Nov 16 2010
Robert Lanza’s Quantum Woo
Here we go again – in an article that would make Deepak Chopra proud, Robert Lanza over at the HuffPo has written a mystery-mongering piece about biocentrism. Lanza asks the question – Why are you here? This is one of those cosmological questions that borders on metaphysics, like why is there something rather than nothing? These are interesting questions, but one needs to tread carefully along a tightrope of logic amid a chasm of philosophy and ideology. Lanza dives right off the cliff into the chasm. He sets up the question:
Even setting aside the issue of being here and now, the probability of random physical laws and events leading to this point is less than 1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, equivalent to winning every lottery there ever was.
The lottery reference is appropriate, because Lanza is committing the lottery fallacy. In fact, his entire article is one giant lottery fallacy. This fallacy comes from reasoning backwards about probability and asking the wrong question. If John Smith wins the superball lottery with odds of 100 million to one against, this should not be considered a cosmically unlikely event that requires a special explanation. The wrong question to ask is – what were the odds of John Smith winning? The correct question is – what were the odds of anyone winning (pretty good, it turns out).
Likewise, Lanza is asking the wrong question – what are the odds that we would end up existing here and now with the universe in the state in which we find it? This is as important to us as the odds of winning the lottery are to John Smith, but this is a highly egocentric view of probability. The universe, it turns out, does not care about John Smith’s financial situation, nor our existence. The appropriate question is – what are the odds that anything would exist? It turns out that the odds are 100%, since we exist.
Yet Lanza is trying to spin this logical fallacy into a theory of everything which he calls biocentrism. This is really just a repackaging of the anthropic principle (so it’s not even original BS). So-called weak anthropic principles states that the universe must have the properties necessary for intelligent life because we exist – in any universe where there is an entity capable of asking the question, the physical laws must be compatible with such an entity. This is ultimately an unremarkable circular argument – and that’s kind of the point. The fact that the laws of the universe allow for our existence is necessary and unremarkable.
The strong anthropic principle takes this reasoning one step further, making an argument from final consequences – because we are here the laws of the universe are what they are specifically to allow for our (and not just anyone’s) existence. In other words, the laws are designed to allow for humans. This logic is not valid, however, as it represents a reversal of cause and effect and a massive example of the lottery fallacy.
Lanza takes this fallacy and then tries to crank it up to 11, writing:
Biocentrism, a new theory of everything, provides the missing piece. Although classical evolution does an excellent job of helping us understand the past, it fails to capture the driving force. Evolution needs to add the observer to the equation. Indeed, Niels Bohr, the great Nobel physicist, said, “When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not ‘measuring’ the world, we are creating it.”
Lanza combines the lottery fallacy of the strong anthropic principle with the quantum woo of Chopra – grossly misinterpreting quantum physics in the typical way that we have encountered numerous times before. Evolution does not need an observer – there is nothing in the process of evolution, and no observation of nature that requires it. Bohr it talking about a quantum phenomenon of the collapse of the probability wave. But this does not require a literal observer, just interaction with the surrounding environment. Other particles, in other words, can serve as the “observer” – the universe can observe itself just fine without us, and we are back to the laws of nature unfolding on their own without the need of intelligent observation of guidance.
After a long description of the great improbability of the particular current state of the universe, Lanza then goes for the trifecta of woo:
It’s a fascinating story to tell children, but claiming that it’s all a “dumb” accident is no more helpful than saying “God did it.” Loren Eiseley, the great naturalist, once said that scientists “have not always been able to see that an old theory, given a hairsbreadth twist, might open an entirely new vista to the human reason.” The theory of evolution turns out to be the perfect case in hand. Amazingly, it all makes sense if you assume that the Big Bang is the end of the chain of physical causality, not the beginning.
The “‘dumb’ accident” comment can be applied to any system that unfolds according to its own internal laws and rules. It’s like spinning a roulette wheel, and watching the ball bounce around and finally come to rest on red 23. Was that number just a “dumb accident” or the laws of motion in action? Do we need to hypothesize some human-centric reason for the action of the ball, some meaning to red 23? No – it’s just physics. Evolution may be much more complex, but it is also just an expression of the laws of nature and probability working themselves out over millions of years.
What about that comment that the “Big Bang is the end of the chain of physical causality?” Hold onto your seats – this is where Lanza breaks the quantum woo meter.
Theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow recently stated:
There is no way to remove the observer — us — from our perceptions of the world … In classical physics, the past is assumed to exist as a definite series of events, but according to quantum physics, the past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities.”
Apparently all you need for a theory of everything is to take quotes from science popularizers, especially astrophysicists, completely out of context. Hawking himself said that Lanza’s style of BS is unecessary, writing in he latest book “The Grand Design”:
“…the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” “Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.”
Nor is it necessary to invoke biocentrism, which is Lanza’s “Goddidit.”
What Hawking is referring to in the quote above is that the laws of physics are reversible – everything works in both directions, including time. There is no reason in physics, that we currently know of, why the arrow of time goes in only one direction. We have yet to fully explain this asymmetry. That is not the same thing as saying that time does not go in one direction, or that we can assume a reversal of cause and effect – that humans create time and therefore we created our own past, all the way back to the Big Bang. Lanza takes a misinterpretation of physics and then rides his pony of wild speculation right off the cliff of reason.
In the end Lanza’s biocentrism is a laughable mess of confusion, poor logic, misinterpretation of quantum mechanics and cosmology, and rampant egocentrism. It is egocentric in two ways – in the very concept that we humans create reality around us, and in his presumption that he has come up with a theory of everything. The TOE is, in fact, a classic sign of a cosmological crank. Walk up to a physicist and try to tell them about your theory of everything, and see how desperate they will become to get away from you. But now such cranks get space in the HuffPo to spew their TOE to everyone.
183 Responses to “Robert Lanza’s Quantum Woo”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I take issue with “It turns out that the odds [that anything would exist] are 100%, since we exist.” I think the odds are incalculable. Since we have no idea what the mechanism for creation of a universe is, we can’t give odds for whether it will happen or not.
I recently took a trip to San Francisco, and was told that I was lucky, because the weather isn’t usually so nice in November. How lucky was I? What were the odds that the weather would be so nice? Did I get the mataphorical natural-20, or did I win a coin flip? I have no idea, since I have no idea what the statistical history is.
Similarly, we have no way of estimating what the probability for our sort of intelligent life, or any sort of intelligent life in a universe is, because we have no way of knowing what the full set of outcomes might have been. And, all due respect to Steven Hawking, I’ve never seen a good argument that the universe did arise spontaneously; we just have no data at all, so anything we theorize is thus far untestable speculation.
I loved the pony metaphor. Beautiful!
Why doesn’t he just make ten louder?
But seriously, there is value in understanding that the individual odds of any one of us being here are small. It helps for gaining perspective on our place in the universe and appreciating the chance at life that we are given. This is a fairly profound realization and no misunderstanding of science is required to have it. It just doesn’t mean what Lanza thinks it means.
Wow. This is a fascinating, thought provoking article. I will be pondering this for awhile.
@Timmyson – I glanced through an article on Gambler’s fallacy – which is not quite the lottery fallacy as noted by Steve, but does in part address your dispute that the odds that we exist are 100%. The idea being past tosses of a coin don’t influence the outcome of the next toss a coin. And further once the coin is tossed, the odds become 1 that it would be so, because it is so.
I don’t know that I fully get that, but I think its what Steve means when he says the odds that we exist are 100% since we do in fact exist.
“The appropriate question is – what are the odds that anything would exist? It turns out that the odds are 100%, since we exist”
Thats technically correct if you assume we re talking about statistical probability but ultimately thats a pointless statement since calculating statistical probability using only one event is meaningless and when people are asking this question the answer they re looking for is the a priori probability and not the statistical probability which just gives you an illusion of understanding and not the “profound” understanding that the a priori probability offers. In this case obviously we cant determine what its value is.
Also it seems, to me at least, that these people dont have any real knowledge of quantum mechanics. Apparently they think that supperposition states arent somehow “real” and that only the eigenstates (that is the collapsed wave functions) are real. That is a huge mistake though. When two observables cannot be measured simultaneously, measuring one collapses the wavefunction into an eigenfunction of that observable which is a superposition state of the other! That means that that an eigenstate of one observable can be a superposition state of another and simply put a superposition state can be identical to an eigenstate (of different observables) so one cannot be any less real than the other.
You gotta love Lanza’s description on the HuffPo and Wikipedia. “One of the leading scientists in the world.” I know he is a pretty successful stem cell researcher, but it’s a big leap to say one of the leading scientists in the world.
The grandiosity and egocentrism goes hand-in-hand quite well with the “Theory of Everything.” What is the appeal of such theories? I guess people just want a simple, accessible explanation to the complicated and/or unknown aspects of the universe.
The point is – our existence is unlikely on in the way that John Smith’s winning the lottery was unlikely.
That something exists can be very likely, just as anyone winning the lottery eventually is also very likely.
But yes, there is also confusion as to what is meant by “probability.” We have no basis upon which to calculate a probably that the universe exists. But because the universe exists clearly the conditions were there for it to exist. Yes – this is ultimately meaningless and circular, and that was my point. It’s like the weak anthropic principle.
At some point, Lanza’s gotta stop calling it a “new” theory…regardless of its bogus nature. He’s been spouting on and on about this same nonsensical topic for, like, 3 years.
I think it was in that first article, or maybe another one, where he mentioned an anecdote about his sister dying, a clue to what may be motivating his descent into woo (he actually has been a well-regarded scientist at times). It would only be speculation, but if his wild proclamations of easily refutable craziness are any indications, I’d say Dr. Lanza has fallent prey to desperate wishful thinking, and I pity him.
Anthropomorphic thinking leads you to search for hidden agendas in all natural things, just to find an answer to the tautology why are we here?
Dr. N., physics is not your strength.
Please consider the richness of possibility that exists in the study of physics today–
In a review of Biocentrism by Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at John Hopkins University,
“And what is their underlying thesis? They present it as a long list of Principles of Biocentrism that have no individual value, in my opinion––but the heart of it, collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say “the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.” That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics.
So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private– –furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!
Bless Robert Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with it.”
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 23, Number 3, Fall, 2009, page 371
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf
http://msx4.pha.jhu.edu/rch.html
This area (cosmology, physics in general) are areas of science that have a variety of possible paths available for further research.
What cause is furthered by denying the teaching of the professor of physics and astronomy at John Hopkins?
We have no basis upon which to calculate a probably that the universe exists.”
This isn’t exactly true either, since we *do* have a natural expectation for what the universe should look like that is not observed. The “natural” quantum expectation without the inclusion of more speculative hypothesis like the multiverse derives a vacuum energy density that is about 120 orders of magnitude greater than we observe. So without the multiverse speculation there appears be a suppression mechanism at work now that constrains the vacuum energy density by nearly120 orders of magnitude, and that mechanism defines the expected cosmological principle that explains from first principles, rather than probabilities, why our universe has any structure at all, much less one that produces precariously balanced “goldilocks zones” over a highly restricted region of the observed universe.
FYI, it is that “precariously balanced” commonality that we share with the structure of the “flat” balanced universe that most apparently indicates that there is some physical connection to our existence and the structure mechanism that defines the bio-oriented cosmological principle that the anthropic principle is taken from, and yes, Sonic is correct, the reason that this stuff isn’t more commonly known is because physicists practice a form of religion that is begrudgingly known to them as “Copernicanism”, which is the non-evidenced religious belief in meaninglessness and randomness that they attempt to circumvent with cutting-edge speculations that do not resolve the problem from first principles, like the multiverse.
