Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

quantum "darwinism"

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Mary, Bill, CSW, Tommy, etc. Regarding our previous and ongoing dicussion on the recently posted physics article: Since Einstein physics and philosophy have
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2005
      Mary, Bill, CSW, Tommy, etc.

      Regarding our previous and ongoing dicussion on the recently posted
      physics article:

      Since Einstein physics and philosophy have been necessarily moving
      toward each other. Unfortunately, as CSW has noted in his own field,
      physics is not immune to the publicity manipulating flake, and
      philosophy could be characterized as the intellectual genetic pool of
      flakiness. I must say that I agree with Tommy's Satrean cynicism about
      the use of the term "darwinism", and though I agree with Tommy about a
      lot of other things as well, sometimes, especially in western physical
      science, we have to hold our nose at the stink of obvious
      sensationalism, and make an attempt to get to the implications of a
      publication realizing that for a multitude of reasons the publication
      may be tainted, and information may even be suppressed in self-defense
      by the author, or presented in a read between the lines format. As
      Ryle noted so many years ago, science is still essentially empirical
      in approach, and that empirical veiw has at least allowed for keeping
      religion at arms length, but to gain its future, and all our futures,
      it must surrender empiricism in favor of reasonableness, something
      even Einstein had some trepidation over, exactly for the reasons noted
      by Ryle. I guess for the thoughtful reader the key is to get through
      the noise. In the publishing context, apologies to Castaneda, the
      petty tyrants of culture, religion, politics, and capitalism, can
      still bring considerable pressure to bear on the "free" western modern
      physical science community.

      As I have noted before there is a signifigantly higher per centage of
      confessed Christians in the field of physics than in the general
      population according to recent polls. To be sure this is probably due
      to cultural and economic factors that have simply allowed more
      opportunity to Christian students. As an aside * we really should have
      an atheist scholarship fund in the physical sciences here in the west.
      Religious physicists still tend to use good old empiricism to distance
      their work from their religion, and when I see the term "darwinism"
      used in a publication concerning quantum theory I generally assume it
      is to give a credibility to a piece that is essentially religious in
      its thrust. In this specific article the authors are writing of a
      quantum universe capable of question and answer and driven by a
      quantum dynamic which cognitive humans have no individual control
      over, but it is all for the best. Sounds like an omniscient God to me,
      or Dr. Zorba "life, birth, death, infinity, or Paul McCartney "let it
      be". The problem with religious physicists is that empiricism is
      simply not an adequate tool to keep religion at arms length. It fails
      because it never was adequate and philosophy fought its way through it
      into science a long time ago. Religion today just walks easily along
      that cleared path.

      Matchmakers like the essentially instrumentalist Cartwright saw the
      failure of the empirical veiw in the nascense of quantum theory as an
      opportunity for closer cooperation between philosophy and science,
      promoting reasonableness in scientific observation. She simply did not
      forsee the future political climate of the west nor really grasp the
      effect of culture and opportunity in the western educational system.
      Scientific publications for general realease in the west for the most
      part are about as substantive as eye-winking innuendo, and as
      generally agenda ridden as political party press releases. I may sound
      a bit cynical here, but after all this time I do not believe that men
      like Murayama at Berkley and Cleave in Canada are unaware of an
      impending event in quantum theory that will become in itself a
      universal quantum event. Quantum research has always expected this
      possibility.

      The theory of evolution is essentially a description of a dynamic.
      Most modern physicists regardless of prejudice or agenda agree that it
      is a deeply flawed and almost wholly indefensible theoretical dynamic.
      Given modern quantum theory and simple probability, though it is not
      impossible that men evolved upward from apes, it is far more likely
      that they appeared as a species wholly cognitive because of an
      elemental quantum event. Furthermore it is extremely likely that
      elemental cosmic events like Mary Jo refers to about the presence of
      iron in the world: publicly discredited but covertly respected
      historian Velikofsky postulates that accessible surface iron simply
      did not exist on the earth until after the bronze age, but
      unfortunately we have only the horseshoe crab to point to as a
      biological exception; again though, elemental cosmic events could have
      and more than likely did affect the evolving cognitive progress of the
      human species. Thus the term "darwinism" was more than likely not used
      in the article to protect scientific theory from religion but rather
      to guard the integrity of its religious content. Empiricism has become
      the public mask of religious physicists in the complex modern
      scientific community. You can be sure they believe they will find God
      eventually.

