Evolution, QM and Metaphysics

[Quantumtheologica1]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]This is from an article by Gerald Schroeder:

In 1923, almost a decade after Einstein published his general relativity theory, the French physicist Louis de Broglie introduced an idea that was even more bizarre in its assertions than Einstein's claim that matter really was a form of energy.
[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]De Broglie claimed that all matter has related to it a wave length and a frequency of that wave, a certain number of wave cycles per second. Not only had humanity learned that matter was not matter, we now had to believe that everything is a wave. Everything—you and I included. Seventy years of experiments have sustained both Einstein's and de Broglie's claims.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]The floor upon which you stand and the bedrock that supports a skyscraper are 99.999% empty space. What we perceive as solid matter is actually de Broglie's waves separated by open space, made impermeable by invisible, immaterial fields of force that somehow pervade the space. The world simply is not as it seems. A superficial reading of nature finds differentiation and disparate entities — stars and stones and bottled water and even life and death. Reading that same nature at a deeper level reveals that it's all a manifestation of a single underlying unity. I'm on our balcony. The afternoon Jerusalem sun is filtering through the yellow-green finger leaves of a eucalyptus tree planted a century ago to mark the property line. De Broglie tells me the leaves and the light are one. Not poetically — though that also — but physically, they are one.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy. In the words of John Archibald Wheeler, the renowned former president of the American Physical Society, recipient of the Einstein Award and Princeton professor of physics, underlying all existence is an idea, the "bit" of information that gives rise to the "it" of matter.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]The substructure of all existence, we suddenly realize, is totally ethereal, an idea, wisdom. Or in Hebrew emet — an all encompassing reality. Emet is the ultimate building block from which all we see and feel is constructed. Just as the secondary substructure of all matter is something as ethereal as energy, as per Einstein's fantastic insight, so, the primary substructure of energy is still more elusive. Existence is the expression of an idea, an eternal consciousness made tangible. We are the idea of God.[/font]


Now let me expand:

First, I have to say that the study of quantum physics is very interesting. I personally think a materialistic worldview and Darwins Theory as it is defies logic and reason to believe. The only reason that the Quantum revolution has not overtaken the Darwin revolution is because many in science, agnostics and atheist use Darwin to prop up their belief system. This is why Theology and science clash when they shouldn't. God Created science and the firmament showeth His handywork. I think an atheist is an atheist because of lack of reason. That's not an insult but an observation. I mean how can you not have a Holistic view in light of Non-Locality and Bell's Theorum, and Quantum Entanglement? Then when you realize that there is a macroscopic realm within a microscopic realm, then the next question should be, what's beyond the quantum?


Now lets talk about evolution, how is random evolution plausible?


A DNA molecule is like a computer chip. They may not look like anything special but they have a job to do. The question is how did evolution give rise to information? Or did information give rise to what is labeled evolution? I will go with the latter.


You can't just look at evolution from a biological standpoint, but a sub-atomic standpoint then you have to look beyond the Quantum. This is Metaphysics, Moses Maimonides said:


[font=Arial,Helvetica]"We must form a conception of the existence of the Creator according to our capacities; that is, we must have a knowledge of metaphysics (the science of God), which can only be acquired after the study of physics; for the science of physics is closely connected with metaphysics and must even precede it in the course of studies. Therefore, the Almighty commenced the Bible with the description of the creation, that is, with physical science."[/font]

In other words the study of physics, leads to Quantum physics, which leads to Metaphysics.

First you have to ask what caused physical evolution to occur.

Then you have to ask what happend on a Quantum level as it pertains to evolution.

Then you look for the Metaphysics as it pertains to evolution and therein lies the answer.

I will leave you as I started with a quote from an article by Gerald Schroeder:

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20 to the power of 300 (that is 20 multiplied by itself 300 times) or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10 to the power of 390 ( Ten multipled by itself 390 times or more simply said a one with 390 zeroes after it!!!!!) . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.[/font]

THANK YOU, LORD JESUS!

 

[Lilandra]

curious about the reaction you will get. You have added something to my concept of the nature of God to consider

 

[Tenacious-D]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20 to the power of 300 (that is 20 multiplied by itself 300 times) or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10 to the power of 390 ( Ten multipled by itself 390 times or more simply said a one with 390 zeroes after it!!!!!) . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.[/font]

This paragraph of yours tells us all we need to know about your lack of knowledge on this topic.

If ya can't do the math right then why should we accept any conclusion thereby inferred?

 

[funyun]

Is this the part where somebody mentions the Uncertainty Principle, and explain to Quantumtheologica1 that real, true omniscience is impossible, to which he retorts something along the lines of "god knows anyway?"

Or does someone ask Quantum what place "god", whatever that term means, has in a universe that is perfectly able of governing itself? Or in a logical reality that is perfectly capable of governing itself?

A small correction: There is no such as empty space. Space doesn't exist.

 

[HRE]

Or should we debunk the basic principles of the argument, which say that evolution is entirely random, that it explains the origin of life, and that it creates no new information?

