Wednesday, April 4, 2012

A New Paper on the Brain Says its Structure … Led to Evolution

A new, more powerful MRI scanner has produced far more detailed images of the structure of the brain. The images reveal an orderly, 3D grid structure of neurons that run in rows and columns, and cross at right angles. As one researcher explained:

Far from being just a tangle of wires, the brain’s connections turn out to be more like ribbon cables—folding 2D sheets of parallel neuronal fibers that cross paths at right angles, like the warp and weft of a fabric.

The researchers also argue that this brain architecture may support not only (i) a more efficient way for neurons to connect, but also (ii) the evolutionary process itself. That would be yet another incredible act of serendipity. Evolution evolved a brain architecture that was needed for evolution.

75 comments:

  1. When will the silliness end? Who will rise up to deliver us from this mountain of crap?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Note of related interest:

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html

    As well: Considering computers can't pass this following test for creating new information,,,

    "... no operation performed by a computer can create new information."
    -- Douglas G. Robertson, "Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test," Complexity, Vol.3, #3 Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 25-34.
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info7.pdf

    “Computers are no more able to create information than iPods are capable of creating music.”
    Robert Marks

    Information. What is it? - Robert Marks - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7seCcS_gPk

    ,,Whereas humans can fairly easily pass the test for creating new information,,

    "So, to sum up: computers can reshuffle specifications and perform any kind of computation implemented in them. They are mechanical, totally bound by the laws of necessity (algorithms), and non conscious. Humans can continuously create new specification, and also perform complex computations like a computer, although usually less efficiently. They can create semantic output, make new unexpected inferences, recognize and define meanings, purposes, feelings, and functions, and certainly conscious representations are associated with all those kinds of processes."
    Uncommon Descent blogger - gpuccio
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/atheisms-not-so-hidden-assumptions/#comment-357770

    i.e. these findings offer another line of corroborating evidence which is very friendly to the idea that humans have a mind which is transcendent of the physical brain and which is part of a 'unique soul from God'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this research also evidence that other primates have a soul and transcendent mind,BA? Apparently they have a similar structure. Maybe,God loves Himself the little monkeys,too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd point out that these are pathways in the brain, not the wiring of individual neurons.

    Henry Markram has done extensive work on the type, distribution and connections of neurons in the cerebral cortex. See video 2 of 3 in his 2011 talk on simulating the brain, where he discusses how the brain wires up individual neurons in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'where he discusses how the brain wires up individual neurons in detail'

    WOW the brain itself is wiring up the neurons of the brain. Is the brain also responsible for routing the plumbing of my veins or do the veins route their own plumbing?

    Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713

    Preceding video at 4:15 minute mark for glimpse Brain cells and connections formation, and 6:05 minute mark for glimpse of the 'miracle' of vein formation:

    And Scott if the plumber of veins are the veins themselves, and if the 'electrician' of the brain is the brain itself, just what body part is the general contractor that makes sure the veins and brain are working in coordinated fashion to produce a integrated and function system?

    How many different cells are there in complex organisms?
    Excerpt: The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the cellular ontogeny of which has been precisely mapped, has 1,179 and 1,090 distinct somatic cells (including those that undergo programmed cell death) in the male and female, respectively, each with a defined history and fate. Therefore, if we take the developmental trajectories and cell position into account, C. elegans has 10^3 different cell identities, even if many of these cells are functionally similar. By this reasoning, although the number of different cell types in mammals is often considered to lie in the order of hundreds, it is actually in the order of 10^12 if their positional identity and specific ontogeny are considered. Humans have an estimated 10^14 cells, mostly positioned in precise ways and with precise organization, shape and function, in skeletal architecture, musculature and organ type, many of which (such as the nose) show inherited idiosyncrasies. Even if the actual number of cells with distinct identities is discounted by a factor of 100 (on the basis that 99% of the cells are simply clonal expansions of a particular cell type in a particular location or under particular conditions (for example, fat, muscle or immune cells)), there are still 10^12 positionally different cell types.
    http://ai.stanford.edu/~serafim/CS374_2006/papers/Mattick_NRG2004.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. notes:

      In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether.
      http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28

      Quantum Consciousness - Time Flies Backwards? - Stuart Hameroff MD
      Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual....). In Radin and Bierman's early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared.
      http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html

      Rewire Your Brain: Think Your Way to a Better Life - book review
      Excerpt: Not long ago, it was thought that the brain you were born with was the brain you would die with, and that the brain cells you had at birth were the most you would ever possess. Your brain was thought to be “hardwired” to function in predetermined ways. It turns out that's not true. Your brain is not hardwired, it's "softwired" by experience. This book shows you how you can rewire parts of the brain to feel more positive about your life, remain calm during stressful times, and improve your social relationships.
      http://www.amazon.com/Rewire-Your-Brain-Think-Better/dp/0470487291

      Delete
  6. Born,

    I'd point out where the flaw is in your argument, (Just as primitive adding machines evolved into Turing complete computers and early number systems evolved into universal number systems, primates evolved into people, which are universal explainers.), but it's unclear why I should even bother explaining it to you.

    You've made it quite clear that, even when I point out where you're mistaken, you ignore it, to only repeat the same mistakes as if details are completely irrelevant.

    So, it's unclear how explaining the flaws in your argument, in detail, wouldn't be just a waste of time.

    If your position cannot be criticized, then you cannot learn anything. Of course, to admit that a position can be criticized, is to admit that a position could become more accurate by discarding errors.

    Despite the fact that Cornelius would like us to think otherwise, becoming more accurate isn't a problem for evolutionary theory, as it represents knowledge created by fallible beings. Criticizing theories, finding errors and discarding them is how science works.

    On the other hand, your belief supposedly comes from a supernatural source that not only exhibits foreknowledge but supposedly did the creating himself. As such, you think creationism becoming more accurate *would* be a problem. Furthermore, if this creator is supernatural, at some level there are things we could know. Knowledge of unknowable things cannot become more accurate, as it's beyond comprehension in the first place, and would have to stay that way.