      It should be obvious that at this point we must begin to skeptically
      question the theory of quantum physicists. I found merit in the
      article but nothing fundamentally new to me, and because of that I
      think there is nothing fundamentally new in the article, therefore I
      can only conclude that it is agenda ridden scientific spin-doctoring.
      It is a good deal like religion – masked unreasonableness. I realize
      that I may be accused of having an agenda, so in that spirit I offer
      up this article about the young men who designed the calculator
      interface for Apple computers covertly and for free. Unfortunately in
      this new year I am beginning to wonder like them if the company
      planned it this way all along, nevertheless it is too late to turn back.

      http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,66138,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_8

      Beyond this are my thoughts on some implications carefully avoided in
      the article.

      In the proposed objectivising quantum universe a specific
      reasonableness concerning time and objectivising applies: that is
      whatever is assessibly objective is past and only the dynamic of
      objectivising is present. The answer to the possible effect of human
      collective assessment upon such an objectivising quantum model is
      twofold: the act of human collective assessment is concerned with
      proving the objective thus the past, so though a change may seem
      apparently observable, if it is observable it already exists and
      therefore is past; thus human collective assessment of an
      objectivising quantum universe model may seem to effect a change in
      the past but has no effect whatsoever on the whole since the whole of
      the past already exists, or if a change seems apparent it has already
      happened or pre-existed its recognition.

      I use the word objectivising rather than objectification in an attempt
      to correct a semantical error in quantum theory in this sense:
      objectification is a cognitive act of recognizing objects, while
      objectivising is an act of manifesting objects; or objectivising is
      theorizing objects to prove reality, while objectification is
      identifying and defining theoretical objects to understand reality. In
      the proposed model the dynamic is real while whatever is observably
      objective is not real. If the elemental objectivising activity in the
      proposed model is now exposed to human cognitive assessment it has
      already stopped. The exposure of the model to cognition is indicative
      of a change in dynamic within the model: that is, it is now engaged in
      the dynamic of recollection because the only plausible purpose of
      objectivising is the manifestation of proveable cognition. The purpose
      of cognition is proving cognition is tenable and thus capable of
      continuing.

      When we observe the proposed model, we are observing evidence of the
      model within our own capacity for observation. If we observe certain
      phenomena as seemingly determinist or even instrumentalist it is
      because our own cognition is operating wihin its own philosophical
      limitations. It is clearly unreasonable for us to assume that we are
      observing anything our cognition objectifies in the present because it
      is not possible to do so, and indeed our cognitive objective
      recognition is automatically recollection. To move on in theory we
      must be concerned with observing the dynamic of objectivising and seek
      to define its root cause since though it has manifested a past
      objective universe which is recollectable for us it is not in itself
      only a past dynamic. Because it cannot become objectivised it cannot
      be trapped in the past. Furthermore because it is a dynamic it
      requires parts. If it requires parts to be it cannot be the ultimate
      beginning or an omniscient God. Here once again we find Tillich at
      work, as he is always easily moved to the frontier of discovery by
      Christian slanted cognition, apologies in advance for the paraphrase:
      "we may only know God to the depth of human capacity for
      understanding, there is God beyond out capacity to understand". I
      suggest that Christian physicists should adopt Eckhardt's veiw, again
      apologies: "the human spirit is such a high thing that it would soar
      higher than God, if God were not there to pull it down", something
      even Kierkegaard might accept.

      Quantum theory is at a crossroads. In this new western political
      midnight the real question is who will come down to that crossroads to
      deal.

      Trinidad Cruz
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.