That’s why Brandon Carter formalized the principle in the first place:
Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the “perfect cosmological principle” on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961).
-Brandon Carter
Fluffy thinking. Not only by Lanza, but some of the commenters here.
@Timmyson said “all due respect to Steven Hawking, I’ve never seen a good argument that the universe did arise spontaneously; we just have no data at all”
mmm… What about the amazing discovery that the total energy of the universe is zero, coupled to gravitation’s negative energy? That in fact is the central argument of Hawking’s book but maybe you haven’t read it?
The odds that something would exist at this moment are perhaps 100% but the odds that this something would ever be any one of us are off any conceivable chart.
Sonic, you might want to check out this site:
http://www.nbi.dk/~kleppe/random/qa/qa.html
Holger Bech Nielsen, a Danish physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, an early pioneer of string theory, has a project he calls Random Dynamics, which tries to show how the laws of physics could evolve from what he calls “world machinery.”
He writes, “The ambition of Random Dynamics is to ‘derive’ all the known physical laws as an almost unavoidable consequence of a random fundamental ‘world machinery.’”
cwfong-
In 1947 Godel published a solution to Einstein’s equations that shows (I quote Godel here from “Reviews of Modern Physics” 1949)
“By making a round trip on a rocket ship in a sufficiently wide course, it is possible… to travel into any region of the past, present and future, and back again.”
I suspect that if someone could figure out how this solution either proved or disproved the need for God, it would be much more popular (and hated).
BTW– Susskind (of ‘the landscape’) has calculated the number of universes to be 10 to the 500 power. This does make the probability calculations fairly easy– next to nothing– will work for everything…
Sonic, the Godel assumption turned out to be in defiance of what we like to call the sequential nature of proximate and less proximate causation.
I’m not sure what you’re using Susskind to get at, but it’s becoming fairly well accepted that universal laws are highly probabilistic – allowed to become so by the indeterminacy of every conceivable lawful universe. Chaotic systems evolve. Deterministic ones cannot, nor can the non-causative (assuming such are even possible).
cwfong-
Thank-you for that.
My comment about Godel and Susskind was not completely serious- intended to provoke a laugh.
Sorry if it caused any confusion.
Certainty and the Anthropic Principle
A man flips a coin and it comes up heads. He flips again. Heads again. He flips the coin 30 times and it comes up heads every time. The coin is true and the flip is random. Impossible? Not at all. All you need is about 100 million people doing the same thing and you’re almost garanteed to see this scenario. In fact, there are 100 million households in the USA. If one person in each household flipped a coin 30 times, somewhere in the USA one person will flip 30 heads in a row. Almost guaranteed.
So, all that would have been needed for this universe to be have been garanteed to exist is a Multiverse consisting of a sufficiently large number of universes. If Hawking is correct that universes come into existence spontaneously out of nothing, this should not be a problem. All that is needed is sufficient time. According to Lanza the probability is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So all that is needed is more or less that many universes. And, if universes continually generate daughter universes, the number of universes could have increased exponentially over time.
IN fact that probability quoted by Lanza could be a vast over-estimation. The universal constants from which this probability is derived may not be completely independant of each other. It could even turn out that all these constants have to have the value they have and that this universe was guaranteed even if there is only ever one universe. We just do not know anough about these constants to know what the probabilities are.
As for the quantum woosters…give it a rest already!
The following statement by Steven Novella is true:
“Evolution does not need an observer – there is nothing in the process of evolution, and no observation of nature that requires it. Bohr it talking about a quantum phenomenon of the collapse of the probability wave. But this does not require a literal observer, just interaction with the surrounding environment. Other particles, in other words, can serve as the “observer” – the universe can observe itself just fine without us, and we are back to the laws of nature unfolding on their own without the need of intelligent observation of guidance.”
The “observers” in the famous double-slit experiments are…wait for it…sensors placed at the slits!
With all due respect to John Wheeler, (which is a lot), and virtually none to Lanza… you’d have to be independently wealthy to think that we are just here to watch.
Course, you’d have to be really stupid not to ask what task the anthropic physics might really be indicative of… but apparently that’s what scientists are…
@island,
You’re free to ask the question, that doesn’t mean it makes sense.
I’m not sure what you mean by “you’d have to be independently wealthy”, but I don’t see any reason to propose we are even here to watch, let alone to carry out any other purpose. That we exist does not in itself imply purpose, however likely or unlikely that existence is.
If I have missed something and your argument goes beyond implying that existence requires purpose, let me know.
A certain bacteria grows in only one place, the cold shaded crevice on the side of a vast mountain. Does this mean the mountain exists for the benefit of the bacteria?
By Lanza’s logic, we should now discuss the bacteriocentric model of mountain formation.
thequietone… you’d have to be independently wealthy because that means that you don’t have to work and only someone who doesn’t work would think that we are here to watch.
What we *do*, not just our existence, does most definitely imply purpose in a universe that is configured to disseminate energy in the most efficient way possible over the maximum possible amount of time during the current epoch, and I am not the only person to make this observation, there are others like James Kay, Eric Schneider, Dorian Sagan and Scott Sampson, but these scientists aren’t physicists, so they might as well pee into the wind:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=3533936
What do we *do* that makes us a value to the process?… is the first most basic question that any honest unbiased scientist would make upon learning that we are privileged in any sense whatsoever… but they don’t… because they already *know* that there is no purpose in nature, even though all of the relevant evidence points to the contrary.
That, my friends, is politics at its finest… and science at its worst.
BillyJoe7-
How many universes are there in the multiverse?
How would I know they exist? (Is there some experiment I can run to determine the number? Is there an experiment I can run to know the constants in one of these other universes?)
BillyJoe7, Dr. N.-
You both seem to imply that the measurement problem has been resolved.
Can you tell me how?
Here is a link to the various attempts to do this I am aware of (written in 2010)– is there something else?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0990v1
If the universe evolves, multiform or uniform, and the “unplanned” results include the evolution of intelligence, then that mountain may well exist for intelligence to use it to advantage. That’s not by Lanza’s logic, which is flawed, but by the logic of an apparently self regulating cosmos.
And Island is correct to infer that the existence of a logical system must mean that logic serves a universal purpose.
island-”What do we *do* that makes us a value to the process?… is the first most basic question that any honest unbiased scientist would make upon learning that we are privileged in any sense whatsoever…”
This question might make sense from a uniquely human point of view,but from a universe’s point of view…well,I don’t think the universe HAS a point of view.
The universe is the observer that flips the coin of probability.
cwfong,
“The universe is the observer that flips the coin of probability.”
And so we lapse into metaphor, ambiguity and incomprehensibility.
sonic,
“How many universes are there in the multiverse?”
I already answered the question about how many are necessary. If the universal constants can have only one value each, only one universe is required. If they are mutually independent, then about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So somewhere in between probably.
“How would I know they exist?”
So far we have only one piece of evidence:
http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/03/evidence-grows-for-multiverse.html
But do you have any evidence for your favourite hypothesis? (Which is what exactly?)
sonic,
“BillyJoe7, Dr. N.-
You both seem to imply that the measurement problem has been resolved.
Can you tell me how?
Here is a link to the various attempts to do this I am aware of (written in 2010)”
That is a 24 page document.
If there is something relevant please point it out.
A quick perusal fails to find anything usefull to the question of whether consciousness is necessary for the transition from the microscopic probabilistic world of quantum physics to a macroscopic deterministic world of classical mechanics.
Did the universe exist in a quantum superposition untill consciousness arose on the planet Earth (or elsewhere)? How could consciousness have arisen with the universe in quantum superposition?
The Sun and the Moon were there before we arrived on the scene. (Or was a cockroach’s consciousness suficient
)
I expect sonic is referring to the many-worlds postulate of quantum mechanics, which applies to only one aspect of the multiverse.
A multiverse that has had at least one component of awareness as far back in time as Hawking’s proverbial nothingness left off.
Sonic also would not need to be told that any time you use coin flipping as an analogy for randomness, you have used it (wittingly or not) as a metaphor for causation in a chaotic system.
@ island,
From what I can gather, the book you linked to posits that the purpose of life is to disseminate energy as quickly as possible in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.
I’m not sure if this is supposed to imply that life is special because of this, or if it has a purpose in the same way a star has a purpose in fusing hydrogen; it simply does what the laws of physics make it do. That seems completely trivial.
If this is some special purpose of life, why then isn’t life ubiquitous?
Even if this theory is true I don’t see how our existence is any more purposeful, it seems to mesh perfectly well with a completely naturalistic, materialistic view of the universe.
I would even say the theory of evolution provides us with far more “purpose” than this theory of “nature abhorring an energy gradient.”
I am reminded of a teacher, somewhere in my distant past, who presented two jars of red and white marbles: one carefully layered by color, and the other well mixed. She then posed the question: Which of these arrangements is more probable?
Her expected answer, of course, was that “disorganized” is more probable than “organized.”
But THAT particular arrangement in THAT jar is no more probable than the OTHER particular arrangement in the OTHER jar, I argued.
She won by virtue of authority, of course.
BillyJoe7-
Yes that is a long paper, it covers the main attempts to ‘solve’ the measurement problem. What is of interest is that there are so many, and that each has it researchers and believers and, perhaps most importantly, there isn’t agreement that any of them actually ‘solve’ the problem.
You can understand why I want to know if you have solved the problem, and if not, I think it best not to pretend that it has been solved.
My favorite interpretation can change from time to time.
I don’t know if any of them are correct. In fact I’d guess that ‘none of the above’ will turn out to be the right answer. Or perhaps even more interesting– ‘all of the above’ might be correct.
How would I know?
cwfong
Are you talking random in the Platonic forms sense, or are you talking Bayesian?
sonic,
I’m talking about the commonplace thesis, which is that “Something is random iff it happens by chance.”
However the Bayesian version as illustrated here will do, if you want to kick it up a notch (metaphor for the level of abstraction):
How Random is a Coin Toss? Bayesian Inference and the Symbolic Dynamics of Deterministic Chaos
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/06-11-042.pdf
cwfong,
“I expect sonic is referring to the many-worlds postulate of quantum mechanics, which applies to only one aspect of the multiverse.”
Except that he was responding to MY post, so HE doesn’t actually get to decide the question of WHICH multiverse.
“A multiverse that has had at least one component of awareness as far back in time as Hawking’s proverbial nothingness left off.”
Well, I hope at least you know what you’re talking about.
“Sonic also would not need to be told that any time you use coin flipping as an analogy for randomness, you have used it (wittingly or not) as a metaphor for causation in a chaotic system.”
Regardless, the result is still random.
And, in any case, your point is a merely tangential to the point of my post.
“How Random is a Coin Toss? Bayesian Inference and the Symbolic Dynamics of Deterministic Chaos
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/06-11-042.pdf”
I think it explains how determinism can explain randomness, but it’s hard to tell without a translation.
sonic,
“You can understand why I want to know if you have solved the problem, and if not, I think it best not to pretend that it has been solved.”
I neither inferred nor pretended anything of the sort.
I am the captain of my local footy team. There are so many reasonable players it’s going to be hard to choose my final 20. But it sure as hell aint gonna include Twinkle Toes.
“My favorite interpretation can change from time to time.
I don’t know if any of them are correct. ”
Strike out those that depend on consciousness collapsing the wave function. Either that or show me a single paper detailing an experiment that demonstrates that consciousness can effect the outcome.
The coin toss metaphors/analogies are not about how determinism explains randomness. They are about how randomness determines probability.
cwfong-
I don’t mind a universe that includes chance and freedom (see Born’s Nobel talk).
But you do understand that the multiverse and string theory and Bayesian analysis and chaos from deterministic algorithms are all attempts to bring back determinism (explain the observations without the need for chance or freedom), right?
