Some people think “Hamiltonian” is a play or perhaps style of furniture or philosophy of government.
But if someone hasn’t actually slung around an operator or two it’s a safe bet they don’t understand QM enough. (This is coming from someone who has messed with these and I still wouldn’t think for one second that I understand QM enough.)
One you’d do well to abide by, if there is any dignity at all you care to keep or to restore.
Okay, just to be clear then:
As I suggested, watching Star Trek (or equivalent) is literally sufficient, then, as far as the education required to make your case goes. You hear the technobabble once or twice, get some examples of sentences containing the words, that’s what you consider “enough” to make your case.
Like it or don’t, this is the same as Option A. Your case “requires” the buzz words only because otherwise you couldn’t pretend like it has any merit to people who have the humility not to comment on things they are clueless about; restraint you evidently do just fine without. The content, the meaning of these terms is entirely immaterial to your case, as per your own admission here. Quantum physics is no basis for anything of substance within your case. Its utility and purpose begin and end with being a rhetorical tactic to you, and naught else beyond.
All is clear. @Meerkat_SK5 doesn’t understand quantum physics, he only knows some of the words used therein. The test he was given was a test on quantum physics, not a test on parrotting buzzwords. Everyone here knows at least as much quantum physics as he does, since we can all write relevant words, and some of us even understand them and can recognise wave equations when we see them - which he apparently can’t.
I’m sure I missed nothing of interest or consequence.
It does however add a further level of incoherence to the whole shambles. 
It’s like discussing larger infinities. I understand the concept, yet the mind rebels against the words all the same.
Yes. The general idea for The Argument Clinic was a place to dump such discussion, not to carry it forward.
I would suspect that you have grossly underestimated the argumentitiveness of the participants on this forum. 
A quick perusal of this thread, demonstrates that seldom does a post “dumped” here fail to elicit a reply.
One therefore has to wonder about the sanity of somebody who continues to repeat the practice and expects a different outcome.
Understatement!
No he hasn’t!
Shut your festering gob, you tit!
Your type makes me puke. You toffee-nosed malodorous pervert!
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#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.
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.
That says exactly what I said. “Self-replicating automata.” Von Neumann’s universal constructor must be programmed to make copies of itself before it can self-replicate, because it is a machine. This says absolutely nothing about whether ‘common design,’ apart from common ancestry, can produce nested hierarchies…
I seriously doubt that @John_Harshman actually holds the belief that you are attributing to him. Of course, if you program a machine or simulation to self-replicate, using descent with modification and vertical inheritance, that will create the same nested hierarchy as biological common ancestry, since it is based on the same principles. That’s how I programmed the simple simulation of common ancestry that was used in the OP. [Edit: referring to the OP of this thread] But again, this says nothing about whether ‘common design’ apart from common ancestry can explain nested hierarchies, since it is based on precisely the same principles as biological common ancestry.
Of course he doesn’t. You must remember that @Meerkat_SK5 understands almost nothing of what he reads.
So it is accurate, but you don’t understand it.
*Is there evidence for a Universal Common Designer?*
Introduction
A recent prebiotic experiment demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules could “evolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedly.”[1] In contrast, metabolism-first and the Lenski experiment have not shown that materialistic processes produce such complex systems. [2][3]
Notably, the similarity between logic gates and the structure and metabolism of DNA suggests that the characteristics of the biochemical systems and objects produced by human designers are identical. [4]
Given the prior support for the observer effect results [5], the Quantum mind theory [6], and the cosmological constant, there is probably a Universal Common Designer that created and developed life on earth.
Few similar theories include Von Neuman’s universal constructor and Richard Owen’s universal common archetype, which are purported to explain nest hierarchies as well. [7][8]
Fuz Rana and Mike Gene have crafted tested models of these theories that have been confirmed, which was incorporated in this article. [9][10]
The updated version of these models are:
Around 3.8 billion years, billions of viroids, which contained all the required genes to make certain evolutionary trajectories more likely [11], were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the earth.
