Because the two things are unrelated. Combining them into a single premise implicitly relates them when they are not related. Then again, you could just say
Which would be correct, and non-problematic.
That doesn’t follow from the premises either.
I’m not interested in your opinion of the state of quantum physics unless and until you demonstrate you have an understanding of quantum physics.
I’m afraid that your responses to me in this post are even less coherent than usual, and it would be painful to try to make enough sense of them to respond meaningfully. I’ll just say that nothing you say is true, nothing you say is relevant to my objections, and nothing you cite or quote means what you think it does. Most of it is not just gibberish but recycled gibberish, and it shows that you don’t even try to think about what people say. You clearly have no respect for this forum, science, other people, or yourself. You should be ashamed, but of course you won’t be.
But I can:
You had seven days to complete a test that takes a couple hours to pass. It was a test on the basics of quantum mechanics, something an understanding of you said on multiple occasions was required to make your case. Colour it a quote-mine if you must, it will do you no good here. Understanding anything at all about quantum mechanics would have sufficed to pass, whether you call it “enough to make your case” or not. You chose to argue about this and ultimately to submit no reply.
You had the couple hours available over the course of those seven days, since you could spare them on arguing with yours truly and several other users. It stands to reason that you would have had the time to complete a passing fraction of the test. So it cannot have been a problem of managing your time.
There was nothing substantive standing in your way. You had a motive and an opportunity to demonstrate to the users of this board that you understood more about quantum mechanics than nothing at all, and you did not.
While this does not mean that you have no understanding of quantum mechanics, as I stressed in my verdict, it is sufficient grounds to dismiss the volume of claims you make pertaining to matters of that subject as ones over which it is not warranted to expect productive discussions with you.
Since he likes syllogisms:
Premise 1: If Meer understood quantum physics, he could demonstrate that understanding.
Premise 2: Meer could not demonstrate he understood quantum physics.
Conclusion: Meer does not understand quantum physics.
Premise 3: Arguments based on quantum physics from those that do not understand quantum physics should be dismissed.
Conclusion: Arguments from Meer based on quantum physics should be dismissed.
Premise 4: Meer’s argument here is based on quantum physics.
Conclusion: Meer’s argument here should be dismissed.
Mmh let’s say Meer did not demonstrate they understood quantum physics, permitting that maybe they could have, had they so chosen. Just to be ridiculously, unduly charitable. 
My charity to Meer has long since run dry.
Mine is dessicated.
Relax John. There is no need to get personal over this.
I just got carried away and lost focus. We kept getting away from my overall point by focusing on smaller points that don’t lead us into the right or best direction. I also got disorganized by all the different points from different PS users I have been responding to.
So I am just going to summarize the main points that will lead us in the right direction.
In the past, I specifically said that descent is unparsimonious because it makes assumptions that are either untestable or ad-hoc.
Your main objection to this is that common descent is the only process that can produce nested hierarchy of species. Therefore, it is a testable assumption.
However, I am still waiting for you to explain why modular design principles cannot be applied to nested hierarchy of species as well . Until then, I don’t see how common descent can be testable and ,thus, a valid alternative model let alone a superior.
In contrast, design does not assume a divine designer, but infers based upon the fine-tuning constants and human consciousness that there is a divine designer. Roger Penrose uses similar inductive reasoning to argue for essentially the same thing.
More importantly, it is a very testable proposition that has already been tested and confirmed on many occasions. Overall, this is why Design wins on this point and will stay the winner until you respond to what I am waiting for you to explain.
No, I actually don’t like using syllogisms because I told you guys before that I am not good at it. More importantly, I am using a scientific argument for God NOT a philosophical one. In other words, I am trying to use inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning, which is why you saw so many non-sequiturs in my argument. I just used the syllogism format because you guys suggested it.
My opinion ?!? It came from the peer-reviewed article I referenced (i.e. the experts in quantum physics). Obviously, you did not bother to read the source I gave you.
Anyhow, as I told John. Design does not assume a divine designer, but infers based upon the fine-tuning constants and human consciousness that there is a divine designer. Roger Penrose uses the same inductive method to essentially argue for the same thing.