BillyJoe7-
I don’t rule out the ‘consciousness causes collapse’ notions.
First question- does the wave function collapse, or are all of our measurements illusionary?
The many-worlds posits that our experiences are illusionary. I’m not sure this is true. I don’t see the evidence for an nearly infinite number of universe that I can’t interact with. Oh, I guess that has to be taken on faith, doesn’t it?
If the wave function collapses, then what brings this about? Certainly we know that conscious observation is of one reading…
What is the universe like when nobody is looking?
Unverifiable. (Do you like my joke??)
As far as consciousness effecting the outcome, I would point to the Golden Gate Bridge and ask, “Is that the result of conscious behavior?”
I see no reason to rule out what Heisenberg, Pauli, Wigner, et al have conceded possible.
I don’t think I know the evidence better than any of them.
It is an open question, I can remain in doubt.
sonic asks me:
“But you do understand that the multiverse and string theory and Bayesian analysis and chaos from deterministic algorithms are all attempts to bring back determinism (explain the observations without the need for chance or freedom), right?”
Some might have that goal in mind as their philosophically supported purpose. But to the extent that scientists are pragmatic, the goal has been to determine the extent that a probabilistic system can support predictive accuracy.
Some call this ‘the new determinism’ for want of a better phrase. (And some can’t seem to tell the difference.)
cwfong,
“The coin toss metaphors/analogies are not about how determinism explains randomness. They are about how randomness determines probability.”
Except that you keep forgetting that it was MY coin toss analogy so please let me use it for the purpose I intended. You’re still off on that tangent. In any case, it certainly is true that determinism can produce randomness? Otherwise do you deny that the flip of a coin follows a deterministic cause and effect path from beginning to end. And do you deny that if I toss a coin a hundred times I willl produce a random pattern of heads and tails?
sonic,
“I don’t rule out the ‘consciousness causes collapse’ notions.”
Well, I asked for an experiment that demonstates this effect, otherwise you might as well say that you don’t rule out invisible pink unicorns.
“I don’t see the evidence for an nearly infinite number of universe that I can’t interact with. Oh, I guess that has to be taken on faith, doesn’t it?”
You missed my link then?
Well, here it is again:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081105-dark-flow.html
“If the wave function collapses, then what brings this about? Certainly we know that conscious observation is of one reading…”
Consciousness has nothing to do with it.
Observation has nothing to do with it.
Otherwise link me to that experiment.
“What is the universe like when nobody is looking?
Unverifiable. (Do you like my joke??)”
No, because you missed the point. If the universe remains in superposition until consciousness evolves, and consciousness cannot evolve while the universe remains in superposition, how did consciousness evolve?
The Moon hung in the sky long before we arrived on the scene.
Or cockroaches.
“As far as consciousness effecting the outcome, I would point to the Golden Gate Bridge and ask, “Is that the result of conscious behavior?””
Now you’re just being ridiculous.
Obviously we are talking quantum physics here, not classical physics.
All coin tossing metaphors of any substance have an experimental purpose. As such they require a metaphorical experimenter. No-one has so far pointed effectively to a case where that experimenter found chance not to be a reliable determinant of an increase in statistical probability consistent with the sequential progression of the tossing operation.
cwfong-
agreed.
BillyJoe7-
I did look at your link. I don’t know that all the assumptions the conclusions rest on are true, therefore I can’t comment on the phenomena they seem to be seeing. (Certainly this is not an example of experimental evidence)
You assume that consciousness evolved as opposed to the notion that consciousness is fundamental to the universe.
I used to think the notion absurd too. It was only after looking at the experiments and reading the reasoning that I thought– “Gee, Heisenberg, Pauli, Wigner,… weren’t complete idiots!!” (Imagine my surprise)
(It was actually Bell’s theorem and the Aspect experiments that really got me seeing new possibilities).
I’m pretty sure that the idea the moon doesn’t need an observer doesn’t come from any observation– therefore is a metaphysical philosophical musing. While I might agree, we can both realize how reasonable assumptions can be wildly wrong–no?
If the Golden Gate Bridge doesn’t give one pause for thought as to the effectiveness of consciousness, I can’t imagine why a click on a photon detector would.
The postulated laws of (at least) our universe are regulatory, and as such could not exist without their regulative functions being capable in some fashion of observing the effects of regulatory efforts. A self-observant feedback reactive universe seems to fill the bill here.
Are cwfong and sonic are the same person?
They certainly seem to think and talk alike.
…like “New Age” quantum woosters to be exact!
Oh well, I have better things to do.
Meanwhile, cwfong/sonic, find me that one experiment.
Put up or shut up, in other words.
BillyJoe7-
Why so belligerent?
I have provided you with all the evidence you should need to see that the interpretation is viable here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0990v1
(I have also stated that I doubt that any of the current interpretations are correct).
You are making a claim (that the interpretation is false)- please provide the proof of your claim.
cwfong said,
No-one has so far pointed effectively to a case where that experimenter found chance not to be a reliable determinant of an increase in statistical probability consistent with the sequential progression of the tossing operation.
You may want to check out Fotini Pallikari’s chapter contribution to the book “Psi Wars”, abstract here: http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs_10_6-7.html#Pallikari
(again, lovely contributions from sonic in this thread. What a refreshing change to have someone seriously considering a philosophical and scientific position on consciousness based on assumptions other than physicalism. Thumbs down to BillyJoe’s portrait of such alternative positions as “woomongering”)
If by consciousness we mean self-awareness, which most humans have to some degree, and if this somehow determines the stuff we all “reality,” why is it that subjectivity is largely an impediment to studying the world around us? Why do our desires get in the way of understanding?
If the answer to the above question boils down to, basically, idealism (only mind is real) verses mentalism, then meh. I see no practical implications of either metaphysical position.
Nice talk by Larry Krauss that makes more sense than this thread here.>/a>
“lovely contributions from sonic in this thread. What a refreshing change to have someone seriously considering a philosophical and scientific position on consciousness based on assumptions other than physicalism.”
That’s only because you agree with him that this nonsense should be taken seriously.
In any case, it seems to me that all he does is drop names and wonder how such emminent individuals could possibly be wrong! I could a few emminent names myself at this point but I’ll resist. And he seems to think that consciously creating a bridge is somehow relevent to the question of the role of consciousness in quantum physics!
“Thumbs down to BillyJoe’s portrait of such alternative positions as “woomongering””
That’s just because you disagree.
Then perhaps you can answer the questions I have posed that have still not received an answer. Here is the list:
——————————–
What is your interpretation of what are called “observers” in the famous double-slit experiments (hint: they are nothing more than sensors placed at the slits to detect the presence of quantum particles).
Please explain what if meant by “The universe is the observer that flips the coin of probability”.
I replied to a certain reference given with the following words:
“That is a 24 page document.
If there is something relevant please point it out.
A quick perusal fails to find anything usefull to the question of whether consciousness is necessary for the transition from the microscopic probabilistic world of quantum physics to a macroscopic deterministic world of classical mechanics.”
Are you willing to help?
If the universe remains in superposition until consciousness evolves, and consciousness cannot evolve while the universe remains in superposition, how did consciousness evolve?
What did cwfong/sonic mean when he replied:
“A multiverse that has had at least one component of awareness as far back in time as Hawking’s proverbial nothingness left off”.
In any case, it certainly is true that determinism can produce randomness? Otherwise do you deny that the flip of a coin follows a deterministic cause and effect path from beginning to end. And do you deny that if I toss a coin a hundred times I willl produce a random pattern of heads and tails?
Sonic said: “I don’t rule out the ‘consciousness causes collapse’ notions.” To which I responded: “Well, I asked for an experiment that demonstates this effect, otherwise you might as well say that you don’t rule out invisible pink unicorns”.
Are you able to help poor sonic out with a link to such an experiment?
———–
While you’re looking for the answers, please let the following reply resonate in your head. While discussing the question of the role of consciousness in wave function collapse in quantum physics, sonic replied in all seriousness:
“As far as consciousness effecting the outcome, I would point to the Golden Gate Bridge and ask, “Is that the result of conscious behavior?”
Brilliant!
titmouse,
“If the answer to the above question boils down to, basically, idealism (only mind is real) verses mentalism, then meh. I see no practical implications of either metaphysical position.”
I think you’ll find that these two gentlemen are pretty loathe to clearly spell out their point of view.
They prefer to speak in metaphor. They realise that the clear explication of their beliefs would be met only by dumbfounded silence followed by howls of laughter as the audience exists the building.
Which question should we be asking:
Krauss’s question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Or the more prescient question (a la the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): “Why wasn’t there nothing rather than something?”
BillyJoe7,
I too would like to see a clear, coherent response from either cwfong or sonic spelling out their position. I fear they are either trolling, or simply incapable of being clear, because then they would have to explain their beliefs to themselves, and that would up the cognitive dissonance to uncomfortable levels. Better to remain obtuse and metaphorical.
I consider the possibility of trolling because their reply’s really are completely vacuous. The better part of me wants to think they aren’t really that poor at thinking.
The cynical part of me imagines Steven Novella sitting at his keyboard trolling you for shits and giggles
If he weren’t so busy being superman that is.
cwfong asked:
And here we go again.
We are asking a scientific question and cwfong opens his philosophy book.
Oh well….
That question was in reference to a video recommended above by titmouse where the physicist and cosmologist, Larry Krauss, was discussing, as a scientist rather than a philosopher, what he sees as our spontaneous universe.
Some of us are here trying to learn from each other in spite of the noise coming from the peanut gallery. The referenced encyclopedia does cover scientific matters, and cosmology in particular, which is what this post was originally about. until some knuckle dragger tried to hijack it.
cwfong,
“…the noise coming from the peanut gallery….some knuckle dragger…”
Flattery will get you nowhere.
“Some of us are here trying to learn from each other”
That’s right. So why don’t you try educating us by speaking clearly except in riddles, rhymes and metaphor? My guess is that you’re regurgitating stuff you don’t understand. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Try making one post that states clearly something you think is important to communicate to your fellow posters.
“The referenced encyclopedia does cover scientific matters, and cosmology”
I was referring to your preferred question which is clearly of a philosophical bent rather than the scientific bent that Krauss is discussing in that video.
You hijacked that video, just like you hijacked my coin toss.
Krauss asks “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Others with a cosmological bent ask “Why wasn’t there nothing rather than something?”
Others who are offended by the brain numbing scent of philosophy ask us to dumb down the format. To multiple choice perhaps? Give them some simplistic “whys” to choose from? Trying answers ’til they get one right? On the certainty that multiple flip-flops are ultimately determinate of truth? Sure, that’ll work.
cwfong said: “Others who are offended by the brain numbing scent of philosophy ask us to dumb down the format.”
We aren’t asking you to dumb anything down. We are asking you to be clear about your points and reasoning. Being vague and non-specific doesn’t make you right or intelligent, it just makes you pointless to converse with.
I still have no idea what your main point is.
“We aren’t asking you to dumb anything down. We are asking you to be clear about your points and reasoning. Being vague and non-specific doesn’t make you right or intelligent, it just makes you pointless to converse with.”
That’s it. Pointless to converse with. That’s why I italicised the word communicate in the sentence, “Try making one post that states clearly something you think is important to communicate to your fellow posters”.
Richard Dawkins can write a book on evolutionary biology aimed at evolutionary biologists which would be incomprehensible to the intelligent layman. But he is also capable of communicating the same ideas in a book aimed at the intelligent layman.
With cwfong and sonic we have no idea if they are incapable of communicating their ideas to their fellow posters or if they are massaging their own egos.
