being referred to here is in contrast to the instrumentalist Copenhagen interpretation, in which the wave function is merely an instrument for predicting what we will experience, rather than being a description of what's happening in reality.

    Born: as proof that MWI is correct!?! Scott, This evidence directly falsifies MWI!!!

    No, it doesn't Apparently, you simply refuse to accept any definition of the MWI other than you know to be false.

    To summarize, ….

    01. The Copenhagen interpretation: The wave function is just a useful calculation for predicting what will occur. It says nothing about reality, but is merely an instrument.

    02. Non-MWI: a photon actually somehow turns into a wave, then actually turn back into a single photon when the are observed. Why? That's just how quantum mechanics works.

    03. The MWI: There are 10^500 universe that are also running the same experiment. They are similar enough to us that the photons in these other universes interfere with each other, causing the interference pattern. The interference pattern does stops or does not occur when the act of observations causes these universes to become un-similar enough that they no longer interfere with each other.

    Both [02] and [03] assume the wave function is real. it's only [01] that does not.

    So, for example…

    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, the same retrieval was occurring in 10^500 similar universes, and the photons in each universe, which were in slightly different locations, passed through all parts of the stencil at once….

    Born: Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';

    See this guest post from David Wallace, retarding a similar paper.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott, you are the one who has no clue! MWI is falsified of its foundational premise of maintaining the wave function being not real, A premise that Deutsch himself holds.(as is clearly illustrated in the critique of his book) He flubs the double slit for crying out loud). You completely ignore this elephant in the living room problem as if I will dare let you get away with it, and then, of all things, you beg incredulity as to proof of your argument that 10^500 experimenters are conducting the experiment at the same time in 10^500 universes!

    a photon actually somehow turns into a wave, then actually turn back into a single photon when the are observed. Why? That's just how quantum mechanics works.

    You need incredulity alright Scott, but it ain't at option 2 that you need it!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Isn't David Deutsch the crackpot who, like the little con artist in the wheelchair, believes that time travel is possible? Yep, that's what I thought. Crackpots and con artists in high places.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louis: Isn't David Deutsch the crackpot who, like the little con artist in the wheelchair, believes that time travel is possible?

      If your referring to the fact that the MWI resolves the paradox that would be involved in time travel, then, yes.

      This is because, in the MWI, different branches in time are actually different universes. As such, you cannot go back and in time and kill *your* grandfather causing a paradox, because going back in time would require you to travel to a different universe. As such, the grandfather you would kill there wouldn't actually be your father's father from your universe. Rather it would be the grandfather of the alternate you in another universe that had yet to be born.

      Whether we can actually travel back in time is a separate question.

      And, yes. Hawking is a MWI proponent as well.

      Delete
    2. Does not surprise me. Both Deutsch and Hawking are inveterate crackpots. The truth is that nothing can move in time (or spacetime) by definition. This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides (Zeno's teacher and master, the guy who denied change and motion) and called spacetime, "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." Source: Conjectures and Refutations.

      The nasty little truth about time (you won't hear much about it in the physics community since most physicists are gutless @ss kissers) is that a time dimension, a requirement of Einstein's physics, makes motion impossible. Surprise! Why, you ask? Simply because motion in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt. This is, of course, nonsense. In other words, there is no such thing as time travel. In any direction! There is only the changing present.

      So here we have a bunch of crackpot physicists like David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Kip Thorne, Brian Greene, etc. proudly pontificating about time travel, wormholes, spacetime trajectories, time dilation and other similar hogwash, oblivious to the fact a time dimension is an illogical concept. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

      Now, I know that you are thinking of some cockamamie reply to refute what I just wrote but believe me when I tell you that I've heard them all and they are all crap. So don't even bother.

      The entire MWI hogwash is refuted by the fact that there can be no time dimension. There are other refutations but the above will do fine.

      And while you're thinking about whether or not to reply, I suggest you read Why Einstein's
      s Physics Is Crap
      for more irreverent treatment of Einstein and his crackpot physics. Seeing that you are an Einstein fanatic, I hope that what I write causes you into an apoplectic fit. LOL.

