“There’s no woo like quantum woo”.
Best to close the topic than waste electrons when these things come up…
3 Likes
I agree, when I search for “self-collapsing wave-function” I came across this on the Google snippet for a Catholic Memes page (cleaned up for spelling errors):
you don’t know the first thing about quantum physics if you think that a "self collapsing" wave function is no different than a mind
I made changes to the theory to not give the impression that I am advocating for such a thing.
I never said it was not appropriate. It is just not the ideal term to use for this argument. “Purpose” has a broader meaning than “motives”. I think motives can be considered purely algorithmic as well.
Alright then, just forget about that part and focus on what I presented for the theory.
For the most part, I did what you asked me to do and stuck to my own words and evidence when I formulated the theory. What’s right or wrong with the latest construction of my theory now?
Observations
According to experiments and observations,
“…The violation of the classical weight structure is similar to the violation of the well-known Bell inequalities studied in quantum mechanics, and hence suggests that the quantum formalism and hence the modeling by quantum membership weights, as for example in [18], can accomplish what classical membership weights cannot do.”
Experimental Evidence for Quantum Structure in Cognition | SpringerLink
" No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice.
[1206.6578] Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice (arxiv.org)
Universal consciousness theory
Whether a quantum system displays particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a non-computable conscious choice.
Definition
Universal consciousness: universal self-collapsing wave-function
Prediction (A):
We would expect to find non-random mutations
Prediction (B):
We would expect to find that most junk DNA is functional according to the causal role definition
Observations:
-
This article is about proving a theorem based on earlier experiments, and so contains no new experimental data or observations.
-
This paper seems to be completely unrelated to @Meerkat_SK5’s quantum woo claims about their universal common designer.
This paper likewise seems to be completely unrelated to @Meerkat_SK5’s quantum woo claims. This is made more obvious where the quoted point is discussed more fully in the article’s body:
Our work demonstrates and confirms that whether the correlations between two entangled photons reveal welcher-weg information or an interference pattern of one (system) photon depends on the choice of measurement on the other (environment) photon, even when all of the events on the two sides that can be space-like separated are space-like separated. The fact that it is possible to decide whether a wave or particle feature manifests itself long after—and even space-like separated from—the measurement teaches us that we should not have any naive realistic picture for interpreting quantum phenomena. Any explanation of what goes on in a specific individual observation of one photon has to take into account the whole experimental apparatus of the complete quantum state consisting of both photons, and it can only make sense after all information concerning complementary variables has been recorded. Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.
Pure, incoherent quantum woo. In particular, it is unclear that this statement has any remote connection to whether a “universal consciousness” exists, or that @Meerkat_SK5 has any idea whatsoever what a “non-computable conscious choice” would entail.
This definition would appear to be further quantum woo.
-
You have failed to demonstrate how your “universal consciousness”/“universal self-collapsing wave-function” necessitates this prediction, so this prediction is invalid.
-
You have also failed to define how the mutations would be non-random, making the prediction vague to the point of uselessness.
-
Again, you have failed to demonstrate how your “universal consciousness”/“universal self-collapsing wave-function” necessitates this prediction, so this prediction is invalid.
-
Further, you have failed to make any showing as to why your “universal consciousness”/“universal self-collapsing wave-function” necessitates that functionality needs to be defined by the “causal role definition” – a definition that people with more expertise than you have pointed out is worthless. Thus this requirement would appear to be purely self-serving.
Verdict: a bunch of incoherent quantum woo and two worthless predictions – 0/10
1 Like
You failed to dispel that impression.
I think that’s algorithmic woo to complement your quantum woo.
That’s incoherent as well, beginning with your gross misuse of the term “theory.”
Pretty much everything, but let’s start with something in my wheelhouse:
Then the hypothesis is falsified, because we don’t find mutations that are nonrandom, with respect to fitness. We’ve always known that mutations are nonrandom with respect to location, direction, etc.
