Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

[Shubee]

If you really wanted to go somewhere with this, I'd strongly recommend throwing out your second and third postulates for now, and simply deal with trying to prove that anything is always possible.

 

That's fair enough. I shall first summarize the fundamental physics of quantum creationism, which is based on the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. And I'll also share how I came to understand the fundamentals of this physical theory.

 

I was taught quantum improbability in high school. My high school physics teacher, Laurence N. Wolfe, explained it to the class. He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea. My next encounter with the concept of fantastic quantum improbabilities was in the book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback by the prominent physicist George Gamow. I was deeply impressed by his representation of quantum improbability in that book. Consider this excerpt:

 

 

When the clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the same chair she was sitting in before she went into the dining room.

 

'Holy entropy!' her father shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins' highball. 'It's boiling!'

 

The liquid in the glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles, and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however, that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively small area around the ice cube. The rest of the drink was still quite cold.

 

‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one! By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself!

 

In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing. She did not care to argue with father, but this time she felt sure she knew better than he.

 

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

 

A review by SCRIPTA MATHEMATICA said, "Science students will find it worth while for it is definitely a good supplement to a modern physics textbook."

 

A review by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN said, "Will vastly fascinate the whimsical, and is also entirely scientific."

 

Presumably therefore, quantum physics is a scientific theory. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory? I believe so.

 

All the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics are based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics:

 

In physics, thermodynamics (from the Greek θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις, dynamis, meaning "power") is the study of the transformation of energy into different forms and its relation to macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and volume. Its underpinnings, based upon statistical predictions of the collective motion of particles from their microscopic behavior, is the field of statistical thermodynamics, a branch of statistical mechanics. -- Thermodynamics.

 

I believe I am correct in identifying quantum physics as the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

 

Essentially, statistical thermodynamics is an approach to thermodynamics situated upon statistical mechanics, which focuses on the derivation of macroscopic results from first principles. ... The statistical approach is to derive all macroscopic properties (temperature, volume, pressure, energy, entropy, etc.) from the properties of moving constituent particles and the interactions between them (including quantum phenomena). -- Thermodynamics.

 

I do not want to limit myself to classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

 

Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible, it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. --Irreversibility

 

You asked for clarification. That's fair enough. I believe that I can make the first postulate of quantum creationism clearer and even make it understandable to a general audience. Consider the following easy-to-understand conversation from the 1984 movie Ghostbusters, which I interpret as a spoof on science and pseudo-science:

 

 

Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.

Dr. Peter Venkman: What?

Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?

Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.

Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?

Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it ceasing instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

 

It really is true that the fantastic improbabilities explained to me by my high school physics teacher and the excerpt that I quoted from George Gamow's book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, is well-known and well-accepted physics. Shall we dare think about the far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics by taking well-understood conventional physics to its logical conclusion?

 

Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed all around the Earth could end all life as we know it, almost instantaneously. I argue that if all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, then it follows mathematically that there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

 

I wish to make clear that I'm not under any delusion as to the opinions of the general physics community in regard to my theory. As foretold in prophecy, it's an absolute certainty that many respectable physicists will strongly protest my use of quantum physics in a fun application for which they do not approve:

 

The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar distances in a mere nothingth of a second, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.

 

... The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability were of course well understood — and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

 

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this — partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties. — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

 

It all boils down to a debate between physicists and mathematicians. As I've said before, there are physicists that believe that the fantastically improbable is impossible. There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.

[questor]

In your understanding of quantum mechanics, with infinite time there is a possibility for anything to happen...is that correct? Since man has been here only 6-8 million years, isn't there also an equal possibility that during that limited time frame none of the miraculous events claimed occurred? Indeed, isn't it possible that these events never would occur?

[Galapagos]

He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea.

Why? Why a religious book written by desert people in the Bronze Age?

 

 

I'm confused by this argument, is this an accurate simplified version?:

 

1 in quantum mechanics the location of a particle is described with probabilities

2 Therefore anything is possible

3 Also, Shubee's creation myth/religion of choice is true/real

4 So evolution is wrong and a world flood happened

 

 

edit- wasn't sure if I was stating that clearly at first

[Shubee]

In your understanding of quantum mechanics, with infinite time there is a possibility for anything to happen...is that correct?

 

Not exactly. I'm saying that when it concerns particles of light or matter in motion, there are no limits to improbability at any time. For example, the Nobel Laureate in physics, Richard P. Feynman, explained in his book, QED, that there is a very small probability for photons (individual particles of light) to move faster than the usual numerical value c, which is just the most likely expected value.

