RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

ianz -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 12:04:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

quote:

have a feeling that you may have misunderstood Bohr.


Here is a interesting article:

Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life"

http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers.htm
quote:

http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers.htm


Why? It concludes as follows:
quote:

7. Conclusion
The case for quantum biology remains one of “not
proven.” There are many suggestive experiments and
lines of argument indicating that some biological functions
operate close to, or within, the quantum regime,
but as yet no clear-cut example has been presented of
non-trivial quantum effects at work in a key biological
process.


Regards, Ian



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 12:40:01 AM)

.
quote:

Conclusion
The case for quantum biology remains one of “not
proven.” There are many suggestive experiments and
lines of argument indicating that some biological functions
operate close to, or within, the quantum regime,
but as yet no clear-cut example has been presented of
non-trivial quantum effects at work in a key biological
process.


And now:
Quantum changes occur at the molecular level. “More than a century ago, at the dawn of modern quantum mechanics, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Neils Bohr predicted so-called "quantum jumps." He predicted that these jumps would be due to electrons making transitions between discrete energy levels of individual atoms and molecules. Although controversial in Bohr's time, such quantum jumps were experimentally observed, and his prediction verified, in the 1980s. More recently, with the development of single molecule imaging techniques in the early 1990s, it has been possible to observe similar jumps in individual molecules.” http://www.physorg.com/news134141862.html



ianz -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 12:45:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

.
quote:

Conclusion
The case for quantum biology remains one of “not
proven.” There are many suggestive experiments and
lines of argument indicating that some biological functions
operate close to, or within, the quantum regime,
but as yet no clear-cut example has been presented of
non-trivial quantum effects at work in a key biological
process.


And now:
Quantum changes occur at the molecular level. “More than a century ago, at the dawn of modern quantum mechanics, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Neils Bohr predicted so-called "quantum jumps." He predicted that these jumps would be due to electrons making transitions between discrete energy levels of individual atoms and molecules. Although controversial in Bohr's time, such quantum jumps were experimentally observed, and his prediction verified, in the 1980s. More recently, with the development of single molecule imaging techniques in the early 1990s, it has been possible to observe similar jumps in individual molecules.” http://www.physorg.com/news134141862.html

How is this relevant? So we can observe these phenomena - so what?

Also you didn't answer how the other article helps your assertion?

Regards, Ian



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 3:50:08 AM)

quote:

How is this relevant? So we can observe these phenomena - so what?

Also you didn't answer how the other article helps your assertion?

Regards, Ian


Not sure what you are askiing. The second shows that QM applies to the molecular level which many deny outright.

Have you read anything by Rupert Sheldrake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He has done some very interesting work on the idea of "fields":
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Pa...hic_intro.html

Hope some of this helps.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 10:08:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

.
quote:

Conclusion
The case for quantum biology remains one of “not
proven.” There are many suggestive experiments and
lines of argument indicating that some biological functions
operate close to, or within, the quantum regime,
but as yet no clear-cut example has been presented of
non-trivial quantum effects at work in a key biological
process.


And now:
Quantum changes occur at the molecular level. ...


The Davies article is from 2004, long after the prediction and confirmation of what you're talking about. I think the important aspect here is 'non-trivial'. Of course the bonding and electron shells of atoms and molecules are subject to quantum effects - these quantum effects produce what we know as chemistry. But that is trivial.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 10:12:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

quote:

How is this relevant? So we can observe these phenomena - so what?

Also you didn't answer how the other article helps your assertion?

Regards, Ian


Not sure what you are askiing. The second shows that QM applies to the molecular level which many deny outright.

Have you read anything by Rupert Sheldrake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He has done some very interesting work on the idea of "fields":



Sheldrake may be interesting, but his work is not very scientific. As wiki notes: "While Sheldrake’s ideas have resonated with the general public, they have received unfavorable reviews from most mainstream scientists."

Sheldrake has claimed that one can tell when one is being stared at (by someone behind your back). But more careful studies have shown no such effect.



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 11:04:15 AM)

no1nose,

Is this a fair question or not: What is the point of what you are trying to say.

It seems to me that you have first an idea and second of all the evidence and rhetorical backing for it; thus, it seems you have a purpose in mind.



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 3:11:14 PM)

quote:

Sheldrake may be interesting, but his work is not very scientific. As wiki notes: "While Sheldrake’s ideas have resonated with the general public, they have received unfavorable reviews from most mainstream scientists."


I disagree - I think his research is excellent and challenging its his conclusions that let him down. "Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home" was a bit of good research, fun to read and when on to be a BBC doco, but the conclusion at the end of the book too far out there.



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 3:16:55 PM)

Are you aware of Alain Aspect's experiments? Pretty amazing?

I say big deal! That is -- they are very interesting -- but they don't lead one to suggest that we can will evolution to take place.