    So, the entire idea that becoming more accurate is a problem for evolutionary theory is a projection by theists, based on their pre-enlightenment view on how we, as human beings, create knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now Dang it Scott don't be short with me, I just might have a job for my brain if it can wire itself together. I mean wiring together more connections than all the internet and computer connections on earth is one astounding feat of wiring, wouldn't you say. So we just need to get the brain to do a little extra wiring on the side and shoot Scott, me and you will be rolling in the dough!

      Delete
    2. I see you didn't actually watch the video, which explains the process they used to "wire up" neurons in their simulated neo-cortical columns to match observations. No surprise here.

      I'd point out that it's at 5:07 in the video, but you probability won't bother to watch it regardless.

      Or perhaps you did, but detail such as this are simply unimportant if you already know the answer via divine revelation?

      Delete
    3. Scott you state;

      (Just as primitive adding machines evolved into Turing complete computers and early number systems evolved into universal number systems, primates evolved into people, which are universal explainers.) but it's unclear why I should even bother explaining it to you.

      Okie Dokie Scottie, if you don't want to explain to me how it happened by neo-Darwinian processes, please explain it to these guys how it happened by neo-Darwinian processes;

      The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011
      Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,,
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      Delete
  7. Cornelius,

    If "evolutionists" are religious, then why do you see evolutionary theory becoming more accurate as a "problem", while "evolutionists" do not?

    Again, the idea of a theory becoming more accurate isn't a problem for fallible sources of knowledge. In fact, that's how we make progress in the first place.

    Yet you keep pointing out how "surprised" evolutionists are when we gain a more accurate view of how evolution occurs.

    What else should we conclude, other than you're projecting the assumption that infallible sources of knowledge exist, which shouldn't become more accurate, and that you're holding evolutionary theory to this same standard.

    Surely, you know your target audience holds this view, right? So, what better way to attack evolutionary theory then to pit it against a source of infallible knowledge they already think exists?

    All you have to do is look for papers where researches are "suppressed" about some discovery, despite not actually falsifying the core assumptions of evolutionary theory, then point out how it doesn't fit their "Gold Standard" of knowledge they believe in?

    In fact, this article would seem to be a textbook example of this strategy in action.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Scott,
    Fascinating link. You really shouldn't expect BA to actually make an actual argument.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Vel you state:

    'You really shouldn't expect BA to actually make an actual argument.'

    In spite of the fact I pointed out that having a brain 'wire itself' is absurd as to causal relations. Yet what is hypocritical in your slur against me is that you also stated this earlier:

    'Is this research also evidence that other primates have a soul and transcendent mind,BA? Apparently they have a similar structure. Maybe,God loves Himself the little monkeys,too.'

    Now I admit to having a little fun with Scottie, but there actually is a argument underneath my good-natured ribbing of Scottie, whereas I don't see any argument in your statement other than you simply being incredulous to God as the source of all life.,,, But I guess this is the only form of argumentation I can expect to see from neo-Darwinists since they can't even explain the origin of a single functional protein by purely material processes, much less can the they explain the 'emergence' of consciousness from a purely material basis!:

    Here a Darwinian Psychologist has a moment of honesty facing the 'hard problem' that consciousness presents to materialism;

    Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem"
    Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.'
    David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html

    Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. further notes:

      Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives:
      Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications."
      http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html

      This following experiment is really interesting:

      Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007

      I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?"

      The Mind and Materialist Superstition - Six "conditions of mind" that are irreconcilable with materialism: - Michael Egnor - professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html

      Moreover, 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.

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

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

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      Delete
  10. Got a link to reverse psychology ,BA? First of all,questioning the logic of your conclusion is not a slur. I was merely pointing out,in a good natured way, that if you take the structure of the human brain as proof of a transcendental nature, then primates who share the same structural layout should share the transcendental nature. Did I misunderstand you when you said evidence?
    No offense BA, but your barrage of links is not a really an actual argument is it?
    Sorry if you view my comments as a slur, not my intention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well vel, seeing as you hold consciousness to be 'emergent' from a material basis and I hold consciousness to precede material reality, and seeing as you don't have one iota to support your contention, whereas I presented three intersecting lines of evidence from quantum mechanics to support my contention, then it seems readily apparent that I am making a 'actual argument' whereas you are merely being disingenuous to the best evidence we have from modern science just to support you preferred philosophical bias of atheism;

      note:

      In fact the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;

      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

      Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science!

      Delete
    2. Born: In fact the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;

      As I've already pointed out, over and over gain, proving quantum mechanics doesn't necessary prove spooky behavior regarding observations. There are alternative theories that do not assume some sort of special role for observers. And they accept the very same observations in the paper you linked to.

      From the paper…

      More precisely, we perform various measurements on distant entangled photons, and, under the assumption that these measurements are chosen freely, we give an upper bound on how well any alternative theory could predict their outcomes [16]. In particular, in the case where quantum mechanics predicts two equally likely outcomes, our results are incompatible with any theory in which the probability of a prediction is increased by more than ∼0.19. Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this.

      What do they mean by more predictive power?

      The purpose of the above arguments was to refute theories in which hidden parameters determine any experimental outcomes. Access to these parameters would allow us, in principle, to predict the outcomes of any experiment with certainty.

      So, what sort of theories are they referring to?

      Consider again the Stern-Gerlach example where, according to quantum mechanics, a particle entering the apparatus with a certain spin orientation may be deviated in one of two directions, each with probability 0.5. One may now conceive of a theory that, depending on an additional parameter, would allow us to predict the direction of deviation with a larger probability, say 0.75, thereby improving the quantum mechanical prediction by 0.25. In Fig. 1 we describe an example of such a theory, which essentially corresponds to a proposal put forward by Leggett [4].

