# The Argument Clinic **URL:** \ **Category:** Side Conversation\ **Tags:** Comments\ **Created:** [November 22, 2022, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561 "2022-11-22T14:16:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 55

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2023, 2:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1096 "2023-05-14T14:40:21Z")

I think I’m going to fail ☹ (_Added_: Also, I’ll be holidaying in a caravan for the next week, without access to the internet or quantum physics textbooks. If I’m going to take the exam, I’ll need an extension) ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2023, 3:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1097 "2023-05-14T15:07:24Z")

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > . I was trying to show how it is not a bad model because other researchers are using it to conduct their own research. None of those articles are researchers conducting research, because none of them are primary research articles. Even if they were primary research, you can still base bad research on a bad model. So… another demonstration you don’t understand how logic works. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > What makes you say that? If someone told me they were an expert in bioinformatics because they had a degree in mathematical physics, I’d laugh in their face. That’s so self-evidently farcical, I find it difficult to believe you’re seriously asking the question. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Distinction without a difference fallacy It’s a distinction with a **massive** difference! Being the **product** of self-collapse is **nothing** like **being** self-collapse! Total failure of reading comprehension on your part! > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > The wave-function is digital information No, it is not. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > which I defined as Self-collapsing wave-function or digital code. You don’t get to define things into existence. If I defined common descent as ‘self-collapsing wave-function’, could I declare common descent was true? I think not. [continued ramblings about Orch-OR] Since Orch-OR would not support your conclusions even if true, there is no reason to continue discussing it. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I can say the same thing and I did not find any article that demolishes their theory as of yet. How many critical reviews of Orch-Or have you read. List them. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I don’t need to support premise 1 because it was already supported by the confirmation of the Orch-OR theory This is not just wrong, it is an outright lie. It does not make the same claim. You are lying about what it says. Stop that. Please refer to the quoted advice on how to actually structure a logical defense of a premise. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > The only way out of this ,on your end The only way out of this, on your end, is for you to learn how logic works, and make a logically valid defense of your meandering nonsense. This is very unlikely. ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2023, 6:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1098 "2023-05-14T18:36:14Z")

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Descent: assumes an unobservable process of transmutation of species. That is the concluded outcome of the observed process of descent with modification(species observationally change in response to accumulating generations), not an assumed entity. ![evolution of dogs](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/0/0d7f18dbec4938b0eb9f2123e5ccc002d6456bb7.jpeg) Observed: species change. We have literally seen them “transmute”. ![combined](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/e/e97347f9403a1a26da7e2b60551aed2c96d32c25.jpeg) ---

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2023, 9:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1099 "2023-05-14T21:41:24Z")

