I hope you now understand the problem.
Your ‘support’ does not support your premise. At all.
Then any argument you have based on Orch-OR is rejected. Your argument is based on nothing, it is rejected.
Why did you repeat your misunderstanding of peer-review after I specifically told you I do not care about your misunderstanding of peer-review?
The entire process.
I would point out that this nonsensical quantum woo balderdash is UNCITED, so these are simply Hameroff’s assertions, NOT EVIDENCE!
(I would note the lack of citation means that we don’t even have evidence that Penrose “called” them any such thing – let alone that Penrose did this based upon any evidence.)
Therefore this quote only supports the following conclusions:
that Hameroff is indeed a complete “crackpot”; and
that @Meerkat_SK5 has no idea what they’re talking about.
Yes, I see how this argument is invalid because the premises are false. But, this is not the case with the argument I presented, which leads me to address this…
A question arises whether the dimensionless constants of the aeon prior to ours, in the CCC scheme, are the same as those in our own aeon, and this relates to the question of whether sentient life could exist in that aeon as well as in our own. These questions are in principle answerable by observation, and again they would have a bearing on the extent or validity of the Orch OR proposal. If Orch OR turns out to be correct, in it essentials, as a physical basis for consciousness, then it opens up the possibility that many questions may become answerable, such as whether life could have come about in an aeon prior to our own, that would have previously seemed to be far beyond the reaches of science.
Moreover, Orch OR places the phenomenon of consciousness at a very central place in the physical nature of our universe, whether or not this ‘universe’ includes aeons other than just our own. It is our belief that, quite apart from detailed aspects of the physical mechanisms that are involved in the production of consciousness in human brains, quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. Some completion is needed, and the DP proposal for an OR scheme underlying quantum theory’s R -process would be a definite possibility. If such a scheme as this is indeed respected by Nature, then there is a fundamental additional ingredient to our presently understood laws of Nature which plays an important role at the Planck-scale level of space-time structure. The Orch OR proposal takes advantage of this, suggesting that conscious experience itself plays such a role in the operation of the laws of the universe. Journal of Cosmology
First off, that is not quite what I said and you know it. Second, what makes you say that?
because it sounds completely arbritrary.
It’s not that the premise is false, it’s that the ‘then’ part does not follow from the ‘if’ part. Same as yours.
Were you going to address it, or just paste in more irrelevant quotations? Using your own words, demonstrate the logical necessity.
The rest of your statement was irrelevant.
If you refuse to read the critical reviews of Orch-OR, you can’t claim to have an understanding of it. Your ill-informed protestations about your misunderstandings of peer-review notwithstanding.
Reread that last one especially. You want to be taken seriously? Then you’ll conform to a serious standard. The standard I’d expect from anyone else claiming to care about scientific rigor. The standard that my peers hold themselves to. That I hold myself to. Nothing more, nothing less.
Every time you complain about the expectation you read the history of the field you’re trying to operate in, you demonstrate yourself to be incompetent. It’s embarrassing.
If you won’t do the work, your opinions are worthless and everything you have can, and should, and MUST, be dismissed as such.
Now stop waffling about and go and do the work.
Of some things, one cannot speak. Thereof, one must remain silent.
–Wittgenstein.
Then again, there are some things to which one can only point and laugh. Thereof, one must point and laugh.
–Puck
Premise 1: If the fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time, then it suggests the presence of underlying principles or factors, such as non-comptable Platonic values, that contribute to their stability,
Premise 2: The fine-tuning constants governing the universe are confirmed to be constant throughout space and time.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is a likelihood that there exist underlying principles or factors, such as non-computable Platonic values, that contribute to the stability of the fine-tuning constants governing the universe.
In this revised version, the conclusion is more aligned with the premises and does not make a strong claim of confirming the existence of non-computable Platonic values. Instead, it suggests a likelihood based on the premises provided. Moreover, the existence of non-computable Platonic values can be inferred from this constancy.
The first premise is true because the same reasoning was applied to human consciousness by Penrose… 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.
Ok ok, fair enough. I was just asking. I think it is best that we focus on one thing at a time though. So I am going to focus ,for now, on making sure my argument is clear, concise, and valid.as possible.Then, i will review the rest of the critques made before the 2014 article at some point.
