I have decided to restructure what I said at the start of post 45 in the last topic Why cannot both Design and Descent be taught in science classes - Peaceful Science after what @Paul_King pointed out regarding my lack of explanation on how the observational evidence provides support for the thesis statement. So I am going to connect the dots on the line of evidence I listed before and provide a much more detailed explanation. Hopefully then, you guys will finally pinpoint exactly where my theory is unscientific. So let’s try this again shall we everyone…
@Dan_Eastwood @John_Harshman @djkriese @swamidass @Andrew_Christianson @AllenWitmerMiller @RonSewell @Rumraket @T_aquaticus
Universal Consciousness
Well first off, here is a source of an experiment that demonstrates that it is not the measuring device that fundamentally causes the collapse of the wavefunction:
Now, the quantum eraser and double-slit experiments are pretty much the same with one key difference. In the quantum eraser, they look to see if our observation is really what causes particles to collapse, as suggested by the experiment in question:
"In an interferometric quantum eraser experiment, one can actively choose whether or not to erase which-path information, a particle feature, of one quantum system and thus observe its wave feature via interference or not by performing a suitable measurement on a distant quantum system entangled with it.
In all experiments performed to date, this choice took place either in the past or, in
some delayed-choice arrangements, in the future of the interference. Thus, in principle, physical
communications between choice and interference were not excluded. Here we report a quantum
eraser experiment, in which by enforcing Einstein locality no such communication is possible. This is achieved by independent active choices, which are space-like separated from the interference.
In other words, what causes collapse is knowledge and knowledge require a knower::
“…the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the context. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement”.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the consciousness of the observer physically and directly caused the collapse under measurement like some sort of ESP psychic power. Instead, it is to show that the conscious observer plays a fundamental role in causing the collapse. There is a difference.
When you combine the 34 with the 47 respondents according to this much larger poll, it shows that this is what majority of physicists believe is the case:
Question 5: In your opinion the observer
a. Is a complex (quantum) system:
57
b. Should play no fundamental role whatsoever:
15
c. Plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role:
47
d. Plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness):
34
b2237_Ch-14.indd (arizona.edu)
On the other hand, the evidence supporting the Orch-OR theory goes a step further in establishing that the consciousness of the observer also has the distinguished role of collapsing the wave function because consciousness under Orch-OR is quantum mechanical in nature. This is what they mean by having a distinguished physical role from the measurement apparatus:
“…The violation of the classical weight structure is similar to the violation of the well-known Bell inequalities studied in quantum mechanics, and hence suggests that the quantum formalism and hence the modeling by quantum membership weights, as for example in [18], can accomplish what classical membership weights cannot do.”
Experimental Evidence for Quantum Structure in Cognition | SpringerLink
Thus, only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually DISCONNECTED choice” reveal. The non-local conscious mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.
Moreover, there are other experiments that show how the choice of measurement in one lab really causes a change in the local wave-function in the other lab instantaneously : “That is, according to the theory, the detection at one point must instantaneously collapse the wavefunction to nothing at all other points.” From this experiment, we can also deduce that consciousness is universal or has the ability to be casually active everywhere via quantum entanglement.
However, since we are contingent conscious minds, this obviously does not give a full explanation for how humans got here. So we need evidence that a non-contingent being exist. This leads me to explain how the evidence showing the Reproduction of the Common Descent Patterns and how The wave-function is real and non-local suggests that a non-contingent consciousness created life on earth. For instance, this prebiotic experiment demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules can “evolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedly”.
This suggests that the creation of simple to complex life on earth was by a universal consciousness, which is what the Orch-OR theory invokes for both the origin and development of life:
Ch20-9780124201903_aq 1…1 (galileocommission.org)
b2237_Ch-14.indd (arizona.edu)
More importantly, the digital information harbored in life is immaterial and non-local because we have evidence that the wave-function is real and non-local:
Measurements on the reality of the wavefunction | Nature Physics
Quantum-nonlocality at all speeds – ScienceDaily [Secondary source]
This means that we have a basis to infer that a non-contingent universal consciousness created and developed life on earth.
Empirical basis and Practical applications for Common Designer theory
Now, the only real difference between the two theories is that the Common Design theory suggests that the Universal non-contingent consciousness described in Orch-OR theory is a Common Designer or a human being like us who is perfect. But, we have good evidence that this is likely the nature of this conscious agent. For example, Genomes appear to have “remarkable similarities to natural languages” and “systems biology shares many aspects in common with computer systems engineering”:
Grammar of protein domain architectures | PNAS
Survey of Engineering Models for Systems Biology (hindawi.com)
Moreover, the number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal is so high that it strongly suggests that this being has no flaws or limitations in character or will [just ask for references]. This means that what looks like a flaw may actually be the result of practical limitations caused by tradeoffs between conflicting design objectives.
For example, cars will be heavily damaged by collisions at just 30 mph, so why aren’t bumpers designed to be big enough to absorb the impact without damage to the rest of the vehicle? Or why aren’t bumpers on the sides of the cars as well? (Lindsay, Jeff. 2005).