      So, what they are disproving are variations of quantum mechanics that use hidden variables to somehow increate the ability make predictions beyond ∼0.19.

      This in no way proves that observers play some spooky role in observations. Nor doe it refute the many worlds interpretation as it doesn't claim to be able to increate the predicate power or appeal to hidden variables.

      Again, the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics resolves any spooky behavior on the part of the observer, along with resolving a number of other paradoxes. The details of which can be found here…

      http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html

      That you continually make the assumption suggests you're ether clueless about quantum mechanics, that you lack the capacity to gauge what is or is not a good argument, or you do not actually care about arguments as you already think you know what is the right answer and, therefore, the details must support your position as well. I must be wrong, because I'm an "atheist" and atheists are wrong, or if the MWI was correct, it would conflict with your theistic beliefs, so it must be wrong, etc.

      Delete
    3. From the above link….

      Q3 What are the alternatives to many-worlds?
      -----------------------------------------
      There is no other quantum theory, besides many-worlds, that is
      scientific, in the sense of providing a reductionist model of reality,
      and free of internal inconsistencies, that I am aware of.
      Briefly here
      are the defects of the most popular alternatives:

      1) Copenhagen Interpretation. Postulates that the observer obeys
      different physical laws than the non-observer, which is a return
      to vitalism. The definition of an observer varies from one
      adherent to another, if present at all. The status of the
      wavefunction is also ambiguous. If the wavefunction is real the
      theory is non-local (not fatal, but unpleasant). If the
      wavefunction is not real then the theory supplies no model of
      reality. (See "What are the problems with quantum theory?")

      2) Hidden Variables [B]. Explicitly non-local. Bohm accepts that all
      the branches of the universal wavefunction exist. Like Everett
      Bohm held that the wavefunction is real complex-valued field which
      never collapses. In addition Bohm postulated that there were
      particles that move under the influence of a non-local "quantum-
      potential" derived from the wavefunction (in addition to the
      classical potentials which are already incorporated into the
      structure of the wavefunction). The action of the quantum-
      potential is such that the particles are affected by only one of
      the branches of the wavefunction. (Bohm derives what is
      essentially a decoherence argument to show this, see section 7,#I
      [B]).

      The implicit, unstated assumption made by Bohm is that only the
      single branch of wavefunction associated with particles can contain
      self-aware observers, whereas Everett makes no such assumption.
      Most of Bohm's adherents do not seem to understand (or even be
      aware of) Everett's criticism, section VI [1], that the hidden-
      variable particles are not observable since the wavefunction alone
      is sufficient to account for all observations and hence a model of
      reality. The hidden variable particles can be discarded, along
      with the guiding quantum-potential, yielding a theory isomorphic
      to many-worlds, without affecting any experimental results.

      [B] David J Bohm _A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory
      in terms of "hidden variables" I and II_ Physical Review Vol
      85 #2 166-193 (1952)

      3) Quantum Logic. Undoubtedly the most extreme of all attempts to
      solve the QM measurement problem. Apart from abandoning one or
      other of the classical tenets of logic these theories are all
      unfinished (presumably because of internal inconsistencies). Also
      it is unclear how and why different types of logic apply on
      different scales.


      There are more, but these are the most popular from the list.

      Delete
    4. That is all well and good,but it really has nothing to do with the point I was making. Reading back on your first post perhaps the findings that were friendly to the idea that the human mind was transcendent weren't the same ones Dr Hunter mentioned. Were they? And just a heads up, maybe you should inquire what someone actually thinks,rather than assuming. That in the business is called a strawman

      Delete
    5. Well vel, what do you think? Do you believe man has a transcendent mind or are you a atheist-materialist?

      Delete
    6. Born: Well vel, what do you think? Do you believe man has a transcendent mind or are you a atheist-materialist?

      Born,

      Why couldn't God have created us so we were material beings that ceased to exist when we die?

      Do you think God incapable of doing so? Do you think it is logically impossible to do so? Or do you think this would be "atheistic" because it conflicts with "divine revelation" from *your* favorite holy text?

      Even if there was a perfect source of knowledge, how do you know you have perfect access to it?

      Delete
    7. Here's a good rule of thumb: If someone says anything about quantum anything when defending their position, it's pretty much guaranteed that they have no idea what they are talking about. The complexity of the theory coupled with its well known counter-intuitiveness allows non-scientists to justify almost any claim with it. No matter how weird a claim is, there are well known aspects of the theory that are even weirder. And who's going to go through the trouble of trying to verify the conclusions given that real scientists spend years, even decades just trying to just get the most basic understanding of the actual theory itself.

      Delete
    8. Except, it doesn't need to be that way. That's like saying computers have to be complicated and poorly designed because the only computer the've ever used was a beige, generic PC running Windows 95.

      There are theories about QM that resolve all of these paradoxes by positing the existence of parallel universes that have the same laws of physics as ours, along with also revolving paradoxes in regards to how time flows, the possibility of time travel, etc.

      Specifically, all other theories imply the idea that the universe follows completely different rules at the small scale, which is considerably more complex. The MWI does not.

      The MWI also explains why the wave function is linear, etc.

      See my response to Born below.

      Delete
    9. BA ,
      Are those my only two choices? An atheistic materialist or some sort of dualist? I'll take option C.