The seven days time limit was in my very first suggestion of the test:
The seven days time limit was repeated in my second suggestion of the test:
The seven days time limit was mentioned again when I was talking about my progress composing the test and solutions to the test:
You never made a comment about the seven days time constraint. And I should point out, I find it ludicrous that you would call it “short” now. It takes maybe something like two afternoons to score 63 points on the test with excessively detailed solutions, well beyond what’s necessary for that grade. Scoring 34 points at regular volume should have taken just a few hours, You were given seven days. Seven days you could have utilized unrestricted access to any and all of your “various sources”, other sources, online calculators, or the help of people including some on this very board who I’m sure would have explained a technique you missed during your own studies, had you only asked in place of complaining. If someone spent half the time you wasted on attempting to argue with the reasonableness or relevancy of the test or with others about your awareness of the literature on the subjects you speak about on actually doing the test, they would well have passed. The time was plenty enough, and you never had a complaint of it, nor of my unclearness about it until after you failed to submit anything at all despite more than one reminder of the ticking clock.
What you did worry about was the contents. We negotiated a lot about those. I explained exactly which restrictions I would and would not place on myself devising it:
Your final reply to this was this:
Please, explain to me what way I could or should have interpreted this message, other than a literal go ahead license to commence the test under the conditions most recently layed out? How was I supposed to read this, if not as a permission to start the test? I do not accept any blame for you not realizing that the test has begun after you gave me the go-ahead to start it only because you chose to not read with care the message it was published with or any of the messages it was proposed or discussed in.
You were not force-fed anything. You told me to go ahead after a lengthy negotiation over the terms.
I fail to see how this prevented you from submitting a reply to the test. None of your questions pertained to either the jargon or the notation utilized in the test. Please, explain how my refusal to debate conditions you already agreed to could have had an impact on your performance.
The inclusion of “non-computable Platonic values” is likewise a non sequitor, as nothing in your two premises support the conclusion that either (i) “non-computable Platonic values” even exist, let alone (ii) that they are among the “underlying principles or factors that contribute to their stability”.
You might as well state:
Conclusion: Therefore, there is a likelihood that there exist underlying principles or factors, such as the god Zeus, that contribute to the stability of the fine-tuning constants governing the universe.
Bovine faeces. It’s entirely unsurprising that @Meerkat_SK5 has completely reversed his stance on taking the test now that the answers are available.
LUCA did not cause any such process. You are irredeemably confused.
No, they are not quote-mining Darwin. You are quote-mining them. The prediction they are talking about is not the (invented) one you were talking about.
Rejected, unsupported non sequitur.
“Premise 1: If the fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time, then it suggests the presence of underlying principles or factors, such as purple smelling cheese apples, that contribute to their stability”
You can’t just cram some words in a premise like it’s a magic spell.
Also…
“Premise 1: If the fine-tuning constants governing the universe change throughout space and time, then it suggests the presence of underlying principles or factors, such as non-comptable Platonic values, that contribute to their variance”
Show how the above does not make as much sense. If you can’t, your premise is useless.
If Penrose applied the same fallacious reasoning you did, that doesn’t make you right it makes him wrong. I’m not sure that it matters, since you’re no longer defending that premise.
Well, of course we do observe this process happening in the present day. And we can infer it in the past based on the evidence it left behind. I’m willing to bet that you have never seen a hydrogen atom either, and yet you probably believe that hydrogen exists. Why?
Yes, ancestors are inferred, not just because we’re unlikely to find them, but also because if we find them they can’t be identified as such. We can say of a fossil, at most, that it has the characteristics we expect to find in an ancestor. But so might a species closely related to the ancestor. No way to tell. It’s not that the common ancestor is easier to observe than an archetype; it’s that common ancestry explains the data — why we find the pattern we do — while archetypes explain nothing.
Well, we can’t know if the article is quote-mining until we look at the actual letter. Have you done that? But you’re the one who’s quote-mining the article that quotes Darwin. (Actually, it’s an article that quotes an article that quotes Darwin.) The article doesn’t interpret the Darwin quote the way you do. It’s pretty clear if you know how to read: fossils provide additional taxa with additional character state combinations that help phylogenetic analyses. Nothing about smooth transitions at all.
Now, if you look at the actual letter, here, you will find that Darwin isn’t even talking about fossils. You really need to move beyond secondary sources, and you need to read those sources for more than just stuff you can force-fit into your existing beliefs.
So far you have not actually mentioned any of those predictions in enough detail to evaluate them.
It doesn’t, though. None of these groups (and “fishes” isn’t even a group) appears suddenly or remains invariant. Further, didn’t Owen think that there was a vertebrate archetype, not just one for individual classes? Finally, your claim isn’t that birds, mammals, etc. are created kinds; you claim that families are created kinds. Gibberish.
