From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 04:20:27 EDT
Glenn wrote: =20
I can accept and fully agree with the idea that actually nothing is ever =
proven in science. All that is done is manipulate the probability. For =
me, if this experiment, which I do believe will be attempted in the next =
25 years, succeeds, the probability for an MWH will go way up. Even so, =
if Deutsch succeeds, the popular culture will elevate MWH to a new icon =
of science. =20
Agreed, except how far up the probability goes will be contingent on how =
good the alternative explanations (i.e., the non-multi-world ones) will =
be. =20
In any event, whether proven, not proven or only probable, a successful =
test will mean we Christians will have to deal with the issue. Like it =
or not. And that is why I don't think we can ignore the issue. My money =
is that it will succeed only based upon the fact that very few =
scientific things Christians have said couldn't be so, actually ended =
up that way. We seem to always back the wrong scientific horse. =20
I can't speak for others, but my own views on this subject have little =
to do with my Christian beliefs but a lot to do with my perception of =
how science works and my skepticism about astonishing claims. I also =
believe cosmologists often have inflated hubris--throwing universes =
around the way they do, and I'd kinda enjoy seeing that =
punctured--perhaps partly for religious reasons. If as a scientist I =
could take MWs seriously, I'd no doubt start thinking about how to =
incorporate them into my theology. I'd start out not by further study =
of quantum mechanics but by laying the matter before God in what some =
might call prayer, to see whether I could discern any connection. At =
the moment I'd unfortunately have a hard time keeping a straight face. =20
If Deutsch succeeds and if no one has a good alternative explanation, =
you are definitely correct in saying that we won't be able to ignore the =
issue even if the probability of MWs goes up only a little. That's food =
for thought, so thanks for broaching the subject. =20
Still, one wonders, if you can't ever interact with other worlds in any =
intelligent way or ever find out anything that's going on in them, how =
relevant will they ever be? At the moment MWH is not science. It's =
only a possible way to interpret the meaning of a scientific theory, and =
meanings of theories belong to philosophy more than to science. MWH =
will become science if it can be tested, and Deutsch claims he can test =
it. But even as science MWs would seem to be mostly irrelevant to =
anything in our world except as abstract concepts. And of course they'd =
always be conceptually irrelevant to hoi polloi, as is most of the rest =
of science. =20
Don
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Glenn Morton=20
To: Don Winterstein ; asa=20
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: MWH experimental test
I can accept and fully agree with the idea that actually nothing is =
ever proven in science. All that is done is manipulate the probability. =
For me, if this experiment, which I do believe will be attemped in the =
next 25 years, succeeds, the probability for an MWH will go way up. =
Even so, if Deutsch succeeds, the popular culture will elevate MWH to a =
new icon of science. In any event, whether proven, not proven or only =
probable, a successful test will mean we Christians will have to deal =
with the issue. Like it or not. And that is why I don't think we can =
ignore the issue. My money is that it will succeed only based upon the =
fact that very few scientific things Christians have said couldn't be =
so, actually ended up that way. We seem to always back the wrong =
scientific horse.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:19 AM
To: asa; Glenn Morton
Subject: Re: MWH experimental test
Glenn wrote: =20
>...Conclusion. If we perform a calculation using more than the =
particles in our Hubble volume, in a time shorter than the age of the =
universe, where are those calculations being done? Particles had to be =
manipulated but there aren't enough of them. It seems to me that if you =
want to avoid the MWH, you have to answer that question. Do you have an =
answer?