      Delete
  11. Scott, 3 Scotts down, 10^500 - 3 Scotts to go:

    Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Parallel Universe, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott seeing as you readily subscribe to 10^500 parallel universes to try to 'explain away' quantum wave collapse, indeed you seem impervious to the self-defeating absurdity inherent therein, I suspect you also readily subscribe to string theory and/or M-theory to try to 'explain away' fine-tuning. Yet, if you do, this fairly recent development may interest you:

      “string theory, while dazzling, has outrun any conceivable experiment that could verify it”
      Excerpt: string theory, while dazzling, has outrun any conceivable experiment that could verify it—there’s zero proof that it describes how nature works. - Peter Woit
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/physics/string-theory-while-dazzling-has-outrun-any-conceivable-experiment-that-could-verify-it/

      F-theory Phenomenology - Peter Woit - March 2012
      Excerpt: So, the long-standing ideology that supersymmetry stabilizes the weak scale, and seeing its effects will finally give evidence for string theory unification looks like it is crumbling. With this hope gone, string theory unification becomes a completely unpredictive subject, with no hope of connection to experiment. One has an infinite array of mathematically highly complex models one can spend time studying, but it’s hard to characterize doing so as any recognizable form of physical science.
      http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4506

      Delete
    2. Born,

      Again, I do not know much about string and M theory. As such, I have no option of it. (Does this mean I must except a designer?)

      Furthermore, you seem to keep jumping around, now to fine tuning, as if you think I'm somehow attempting to prove that *some* sort of supernatural God doesn't exist. But I'm not.

      I'm merely pointing out that your argument from quantum mechanics is parochial in that doesn't take into account our current, best explanations for quantum phenomena. And, it appears that much of your other arguments are parochial as well.

      Are you suggesting that God couldn't have created quantum effects using the MWI if he wanted to? Is you God too small for him to accomplish it? Or do you see the MWI as a threat to God's existence because you think the MWI is non-bliblical. As such, you see it as an atheistic view?

      What strikes me as particularly hypocritical are claims that we're dogmatic in regards to science, yet apparently, you know God wouldn't have created us as material beings that cease to exist, wouldn't have created a near infinite number of parallel universes, etc.

      Delete
  12. Scott you quote:

    "There is no other quantum theory, besides many-worlds, that is scientific, in the sense of providing a reductionist model of reality,"

    I take this to mean a semi-reductive materialistic view of reality. (Indeed your boy David Detsch seems a fairly militant atheist)

    Yet here are a few more problems that many-worlds leaves unaddressed:

    1. Deutsch tries to save a materialistic view of reality by positing 'shawdow photons', yet entire photons are now shown to reduce to 'infinite' quantum information in teleportation experiments. i.e. photons are NOT the base level of reality! Quantum information is!

    2. The origination of the Schroedinger equation itself, which governs quantum actions, is still left completely unaddressed in the many-worlds model, whereas Theism presupposed such transcendent control. i.e. John 1:1 i.e. 'Logos'

    3. A photon qubit is a infinite dimensional function space that can 'theoretically be encoded with infinite information, and a 'non-interfered' image was indeed encoded onto a photon. 10^500 parallel universes cannot even begin to explain infinite dimensionality, nor can the 10^500 parallel universes explain 'non-interfered' image retention in the photon.

    4. Postulating 10^500 parallel vs. 1 God to explain quantum wave collapse violates Occam's razor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Born: 1. Deutsch tries to save a materialistic view of reality by positing 'shawdow photons',

      No, Deutsch is presenting a theory with more explanatory power than those listed in the FAQ. You're merely projecting the need to "save" something that doesn't "need" saving. Just because the Bible says we'll try to deny what you think it true, this doesn't mean we're actually driven by this assumption, in reality.

      Born: yet entire photons are now shown to reduce to 'infinite' quantum information in teleportation experiments. i.e. photons are NOT the base level of reality! Quantum information is!

      Again, you keep illustrating how clueless you are in regards to quantum mechanics.

      See http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9906007.pdf in which Deutsch, Hayden provide a detailed explanation for information flow in quantum systems using the MWI, which includes quantum teleportation.

      Of course, given how clueless you are regarding evolutionary theory, this comes as no surprise.

      Born: 2. The origination of the Schroedinger equation itself, which governs quantum actions, is still left completely unaddressed in the many-worlds model […]

      Which is wrong, yet again. Are you getting this drivel from somewhere else, or are you making it up as you go?

      The MWI explains why the Schroedinger equation is linear in that all of these parallel universes have the same laws of physics and follow the same classical laws, which we already observe. All 10^500 versions of the same particle take all possible deterministic paths that could occur at that time.

      Non-MW theories suggest that observers do not follow classical laws, which means the wave function need NOT be linear. Yet, we have yet to run an experiment that suggest otherwise. So, why the Schroedinger equation is non-liner is simply not explained by non-MW interpretations of quantum mechanics. "That's just what the designer must have wanted"

      Delete
    2. Born: […] whereas Theism presupposed such transcendent control. i.e. John 1:1 i.e. 'Logos'

      Which, isn't a scientific theory.

      At best, you might say that the MWI leaves the question as to why universes interfere with each other "undressed". However, one could just as well appeal to some supernatural being that "just wanted it that way", in which you'd still have a theory with more explanatory power (see above). That the MWI doesn't agree with your favorite holy book isn't a concern of science.

      Born: 3. A photon qubit is a infinite dimensional function space that can 'theoretically be encoded with infinite information, and a 'non-interfered' image was indeed encoded onto a photon. 10^500 parallel universes cannot even begin to explain infinite dimensionality, nor can the 10^500 parallel universes explain 'non-interfered' image retention in the photon.

      Except, if you understood the theory you're criticizing, you'd realize there are 10^500 universes in which the same experiment is taking place, but with slightly different results. As such, this does explain how a single photon can hold what appears to be an infinite amount of information.

      Specifically, there are quantum algorithms that return more intermediate results than there are atoms in the universe. Exactly where are these intermediate results being computed, if not in 10^500 universes where the exact same calculation is being performed?

      Born: 4. Postulating 10^500 parallel vs. 1 God to explain quantum wave collapse violates Occam's razor

      Which, again, isn't scientific. Nor does the MWI posit just 10^500 universes, which I've corrected you on time and time again.