 

Since man has been here only 6-8 million years, isn't there also an equal possibility that during that limited time frame none of the miraculous events claimed occurred? Indeed, isn't it possible that these events never would occur?

 

Yes to both. I believe that those two scenarios are possible outcomes to the equations of quantum theory.

 

He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea.

 

Why? Why a religious book written by desert people in the Bronze Age?

 

You're saying that you see no similarities between seemingly directed air molecules and supposedly directed water molecules? How is that possible?

 

Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. Exodus 14:21-22.

[Galapagos]

You're saying that you see no similarities between seemingly directed air molecules and supposedly directed water molecules? How is that possible?

Why didn't you immediately think of the prophet Muhammad splitting the moon? Or the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba?

My point is that you thought of a miracle claim made the religion of your region. Why might that be? How is this miracle claim more valid than any other?

[CraigD]

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

:) Gamow’s popular science books had a great and formative impact on me a youth – in particular “One, Two, Three...Infinity”, which, like the author of the linked article, I read around the age of 10, and despite understanding only a fraction of its details, practically devoured. Although I didn’t encounter the Mr. Tompkins books until nearly a decade later, and have only read the first two “in paperback” ones, I enjoyed them thoroughly, and recommend them highly. :)

 

I think Shubee misreads chapter 9 “Maxwell’s Demon” of “Mr Tompkins in Paperback”. It’s an exploration of statistical temperature fluctuations in gas (or liquids) and the old thought experiment/question/paradox of Maxwell’s demon. These ideas are all classical, not quantum mechanical. Although, as the autobiographical old professor in the story explains, events such as the spontaneous boiling of the surface of a glass of cold water (an iced alcoholic beverage, actually) are so unlikely that observing all of the glasses of cold water that will ever exist in billions of years are unlikely to witness such an event, the probability is much greater than that of a room-temperature macroscopic exhibition of quantum effects.

 

Moreover, the story doesn’t account an instance of such an vastly unlikely event occurring, but the professor incorrectly believing that he, Tomkins, and Maud had witnessed such an event, when actually a real (and invisible, and quite charming) Maxwell’s demon had caused it to happen.

 

Also, despite being amusing and educational, the professor incorrectly describes Maxwell’s demon, saying

Maxwell’s Demon is supposed to be rather a fast fellow, and capable of changing the direction of every single molecule in any way you prescribe.

As described by Maxwell and other physicist, however, and importantly, the demon can’t do physical work such as accelerating gas molecules at all, but can only open and close an arbitrarily efficient door to separate fast from slow molecules. The usual thought experiment involves this sorting being used to move a piston, but, as in Gamow’s story, it could as easily involve creating a region of boiling water in a glass of cold water.

 

Although the Maxwell’s demon thought experiment was originally intended as a paradox suggesting something wrong with the idea, we now know that such a thing is in principle possible, yet doesn’t, as Maxwell believed, violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as Szilard’s engine variant illustrates. (see this post and others for discussion and references to Szilard’s engine)

 

Most importantly, though, I believe Shubee misunderstands the nature of Gamow’s science popularizations. These are not scholarly works or scientific papers or textbooks, but popularizations, intended to acquaint readers in a whimsical and amusing manner with scientific ideas. As in the above example, the story about a conversation with a trick played by an actual, anthropomorphic Maxwell’s demon is not intended to describe actual reality, but to explore ideas. Unlike the black holes and Big Bang in “One, Two, Three…Infinity”, Gamow is not claiming in “Mr Tompkins” that there really are naturally occurring Maxwell demons, nor even that temperature fluctuations have ever caused the surface of an iced highball to spontaneously boil.

[lawcat]

Depends on a forum you want to spread this science in. If you want creation-science in public school, it will likely never work as a regular curriculum, under the Constitution as it stands.

 

If you want to develop creation-science, or intelligent design theory, as a science and teach it in private school, you will have no obstacles.

[Eclogite]

I wish to address a single aspect of the discussion: the postulate that the globally complex inter-relationships of sediments and their contained fossils are the product of a single event.

 

While Shubee's first axiom, if I understand it correctly, is that quantum mechanics allows anything to happen, I feel constrained to agree with William of Ockham and to 'go for the simpler explanation'.

 

Sedimentary rocks have a considerable number of defining properties: these include grain size, shape, angularity and sorting; cementation type and extent; matrix type and extent; structural features such as bedding planes, graded bedding, cross bedding, flute and sole marks, etc.