Premise 1: Human consciousness and fine-tuning constants either have a personal explanation or an impersonal explanation.
Premise 2: Quantum mechanics and other fields of science imply our multi-verse is emergent from consciousness.
Conclusion: The natural universe cannot be the explanation of human consciousness and the fine-tuning constants.
Premise 3: The explanation of the existence of human consciousness and fine-tuning constants is personal.
Premise 4: This personal source is what we call a universal common designer.
Therefore, a universal common designer exists.
No, I didn’t mean the same reasoning was applied in regard to my syllogism specifically.
How is this a repeatedly observed phenomenon in real time:
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
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is like ID proponents claiming that we have observable evidence of a divine human designer because we have observable evidence of human designers at work.
I would still have to provide additional independent evidence for a divine human designer.
The same standard applies to you guys. You need to provide additional independent evidence for fishes giving rise to amphibians, which gave to reptiles, etc.
Otherwise, it is not an actual inference that we can test, but an untestable assumption.
This leads me to address this…
How can you say that when you have not offered a way to test for descent over design? Instead, all you are doing is assuming that common descent is the only process that can produce nested hierarchy of species.
It is one untestable assumption after another.
I tried but could not find the letter myself.
Yeah but, the article still supports my contention that you can’t rely solely or mainly on phylogenetics to support common descent. Additional fossils are imperative, and you guys just don’t have enough of them.
So what? This still supports what I was saying. Darwin expected evidence in the future that would support his claim of universal ancestry. As the article suggested, the only way we can truly support this claim is from finding enough fossils that would resemble that tree.
Not true, the study found that while short bursts of microevolution, occurring over a time interval of one million years, represent fluctuations around an average value for body size. Any microevolutionary changes that occur are soon reversed by subsequent microevolutionary events. This finding helps explain why stasis, or the lack of significant change, is a common feature observed in the fossil record.
These researchers also point out that over much larger time intervals, ranging from one to 360 million years, they detected evolutionary change. However, this change does not accumulate gradually but instead happens suddenly, leading to what the team referred to as a “blunderbuss” pattern.
Yes
According to Owen, this vertebrate archetype represented a common structural framework shared by all vertebrates, regardless of their specific class or group (such as mammals, reptiles, birds, etc.). He argued that this archetype provided the basic template upon which the skeletons of different vertebrate species were constructed.
But, this does not mean that he did not think those groups were separately created.
Yes, this is an additional claim or model that does not conflict with Owen’s theory but improves on it. Because there is no other way we can test which explanation best explains the data. As you alluded to…
Yes, ancestors are inferred, not just because we’re unlikely to find them, but also because if we find them they can’t be identified as such. We can say of a fossil, at most, that it has the characteristics we expect to find in an ancestor. But so might a species closely related to the ancestor. No way to tell.
This is precisely why we can’t use the fossil record to test my particular model of Owen’s theory.
Why does it need to be more specific.? This was not the standard for Darwin’s theory.
Sure, but you shouldn’t combine them into a single premise. I agree that personal and impersonal are a true dichotomy.
Rejected, unsupported.
This is completely unrelated to either premise. Even if both premises are true, this conclusion is not logically entailed by them.
Rejected, unsupported.
Rejected, unsupported.
This is worse than before. Substantially worse.
False. (i) Penrose and Hameroff are not the entire field of quantum mechanics, just two contrarian voices within it, and (ii) it is not even clear that even they support this premise.
False. Your two premises do not entail this conclusion.
Unsubstantiated.
Likewise unsubstantiated.
Your original claim was about a process, not a phenomenon. Those are different. I answered the claim you made, not the one you may have intended to make. Now of course we can’t observe the entire history of life, just as we can’t observe hydrogen atoms. We can only observe the traces they leave. And we can, in the present, observe processes that result in evolutionary changes.
We can’t observe archetypes either, nor can we see slime molds turning into walruses. So on that score, direct observation of process, evolution wins.
I’m not sure what you think the part in bold means, but I have confidence based on all prior experience that you are misunderstanding it. What do you think it means?
Lucky for us, the evidence of common descent is extraordinary. But there is no evidence of slime molds changing into walruses, and that’s a much more extraordinary claim, isn’t it?
ID proponents don’t make that claim. You appear not to understand ID either.
Independent of what, exactly? We have nice transitional fossils for all that, and DNA phylogenetics bears that out.