      You keep repeating the same mistake, over and over again. Of course, this comes as no surprise, as you keep repeating the same mistakes about evolutionary theory over and over again, despite being corrected over and over again.

      Also, from the Many-Worlds FAQ…

      William of Ockham, 1285-1349(?) English philosopher and one of the founders of logic, proposed a maxim for judging theories which says that hypotheses should not be multiplied beyond necessity. This is known as Ockham's razor and is interpreted, today, as meaning that to account for any set of facts the simplest theories are to be preferred over more complex ones. Many-worlds is viewed as unnecessarily complex, by some, by requiring the existence of a multiplicity of worlds to explain what we see, at any time, in just one world.

      This is to mistake what is meant by "complex". Here's an example. Analysis of starlight reveals that starlight is very similar to faint sunlight, both with spectroscopic absorption and emission lines. Assuming the universality of physical law we are led to conclude that other stars and worlds are scattered, in great numbers, across the cosmos. The theory that "the stars are distant suns" is the simplest theory and so to be preferred by Ockham's Razor to other geocentric
      theories.

      Similarly many-worlds is the simplest and most economical quantum theory because it proposes that same laws of physics apply to animate observers as has been observed for inanimate objects. The multiplicity of worlds predicted by the theory is not a weakness of many-worlds, any more than the multiplicity of stars are for astronomers, since the non-interacting worlds emerge from a simpler theory.

      (As an historical aside it is worth noting that Ockham's razor was also falsely used to argue in favour of the older heliocentric theories *against* Galileo's notion of the vastness of the cosmos. The notion of vast empty interstellar spaces was too uneconomical to be believable to the Medieval mind. Again they were confusing the notion of vastness
      with complexity [15].)

      Delete
  13. And yet Scott, despite your protestation that you are not being completely absurd in the wild goose chase of imagination, you still believe that 10^500 Scotts exist instead of one God. Go figure! Perhaps one of the Scotts in one of the other 10^500 universes has a bit more restraint of imagination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of Note:

      Measurement Outcomes and Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics
      David J. Baker - 2006
      Excerpt: The decision-theoretic account of probability in the Everett or many-worlds interpretation, advanced by David Deutsch and David Wallace, is shown to be circular.
      Talk of probability in Everett presumes the existence of a preferred basis to identify
      measurement outcomes for the probabilities to range over. But the existence of a
      preferred basis can only be established by the process of decoherence, which is itself
      probabilistic.,,, Defenders of the Everett interpretation have so far failed to ground their decision-theoretic approach to probability on a viable notion of measurement outcomes. I have shown that
      measurement outcomes in Everett must be classes of branches. Once this is understood, the circularity inherent in the decision-theoretic approach is not difficult to see. For nothing28 about the bare theory of quantum mechanics guarantees that there are any branches –
      considerations from decoherence only establish that branching behavior is extremely likely.
      An appeal to some probability rule is therefore required to determine which components of the state are measurement outcomes, but a specification of the measurement outcomes is itself needed to tell us which components of the state can be bearers of probability. Unless this circularity is accepted, the decision-theoretic program cannot get off the ground. Talk of an Everettian representation “theorem” would thus appear to be deceptive. Everettians are
      not asking us to accept the conclusions of a theorem, but rather to buy into a circular picture of the quantum world that can only be justified from within. Even granting their claim that our world is fully described by the quantum state, a further step – that of entering into the
      circle – is required before we can accept their decision-theoretic notion of probability.
      So, despite the impressive progress that has been made in clarifying the Everettian program during this decade and the last, it is still not clear that the interpretation can legitimately employ either the concept of probability or any specific quantitative rule for assigning probabilities. Nor is it clear that a solution to the problems I’ve posed will vindicate the decision-theoretic approach to probability. The most significant goal of such an approach is, as noted earlier, to show that Everettian quantum mechanics is empirically verifiable. But it is not obvious how the “predictions” of the decision-theoretic approach, which take the form of normative prescriptions dictating how much we should care about particular outcomes,15 could ever be confirmed or disconfirmed by experimental results. This requires a leap from ‘ought’ to ‘is’ – from the preferences we should possess to the outcomes we will experience – that needs to be justified by further argument.16
      http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2717/1/OutcomeProbEverett.pdf

      Delete
    2. Also of note:

      The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
      Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
      http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

      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

      Delete
    3. Born: Measurement Outcomes and Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics David J. Baker - 2006

      This has been addressed in: Branching and Uncertainty - Simon Saunders and David Wallace (2008)

      A pre-print PDF can be found here, which references the paper in your above comment...

      http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3811/1/websites.pdf

      Delete
  14. Scott from your link:

    Information Flow in Entangled Quantum Systems - David Deutsch and Patrick Hayden 1999
    All information in quantum systems is, notwithstanding Bell's theorem, localised. Measuring or otherwise interacting with a quantum system S has no effect on distant systems from which S is dynamically isolated, even if they are entangled with S. Using the Heisenberg picture to analyse quantum
    information processing makes this locality explicit, and reveals that under some circumstances (in particular, in Einstein-Podolski-Rosen experiments and in quantum teleportation) quantum information is transmitted through classical (i.e. decoherent) information channels.
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/9906/9906007.pdf

    And yet:

    Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:

    Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010
    Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm

    Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

    ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
    Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

    Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement - Anton Zeilinger
    http://vimeo.com/34168474

    So your Boy Deutsch denies quantum non-locality?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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
    2. Born: So your Boy Deutsch denies quantum non-locality?

      Apparently, you didn't actually read the paper or you're clueless about it's contents.Neither would come as surprise.

      From the PDF...

      All phenomena that have been thought to demonstrate nonlocality in quantum physics are actually due to the phenomenon of locally inaccessible information. That is to say, what has been mistaken for nonlocality is the ability of quantum systems to store information in a form which, like a cyphertext, is accessible only after suitable interactions with other systems. It is worth noting that not all such phenomena involve entanglement: the discovery by Bennett et al. (1998), which they called ‘nonlocality without entanglement’, must now be understood as a proof that locally inaccessible information can exist even in non-entangled quantum systems.

      and...