So what you seem to be implying is that Deutsch's test is absolutely =
foolproof, it will absolutely establish whether or not MWs exist. My =
long experience as a student of science and as a practicing scientist =
tells me, even though I don't know much about Deutsch's work, and don't =
have an answer to your question, that this is simply too much to =
swallow: The most astonishing claim in all of science is going to be =
confirmed from an inference about a result obtained on a quantum =
computer. =20
A point of my previous post was that we can tentatively evaluate =
certain claims on the basis of experience even without digging very =
deeply into the details of those claims. This is where "gut =
feeling"--intuition based on experience--comes in. For example, if =
someone claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine, no one with =
scientific training would take him seriously unless he could demonstrate =
his claim conclusively. Similarly, if someone claims that there are =
multiple worlds, in order to be taken seriously by those who do not =
already favor the idea he must have really conclusive proof, not just =
evidence from an indirect inference. =20
As I tried to point out before, theorists are almost always able to =
come up with alternatives to any given explanation. I would not be =
able to come up with a good alternative explanation of Deutsch's =
anticipated result, because I'm not well-versed in the relevant fields =
and I'm not motivated at this point to become so. But there are others =
who are well-versed, and I am confident that at least one of them will =
be able to come up with a reasonable alternative explanation of =
Deutsch's anticipated result that does not require the existence of =
multiple worlds. In fact, Richard McGough already may be able to do so. =
I'm sorry you did not hear him out more carefully. (It's apparent that =
both of you are fairly high-strung and lack patience for communication =
on topics where there are several points of disagreement.) =20
As I see it, the most Deutsch can hope for from his experiment is to =
establish that MWs are somewhat more likely than before to be real. =
This will happen if he gets his hoped-for result, and no good =
alternative explanations appear that don't require multiple worlds. He =
certainly is not proposing anything like a direct measure of MWs. If he =
made a direct measure of MWs and could demonstrate that he'd done it, =
then I'd believe. I'm not going to believe on the basis of an inference =
that may ultimately prove to be unfounded, and no one else should, =
either. The claim is far too astonishing for that. =20
=20
Don
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Glenn Morton=20
To: Don Winterstein ; Asa=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:25 AM
Subject: RE: MWH experimental test
Hi Don, Your use of gut feel was different than below. A gut feel =
in science leads to insight after which the person goes and uses =
scientific methodology to say why the gut feel is correct or incorrect. =
One doesn't simply leave it there.
I have spent a lifetime fighting mistaken scientific ideas of =
YECs. The one thing they do with a high degree of probability is that =
when one goes to the work to put out data, evidence and carefully =
reasoned argumentation, they simply turn and say, "I don't believe it". =
No reason is given other than that they have faith. Frankly the thing =
that got me about your 'gut feel' was that it simply didn't address the =
argument at all. It simply said, I don't believe it. =20
Now that is your right, but one can't claim that it is a very =
reasoned line of argumentation. If there is something wrong with =
Deutsch, I would like to hear it. But gut feels don't further that goal =
very much. And what I know about computing tells me (my gut feel if you =
will but with a lline of logic) that Deutsch is onto something.
Fact: information is a property of matter. You simply can't point =
to disembodied information.
Fact: computation processes information.
Fact: this requires the manipulation of particles. One simply =
can't point to disembodied calculation either. that is, calculations =
which don't use matter. (or matter-energy)
Conclusion. If we perform a calculation using more than the =
particles in our Hubble volume, in a time shorter than the age of the =
universe, where are those calculations being done? Particles had to be =
manipulated but there aren't enough of them. It seems to me that if you =
want to avoid the MWH, you have to answer that question. Do you have an =
answer?
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu =
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Don Winterstein
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:01 AM
To: Asa; Glenn Morton
Subject: Re: MWH experimental test
Glenn Morton wrote:
>...'Gut feels' are
irrelevant in science....
Albert Einstein would disagree most vehemently. His essays on =
science are replete with references to intuition and its role in leading =
scientists to good theories and bypassing ones likely to be a waste of =
time. "Intuition" is just a sophisticated word for "gut feel." By no =
stretch am I saying that gut feels can't be wrong, but in fact they've =
always been important in science. They're how scientists often get =
started on breakthroughs. =20
IMHO you're giving way too much credence to people who claim =
that this or that single observation will prove the existence of MWs. =
Physics has come up with lots of astonishing results, but the most =
astonishing claim ever has to be this one asserting the existence of =
MWs. It's OK to entertain notions of MWs, but no one should put faith =
in such astonishing claims without extraordinarily good and =
straightforward evidence. Everything I've read about that "MWH =
experimental test" suggests that, if the quantum computer really works =
