GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,17:59) | QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:
Everything Is Energy - Carl Seeger |
Yes, everything is energy......that's why I was discussing the wave/particle function. Einstein taught us that energy=matter via E=MC^2, and since information is always matter (Can you think of any case where information isn't matter? Even simply reading a letter is neurons firing off in the brain) then we can further those musings for the purposes of Intelligent Design: E=M=I – |
That’s an interesting thought. The theory does not rule out something like that being possible but since it would then require a computer model for the behavior of matter level (that meets the remaining two requirements for intelligence) this would first need to at least be programmable. Any IDeas?
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | When I refer to QM, that is energy either in the form of a wave or a particle (solid) -- ALL matter can be viewed as both, and through quantum superpositioning, it can also be viewed as neither...LOL
Take electricity flowing through a plug-in in my house.....It is both a solid, I can measure flowing electrons in the form of amps, or I can measure it as a wave in the form of hertz. |
For electricity I visualize a wire as a metallic matrix pipeline of (1 quanta of energy) electrons that flow through it (air around it is then like plastic with channel for electricity to flow) which never become solid particles (it just appears as such to us when part of an atom). The Amperage is how many electrons are flowing by. Voltage is the amount of pressure applied by the generator, or solar cell (1 quanta of energy) photon to electron converter.
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | | That energy video you sent me to is really about QM because when we boil everything down, the smallest microstate that will eventual describe a given macrostate...i.e. us, planets, cars, mountains, God etc. are individual particles. |
I agree that QM is (scientifically) what the video boils down to. I would say that is what made the video itself possible. Looks like a morph of Schrodinger’s Equation with swiriling vibrating/oscillating interconnectedness forever traveling us through space and time.
My thinking on that is the Law of Conservation of Matter favors a Cyclic Universe that is 4D (3D+Time) AC wave, macro scale vibration/oscillation. We might keep on going on through the (in electronics) ground state then polarity of the universe reverses to become antimatter polarity. There would be no real bang. In fact the universe is analogous to being zero volts, not there at all, for an infinitely small amount of time while riding the wave through the polarity shift at infinite time speed. Whatever created us is there all along too, powering the eternal journey we are all on together.
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | Please familiarize yourself with the double slit and delayed choice experiments and you will find INTELLIGENCE in those particles....it's there......in physics...not theology.
Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum? LOL) |
I’m LOL here too!
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | It's simply amazing how science describes theology as we study both in one accord. A good example is the theological principle of life after death......that is really science......the law of conservation of energy states that matter (matter/energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.
But people are particles...energy...can that energy ever be destroyed? Nope...Science says no way...upon the death of that individual, the particles that comprise life's energy within that individual can only change....it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics to think that it 'dies.'
That's just one example of what I'k talking about. |
I’m certainly an adherent to the Law of Conservation of Matter, and sure wish we knew how consciousness works!
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | | Quote | | I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of Abiogenesis but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence |
I THINK would agree with this.....
| Quote |
Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:
Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”. |
Could you explain what you mean by 'memories' in that graph....I'm trying to understand you here. Are you referring to information such as one would find in a series of open and closed switches.....bits of data...stored on computer chips, as example...? |
Since I have a few more days than I planned to get the theory ready to print a batch of sample copies I’m adding a fancy charting option for the Intelligence Design Lab computer model. That one is just a screenshot of the monitoring chart from the old model. It shows the curve, but the line representing number of Data bytes (series of 8 open and closed switches) is very low due to one lobe configuration a waste of memory space. The model now has two lobes (and two bytes per Data Memory Address) and would show a nice line. I’ll post it when I have something.
If anyone knows of or finds a LaTeX .tex file with what they would like to see for a line chart then please post the link to it. Only need a standard X/Y to show 2 lines with different scale units. I’ll write a subroutine to output a .tex file with it looking like that, which compiles to a .pdf image so it draws using strokes instead of pixel bits, looks real nice at any magnification.
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | | Quote | | I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias. |
You cannot explain yourself to many in here because they have a predisposed opinion already formed in their minds about anything you will ever say to them. They go to these Web Sites (like talk origin) that are as biased as the most wacky Ken Ham site you've ever read and take away a new religion. It's the way they train their flock....Have you noticed that MOST of the one's who want to argue with you on these sites seem fairly ignorant in science?