Through group selection, the groups of viroids evolved into different species of unicellular organisms [11], undergoing an extensive amount of HGT leading up to multicellular plants and fungi [12].
*Subsequently, the designer used HGT and microtubules to develop cell differentiation, sexual reproduction, and consciousness [12][13] into the first group of marine basic types (fish, marine invertebrates, amphibians).
Then, reptiles, birds, and mammals were later developed from different times and global locations within the earth. Through cytosine deamination and HGT, these groups of basic types would branch into diverse progeny to deliberately pioneer environments worldwide over long epochs.[12][14]*
To be clear, confirmation for this model has been primarily based on the prediction entailed by the teleological hypothesis that life is ultimately rational; if life was designed, then there is a reason behind its architecture and composition.
In this case, since there must be teleological reasons the designer used these mechanisms for design, such as HGT and Cytosine deamination. Then, those reasons can be tested and if confirmed, it produces evidence for the theory as Fuz Rana and Mike Gene have argued [15][16].
Thus, this model can be used to make meaningful predictions that were not expected from Darwinian evolution (ex. Alleged design flaws found to be optimal)
Null hypothesis: Life is created and developed by unguided bottom-up processes.
Predictions
We should find a ubiquitous number of functional, structural, and mechanistic convergent examples
We should find more examples of systemic convergence
We should determine that most junk DNA are functional
We will find remnants or “fossils” of such front-loading among protozoa. Specifically, we will find information necessary for multicellular life but not for single-cell existence, which is present in many single-cell organisms.
Definitions
Species (monobaramin)
Breeds within a kind can reproduce with others of the same species and potentially hybridize with other breeds/species within a kind. Limited variation in surface features over time. This represents members of a single basic type and usually form a clade. Example: Caucasians and Asians.
Basic type (holobaramin)
A recognizable base form and structure that does not change over time. They are separate and unique (no common ancestors) - fully functional (no primitive ancestors) - similar in form/design due to similarity in function and common designer. It represents the entire group related by common ancestry, including past and present generations: Example: all of humanity.
Universal Common Design Hypothesis
Observations suggest that members of a given species tend to thrive in approximately similar ecologies and trophic levels. [17]
This means that different ecological and trophic features should delineate into separate species because their ancestors had the genes necessary to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.
Therefore, the differences between a particular set of basic types similar in morphology and/or moleculars are due to the different design requirements each will need for their environment.
Null hypothesis: these similar basic types are not multiple kinds with a common design element but are species from an original created kind.
Predictions
The habitats of these similar created kinds and how they interact in them should be substantially different.
The prey of these similar created kinds and how they interact with them should be substantially different.
The predators of these similar created kinds and how they interact with them should be substantially different.
The trophic level of these similar created kinds and how they interact in them should be substantially different.
The ERV’s and psuedogenes of these similar created kinds should be functional
Methods
The ecology criteria to determine basic types involve examining where each basic type lives and how each interacts with their environment, including other living things. This method should be used on the list of currently recognized basic types and species since most groups have been studied with only one analysis. [18]
There is a four-question survey where each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A–D) and a title in the form of a question (prey, predators, trophic level, habitat).
For example, if the answer to the question “Is there a substantial difference in habitat?” is ‘No’ or ‘TBD,’ a follow-up question is asked: “Do they respond differently in different habitats?” (this may require artificially planting them in different habitats for an answer).
If the answer to either question is ‘Yes,’ we can conclude that God constructed each basic type separately.
However, if the answer is ‘NO’ or ‘TBD’ to both questions, we must apply the same question formula to prey and/or predator measures to make a confident conclusion.
If the answer is still ‘NO’ or ‘TBD’, then we ask the question “Is there a substantial difference in trophic level?”
If every question yields a ‘NO’ or ‘TBD’ answer, then the results are inconclusive.
IS THERE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE?
YES / NO / TBD
(A) Habitat?.
(B) Prey?..
(C) Predators?..
(D) Trophic level?
Conclusions
I acknowledge that this is far from being a rigorous statistical method. However, I provide a cursory view of how to test for common design. In the future, experts in this field can and fill in the details and make scientifically appropriate improvements.