My suspicion is the later.
“I still have no idea what your main point is.”
I suspect that we are never going to find out.
I’ve seen this ploy before: say something really simple but make it sound really mysterious. Drop a few names and post a few enigmatic quotes. The hope is that everyone will think they are oh so clever. Then, when someone sees through their defences (because that’s all it is), and calls them on it, attack with ad hominems that question that person’s intelligence. Already we’ve had “peanut gallery”, “brain numbing”, “dumbing down”, and “knuckle dragger”.
But the thing that really pisses me off is that they come on here all puffed up full of self importance attacking the author of this blog whose ability to actually dissect a situation and to communicate the results simply and clearly leaves them struggling even to breathe.
My original point was that Dr. N’s take on Lanza is contrary to the take of Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at John Hopkins University- who said,
“And what is their underlying thesis? They present it as a long list of Principles of Biocentrism that have no individual value, in my opinion––but the heart of it, collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say “the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.” That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics. So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private– –furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Bless Robert Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with it.”
As far as what I believe about the interpretations of QM-
I know there are many. I have stated I doubt anyone of them is correct. I know with certainty that none of the ones listed in the document I have referenced have been shown false.
I don’t know the answer, I am willing to try to understand why someone believes what they believe, particularly when that someone is one of the great scientists of all time. (I also know that some great scientists were also kinda nutty, but hey…)
BillyJoe7 and perhaps some others present that they know that one of the possible interpretations of QM is false. I have asked for the proof of this, all I get is name calling.
Clear enough?
sonic, you have to remember that any disagreement with the author of this blog, while welcomed by that author when done respectfully, as you have always done it, is considered an attack by those who take anything the author writes on faith. In part because they aren’t capable of fully understanding what he writes to begin with, and thus doubly incapable of understanding any valid counter arguments.
Especially the mental defective who as you noted starts with belligerence, and makes the first ad hominem reference to quantum woosters, later escalating to “New Age” quantum woosters, as if quantum mechanics is the equivalent of superstition.
I personally have vowed to never directly address this idiot, but obviously he feels that knuckle dragger is a fitting epithet.
I suppose I should be sorry if that tends to piss him off. After all, he can’t help it if his apelike curiosity gets the better of him.
sonic,
“BillyJoe7 and perhaps some others present that they know that one of the possible interpretations of QM is false. I have asked for the proof of this, all I get is name calling.
Clear enough?”
I have given you a couple of initial reasons already and asked for a response from you that you have completely ignored.
In case you have forgotten, here they are again:
In the famous double-slit experiments the “observers” are nothing more than sensors placed at the slits to detect the presence of quantum particles. Do you disagree?
If the universe remains in superposition until consciousness evolves, and consciousness cannot evolve while the universe remains in superposition, how did consciousness evolve?
I have also specifically asked for your help on a couple of questions and you have steadfastly refused to provide that help. Here they are again:
I was given a link and resonded with the following:
“That is a 24 page document.
If there is something relevant please point it out.
A quick perusal fails to find anything usefull to the question of whether consciousness is necessary for the transition from the microscopic probabilistic world of quantum physics to a macroscopic deterministic world of classical mechanics.
Are you willing to help?”
What does that following mean:
“A multiverse that has had at least one component of awareness as far back in time as Hawking’s proverbial nothingness left off”.
At one point you said: “I don’t rule out the ‘consciousness causes collapse’ notions.” To which I responded: “Well, I asked for an experiment that demonstates this effect, otherwise you might as well say that you don’t rule out invisible pink unicorns”.
Are you able to link to such an experiment?
If not, do you agree that we may as well include invisible pink unicorns in the list?
Finally please clarify exactly what point you were trying to make when (while discussing the possible role of consciousness in wave function collapse in quantum physics) you replied:
“As far as consciousness effecting the outcome, I would point to the Golden Gate Bridge and ask, “Is that the result of conscious behavior?”
———————-
Sonic,
You pretend to be a fence-sitter not discounting any of the various interpretations of quantum physics, but it is clear to me where your bias lies. This is your first post here on this thread:
So, out of all the various interpretations of quantum physics (listed in that 24 page link) you single out one particular interpretation as an example of the “richness of possibility”. And you approvingly quote a particular university professor as saying “the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around…that is factually correct…it is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics”. And then you say (your own words this time): “Bless Robert Lanza for creating this book”.
So, come on, sonic, you are no fence sitter. You’ve been lured into this quantum consciousness nonsense hook line and sinker, but you’re too embarrassed to admit it. In your own words: “we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private– –furiously blushing as we mouth the words”.
It’s about time you started to defend your position.
cwfong,
It’s just that I have met this sort of non argument time and again. And, time and again, it is impossible to get past the language problem. It really is time you dropped the self defence, suffered the embarrassment, and state simply and clearly what you mean.
If you think I do not understand what Steven Novella said, you are wrong. Try me? If you think I never disagree with him, you are also wrong. But, if you think I don’t understand what you are saying, you are right but the problem is yours, my friend, and you need to take a good look in the mirror.
Finally, I’ll just repeat a request I made yesterday:
Try making one post that states simply and clearly something you think is important to communicate to your fellow posters.
Because, really, what is the point otherwise in stating it.
People like sonic that I want to have a fruitful dialog with have no trouble understanding me. And since this is not my blog, I have no way to deal with those who have a need to maintain their ignorance at my expense except to try to ignore them.
BillyJoe7-
Your question about the observers in the double split experiment is a good one. I’ll quote “About Time” by Paul Davies–
“…when we inspect events in the quantum domain, we see a specific, concrete, single reality, not a ghostly superposition of worlds. This ‘collapse’ of multiple possibilities, of statistical expectations, into a unique actuality remains one of the great unsolved puzzles of physics.
Many scientists are adamant that the ‘concretization’ of quantum reality has nothing whatever to do with the mind, but others maintain that the mystery of the ‘collapse’ and the mystery of consciousness are intimately bound up with each other.”
I don’t KNOW more than that.
I don’t know how consciousness evolved- or that it did.
As far as the paper I referenced- it contains all the interpretations of QM that fit the experimental evidence well. You will note that ‘consciousness causes collapse’ is on the list. That is the relevant point.
I’m not exactly sure what cwfong meant by that comment.
The experiment that demonstrates that consciousness causes collapse is the totality of each and every experiment. (See the Davies quote) (Note its inclusion on the list I referenced).
The Golden Gate Bridge seems to me to be an example of a reason to believe that it is possible that consciousness plays a unique role in the functioning of the universe.
I’m glad you know my position better than I do, perhaps one day I will have the insight into my thinking that you have.
cwfong-
I do try to be respectful, Dr. N certainly deserves that.
sonic, I meant by that comment that consciousness, as you just noted, plays a unique role in the universe.
I pointed at the meaning later when I wrote: “The postulated laws of (at least) our universe are regulatory, and as such could not exist without their regulative functions being capable in some fashion of observing the effects of regulatory efforts. A self-observant feedback reactive universe seems to fill the bill here.”
What’s so hard about that to understand? If a poster doesn’t think that nature’s so called laws are postulates of humans, I’m not interested in proving to him that they are. Not if he hasn’t considered in addition that no matter where or how the laws originated, they are regulatory, whether by divine guidance of the proverbial sort, or self regulated.
Consider homeostasis for example. If biological forms are self regulated, where in the universe did that strategy come from?
And then consider this from Wikipedia: “However, any homeostasis is impossible without reaction – because homeostasis is and must be a “feedback” phenomenon.”
Should Wikipedia consider that sentence too obtuse for their readers? Neither should I if I suggest some measure of homeostasis could be universal. I would then expect the poster that has gotten that far in their understanding to know that feedback is a function requiring some form of observation and awareness.
Therefor we might expect, or at least suspect, that the universe evolved its laws along with its other functional apparatus and did so with some element of awareness from the time Hawking’s proverbial nothingness turned into somethingness.
The irony here is that I haven’t said anything that you didn’t already know of, or that those who’ve earlier insulted our intelligence who will want to know of.
cwfong,
“People like sonic that I want to have a fruitful dialog with have no trouble understanding me.”
How come, then, that he has singularity failed (as you have) to explain it?
“And since this is not my blog, I have no way to deal with those who have a need to maintain their ignorance at my expense except to try to ignore them.”
I’ll take that as a “no” to my question: Can you state simply and clearly, in terms we can understand, something you think is important to communicate to your fellow posters.
sonic,
Paul Davies: “…when we inspect events in the quantum domain, we see a specific, concrete, single reality, not a ghostly superposition of worlds. This ‘collapse’ of multiple possibilities, of statistical expectations, into a unique actuality remains one of the great unsolved puzzles of physics.
Many scientists are adamant that the ‘concretization’ of quantum reality has nothing whatever to do with the mind, but others maintain that the mystery of the ‘collapse’ and the mystery of consciousness are intimately bound up with each other.”
Did he give an opinion?
Does he buy into quantum consciousness?
cwfong,
“consciousness…plays a unique role in the universe”.
You state that like it’s a fact.
On what basis have you decided that it is a fact?
Let’s see:
“The postulated laws of our universe are regulatory, and as such could not exist without their regulative functions being capable in some fashion of observing the effects of regulatory efforts. A self-observant feedback reactive universe seems to fill the bill here.”
How is that word “observing” anything other than a metaphor!
Is a thermostat conscious because it regulates temperature by means of a feedback loop, or does a thermostat simply regulate temperature by means of a feedback loop (with no implication regarding consciousness)?
That is a rhetorical question.
“…feedback is a function requiring some form of observation and awareness.”
So you do think a thermostat is aware?
“Therefore we might expect, or at least suspect, that the universe evolved its laws along with its other functional apparatus and did so with some element of awareness from the time Hawking’s proverbial nothingness turned into somethingness.”
The Conscious Universe!
Welcome to the World of Woo.
( And I can see now why sonic was so embarrassed)
sonic, we have here an idiot who doesn’t know that without consciousness, there would be no such thing as thermostats – or those bridges that he thinks were predetermined by the great first flipper in the sky.
A tool who doesn’t understand that tools were evolved to serve our purposes, not their own.
http://hyboria.xoth.net/img/ape_men.jp
Oops, http://hyboria.xoth.net/img/ape_men.jpg
BillyJoe said,
That’s only because you agree with him that this nonsense should be taken seriously.
Of course I agree with him that this “nonsense” should be taken seriously. Why else would I have posted that comment? I don’t say that with any pretense of understanding QM. I say it with the knowledge that there exists disagreement on this issue within the physics community. Although I don’t know about yourself, I note that Steve N is not a physicist so I am surprised that he has such strong convictions.
That’s just because you disagree.
No, it’s because you (and Steve N) are using terms like “woo” as a tool to ridicule an issue that is taken seriously by many physicists. It doesn’t seem like the behaviour of a mature adult that’s all.
cwfong,
You’re sounding more and more like another poster who has already changed his name at least once. I can’t quite put my finger on the names, but it should come to me soon. In fact, I’m sure the name “cwfong” made an appearance round about the time that that individual – or at least his name – disappeared from this blog.
Why your message has to come wrapped up in such ridiculous dishonesty is beyond me. Perhaps it gives that damaged ego of yours a kick along. I don’t even know any more if you really believe in the shit you post here but certainly I’ve given up caring.
Unfortunately, your real victims are those who are fooled by your inanities. Like sonic. And, who was it back there who made an appearance in one post to lick your ass? davidsmith?
Of course, I haven’t given up on the idea that all these people are one and the same person – you, whoever you are.