as expected, supporters are going to say, "How else could this have =
happened except through MWs?" Well, "how else" questions always =
explicitly beg the question; they never prove anything. If it comes to =
that, sooner or later some bright theorist will tell us exactly how =
else. That's my gut feeling. I'd never say "the test won't work." I =
will say that, if the test works, the result probably won't mean what =
Deutsch says it will mean. =20
If one could prove that a given outcome absolutely could not =
have happened except through MWs, then that outcome would of course =
establish the existence of MWs. Unfortunately science has never yet =
been able to come up with that kind of absolute proof. It would require =
theory that is absolutely true, and no such theory yet exists. =20
Therefore it's totally inappropriate at this stage IMO to get =
worked up about this MWH experimental test, partly because the test is =
not testing for MWs, it's testing someone's inference about MWs; and MWs =
are so astonishing that we need better evidence for them than something =
purely inferential. To accept such inferential evidence as hard proof =
would be to put far too much confidence in the opinions of a few =
theorists. =20
Their inference may be unjustified, and I'm not obliged to say =
why it may be (i.e., that's not my area of competence; and even if it =
were, I might not be the best person to critique the inference), other =
than to point out that human inferences are often mistaken. QM =
experiments have no track record in establishing the existence of MWs. =
In other areas of physics we trust predictions because of track record. =
I confidently expect particle physicists to find the Higgs boson, =
because the standard model has been extraordinarily successful in =
predicting the existence and properties of real particles. I have no =
reason to think any quantum computer experiment will establish the =
existence of MWs. In the first case there is a very successful track =
record with lots of supporting evidence, in the second case there is no =
track record and as of now no supporting evidence. In the first case =
the expected results are far from astonishing, in the second case the =
reality of MWs would be astonishing in the extreme and hence not =
believable without truly exceptional evidence. =20
What if MWs become widely accepted as real among scientists even =
without convincing proof? Well, the absence or irrelevance of God, =
without convincing proof, is already widely accepted among scientists. =
We don't have to follow the crowd. (The rest of the world wouldn't =
follow such scientists either, as the existence of the flourishing YEC =
community attests.) What we believe doesn't have to be what the =
majority of scientists believes. Such majority can be dead wrong. =20
Don
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Glenn Morton=20
To: Asa=20
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:22 AM
Subject: RE: MWH experimental test
I never cease to be amazed that people ignore what is written. =
I present a
means of testing MWH and this is the reaction:
Don wrote:
>Nothing they say is ever worth losing sleep over
>unless it can be directly tested, and my gut tells me no one =
is ever going
>to figure out how to test directly for multiple worlds. So I =
regard
>discussions of MWs as a form of entertainment.
Richard wrote:
>But seriously folks ... the argument that quantum computers =
require "real"
>resources in alternate universes seems to be an empty and =
untestable claim.
This is not serious scientific discussion or even criticism. =
'Gut feels' are
irrelevant in science, and ignoring suggestions which have =
passed peer
review and been published (for which I gave entre to the =
literature in the
post) seems to be hiding one's head. Calling it mere =
entertainment is
reminiscent of Copernicus putting in his book that his view =
was merely a
calculating technique. Once again, I would challenge both of =
you to take on
Deutsch's claim which I believe is in "Quantum Theory, the =
Church-Turing
Principle and the Universal Quantum Computer,' Proceedings of =
the Royal
Society of London A 400(1985), pp 97-117, and then get your =
refutations
published. It is a cheap out to claim that this idea is wrong =
when you are
unwilling to do the work to show why it is wrong and get it =
published.
Without a doubt one might find something wrong with Deutsch's =
test, but just
saying a 'gut feel' or claiming that it is untestable, seems =
highly
unscientific. The scientific thing is to explain exactly why =
that test won't
work. If you actually read what I quoted from Brown's book =
the experiment
gives a different result for the 2 different views of quantum. =
That means it
is TESTABLE. Deutsch's article does have the computer world =
thinking about
these things. And regardless of whether or not we christians =
want to deal
with the implications, theologically, they are there.
1. IF MWH, then hell is full of an infinity of unsaved vs the =
1 saved
individual. It means that God saves everybody with a plan to =
condemn the
vast, vast majority to hell.
2. Why evangelize. This is the same issue one runs into with =
predestination.
If you are predestined, what is the point. the problem, in my =
view becomes
more accute under MWH
3. If MWH, then is that the best way God can ensure what =
happens in the
future?
4. There must be universes where God's predictions fail, i.e. =
where Jesus
didn't come.
5. Are there universes where Jesus married?
6. Are there universes where Jesus sinned?
7. Would such a situation falsify christianity?
There are lots of theological implications. And claims that =
this can't be
tested, in spite of my pointing you to where the idea is =
published, seems to
imply that evidence and data don't count here, just gut feel =
and claims.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 21:12:42 EDT