[1] Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network | Nature Communications
[2] Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA | Journal of Bacteriology (asm.org)
[3] The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth | PLOS Biology
[4] DNA as a logic operator | Nature
[5] Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice | PNAS
[5A]
[6] The finer scale of consciousness: quantum theory - PMC (nih.gov)
[7] The algorithmic origins of life | Journal of The Royal Society Interface (royalsocietypublishing.org)
(See section on Von Neuman’s universal constructor model)
[8] Richard Owen’s archetype | Archetype (kellerperez.com)
[9] Archetype or Ancestor? Sir Richard Owen and the Case for Design - Reasons to Believe.
[10] The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues: Mike Gene: 9780978631406: Amazon.com: Books
[11] Science | AAAS
[12] Ancient horizontal gene transfer and the last common ancestors | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
[13] Ch20-9780124201903_aq 1…1 (galileocommission.org)
[14] https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/S0168-9525(08)00314-4.pdf
[15]Front-loading and Convergent Recruitment | (wordpress.com)
A reason for cytosine deamination | (wordpress.com)
[16] Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) Protect Early-Stage Human Embryos - Reasons to Believe
[17] More closely related species are more ecologically similar in an experimental test | PNAS
This is merely a repetition of gibberish you have posted before, without any acknowledgment of prior critiques. It’s self-contradictory, claiming in one spot that basic types have evolved from prior species and in another that they were separately created without ancestors. And it’s fundamentally incoherent in many other ways. I fail to see any purpose in your posting here.
Let me show you something. Read this:
"A crucial event in the history of these concepts is Charles Darwin’s famous transformation of Owen’s archetype into an ancestor:
If we suppose that the ancient progenitor, the archetype as it may be called, of all mammals, had its limbs constructed on the existing general pattern, for whatever purpose they serve, we can at once perceive the plain signification of the homologous construction of the limbs throughout the whole class. (Darwin, 1859: 435)2
This move allowed Darwin to align the greatest achievement of morphology, the Unity of Type, under the umbrella of evolution as the most important evidence of species common decent: “On my theory, unity of type is explained by unity of decent.” 3 The switch from abstract archetype to material ancestor effectively relegated the archetype and the associated concept of general homology to proto-evolutionary historical curiosities." [emphasis added]
Richard Owen’s archetype | Archetype (kellerperez.com)
My point is that these principles can and have easily been explained by common design APART from common descent. Instead of descent with modification from an original ancestor, it was design with modification from an original blueprint.
More importantly, the common archetype or design preceded common descent and was used by Darwin to help himself craft Common descent .
In addition, Owen’s theory is almost identical to Von Neuman’s theory. So let’s not get it twisted here.
Finding teleology for functional ERV’s and pseudogenes between similar created kinds would be a unique prediction that confirms common design over common descent when it comes to explaining those nested patterns.
He specifically just said.:
“Of course he doesn’t. You must remember that @Meerkat_SK5 understands almost nothing of what he reads.”
Like I said before, he thinks I misinterpret that source I gave you and other similar ones. So I was right the first time.
Like what though? I addressed the most important aspects of your objections in regard to having an explanation for nested patterns. Since your colleagues don’t seem to agree with you on this point, I figure that this objection is mainly rooted in personal bias.
Every other recent objection you raised was not addressed because I either did not understand them or did not see why they were relevant to follow up on them.
I will admit that I did not realize how similar common design is to common descent once I looked into the details. It seems like the only real differences are that one suggests complex multicellular organisms emerged from primitive multicellular organisms. In contrast, common descent suggests complex ones emerged from other complex multicellular organisms. However, this apparently only applies to fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals, apes to humans. Is that correct?
Anyhow, there are still important differences between the two models that yield unique predictions. I laid out those predictions in the post already.
Well, I wanted to make sure I give a full and updated account of the theory and model of common design to make sure everybody understands. Secondly, I wanted others to get a chance to make their own objections on it to see what’s left that needs to be corrected or explained in more detail.