      Bell’s theorem has often been misinterpreted as implying that the empirical predictions of quantum theory cannot be obtained from any local theory (see e.g. d’Espagnat (1971, §11.6)), and hence that quantum theory (and therefore presumably reality as well) has a nonlocal character. In the light of our explicit demonstration that the locality premise is true after all, we must instead infer that another of our premises was at fault. In fact the false premise occurs in the first sentence of the argument, where we assumed that we could assign stochastic variables such as a(q) to the ‘actual outcomes’ of measurements. Comparing this with the general exposition of the quantum theory of computation in Section 2, we notice that no such quantities appear there. It is hardly surprising that assigning a single-valued (albeit stochastic) variable to a physical quantity whose true descriptor is a matrix, soon leads to inconsistency.

      also...

      Given that quantum theory is entirely local when expressed in the Heisenberg picture, but appears nonlocal in the Schrödinger picture, and given that the two pictures are mathematically equivalent, are we therefore still free to believe that quantum theory (and the physical reality it describes) is nonlocal?

      and...

      We are not – just as we should not be free to describe a theory as ‘complex’ if it had both a simple version and a mathematically equivalent complex version. The point is that a ‘local’ theory is defined as one for which there exists a formulation satisfying the locality conditions that we stated at the end of Section 1 (and a local reality is defined as one that is fully described by such a theory). If we were to classify theories as nonlocal whenever it was possible to reformulate them in terms of nonlocal quantities (say, p+q and p-q, where p and q are local to A and B respectively), then no theory would qualify as local.


      So, as I've pointed out time and time again, this doesn't conflict with the MWI.

      Again, here's a hint. When your in a hole, stop digging. If you keep up at this rate, you'll be to China before you know it.

      Delete
    3. For example...

      Born: Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement - Anton Zeilinger
      http://vimeo.com/34168474

      Again, you've illustrated you're clueless about quantum mechanics.

      The video specifically said it was Einstein's local realism that failed, not local-realism in regards to the many world interpretation.

      Furthermore, it was Deutsch himself that laid the foundation of quantum commuting itself.

      From his wikipedia entry…

      David Deutsch laid the foundations of the quantum theory of computation, and has subsequently made or participated in many of the most important advances in the field, including the discovery of the first quantum algorithms, the theory of quantum logic gates and quantum computational networks, the first quantum error-correction scheme, and several fundamental quantum universality results. He has set the agenda for worldwide research efforts in this new, interdisciplinary field, made progress in understanding its philosophical implications (via a variant of the many-universes interpretation) and made it comprehensible to the general public, notably in his book The Fabric of Reality.

      The assumption that particles can actually become entangled is a necessary part of quantum computing. As such, it's unclear why you think Deutsch does't think entanglement actually occurs.

      In other words, the question is, what does entanglement imply about reality? The many worlds theory explains entanglement as occurring between photons in two multiple universes as explained in the referenced paper.

      Delete
  15. Scott, you say 'I'm clueless' about quantum mechanics and yet you hold that there are 10^500 Scotts, 10^500 mes, 10^500 disneylands, and 10^500 everything elses! I'm sure there are people in insane asylums who are there for much less insanity than that! If that makes me clueless in your book I'll gladly agree! Because you are surely insane in mine! You, your boy Deutsch, and company, are simply seeing faces in the clouds, you have no evidence to support your view that was not highjacked from other areas. Indeed his one main jewel of proposed evidence is not even agreed on as to provide proof if it is feasible:

    "Deutsch is nearly alone in this conviction that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound, though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation."
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_galchen

    Scott despite your delusions to the contrary, science does not operate by what you fervently believe to be true about 10^500 Scotts, but by what you can prove to be true.,, Moreover if many worlds is dependent on decoherence holding true, as it seems to be, then it has another problem, of the many problems listed so far (problems that you, whichever 10^500 you are, amazingly find 'clueless'). Which is always a hazard with trying to reason with delusional people!

    The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  16. Scott let's return to your cited quote here:

    There is no other quantum theory, besides many-worlds, that is scientific, in the sense of providing a reductionist model of reality,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-paper-on-brain-says-its-structure.html?showComment=1333679797619#c1353188065802953163

    This is a fatal problem for you atheists, for it equates being 'scientific' with a atheistic-materialistic-reductionist worldview (and apparently many-worlds is as such) yet science is impossible in a atheistic-materialistic-reductionist worldview. Only theism can rationally ground science!

    This following 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

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/32145998
    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf

    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

    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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott: There is no other quantum theory, besides many-worlds, that is scientific, in the sense of providing a reductionist model of reality..

      Born: This is a fatal problem for you atheists, for it equates being 'scientific' with a atheistic-materialistic-reductionist worldview (and apparently many-worlds is as such) yet science is impossible in a atheistic-materialistic-reductionist worldview. Only theism can rationally ground science!

      And here we reach the point where the bare assertion is revealed. This is not science.

      Again, the MWT explains more than other interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is a clear advantage over competing interpretations, which you cannot simply had wave away...

      Delete
  17. Also this quote caught my eye:

    1) Copenhagen Interpretation. Postulates that the observer obeys different physical laws than the non-observer, which is a return to vitalism.

    Though I disagree with certain aspects of Copenhagen, exactly why is 'vitalism' forbidden from consideration? Have materialists created 'life' yet so as to rule out that possibility? Or are atheists just allowed to make up the rules of science as they go along to prevent any consideration of God and soul from even being entertained in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then, why is the idea that God created the multiverse "forbidden"?

      WHy is the idea that God pulls on objects as a direct cause of gravity, "forbidden"? Who's to say he wouldn't push and pull people to their death?

