You apparently forgot that I told you how the Orch-OR theory is supposed to be new physics or something that violates current physics. However, I am not sure an ontological wave-function would be considered “new” physics since the many-worlds interpretation involves this element. Here is a quote from one of my articles that illustrates my point about the wave-function:
'Philosophers use the word “ontic” to describe real objects and events in the universe, things that exist regardless of whether anyone observes them. If you think of the universe as a video game, the so-called “ψ-ontic” view holds that the wave function is the source code. From this perspective, the wave function does indeed correspond directly to physical reality, containing a complete description of what philosophers call “the furniture of the world.” For these “ψ-ontologists” (as their opponents playfully call them), quantum theory, and reality itself, is ultimately about how the wave function unfolds over time, according to the Schrödinger Equation . In the quantum realist view, ψ is, in some sense, “all there is.”’
Sure, I’ve actually mentioned and supported this initially but the link I gave that did not go through. According to literature, it has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be design flaws caused by an unguided process instead of a divine agent turned out not to be flaws at all with increasing understanding of the design.
I believe these observations provide the real evidence for the common designer to be divine . It goes along with the evidence that was accumulated by the Orch-OR theory’s predictions and the observer effect results that I mentioned support a transcended cause… They also give us good evidence and insight into the motives of this designer. The examples are in here:
What makes you say that? Help me understand your thoughts on this. I already explained how and why it does refer to the manner of creation as well. Common design primarily involves a Top-down process while common descent only involves a bottom-up process.
This is from the article I sent you regarding the implications of HGT. It should show you why you have been mistaken from the beginning:
"…I would like to see the authors focus not only on biased HGT, which mimics genealogy, but on proposing ways to discriminate both types of gene transfer.
Authors’ response: We agree with the reviewer that these two processes are undeniably different, however, as we have discussed elsewhere [16], the patterns generated by each process may be indistinguishable. Unfortunately, at present our conclusion is that to some extent phylogenomics may result in a phenetic classification [66], but the extent of this problem is at present unknown .’
That’s because this study was published before the other study I gave you showing that HGT is much more pervasive among metazoans than previously thought.
@Dan_Eastwood seems to understand what I am arguing perfectly. I encourage you to just follow along with the discussion between us on this point if you can’t understand it.
I agree. It strictly explains the patterns among closely related organisms as being modules rather than nested hierarchies. It is HGT that explains the major sequence similarities and common descent patterns in the distant past or among distant relatives.
Yes, my mistake. This is it right here:
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals | Nature
I have already mentioned and explained them previously.
Birds
Genus Homo
Placenta mammals
triassic animals
Invertebrate phyla
Humans
Insects
Ediacaran biota
I am afraid we are going to have to assume it for the sake of discussion Tim because I am getting exhausted at trying to find the right quote that convinces you that my citations are related and supportive of my central premises. I think this is necessary because you are not only admittingly a non-expert but it is clear you do not want to look into my sources to properly inform yourself.
For example, your 2008 source on the wave-function is outdated and not a study itself. You mentioned this source before, which shows you did not bother to look into my sources that show otherwise. Instead, you just wanted to look for a source that contradict my claims.
So from here on out… I am only going to respond to objections that don’t involve or contradict those central premises I mentioned before. Besides, I am not here to convince anybody of anything. I am just here to improve on what I presented at PS.
Correct, I just wanted to establish an aspect of the Orch-OR theory first. Again, it is a cumulative case for the Orch-OR theory.
If you are referring to Penrose’s additional interpretation of a precursor consciousness that created us, then that is correct but this makes no difference to my argument since I am establishing it right now.
False. Read this:
'…So far, all the attention has focused on schemes that come into play under the high-energy conditions that existed just after the big bang. The trouble is, experimenting with such theories is incredibly difficult. “The tests for it are way off,” says Roger Penrose at the University of Oxford. “You have to build an accelerator the size of the solar system – that’s not on the cards at all.”
Perhaps, though, the quantum world has more in common with relativity than we think. According to Penrose, we’ve actually been doing experiments for decades that combine quantum theory and gravity. With a few tweaks, they might offer a different way to the revelations we seek. “It looks a much more promising route to the truth about how the universe actually works."’
Gravity’s secret: How relativity meets quantum physics | New Scientist