I had written:
[...]
>> 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?
Peter:
>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).
[...]
Regardless of the number of steps involved, if the transition from one
state to another represents a "transastronomical improbability" under
'normal conditions', unaided by supernatural interaction, then let me
suggest that this constitutes altering the 'natural timeline' and 'rewriting
the rules' midstream. It is a disruptive event that the 'rules' would not
otherwise permit over the course of the universe's lifetime. The proposed
mechanism, which involves forcing the outcome of a particular quantum state
is no different, qualitatively, from tunnelling a rock or replacing an
entire genome in a single step. All involve manipulating systems in
'physically possible' ways to generate outcomes which have a "transastronomical
improbability" of happening otherwise.
At the 1E-99999999% level of probability, I don't think one can
meaningfully distinguish between capability gaps and improbability
hurdles. They are effectively the same. It you can't go from state-A
to final state-B in the time allotted, you've encountered a capability
gap.
This is not to say that a divine agent couldn't use quantum events
to direct systems toward desired outcomes. I'm only suggesting
that trying to differentiate between 'capability gaps' and
'improbability hurdles' might not be a terribly meaningful
exercise.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 12 2001 - 13:48:05 EST