| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ted King" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2004 12:25:05 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Natural selection acts on the quantum world |
I just read an article some people here may find interesting:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
From the beginning of the article:
[quote]
A team of US physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our
objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive quantum
world.
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it,
how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each person
leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to
find?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are
promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they
call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and
gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking
at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see
the same 'preferred' states.
If it wasn't for quantum darwinism, the researchers suggest in Physical
Review Letters1, the world would be very unpredictable: different people
might see very different versions of it. Life itself would then be hard
to conduct, because we would not be able to obtain reliable information
about our surroundings... it would typically conflict with what others
were experiencing.
[unquote]
Deep stuff.
Ted
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural selection acts on the quantum world |
28 Dec 2004 08:56:49 PM |
|
|
"Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lodited-ABEED6.10250528122004@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
I just read an article some people here may find interesting:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
From the beginning of the article:
[quote]
A team of US physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our
objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive quantum
world.
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it,
how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each person
leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to
find?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are
promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they
call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and
gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking
at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see
the same 'preferred' states.
If it wasn't for quantum darwinism, the researchers suggest in Physical
Review Letters1, the world would be very unpredictable: different people
might see very different versions of it. Life itself would then be hard
to conduct, because we would not be able to obtain reliable information
about our surroundings... it would typically conflict with what others
were experiencing.
[unquote]
Deep stuff.
Ted
LOL
--
The argument that everything had a Creator because it's too complicated, is
about as reasonable as saying that it couldn't have been created since it's
too complicated.
It's about like saying that a super flea created a dog. Then
the good fleas go to a great dog in the sky, while the bad unbelieving fleas
are scratched off into a super rug to be forever hungry. If you think dogs
weren't created by a Great Flea then you are an atheist flea.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Natural selection acts on the quantum world |
28 Dec 2004 03:12:43 PM |
|
|
Didn't seem so off topic to me. Not like those reproducing like
tribbles out of Maff's *****. Thanks for the link.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Natural selection acts on the quantum world |
29 Dec 2004 09:33:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:25:05 GMT, Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> in news
message <lodited-ABEED6.10250528122004@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
I just read an article some people here may find interesting:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
From the beginning of the article:
[quote]
A team of US physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our
objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive quantum
world.
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it,
how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each person
leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to
find?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are
promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they
call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and
gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking
at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see
the same 'preferred' states.
If it wasn't for quantum darwinism, the researchers suggest in Physical
Review Letters1, the world would be very unpredictable: different people
might see very different versions of it. Life itself would then be hard
to conduct, because we would not be able to obtain reliable information
about our surroundings... it would typically conflict with what others
were experiencing.
[unquote]
I think the article has the best definition of 'objective' that I have
read to date.
"The Los Alamos team define a property of a system as 'objective', if
that property is simultaneously evident to many observers who can find
out about it without knowing exactly what they are looking for and
without agreeing in advance how they'll look for it."
This means that as soon as a Christian tells you to pray to Jesus in
order to find enlightenment, he has defined the method in advance
thereby making any conclusion derived by this method as subjective.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Natural selection acts on the quantum world |
30 Dec 2004 07:43:46 AM |
|
|
In article <nej5t09jmb5jstj0gmuael53790fssn0ji@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:25:05 GMT, Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> in news
message <lodited-ABEED6.10250528122004@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
I just read an article some people here may find interesting:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
From the beginning of the article:
[quote]
A team of US physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our
objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive quantum
world.
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it,
how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each person
leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to
find?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are
promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they
call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and
gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking
at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see
the same 'preferred' states.
If it wasn't for quantum darwinism, the researchers suggest in Physical
Review Letters1, the world would be very unpredictable: different people
might see very different versions of it. Life itself would then be hard
to conduct, because we would not be able to obtain reliable information
about our surroundings... it would typically conflict with what others
were experiencing.
[unquote]
I think the article has the best definition of 'objective' that I have
read to date.
"The Los Alamos team define a property of a system as 'objective', if
that property is simultaneously evident to many observers who can find
out about it without knowing exactly what they are looking for and
without agreeing in advance how they'll look for it."
This means that as soon as a Christian tells you to pray to Jesus in
order to find enlightenment, he has defined the method in advance
thereby making any conclusion derived by this method as subjective.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I like that definition, too. I remembered reading it, but not taking
note of it. Thanks for bringing attention to that definition.
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