      Why is the idea that God is the direct and intentional cause of each and every lighting bolt "forbidden"? Who's to say God doesn't merely make it appear *as if* lightning is random so he can punish people without revealing his actual involvement and true targets?

      Why is the idea that God created us as maternal being that cease to exist when they die "forbidden"?

      Are theisst just allowed to make up the rules of science as they go along to portray God anyway they prefer so it doesn't conflict with *their* personally preferred holy book?

      Delete
    2. Scott, Dr. Plantinga has some very good lectures showing just how arbitrary, prejudiced, and irrational, your demarcation 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

      Delete
  18. You attacking the athiests or the scientists or both?

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'You attacking the athiests or the scientists or both?'

    I'm not 'attacking' anyone. I'm merely pointing out that atheistic materialism and 'science' are incompatible, even irreconcilable, on many levels.

    This following video is very good for showing the levels of sheer absurdity that a-priori atheistic-materialistic beliefs have led 'science' to:

    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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except, as I've pointed out before, Gordon is referring to a different kind of multiverse than the many worlds interoperation.

      Of course, since you already know you have the right answer, which you conclude to mean your "theory" cannot be criticized, you think details like this are irrelevant.

      All multiverses might as well be the same because none of them could possibly be correct. You've already made up your mind.

      Delete
    2. Scott I did not claim that many worlds was the same as the multiverse Dr. Gordon was speaking on. I merely pointed out the consistent pattern of insanity that a-priori materialistic beliefs have led science to!

      Moreover:

      A ‘Christian interpretation’ offers a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics:

      First a little background:

      ,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. William Dembski posted a while back on his blog;

      The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

      ,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,

      Where is the centre of the universe?:
      Excerpt: The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

      ,,,Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.,,,

      4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/

      ,,,yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘thought experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so I dug around a bit and found this,,,

      Delete
    3. 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

      ,,,But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation is! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,,

      This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the ‘spooky actions’, for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are ‘universal and instantaneous’ for each observer:

      Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
      Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). 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

      Delete
    4. ,, and to make universal Quantum Wave collapse much more ‘personal’ I found 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.

      ,,,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.”

      Quote of note:

      "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/

      Delete
    5. “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

      I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:

      Psalm 33:13-15
      The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

      Moreover, 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.

      The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose).

      Delete
    6. The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

      THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
      Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
      http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm

      Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists (Please note; the ‘infinity problem’ is focused primarily in black holes)
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/

      Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man:

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

      Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video)
      http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

      Delete
  20. It should be noted that this,,,

    'the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.'

    ,,, believing in 'random miracles' extends into neo-Darwinism itself:

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    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

    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

    ReplyDelete
  21. Born: Scott, you say 'I'm clueless' about quantum mechanics and yet you hold that there are 10^500 Scotts, 10^500 mes, 10^500 disneylands, and 10^500 everything elses!

    At which point you're still making the same ignorant mistake. There are 10^500 versions of myself in universes that are similar enough to cause interference, not that there are 10^500 total Scotts.

    So, yes, You're clueless about the details of quantum mechanics in regards to it's interpretation, variations of non-locality, etc. You keep illustrating this every time you complain about non-locality being refuted as this is referring to Einstein's locality not the locality of MWT.

    When I point this out in black and white, you try to fallaciously ridicule the theory, but can't even do that accurately.

    In fact, you make the fact that you're clueless more clear, for all to see to see, every time you post your drivel about quantum mechanics.

    Born: Scott despite your delusions to the contrary, science does not operate by what you fervently believe to be true about 10^500 Scotts.

    Then how do explain how quantum algorithms could generate more intermediate results than there are atoms in the entire universe? Where are these results being generated, if not 10^500 parallel universe that are similar enough to ours where the same problem is being computed?

    "That's just how quantum mechanics must work"? But this is the same sort of bad explanation as suggesting the biosphere turned out the way it did because, "That's just what the designer must have wanted".

    Again, see the FAQ. You're appealing to the same sort of "ridicule" as used against a heliocentric universe.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Scott you state:

    'There are 10^500 versions of myself in universes that are similar enough to cause interference, not that there are 10^500 total Scotts.'

    And I am supposed to be comforted that you are sane how?

    ReplyDelete
  23. To explain observations in the universe, we estimate there isn't just one sun like ours, but 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns the operate based on the same principles spread out in the universe.

    How is this any more "sane"? Does this comfort you?

    Science isn't about "comforting" anyone, let alone you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Born: Scott I did not claim that many worlds was the same as the multiverse Dr. Gordon was speaking on. I merely pointed out the consistent pattern of insanity that a-priori materialistic beliefs have led science to!

    It that so? Then the conclusion doesn't follow the premises listed.

    In other words, the argument you presented is parochial because it only takes on one particular theory of parallel universes seriously, while ignoring the rest. As such, either represents deception or ignorance.

    Specially....

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

    False: In the MWT, all universes follow the same laws of physics. As such, each universe contains logical, alternative possibilities for each event.

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

    False: this would be no more true for a single universe than it is for multiple universes as they all operate the same. In fact, you have to believe in "Miracles" as non MWI of QM leads to multiple paradoxes.


    * 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.

    Everything happens because, "that's just what God must have wanted to happen", which is a bad explanation.

    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

    This is parochial, as there are multiple forms of epistemology outside of theism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet you don't even realize the insanity of you using the transcendent principles of reasoning to try to prove that human mind is ultimately not really a transcendent entity! Go Figure.

      Delete
  25. 'Science isn't about "comforting" anyone, let alone you.'

    You are absolutely right, 'Science isn't about "comforting" anyone, let alone you.':

    This following 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

    But strangely, in your insane view of reality, some version of the 10^500 Scotts is comforted by that!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Born: And I am supposed to be comforted that you are sane how?

    Apparently, you should be extremely uncomfortable, as the MWI is a main-stream interoperation of quantum mechanics. Then again, why should facts start bothering you now?

