Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred pejoratively to as quantum quackery or quantum woo,[1] is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.[2][3][4][5][6][7] – Wikipedia
I feel like I explained it pretty well already. Cladistics just identifies shared and differing characteristics, and groups organisms together based on them. (Fair warning, I’m not a phylogeneticist, so that description may not be 100% accurate.)
Humans are apes because we share a set of features with other apes that are not found in other organisms. Cats and lions are felids for the same reason. Likewise, that’s why dogs may technically be considered ‘fish’ (since they cluster within the group we call ‘fish’ based on shared traits). These traits exist whether or not you believe in common ancestry.
We’re talking about how you don’t understand evolution today, whether you accept it or not. You obviously do not understand the concept of a nested hierarchy.
One species (or any other taxon) does not change into another.
I know more about quantum physics and biology than you. I strongly suspect I know more about them than Hammeroff. Your obsession with Orch-OR shows how willfully ignorant you are about either subject.
She does not support your conclusions. At all. In any way. Not even close.
You have never done any such thing. Your quote doesn’t help you either.
No… stop! Why did you post that quote if it doesn’t do the thing you said it does? Did you not read it? Are you just posting quotes randomly? Why should I read your new quote if you admit none of your old quotes say what you said they said? This is ridiculous!
And surprise, surprise… Your new quote says nothing about a designer.
Complete and total failure. Again.
Premise 1 was about a universal common designer, and nothing in anything you presented says anything about a designer. So by basic logic, it is not possible for anything you have said to support that premise.
I have seen no evidence to support this suggestion either.
OK. Fair enough. We can just focus on specific claims based on current understanding of the theory.
There is no independent evidence showing a fish evolved (or could evolve) into a dog or a cat over the course of millions of years. In fact, there is no way to even test that this could or did happen without assuming common descent is true.
Or it could be common design. So how can we test to see if it is common descent instead?
I was not trying to use the video to support my argument but just to refute your quantum woo accusation.
How come it does not help me?
Because I realized that it mainly described how Penrose and Hameroff are making the same claim. But, the quote did not explain in detail on how they arrived at their conclusion. So I provided the second quote to bring context to the first quote in order for you to properly respond and refute premise 1.
I think we are talking past each other because my definition of Universal common designer is…
Universal self-collapsing digital code
Digital code or information encompasses all these things they listed in their article:
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.
While Hameroff’s primary expertise lies in anesthesiology and psychology, he has collaborated with researchers from other fields and has also been involved in discussions about consciousness and the brain that go beyond his primary area of expertise.
Penrose’s expertise lies primarily in the fields of mathematics and physics, but again he has also been involved in discussions and collaborations with researchers in other fields, such as Stuart Hameroff.
Well right now, it does not seem that way. But, you have an opportunity to demonstrate this by explaining how their argument and evidence does not support premise 1. Just go back and read those quotes to help you do this.
You have presented a logical argument with a premise of the form ‘A=B’. This premise was rejected, and you decided to try and support it.
In order to support a premise of the form ‘A=B’, you must reference ‘A’ and ‘B’ in your support, and you must demonstrate the logical necessity that they are perfectly synonymous sets of one another.
Therefore, when your evidence to ‘support’ fails to mention ‘A’ (a common designer), it is impossible for your evidence to support your argument. Necessarily.
Now, it might be that to support ‘A=B’, you need to first show that ‘A=C’, then ‘C=D’, and finally ‘D=B’. That’s fine. But you still need to start with ‘A’, and you still need to end with ‘B’.
Hopefully that sinks in, and you’ll stop posting irrelevant dross. I’m pessimistic on this.
NO! It is not my responsibility to ‘refute’ premise 1. It is your responsibility to support it!
Code doesn’t design. Fail.
I’m glad you agree that he is not an expert in the field of quantum biology.
I’m glad you agree that he is not an expert in the field of quantum biology, either.
So that’s that assertion dealt with.
Consider that you are not qualified to make such an assessment.
No, I am because I have researched and studied their model by actually reading their articles. Something you have failed to do, apparently.
Not really because I was referring to their theory, which they have written extensively on.
Yes, that is correct. This is why it is called Universal self-collapsing digital code. For instance, the consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness has no causal powers because classical physics determines the choices we make. Their theory argues that we have causal powers. This means that wave-function collapse is not determined by external forces compared to the other view.
This is why showing that the brain is the mind or the wave-function matters.
After I provided the evidence and argument that supported premise 1, you claimed that it did not support without explaining why. Now, you are expected to support this rather than just dismiss it without further evaluation.
This was not why I asked my question. You mentioned that Orch-OR theory is just pure speculative nonsense with no scientific merit and support. Those review articles I provided show this to be false.
Then, you said those articles don’t support my contention. Afterwards, I asked you why they don’t support it.
Researching a bad model doesn’t provide you a sufficient background in the relevant fields to recognize that said model is bad. This is, in fact, the entire problem.
No, I’ve read them. I just have a sufficient background in physics and biology to recognize that they’re bad.
I don’t care if they’re experts in their fiction, I care if they’re experts in the field they’re attempting to discuss. You agree that they are not, that’s all that matters.
Doesn’t make it design. Doesn’t make it a designer. So irrelevant to your case if true, which it is not.
Sure, after you provide such. You have done no such thing.
I’ve explained the logical deficiency repeatedly. Your inability to understand that is a personal problem.
You really should take the win of having asked a good question, and take the advice I provided. Seriously.
Correct, this is why I rely on other articles from independent researchers to give me additional feed back on their article. Those researchers have either tested and/or approved of it themselves, which provide corroboration for their theory. These articles show the researchers that approve of it and use it for their research:
Well, they are (or at least one of them). Mathematical physics applies to all fields and Roger Penrose is an expert in it. He probably did most of the brunt work when he collaborated with Hameroff.