 

Extensive study has shown that these vary in relation to the environment in which the sediments are deposited. In addition various diagenetic changes of mineral composition and microscopic and macroscopic structure also occur in response to the specific environment. We have observed the vast majority of these characteristics within modern depositional environments. Therefore we can - and it seems reasonable to do so - we can interpret the environment of deposition of ancient sediments on the basis of their properties.

When we do so we not only find that such matches are straighforward, but we find the lateral and vertical change of environment is consistent with what we see in modern depositional settings. The fudnamental dictum of geology - the present is the key to the past - is repeatedly validated.

 

The probability that this same complex interplay of environments, apparently covering billions of years of the Earth's history in a remarkably self consistent way, could actually be the result of chance happenings associated with a single event, is so vastly improbable that it merits the description impossible.

[Shubee]

I think Shubee misreads chapter 9 “Maxwell’s Demon” of “Mr Tompkins in Paperback”. ... The story doesn’t account an instance of such an vastly unlikely event occurring, but the professor incorrectly believing that he, Tomkins, and Maud had witnessed such an event, when actually a real (and invisible, and quite charming) Maxwell’s demon had caused it to happen.

 

CraigD, your mangled misrepresentation of the story of Maxwell's Demon (pp. 72- 76) is terribly misleading. First off, George Gamow's highly imaginative story is just a story. And in that story, the fantastically improbable really happens. This is clear from the fact that the professor basically says how lucky the three of them are to see an event that will probably never happen again in the whole history of the universe.

 

The structure of the story is obvious from these excepts:

 

Apparently forgetting he was talking to a man who knew practically nothing about physics and not to a class of advanced students, the professor rambled on, using such monstrous terms as ‘generalized parameters’ and ‘quasi-ergodic systems’, thinking he was making the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and their relation to Gibbs’ form of statistical mechanics crystal clear. Mr Tompkins was used to his father-in-law talking over his head, so he sipped his Scotch and soda philosophically and tried to look intelligent. But all these highlights of statistical physics were definitely too much for Maud, curled up in her chair and struggling to keep her eyes open. To throw off her drowsiness she decided to go and see how dinner was getting along.

 

‘Does madam desire something?’ inquired a tall, elegantly dressed butler, bowing as she came into the dining room.

 

‘No, just go on with your work,’ she said, wondering why on earth he was there. It seemed particularly odd as they had never had a butler and certainly could not afford one. The man was tall and lean with an olive skin, long, pointed nose, and greenish eyes which seemed to burn with a strange, intense glow. Shivers ran up and down Maud’s spine when she noticed the two symmetrical lumps half hidden by the black hair above his forehead.

 

‘Either I’m dreaming,’ she thought, ‘or this is Mephistopheles himself, straight out of grand opera.’

 

Maud is obviously dreaming at this point. And what happens in Maud's dream is obviously a mix of learning physics based on the professor's ramblings about statistical thermodynamics and Maxwell's demon and what she learns from the demon directly.

 

What is the purpose of the demon in Maud's dream?

 

‘As a matter of fact, I came here of my own accord to show your distinguished father I am not the myth he believes me to be. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Maxwell’s Demon.’

 

‘Oh!’ breathed Maud with relief, ‘Then you probably aren’t wicked, like other demons, and have no intention of hurting anybody.’

 

‘Of course not,’ said the Demon with a broad smile,’ but I like to play practical jokes and I’m about to play one on your father.’

 

‘What are you going to do?’ asked Maud, still not quite reassured.

 

‘Just show him that, if I choose, the law of increasing entropy can be broken.’

 

Coincidentally, just as Maud awakens from her dream, the content of the dream, i.e., the demon's strategy to violate the second law of thermodynamics, is seen to parallel reality. And that coincidence, however you want to interpret it, parallels perfectly the professor's statement: "Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one!"

 

Of course this is just a story. I never suggested that this story was based on an observation of the second law of thermodynamics actually begin broken! I simply referred to this story as genuinely indicating a sincere belief by physicists in statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy. The point of the story is that violations of the second law of thermodynamics can happen! That was George Gamow's meaning and I backed it up with unquestionably accurate physics that somehow magically exists in Wikipedia.

 

I think Shubee misreads chapter 9 “Maxwell’s Demon” of “Mr Tompkins in Paperback”. It’s an exploration of statistical temperature fluctuations in gas (or liquids) and the old thought experiment/question/paradox of Maxwell's demon. These ideas are all classical, not quantum mechanical.

