Apparently, I failed to send this posting yesterday.
"tikeda@sprintmail.com" wrote:
>
> Howard commented
> [...see my last post for background...]
> >Here is where the Ruest approach (similar to the approaches of Wm.
> >Pollard and Bob Russell) technically avoids the idea of "violating and
> >overpowering" by proposing that God surreptitiously chooses from among
> >several possible outcomes the particular one that advances things in
> >the desired direction. What the system in question does is within its
> >capabilities.
> [...]
>
> Yours and George's comments lead me to ask: What's "outside" a system's
> capabilities in QM?
>
> With QM, it is within the "capabilities" of a slug to tunnel from Earth to
> Mars. Certainly a slug's wave function extends beyond the Martian orbit.
> It's no different for having a rock tunnel into the air above an unfortunate
> slug. These things don't happen terribly often (read: never) but it is a
> finite possibility. I don't see how tweaking the improbable timing of say,
> the decay of an unstable potassium isotope near a chromosome to induce a
> desired mutation is qualitatively different from tunneling an invertebrate
> to Phobos: It's all just a matter of choosing between possible outcomes.
> The only difference is quantitative: i.e. variation in relative
> probabilities or masses of the objects involved.
>
> Whether a change is effected by altering the likelihood of particular
> event or momentarily replacing the "standard laws" of physics, we're
> still talking about rewriting the rules in midstream and altering the
> "natural" timeline. We may say that these examples do not violate standard
> QM but they do fly in the face of what is generally observed. For example,
> if something can direct the choice of possible outcomes for tunnelling
> events, couldn't it power an engine by directing the tunnelling of gas
> molecules to the inside of a sealed air tank?
The idea of God's "hidden options" involves neither altering likelihoods
nor momentarily replacing the "standard laws" of physics, but a
purposeful selection among different events, all of which are physically
possible. Extremely low probabilities would not normally characterize
such an individual event, but result from linking together a whole
series of them, e.g. in the same molecule of DNA (without the
intermediates being subject to natural selection).
Peter
> We know that all formulations of QM are lacking key components that map
> QM theory to the observed "macro-world" (or perhaps how it is that we
> oberver the world). I suspect that much of what we consider to be a non-
> violation of QM theory today -- whether it's slugs on Phobos or energy-
> less information transfer leading to the formation of new species -- will turn out to be a problem for QM theory as it becomes better formulated.
> Until then, invoking QM as an "out" for non-violating, form-imposing
> intervention is close to meaningless for me.
>
> [...]
> >> So what we're talking about here sounds like a classic variant of
> >> progressive creationism. Let's just call it that.
> >
> >It may not be a "classic" variant, but I'm inclined to agree that it
> >is a variant of progressive creationism. The replacement of capability
> >gaps with improbability hurdles seems too small a modification to get
> >out of the PC territory. I would say that the values of the relevant
> >probabilities are part and parcel of the universe's formational economy.
> >If these probabilities are too small, the universe's formational economy
> >is lacking something that it needs for development without intervention.
> >The Ruest proposal has modified the character of the interventions, but
> >has not made form-effecting interventions altogether unnecessary.
>
> I agree with Howard. I don't see a clear distinction between "capability
> gaps" and "improbability hurdles" if it is claimed that a system can't
> move from state-X to state-Y within the time alloted.*
>
> Regards,
> Tim Ikeda
> tikeda@sprintmail.com
>
> *On the other hand, if it was God's intent that a particular person like
> Howard Van Till should exist now on this particular planet, as opposed
> to some other person, then I think we're talking about a completely
> different class of "improbability hurdles". That's a metaphysical mire
> for sure.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 12 2001 - 05:05:29 EST