This is what I meant when I said he used the same reasoning. So while you rightly pointed out that my arguments had non-sequiturs in them, this error doesn’t apply to inductive reasoning. Induction produces conclusions that are probabilistic though not certain.
This means that the only way Penrose’s argument could be flawed or refuted is if there was insufficient evidence to infer a cosmic designer. Unless you can provide show this, Design wins on this point and will stay the winner.
I don’t need to know all the basics of quantum physics because the work has already been done by Penrose. Do you think his partner Hameroff either knew or needed to know all the basics of quantum physics? I suspect No because he had a partner who knew how to do it for him. Otherwise, he would not of had him as a partner in the first place and vice versa.
What makes you think this was ever my motive? I don’t remember ever saying it was. My actual motive is to make as many improvements as I can to my overall case. Having my case be critique by scienctists or knowledgable people is the method to achieve this task. In contrast, taking a test that has nothing to do with what I am arguing does not achieve this motive.
The problem with this objection is that they are not my arguments to begin with. These arguments I am showcasing come from experts or from peer-reviewed journals. So if you dismiss my arguments, you are actually dismissing the arguments from prominent reserachers in their field of study. You guys are unqualified to outright dismiss them because you choose to be willfully ignorant of their work.
Yes, there is. Your behavior needs to be called out. Your quote-mining, your cut-and-paste, your redundant re-posting, your failure to give anyone the courtesy of actually thinking about what they say. If you don’t see it you can’t correct it, and you refuse even to see it.
Usually, you ignore such complaints. Here, you offer a minimal, lame excuse. Amounts to the same thing.
And that’s wrong. Further, your hypothesis is much less parsimonious.
How would that even work? Why would it be expected? You’re just using “modular design” as a magical buzz-phrase that supposedly can explain things, but it’s entirely unclear how. In contrast, we can actually observe common descent causing nested hierarchy in real time, using viruses (because of their fast evolutionary rates). This has been done in the lab.
Not my department, but notice that nobody accepts your arguments on this as even minimally coherent. Nor do you appear even to understand Penrose.
What, exactly, is this testable proposition, and what are the tests? I don’t believe you.
Science also relies on properly formed logic. If you’re not good at that, you aren’t going to be able to do science.
Time to realize both your incompetence and your dishonesty. The first step in correcting a problem is to realize you have a problem.
You were not tested on all the basics of quantum physics, nor was there any demand voiced that you know them. The test was to see if you know any. You have not demonstrated that you do.
Then I suggest you invite Penrose here and we’ll talk to him, in place of someone who apparently doesn’t think they need to understand the first thing about the subject, much less the work allegedly in question, in order to appreciate its merits, let alone use it for their own case.
I’d be surprised if Hameroff were to perform on that test I set up for you as poorly as you did, or had tried to make similar stipulations to yours before being subjected to it, or went on to make similar excuses for failing as you tried. Either with help or without, I think he would have just passed and not argued about it.
Indeed he did… So where is your partner who knows quantum physics? Why did they not help you with that test?
I did not say that demonstrating any knowledge of quantum physics was your motive. I said that you had a motive to do so. The motive is that you could be taken more seriously if you had, earned yourself a modicum of credibility around here. Alas, you have not.
Then they are not part of your overall case. There is thus no point in your raising them nor in our taking them seriously.
Your refusal and/or inability to demonstrate any understanding of quantum mechanics whatsoever renders all expectations of having a productive discussion with you pertaining to matters of that subject unwarranted. Our qualifications or lack thereof - not that any is needed to dismiss an argument; after all, what else do you propose one does who actually is unqualified to assess its merits - does nothing to remedy this. You have demonstrated no qualifications in quantum mechanics, much less sufficient ones to be taken seriously when presenting arguments pertaining to the frontiers and fringes of quantum mechanics, be they your own arguments or someone else’s.
Saying you like syllogisms was a joke. The syllogisms that followed, however, are valid so if the premises are accepted the conclusion is necessarily true. And evidently many here affirm their validity.