 

Also, despite being amusing and educational, the professor incorrectly describes Maxwell’s demon, ...

 

George Gamow simply recreated the original story of Maxwell's demon by giving it a quantum mechanical twist. That's the meaning of this demon using a tennis racquet. I believe it's clear that my quantum mechanical interpretation agrees perfectly with George Gamow's obvious intent.

 

‘And now, if you will excuse me, it is time for me to start my practical joke on the old, self-assured professor.’

So saying, Maxwell's Demon left Maud perched on the edge of the ice crystal, like an unhappy mountain climber, and set about his work. Armed with an instrument like a tennis racquet, he was swatting the molecules around him. Darting here and there, he was always in time to swat any stubborn molecule which persisted in going in the wrong direction. In spite of the apparent danger of her position, Maud could not help admiring his wonderful speed and accuracy, and found herself cheering with excitement whenever he succeeded in deflecting a particularly fast and difficult molecule.

[Shubee]

I wish to address a single aspect of the discussion: the postulate that the globally complex inter-relationships of sediments and their contained fossils are the product of a single event.

 

While Shubee's first axiom, if I understand it correctly, is that quantum mechanics allows anything to happen, I feel constrained to agree with William of Ockham and to 'go for the simpler explanation'.

 

Ockham's razor is a silly axiom historically. Einstein basically was following Ockham's razor when he repeatedly expressed his preference for the simplicity of determinism over the complexity of quantum theory. Einstein kept insisting on his view with the now infamous words: "God does not play dice." To this Bohr famously replied: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

 

I agree that Ockham's razor is simple but surely you don't believe that it is always true? Determinism is dead. Only an ignoramus can confidently reject quantum theory today.

 

Sedimentary rocks have a considerable number of defining properties: these include grain size, shape, angularity and sorting; cementation type and extent; matrix type and extent; structural features such as bedding planes, graded bedding, cross bedding, flute and sole marks, etc.

 

Extensive study has shown that these vary in relation to the environment in which the sediments are deposited.

 

That sounds like a tautology to me.

 

The fudnamental dictum of geology - the present is the key to the past - is repeatedly validated.

 

Where in the present do you see fantastic oil and coal deposits being created that compare in any way to the unimaginably huge and ancient coal deposits featured in the videos at Sean D. Pitman's website, The Fossil Record?

 

The probability that this same complex interplay of environments, apparently covering billions of years of the Earth's history in a remarkably self consistent way, could actually be the result of chance happenings associated with a single event, is so vastly improbable that it merits the description impossible.

 

This thread is for the purpose of demonstrating that evolutionists and geologists can only admit and reveal the obvious, that the fantastically improbable is highly unlikely, that they have no understanding of fantastic quantum improbabilities and are incapable of refuting the possibility of quantum creationism actually being correct. Thank you.

[pgrmdave]

Ockham's razor is a silly axiom historically. Einstein basically was following Ockham's razor when he repeatedly expressed his preference for the simplicity of determinism over the complexity of quantum theory. Einstein kept insisting on his view with the now infamous words: "God does not play dice." To this Bohr famously replied: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

 

Ockham's razor does not say that the simplest theory is right. It says that the theory which uses the fewest acting agents, while still taking into account all data, is most likely true. There is a difference there. It also takes into account probabilities. As in, if you have two theories which are not equally likely, the more likely theory is...more likely. If, during a thunderstorm, I hear a large crack, and I rush to my window and I see that the tree in my backyard is split open and broken in half, I assume it was struck by lightning, not that a grenade hit it. Either one could be possible, but the lightning is more likely. If I later find metal fragments scattered about my yard, then the lightning theory is called into question, and the grenade theory is stronger. Both times, I use Ockham's razor.

[questor]

Suppose there was a global flood.

Suppose the Red Sea did part. What does that prove? How could we know the agent of these occurrences? The Bible is a compendium of myths, legends and parables conceived by the human mind and written by the human hand by primitive, superstitious people. Is there any proof whatsoever of this being untrue? Are there any proven miracles that did not occur from natural causes? If so, what/ where are they?

[Shubee]

Ockham's razor ... says that the theory which uses the fewest acting agents, while still taking into account all data, is most likely true.

 

There are no acting agents in quantum mechanics. In quantum theory, all the laws of physics are ultimately probabilistic. This is the consensus of all mainstream physicists. It is widely accepted that there are mathematical proofs that no deterministic theory could possibly exist that might account for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. I believe that the mathematician John von Neumann was the first to prove this result.

 

What does Ockham's razor say about that?