The fact that you repeatedly fail to make that distinction reveals that your aren’t looking at this in any detail.
2 Likes
I draw @Meerkat_SK5’s attention to this post on The Panda’s Thumb blog, which highlights a number of problems with Intelligent Design, which I believe also apply to their ‘theory’:
You can say that all you want but the Objective Reduction theory by Penrose is essentially the theory I am presenting to you. Here it is in their words now:
“In the Copenhagen interpretation, postcollapse states selected by conscious observation are chosen randomly, probabilistically (the Born rule, after physicist Max Born). However in Penrose OR the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced by resonate withd what Penrose called noncomputable Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry. 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.” [emphasis added]
No, you are confusing the Orch-OR theory with the Copenhagen/Wigner’s friend interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would be considered quantum woo. I highlighted a snippet of their article to illustrate why their theory, which I am using for my theory, is NOT quantum woo :
"At small scales, particles exist in multiple states or locations simultaneously quantum superposition, described by a quantum wave function. Yet such superpositions are not seen in our consciously observed world, and the reason may have something to do with consciousness itself. One longstanding view is that the act of conscious observation causes superposition to reduce, or collapse, to classical states, that consciousness causes collapse of the wave function. However, this view, termed the Copenhagen interpretation after the Danish origin of Neils Bohr, its early proponent, fails to consider the underlying reality of superposition, and puts consciousness outside science.
But rather than consciousness causing collapse, as in the Copenhagen interpretation, Sir Roger Penrose has taken the opposite approach, suggesting that collapse causes consciousness’ (or is consciousness), a process in fundamental spacetime geometry, the fine scale structure of the universe, each OR event a qualia moment of subjective experience. Such events would be occurring ubiquitously in microscopic electrically charged environments throughout the universe, quickly reaching threshold and undergoing OR with random, meaningless, and disjointed protoconscious qualia. However, such primitive experiences could include pleasurable feelings or painful ones. "
Not true, take a look:
"Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved. "
Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature
“We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis , challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.”
Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana | Nature
Please just copy and paste portions of the article here that you think I am failing at accomplishing with my theory. I am more than happy to address those points of the article.
Both of those are examples of mutations being non-random with respect to location, not non-random with respect to fitness.
1 Like
It’s pretty sad to point out that someone is ignoring an important distinction, then the distinction is ignored in an allegedly direct response.
Meerkat, can you see what you did? If not, it’s hopeless.
2 Likes
Two problems with this:
-
@Mercer was explicitly talking about your non-random mutation ‘prediction’ not ORCH-OR there. This is further evidence that @Meerkat_SK5 has difficulty understanding basic English.
-
The quote you gave in no way supports your contention that your theory is essentially the same. It would have had a slight overlap on the word “noncomputable”, which was one of the adjectives you applied for your Universal Common Designer, but then you changed you mind and decided that non-computational was the adjective you had in mind.
This is par for the course with you, and one of the reasons we despair of getting anything coherent out of you.
Why? The post is relatively short (under 2000 words) and is not hard to read (I put it through an online readability test and the result was “an average reading ease of about 55.5 of 100. It should be easily understood by 15 to 16 year olds”). The fact that you need to have the relevant parts copied and pasted for you is further evidence that you have trouble with the English language.
As it happens, just about all the discussion of formulation of hypotheses (and especially ensuring that they aren’t arbitrary), precision and falsifiability of predictions, proving your own thesis versus disproving evolution and contrasts between design explanations and scientific explanations, would seem applicable.
This means that the applicable “portions” of the post is everything except the introductory paragraph (which ties the post to ongoing discussion of Hössjer’s claims). This would appear to be too lengthy to quote here – so just read the post – here it is again:
It is because the study is claiming much more than location but fitness. For this reason, it feels like you are choosing to interpret it in a different light despite their conclusions being peer-reviewed:
“In genes coding for proteins essential for survival and reproduction, mutations are most likely to have harmful effects, potentially causing disease and even death,” Monroe said. “Our results show that genes, and essential genes in particular, experience a lower mutation rate than non-gene regions in Arabidopsis . The result is that offspring have a lower chance of inheriting a harmful mutation.”
