# The Argument Clinic

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 1609

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [October 10, 2022, 2:20am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1609 "2022-10-10T02:20:34Z")

</div>

> [@Common Ancestry and Nested Hierarchy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-ancestry-and-nested-hierarchy/15472/28):
>
> The “universal constructor” isn’t a reference to some ‘universal common designer,’ it’s von Neumann’s name for the mechanical ‘universal common ancestor’ which self-replicates.

This is not accurate. Read this:

“The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a mindless robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.[6](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#fn6)”

[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#d3e476](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#d3e476)

As you can see, this is almost exactly what the universal common designer theory entails. In fact, I don’t see any real differences between the two models other than the terms used to described them.

> [@Common Ancestry and Nested Hierarchy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-ancestry-and-nested-hierarchy/15472/28):
>
> A simple search on Wikipedia shows that [von Neumann’s universal constructor model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor) is the same as common ancestry, just applied to mechanical rather than biological systems.

You just made my point that I was trying to get @John_Harshman to accept, but he claimed that I was misinterpreting the sources I gave him showing that functional components or requirements can produce nested patterns as well. He thinks ONLY a flesh and blood common ancestor can explain those patterns. I tried to explain to him that a conscious quantum computer can produce those same patterns, but he denies it.

Maybe you can do a better job than me in convincing him otherwise.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561)._