[CraigD]

The claim

[in chapter 9 “Maxwell’s Demon” of “Mr Tompkins in Paperback”] George Gamow simply recreated the original story of Maxwell's demon by giving it a quantum mechanical twist. That's the meaning of this demon using a tennis racquet. I believe it's clear that my quantum mechanical interpretation agrees perfectly with George Gamow's obvious intent.

appears to me incorrect. Unlike the preceding chapters of Gamow’s book, this chapter contains no references even to the term “quantum”, and shares its title with a well known classical thought experiment.

 

Shubee, have you any reference to a scientist or any other sort of person sharing you interpretation of this story as having a “quantum mechanical twist” :)

 

Though I’ve long enjoyed Gamow’s science popularizing writing (I grew up on it!), IMO he made some regrettable slips in his “Maxwell’s Demon” story.

 

The essential trait of Maxwell’s demon, as described by Maxwell and in serious treatments of the idea, is that it does arbitrarily little work. The usual description is of a gas-filled cylinder separated by a piston, with a door in the piston that can be quickly open and closed by the demon with arbitrarily little force. The demon opens the door when a faster-moving molecule approaches it from the left moving to the right, or when a slower-moving molecule approaches from the right moving to the left. By sorting faster-moving molecules on the right, and slower-moving ones on the left, while doing an arbitrarily small amount of mechanical work, the demon causes the pressure on the right wall of the piston to be greater than on the left wall, allowing it to move, doing mechanical work in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Gamow’s elegantly dressed demon doesn’t do arbitrarily little work. Rather than sorting the gas molecules via a door, it swats them around forcefully with “an instrument like a tennis racket”. This misses the essential character of the thought experiment. If the demon were capable of this sort of molecule-accelerating, he could more easily accomplish his water-boiling trick simply by increasing the speed of every molecule he encountered, adding energy to the system in the manner of an ordinary heating element.

 

Had I been Gamow’s editor, I would have had him dodge this failing with a bit of elaboration on the demon and his molecule-manipulating instrument. With apologies the late author, my rewrite of the last 500 words of the story:

So saying, Maxwell's Demon left Maud perched on the edge of the ice crystal, like an unhappy mountain climber, and set about his work.

 

Clinging to an instrument looking like an oversize canoe paddle – though, Maud reminder herself, in reality far smaller than the tiniest bits of barley ash in her husband’s wiskey – with the slightest shift of balance, the Demon dipped its blade into the path of a particular molecule in the turbid roil beneath which sucked it and him end-over-end and down in a seemingly random direction, to carom off another molecule, then another and another, until demon and racquet seemed utterly at the mercy of the chaotic swirl of molecules. Gradually, however, Maud discerned method behind his wild ride. Through subtle tucks of his body, he steered the racquet into the path of the fastest molecules, deflecting them back into the layer beneath her feet, while allowing or even nudging the slower moving molecules to drift quietly deeper, always managing to have the rebound propel him on a course to deliver his next stroke. Despite the fury of the molecules – which, after a few minutes, were clearly more agitated in the layer just beneath the surface than deeper down, and increasingly beginning to snap free of their jostling companions to escape into the less packed expanses above – Maud though “why, he’s hardly putting any effort into it at all. A good thing, too: those pants are really not suitable exercise cloths!”

 

Molecules were now escaping in groups of thousands together, tearing through the surface as giant bubbles. Then a cloud of steam covered Maud's whole field of vision and she could get only occasional glimpses of the tumbling paddle or the tail of the Demon's dress suit among the masses of maddened molecules. Finally the molecules in her ice crystal perch gave way and she fell into the heavy clouds of vapour beneath. . ..

 

When the clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the same chair she was

sitting in before she went into the dining room.

 

'Holy entropy!' her father shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins' highball. 'It's boiling!'

 

The liquid in the glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles, and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however, that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively small area around the ice cube. The rest of the drink was still quite cold.

 

‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one!

By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself! In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he breathed happily.

 

Maud smiled but said nothing.

Out of the corner of her vision, she caught a glimpse of motion in the dining room, and was unsurprised to find herself again in the presence of the elegantly dressed Demon.

 

“My father does go on so” she said with a touch of exasperation. “all that about luck and billions of years and phenomena. Wouldn’t it just put him in his place if you’d repeat your joke, not a minute after he’s said all that?”

 

“Alas, madam, that’s not possible,” said the Demon with a regretful shake of his head.

 

“Why not?” asked Maud, “surely you’re not tired, what with hardly moving a muscle in all that stirring?”