New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA | Live Science
Tell me what I’m missing here… Are you defining function to only mean one thing again?
And what do you mean by non-random with respect to fitness?
He specifically said, “Pretty much everything”, which includes the ORCH-OR theory.
That’s fine, then just ignore my attempt to paraphrase or put their theory in my own words and just consider their theory to be my own going forward.
Observations show that the cosmological constant is placed at a precise measurement of 10 to the 120th power, and when scientists trace the expansion back one second after the Planck scale of our universe, the degree of precision becomes an astounding value of 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power.
Hypothetically, this means that if our universe’s expansion rate had different values with larger amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion that try to clump together to form planets and stars, where life of any kind might evolve on (or evolve at all), would have most likely blown the cosmic material apart instead.
If our universe’s expansion rate had different values with smaller amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion would have most likely collapse back into a singularity before it ever reached its present size.
This would suggest that Penrose’s mechanism of gravity-induced collapse is truly conscious. It also suggests that it possesses omni-attributes, such as omnipotency, necessity. For instance, our multi-verse will most likely accelerate forever in all directions and produce an unlimited amount of pocket universes from the universal wave-function according to eternal inflationary theory.
This would further suggest that this mind not only exists in all possible configurations of matter but must exist in them by necessity. You can falsify this by showing how the cosmological constant varied at any point in time and space
Thus, since dark energy permeates the multiverse and is highly fine-tuned for any kind of life, we can infer that this causal agent probably plays a role in biology as well.
You guys already demonstrated that my predictions are falsifiable by making critiques on these predictions:
We would expect to find non-random mutations
We would expect to find that most junk DNA is functional according to the causal role definition
We will find remnants or “fossils” of front-loading among protozoa. Specifically, we will find evidence for primitive multicellular life but not for protozoa existence, which is present in many protozoa.
We should find sinister designs in nature to provide improvements (rather than impediments) on an organism or organisms’ ability to survive, reproduce, or fit an environmental niche.
A recent prebiotic experiment demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules could “evolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedly.” More importantly, the similarity between logic gates and DNA structure and metabolism suggests that the characteristics of objects produced by human designers and biochemical systems are identical.
Given the prior support for the quantum mind theory and cosmological constant, this universal protoconsciousness probably operated like humans do when it comes to designing life on earth.
If this is true, we must find widespread HGT and HRT for vertebrates and invertebrates
Results
“Analysis of the genomes of 46 sequenced isolates of Escherichia coli provides for a statistically supported comparison of the topologies of the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions, their regulated genes, and the species tree. The results of this comparison strikingly show that evolution of the regulatory regions of over half of the core genes (i.e., genes shared by all isolates) was incongruent with the species tree.”
Horizontal transfer beyond genes | PNAS
Look at these sources for more confirmation on this prediction:
Widespread horizontal transfer of retrotransposons | PNAS
If this is false…
We should NOT find examples of animal and Neanderthal behavior displaying forms of human exceptionalism, such as…
-
Capacity for symbolic expression
-
Ability to invent and manipulate symbols
-
Ability to invent and manufacture complex tools similar to those created by modern humans
-
Capacity for explosive technological advance
-
Ability to manufacture and wear clothes like modern humans
-
Ability to invent and use grammar, verb tenses, and vocabulary sizes up to hundreds of thousands of words
-
Capacity to form complex social structures like modern humans
-
Ability to invent and use complex trading and transportation systems like modern humans
-
Ability to engage in mathematics, literature, philosophy, and theology
-
Ability to tame, domesticate, and train mammals, birds, and small lizards
From the article:
“By then, the whole chain was clear: known causes (heredity and variation) caused a known phenomenon (evolution) through a known mechanism (natural selection).”