Anyway, you’re some seriously fucked up dude that’s for sure.
cya,
BillyJoe
(The “cya” means I’m not coming back to this thread. However, if you ruin any other threads, I’m calling you out whatever name you choose to use next time round)
My last comment is awaiting moderation.
Considering what I posted in it, it may not see the light of day.
Seriously cwfong/sonic/davidsmith give it a rest.
The game is up.
cya,
BillyJoe
Ok Billy, back you go to your sandpit.
davidsmith (alias sonic (alias cwfong)),
Hold up a bit. You haven’t read my moderated post yet.
I am not sonic or cwfong
davidsmith,
“I am not sonic or cwfong”
Okay, it’s just that I find it difficult to believe that there are three posters simulataneously posting on a science blog who all believe this nonsense. But, for the moment, I’ll take you at your word and invite you to carefully read cwfong’s last few posts. They provide ample evidence of his dishonesty. By which I mean his refusal to state cleary and simply what he actually believes. I mean, if he is so embarrassed by his views, why does he actually hold them?
Sonic has already stated that he is embarrassed by his point of view. So why doesn’t he just abandon the embarrassing nonsense about quantum consciousness? What doesn’t he abandon this nonsense about the conscious universe? What compelling evidence could cause him to maintain his belief in the face of that embarrassment? Of course now he is saying he doesn’t actually believe in it, only that he does not discount it on the basis that some emminent physicists seriously entertain it. Yet, that’s not the tenor of his first post which I re-posted above. Don’t you agree?
Back to cwfong.
Consider this sentence written by him:
I have been trying to get him to clarify this point for days now and he finally let the cat out of the bag in response to sonic replying to me that he doesn’t understand what cwfong means by it either:
So I called him on it with the comment, “the conscious universe!”, meaning that his statement amounts to a belief that the universse itself is conscious. Of course he has neither confirmed nor denied it – as is his typical style. He likes to remain as mysterious as he can get away with about his actual views which never ever seem to get clearly enunciated.
Why does he not just say something like: “I believe that the universe itself is conscious. I believe, therefore, that consciousness was present from the very moment of the Big Bang at the very start of the universe.”
So, what do you think? Does his statement not imply that there was consciousness from the moment of the Big Bang, that the universe itself is conscious? If so – and I would still like to hear him confirm that view as explicitly as possible, though I won’t hold my breath – do you also subscribe to that view?
Then he talks enigmatically about feedback loops. I interpreted that as meaning that he believes feedback loops are the basis of consciousness. But, when I try to clarify if that is what he is indeed saying by asking if he thinks thermostats are conscious he does not answer the question. Instead he questions the intelligence of someone who doesn’t know that thermostats are produced by conscious beings. Which, of course, wasn’t the question. And again his views remain as enigmatic as it is possible for them to remain without giving the game away completely.
In your first post here you supported sonic who seems to agree with every word written by cwfong; and you disparaged my efforts here in the process. So I invite you now to read again what cwfong has written and to clarify with him any points you do not understand. I think you owe me that much.
cwfong reminds me of the scientologist who tries to get you in by degrees but never quite manages to tell you the story about Xenu:
Yes, it’s true, I and certain others here are all part of a conspiracy that is responsible for maintaining a certain class of humans in a state of ignorance. It has nothing to do with the natural state of their comprehensive skills.
And of course how could it! When we evolved from apes, we were all moved to an equally higher level of cognitive abstraction.
Unfortunately the hierarchal power structures were maintained by our respective cultures, which evolve separately from our brains, and since we humans could no longer subjugate the dumb by virtue of their natures, we found ways to establish and maintain a hierarchy of the relatively ignorant.
We have done this partly by using a particular language developed by the Erewhons of new Zealand, which cleverly replaces certain metaphors with deceptiphors. According to Samuel Butler, an early proponent of directed evolution, this has helped tremendously to subjugate the Maoris.
We of the cognoscenti then established separate schools that teach this language to the chosen few. In the US, we hide those schools within the university systems in certain States – mostly in California and Massachusetts. But I might be lying when I point that out.
OK, so cwfong is either trolling or he’s further off the deep end than we imagined. I’m going to leave him be.
Geez, I thought he’d never leave.
cwfong,
That last post confirms my suspicions.
Please come clean and list your aliases on this blog.
There are at least two (making three names in all) that I can remember if indeed it doesn’t also include sonic (which would make four).
davidsmith-
There are a number of interpretations of QM that fit the experimental evidence. I find that interesting. I wonder which is correct- or perhaps none of them, or perhaps they all are giving us a hint at the truth.
I don’t know.
For this reason I try to keep my comments on this board to only those things that are backed by world renown physicists.
It seems that many people who haven’t studied the matter fully have very certain positions on these matters.
I would give those people a break (I was one of them not that long ago).
And besides- the stuff is weird!
Sonic, the problem is that those who need to live with certainty think that those of us who live quite happily with uncertainty must be hiding something. The speculative aspects of science, and especially in the field of cosmology, are beyond their ken.
Chowbok W Fong.
The biggest problem for the ‘consciousness causes collapse’ hypothesis is that it isn’t falsifiable. (at least nobody has figured out an experiment to do that.)
I like the many-worlds hypothesis too.
In some universe my father is alive and visiting me now. That’s nice to know.
Oh, and never mind the women I know in those other universes.
How can I not like that hypothesis?
Sonic, you would probably enjoy reading Quantum Evolution by Johnjoe McFadden. (In spite of a first name that is less than reassuring.) He feels that it’s the ‘many worlds’ that can account for both the collapse phenomena and for a central mechanism of evolution.
His theories are not mine, and I won’t try to summarize them here, but they’re out there and deserving of consideration. Even when we disagree with some assumptions, we should see that as an opportunity to refine our own assumptions in the process.
sonic,
“I try to keep my comments on this board to only those things that are backed by world renown physicists.”
Some world renown physicists are Creationists.
Do you also give credence to creationism?
“It seems that many people who haven’t studied the matter fully have very certain positions on these matters.
I would give those people a break (I was one of them not that long ago).”
That’s a novel argument:
I used to believe X is wrong
I now believe X is right.
Therefore X is right.
Brilliant!
“And besides- the stuff is weird!”
Yeah, but not that weird.
And I note that cwfong has neither confirmed nor denied his dishonesty in posting here under multiple aliases.
Neither will he confirm or deny my clear outline of what I believe his view to be on “the conscious universe” and feedback loops.
Oh well, I guess that says something.
BTW,
Remember that link to the 24 page article called “Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and the measurement problem”. Well here is the section titled “Reduction by consciousness” which I quote in its entirety. But pay particular attention to the highlighted bits:
Now, remember, this link was offered by one of my antogonists here supporting “collapse by consciousnes” as a respectable interpretation of quantum mechanics. Do you perhaps get the idea that the authors are laughing as hard as I am.
I love it when a woomeister’s own links argue against his point of view. And, believe me, it happens more often than you would think possible. Here are those highlighted bits again. Savour them. Enjoy. And have a good belly laugh at their expense – because, hell, they damn well deserve it:
the interpretation of a reduction by consciousness of Wigner can be considered as a scheme where QM is not complete, indeed consciousness acquires an extra-physical role and cannot be described by the theory.
such a point of view considers the mind out of physical world, than can be considered a weak point.
what about the universe evolution? The universe is remained in an extremely complex entangled state
up to when the first jelly-fish had a first foggy perception of it? Or it has been bound to wait for the transition between homo erectus and homo sapiens?
To everyone else still reading:
I have, on many occasions throughout this discussion, been accused of ignorance about quantum mechanics as well as being mentally deficient.
In my defence I quote Victor Stenger below:
And in a more expanded form:
…oops, that last quotation mark is accidental.
In case it hasn’t already been mentioned:
http://quantumenigma.com/
also takes the idea of consciousness in QM seriously.
An idiot’s interpretation of sonic’s previously quoted thoughts:
“I used to believe X is wrong
I now believe X is right.
Therefore X is right”
Except that the higher order thinkers aren’t restricted to the use of syllogistic logic.
Sonic was actually sympathetic to those with “very certain positions on these matters.” He wanted to give them more of a break than I might want to. Simply because he was less likely now to adhere to certainty than he had been. Parsing that as follows:
“I used to believe X was correct. I now suspect that X was less than correct. Therefor when presented with Y which is not X, by letting go of certainty I’m able to take a clearer look at the possibilities presented by Y.”
That’s how the open minded skeptic thinks, which is more likely to be inductive than limited to the deductive of the apes and ancients.
Like the one who claims his real name ends with a number.
cwfong-
I read that book (Quantum Evolution) and had some communication with Johnjoe. Very nice guy.
In his book he proposes a definition for ‘life’ that I found especially interesting– I think it is probably an important part of the puzzle.
And still no clear and direct statement from cwfong regarding:
1) What exactly it is he believes.
2) If he believes that the universe is conscious.
3) If he believes thermostats are conscious.
4) If he has appeared here under multiple aliases.
To which I will now add the most important question of all which will defintely not receive an honest answer:
5) The underlying motivations for believing what he does.
Consciousness exists on earth.
Earth exists in the universe.
Consciousness is able to exist in the universe.
Therefor consciousness is or is not ubiquitous
Corollary: Even apes intuitively self regulate.
cwfong,
“Parsing that as follows:
I used to believe X was correct. I now suspect that X was less than correct. Therefor when presented with Y which is not X, by letting go of certainty I’m able to take a clearer look at the possibilities presented by Y.”
Parsing that as follows:
I used to believe evolution was correct. I now suspect that evolution is less than correct. Therefore when presented with creationism which is not evolution, by letting go of certainty I’m able to take a clearer look at the possibilities presented by creationism.
I hope you get my point here.
Others have stated it otherwise:
“Keep an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out”.
And then, of course, there’s Ockham’s Razor:
The results of experiments in quantum physics can be interpreted in purely physical terms without resort to the non-physical/supernatural/immaterial, therefore there is no need for that additional assumption.
Billyjoe7-
I’m glad you read at least some of the article I referred to.
If you continue reading, you will find that there are difficulties with all existent interpretations.
The difficulties come in two main forms-
1) the hypothesis doesn’t fit the math (any collapse hypothesis) and
2) the hypothesis doesn’t fit our experience (any non-collapse hypothesis).
Deciding which hypothesis is most likely based on personal incredulity seems to be usual, although I’m not sure it is in order. (Heisenberg used to accuse Einstein of such behavior- just in case anyone thinks I’m trying to insult anyone here)
BTW- I don’t mind communicating with you, but I never intend to upset you or to make fun of your beliefs or thoughts. I will continue to discuss these matters if you like, but only if doing so will not cause major upset to you.
Otherwise, you can assume my comments are for others and you can feel safe to ignore them.
Are we OK on that?
“Consciousness exists on earth.
Earth exists in the universe.
Consciousness is able to exist in the universe.
Therefor consciousness is or is not ubiquitous”
I mean that is so deep I can’t even stand up anymore
Oh well…
sonic, glad to hear that Johnjoe is a nice guy.
Chowbok7
TWIMC:
The appeal to Occam’s razor is problematic when employed to rule out a theory. Whatever we eliminate by parsimony we can easily reintroduce by an inference to the best explanation.
Example: Self-engineering is by far a better explanation than deistic determinism and the 7th version of theistic determinism.
cwfong-
Johnjoe is writing a book about Ockham’s Razor (that’s how he spells it, but his spelling can be odd)- I thought it would be out by now, but not yet. I’ll be interested in his take.
goddidit is very parsimonious if you think about it. Perhaps too much so.
That position has been modernized to claim goddidit by stochastic process.
CWF
http://machineslikeus.com/MLU-interviews-johnjoe-mcfadden.html?page=0%2C1
Ironic that on the level of abstract ideation Ocknam’s razor is used to support quantum physics, and on the level of apelike intuition, it’s relied on to deny it.
