Intelligent Design and negative time feedback

O

OAT

Where is the TAO?
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
If I only knew
from "Is consciousness connected to the fine structure of the universe?" http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/deepak_chopra/2010/04/is_consciousness_connected_to_the_fine_structure_of_the_universe.html
"This month's Discover magazine has a cover story about both of them (physicists Jeff Tollaksen and Aharonov) and they're describing something called time symmetric quantum mechanics. What they're saying is that they do these weak measurements, and I didn't fully understand the procedure, but what they're saying is that information from the future can leak into the present and when it does so, in their experiments, it resolves all the indeterminacies that one finds in all the paradoxes. Implying that quantum physics is teleological, that there's something in the future that's built into the laws of physics or mathematics that determines the present and that time doesn't really have to follow an arrow, it can go backwards and forwards. "

from an article on quantum computation in photosynthesis. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/spooky.htm
"..the basic processes of life we take for granted rely on the transfer of information backward in time."

Question: Does the presence of a feedback loop that flows backward in time weaken the case of intelligent design proponents?
 
Assuming that this is true it will have no impact on the case for intelligent design whatsoever. Any intelligent design advocate could simply say that this feature was "designed in" to the universe. In fact, they'll probably try to put a spin on this idea by suggesting that a timeless God can influence both past and future, but how can a natural universe order itself in this way?

No, it won't weaken their case in the slightest. (Not that they have a strong case in the first place.)


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Thanks Mark, for providing the only response so far.

Here's what I think:

Let's assume that there is a random process that generates various possible configurations of a universe. The more stable configurations will persist while the less stable ones will cease sooner or later. If there is a feedback from the future to the present, or the present to the past, then there would be more impact from stable configurations. This would increase the probability of a stable configuration of a universe coming into existence. In other words, the presence of a negative time feedback loop provides a natural selection mechanism for stable configurations of a universe

Therefore the probability of a stable universe coming into existence by itself can be much greater than that from a mere random process.

When a stable configuration of a universe is selected, the same concept could apply to the emergence of life within the universe.

Therefore, it would seem to me that the need for a device of a creator god to explain the creation of the universe or life within the universe is diminished if there is a negative time feedback loop(s).
 
It seems that all those who are atheist in position have an aversion to there being a creator....of any kind.
The very idea of which seems repugnant to such.
Regardless of what flavor that idea comes in.
This is puzzling.
Perhaps they have some deep inner issues or have had some very bad experience with some form of one of the religions which support these ideas and they are antagonistic to these ideas as a result.
It just seems weird to me.
And unnecessarily antagonistic
It is not really proveable either way if there is or isn't and if one postulates that it is possible, then why is that idea rejected so zealously by those who say it isn't so?
What axe are they trying to grind.....and why?
Is there some deep emotional appeal to the idea that there is no eternal reality or spiritual aspect to life?
Why is it so important to disprove all ideas of a Source of creation?
I can understand seeking to overturn the ideologies of control which the churches have pushed for centuries, but to be so passionate about proving that there is only just this one life, by random chance, which amounts to nothing and means nothing is baffling.
If one believes that then why do they even care what others think as it amounts to nothing eventually.
 
OAT said:
from "Is consciousness connected to the fine structure of the universe?" http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/deepak_chopra/2010/04/is_consciousness_connected_to_the_fine_structure_of_the_universe.html
"This month's Discover magazine has a cover story about both of them (physicists Jeff Tollaksen and Aharonov) and they're describing something called time symmetric quantum mechanics. What they're saying is that they do these weak measurements, and I didn't fully understand the procedure, but what they're saying is that information from the future can leak into the present and when it does so, in their experiments, it resolves all the indeterminacies that one finds in all the paradoxes. Implying that quantum physics is teleological, that there's something in the future that's built into the laws of physics or mathematics that determines the present and that time doesn't really have to follow an arrow, it can go backwards and forwards. "

from an article on quantum computation in photosynthesis. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/spooky.htm
"..the basic processes of life we take for granted rely on the transfer of information backward in time."

Question: Does the presence of a feedback loop that flows backward in time weaken the case of intelligent design proponents?
Click to expand...
These guys don't even have a clue as to what "time" is yet so these speculations are quite moot until they define it in a very concrete and verifiable manner....which they haven't done.
Same with "Light", ....and "Gravity",.....still waiting for those to be adequately defined as well.

Perhaps the energy of "time" is analogous to AC power and this alleged feedback loop is just an alternating current, and that is what they are measuring.
 
shawn said:
It seems that all those who are atheist in position have an aversion to there being a creator....of any kind.
The very idea of which seems repugnant to such.
Regardless of what flavor that idea comes in.
Click to expand...

What gives you this idea? My repugnance on this issue is for bad science.

You need look no further than that. There is no need to play armchair psychologist and speculate on dark motives or secret psychological problems that atheists may have.

I don't assume that theists have psychological problems when they bash atheists. I don't ascribe foul motives when theists are so interested on proving the existence of God to atheists, or when they argue that only God can justify morality, etc.

Come on.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
From everything I have read from all such people of that position (not yourself per-say) it all comes off as a virulent attack against any form of the idea that there is a creator of any kind.
Plus it also comes off as being emotional rather than reasoned.

PS:
I am also disgusted with bad science.
 
shawn said:
These guys don't even have a clue as to what "time" is yet so these speculations are quite moot until they define it in a very concrete and verifiable manner....which they haven't done..
Click to expand...

Have you read this article?
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/spooky.htm
"..the basic processes of life we take for granted rely on the transfer of information backward in time."
 
Shawn,

This is a better article.
Algae Use Quantum Trick To Harvest Light - Science News
"These long-lasting quantum effects may help explain the mystery of why the initial electron-moving reactions in photosynthesis are so efficient. In an extreme version of the algae’s quantum-mechanical trick, electrons could simultaneously take all the possible paths to a photosystem and decide after they arrived which route was best. “That vibrating electron could put some feelers out and see which path to take,” Scholes says. "

If the extreme version turns out to be true, then there would be some kind of information being transferred back in time.

My post was merely a speculation on the possibilty of an impersonal creation process should there be such negative time feedback.

I must say, I was a little taken aback by your reaction.
 
OAT said:
Shawn,


My post was merely a speculation on the possibilty of an impersonal creation process should there be such negative time feedback.

I must say, I was a little taken aback by your reaction.
Click to expand...
Don't worry.....you will get over it.;)
 
It's an interesting idea and I can relate to some degree - but only from a philosophical perspective. If we had a more authoritative comment from quantum physics itself that would make it more interesting, from a scientific perspective. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top