I have offered such a way. So far you have not suggested any other credible way to produce a nested hierarchy of species. It’s what we expect from common descent, and we don’t expect it from anything else. And that’s how science works.
All you had to do was enter the quote in google. Was that really too difficult?
You haven’t understood that article. The fossils are in fact used as taxa in phylogenetic analyses of morphological data. This is not a new idea. So no, it doesn’t support your contention at all.
That’s your own addition, not found in the article.
Ah, another chain of non sequiturs. Darwin’ letter doesn’t support your claim, which was about fossils. The article did not make the suggestion you say.
That has nothing to do with the origin of vertebrate classes. See what I mean about a chain of non sequiturs?
Yes, but it doesn’t mean that he did either. And it certainly falsifies your claim of separate archetypes for the classes. Further, your claim is actually about separate archetypes for families. Nothing you say makes any sense at all.
No, it’s in definite conflict. Subphylum vs. family. You aren’t good at logic or reason.
You will have to explain that. On the surface, it doesnj’t make sense.
It needs to be more specific because that’s the only way to compare your expectations, whatever they may be, to the fossil record.
Incidentally, did you even read the article that quote came from?
Excuse me… Since you chose to not demonstrate any quantifiable understanding of quantum mechanics whatsoever when given a maximally generous opportunity to do so, why do you reckon a premise you raise referencing it could be taken any sort of seriously?
Premise 1 is false.
This is so obvious and trivial that if you can’t spot it you have no business trying to write logical arguments.
The rest of your ‘argument’ is even worse.
That article isn’t about supporting any claim of universal ancestry, it’s about unravelling mammal phylogeny. It doesn’t even mention universal ancestry.
YOU ARE STILL LYING ABOUT YOUR SOURCES.
Not even that. It’s about unraveling phylogeny using morphology specifically, getting that to match what we know from molecular data. In this case (and I haven’t looked at the real article, just @Meerkat_SK5’s secondary reference) they’re just talking about simulated data, but the notion goes back at least to Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., Row, T. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4:105-209.
This was all before I said to go ahead and construct the test, but I never agreed with the terms of the contents nor did I tell you to start the time limit.
Not quite, we negotiated a lot about what I actually said in post 716. You kept quote mining what I said and I had to keep correcting your quote mining, which stalled the testing process. Remember, you were constructing the test according to what I said in post 716.
I never agreed with the terms of the contents nor did I tell you to start the time limit once you constructed the test.
Remember, you were constructing the test according to what I said in post 716.
However, you kept quote mining what I said and I had to keep correcting your quote mining. This stalled the testing process. More importantly, it is why I asked you to reconstruct it to what I actually said because I thought you made an honest mistake.
Excuse me… Since you chose to not answer my simple questions on this matter, you can’t support your point.
Why? just a preference of yours.
I made a mistake and forgot to make sure the premise looks consistent with the other premises. Here it is again:
Conclusion: The [impersonal explanation] cannot be the explanation of human consciousness and the fine-tuning constants.
In recent years, there has been growing research exploring the mathematical equivalences between specific types of neural networks and certain aspects of quantum systems. This research has shown that the mathematical formalisms describing certain neural network architectures can be mapped to the mathematical formalisms used to describe quantum systems, and vice versa.
For example, Aerts and Arguëlles [12] demonstrated how these two phenomena appear to be identical by applying the quantum theory to model cognitive processes, such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision-making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception.
Further studies show a connection between the Schrödinger equation, Feynman’s path-integral formalism, and the dynamics of a neural network known as a Hopfield network [13][14]. They discusse how the mathematical formulation of the Schrödinger equation can be related to the behavior of a neural network, specifically in terms of memory, pattern recognition, and recall.
The idea behind this proposition is that certain aspects of the dynamics described by the Schrödinger equation and the functioning of a Hopfield-like neural network share similarities. Hopfield networks are a type of recurrent artificial neural network known for their ability to store and retrieve patterns.
They have been used to model associative memory and pattern recognition tasks. On the other hand, the Schrödinger equation is a fundamental equation in quantum mechanics that describes the wave-like behavior of particles.
The proposed equivalence suggests that the dynamics captured by the Schrödinger equation can be mathematically related to the behavior of a Hopfield-like neural network.
More recent work suggesting that certain conditions in these neural networks can lead to the emergence of quantum-like behavior, with connections to the mathematical apparatus of quantum systems [16][17]. The authors proposed that the deep analogy between the neural network parameter and physical systems suggests that physical reality itself could be described at a fundamental level as a neural network. [16]
Although this does not necessarliy imply a direct correspondence to actual biological neural networks, Stoyan Kurtev has argued based on existing experiments that there is evidence showing a real correspondence [18] by using this deep analogy and the presumed existence of a causal mechanism allowing some bird species to sense the orientation of Earth’s magnetic field via quantum effects occurring on the microscale.