By the way, it’s been implied that it had to have been me that said things like this on this blog about youknowwho7:
“What we have here is a clear track record of an individual who consistently engages in self-deception and intellectual dishonesty. If you continue to engage in such behavior, then you forfeit this debate by virtue of default.”
I can assure you that wasn’t me. I’d never use “intellectual” with reference to an ape.
Where are sonic and Paisley when you need ‘em? lol
I mean bindle and Paisley.
Sorry sonic. :O
Last I heard they were fighting with each other over at Rationally Speaking. Ran out of common enemies I imagine.
sonic,
“Johnjoe is writing a book about Ockham’s Razor (that’s how he spells it, but his spelling can be odd).”
Johnjoe’s spelling is correct.
As is the ABCs: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/default.htm
But the alternative spelling (Occam) is acceptable.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424706/Ockhams-razor
sonic,
“I never intend to upset you or to make fun of your beliefs or thoughts. I will continue to discuss these matters if you like, but only if doing so will not cause major upset to you.
Otherwise, you can assume my comments are for others and you can feel safe to ignore them.”
Well, at least you mean well, but give it a break, sonic.
I come from a land where, during a game of football, we try to obliterate our opponents both verbally and physically but, afterwards, share a drink and a joke at the local pub.
cwfong,
“http://machineslikeus.com/MLU-interviews-johnjoe-mcfadden.html?page=0%2C1″
Very little to dispute here except the interviewers crude comparison of epigentics to Lamarckism which Johnjoe quickly puts to rest.
cwfong,
“Whatever we eliminate by parsimony we can easily reintroduce by an inference to the best explanation.”
The best explanation is always the explanation with the least assumptions. The best explanation may turn out to be wrong but it is always wrong to add unnecessary assumptions.
sonic,
“goddidit is very parsimonious if you think about it”
Not if you really think about it
“I mean bindle and Paisley.”
Yes, bindle, who was preceded by [still can't remember] and is now being succeeded by cwfong.
If they are not one and the same person, they must be monozygotic triplets
A terrific article that summarizes the current situation well–
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/65056/title/Clash_of_the_Quantum_Titans
sonic, that surely is a terrific article. A science writer that really did his homework.
This excerpt comes closest to what I’m working on:
“The general consensus is that the amount of information that nature can store in a very tiny volume of space and time is gigantic, it is so tremendously big that there is no hope whatsoever to follow this thing with any rigorous mathematics at all,” ’t Hooft said in July at the Euroscience Open Forum conference in Turin, Italy.
But mathematical tools are available to deal with such situations — namely, the math of probability and statistics. In fact, ’t Hooft’s investigations suggest that statistical equations describing this world of information too small to be seen would reproduce the features of quantum mechanics, including superposition and entanglement.”
Note that information, if that’s what we’re dealing with, has to be in service of informing something that will have to be aware of it to make use of it. And if that use must be continuous, the future, as far as any universal awareness is concerned, is probabilistic.
The motto of the universe may be that “Everything is always iffy.”
But seriously, I’ve been trying to point out what I thought was fairly obvious, that the universe uses information strategically, all laws and structures formed accordingly. In short the universe “behaves,” and we represent a stage where such behaviors are continuing to evolve.
A stage in the Shakespearean sense as well, where behaviors act to evolve themselves. Such stages pervasive in their universal times and places.
cwfong-
I get that.
The universe as information is an area that seems ripe with possibility.
I thought the motto was, ‘either something happens or it doesn’t.’ (I’m thinking the quantum of action as the basic building block of the universe)
But of course I joke sometimes.
Happy hunting!
sonic,
There is a “why” component of the action quantum that contemporary science has been slow to deal with. Why equals purpose and the idea that anything outside of life is purposeful (or even life itself for that matter) scares the apeshit out of them.
artfulD is back
….well he probably nevery left I just didn’t notice until now.
I was posting here long before this other advocate of purpose (and they are legion in the evolutionary sciences) came and went.
Although I had to laugh when that poster came up with what he called a CCBowersism:
“Purpose is a quality that you attribute to an entity or idea by looking at the outcome, and is not something intrinsic to that entity or idea. ccbowers.” (Google)
If he had a dictionary he would have seen that it’s the opposite:
purpose |ˈpərpəs|
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists : the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee | the building is no longer needed for its original purpose.
• a person’s sense of resolve or determination : there was a new sense of purpose in her step as she set off.
• (usu. purposes) a particular requirement or consideration, typically one that is temporary or restricted in scope or extent : pensions are considered as earned income for tax purposes.
verb [ trans. ] formal
have as one’s intention or objective : God has allowed suffering, even purposed it. See note at intend .
****
Another fool who, when he can’t attack the message, attacks the messenger.
“artfulD is back”
That’s it!
How could I forget?
artlessDodge.
arfulD -> bindle -> cwfong/sonic
———————————-
cwfong/sonic/bindle/artfulD said:
So this is what motivates you:
Teleology.
For your information, science does not deal with the “why”. It deals with the “how”. But, in fact, delving into the “how” has provided science with the corollary that there is no “why”. This is one of the main lessons of 150 years of Darwinian evolution. The random mutations in the genome and the constant struggle amongst organisms for limited resources in a changing and contingent environment are sufficient to explain the evolution of human beings. There was nothing driving the evolution of human intelligence, it all just happened as a result of random mutation and natural selection.
Teleology is a religious idea with no supporting evidence that has been effectively discredited by science.
Science has shown that teleology is a unnecessary assumption.
Ockham’s Razor cuts deep into personal prejudices.
The remaining puzzle is why do you believe in teleology?
What is your motivation?
Why it should scare the apeshit out of people I have no idea, but it certainly gets the bullshit flowing out of others.
Apparently even subatomic particles have conscious purpose.
Heck, the whole universe is conscious.
The Big Bang willed itself into existence.
cwfong said,
“Another fool who, when he can’t attack the message, attacks the messenger.”
When the messenger repeatedly refuses to clearly state his message or answer simple questions regarding his message in order to make it comprehensible to the people to whom he is supposedly communicating that message, then what is there left to do but attack the messenger.
TWIMC:
Speaking as I have been of teleonomy, here’s something more about the “why” of evolution, at least at the biological stage, which I don’t expect the apes to understand, so I have excerpted it just as written by a couple of very brainy people:
Excerpted from The Pillars of Darwinism, Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb,
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jablonka1/English
“Recognizing that there is more to heredity than DNA has implications for medicine and agriculture, as well as for evolutionary theory. For example, we know that some environmental insults and stresses, such as temporary starvation, can affect future generations. In evolutionary studies, because heritable non-genetic variations are often induced by the environment, we have to expand our notion of heredity and variation to include the inheritance of acquired variations, the once disparaged idea that was part of Lamarck’s theory.
In a sense, we have to go back to Darwin’s original, pluralistic convictions. Darwin, unlike many of his more dogmatic followers, saw a role for induced variation in evolution. Today, in the light of the newly discovered epigenetic mechanisms, Darwinian evolution should include descent with epigenetic as well as genetic modifications, and natural selection of induced as well as random variations. Certainly, it should not be reduced to “selfish genes.”
Eva Jablonka is Professor at the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel-Aviv University, and Marion Lamb was Senior Lecturer at Birkbeck College, University of London.”
Teleonomy is related to programmatic or computational aspects of purpose. Even Richard Dawkins has described the properties of “archeo-purpose” and “neo-purpose” in his talk on the “purpose of purpose.”
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE, Arthur M Young
A Selected Excerpt
p. 12
THE QUANTUM OF ACTION
Recall that science excludes purpose from its formulations, and that for science the three parameters, mass, length, and time, suffice. I believe the rejection of purpose and the omission of the fourth parameter, action, are one and the same. If we were presented with only the parts of a machine, we could not deduce its purpose; one must see the machine in operation to discover the purpose. Purpose is not physical and action (in the sense of the quantum of action) is not observable; we can observe a change of state due to action but not action itself; so, too, we can observe the result of purpose but not the purpose. These clues point to the dependence of purpose on wholeness.
They also expose the fallacy of reductionism in that reduction of the universe to mass, length, and time no more proves the nonexistence of purpose than the reduction of a machine to its elements proves that a machine has no purpose and is “nothing but” its parts.
But how was it possible for science to reduce everything to just three parameters, when my analysis had given me to believe that there are four, not three, aspects required to account for things? Where was the fourth?
Quantum physics provided the answer. The quantum of action (photon) has the measure formula ML2/T. If action comes in wholes which cannot be further reduced, then action is the whole of which the three parameters, mass, length, and time, are parts! Thus the fourth element is really the first-the whole from which the other three are derived!
Thus we restore the element of purpose, without which there will be no action quantum.
Foundations of Biology: On the Problem of “Purpose” in Biology in Relation to Our Acceptance of the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection
Paul S. Agutter and Denys N. Wheatley
Abstract
For many years, biology was largely descriptive (natural history), but with its emergence as a scientific discipline in its own right, a reductionist approach began, which has failed to be matched by adequate understanding of function of cells, organisms and species as whole entities. Every effort was made to explain biological phenomena in physico-chemical terms.
It is argued that there is and always has been a clear distinction between life sciences and physical sciences, explicit in the use of the word biology. If this distinction is real, it implies that biological phenomena can never be entirely satisfactorily explained in terms of extant physicochemical laws. One notable manifestation of this is that living organisms appear to — actually do — behave in purposeful ways, and the inanimate universe does not. While this fundamental difference continues to be suppressed, the purposiveness (or teleology) which pervades biology remains anathema to almost all scientists (including most biologists) even to the present day. We argue here that it can, however, become a perfectly tenable position when the Theory of Natural Selection is accepted as the main foundation, the essential tenet, of biology that distinguishes it from the realm of physical sciences. In accepting this position, it remains quite legitimate to expect that in many but not all circumstances, extant physical laws (and presumably others still to be discovered) are in no way breached by biological systems, which cannot be otherwise since all organisms are composed of physical material.
teleology |ˌtelēˈäləjē; ˌtēlē-|
noun ( pl. -gies) Philosophy
the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.
On the Chemical Nature of Purpose (Teleonomy)
Addy Pross, Ben-Gurion University, Department of Chemistry, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
Abstract
Chemistry enables us to understand the properties of chemical systems based on their chemical structure. For example, we understand why water is soft, why ice is hard, and why metals are shiny and conduct electricity. However this kind of understanding is lacking for the basic properties of living systems. For example, one of living systems’ most striking characteristics is their purposeful (teleonomic) character, but a chemical understanding of that character and, in particular, how it might have emerged, remains missing. In this talk we will explore the chemical nature of purpose within a general framework that attempts to further clarify the physico-chemical relationship between animate and inanimate systems. One key element of the analysis is our proposal that all living systems constitute a kinetic state of matter as opposed to the traditional thermodynamic states that dominate the inanimate world. Thus we will argue that a traditional physical organic approach, based on the well-established concepts of kinetic and thermodynamic selection, can help explain the emergence of biological systems with their striking properties – such as purpose – in relatively simple chemical terms.
You are definitely bindle and artlessD.
Same modus operandi:
Name dropping.
Extensive quoting.
Incomprehensible verbiage.
Failure to answer simple clarifying questions.
Dismissal of your questioners as too ignorant to understand.
And, whenever I go to the quoted reference, I find that the authors are not saying what you think they are saying – except for the cranks of course.
And in any case…
I can find you a hundred scientists who deny AGW.
So what?
cwfong,
“Speaking as I have been of teleonomy”
Nope.
