And it should also be unsurprising that @Meerkat_SK5’s source inspiringphilosophy is actually pro-evolution.
Lol.
I like the way this point was illustrated so nicely on the post immediately following.
1 Like
We’re saying that LUCA was a population. Evolution does not happen to individuals. Do you realize this?
Human designs do not produce twin nested hierarchies of both the whole and its components, so you’re not making any sense at all.
1 Like
This is eroneous on a number of levels.
-
String Theory, in spite of its name is not a scientific theory, in that it hasn’t been tested and verified. Per Wikipedia, “String theory as it is currently understood has an enormous number of vacuum states, typically estimated to be around 10500, and these might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomenon that might be observed at low energies”, and is thus unfalsifiable. Like String Theory, Orch-OR is not a scientific theory. It has been described as “a controversial hypothesis”.
-
Orch-OR is not a proposal of “a mechanism as to HOW quantum mechanics becomes classical”, it is the proposal that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons.
Nothing that has been presented to date suggests that Orch-OR “is supposed” to do anything of the sort! In particular, your cited source (Hameroff 2020) does not support this claim.
I would also note that Hameroff is not a quantum physicist, and that the article you cited is explicitly listed as “Article Commentary”, so it is merely opinion, not evidence. It is also published in a journal whose topic is not quantum physics but rather (explicitly) “cognitive neuroscience”. Therefore this article provides evidence of nothing about quantum physics.
-
I would point out that one generally does not need to be an expert to recognise that someone is talking nonsense. To recognise nonsense (and relatedly that claims are in no way supported by their citations) generally takes no more than what I previously termed “a reasonably sophisticated layman”. As it happens, I agree with @CrisprCAS9’s assessment of IP.
-
Although we do not have a more expert opinion explicitly of IP, we do have a more expert opinion on your quantum claims – that of @Spinosaurus-729. And that opinion is that your claims are likewise nonsense.
This all traces back to your inane comment:
- As I have already pointed out, videos are an appallingly bad medium for conveying serious complex information.
[Addendum: I should note that this assessment excludes (as @CrisprCAS9 previously noted) formal university lectures on the subject. These lectures typically include experts, even renowned experts such as Leonard Susskind, in a formal lecture setting, with visual aids, such as whiteboards, blackboards, overheads, etc. But this is a very different format to the video recommended.]
-
Michael Jones, the undistinguished (and frankly indistinguishable) person behind ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ is not a quantum physicist (nor an expert in anything else, as far as I can ascertain). It is therefore wholly unreasonable that you should expect @CrisprCAS9 to treat this dumpster fire as “a potential source of information on the subject”.
-
As I have established previously, neither Richard Conn Henry nor Johanan Raatz are quantum physicists. Fred Kuttner is, but I have already covered how empty the claim of his “review” is.
-
“The sources and citations that are listed below his videos” are unreasonably long – running to nearly 40 (including six whole books). They are of doubtful relevance and doubtful quality (including a number of Jones’ own inexpert videos). As this is a video, there is also no way to tell which citations relate to which points. It is therefore likewise unreasonable to expect @CrisprCAS9 to “bother reading the sources and citations that are listed below his videos”.
If I may summarise the state of play on quantum physics on this thread, it is that:
-
@Meerkat_SK5 has demonstrated no solid basis for their claims in quantum physics. (As a “controversial hypothesis”, Orch-OR would not provide such a solid basis in quantum physics, even if their claims had a solid basis in Orch-OR, which they don’t.)
-
@Meerkat_SK5 has demonstrated that they are incapable of telling if a source has expertise in quantum physics or not. (I would also suggest that @CrisprCAS9 has demonstrated that @Meerkat_SK5 is likewise incapable of distinguishing whether a source provides evidence or not.)
-
@Meerkat_SK5 has demonstrated that they are likewise incapable of demonstrating sufficient reading comprehension to learn about quantum physics.
This all suggests that the following “lack-of-effort” reaction is the the most reasonable reaction to anything further they have to say on the topic: @Meerkat_SK5 says “quantum”, therefore @Meerkat_SK5 is so likely to be wrong that it’s really not worth bothering looking more deeply into the matter.
5 Likes
I already did in the post you’re responding to. LUCA contains multiple paralogous genes. That means they derive from even older common ancestral genes. That can only be the case if LUCA itself has a substantial prior evolutionary history.
Yes, I agree. It really does appear that way. And it doesn’t appear to NOT be that way.
LUCA does not necessarily imply a single cell as opposed to a population of cells that all belong to the same single-celled species of prokaryote. I make no claims that there was a population-size bottleneck of one single cell at the time of LUCA.
2 Likes
This is an important point, @Meerkat_SK5. Do you understand it?
Your time would be far better spent on understanding this evidence than in promoting your grand hypothesis, which does not deserve the title “theory.”
5 Likes
Before I address objections, I want to make sure I fully and clearly establish the fundamental basis in which my entire case rest’s on: Idealism. This should solidify why it is valid to initially infer that the digital code in DNA came from a transcended conscious agent.
As I mentioned before, Idealism states that information comes first and then changes in material things are consciously pursued in accordance with that information rather than material things shaping our ideas and ideologies.
For instance, the universal wave-function represents the totality of existence and is regarded as the “basic physical entity” or “the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation.” (Wikipedia) In other words, they are possible configurations of matter or a universe in the form of mathematical equations. We have experimental confirmation that the wave-function is real.
I need everyone to please read all the articles below so everyone can accept the premise that digital information transcends classical space-time. Some articles are studies and others are reviews that are not peer-reviewed but are still informative and helpful for laypeople.