> [@Gisteron](#): > > Alright, @Meerkat_SK5. Attached to this message you will find a document with assignments beginners are typically confronted with in their first five or six weeks of studying quantum physics. This is not what I mean by the basics of quantum physics. I was talking about the basic concepts or terms , such as key concepts in quantum physics that you need to learn which include: 1. Superposition 2. Uncertainty principle 3. Quantum entanglement 4. Quantum tunneling I was not talking about the mathematical aspect of it, which is irrelevant to my case because wave-function collapse is a process that goes beyond math. > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > None of those articles are researchers conducting research, because none of them are primary research articles. Even if they were primary research, you can still base bad research on a bad model. So… another demonstration you don’t understand how logic works. Not true… > "Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. **Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105).** > > Thus, **the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters.** With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively… > > …An inevitable situation was that arguments about Baars’s direct exclusion of “freshman” quantum theory burst into more debates in which **critics stated that Baars should be** **more generous regarding quantum consciousness theory due to its practical basis, which could enrich our understanding of consciousness** ([92](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r92)-[95](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r95)). > [The finer scale of consciousness: quantum theory - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/)\> > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > If someone told me they were an expert in bioinformatics because they had a degree in mathematical physics, I’d laugh in their face. That’s so self-evidently farcical, I find it difficult to believe you’re seriously asking the question. Well first off, do you have a degree in quantum physics, quantum biology or mathematical physics, etc. ? If the answer is no, then by your own standards, you can’t assess whether their model is valid or not. Secondly, when I said they were experts, I meant that in relation to what they are arguing in their theory because their theory goes beyond the fields of quantum physics, biology, and neuroscience. They are advocating for an entirely new paradigm. The fields that they are experts in are perfectly aligned with what they are arguing and ,thus, more than competent to advance in science Third, you still not explain why having a degree in those fields would not make that person competent to craft a quantum theory about biology, specifically involving consciousness. > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > It’s a distinction with a **massive** difference! Being the **product** of self-collapse is **nothing** like **being** self-collapse! Total failure of reading comprehension on your part! Not quite, they are arguing for a new kind of physics altogether that violate quantum mechanics. More importantly, they are also arguing for a non-contingent consciousness that directly created finite conscious agents rather than indirectly from an evolutionary process: > “Mainstream science and philosophy assume that consciousness emerged at some point in the course of evolution, possibly fairly recently, with the advent of the brain and nervous systems. But Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and the Objective Reduction theory of Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness preceded life.” [Emphasis added] > > Consciousness is the collapse of the wavefunction | Stuart Hameroff » IAI TV 1 I think the confusion here is that this proto-consciousness that Penrose describes as preceding life is NOT the same thing as our actual consciousness: > “Our criterion for proto -consciousness is OR . It would be unreasonable to refer to OR as the criterion for actual consciousness, because, according to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time, and would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement. Quantum superpositions will continually be reaching the DP threshold for OR in non-biological settings as well as in biological ones, and usually take place in the purely random environment of a quantum system under measurement.” > > Journal of Cosmology ([thejournalofcosmology.com](http://thejournalofcosmology.com)) > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > > The wave-function is digital information > > No, it is not. My Gosh, you continue to be mistaken here. This is from a very prominent physicsit named Sean Carroll: > **We human beings, even those who have been studying quantum mechanics for a long time, still think in terms of a classical concepts. Positions, momenta, particles, fields, space itself. Quantum mechanics tells a different story. The quantum state of the universe is not a collection of things distributed through space, but something called a [wave function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function).** The wave function gives us a way of calculating the outcomes of measurements: whenever we measure an observable quantity like the position or momentum or spin of a particle, the wave function has a value for every possible outcome, and the probability of obtaining that outcome is given by the wave function squared. Indeed, that’s typically how we construct wave functions in practice. > > Mathematically, wave functions are elements of a mathematical structure called [Hilbert space](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space)… **The word “space” in “Hilbert space” doesn’t mean the good old three-dimensional space we walk through every day, or even the four-dimensional spacetime of relativity. It’s just math-speak for “a collection of things,” in this case “possible quantum states of the universe.”** > \*\*\> \*\* > **\> Hilbert space is quite an abstract thing, which can seem at times pretty removed from the tangible phenomena of our everyday lives.