Teleonomy:
“Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of apparent goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history.”
That is what Richard Dawkins is about.
Teleonomy v Teleology:
“The term teleonomy was coined to stand in contrast with teleology, which applies to ends that are planned by an agent which can internally model/imagine various alternative futures, which enables intention, purpose and foresight. A teleonomic process, such as evolution, produces complex products without the benefit of such a guiding foresight.”
Teleology is what you are about.
Looking back, I see that other posters have tripped this ape up by direct debate, exposing his dishonestly (as did Paisley and bindle). Especially Paisley, who was the quantum mechanics guru. (Hey, maybe I’m him as well!)
I remember pointing him to the inventor of the checkerboard illusion, whereupon the ape stated that the illusion didn’t really work the way the inventor said it did. And then insulted me for agreeing with the inventor. Whereupon I realized that there was no point in trying to teach him anything.
But he’s a good foil to use as an example of how the ignorant protect themselves.
I set a trap for him here and he stepped into it as usual.
Teleonomy and teleology can be applied to the same process, as the examples showed, neither having any reference to theism.
The primary definition of teleology is, as I stated, the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes. To repeat: The purposes they serve.
In theological doctrine, these phenomena serve theistic purposes, and by their definition teleology becomes the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
Thus the full dictionary definition: teleology |ˌtelēˈäləjē; ˌtēlē-|
noun ( pl. -gies) Philosophy
the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.
• Theology the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
Dawkins believes that purpose is apparent but illusory, while the scientists I’ve referenced point out, for example, that “Purpose is not physical and action (in the sense of the quantum of action) is not observable; we can observe a change of state due to action but not action itself.”
So if there actually is no purpose served by anything, then teleology has no substance, whether in philosophy or theology.
Even so, we have the ape in search of the usual red herring, which clearly shows that at least for apes, that purpose is alive and well.
He picks a part of the Wikipedia definition that he thinks serves his purpose, not realizing that teleonomy is still teleological.
If the ape could both read and understand the following he might actually learn something:
Ernst Mayr (one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists) distinguished between two different kinds of natural processes that appear to be “goal directed”:
“Teleomatic processes: Processes that simply follow natural laws, i.e. lead to a result consequential to concomitant physical forces, and the reaching of their end state is not controlled by a built-in program.
The law of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are among the natural laws which most frequently govern teleomatic processes. Examples include the cooling to ambient temperature of a red hot bar of iron and the falling of a rock to the ground.
Teleonomic processes: Processes that owe their goal-directedness to the operation of a program. The term teleonomic implies goal-direction. This, in turn, implies a dynamic process rather than a static condition, as represented by a system. Examples include the development of an adult organism from a fertilized zygote and the building of a dam by beavers.”
See, thanks to the shit throwing proclivities of apes, I get to read Ernst Mayr again!
If you’re someone who’s really interested in the subject, here’s a good blog post
Three kinds of teleology
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2478
cwfong said:
Paisley, as far as I remember, is a quantum consciousness woomeister. Because you agree with him doesn’t make him a quantum mechanics guru.
Your comments about that illusion were about as clear as the comments you are making here about “purpose” and “quantum consciousness”. I was the one who posted the illusion and my purpose was to illustrate my point of view about something. Whatever the inventor intended by his illusion was irrelevant.
Don’t kid yourself.
Words have different meanings. The meanings I chose were to distinguish Richard Dawkins view of “purpose” (the appearance of purpose) in evolution from what I think your view must be (deliberate intentional purpose).
It was another one of my frustrated attempts to get you to say something clear and exact about your point of view . It seems I have failed once again. I mean, you could simply have said: I agree with Dawkins that “purpose” in evolution means the “appearance of purpose”, or I disagree with Dawkins, I believe there is “deliberate intentional purpose” in evolution. We’re not even getting to the discussion part because you refuse to say simply and clearly exactly what you mean, no matter how many times I invite you to do so.
(And, of course, I am talking here about Dawkins archeo purpose, not his neo purpose, in case you try to muddy the waters once again.)
Of course I picked a definition that served my purpose!
What? I should choose a defintion that doesn’t serve my purpose!
…depending on your definition.
The definition for my purposes:
Teleology: deliberate intentional purpose.
Teleonomy: the appearance of purpose.
They are Dawkin’s “neo-purpose” and “archeo-purpose” respectively.
Trapped into revealing he makes up definitions to suit his purposes.
definition |ˌdefəˈni sh ən|
noun
1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.
• an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something : our definition of what constitutes poetry.
• the action or process of defining something.
How will he now define definition, except perhaps to say an exact meaning is whatever he thought it was before he looked it up.
Looked into his addled brain perhaps, where definitions run amok.
“Whatever the inventor intended by his illusion was irrelevant.”
I expect he intended to define its purpose, relevant to the average human’s degree of understanding. Apes notwithstanding.
Those definitions were not made up.
It is a commonly used distinction between teleology and teleonomy.
I was selective about which definitions I used, and I did that deliberately to suit my purpose which was to try to clarify your meaning of purpose in evolution.
But, hey, anything but answer the question.
Forget the definitions and answer this question:
Is the purpose you see in evolution deliberate intentional purpose or the appearance of purpose?
Does that mean I cannot exapt (evolutionary neologism meaning to take over the function of
) if for my purposes?
Maybe you haven’t heard: We are all apes.
Another lesson from evolution.
Ape’s initial definition:
“Teleology is a religious idea with no supporting evidence that has been effectively discredited by science. Science has shown that teleology is a unnecessary assumption.”
Ape is led to drink from Dictionary trough:
Teleology: The explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.
Ape’s new definition:
“The definition for my purposes:
Teleology: deliberate intentional purpose.”
Causation irrelevant to the phenomena observed? No further need to postulate a cause? Well at least not religion anymore.
Jablonka: “In evolutionary studies, because heritable non-genetic variations are often induced by the environment, we have to expand our notion of heredity and variation to include the inheritance of acquired variations, the once disparaged idea that was part of Lamarck’s theory.
In a sense, we have to go back to Darwin’s original, pluralistic convictions. Darwin, unlike many of his more dogmatic followers, saw a role for induced variation in evolution. ”
Aoe: “Is the purpose you see in evolution deliberate intentional purpose or the appearance of purpose?”
Jablonka (channeled): Service of acquired purpose doesn’t fit either of the above options. Evolution is not an either/or operation. Purpose, as I have just indicated, is induced. (Ghostly laughter.)
cwfong.
You have lost the historical perspective:
Teleology originally referred to anything that was designed, the implication being that the design was intentional.
Subsequently, this term was expanded to include anything that even just gave the appearance of having been designed.
Finally, those unhappy with this expanded definition, devised the new term, teleonomy, to describe anything that only gave the appearance of design.
To see how the three kinds of teleology fits into this scheme, let me first summarise these three kinds of teleology:
Teleology of the first kind:
(Intentional design)
Human action: an intended future state is the cause of behavior in the past of that state.
Human artifacts: the functions of these artifacts express the human designer’s intention for the artifact.
Teleology of the second kind:
(Unintentional design – by Natural selection)
Replicators are selected as they compete for scarce resources, and adaptation produces design without intention.
Teleology of the third kind:
(Unintentional design – by the Laws of Physics)
The laws of physics produce order out of chaos.
Clearly these three kinds of teleology map onto the original definition of teleology and the definition of teleonomy as follows:
The original definition of teleology teleology of the first kind.
The definition of teleonomy teleology of the second and third kind.
..oops, those last two lines didn’t print properly.
Try again:
The original definition of teleology => teleology of the first kind.
The definition of teleonomy => teleology of the second and third kind.
Jablonka:
There is little evidence that inherited non-genetic variations survive for more than a few generations at most. The reason for this is that they do not imprint onto the genome, or at least that there is little evidence that this occurs or is important. Even in the most optimistic scenario finds an extremely limited role, if any, for this type of inheritance.
cwfong,
Quit the pretense, fongy.
This is nothing more than Richard Dawkin’s neo-purpose.
And it fits the definition of “teleology of the first kind”.
Well, we do map into apes, I’ll grant him that.
They served their purposes.
Bwahahaha
Fongy,
Well, at the end of this long exchange, it seems I’ve had your measure right from the start.
The unwarranted promotion of fringe science (and barely even that!) as progressive mainstream, and an underlying motivation that is so well hidden under a barrage of incomprehensible verbiage that we can only guess at it.
I was hoping that I was wrong and that you actually had something useful to say, but it seems not.
“Teleological evolution” and the “quantum consciousness” are interesting historical cul de sacs from the viewpoint of modern science, but only the fringe dwellers still think there’s anything useful there to explore.
The scientific world has moved on and you have missed the bus.
Oh well…
Multiple choice:
1) Organisms exhibit adaptation in order to survive
2) Organisms exhibit adaptation because those that were less adaptive didn’t survive.
One is a teleological explanation and the other is a functional explanation.
The bus to the zoo is out of “service.” I’m on the A train with the Jablonkas and Shapiros. (The A stands for acquisition.)
We’re off to give some solace to those quantum people. To thank them for their service to our purposes.
As usual, he’s left off the ‘none of the above.’
Organisms purposively revise their strategies in order to adapt. Adaptation is not a function, it’s a process with a functional purpose. Survival is a byproduct of that purpose.
Anyone purporting to reflect the “viewpoint of modern science” will understand that, whether they agree with it or not.
fongy,
Come back when you can actually communicate, there’s a good boy
See what I mean. He claims to have no idea what I said, because the alternative is to admit that he was wrong – not only that but woefully in error, since it’s so bloody obvious.
Then he resorts to racial innuendo, but again that’s nothing new, especially with respect to Asians.
That’s his idea of “actually communicate.”
And pretends to wonder why I refuse to talk to him directly. Not gonna happen.
cwfong,
(In case you took too much offense to “fongy”)
No idea what you mean. Really, I don’t.
No, I really don’t. Well, actually, I have some idea but what you say is always so full of ambiguity that it is difficult to be sure which makes it difficult to respond in any meaningful way. You know, maybe it takes more than a sentence to explain your point of view. And you have to understand that I don’t read the books you do. If you haven’t read Daniel Dennett (have you?) you would probably scratch your head if I started talking about cranes, skyhooks, and good tricks (are you?). In any case, I wouldn’t insult you by doing so.
But I read your link about the three kinds of teleology and I didn’t seem to have any trouble understanding that. I even summarised it for you. Was it spot on? At least it was a clear invite to enter a discussion, but all I got in return for risking exposing myself to ridicule was, well, ridicule: “Well, we do map into apes, I’ll grant him that. They served their purposes. Bwahahaha”. And that’s not the first time that sort of thing has happened. I can only guess at the reason.
You are here to spread propaganda. That’s all I can see. And I’m here to call you on it. It’s just unsupported fringe science bordering on nonsense that most scientists have left behind a long time ago.
As for being wrong, I am actually happy to be wrong and to see why I’m wrong because that means I’ve learnt something. I like to have my mind opened to new ideas. But I’m not going to give anything a free pass like you’re expecting. From that point of view, this discussion are been completely sterile for me.
“Although I had to laugh when that poster came up with what he called a CCBowersism:
‘Purpose is a quality that you attribute to an entity or idea by looking at the outcome, and is not something intrinsic to that entity or idea. ccbowers.’”
Only bindle would quote me out of context like that. That quote that you love so much was not my definition of purpose, but was my explanation of what bindle meant when used the word. In other words, he was applying the purpose to the entity instead of actually obtaining any new information about the “why” questions.
Keep in mind that I think science can help answer “why” questions, but it is limited. It certainly does not answer the type of “why” questions bindle/arfulD/cwfong like to ask
Bowers: Your doppleganger writes:
“The laws of physics produce order out of chaos.”