I'll believe it when I see it. [;)]



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 3:33:13 PM)

quote:

Quantum provides a connection between consciousness and atomic changes - so why is there such a connection in the first place if it is not used?


To respond to an earlier post: yes -- to speculators! It is not clear whether the apparent fact of subjectivity or an observer is something that impinges on the natural world -- even in the form of agency over the organism's action much less other aspects of the physical universe!

At the same time, there is the placebo effect, etc. There are plenty of interesting things to consider. I am happy to listen to you list them.

The observer, as far as QM is concerened, as has been pointed out above by ES I believe, is simply shorthand for the instrument of measurement.

Observation in the sense of subjectivity, on the other hand, could be understood as a reduplication of the natural world for a purpose and through a cause which doesn't seem very obvious.

Here's another question: if animals are capable of evolving themselves, why aren't we all super-powerful and flying around the universe sucking up the inanimate dusts!

I appreciate what someone said concerning experiments were done regarding whether mutation of certain possible traits in a population was accelerated by the presence of a selective force. That sounds like exactly the way to test what you are asking.



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 5:14:21 PM)

quote:

Here's another question: if animals are capable of evolving themselves, why aren't we all super-powerful and flying around the universe sucking up the inanimate dusts!


Not every living things wants to do that. It just not thier idenity.

Each of us has six levels of identification. We are all members of the human race. We are citizens of a nation. We are member of a tribe, city or state. We are members of a family. We are all someone’s son or daughter. And finally we are all individuals in our own right

We think of ourselves as being individuals and we are. But we are also a composite mix of shared traits and identities that we inherit from our parents. We are born into a country and family and inherit physical traits from our parents. For God our personal individual identity is by far the most important of all. A nation can be restored and tribes and families rebuilt. But a lost individual is far more serious.

As individuals we are more important than we realize. Just being something that is “individual” is itself of great importance. We often don’t realize the importance of being individual because we are surrounded by what seems to be a world of individual things. But the idea of “individual things” is an illusion. In reality things can be “separate” but never “individual”. For example a small stone may look individual but it was once part of a larger rock that was part of an even larger formation. It is part of the formation but now separate from it. And so while things may appear to be individual they are really only separated from the larger body they belong to. This is true with everything if you take the time to think it through. The universe itself is the one only one great individual “thing”. Everything else is just a part of this one thing and not individual.

Things may look individual, but in reality one cannot even draw a circle around an atom and say, “here is an individual”. The moment we try to do this quantum uncertainty will cause the atom to become so “shadowy” as to almost disappear. Living things are different and can be individual. In the beginning God breathed life into us and we are special. People are truly individual because the qualities that make them individual are not subject to the physical laws of nature. The entire universe can be heated until all the different elements melt into a state of oneness that is pure energy. But the qualities that make an individual person cannot be melted nor can they be squeezed by gravity into a dimensionless speck. Each of us is truly unique, individual and of far more value we realize:



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 5:25:47 PM)

quote:

People are truly individual because the qualities that make them individual are not subject to the physical laws of nature. The entire universe can be heated until all the different elements melt into a state of oneness that is pure energy. But the qualities that make an individual person cannot be melted nor can they be squeezed by gravity into a dimensionless speck. Each of us is truly unique, individual and of far more value we realize:


ok. carry on, then.

i just didn't want you to start saying stuff about how we ought to will ourselves to higher plane of existence or the next stage of evolution, blah, blah.



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 5:31:17 PM)

oh, and just a rather uninformed guess -- you must like Daniel Quinn?



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 6:01:57 PM)

quote:

oh, and just a rather uninformed guess -- you must like Daniel Quinn?


No he has more hair than me.



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 6:25:59 PM)

okay, lucky guess, moving on...

so, what could you say to my assumption, based on your handle and your habit of posting, that you favor obscurity?

to be more specific, what do you mean by identity since you brought it up rather circumspectly last post?



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 9:41:36 PM)

quote:

so, what could you say to my assumption, based on your handle and your habit of posting, that you favor obscurity?


No its more along the line of "always keep the forest in view when looking at the trees". Very easy to get lost in detail - Uncertainty principle “ the more you know about one aspect the less you know about the others” Or. we are never allowed complete knowledge of anything. Or, some very smart people are also complete idiots.



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 10:42:26 PM)

yeah sure, but you are rather vague



Veritas -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 10:51:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose
Uncertainty principle “ the more you know about one aspect the less you know about the others”

No. The more you know about one particular property, the less you know about that particular property that is complementary.



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/2/2008 11:55:54 PM)

quote:

No. The more you know about one particular property, the less you know about that particular property that is complementary.


right



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/3/2008 8:54:41 AM)

so what were getting at or what did you mean with all that talk about identity?

Identity is commensurate with obscurity in a sense anyway. (Because it is interior.)



essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/3/2008 12:11:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose
Uncertainty principle “ the more you know about one aspect the less you know about the others”

No. The more you know about one particular property, the less you know about that particular property that is complementary.