 

“You’re right – physical effort doesn’t enter into the equation for beings like me. The laws of probability and thermodynamics, though, are not to be denied, no matter what old James Clerk hinted.

 

“

Information

is my limitation,” said Maxwell’s Demon. “All of that sorting takes a bit of mental gymnastics, what someday everyone will call computing resources. That little bit of disorder I straightened out in your husband’s drink is all up here now,” he said, tapping his right horn nub, “every little detail of each momentum vector, and needs to be cleaned out before I can play another joke like that last one.

 

“Surely forgetting all that … data … is less work that memorizing it,” said Maud.

 

“Not so,” corrected the Demon (who was beginning to sound to Maud as bad as her father). “gaining information is permitted without the introduction of energy into the system. Forgetting – or better put, resetting – is what takes work, of the mundane, mechanical kind. I’m due for a memory wipe as soon as I get home to … wherever it is demons go in their down time. You’ve plenty of mundane energy at hand in the kitchen, but demon etiquette prohibits that sort of borrowing, and even of it didn’t,

They

don’t let us carry around the paraphernalia for that sort of thing.”

 

Maud thought she could understand the wisdom behind rules along these lines.

[HydrogenBond]

One way to look at religion and gods is that what is worshiped is not typically material or biological and does not fit into the casual or even the probabilistic laws of science. For example, an angel is neither physical or biological and can defy the laws of science as we know it both in terms of cause and affect and probability. I am not saying this is true or not, just this is how it is defined.

 

What that says, creationism is it is not talking about biology or science, since it does not follow these laws. The one phenomena in nature that conceptually works under the same lack of physical constraints, is the human imagination. In our imagination, we can go back into time (pretend) and then even make a movie to show how dinosaurs behaved. This is not real because it would involve time travel. But the movie will use science personifications, blended with imagination to create a semi-reality. In the imagination cause and effect , realty or probability don't need to be active. In my imagination, I defy all the odds and win the lottery at will, even while I am on stage performing rock music to a bunch of naked women. This is totally impossible in reality but is possible with the imagination.

 

The symbolism in the bible that defy biology and physical science comes from the imagination. But it was not made up by the will, but was a natural expression of the brain, using the imagination, sort of like awake dreams. The inner self, which used to be the center of animal instinct, was defining itself in terms of the human mind. For example, spontaneous fantasy of an inflated ego state, like being a rock star, can sometimes be unconscious compensation for something. What was projected in these symbols indirectly tells you what was going at that time.

[HydrogenBond]

Products from the imagination are not always individual in character but can also be collective. In tribal cultures, the special dream of the chief or witch doctor is for the entire tribe. Whether it makes rational sense to us or not the collective impact is there. This revelation is real in that it happened as a vision or dream and resonates in others. But it began in the imagination, since the imagination uses the same parameters which can defy cause-affect and probability. The only question is where did the revelation originate? Was it the unconscious mind or God?

 

Let me give a modern example of this affect; global warming. The first people to see this affect, did it at a time when there was not enough rational or empirical evidence in terms of solid scientific proof, to totally firm this claim. In other words, very few were ready to get on board the boat due to this lack. Maybe it began as 10% real, based on the state of art of the hard evidence, and 90% imagination stemming from a gut feeling or unconscious extrapolation of the then limited data. This pre-vision of what will be the future, was treated like a personal bias at its inception and was seen as another doom and gloom scenario. Bu this mostly imaginary vision of the future, compelled the visionaries and hit a resonance note in others because this vision was collective and turned out to be a vision of the future that was meant for the entire human family.

 

Revelation, no matter what the explanation of its deeper origin, works this way in that it enters the imagination from some source. It doesn't follow cause and affect or even probability due to the nature of the imagination matrix. It doesn't require the preponderance of the data for inception. Relative to its collective nature, the same vision is innate in a wide range of people, but stays preconscious until it is pointed out then it will resonate. Unlike the global warning revelation, which science was able to convert to cause-affect and empirical probability, to get a more 80% to 20%, proof to imagination ratio, there are other revelations that are hard to treat that way, yet they still create a resonance in many people.

[Shubee]

Shubee, have you any reference to a scientist or any other sort of person sharing you interpretation of this story as having a “quantum mechanical twist”

 

I expect that the most likely scholarly reference that might support my thesis would be from Sir Roger Penrose. Have you read the Penrose commentary on Mr. Tompkins?

 

Roger Penrose's new foreword introduces Mr Tompkins to a new generation of readers, and reviews his adventures in the light of current developments in physics today.