My theory:
By then, the whole chain was clear: known causes (Self-collapse and quantum entanglement) caused a known phenomenon (evolution) through a known mechanism (HGT and HRT).
The meaning of the words you just quoted.
As @Mercer says, it’s hopeless.
Here’s more hopelessness:
Protozoa are single-celled. They are evidence for single-cell existence.
And yet more hopelessness:
Escherichia coli is neither a vertebrate nor an invertebrate.
2 Likes
No. What he in fact said, and what you yourself quoted, was:
And the “something in [his] wheelhouse” he started with was your non-random mutation prediction – not ORCH-OR.
That you don’t get this point is further indication that you have difficulty with the English language.
No. You in fact made no attempt to paraphrase “their theory” in connection with the quote I discussed, you simply quoted it baldly.
My exact point is that “their theory” IS NOT the same as (or even remotely similar to) your own, so NO, I will not consider their theory to be yours.
The reason that they are not the same is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS:
-
Your ‘theory’ posits consciousness being created by a “universal consciousness”/“common universal designer”.
-
ORCH-OR, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly pointed out to you posits consciousness arising naturally through the following process:
The Orch OR hypothesis, which is based in quantum physics, proposes that, when a sufficient mass of tubulin molecules has assembled into cytoskeletal microtubules (MTs) within neuronal cells of the brain, these structures become sites of quantum computation and of quantum state reduction (OR) events resulting in moments of protoconsciousness.
This natural process renders your “universal consciousness”/“common universal designer” superfluous.
Therefore ORCH-OR is neither a ‘design hypothesis’ nor a hypothesis supportive of design.
Any further attempts by you to cite ORCH-OR as either the same as your ‘theory’, or supportive of it, will be treated simply as a further admission that you neither understand ORCH-OR, Quantum Physics nor the English language.
No.
-
It is not clear that “self-collapse” is a “known cause” – it appears to be rather a posited cause, without any strong evidence.
-
As I have already pointed out above, your attempts to link your theory to ORCH-OR have failed miserably.
-
As others have pointed out, your attempts to link quantum physics to “HGT and HRT” have failed miserably.
It can therefore easily be shown that your ‘theory’ does not measure up to the scientific standards discussed in the Panda’s Thumb post on this point.
Also I note that you have homed in on a single sentence in that post, ignoring all the other flaws that your ‘theory’ holds in common with ID.
Overall verdict: incoherent babble that largely misses the point. 0/10
People make claims. Studies do not. That’s another important distinction that you elide.
You are quoting from an article in Live Science, which is not peer-reviewed. You are clearly trying to deceive.
Basic integrity.
Wouldn’t a person seeking dialog have asked this question before replying?
You appear to lack that capability.
Your earlier babble does not suggest anything remotely resembling your highlighted statements. It is a non sequitor, in that it does not follow from your earlier statements.
As both I, and @John_Harshman, have pointed out to you on many occasions, this is a pervasive problem with your claims. Unless and until you learn to make logical inferences correctly, you will get exactly nowhere.
Beyond this, nothing in your incoherent babble demonstrates that your ‘predictions’ aren’t arbitrary.
So it turns out that your ‘predictions’ have not been falsified by evidence, they have merely been demonstrated as being sufficiently malformed as to be “not even wrong”!
This leaves you with:
You guys already demonstrated that my predictions are falsifiable by making critiques on these predictions:
<crickets chirping>
I dispute both your premise, and that (even if it were true) it would “suggest” anything of the sort. That you would conflate “similarity” and ‘identity’ means that you understand neither logic nor the English language!
This likewise does not follow from your earlier statements. Also, lacking a precise definition of “widespread”, this prediction is also worthlessly vague!
You mislabeled this – the correct title is:
Random articles that do not support my predictions
Yet again, this does not follow from your earlier statements.