      Delete
    3. Except, Deutsch addresses this very issue in chapter 11 of his book The Fabric of Reality.

      You might want to actually research the theories you criticize before you post. Then again, you *know* the MWI must be false, so why bother?

      Delete
    4. You know Scott, there are many things that don't seem to trouble you about these 10^500 universes you exist in but that ought to if you didn't just ignore the problems. One, of many problems that could be listed, is that it since it is infinitely more likely that such infinitely branching 10^500 universes would exhibit truly bizarre behavior rather than the regularity we witness, why is it that we don't see the universe dissolve into sheer madness on fairly short order? Such as this following music video illustrates.

      What Would The World Look Like If Atheism Were Actually True? - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5486757/

      Moreover Scott, the fact is that both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are based on 'higher dimensional' mathematics. Thus the burning question becomes from whence did these higher dimensional mathmatical rules come from that govern the universe most sane people live in and the branching 10^500 universes that you live in?

      The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/

      Delete
    5. Scott, I should know better than to cast my pearls at a swine like you. LOL. Moron.

      Delete
    6. Born,

      The MWI says nothing about whether God exists or not. How do you know that some designer didn't intentionally design the multiverse as described by the MWI?

      Louis,

      Except they not "pearls" as the common sense concept of time being false doesn't falsify the MWI. Time does not flow. Other times are just special cases in other universes.

      Louis: moron.

      You shouldn't be do so hard on yourself. Just do the research next time before posting.

      Delete
  8. Born,

    If there was any statement that indicates you do not have a clue here, it's this...

    Born: MWI is falsified of its foundational premise of maintaining the wave function being not real, A premise that Deutsch himself holds.

    Deutsch is NOT an instrumentalist. As such, he don't think the wave function is merely an instrument for predicting what we will observer.

    Rather, he thinks there really are other photons causing interference patterns, these photons really do exist in other universes and the resulting patterns really do match the wave-function.

    So, your claim that the MWI has been falsified is based on confusion or willful ignorance on your part.

    Born: He flubs the double slit for crying out loud.

    No, Deutsch leaves observers out of his depiction of the experiment so the reader can take themselves out of the equation. However, he addresses the issue of the observer shortly after in the same chapter. In fact, he explicitly points the differences between the order in which the observer is introduced, as compared to the "traditional" depiction, and clearly outlines his reasons for doing so, in detail.

    So, no, he does not flub the double slit. Rather he points out how it can be misleading in regards to the role observers play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, after much denial of reality, you state:

      'So, no, he does not flub the double slit. Rather he points out how it can be misleading in regards to the role observers play.'

      Scott, the only thing misleading in this is the Blind leading the Blind, which is clearly the case with you following that crackpot.

      Delete
  9. http://tinyurl.com/holy-multiverse-Batman

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scott, you state that Deutsch does not deny the reality of the wave function, but then, directly after that, you go on to state:

    "Rather, he thinks there really are other photons causing interference patterns, these photons really do exist in other universes and the resulting patterns really do match the wave-function."

    Thus, by your own words, he denies the reality of the wave function by postulating quasi-infinite 'shadow' photons in other universes. i.e. He, clumsily, with much unaddressed empirical problem, is using the wave function as a statistical (probabilistic) tool! I've cited a proof that clearly indicates the wave function is indeed real and cannot be used is such a statistical way,

    The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011
    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

    Moreover Sturman has given a excellent mini-overview as to why Deutsch quasi infinite parallel universes fails empirically:

    The Parallel Universes of David Deutsch
    (As argued for in Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality) - A Critque by Henry R. Sturman
    Excerpt: 1.The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch's argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.
    2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.
    3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.
    4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.
    5. Deutsch's argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.
    http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html

    But I would like to add one thing to Sturman's devastating critique, the insurmountable problems for Deutsch do not stop at the slit experiments. The problems for Deutsch multiply exponentially when he is forced to explain quantum entanglement on top of quantum wave collapse. i.e. Entanglement forces him to multiply his quasi-infinite parallel universes by another ad hoc 'random' infinity. This forces profound absurdities onto quantum mechanics, as is noted here:

    Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
    Excerpt: Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, as for myself, I am very happy to see that the materialists ad hoc multiplication of imaginary, infinite, probabilistic resources (multiverses, parallel universes, etc...) has finally caught up to them, face to face, in quantum mechanics.,,, I know you will most likely deny this means anything, since it goes against your dogma, but why should I care since it seems readily apparent you are willing to deny reality itself in order to maintain your a-priori beliefs (fantasies!)