Consciousness is the design and designer I am referring to. The definition of consiciousness is self-collapsing digital code according to the Orch-OR theory. So it is relevant.
Look, I will just change the first premise since you want to be nitpicky:
Premise 1: The universal self-collapsing digital code and the cosmic constants governing the universe and life are constant throughout space and time are identical phenomena.
You rely on articles you lack the knowledge to assess. The existence of articles referencing something do not demonstrate the validity of that thing. For instance, there are several creationist/ID articles that have been published.
That should scream ‘BS!’ to anyone with familiarity with the sciences. Also, review article, so not primary research.
[second article] Not primary research. Author admits that Orch-OR is a controversial hypothesis.
[third article] Not primary research, and from a predatory publishing company.
I read them, and I have at least a basic familiarity with quantum physics and biology. And at least a basic familiarity with the scientific method and the publication process.
That is a disqualifyingly ignorant thing to say. Just… embarrassing.
No, that’s not how Orch-OR defines consciousness. They describe consciousness as a product of self-collapse of a wave-function across biologically relevant molecules. You don’t even know your own pet hypothesis. Embarrassing.
In which case, there is no design. Congratulations, you just agreed you’ve been wrong this entire time.
Still rejected as unsupported. Please save us both some time and refer back to the following if you decide to keep trying:
Indeed, there is zero evidence of any animal or species “evolving into” another. PERIOD.
That is because evolution only happens to populations, never to individuals. Until you understand that basic concept, you should not be pretending to have anything to say about modern evolutionary theory.
Of course, they do. Caseids are part of a larger group of synapsids known as the Caseasauria, which lived during the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian periods, about 307-270 million years ago.
They exhibit several features that are intermediate between those of reptiles and mammals. This is why there was a study done on them by YEC.
And why is it considered a joke by you?
You are missing the point of why I referenced those articles. I was trying to show how it is not a bad model because other researchers are using it to conduct their own research.
What makes you say that?
Distinction without a difference fallacy. The wave-function is digital information. I just call it a digital code instead to encompass other forms of digital information that they did in fact list in their article. So again, you are being nit picky.
The syllogism was not about design but the designer, which I defined as Self-collapsing wave-function or digital code. So you need to stay on topic.
The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.
For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.
I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more. This source verifies all this:
Moreover, a more recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address:
The finer scale of consciousness: quantum theory Tianwen Li,1,# Hailiang Tang,1,# Jianhong Zhu,corresponding author1 and John H. Zhangcorresponding author2
Ridiculous nonsense. I can say the same thing and I did not find any article that demolishes their theory as of yet.
I don’t need to support premise 1 because it was already supported by the confirmation of the Orch-OR theory, which makes the same claim.
The only way out of this ,on your end, is to provide an article that has a devastating critique on their theory. As I mentioned before, this is very unlikely.
Then, I will rephrase it.
There is no independent evidence showing a population of fish evolved (or could evolve) into a population of dogs or cats over the course of millions of years.
It’s still wrong. You simply don’t understand the most basic description of evolution.
Populations don’t “evolve into” either. They evolve. New species are created by splitting of populations, not by the linear transformations you keep describing. The splitting is what produces the nested hierarchy, which you also obviously don’t understand.
Do some homework before pretending that you’re an intellectual revolutionary, please!
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?
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’m sure you don’t know, and I’m sure the authors don’t either. Are you familiar with the term “cargo cult science”?
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.
It’s not a claim. It’s a repeatedly observed phenomenon in real time.
Your point is that you do not understand basic concepts in evolutionary biology.
Your claim that the theory that unifies biology is wrong necessarily entails an implicit claim of competence in biology, does it not?
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.
I have verified that all of them are well-formed by completing them myself, and fair in difficulty. In fact, I even cut and simplified some just to make things easier on you. Another user of this board claiming to be an autodidact on the subject - like you say you are - confirmed that the questions as posed are reasonable and that anyone with a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics should be fit to answer them. You may ask for clarification of wording, but there will be no bargaining for hints.
Completing full and detailed answers to these questions took me about two to three afternoons including variants that did not make the final cut, and one afternoon on a repeat run to verify I made no serious mistakes. You will have seven days beginning with the posting of this message. There will be no bargaining for time, either.
The points assigned to each question reflect how much work it takes to answer them fully, though if you find similarly rigorous and correct shorter paths than what I had in mind, that will be rewarded all the same. Questions are not weighted by their conceptual advanced-ness, consequently basic understanding is favoured. Points are awarded for correct answers, but do not sum up to a passing grade without points collected by justifying said answers. The final score is integer-valued. There are 56 points that make up the 100% score, and two questions awarding another seven combined ontop of that. You pass the test if the sum of points you score from all questions is 34 or more. There will be no bargaining over that passing threshold, either.
Your submission will be uploaded as a PDF attachment in a reply to this message before the end of the seven days deadline beginning with the posting of this message. If you do not make a submission before the end of that deadline, your score will be zero. I will upload my own solutions as a reply to this message after the deadline, if you make no submission before that time. I will upload my own solutions as a reply to your submission message, along with a grade, after grading your submission. If your score is below 32 points, you fail. If your score is 32 points or 33 points you will have an opportunity to bargain for the last point or two you need to pass, by looking to where you may have been graded unfairly. Alternatively, you may ask for a second grading by that other user, and if they agree to do it, your score will be either mine, or an average of theirs and mine, rounded up to the next integer, which ever is higher. If your score is 34 points or more, you pass.