Thus, this would supposedly be deemed a design flaw by critics, but there are new problems created in other areas when we make bumpers larger or heavier or place them on the sides. According to a professional engineer, there are practical limitations to the width and length of vehicles, and heavier bumpers can reduce gas mileage and the maneuverability of the vehicle (Lindsay, Jeff. 2005).
The reality is virtually every feature in a designed structure such as a car is a compromise between competing objectives: safety, comfort, aesthetics, cost, ease of manufacturing, ease of repair (an objective often overlooked), stability, speed and acceleration, and so forth. Generally, not every desirable objective can be met. (Lindsay, Jeff. 2005).
He goes on to explain that someone who thinks they can propose a change for a minor improvement in one design objective is hardly noteworthy, especially when those who make that point probably have little experience with design or engineering, for it is well known that “simple” changes in complex systems often have major, hard-to-predict consequences - a fact that engineers learn over and over as they design and try new machines and products.
Another example of this is the paper industry where a small change in one part of a paper machine may lead to disaster elsewhere in the papermaking process. The interconnectedness and complexity of a paper machine is nothing compared to the human body. Thus, before we assume that we have spotted a “design flaw,” we need to know the consequences of “fixing” the flaw (Lindsay, Jeff. 2005).
Lindsay, J. (2005). Design Flaws versus Intelligent Design: The Pentor. JeffLindsay.com Intelligent Design and Design Flaws: Jury-Rigged Design in Nature?
In Summary
Here is my thesis statement again and the evidence supporting it…
Because a Universal Consciousness [A] [C] must exist to create life of any kind [B], the creation and development of life on earth is best explained by a Perfect [D] Common Designer [E].
The evidence supporting a Quantum mechanical Mind [A]:
Quantum structure is in cognition
The wave-function is ontologically real
The evidence supporting the necessity of this being [B]:
The interaction-free experiments
Lenski experiment
Metabolism-first experiments
Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice
Reproduction of Common Descent Patterns
The evidence supporting the universality of this being [C]:
Experimental proof of non-local wave-function collapse
Quantum Non-locality at all speeds
The evidence supporting the perfect character and will of this being [D]:
The Alleged design flaws that are found to be optimal
The evidence supporting the common attributes of this being [E]:
Reproduction of Common Descent Patterns
In Conclusion
It has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be design flaws caused by an unguided process instead of a divine agent turned out not to be flaws at all with increasing understanding of the design. In fact, an article has even suggested that this current evolutionary framework and perspective is actually impeding scientific advancement and causing practical difficulties:
“However, with a growing number of instances of pseudogene-annotated regions later found to exhibit biological function, there is an emerging risk that these regions of the genome are prematurely dismissed as pseudogenic and therefore regarded as void of function.”
This realization solidifies the grounds for using modeling formalisms from the engineering subdisciplines and apply them to biological systems. In future, it will be paramount for scientists to reexamine the remaining claims of design flaws by looking at the organism as a whole, even if it exhibits some features that may be perplexing, rather than make an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity. By encouraging researchers to look at the overall design and purpose of an organism as well as expand and test different environmental conditions, the aim is to accelerate scientific discoveries and to prove this explanatory mechanism exist beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, if the Common Designer theory has no empirical basis and application outside the bible as suggested by @Dan_Eastwood or unscientific as suggested by @John_Harshman, then someone would need to explain why what I just presented does not cut the mustard.
One more thing, I have decided to omit my claim that the Common Designer is Jesus Christ for now since it’s causing a lot of confusion as to whether I am presenting a scientific proposition or not.
If you don’t see anything wrong with teaching this level of education on quantum mechanics, then how do you know that including the Orch-OR theory into the textbooks would require a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics than Quantum information science?
Of course, this presupposes that the scientific process that involves the consensus is entirely or primarily objective, but this is not necessarily the case. For instance, the famous philosopher and historian of science (as well as a physicist), Thomas Kuhn, in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” notes that scientific consensus occur through “replacement” where new scientists, attracted to the new paradigm, become open to its ideas, and old guards of the old paradigm, still unable to explain the quirks in their data, simply retire and naturally exit from the scientific community. Until that replacement happens, however, skepticism and opposition persists. Max Planck, the founder of quantum physcists, concurs:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
This principle, which was famously laid out by German theoretical physicist Max Planck in 1950 along with Thomas Kuhn, has actually been confirmed according to a new study.
What evidence do you have that shows how this claim that “agreement among scientists is a reasonable way to estimate what can be presented as true” is true itself and is there a consensus that even agrees with that statement?
Right, according to Orch-theory, this is the universal consciousness at work. Remember, what I said before, there are other experiments that show how the choice of measurement in one lab really causes a change in the local wave-function in the other lab instantaneously : “That is, according to the theory, the detection at one point must instantaneously collapse the wavefunction to nothing at all other points.” From this experiment, we can also deduce that consciousness is universal or has the ability to be casually active everywhere via quantum entanglement.