 

[Randall McNally]

Huh. I wasn't aware that quantum mechanics stood in opposition to evolutionary theory.

Yet another example of David Gould's spot-on observation: A superficial understanding of QM can permit one to be wrong in spectacularly esoteric and pseudo-philosophical ways.

 

[Quantumtheologica1]

First Tenacious D, how many amino acids make up a protein? How many amino acids are in humans? Then tell me how the math is wrong. Explain it, you can't just say it's wrong then expect that to be it.

Second Funyun, tell me why the Uncertainty Principle applies to God? God is not subject to the laws of the universe or the theories of the universe, He Created the Universe. I chuckle when I hear questions like this asked because you first have to define God in your mind in order to ask such questions. You are acknowledging God's existence while trying to refute it. You have to acknowledge a god in your mind who is subject to the Uncertainty Principle which makes no sense. This is why I say atheist wouldn't be atheist if they didn't try to define God. When they ask questions like how could God do this or how could God do that, they are defining a god with the limits of man before they even ask the question. Who would believe in this strawgod that you make up in your mind and then knock down?

A 4 dimensional being could look at you and see the inside of your body. He could travel back and forth on our timeline and see what action we would take next. Would the Uncertainty Principle apply to this being? Remember String Theory is in 10 dimensions, M-theory 11. So why do people say don't hinder exploration in science but they limit God? I believe more people would believe in God if they didn't first limit God in their minds.

THANK YOU, LORD JESUS!

 

[Randall McNally]

First Tenacious D, how many amino acids make up a protein? How many amino acids are in humans? Then tell me how the math is wrong. Explain it, you can't just say it's wrong then expect that to be it.

The better question is, why do you think the spontaneous formation of a biologically useful protein is remotely relevant? It certainly has nothing to do with modern abiogenetic theories.

 

[Tenacious-D]

First Tenacious D, how many amino acids make up a protein? How many amino acids are in humans? Then tell me how the math is wrong. Explain it, you can't just say it's wrong then expect that to be it.

Of course the math is wrong. You cannot say that a protein is made up of each amino acid randomly combining one at a time to give the order you need for that protein. THAT IS AN INCORRECT MODEL. Hence the math is wrong. Read a biochemistry book before looking foolish.

tell me why the Uncertainty Principle applies to God? God is not subject to the laws of the universe or the theories of the universe

Actually you don't know the answer to this. This is pure supposition on your part.

 

[funyun]

Second Funyun, tell me why the Uncertainty Principle applies to God? God is not subject to the laws of the universe or the theories of the universe, He Created the Universe.

The prophecy is fulfilled. And the people rejoiced.

The Uncertainty Principle rests on math. That math matches the physical doings of our universe. God cannot go against logical principles, which he would be doing if he went against mathematics. This is a way of thinking I have been seeing a lot more of recently, and it's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Dragar]

The Uncertainty Principle rests on math.

Indeed it does! I suggest checking out Fourier analysis, particularly of Gaussian distributions. Utterly fascinating, how it drops out of the mathematics.

My personal thoughts are that when you build matter out of waves, the Uncertainty Principle is a natural consequence and a feature of reality, not just of our ability to measure and predict.

 

[FieryBalrog]

another one uses poor knowledge of QM with poor knowledge of evolution (confusion with abiogenesis, confusion with regards to abiogenesis itself) to "disprove" a nothing.

 

[funyun]

Indeed it does! I suggest checking out Fourier analysis, particularly of Gaussian distributions. Utterly fascinating, how it drops out of the mathematics.

Do you happen to know any books or sites that lay it out in an easy enough way for us humble dabblers in science and math? The kinds of equations I have seen when I look up the Fourier analysis go waaaay over my head.

My personal thoughts are that when you build matter out of waves, the Uncertainty Principle is a natural consequence and a feature of reality, not just of our ability to measure and predict.

Well, that's the amazing thing, to me. The Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical thing, not just some weird, unexplainable physical property of our universe.

My personal idea (I don't want to say belief, because I don't believe it; it's just a cool idea, I think), is that eventually we'll find that the physical principles in the universe boil down to some underlying mathematical framework. That is, there couldn't, within the bounds of logic, be any other way for anything to be other than for them to be the way they are. Energy has to exist, and based on pure math, which cannot be breached, interactions follow from that. Gravity is an indirect consequence of math, not just some arbitrary set of physics. The wave property of matter is an indirect consequence of math. Matter can only be as part of wave-particle duality. There is no other configuration, because if there was, that'd be like saying 2x2=9.

So no matter what weird fantasy world you can imagine, it'd be fundamentally illogical for the laws of physics to be any different than they are, because the laws of physics are firmly rooted in logic. To uproot them would be to uproot logic itself.

I dunno, just something I've been thinking about recently. I could be wrong. There could be all kinds of different variations of physical principles based on pure math and logic. The Uncertainty Principle may be absolute, but the wave-particle duality may itself just be an arbitrary quality of matter's configuration in our universe. But I think both concepts are fascinating in their own way.

