Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Shubee

Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science.

The most widely accepted definition of science is the one I gave above: a process of theory (AKA explanation) being used to make predictions which are tested (AKA validated or falsified) by experiment.

Originally Posted by Shubee

I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics …

There is a critical flaw with this approach: Hilbert’s approach to math, and by extension, physical science, generally known as formalism, is based on the assumption that a formal mathematical system isomorphic to physical reality that is complete, consistent, and decidable, exists. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that this assumption is untrue, not only for a fully reality-describing formal system, but even for a simpler system with a finite alphabet and the usual arithmetic operations.

This is certainly not to say that formalism is ineffective or bad, but rather that it is not innately superior to less than fully mathematically formal processes, but rather is practically useful as a tool in less formal processes. Though you’d be had pressed to find a more ardent proponent of formalism than me, even I stop short of agreeing with Shubee’s preference for formalism over experimentally verified science.

Another problem with formalism, which I and everyone I’ve read or spoken to with practical experience with formalism acknowledge, is that it’s very difficult. If one insists on accepting and applying only formally proven propositions, one would be incapable of practically any application of knowledge. Even with modern computer resources and personal genius, the amount of time necessary to follow Hilbert’s program to a point where this were not the case would likely take more than a human lifetime, which is beyond the bounds of most humans’ patience.

Originally Posted by Shubee

…so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

"The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe."

There are at least a couple of problem with this approach.

First, in a mathematically formal sense, there are not axioms, because they are not described in terms of an enumerated collection of terms (an alphabet) and operations within some formal system. This requirement is difficult to explain tersely – to understand it, if the reader does not already, I recommend reading chapter 14 of Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, and its supporting internal and external referenced.

Second, there is a well-know gap in the knowledge domain of quantum mechanics and disciplines such as biology, paleontology, and geology. Even using the best present approximation methods and computer resources, we are not able use rigorous quantum mechanical formalism to describe even a single living cell. While quantum mechanics has provided interesting intuitive speculations into at least neurology (eg: Penrose’s “physics of consciousness”), present-day techniques and resources appear far from able to support a practical theory of “quantum biology”, etc.

If a theory of “quantum Darwinian evolutionary biology” in presently unfeasible, so is a theory of “quantum creationism”.