** > [Space Emerging from Quantum Mechanics – Sean Carroll (preposterousuniverse.com)](https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/07/18/space-emerging-from-quantum-mechanics/) > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > [continued ramblings about Orch-OR] > Since Orch-OR would not support your conclusions even if true, there is no reason to continue discussing it. > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > This is not just wrong, it is an outright lie. It does not make the same claim. You are lying about what it says. Stop that. How so? explain. Premise 1: The _universal self-collapsing **Platonic values** _ and the _fine-tuning constants governing the universe and life are constant throughout space and time_ are identical phenomena: > Penrose (1989, 1994) **combining features** of the Copenhagen interpretation and multiple worlds, and introducing consciousness into science as an intrinsic feature of the universe. To do so, Penrose characterized superpositions as in the first step in multiple worlds, separations in spacetime geometry, and the structure of the universe… > > …Most significantly, unlike the Copenhagen interpretation in which consciousness causes collapse, Penrose OR proposes that collapse causes consciousness ( **or that collapse is consciousness** )… > > …Each OR self-collapse chooses classical states, and is accompanied by a quantized protoconscious experienced quale. (A distinction between protoconscious OR moments and fully conscious Orch OR moments will be discussed later.) Thus, **consciousness is seen as a process on the edge between quantum and classical worlds.** … > > …However in Penrose OR the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced by resonate with what Penrose called **noncomputable Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry.** > > **These Platonic values** , patterns, or vibrations in the makeup of the universe, may encode qualia, and **pertain to** mathematics, geometry, ethics, and aesthetics, and **the 20 or so dimensionless constants governing the universe.** > > **These include** the fine structure constant, the mass ratios for all fundamental particles, the gravitational constant and many more, all precise to many decimal points. > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > > I can say the same thing and I did not find any article that demolishes their theory as of yet. > > How many critical reviews of Orch-Or have you read. List them. See for yourself: > … numerous rebuttals have emerged since the inception of the Orch-OR theory. These criticisms covered biological, gravitational and quantum fields to which Hameroff and Penrose responded one by one with detailed biological evidence, quantum mechanical equations and theoretical frameworks in “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory” ([69](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r69)). However, **this review generated an even larger wave of criticism. Comments sprang up like mushrooms (**[84](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r84),[89](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r89),[90](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r90)). One of the most noted retorts was proposed by Baars ([89](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r89)) in his article “Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses”, which caused this debate to reach the climax. Baars invoked some actual questions that many other critics mentioned… **Hameroff replied with reasonable explanations that validated Orch-OR as an appropriate and qualified theory to surmise consciousness** , despite the increasingly detailed development that should be interpreted ([91](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r91)). > The finer scale of consciousness: quantum theory Tianwen Li,1,# Hailiang Tang,1,# Jianhong Zhu,corresponding author1 and John H. Zhangcorresponding author2 > [@Mercer](#): > > You’re missing the point. The way you express it has no basis in reality. It clearly demonstrates that you don’t understand the basic concept. You are attacking a silly straw-man description of evolution put out by IDcreationist scammers. Isn’t this the pot that’s calling the kettle black. You were more than happy to attack a silly straw-man of Owen’s or Orch-OR description of evolution put out by Darwinists or secular scientists. This showed you didn’t understand the basic concepts of quantum physics. > [@Mercer](#): > > It’s not a claim. It’s a repeatedly observed phenomenon in real time. No, this is a claim with no independent evidence for it: > The evolution of life, from simple organic compounds in a primordial soup to the amazing diversity of contemporary organisms, has taken roughly 3.5 billion years. How can we explain the evolution of increasingly complex organisms over this period? A traditional approach has been to consider the succession of taxonomic groups, such as **the age of fishes giving rise to the age of amphibians, which gave way to the age of reptiles,** and so on. > [https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1421402112](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1421402112) > [@Mercer](#): > > Your claim that the theory that unifies biology is wrong necessarily entails an implicit claim of competence in biology, does it not? Not quite, I am saying that Owen’s theory of evolution is a better explanation for the evidence. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > Caseids have as much to do with the evolution of mammals as a kangaroo has to do with the evoluton of whales. I’m going to assume that you know nothing about them. But they are irrelevant to the transition from “mammal-like reptiles” to mammals. Didn’t you read that review I gave you? I did. However, it did not support the reptile-mammal transition claim because they never concluded that the single origin hypothesis was the best explanation. The independent innovation hypothesis was also a possible explanation for the evolution of the middle ear. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > Now, why is that “study” a joke? Many reasons, but perhaps the most important is that the methods are never justified. Why should baraminic distances tell us what’s a separate kind? I agree, it is not enough to establish separate kinds or even separate families. But, I do think they are justified in showing that there are significant differences between taxonomic groups. ---