I would make the statement stronger. It's not just that we don't know the complementary property with any precision, but the property itself is not defined with any precision.

After measuring the momentum of a particle in a box as accurately as possible, it's not just that we don't know where it is in the box, but that the wavefunction of the particle behaves as though it were 'spread' throughout the box.

But, of course, people continue to bicker about interpretations of QM. At the end of the day, we can only say that QM gives us the right answer when we actually measure something.



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/3/2008 3:49:42 PM)

quote:

so what were getting at or what did you mean with all that talk about identity?


It is complementary too.

We are what we inherit. And we are also as individuals in our own right. The more we stress our individualism the less we see who we are as a product of others. In western culture we tend to see ourselves only as individuals. From this vantage point we have lost view of some really important lessons from the Gospel.

In Evolution there is an emphasis on what is inherited. This too is an important part of Christian thought. For example here is the idea the one can benefit before being born by the actions of a forbearer:

“One might even say that Levi . ., paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. Heb 7:9-10.


Here Levi is counted as having paid one tenth because he was in the body of his ancestor Abraham when he paid. In the Bible there is also the idea that a group of one’s descendants represent the one forbearer they all came from – a kind of large body of individual who all together form their one forbearer:

Go forth from Babylon! Flee from the Chaldeans! With a voice of singing, Declare, proclaim this, Utter it to the end of the earth; Say, "The LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob!" Isaiah 48:20


Here the nation as a whole is seen as an expression of the one person Jacob.

For Christians eternal life is something that we inherit:

Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
Luke 18:18


Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
Hebrews 1:14


Just as we are member of Christ’s body:

Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
I Cor 12:27


We inherit eternal life when we are born again. The words “born again” are better translated as being conceived again. When we were conceived the first time it was a sexual union between our mother and father. From our mother we inherited certain traits and from our father we inherited other traits. Being born again is similar to the way that Jesus was born. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and so are we when we are born again. Being born again we form a union between ourselves and Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. In this union God becomes our true and eternal father. And from this inheritance we take on the qualities of Jesus just as were took on some of the qualities of our father when we were born the first time. Jesus rose from the dead. And when Jesus lives in us there is a part of us that has already died and lived again. The Christian walk is really about accepting and becoming this “new” identity that we have invited into our being.



Method -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/3/2008 4:12:47 PM)

no1nose,

When are you going to show us how consciousnesses guide mutations? That was the central claim of your opening post and I have yet to see you support it with a shred of evidence.

Are you telling us that children have terrible genetic diseases because their parents chose to give them these diseases?



hellohellohi -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/3/2008 4:26:55 PM)

i guess.

i still am trying to tell you you are being too vague in your statements to be believable -- I'm still not convinced you are being sincere or earnest with us anyway.

skip, if you will for me, to what the implications of what you are trying to say is. start a new thread, i don't care. i can see that you have plenty of WORDS concerning what you are interested in, the ideas or perspective you would like to raise, but as I consider you sarcastic, I don't know if I can really intelligently discuss anything with you. Likewise, symmetrically, as it were, you answer my questions with a degree of both circumlocution and repetitiveness.

When I ask "What do you mean by identity," I don't want another vague and possibly sarcastically or ironically used -- "complementary" -- or whatever you meant to say. Rather, I would prefer if it was put into terms that are readily approachable or at least defined outright.

I can only interpret you as disengenous when you at one moment say
quote:

People are truly individual because the qualities that make them individual are not subject to the physical laws of nature.
and then in the next,
quote:

We are what we inherit.
.

Yes, I can see you are trying to paint a nuanced picture -- but it doesn't appear coherent to me, truly, and therefore I interpret it as disengenous.

However, I am quick to judgment! I stand ready for correction.

It seems like you are very interested in the physical transformation taht could take place with a religious or spiritual change -- perhaps not limited to Christian types, though acknowleding them as unique in some respects. If you will, what is so important with the physical? What does that truly have to do with identity? What does QM have to do with it? How can we be both individuals (I don't know what you mean by this) and inheritors? Are you saying it is possible because QM seems to provide a physical explanation or parallel to the phenomenological experience of free will? Are you trying to synthesize competing worldviews -- perhaps out of a desire for compromise and togetherness? -- or are you just interested in a newish way of looking at spirituality from a physical perspective? If so, what are the implications of this? What actions are suggested by this perspective?

Are you earnest or are you just playing with ideas, plain and simple, or both? What difference does everything you are saying or trying to say matter?



no1nose -> RE: Evolution's Observer and Math Problems (7/3/2008 7:12:10 PM)

quote:

Are you telling us that children have terrible genetic diseases because their parents chose to give them these diseases



quote:

and therefore I interpret it as disengenous
.

I would like to know what your relationship with Jesus Christ is HelloHellohi and Method.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI