qetzal
Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 26 2007,16:01) | What I have been presenting here is what I call the Third Choice. A choice other than the status quo and an unidentified Intelligent Designer.
Many ID proponents claim ID isn’t about God. I am giving them the opportunity to stand by their words. Here is an ID hypothesis with scientific justification. The reactions to it are informative. |
Once again, I disagree that you've provided any scientific justification. To me (and to most working scientists, I suspect), scientific justification means some reasonable level of empirical data that supports the hypothesis. I don't think you've provided that at all.
Instead, you've taken some observations about QM, made a series of assumptions, and shown that life is inevitable ("retrocaused") under those assumptions. The problem with that is one can show virtually anything with the right set of assumptions. I don't consider it scientific justification unless there's some evidence to support the assumptions.
Now, maybe I still don't grasp what your Third Choice really says. So let me try to boil it down, and you can tell me if I've got the gist.
1. Particles can be quantum entangled. This is demonstrated.
2. Based on (1), you propose that the universe is interconnected across all of space and time due to quantum effects.
3. For reasons that aren't clear to me, you further propose that living things (perhaps specifically intelligent living things) are required for the universe to exist.
4. Thus, life developed because it had to. The requirement for (intelligent?) life at some point in space-time 'retrocaused' life to begin developing at some other point(s) in space-time.
Is that approximately right? If not, feel free to correct my errors. If so, isn't this essentially just the Strong Anthropic principle?
Regardless of the above, I don't consider your ideas to be equivalent to front loading. Here's why.
In 'traditional' front loading, all of the 'information' needed to generate every possible future organism was loaded into the first organism. Proponents generally argue that it was all encoded into the DNA, but most of it was repressed. The key point is that it was all inherent in that first organism.
You're arguing (I think) that the information needed to generate every possible organism was loaded not into the first organism, but into the universe itself. That's fundamentally distinct. You may choose to call that front loading, but it's not compatible with front loading as it's commonly understood.
|