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2023, 11:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1100 "2023-05-14T23:12:13Z")

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2023, 11:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1101 "2023-05-14T23:13:27Z")

I’m responding to everything, but out of order for a reason: > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > See for yourself: This does not answer my question. How many critical reviews of Orch-OR have you actually read? I will not continue until you answer this question. Failure to answer this question **first** with a list of critical reviews you have **actually, personally** read will be interpreted as an admission you’ve read none, at which point your opinions will be dismissed as worthless. **You have one shot at this. No take backs or second attempts.** > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Not true… No, it is absolutely true that none of the articles you provided were primary research. [quote] I already told you that article is from a predatory journal. Continuing to reference it is dishonest. Stop being dishonest. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Well first off, do you have a degree in quantum physics, quantum biology or mathematical physics, etc. ? I don’t need a degree in any of those things to know that they don’t make you an expert in bioinformatics. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Secondly, when I said they were experts, I meant that in relation to what they are arguing in their theory I know, and you are wrong. Because being an expert in mathematical physics **does not** make you an expert in quantum biology. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > They are advocating for an entirely new paradigm. They may be experts in their new fiction, but I don’t care about that. You admitted they aren’t experts in the **relevant fields** , which is the pertinent question. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > The fields that they are experts in are perfectly aligned with what they are arguing No, a molecular biologist and a quantum physicist would be perfectly aligned to what they are arguing. An anesthesiologist and a mathematical physicist are not qualified in the slightest. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Third, you still not explain why having a degree in those fields would not make that person competent to craft a quantum theory about biology Because expertise in mathematical physics and anesthesiology confer no expertise in quantum biology. This is obvious to anyone with the capacity to understand the words in the sentence. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Not quite First, nothing in the following paragraphs and quotations addresses in the least the logic of the bit of my comment you were claiming to be responding to. Being X being the product of Y is different from X being the same as Y. Second, the last quotation conclusively supports my argument that they claim the two are different. Thank you for demonstrating that I know more about Orch-OR than you do. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > My Gosh, you continue to be mistaken here. This is from a very prominent physicsit named Sean Carroll: Ctrl-F ‘Digital’ - No results found. Guess you’re still wrong. The wave function is not digital information. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > How so? explain Because Orch-OR **does not** say, suggest, or imply **anything** about either a digital code **or** that the self-collapsing OR is **identical** to cosmological constants. That’s just not an honest description of the hypothesis. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Premise 1: The _universal self-collapsing **Platonic values** _ and the _fine-tuning constants governing the universe and life are constant throughout space and time_ are identical phenomena: So you’ve changed it **again!?** [long series of quotations] Ctrl-F ‘fine-tuning’ - No results found. Guess you’re still wrong. None of those say that self-collapsing entities are synonymous with fine-tuning constants. ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 12:44am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1102 "2023-05-15T00:44:05Z")

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 12:59am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1103 "2023-05-15T00:59:43Z")

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > You’re missing the point. The way you express it has no basis in reality. It clearly demonstrates that you don’t understand the basic concept. You are attacking a silly straw-man description of evolution put out by IDcreationist scammers. > > Isn’t this the pot that’s calling the kettle black. You were more than happy to attack a silly straw-man of Owen’s or Orch-OR description of evolution put out by Darwinists or secular scientists. Where did I do that? Your lame reply is an implicit admission that you don’t understand the basic concept of evolution. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > This showed you didn’t understand the basic concepts of quantum physics. Where? > [@Mercer](#): > > It’s not a claim. It’s a repeatedly observed phenomenon in real time. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > No, this is a claim with no independent evidence for it: > > > The evolution of life, from simple organic compounds in a primordial soup to the amazing diversity of contemporary organisms, has taken roughly 3.5 billion years. How can we explain the evolution of increasingly complex organisms over this period? A traditional approach has been to consider the succession of taxonomic groups, such as **the age of fishes giving rise to the age of amphibians, which gave way to the age of reptiles,** and so on. > > [https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1421402112](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1421402112) That doesn’t support your position at all. “Age of XXXs” refers to dominant taxa, not linearity. Dude, you don’t understand evolution. Full stop. Everything you throw at this only confirms it. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > Your claim that the theory that unifies biology is wrong necessarily entails an implicit claim of competence in biology, does it not? > > Not quite, I am saying that Owen’s theory of evolution is a better explanation for the evidence. You don’t look at evidence. Rhetoric is not evidence. Moreover, you can’t have an informed opinion without understanding basic concepts, which you obviously lack. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > However, it did not support the reptile-mammal transition claim because they never concluded that the single origin hypothesis was the best explanation. This is word salad. Conclusions cannot support a hypothesis. Only evidence does, and you avoid evidence. John is citing the evidence, not the conclusions. Again, what anyone says about the evidence is not the evidence. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > But, I do think they are justified in showing that there are significant differences between taxonomic groups. They wouldn’t be different groups if there weren’t differences. Your point is utterly meaningless. ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1104 "2023-05-15T01:00:26Z")