    Q1 Who believes in many-worlds?
    ----------------------------

    "Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leadingcosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-WorldsInterpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T].

    1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
    2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
    3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
    4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%

    Amongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawkingand Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann andHawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not withthe theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentionedas a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll wasconducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only "No,I don't accept MWI" named is Penrose.

    The findings of this poll are in accord with other polls, that many-worlds is most popular amongst scientists who may rather loosely bedescribed as string theorists or quantum gravitists/cosmologists. Itis less popular amongst the wider scientific community who mostly remainin ignorance of it.

    More detail on Weinberg's views can be found in _Dreams of a FinalTheory_ or _Life in the Universe_ Scientific American (October 1994),the latter where Weinberg says about quantum theory:"The final approach is to take the Schrodinger equation seriously[..description of the measurement process..] In this way, ameasurement causes the history of the universe for practicalpurposes to diverge into different non-interfering tracks, one foreach possible value of the measured quantity. [...] I prefer thislast approach"

    In the _The Quark and the Jaguar_ and _Quantum Mechanics in the Lightof Quantum Cosmology_ [10] Gell-Mann describes himself as an adherentto the (post-)Everett interpretation, although his exact meaning issometimes left ambiguous.

    Steven Hawking is well known as a many-worlds fan and says, in anarticle on quantum gravity [H], that measurement of the gravitationalmetric tells you which branch of the wavefunction you're in andreferences Everett.

    Feynman, apart from the evidence of the Raub poll, directly favouringthe Everett interpretation, always emphasized to his lecture students[F] that the "collapse" process could only be modelled by theSchrodinger wave equation (Everett's approach).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Born: But strangely, in your insane view of reality, some version of the 10^500 Scotts is comforted by that!

    Except, I've already pointed out that science isn't' about comforting anyone, myself included. So, apparently, you think it is about comforting yourself, as you keep projecting that view on others.

    Rather, we explain out ability to make progress in that we prefer long chains of hard to vary explanations over shallow, easily varied explanations. Both the MWT of QM and evolution are good explanations for the reasons I've pointed out elsewhere.

    If the truth consisted of shallow, easily varied expiations, then how do you explain our ability to make progress at all? How would that work, in detail?

    Let me guess, we make progress because "that's just what God must have wanted" as well? But that's yet another shallow, easily varied explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both the MWT of QM and evolution are good explanations for the reasons I've pointed out elsewhere.

      well you've really lost it now, you've tied your MWI wagon to Darwinian evolution!

      Oh well I'm tired of watching you chase your materialistic tail in a circle, though it has been fun, I'm off, have a good Easter weekend Scott:

      Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection video)
      http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

      Delete
  28. Scott, really? appealing to consensus? Are you getting desperate since you have no real evidence???

    Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. (From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology)
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

    Funny, I've seen the same exact pattern of appealing to consensus with neo-Darwinists when their emperor is exposed as naked!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Born: Scott, really? appealing to consensus? Are you getting desperate since you have no real evidence???

    Except I'm not appealing to a consensus. It seems we can add problems with reading comprehension to the list.

    The MWI is not a consensus, rather it was/is held by a significant number of top physicists.

    Furthermore, I think I've made it sufficiently clear how clues you are regarding QM. In fact, I'm sure you'll do a great job of doing just that, even without my involvement, by posting the same references over and over again, despite having pointed out how you lack the ability to comprehend them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well Scott, I know you are quite convinced that there are 10^500 versions of you, and that you quite frustrated with us clueless people who don't understand quantum mechanics quite as well as you so as to agree with you that there are 10^500 versions of you, but please do bear with us. Now if I get what is going on so far you hold that there are 10^500 versions of spacetime that are operating under the same laws as the space-time of this universe so as to 'explain away' quantum wave collapse and all that pesky business about consciousness, God, and all. Now, not to put a damper of the 10^500 versions of you who would rather there be no God, but I recall that space-time was created in the Big Bang. Thus that pesky God problem returns full force for all 10^500 of you! In fact from the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!

    "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970
    http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -
    Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - January 2012
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

    Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the 'information theoretic' origin, and sustaining of this universe,;

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The following experiments establish quantum information's dominion over energy and mass;

      How Teleportation Will Work -
      Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
      http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm

      Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page
      Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,"
      http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

      Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
      Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
      http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf

      ,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to 'instantaneous' teleportation:,,,

      Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
      Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
      http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp

      Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009
      Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,,
      "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts

      Delete
    2. ,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed 'instantaneous', thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,

      Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/

      Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011
      Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
      http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing

      Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information's dominion over space and time (specifically time);

      Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011
      Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com.
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html

      Delete
    3. ,,,Whereas these following experiment shows that quantum information is 'conserved',,,

      Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
      Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

      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

      Delete
    4. ,,,Moreover, when the quantum wave state (superposition), which is defined as a infinite dimensional state which can be encoded with infinite information, collapses to its particle state, the collapsed state yields only a single bit of information:,,,

      Wave function
      Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space

      Single photons to soak up data:
      Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information.
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201

      Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
      Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1

      Zeilinger's principle
      The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics.
      http://science.jrank.org/pages/20784/Zeilinger%27s-principle.html#ixzz17a7f88PM

      Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
      Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:

      Delete
    5. ,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'conserved' quantum information:,,,

      Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011
      Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
      In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
      Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

      Delete
    6. ,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the 'infinite information' of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the 'uncertain' particle state,,,

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

      1. Consciousness either precedes 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

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

      “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.

      ,,,Wigner stated this in regards 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
    7. The following solidified Wigner’s work from another angle;

      “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
    8. And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities were extended 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

      ,,,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’. 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.
      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

      Delete
    9. ,,,The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:,,,

      Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
      Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

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

      Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly , can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0′ state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???

      John 1:1-5
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

      ,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,

      The Word Is Alive - Casting Crowns - music video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438

      Delete