Overall verdict: incoherent babble, six not even wrong predictions, and BLATANT EVIDENCE of fatal illogic – -1/10
Yes, what you point out is exactly what I am arguing this part of the quote is proof of this:
“these structures become sites of quantum computation and of quantum state reduction (OR) events resulting in moments of protoconsciousness.”
The feeling is mutual here. Any further attempts by you to cite ORCH-OR as either NOT the same as my ‘theory’, or supportive of it, will be treated simply as a further admission that you neither understand ORCH-OR let alone enough about Quantum Physics to have a fruitful discussion on .
Self-collapse is merely the definition of consciousness according to their theory and observations. Consciousness is obviously a well known cause from personal experience and the quantum mind theory.
No, you guys are just not convinced and this is because you refuse to try to understand and read their works. This is not my issue but yours. I gave you guys the sources on how they make the link already.
Other qualified scientists would beg to differ:
The Cosmological Constant - absolute proof that God created the universe for a purpose - YouTube
Yes, let me provide some better context:
According to observations, “molecular analyses indicate that each of the major multicellular clades contain a characteristic set of developmental ‘toolkit’ genes, some of which are shared among disparate lineages.”
We can infer that the same multicellular toolkit and modules were used to design basic types to survive, reproduce, and develop in environments of the globe. Here is the model for the theory:
*Around 3.8 billion years ago, billions of viroids likely containing all the required genes to make certain evolutionary trajectories were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the Earth through self-collapse of the wave-function.
Through natural selection and self-collapse, the groups of viroids evolved into different species of unicellular organisms, which underwent an extensive amount of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), leading to the formation of multicellular organisms and beyond.* (read Hammeroff’s model for more on this description)
If this is true , we must find HGT and HRT within vertebrates and invertebrates
Oh, I forgot about your rule. My mistake.
Not at first no. But now, I am trying to understand where you are going with this objection of yours. So I am politely asking you…
What do you mean by non-random with respect to fitness?
I have some other questions to ask you as well. Does the modern paradigm still hold to a gene-centered view of evolution i.e. the selfish gene?
If NOT, do you think this prediction would either be a waste of time or a meaningful contribution to confirm for science?
We should find sinister designs in nature to provide improvements (rather than impediments) on an organism or organisms’ ability to survive, reproduce, or fit an environmental niche, such as…
Long lasting pain (or suffering) enhance animals’ survivability following an injury and recovery
Animal death and carnivorous activity prevent an overpopulation of prey
Offspring abandonment and filial cannibalism display forms of parental care
Mass extinction events trigger mass speciation events
And what about respect for someone who you are having a discourse with because this certainly does not show it:
But this quote has nothing to do with either your thesis of a “universal consciousness” nor anything to do with your unsubstantiated claim that this universal consciousness (or anything else) creates other consciousness.
Therefore it has nothing to do with your ‘theory’.
Except I’m not the one (i) confusing religious apologists with quantum physicists, (ii) unable to answer basic questions about my background in maths and physics, (iii) conflating “similar” with “identical”.
Nor am I even the only one questioning your understanding of basic English nor of logic.
In fact it would seem to be a reasonable generalisation to say that everybody here rejects everything you have presented – every claim that some article supports your position, every attempt to draw an inference, every definition, every malformed prediction, and most especially your ‘theory’.
You stand here entirely alone, rejected, and dismissed.
The blatant false equivalence of your “The feeling is mutual here” is pitiful.
Vague and incoherent babble. Mere “definitions” can often be arbitrary, so prove nothing. You do not state where in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have they published “observations” that explicitly claim demonstrate self-collapse, nor what evidence you have that these claims been accepted by the wider scientific community.
“Consciousness” is an ephemeral and poorly understood phenomena scientifically, “personal experience” is subjective, and so not scientific, and “quantum mind theory” is fringe science with very poor acceptance from the scientiufic community.