Told us? You’ve demonstrated it!
You have demonstrated a manifest inability to understand what science is in the first place. Until you learn, you will inevitably fail to produce anything anyone considers a scientific argument.
Are you saying the massive block of text presented as your own words was actually plagiarised?
You do not have the capacity to recognize who is and is not an expert in any field, much less quantum physics.
Nice try, but we both know this has nothing to do with me taking the test or not. This is about you wanting me to take the test under the FALSE pretense that it was constructed according to what I said in post 716.
Again, once you answer my questions, everybody will be on the same page…
Taking the test will have nothing to do with what I said in post 716 and beyond. Instead, I will be doing it just to be courteous during our discourse or will be taking it just for the hell of it.
So if you can, set up the test again. Then, as soon as you answer my questions, I will take the test!!!
To everyone else @Tim @Rumraket @John_Harshman @RonSewell @Mercer @misterme987 @CrisprCAS9,
I told him this before and he refused to set up test again or answer my questions when the test was up.
Now, you all know what’s up.
That’s not what I am talking about. I am all for calling each other out for misbehavior. I have done this myself in regard to your misbehavior and others on this forum because you guys have done the same things you listed. However, we don’t have to throw personal attacks at each other in the process.
And we shall see how you can support this claim.
I have already explained all this in post 1183, which you never responded to. I am not going to cut and paste here again since you condemned me for cutting and pasting the same argument repeatedly.
I am struggling to see how this supports your position.
First off, Natural selection operates on populations of living organisms that can already reproduce and pass on heritable traits to their offspring. However, it does not provide an explanation for how the first living organisms emerged from non-living matter, nor does it facilitate a clear demarcation between living and non-living entities.
More importantly, viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species [25]. Without a host cell, RNA viruses cannot replicate or undergo natural selection, which is a key aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Furthermore, RNA viruses cannot be included in the Tree of Life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic—they have many evolutionary origins [26].
Lastly, as I pointed out in post 1183, we can actually observe common design causing nested hierarchy in real time as well, using bacteria. Here is the actual experiment done:
Freyre-González, J. A. et al. Functional architecture of Escherichia coli: New insights provided by a natural decomposition approach. Genome Biology 9, R154 (2008) doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-10-r154.
Now, I acknowledge that this study does not directly address the concept of design or nested hierarchy. Instead, the focus of the study is on understanding the natural decomposition of the genome into functional modules and gaining insights into the functional architecture of E. coli.
However, the article I gave you before goes in-depth to explain how the study used modular design principles on regulatory networks in bacteria and produced nested patterns:
Regulatory Networks, Bacteria | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)
I was just referring to the two most successful proposals within the quantum mind theory paradigm: Quantum cognition theory and Orch-OR theory.
One deals with testing the functional similarity between quantum systems and neural networks.
The other mainly deals with testing the causal relationship between the two phenomena.
That is because everybody chooses to be willfully ignorant of the arguments proposed by qualified researchers that support quantum mind theory. Remember, my arguments are their arguments. I am not trying to interject my own opinions or arguments based in quantum physics as if I have formal training in the field. If I ever try to do this, then by all means you can dismiss whatever I say without further review.
Instead, I am making a concerted effort to not rely on my own opinion on the matter, but base it on the growing research of experts in these fields.
According to YOUR arbitrary definition of an expert, I would definitely agree.
No, I paraphrased and condensed what was said in the article that I referenced.
As I said to John, my arguments are not of my own, but came from more qualified individuals. I am not trying to interject my own opinions or arguments based in quantum physics as if I have formal training in the field. If I ever try to do this, then by all means you can dismiss whatever I say without further review.
Instead, I am making a concerted effort to not rely on my own opinion on the matter, but base it on the growing research of experts in these fields.
I need to ask you to refrain from referencing me in your posts. Nothing you say is interesting or worth my time. Leave me out of all your crap.
Thank you.
According to any definition.
So it is your opinion. Got it.
No argument you have ever made has aligned to the statements of any of your sources. Every time you cite someone else, their words disagree with your representation.