      Delete
  11. Of somewhat related note as to the centrality, and importance, of a 'observer' in quantum mechanics. I think this is interesting:

    The following interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality. i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been in very different positions than directly in the exponential middle of all possible sizes;

    The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white

    Of related interest, to the 'observer effect', it is very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for appraoching the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the entirety of our 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

    Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;

    Seeing Relativity
    http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/

    Speed Of Light - Near Death Experience Tunnel - Turin Shroud - video
    http://www.vimeo.com/18371644

    Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - video
    http://www.vimeo.com/29021432

    Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of related interest, there is now found to be a 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum component to us,,,

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/29895068

      Which is of a higher quality of higher dimensionality that 4-D space-time itself is;

      3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes
      Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA

      Which makes such a transition, for our 'souls' to a higher dimension, completely plausible as far as what is known to us by our science is concerned:

      Quantum no-deleting theorem
      Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence

      There is even good evidence that a very higher level of information processing (quantum computation?) is missing from our bodies upon the death of our bodies;

      The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott
      Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
      http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

      Delete
  12. Poor Born seems to be stuck in some kind of loop. If only we could pick up the needle, so to speak, and snap him out of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says the man who believes he lives in 10^500 universes simultaneously! :)

      Delete
    2. Says the man who is so clueless about the MWI, that he can't even present an accurate, yet fallacious, argument from ridicule.

      I'd point out what's wrong, but you'd just mindlessly post a bunch of links that you merely think refute a theory you do not understand.

      Delete
    3. HMM Scott, you ignore glaring deficiencies in the slit experiments, not to mention he denies, in hidden assumption, non-locality, which has been verified to stunning degree, plus you ignore profound absurdities that flow out of MWI, plus you ignore that he explicitly denies the reality of, and the non-locality of, the wave function, and though you have lost empirical basis, and thus rationality in argumentation for your position, you have the audacity to claim I don't understand MWI. The only thing I don't understand is your clueless adherence to such a insane proposition in the first place. But so be it, I have made my case based on the empirical evidence at hand, and you have, well, you have clung to insane dogmatism!

      Delete
  13. Born, can you, in your own words, explain the "Deficiencies" in "the double slit" experiment, and what makes them "deficient"?

    Can you provide quotes from Deutsch "denying" that the wave function describes what is actually happening in reality, or that evidence for non-locality wouldn't also represent local observations under the MWI?

    And then there is the "absurd" paradoxes that the MWI resolves, such as cats being actually both dead and alive or the moon not existing unless someone is observing it, etc. Apparently you're willing to accept complex absurdities as long as they do not conflict with your specific religious views.

    For example, it's unclear why an intelligent designer couldn't have designed the multiverse to work as explained in the MWI. So, this only conflicts with your specific theological designer, the Christian god.

    Your comments continually indicate you do not understand the MWI when you state that research that shows that the wave function or non-locality is "real" falsifies it. This is because the MWI is an interpretation of observations that could also be interpreted as being non-local and that the wave function would also predict what we would observe if the MWI was accurate in reality.

    In other words, the research you've referenced supports both non-locality under non-MWI and locality under the MWI. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, in which the aspects of the theory are thought to be merely an instrument for predicting phenomena, not a representation of reality.

    If you're this confused (and apparently bound and determined to remain that way) regarding the implications of evidence in the case of the MWI, this would explain your confusion in the case of evolutionary theory as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott if you believe in evolution theory that explains why you are not scientific in your thinking towards MWI but dogmatic. ,,, Good luck with that to whichever of the 10^500 Scotts I may speaking to.

      Delete
    2. - Didn't explain the "deficiencies" of the double slit experiment in his own words: Check.

      - Didn't provide quotes from Deutsch denying the wave function is "real", or that non-local observations wouldn't collaborate locality in the MWI: Check.