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I did. However, it did not support the reptile-mammal transition claim because they never concluded that the single origin hypothesis was the best explanation. The independent innovation hypothesis was also a possible explanation for the evolution of the middle ear. This seems like a tacit admission that caseids, i.e. the “paper” you referenced, would be irrelevant to the evolution of the mammalian jaw and to the existence of transitional forms. Now, the reason the paper I noted did not conclude that a single origin was the best explanation was that we already know that synapsids are a real group. The independent innovation hypothesis is not a possible explanation, and nobody has to consider it. If a very detailed transitional series isn’t good evidence of common descent, then what could possibly be? > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I agree, it is not enough to establish separate kinds or even separate families. But, I do think they are justified in showing that there are significant differences between taxonomic groups. If differences between taxonomic groups do not show that they’re separate kinds, they’re irrelevant to the question. ---

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1105 "2023-05-15T01:14:50Z")

> [@Tim](#): > > I will take this as an admission that you **have no formal background in physics whatsoever.** I disagree! I think Meerkat is admitting that he has no _ **informal** _ background, either. 🕶 ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:25am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1106 "2023-05-15T01:25:49Z")

Let’s be fair! Meer **also** doesn’t have even an informal background in logic! ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:31am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1107 "2023-05-15T01:31:51Z")

But he does know how to spell several words associated with quantum mechanics. That should count for something. ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1108 "2023-05-15T01:35:01Z")

![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/f/a/fa843eaf09e4cbc3079ffe94796a0bef36d45b79.png) ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1109 "2023-05-15T01:46:37Z")

> [@Mercer](#): > > I disagree! I think Meerkat is admitting that he has no _ **informal** _ background, either. 🕶 Quite possibly, but an “informal background” is more ill-defined, so I thought I was on safer ground in restricting myself to a “formal background”. Any Physics class will have math on the blackboard/whiteboard/overhead/etc – and any student will quickly learn that you cannot gain a functional understanding of _any_ subfield of physics without understanding the math involved. ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1110 "2023-05-15T01:49:48Z")

> Mathematics is pure language – the language of science. It is unique among languages in its ability to provide precise expression for every thought or concept that can be formulated in its terms. – Alfred Adler How can you hope to understand science if you don’t understand the “language of science”? It would be a bit like somebody who doesn’t speak German trying to explain German poetry. ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 1:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1111 "2023-05-15T01:57:44Z")

Are you saying the gravity of the situation would force them to accelerate their understanding? ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 2:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1112 "2023-05-15T02:56:14Z")

To put it **force** fully, that would be a **mass** ive understatement. 😛 ---

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 3:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1113 "2023-05-15T03:56:56Z")

Since we apparently do this sort of thing now, would this be a good time to bring up the way I’ve discovered that the principles of metallurgy overturn everything we know about pediatric dentistry? To be clear, I know nothing about metallurgy or about pediatric dentistry, but it seems to me that this means my insights will be not only worthwhile, but refreshing to those who dislike the whole “steel is hard” paradigm and the “children have teeth” paradigm. ---

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 7:28am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1114 "2023-05-15T07:28:02Z")

