I went back and scanned our conversation and managed to find out what you were asking for now. You first claimed that only common descent produces nested patterns. Then, when I showed you how common design can produce the same patterns through the laws of physics, you changed it to nested patterns that resulted from creating animals from the orders and family level. This subtle shift threw me off.
If you want studies showing how common design would produce nested patterns from creating animals, here are a few studies showing how Horizontal Regulatory Transfer (HRT) can create nested hierarchies:
A study published in Nature in 2010 showed that the acquisition of a regulatory gene for nitrogen assimilation allowed a marine bacterium to colonize a new ecological niche and create a new subpopulation with a different metabolic profile:
Four components shape the functional architecture of bacterial regulatory networks: 1. global transcription factors, which are responsible for responding to general signals and for module coordination; 2. strict, globally regulated genes, which are responsible for encoding products important for the basal machinery of the cell and are only governed by global transcription factors; 3. modular genes, which are modules devoted to particular cell functions; and 4. intermodular genes, which are responsible for integrating, at the promoter level, disparate physiological responses coming from different modules to achieve an integrated response. All these functional components form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka -like hierarchy exhibiting feedback.
Regulatory Networks, Bacteria | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)
In summary, if a population of bacteria acquires a new set of regulatory elements through HRT that enable them to metabolize a new nutrient source, this could lead to the formation of a nested hierarchy within the population. “Bacteria that acquire the new regulatory elements would be able to use the new nutrient source, while those that do not acquire the elements would not. Over time, this could lead to the emergence of subpopulations within the larger population that are specialized for different nutrient sources, creating a nested hierarchy of metabolic capabilities.”
The extended modern synthesis still assumes that this mutational process is random or not directed towards improvement and assumes common ancestry.
These two assumptions do not and cannot be incorporated in the common design model.
The first sentence is what I was referring to when I said the second sentence.
I don’t see the difference. You must have a different understanding of wave-function collapse than me or something.
Anyhow, I made a mistake when I said energy particles because particles are bits of energy, which makes it redundant to call it energy particles.
It’s not. It’s not even a feature of Newtonian physics (if that’s what we want to call classical) either. It’s a feature of statistics, of systems about which some randomness (or functional equivalent) is assumed. If one is in a situation where less than a complete description of a system is available, then making the least assumptions about it - “minimizing prejudice”, “maximizing ignorance”, we can call it what ever we want - is mathematically equivalent to maximizing entropy. Entropy is a formalization of information unavailability, essentially. As such, of course, one could formalize it both in Newtonian or in quantum physics, but it’s not a feature of either theory.
In Newtonian physics, a system is fully characterized by all involved bodies positions and momenta (i.e. the state) at some time, and their mutual interactions (i.e. rules of evolution). If one is privy to all of that information, one can (almost always) perfectly deduce all of the system’s future and past states. Likewise, in quantum physics, a system is fully characterized by its wave function (i.e. state) and hamiltonian operator (i.e. rules). If one is privy to all of that information, one can (always) perfectly deduce all of the system’s future and past states. Entropy is not an inherent feature of either formalism, nor are the laws of thermodynamics.
From the ChatGPT:
Is the law of entropy rooted in quantum mechanics?
Yes, the law of entropy is rooted in quantum mechanics. Entropy is a fundamental concept in thermodynamics that describes the degree of disorder or randomness in a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease over time, only increase or stay the same.
In quantum mechanics, the concept of entropy is closely related to the concept of information. The entropy of a quantum system is related to the amount of information that is lost when we perform a measurement on the system. This is known as the von Neumann entropy, named after the physicist John von Neumann.
The second law of thermodynamics can be derived from the principles of quantum mechanics. In particular, the increase in entropy over time can be understood as a consequence of the fact that quantum systems tend to become more entangled with their surroundings over time. This process, known as decoherence, causes the loss of coherence and information in the quantum system, leading to an increase in entropy.
In summary, while the law of entropy is a fundamental concept in thermodynamics, its roots can be traced back to the principles of quantum mechanics.
Quantum physics is not modal logic. What does or does not exist in any or all possible worlds, or what that is, or how one would go about making coherent statements about that, are philosophical questions, not scientific ones. No postulate of quantum theory implies anything about their consequences’ applicability to even the actual world in the formal logical sense, let alone other possible worlds.
Well, it is both. As I told you before, the universal wave function is the “basic physical entity” representing the “totality of existence” or “the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation.” Each wave function- is a mathematical configuration of matter or universe and has been confirmed to exist as an objective part of reality.
You should not quote text that you obviously do not understand.
Yes, this is why I am going to rely on the ChatGPT to better navigate your guys objections and questions going forward. It is pretty darn useful.