      - Didn't address the absurdities one is left with in absence of the MWI: Check.

      - Didn't address how an intelligent designer couldn't have created the multiverse: Check.

      No surprises here.

      Born: Good luck with that to whichever of the 10^500 Scotts I may speaking to.

      Of course, if you actually understood the MWI, you'd know exactly which Scott you're speaking to: the one that's in the same universe you are.

      So, again, If you can't even fallaciously mock the theory accurately, it's unclear how you can criticize it.

      Here's a hint: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

      Delete
    3. Already ignored answers to 1 2 3 4 and then rationalizes away absurdity in 5

      Checkmate Scott!

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scott let me explain more clearly why the fact that you 'believe' in Darwinian evolution disqualifies you automatically from being 'scientific' as to say anything truthful about reality:

    Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
    Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

    What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

    Alvin Plantinga - Science and Faith Conference - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlMK9Ejhb0

    The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

    Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011
    Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?)
    Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. W v O Quine has the best answer to Plantinga's EAAN:

      Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.

      If you want a more extensive discussion, try John Wilkins's blog Evolving Thoughts here.

      Delete
    2. And exactly why should I believe that his reasoning is corresponding to the truth when lying, by atheists, would lead to a survival advantage of the neo-Darwinian theory itself? :)

      Delete
    3. Here is a classic example of the dilemma facing neo-Darwinists in maintaining that a survival advantage will correspond to true beliefs about reality:

      Mimic Octopus - video
      http://www.wimp.com/octopusmimic/

      Delete
    4. Ian you stated:

      'Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.'

      Yet we find,,,

      'Believers' gene' will spread religion , says academic - January 2011
      Excerpt: The World Values Survey, which covered 82 nations from 1981 to 2004, found that adults who attended religious services more than once a week had 2.5 children on average; while those who went once a month had two; and those who never attended had 1.67.
      Prof Rowthorn wrote: "The more devout people are, the more children they are likely to have."
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8252939/Believers-gene-will-spread-religion-says-academic.html

      Thus either your citation is right and evolution is producing a true belief, and that true belief is Theism, since atheists have a 'praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind', or Dr. Plantinga is right and there is no guarantee that the results of Darwinian evolution produce true beliefs about reality! Which is it Ian?

      Delete
  16. I'm going to regret this...

    bornagain77 Mar 26, 2012 07:26 AM

    [...]

    'Believers' gene' will spread religion , says academic - January 2011
    Excerpt: The World Values Survey, which covered 82 nations from 1981 to 2004, found that adults who attended religious services more than once a week had 2.5 children on average; while those who went once a month had two; and those who never attended had 1.67.
    Prof Rowthorn wrote: "The more devout people are, the more children they are likely to have."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8252939/Believers-gene-will-spread-religion-says-academic.html


    The human population is now estimated to be over 7 billion. We are pushing both the carrying capacity of this planet and our own capacity to organize ourselves into stable and prosperous societies. If climate change, whether brought about by us or not, were to cause a major crop failure, millions could starve to death. Under those circumstances, I would say it's those families who have fewer children who are behaving more responsibly, wouldn't you?

    Thus either your citation is right and evolution is producing a true belief, and that true belief is Theism, since atheists have a 'praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind', or Dr. Plantinga is right and there is no guarantee that the results of Darwinian evolution produce true beliefs about reality! Which is it Ian?


    I believe in the correspondence theory of truth. There is a reality beyond each of us which we experience only partially. Our senses feed only limited data about that reality to our brains. To try and fill in the gaps and make sense of it all we construct narratives around the data. A certain set of data might admit of a number of different interpretations or narratives. The extent to which a particular narrative corresponds to the reality it purports to describe decides how true it is, the closer the approximation, the truer it is.

    Dr Plantinga is right about one thing in that evolution does not lead necessarily to true belief. Untrue beliefs could flourish if their net effect on human society is nonetheless beneficial. Any belief, whether religious or political which tends to bind a society together and make it more resilient in the face of stress can be good for that society and the individuals who make it up

    On the other hand, supposing some charismatic preacher came along who taught that, if your faith is strong enough, you will be able to fly out of the window of a tall building, float around for a while , then fly back in through another window - just like Saint Joseph of Cupertino. How long do you think that little cult would last?