[12] Aerts, D. (2009). “Quantum structure in cognition”. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 53 (5): 314–348.
[13] Peruš, M. From neural to quantum associative networks: A new quantum “algorithm’’. AIP Conf. Proc. 517(1), 289–295. From neural to quantum associative networks: A new quantum “algorithm” | AIP Conference Proceedings | AIP Publishing (2000).
[14] Peruš, M. & Loo, C. K. Comparison of the Mathematical Formalism of Associative ANN and Quantum Theory. Biological and Quantum Computing for Human Vision: Holonomic Models and Applications 179–198. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-785-5.ch007 (IGI Global, 2011).
[15] Hopfield, J. J. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 79(8), 2554–2558. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554 (1982).
[16] Katsnelson, M. I. & Vanchurin, V. Emergent quantumness in neural networks. Found. Phys. 51(5), 94. Emergent Quantumness in Neural Networks | Foundations of Physics (2021).
[17] Rotondo, P., Marcuzzi, M., Garrahan, J. P., Lesanovsky, I. & Müller, M. Open quantum generalisation of Hopfield neural networks. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 51(11), 115301. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aaabcb (2018).
[18] Kurtev, S. Wave-like patterns in parameter space interpreted as evidence for macroscopic effects resulting from quantum or quantum-like processes in the brain. Sci Rep 12, 18938 (2022). Wave-like patterns in parameter space interpreted as evidence for macroscopic effects resulting from quantum or quantum-like processes in the brain | Scientific Reports
Yes, we can. Both Penrose and Owen advocated from a platonic idealistic perspective. The obversations would be human consciousness and the fine-tuning constants staying constant. Just follow my conversation with @CrisprCAS9 .
It means what it says it means.
That is not the claim. It is stem metazoans and we have evidence that human designers can produce things like that, which allows us to observe it. Through genetic engineering techniques, scientists can manipulate the DNA of organisms, including adding or modifying genes, to create organisms with desired traits or characteristics.
In terms of creating complex living organisms like animals, scientists have successfully cloned certain animals by transferring genetic material from a donor organism into an enucleated egg cell.
Are you sure about that?..
Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
Amazon.com: Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe eBook : Meyer, Stephen C.: Kindle Store
Not true. The article “Analyzing Regulatory Networks in Bacteria [27]” explains how modular design principles, which are related to engineering, can produce nested hierarchies.
For instance, the role of global transcription factors in coordinating the activity of different functional modules or tissues is essential for the proper development, function, and adaptation of animals. This ensures that animals can respond effectively to changing environmental conditions and maintain homeostasis during changing physiological demands, which in turn produces nested hierarchies.
Although modular design principles were exclusively applied to regulatory networks in the study, they could be extended to entire populations. The designer would be the global transcription factor that coordinates the different traits or archetypical genomes in organisms to produce coordinated adaptations to the environment.
For example, in a population of animals inhabiting an environment, the designer would preprogram favorable traits that are coordinated with each other. Contrastingly, the individuals without these traits would not adapt to that niche.
Over time, these coordinated adaptations can result in the formation of distinct lineages or species that are adapted to different ecological niches. Moreover, this could lead to the emergence of subpopulations within the larger population that are specialized for different nutrient sources, which would create a nested hierarchy of species.
The hypothesis about the nested hierarchy of species is as follows:
All extant species share a similar design that can be traced back to a universal common designer. However, what makes them different is the application of the differences in parts and functions that fit better in different environmental niches, giving them their uniqueness.
Did you even read the conclusion:
However, our results suggest that inclusion of fossil taxa may prove to be particularly important. In any case, arguments that morphological data are ‘inadequate’ for accurately inferring the phylogeny of mammals [14–16], or of the many other clades that currently show extensive morphological–molecular conflict (such as birds [51–54]), are at the very least premature.
I am not saying the study proves that those groups were separately created. I am saying the study confirms the prediction from Owen’s model that these groups would show signs of sudden appearance and stasis.
In order to show separate creation happened from fossils, we need to see clear and obvious discontinuties above the order level. Anything below that would not allow us to see whether animals evolved into completely different animals or not.
I agree, which is why the fossil record is not the best way to compare the predictions from both explanations below the class level.