The reason science can’t ask why for that is because the assumption itself (like most of his and your banalities) is incorrect.
It’s not that science can’t ask the whys that the more astute among us ask, it’s that the less astute such as you two simplistic literalists can’t understand the answers.
“It’s not that science can’t ask the whys that the more astute among us ask, it’s that the less astute such as you two simplistic literalists can’t understand the answers.”
Thanks for the vague jibberish. Again, you fail to read what I wrote. I never said that science cannot answer ‘why’ questions…. it is commonly done. The problem is that you are looking for “why” when science is addressing the “who, what, where, when…” Putting the cart before the horse takes you nowhere good
ccbowers:
Scientists (which you two clearly aren’t) look for who, what, where when and how (which you left off) to answer why. Why represents the level of abstraction that science was intended to ascend to. (Gibberish to you of course.)
A more apt analogy than carts and horses is that “why” is the carrot on the stick that the donkeys seek but cannot seem to reach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick
cwfong,
First of all, thanks for explaining your charge of racism.
It was much appreciated.
I should leave those blockquotes alone.
Here it is again:
————————–
cwfong,
First of all, thanks for explaining your charge of racism.
It was much appreciated.
Actually, that was my summary of “Teleology of the third kind” as defined in that link you. provided.
Yet it is your link. And you introduced your link with the words: “If you’re someone who’s really interested in the subject [of teleology], here’s a good blog post”. Excuse me, but when someone links to a blog post with the words “here’s a good blog post”, I’m inclined to think he agrees with its contents.
What assumption? I mean anyone else would state clearly what that assumption is, why they think it is wrong, and then provide their own interpretation.
No. It’s that obscurantists like yourself are simply unable to explain clearly what you mean. It certainly protects your ideas from attack but the irony is that no one gets to find out what those ideas are that you are trying to promote.
“Scientists (which you two clearly aren’t) look for who, what, where when and how (which you left off) to answer why. Why represents the level of abstraction that science was intended to ascend to. (Gibberish to you of course.)”
Completely uninformed/ignorant insults aside, I do not disagree that this can be true. Certainly the “who, what, where, when” can help answer the “why” questions, but the problem arises when you attempt to answer the why questions before the science/data is prepared to address them. You can jump to all sorts of conclusions just because a lack of data.
Your tactic is to speak in generalities and throw in personal insults in-between. It really does not make for a compelling discussion
TWIMC: Nowhere in that cited blog post does it say, or even imply, that “The laws of physics produce order out of chaos.” So much for honest or intelligible discourse.
Laws don’t “produce” anything. Laws regulate. That’s the purpose that they serve. Who or what caused order in the universe so far remains a mystery.
Bowers, I in particular have never insulted anyone who didn’t insult me first.
The tactics of you both have invariably been to attack the message by first attacking the motives of the messenger.
You don’t need to then display your lack of analytical abilities – except by these tactics alone you make such shortfalls obvious.
“I in particular have never insulted anyone who didn’t insult me first.”
Well thats completely untrue. See these posts, I have yet to insult you personally, and certainly not before you referred to me as a “fool.” Not that it bothers me, but it is certainly untrue that you “have never insulted anyone who didn’t insult me first.”
Why keep changing your name and pretending that you are a different person? You are certainly talking like I’ve insulted you in the past.
# ccbowerson 16 Nov 2010 at 6:28 pm
Fluffy thinking. Not only by Lanza, but some of the commenters here.
# ccbowerson 23 Nov 2010 at 10:53 pm
artfulD is back
# ccbowerson 23 Nov 2010 at 10:57 pm
….well he probably nevery left I just didn’t notice until now.
Those weren’t meant to attack the messenger rather than the message?
Give me a break.
Plus I naturally resent your attempts now to back up the belligerent efforts of your partner in offering offense as argument.
So you might consider this an attack as well, especially if you come to recognize your error:
New ccbowersism: “but the problem arises when you attempt to answer the why questions before the science/data is prepared to address them.”
The why question is the first step in forming an hypothesis, which is what drives the search for the data that you seem to think should already be there for the hypothesis to falsify somehow.
Here’s the definition of hypothesis that supports what I just wrote (although feel free to make up your own):
hypothesis
noun ( pl. -ses |-ˌsēz|)
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
• Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
You may also recall that sonic and I discussed the speculative aspects of science and the necessity of therefore living with uncertainty.
I speculate that for you two, that’s the “problem that arises.”
cwfong,
I summarised three long paragraphs into three lines. Give me a break. I also asked politely if you agreed with my summary. Have “produce” translate as “result in” and my concise three line summary is, I think, pretty accurate.
Well, I could just as easily argue with the accuracy of your choice of verb as well. Laws “produce”. Laws “have the result that”. Laws “regulate”. How about: laws describe observed behaviour and subsequently observed behaviour is just as adequately described by these laws so that it seems as if these laws actually regulate/produce/result in this behaviour.
Whose purpose?
And if the “what” is a multiverse, the laws serve no purpose at all. They just are what they are in the universe in which we find ourselves. And if they weren’t we wouldn’t be here to observe what they are.
Here is the relevant part of your link describing teleology of the third kind:
He starts with an illustrative example:
Then he describes what has happened:
Then he provides an outline of an explanation of how order has appeared out of chaos:
The explanation is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
(Or, in the general case, the Laws of Physics).
Then he provides a more detailed explanation:
Finally:
So, you may quibble and complain about the word “produce”, and I would join the chorus, but my three line summary is pretty accurate:
“Teleology of the third kind:
(Unintentional design – by the Laws of Physics)
The laws of physics produce order out of chaos.”
—————————-
Please also note the following phrases from your link:
“order that looks designed”
“water wants to shed heat as rapidly as it can”
“[water] needs to form convection cells”
“Such systems may spontaneously develop a dissipative macroscopic organization that looks purposive”
I keep getting the impression that you want these italisised words to be literally true rather than metaphorically true but it’s hard to tell.
“Those weren’t meant to attack the messenger rather than the message?
Give me a break.”
Really? Thats all you can come up with? If those are insults then what is the bile that you type? If anything my comments have been unnecessarily civil. The fluffy thinking comment was not an attack, but was almost a compliment given the comments being made. And I’m not sure why bringing up your previous username is an insult. For someone who likes to directly attack people’s intelligence, you have some thin skin.
ccbowers, how thin my skin is would not be your problem if you didn’t start off by attacking me instead of my message. Simple as that. No-one was spouting bile here except the jackass attacking sonic. His belligerence was plain for all to see. Angry at me as well because I’ve long refused to deal with him at all. So here comes little ccbowers to see if he can provoke me into dealing with his fellow jackass. All upset now because I poked him back.
Arrack my ideas if you will, but to attack my motives when you can’t attack my ideas is not only dumb but dishonest.
Both of you are here under aliases, and let me speculate in turn as to your motives. Is it because you want to pretend to be scientists (or somewhere in the trade at least) but don’t want anyone to check out your credentials? Hey, nobody will even want to as your lack of scientific acumen is painfully obvious.
CWFong is the name I use in the English speaking world. You want to check out my background in science, have at it.
Want to trade insults? Remember, I can hit you in your ideation, while all you two can do is spout nonsensical banalities that you hope will pass for science.
So keep it up – nobody else could come up with those ccbonmots on purpose. I’m starting a collection.
You have yet to point to a single personal attack I have made. Remember “fluffy thinking” criticizes your thinking, and unless you actually have fluffiness as a personal quality… is not a personal attack.
The terms “fool” and “idiot,” however, which you have used here are attacks. But I realize it is pointless to point this out to you: you have to rationalize your actions.
Also, I do not have to answer to BJ’s comments…. I don’t know the guy personally and he can speak for himself just fine. Don’t lump us together to make it easier for you to generalize. It just shows the weakness of your perspective that you have to do so. If you have anything of substance to add to this post, I’m interested. If you want to talk through insults, I’m not interested.
TWIMC:
“Teleomatic processes: Processes that simply follow natural laws, i.e. lead to a result consequential to concomitant physical forces, and the reaching of their end state is not controlled by a built-in program.
The law of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are among the natural laws which most frequently govern teleomatic processes. Examples include the cooling to ambient temperature of a red hot bar of iron and the falling of a rock to the ground.”
Ernst Mayr
Frequently govern, not cause. Not design, unintentionally or otherwise.
Bowersism,
‘“fluffy thinking” criticizes your thinking, and unless you actually have fluffiness as a personal quality… is not a personal attack.’
Criticizes my thinking in no detail except to compare it to Lanza’s? And that was before I even made a comment here – none of which were favorable to Lanza. But you just had to try to tie me to him, didn’t you.
The very definition of gratuitous insult, wouldn’t you say?
Not interested in that? Not substantive enough?
Can you give me an example of substantive? Something teleological perhaps?
Otherwise it seems we’re done here.
cwfong,
You are just playing with words now.
Ernst Mayr said:
To which cwfong replies:
But you missed the bolded parts:
“processes following natural laws”
“lead to a result”
I think my word “produce” fits in reasonably.
chaos + physical law -> (ie “produce”) order
That’s all I meant. Get over it already.
Yes, it looks designed. It looks intentional. Just as I said. This is often written in scare quotes: “designed” to indicate that it only appears designed. That blog’s author used scare quotes on other words as well for the same reason:
water “wants” to shed heat.
If you’re not denying this, what eactly is it that you’re denying about the modern synthesis?
And where does quantum physics tie in?
It seems we’re not the only ones confused about cwfong posts.
In this thread:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=467
Daedalus has the same problem – and about the same topic!
Here is Daedalus’ attempt at getting cwfong to explain what he means:
Amazing isn’t it. I have asked almost exactly the same questions as Daedalus!
Did I get that right? Am I using the terms in the way that you are meaning them?
And here is cwfong’s ever helpful reply:
After this Daedalus seems to have given up.
Perhaps there’s a lesson for me there.
TWIMC: Laws are metaphors for how the universe appears to us to regulate itself. We make laws on earth to regulate our behaviors and wonder at the apparent lawful properties of nature. We govern ourselves and choose governors, and wonder if nature does the same. We tend to appoint Gods as governors for both ourselves and nature, but that’s another story.
Yet there remain those who believe that laws are the vehicles by which the governors of universes apply their forces. I don’t happen to be one of them.
NO stands for Nitric Oxide. I’m reminded that some posters here are fascinated by its “life like” properties, and NO jokes are often the result. No?
Nitric Oxide is an inert gas. Yet it will exhibit a predictable reaction according to its very complex programming.
We don’t know what programmed it or why. It is not by my understanding alive (although I’ve been met with a difference in that opinion). It doesn’t seem to me to have the necessary set of options. Yet I’ll concede it is essential to mammalian life as a signaling or messaging molecule.
Hence a group of enterprising fellows appointed it “Molecule of the Year” in 1992.
One fellow named after a mythological tinkerer who misunderstood the laws that governed tinkering.
There was a lesson in there for him, but he had a hard time with drawing inferences. No?
cwfong,
That thread was not about NO.
And you replied “No” not “NO”. No?
That makes 2/3 rds of your post irrelevant.
The “universe regulates itself” is itself a metaphor.
In my opinion, it’s just a metaphor based on a piss poor analogy.
Ditto.
But what exactly is it you believe in?
Do you believe in a conscious universe that brings itself into existence and directs itself towards goals?
There must be some reason you believe in quantum consciousness and lamarckism. The evidence, after all, is at least sparse and tenuous. Fringe science. Why do you give it a prominence that it clearly does not deserve?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iydIGkll6e0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoQenR-rE3I