It's because they are.....everything they know about life origins they've learned from talk origins..lol |
I’m glad you said that! Even the most famous (stuck in the middle) focal point of scientist anger and ridicule there ever was in the controversy ”Creationist” Kathy Martin has been keeping up with self-assembly and has been well ahead of the curve, and is actually a well NSTA connected elementary level (among other subjects) science teacher that has been following the theory around the forums with me. We both learned a heck of a lot over the years, so did their standards writers on down via long KCFS forum debates over what she is trying to say in words which always gave the mainstream media exactly what they are looking for, for making tons of hoopla with. I would explain what I saw her as trying to say that when all said and done turns into long threads of information needing to go along with it, that no-way would fit in a soundbyte, to begin with.
She did not completely “deny evolution” either, she just had a hypothesis that existing theory was only good for microevolution level work. When tested by this theory going from forum to forum around the internet in time held true. Here we are now, very visibly ahead of the times and better in science than anyone thought possible, because of not stopping at the science-stopper where you’re instead preached to about all that is impossible.
There is no escaping the wrath of Kathy Martin’s legend. After getting reelected (instead of thrown off the board ASAP like many vowed to make happen) then doing surprisingly well impressing her worse critics (at least a little) there are new what she likes to see on the way for more “hands on” standards she is now passing the torch to the another to who now only has to follow the easy path of formality of approving what all were hoping she could approve of. In her case, where her hypothesis proved false this forum would be exactly like it was before and when the Theory of Intelligent Design first arrived in this forum, which in turn shows there was not a silver lining for those who had a hypothesis that the state would forever look backwards in science because of it therefore Kathy takes the blame for people still calling Kansas the “hind teat” of science education, and such. From my radio broadcasting school way of looking at things and from what I know about what it “cost Kansas” it was like supplying the coffee to keep everyone who flocked to the state in creating a tourism boom well charged up!
Good communication with the outside world and theory Kathy saw no harm in at least trying to make more sense of was an awesome learning experience for all of us, maybe especially me. Finally having something “on the table” in regards to standards with all already going well in Kansas, after all, is now what model schools are made of. The heated issue is over, but the theory remains, much their image, with liberal amount of Dover via York Daily Record/Sunday News - Schools and education forum, to make sure it’s by the people and for the people not something all just fight over after some ivory tower authority throws down its decree even I have to hate too.
There is no way out of biggest critics having to accept that (even where for us there is no question whether it is a “real theory” or not) regardless of the religious implications (that go with the turf of a theory this challenging) the following the evidence where it leads from the “Theory of Intelligent Design” that the Discovery Institute brought to Kansas (that had mud a flying, then professor beaten, with Kathy in shock by “scientists” boycotting the hearing followed by banishment)in the end did not hurt our science work any. There is nothing they can do but “Lighten Up!” before it’s too late. Sheryl already spelled this one out and is worth not minding possible short add to help her along a tiny bit for having helped supply the like before its time culture war music for all even Wesley to enjoy too I hope:
Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun
I thought it important to make sure that’s here right now so none panic like someone has to for-real be destroyed. All can easily make their own happy ending, after all. Just have to not be afraid, of the theory of you know what.
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | | Quote | True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level. Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.
I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept. |
How so? If a God exists, you do not believe it is a God of energy? That is QM.....I'm not one to anthropomorphize the Creator as some guy with a long gray beard sitting on a cloud waving a divine rod around creating things...(don't sound like you are either). |
I do not visualize a Santa Claus God either. Nor do Muslims who through simultaneous prayers/meditation towards (but not to) the Black Stone in Mecca to above it produce Allah/God/Creator in energy form. They know a guy with a beard does not arrive with clouds swirling around them while in thunderous words saying Ho Ho Ho (or whatever) does not appear in the sky each time.
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | | If you'll study QM from this perspective, you might be surprised how suddenly all the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together. |
It is not that QM is incapable of eventually answering the big questions, the problem is all that is not yet known. Schrodinger’s Equation does not show what’s in the nucleus of an atom, and is only good for the very simple Hydrogen Like atomic species. And we absolutely need to know how consciousness works. We’re otherwise only able to model unconscious virtual robots, which we are not.
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55) | | Quote | In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior. | Quote |
DNA produces everything in an organism from the physical perspective. |
Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS
Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess. For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.
A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.
HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS
A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.
The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained. Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.
This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:
Source: Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained. The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation. The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".
In science something either exists or it does not. The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”. Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.
The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other. As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.
Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable. For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument. The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).
All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”. When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory. As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.
Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”. This made for a useful debate as to what science is. But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine. Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record. One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.
For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”. Otherwise it is “useless”. There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory. But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.
The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place. For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions
The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause. We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”
To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause. When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together. In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.
In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories. This can make it appear that a new one is not needed. It will then be ignored. To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it. But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously. When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong. Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.