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > This is not what I mean by the basics of quantum physics. I was talking about the basic concepts or terms , such as key concepts in quantum physics that you need to learn which include: > > 1. Superposition > 2. Uncertainty principle > 3. Quantum entanglement > 4. Quantum tunneling > > I was not talking about the mathematical aspect of it, which is irrelevant to my case because wave-function collapse is a process that goes beyond math. It is immaterial to me what you did or did not mean by “the basics of quantum physics”. I explained to you, in multiple posts, that the test was going to be on what are _actually_ “the basics of quantum physics”. You said you studied them from multiple sources. I did not put those words into your mouth, _you_ chose to speak them. Words you did _not_ choose to speak were ones about how it only means babbling on about features that seem esoteric to those who could not derive them mathematically. And I’m not even asking to do that, mind you. What I’m asking are not high level concepts, nor is this particularly high level math. Presumably those sources wouldn’t be your own armchair ponderings, but materials produced by _actually_ qualified people (or at least not significantly less qualified than yours truly, one should hope) who without a doubt would consider this test to be on what _they_ too agree are “the basics of quantum physics”. The entirety of Problem 2 concerns the uncertainty principles and their general derivation. In Question 2b you are asked to derive Heisenberg’s famous one, between location and momentum. In Question 3c you are asked to do this again, but with an alternative description of location and momentum. Since that’s in your cute little list of relevant things you presumably studied, you should score at least the eight points granted for Problem 2. I could well have asked about quantum tunneling too. It would look something like Problem 4, just a little longer to work out. Surely if you understand the tunnel effect, you can solve Problem 4. Between it, Problem 2, and Questions 3c, 3b (which is required for 3c), and a part of 3a (which is required for 3b), we are looking at \>36 points, already a passing grade. Anyone can _talk_ about quantum mechanics. That doesn’t take them any training whatsoever. The difference between someone who knows how to technobabble and someone who actually studied quantum mechanics, for even as little as a month, is that the latter can also _do_ quantum mechanics, little though that be. Exercises like these are some of those most basic things they can do. I suggest that instead of embarassing yourself with pathetic excuses, you use the seven days that began with the challenge’s uploading to brush up on the studying you claim you had done and give it your best shot. It only takes about one or two to actually complete the entirety of it, let alone a passable fraction, so if the material is any sort of familiar to you, this should be plenty time for you to prove as much to everyone on this board. Good luck. ---

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2023, 5:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1115 "2023-05-15T17:09:07Z")