    As for theism, which are the True Believers, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Mormons, Pentecostalists, Congregationalists, Plymouth Brethren , Jehovah's Witnesses, Hutterites, Mennonites, Millerites, Amish? And that's just a few of them.

    So if evolution and, by extension, science cannot be relied upon to sift out True Belief™ how does Dr Plantinga propose to show us which of the above, if any, is true?

    ReplyDelete
  17. So Ian, in the first post you claimed Plantinga's argument was false, well actually you said:

    Quine has the best answer to Plantinga's EAAN

    In the response post you concede, (and I give you a hand for a bit of honesty in the concession);

    'Dr Plantinga is right about one thing in that evolution does not lead necessarily to true belief. Untrue beliefs could flourish if their net effect on human society is nonetheless beneficial.'

    And so the argument, in your own words, (and since you certainly don't want to concede theism as true) stands full force!

    As to 'correspondence theory of truth'; I believe that is actually a Theistic presupposition:


    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/32145998

    Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

    As to listening to some charismatic preacher (a wolf in sheep clothing), who will try to get you to drink kool-aid, or whatever, why don't you try listening to the living God?

    HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD
    John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
    http://www.christian-marriage-today.com/support-files/hearinggodspeakbiblestudy.pdf

    He is just a prayer away!

    As to you fretting as to which branch of Christian Theism is true, all I can say is that Jesus really did rise from the dead and that he really does speak individually to each of our hearts. God is looking for a relationship with you personally, not another religious zealot. Remember, it was the really religious people that were Christ's primary enemies while he was on this earth!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ian you also state,

    'So if evolution and, by extension, science cannot be relied upon to sift out True Belief™ '

    Plantinga's purpose was to show that naturalism can't ground science in the first place! i.e. there is no connection between science and naturalism save in the distorted imaginations of materialists;

    Philosopher Sticks Up for God
    Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ian you may be interested in this:

    We have at least three different intersecting lines of experimental evidence, from quantum mechanics, which all converge to this one following conclusion;

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Here Are the three intersecting lines of evidence from quantum mechanics. Wheeler's delayed choice, Leggett's inequalities, and Wigner's symmetries;

    Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video
    http://vimeo.com/38508798

    "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"
    John A. Wheeler

    Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm

    “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.

    Preceding quote taken from this following video;

    Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video)
    http://vimeo.com/37517080

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
      Excerpt: They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
      They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it.
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

      "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

      "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
      Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
      http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

      Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,

      Eugene Wigner
      Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
      http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm

      i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

      Delete
    2. I think Wigner would be very pleased with what our 'future concepts' hold;

      An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
      Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf

      Thus we have at least three different intersecting lines of experimental evidence, from quantum mechanics, which all converge to the one Theistic presupposition which holds that consciousness precedes all of material reality!

      Further weight for consciousness to be treated as a separate entity in quantum mechanics, and thus the universe, is also found in the fact that it is impossible to 'geometrically' maintain 3-Dimensional spherical symmetry of the universe, within the sphere of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), for each 3D point of the universe, unless all the 'higher dimensional quantum information waves' actually do collapse to their 'uncertain 3D wave/particle state', universally and instantaneously, for each point of conscious observation in the universe just as the experiments of quantum mechanics are telling us that they do. The 4-D expanding hypersphere of the space-time of general relativity is insufficient to maintain such 3D integrity/symmetry, all by itself, for each different 3D point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for why the 4D space-time, of the 3D universe, is insufficient to maintain 3D symmetry, by itself, is because the universe is shown to have only 10^80 particles. In other words, it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality with finite 3D material resources to work with for each 3D point of observation in the universe. Universal quantum wave collapse of photons, to each point of 'conscious observation' in the universe, is the only answer that has adequate sufficiency to explain the 3D centrality we witness for ourselves in this universe.

      From a slightly different point of reasoning this following site, through a fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, acknowledges the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the 'completeness' of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from different points of observation in the universe.

      The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski
      Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity.
      http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf

      Delete