 

[UniversalAxis]

MetaPysics = Before Physics. When the library of Archimedes was catalogued, there was a book which discussed the 'why's of reality. This book preceded the book on the 'how's of reality. Since the book of 'why's came before the book on 'how's, which was labled 'Physics', it was called 'meta'(before) 'physics'.

Mostly, I just thought this was an interesting fact, but it does present a definition of Metaphysics which should not be ignored. Metaphysics = speculation on the naure of reality. Physics = speculation the laws of the universe. Does this make sense? Is the differece apparent? I hope it is...

 

[Dragar]

Do you happen to know any books or sites that lay it out in an easy enough way for us humble dabblers in science and math? The kinds of equations I have seen when I look up the Fourier analysis go waaaay over my head.

Sadly, I'm afraid I don't. I've only covered it this last few months at university. If I stumble across an explanation at a level you might be more comfortable at, I'll pass it on.

Or, if you really want me to, I'll have a crack at going over how it drops out of the maths qualitatively. It may even be good for my revision purposes.

Well, that's the amazing thing, to me. The Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical thing, not just some weird, unexplainable physical property of our universe.

Mathematics underpins reality. Especially in quantum physics, our predictions are amazingly accurate. I agree it's weird; I do not think it's unexplainable.

My personal idea...So no matter what weird fantasy world you can imagine, it'd be fundamentally illogical for the laws of physics to be any different than they are, because the laws of physics are firmly rooted in logic. To uproot them would be to uproot logic itself.

I agree, that would be nice. You'll note that this is how God's attributes are usually explained when questioned. And I'm not sure the other explanation - randomness - does anything but push the question further back. Where did the rule of randomness come from?

But you get all this.

I dunno, just something I've been thinking about recently. I could be wrong. There could be all kinds of different variations of physical principles based on pure math and logic. The Uncertainty Principle may be absolute, but the wave-particle duality may itself just be an arbitrary quality of matter's configuration in our universe. But I think both concepts are fascinating in their own way.

The Uncertainty Principle is a required the moment you start making everything out of waves, I think. There is disagreement amongst the scientific community (the Professor giving our lectures last semester disagreed with the set reading text on this point!) about what the UP means, however.

 

[SpinaticFanatic]

The Uncertainty Principle rests on math. That math matches the physical doings of our universe. God cannot go against logical principles, which he would be doing if he went against mathematics. This is a way of thinking I have been seeing a lot more of recently, and it's utterly ridiculous.

I agree that the Uncertainty Principle rests on math. Yes Math matches (is a discription of) the physical doings of our universe. As far as limiting God to our universe and its mathmatical principles, this I have problems. You say that God cannot go against logical principles . . . What is logical to God may not be logical to us. I think a proper Theological understanding of God should tell you this. God is not bound by the same rules we are. I believe it was stated in an earlier post, maybe in a different way. God is not limited in the same sense we are and superceeds our limitations.

 

[HouseApe]

I agree that the Uncertainty Principle rests on math. Yes Math matches (is a discription of) the physical doings of our universe. As far as limiting God to our universe and its mathmatical principles, this I have problems. You say that God cannot go against logical principles . . . What is logical to God may not be logical to us. I think a proper Theological understanding of God should tell you this. God is not bound by the same rules we are. I believe it was stated in an earlier post, maybe in a different way. God is not limited in the same sense we are and superceeds our limitations.

Prove it.

 

[JohnR7]

[font=Arial,Helvetica] De Broglie tells me the leaves and the light are one.[/font]

I don't get it. The leaves either reflect or absorb light (colors). Our eyes then process whatever light is reflected off of the leaves. How does that make the leaves and the light "one"?

As a photographer it can be difficult to photograph the color black, because black absorbs light. It does not reflect light. So that part of the photograph tends to be under exposed and no light is registered.

 

[Randall McNally]

I agree that the Uncertainty Principle rests on math. Yes Math matches (is a discription of) the physical doings of our universe. As far as limiting God to our universe and its mathmatical principles, this I have problems. You say that God cannot go against logical principles . . . What is logical to God may not be logical to us. I think a proper Theological understanding of God should tell you this. God is not bound by the same rules we are. I believe it was stated in an earlier post, maybe in a different way. God is not limited in the same sense we are and superceeds our limitations.

This is a self-defeating position. It is not possible to have a "proper understanding" of something within a binary logical system if the subject in question does not obey the same system.

 

[FieryBalrog]

I agree that the Uncertainty Principle rests on math. Yes Math matches (is a discription of) the physical doings of our universe. As far as limiting God to our universe and its mathmatical principles, this I have problems. You say that God cannot go against logical principles . . . What is logical to God may not be logical to us. I think a proper Theological understanding of God should tell you this. God is not bound by the same rules we are. I believe it was stated in an earlier post, maybe in a different way. God is not limited in the same sense we are and superceeds our limitations.

so God can make 2+2=5, since he is not bound by mathematics....