> [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > Failure to answer this question **first** with a list of critical reviews you have **actually, personally** read will be interpreted as an admission you’ve read none, at which point your opinions will be dismissed as worthless. Alright, let me rephrase what I said before to be more clear. I did not find any article that demolishes their theory so badly **that they couldn’t or didn’t adequately respond back** as of yet. This was my point before when I quoted that part of the review article. Can you provide an article that attempted to demolish their theory and they failed to adequately respond back? > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > No, it is absolutely true that none of the articles you provided were primary research. Keep in mind, this list does not even include the primary research that attempts to disconfirm their theory: > **[Direct Modulation of Microtubule Stability Contributes to Anthracene General...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671381/)** > > Recently, we identified 1-aminoanthracene as a fluorescent general anesthetic. To investigate the mechanism of action, a photoactive analogue, 1-azidoanthracene, was synthesized. Administration of 1-azidoanthracene to albino stage 40–47 tadpoles ... > **[Nuclear Spin Attenuates the Anesthetic Potency of Xenon Isotopes in Mice:...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29642079/)** > > Xenon isotopes with nuclear spin are less potent than those without, and polarizability cannot account for the difference. The lower anesthetic potency of Xe may be the result of it participating in conscious processing and therefore partially... > **[Anesthetic Alterations of Collective Terahertz Oscillations in Tubulin...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5575257/)** > > Anesthesia blocks consciousness and memory while sparing non-conscious brain activities. While the exact mechanisms of anesthetic action are unknown, the Meyer-Overton correlation provides a link between anesthetic potency and solubility in a... > **[Computational Predictions of Volatile Anesthetic Interactions with the...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382613/)** > > The cytoskeleton is essential to cell morphology, cargo trafficking, and cell division. As the neuronal cytoskeleton is extremely complex, it is no wonder that a startling number of neurodegenerative disorders (including but not limited to... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07303](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07303) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956566313001590](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956566313001590) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4) > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > They may be experts in their new fiction, but I don’t care about that. You admitted they aren’t experts in the **relevant fields** , which is the pertinent question. No, I admitted that they were not experts in specifically quantum biology or quantum physics. But, these are not necessarily relevant fields because they are proposes a theory that goes beyond those fields, which leads me to addresss this… > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > No, a molecular biologist and a quantum physicist would be perfectly aligned to what they are arguing. An anesthesiologist and a mathematical physicist are not qualified in the slightest. No, it would not be because they are proposing a new kind of physics and that consciousness is a property of quantum mechanics in neuroscience. Both of these subjects involve a new scientific paradigm. This means that having expertise in anesthesiology and mathematical physics are perfectly suitable to deal with those subjects. But, I don’t see how molecular biology or quantum physics would be suitable. Can you explain how? > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > Being X being the product of Y is different from X being the same as Y. Second, the last quotation conclusively supports my argument that they claim the two are different. Yes, they are different, but pointing out this difference is either irrelevant or does not refute my argument at all. Instead, it is exactly what I have been arguing. Human consciousness was created directly by a larger non-contingent proto-consciousness and are both connected. This is why I am calling it the common designer theory. > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > > My Gosh, you continue to be mistaken here. This is from a very prominent physicsit named Sean Carroll: > > Ctrl-F ‘Digital’ - No results found. > > Guess you’re still wrong. The wave function is not digital information. Actually, I got disorganized during our discourse. The self-collapse of the wave-function is what represents digital information not the wave-function by itself because they represent discrete moments of time. I am just going to stick with the term “Platonic values” so I don’t get disorganized again. > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > So you’ve changed it **again!?** Yes because you want me to provide verbatim text. So I am trying to make sure the argument is identical on the surface since you guys choose to be willfully ignorant of their work. > [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > [long series of quotations] > Ctrl-F ‘fine-tuning’ - No results found. > > Guess you’re still wrong. None of those say that self-collapsing entities are synonymous with fine-tuning constants. Premise 1: The _fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time_ is caused by non-computable Platonic values Premise 2: The non-compuable platonic values are confirmed **if** the _fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time_ is confirmed. Premise 3: The _fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time_ is confirmed. Therefore, the existence of non-computable Platonic values that cause the fine-tuning constants governing the universe is confirmed. > \*\*Penrose (1989, 1994) **combining features** of the Copenhagen interpretation and multiple worlds, and introducing consciousness into science as an intrinsic feature of the universe. **To do so, Penrose characterized superpositions as in the first step in multiple worlds, separations in spacetime geometry, and the structure of the universe.** **But unlike multiple worlds, spacetime separations, according to Penrose, are unstable, separations continuing only until reaching an objective threshold related to the quantum uncertainty principle, EG ¼ h/t.** The magnitude of the superposition is EG (its gravitational selfenergy), h is the PlanckeDirac constant and t the time at which OR self-collapse occurs. > > > > > \*\*In this approach, whenever superpositions reach threshold, OR events select particular classical states, accompanied by moments of (proto) conscious experienced qualia, basic units of feeling and awareness. **The choice of classical states in OR events are influenced by (resonate with) what Penrose termed Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of the universe.