So, no, not a “known cause” from science’s perspective.
No, we are quite thoroughly “convinced” – that everything you say here is incoherent babble, unsupported by the scientific evidence.
Given the number of times you’ve been caught parroting quotes from other apologists without reading the original articles, have made basic mistakes of logic, and have made basic mistakes in your understanding of the English language, I find this claim to be pitiful.
These links were not made by them, but exist only in your mind.
-
This video has nothing to do with the invalid inferences, “that Penrose’s mechanism of gravity-induced collapse is truly conscious” and “that this mind not only exists in all possible configurations of matter but must exist in them by necessity” you were attempting to draw from your previous babble that you claimed “suggests” them.
-
That is not a “qualified scientist” on the video but another Apologist, you likely knows nothing about the science involved. It is just further evidence of the Apologetics echo-chamber.
Let me STOP you rtight there and correct this:
According to a short out of context quote I provide no citation for …
This inference is invalid in that it does not follow from your quote.
This, as others have pointed out, is complete balderdash! Viroid depend on pre-existing life for replication and transmission. Also viroids do not contain DNA, so do not “contain” any genes.
Given your complete failure to make any claim that is even remotely credible to anybody here, your inability to learn from any of your mistakes of comprehension and of logic, and your continued and insulting tendency to blame others for your failure, rather than your own ignorance and inability, I see no reason to continue talking to you any further. Good day sir.
You mean the Ninth Commandment? Aren’t you supposed to follow that rule too?
That individual mutations are biased toward being beneficial or harmful.
It’s an analogy.
What do you mean by sinister?
Does your hypothesis make a specific empirical prediction for the introduction of an invasive species to an island whose residents were not under predation?
I was talking about your rule that secondary sources should not be used to describe primary sources.
How come this quote from the study does not suggests a mutational bias toward beneficial mutations:
“Hypomutation targeted to features enriched in functionally constrained loci throughout the genome would reduce the relative frequency of deleterious mutations. The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6#Sec8
I really would like to know how I am misunderstanding their study. I could not find where they were claiming what you guys are suggesting about the location of the mutations rather than fitness mutations.
What do you mean? What’s an analogy? Are you suggesting that the selfish gene is an example of how natural selection works?
A feature of an organism that is allegedly designed to impede on the population or an organism’s ability to survive, reproduce, and fit an environmental niche.
No, almost all the predictions the hypothesis makes are categorical statements, such as “all swans are white”, NOT observational statements, such as “This swan is white”. This is why the hypothesis is called Universal common design.
https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Falsifiability
For instance, these statements are considered to be categorical:
We should find design trade-offs for all suboptimal designs in nature
We should find HGT and HRT for all vertebrates and invertebrates
We should find the same phenotypic traits evolved separately in nested but unrelated orders and family groups in response to similar needs.
We will find remnants or “fossils” of front-loading among all protozoa.
I consider these statements to be observational but I will let you be the judge of that:
We would expect to find the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions to better fit the data than species trees between apes and humans
We should find fossil dissimilarities between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds/mammals
That’s a clear subset of Ninth Commandment violations.
However, yours here is much more egregious: you were portraying a lay article as the peer-reviewed article. Why would you do that, if your intent is not to deceive?
Because it also reduces the frequency of beneficial mutations.
Because it only addressed location and they misrepresented the implications of that.
Is English not your native language? And to correct myself, it’s more of a metaphor.
No, neither analogies nor metaphors are examples. Do you disagree?
Then it’s not scientific. And statements are not predictions. Is English not your native language?
Scientific hypotheses make empirical predictions–direct observations. Your hypothesis is not scientific.
That’s why it’s not a scientific hypothesis. You lack sufficient faith in it to test it.
Why do you cite something you obviously don’t understand? It completely contradicts you, as it doesn’t mention categorical statements. It mentions observations.
Thanks. You are being pseudoscientific.
2 Likes