We don’t need to explain where the common ancestor came from in order to infer from the evidence that species share a common ancestor. Here is what @John_Harshman wrote:
“In contrast, we can actually observe common descent causing nested hierarchy in real time, using viruses (because of their fast evolutionary rates). This has been done in the lab.”
Notice how you completely refuse to address this. We can observe common ancestry producing a nested hierarchy in real time. This is an observed mechanism. Magical poofing by a supernatural entity is not observed.
That’s not modular design. Modular design is mixing and matching different genes from disparate species. That is not what was observed in that experiment.
So says the person who rejects the overwhelming consensus amongst millions of experts with respect to common ancestry.
Be assured that we all do, but it as usual isn’t what you think.
That wasn’t a personal attack. It was a call for you to recognize and cease your bad behavior. Which again you have ignored.
Supported at great length. Your notion (can’t really call it a theory) requires a great many unobserved processes, including instant changes from primitive metazoans (apparently, though how you get even there is unclear) to all the animal families, viral infections causing instant speciation, God, etc.
Thanks. Instead, though, you could try to compose a new and clearer statement, since the previous one obviously wasn’t clear enough to make your point.
You claimed that was something we couldn’t observe. I point out that we can indeed observe it.
Since we aren’t talking about the origin of life, that’s not relevant. We’re talking about the common descent of all extant species, notably of animals. Nothing to do with the origin of life.
Apparently the word “virus” kicked off a reflex response in you, but it’s all irrelevant, as is everything else you say about viruses. (I notice that it’s also regurgitated text, which you have said you would stop doing.) All that matters is that they can evolve, subject to the same processes as in organisms.
This is not a nested hierarchy. It’s still as irrelevant as it was the last time you brought it up. Regulatory networks are not species, and they aren’t designed either.
Then still irrelevant to our discussion.
But you don’t recognize your incompetence or your dishonesty, so there can be no progress.
Your effort is a failure, as you don’t understand what the experts are saying. Every time you cite something it turns out not to say what you think it did.
The test was constructed to be on the basics of quantum physics. That’s it. If you knew any, you could have passed it or chosen to not pass it. I don’t know if you chose to not pass it or if you knew no basics of quantum physics. All I know is you did not pass it, one way or the other. I have done my part. I gave you an opportunity to prove yourself. And you have not.
Just curious: do you know what @Meerkat_SK5 is talking about here? I looked at post 716 and found nothing that seemed relevant. I suppose this is another case of him not being able to interpret his own claims, but is there anything else to it?
Yes, they actually mean post 727, where they said this:
The idea is that my failure to explicitly acknowledge the “enough” part from the beginning (a mistake @Meerkat_SK5 themselves made in post 878, but never mind that) renders the test I constructed an inadequate means of critically investigating this specific variant of the claim.
However, I maintain that the test I composed covers questions answerable completely and in detail with knowledge from the first 500 minutes or thereabouts of lectures (or equivalent), let alone merely to score a passing grade. In my opinion, no amount of online reading could have been “enough” to make a case on the back of something as far on the frontiers and fringes as Orch-OR whilst at the same time not also have sufficed to score a passing grade in the test I had composed. If that is an unfair or overly demanding stance of mine I am willing to revise it, but that is not an argument I’ll entertain with someone whose understanding of the subject remains so elusive as @Meerkat_SK5’s.
Perhaps I should add, and I hope they do not mind, but one point in the feedback I got from a user of this board during my drafting was, that some of the questions were phrased in a rather dry way, that I did not ask for much of an interpretative understanding. And though some questions ask for things one could only score by an understanding of the concepts described, generally I concur. They added, though, that they wouldn’t know how to improve this balance whilst keeping it a fair test of someone’s basic knowledge of quantum mechanics.
I’m feeling left out. So…
If @Meerkat_SK5 put any thought into his ideas, he’d have realised that viruses could not possibly be the precursors to cells because in a pre-cell environment they couldn’t reproduce, so they couldn’t evolve, and going extinct is a barrier to being a precursor to anything.