An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another. Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.
https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc
I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment. |
I would disagree with MUCH of that but certainly not all of it. In order to redefine the scientific method which is being done here (at least, it seems to me, to some degree), it is going to take much more than an endorsement from the Discovery Institute... :)
The hypothesis -----> theory -----> law methodology has worked well for the greats of scince and has brought us almost ALL the science we use in the lab today. And that methodology is taught the same today as it was a hundred years ago.
I would think the University of Rochester are hardly laymen when it comes to this stuff:
"An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations;"
"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_lab....xe.html
If I understand you correctly, that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.....in fact how could: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" ever be tested experimentally??
Nor could Popperian though ever falsify it, I'm afraid...
We have to step away from stretching stuff like this....it's one reason some knowlegeable people laugh at us... :) | Quote |
Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper. |
Absolutely false...First, why do you consider major university science departments as "Laymen?" It's where scientists go to be trained. But I can assure you that theories of science CAN be falsified. Indeed another tenet of the scientific method is that a theory will stand until it is shown to be wrong (falsified) or a better theory comes along to replace it.
If one has to redefine the scientific method in order to get their postulates to fit within it, then they are whipped before they ever get to the fight. AND....that postulate will never be taken taken seriously by those who know better.
| Quote | | I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc.. |
But science and the spiritual are the same things...if one thinks they are not, then there is something about one side or they other they are not understanding..Science says we have a non-mind within us.. :)
| Quote | | What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions. The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads. |
Yup...but it is not me adding intelligence into the matter/energy inigma, it is scientific experimentation. We KNOW it is there....our next task is to understand it. |
I can add that it is not that the definitions for theory and hypothesis are inherently wrong it’s that they get overcomplicated to the point of being scientifically useless, by complicating the hell out of them.
Here is how it’s well defined, even though at first you wonder why I had to choose this one:
!!Hypothesis Testing!!
At first I did not see where the video was going but then took a good guess that a hypothesis that holds true for what they are describing is that the box contains just air, because of being empty of anything else. A hypothesis is then proven true or false, but one hypothesis does not make a theory that requires many such hypothesis be tested true or false, to figure out how things work. Standard electronics and engineering practice is to write a “Theory of Operation” of some sort, which the ID theory is for the Intelligence Design Lab. It’s best to stress good scientific practices such as explaining the theory behind the system before calling it done. In some areas of science a “theory” is dwelled upon, while in others it looks pointless and silly, and I’m with them and that one.
What we need to work on is like your hypothesis that the “Behavior of Matter” level of this theory meets all four requirements for intelligence. If that is true then where most simply computer modeled there would be what Superstring type theory that works by obeying the Law of Conservation of Matter which turns into complex virtual matter/antimatter universes forever bringing us back in waves as well. On an oscilloscope AC waves from a stable oscillator are identical, and antimatter in this universe all the tiny exceptions from a noise source distorting wave, never from oscillator that otherwise like clockwork returns normal polarity matter, then mirror image in opposite polarity with a bit of what is then called antimatter. I would say this indicates small distortion/change makes each 4D wave not absolutely identical, maintains a degree of infinite Buttery Effect directed variety not like doomed to endless exact repeat where things have to go exactly as before.
Where behavior of matter is modeled with the same algorithm used in the Intelligent Design Lab whatever changes velocity or other state is a Data Action taken in response to the molecular environment around it. The proper Action to take is by recalling by Addressing the RAM array with what you add for add for virtual Sensors that connect straight into the RAM Address Bus. Antimatter type noise would most likely come from the Confidence circuit fluctuation, due to the program not deterministically restarting the exact same lifetime like when restarting the program, the program goes to the next repeat though a surprisingly quit at that moment Big Bang. Or in other words, where you tweak the Confidence just right there will be antimatter like now, along with whatever else changes along with it from wave to wave.
Here’s the circuit for a one lobe, to help show how you would make each quanta a particle bot in 4D space Motor around inside like this:
In my opinion your IDea based hypothesis works great for this theory, but testing it to be true is here not as easy as opening a box to see what’s inside. This theory requires your model that must work this way to qualify the behavior as intelligent, which makes the model you have been describing relatively easy, in comparison from not starting there. You at least make never seen before virtual worlds, for others to experiment with from there. Having some success with intelligent matter bots would help show your hypothesis might actually be true, even though the question of whether matter actually works that way will still remain. At least have a novel model worth writing about where you just need to figure out how to wire up bots to represent interacting QM particles as in Physics where it’s number crunching math equations. Its algorithm simply addresses a RAM array which right away has data to apply by adding to velocity and other possible states, during each Time Step. It’s not your usual Physics, but it seemed you have the mind for it, well worth my going in as much detail as I can that you would need so you have my thoughts on what you need to make the intelligence part easy to model. I would love to see that!
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