** The qualitative feeling of each quale, ie, good, bad, or otherwise, would depend on resonance and geometry of specific spacetime separations with deeper, Platonic levels of the universe. **Most significantly, unlike the Copenhagen interpretation in which consciousness causes collapse, Penrose OR proposes that collapse causes consciousness (or that collapse is consciousness)** > \*\* > > > …As described in the Anthropic principle (AP), the universe is fine-tuned for consciousness and life. But how and why these key values are so precise are unknown, and approached by several versions of the AP. In strong AP (Barrow and Tipler, 1986), the universe is somehow compelled to harbor and enable consciousness. The weak AP (Carter, 1974) suggests there exist multiple universes, and that only this particular one harbors conscious beings able to ponder the question. The weak AP is often aligned with MWI or multiverse concepts. **Penrose OR avoids the need for MWI and supports strong AP, suggesting that over aeons, dimensionless constants defining the universe evolved and self-organized to optimize life, qualia, and consciousness.** > > > …However in Penrose OR the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced by resonate with what Penrose called **noncomputable Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry.** > > > **These Platonic values** , patterns, or vibrations in the makeup of the universe, may encode qualia, and **pertain to** mathematics, geometry, ethics, and aesthetics, and **the 20 or so dimensionless constants governing the universe.** > [@RonSewell](#): > > That is hollow. The math is not some optional “_aspect_” of QM. Physicist present their theories in the language of mathematics. You are here making grand pretensions of some unified theory and yet you are unable to cope with any degree of rigor. Newton is renowned because he worked out an analytical treatment of gravity, not because he was the first to observe that apples fall to the ground. Yes, I would agree **if** my theory and the Orch-OR model was advancing a theory that was part of the old paradigm of quantum physics. However, this theory is advocating for a _new_ paradigm of physics that goes beyond math. For instance, as Penrose suggested, the fine-tuning constants governing the universe and the self-collapse of the wave-function both have their origin in non-computable Platonic values that are embedded in the structure of space-time. These values cannot be reduced to algorithms or computational procedures, but instead have a non-physical, abstract character that he associates with Platonic mathematical concepts. The old paradigm says that these mathematical concepts are either descriptions of reality or possess no causal powers. > [@Mercer](#): > > Where did I do that? Your lame reply is an implicit admission that you don’t understand the basic concept of evolution. You suggested in a different thread that quantum mind theory is just quantum woo. This revealed to me how willfully ignorant you are about their work in their perspective fields. Do yourself a favor and watch this video explaining the differences between quantum mind theory and quantum woo. All you need to watch is the summary part, which is between 15:20 to 16:00 [Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: How are they related? - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1wqUCATYUA&t=1s) If you can’t do this simple task, then this is a complete failure on your part! > [@Mercer](#): > > This is word salad. Conclusions cannot support a hypothesis. Only evidence does, and you avoid evidence. John is citing the evidence, not the conclusions. Again, what anyone says about the evidence is not the evidence. Which makes my point. The paper does not support his conclusion because more than one hypothesis can explain the data. As you alluded, He is just making his own conclusion about that evidence. Anybody can do the same thing about any paper. > [@Mercer](#): > > That doesn’t support your position at all. “Age of XXXs” refers to dominant taxa, not linearity. > > Dude, you don’t understand evolution. Full stop. Everything you throw at this only confirms it. No no no. Look at this again: > A traditional approach has been to consider the succession of taxonomic groups, such as **the age of fishes giving rise to the age of amphibians, which gave way to the age of reptiles,** and so on. This is NOT a repeatedly observed phenomenon in real time. Instead, it is an unsupported claim that exists solely in your imagination. > [@Mercer](#): > > They wouldn’t be different groups if there weren’t differences. Your point is utterly meaningless. That’s because you missed my point. LOL > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > The independent innovation hypothesis is not a possible explanation, and nobody has to consider it. You need to support this claim because the study you gave me certainly did not make this claim or conclusion. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > If a very detailed transitional series isn’t good evidence of common descent, then what could possibly be? It is obviously not realistic to obtain every single fossil. But, we should find enough fossils that would allow us to directly observe reptiles transitioning into mammals. Not simply a share feature that you claim supports your personally preferred hypothesis. My point is that it should not be left up to interpretation or inference. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > This seems like a tacit admission that caseids, i.e. the “paper” you referenced, would be irrelevant to the evolution of the mammalian jaw and to the existence of transitional forms No, it is relevant because it shows that reptiles did not necessarily evolve into mammals. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > If differences between taxonomic groups do not show that they’re separate kinds, they’re irrelevant to the question. If they show differences, it gives us reason to _suspect_ that they are created kinds though. > [@Gisteron](#): > > I explained to you, in multiple posts, that the test was going to be on what are _actually_ “the basics of quantum physics”. You said you studied them from multiple sources. I did not put those words into your mouth, _you_ chose to speak them Actually, you did put those words in my mouth because I never said I studied the basics of quantum physics. Instead, I said and you pointed out as well that… > Simply studying it online or in school does not seem to count to you guys because **I studied quantum physics online from various sources** in order to develop the common design theory… (emphasis added) Nice little bait and switch. As you know, studying quantum physics online from various sources is not the same thing as studying the basics of quantum physics. > [@Gisteron](#): > > Since that’s in your cute little list of relevant things you presumably studied, you should score at least the eight points granted for Problem 2. You are forgetting what I said in post 716. I only need to know the basics of quantum physics and read ENOUGH about it online to **make my case.** You did not construct it in a way that was relevant to my case because the theory in question goes beyond those fields. They are proposing a new kind of physics and that consciousness is a property of quantum mechanics in neuroscience. Both of these subjects involve a new scientific paradigm. This means that having expertise in anesthesiology and mathematical physics are perfectly suitable to deal with those subjects. In contrast, quantum physics and neuroscience would be less suitable. [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561.md?page=54) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561.md?page=56)