So there is no excuse going forward for anyone who complains about not knowing enough on quantum physics to refute the first premise in my argument. You don’t need to be an expert to understand the articles I provided. Therefore, if you make an objection that contradicts the facts in quantum physics, I am not going to accept it as valid.
Now, I am going to establish why the Orch-OR theory of consciousness is legit by fully addressing @Tim’s responses on it. This will establish how human consciousness does not emerge from classical spacetime and can collapse the wave-function of the brain just as much as matter… This will show that experiments like “quantum erasure with a causally disconnected choice” ultimately show that a conscious observer plays a fundamental role.in collapsing the wave-function under measurement.
On the reality of the quantum state | Nature Physics
Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020409 (2014) - How \ensuremath{\psi}-Epistemic Models Fail at Explaining the Indistinguishability of Quantum States (aps.org)
Are the Quantum World and The Real World the Same Thing? | NOVA | PBS
(Measuring the reality of the wavefunction - Mapping Ignorance
(Measurements on the reality of the wavefunction | Nature Physics)
On the Reality of the Wavefunction | SpringerLink
Well, thank you for misrepresenting what I said Tim. If you had read carefully, you’ll noticed that I specifically said, "Orch-OR theory is supposed be a scientific theory like string theory that proposes a mechanism as to HOW quantum mechanics becomes classical.
As you can see, I was specifically referring to a particular aspect of both explanations and how it was considered to be that way. Moreover, the name String Theory is just how it is generally referred to by default, which is probably why you misunderstood what I was saying. So I never said String theory was a scientific theory in the first place.
Oh please Tim, you got this quote from an outdated portion of an wikipedia article. If you actually bothered reading the very end of it, it specifically says…" In 2014, Penrose and Hameroff published responses to some criticisms and revisions to many of the theory’s peripheral assumptions, while retaining the core hypothesis"
As you can see, almost all those objections and criticisms were raised BEFORE they had any evidence. More importantly, they addressed and refuted all those objections in their 2014 article already:
"Nonetheless, the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.
It should be mentioned that various aspects of the Orch OR theory have themselves evolved in response to scientific advances and, in some cases, constructive criticism. We here list some recent adaptations and developments that we have now incorporated into the theory."
“Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce novel suggestions of (1) beat frequencies of faster Orch
OR microtubule dynamics (e.g. megahertz) as a possible source of the observed electroencephalographic (“ EEG”) correlates of consciousness and (2) that OR played a key role in life’s evolution. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe”
b2237_Ch-14.indd (galileocommission.org)
Well, it is both… Just read the same source above:
“Moreover it would be OR that provides the ‘bridge’ between the quantum and classical worlds.”
“The Orch-OR scheme adopts DP as a physical proposal, but it goes further than this by attempting to relate this particular version of OR to the phenomenon of consciousness. Accordingly, the “choice” involved in any quantum state-reduction process would be accompanied by a (minis-cule) proto-element of experience, which we refer to as a moment of proto-consciousness, but we do not necessarily refer to this as actual consciousness for reasons to be described…”
“Whitehead’s low-level ‘dull’ occasions of experience would seem to correspond to our to non-orchestrated ‘proto-conscious’ OR events. According to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time everywhere and, normally involving the random environment, would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement. Quantum superpositions will continually be reaching the DP threshold for OR in non-biological settings as well as in biological ones, and OR would usually take place in the purely random environment such as in a quantum system under measurement.”
Well, you clearly did not read the post where I specifically said… If I did not address or accept your previous objections, this may be because… PS users are making objections without providing counter sources or articles that refute well-established aspects of my theory. Or they are making personal objections that are not aligned with their level of expertise.
It has to be one of these two conditions.
No, it not so much that. You guys just have certain preferences in regards to what you find to be a valid source for a particular claim that don’t align with my standards and preferences. For example, I don’t think that every article must be peer-reviewed, a study, or be written by an author that has a formal degree in the subject in question in order for it to be a valid source of information or useful.
Yes, that is somewhat correct. The theory I present is technically not Fuz Rana’s, Winston’s, Roger Penrose’s or even mine but proposed first by Richard Owen. Instead, what I am presenting are models, which includes my origin of life model, that support Owen’s general theory of a Universal common design from a Universal common designer. BTW, this theory from Owen has stood the test of time ever since it was proposed.
Judging from this response, you seem to accept that common design and common descent are mutually exclusive models based on all the reasons I pointed out. But, you just don’t agree with using the term “common design” because you think it is just a term that is better used to differentiate between guided (common design) and unguided (common descent) evolution.
Is this a correct assessment of your objection? If so, can you explain why this should be the case? Because neither RTB, AIG, Biologos, nor the Discovery Institute have used or understood that term in the way that you suggest :
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles - BioLogos
Common Descent or Common Design? An Exercise in Question-Begging | Evolution News
“Common Design Means Common Ancestry” | Answers in Genesis
Archetype or Ancestor? Sir Richard Owen and the Case for Design - Reasons to Believe
How so? Provide another quote from the paper to support your new claim about it. BTW, I had this discussion with @Michael_Okoko already and he failed to provide a quote from any paper that suggests they don’t create the same patterns but merely maintain those patterns that common descent created.
As I told him, I accept that both processes were at play and this fact does not hurt the argument at all. I have got another paper by the same authors that @Michael_Okoko himself provided that refutes what you guys are saying:
“Organisms that frequently exchange genes become more similar, and transfers between these groups may then be categorized as HGTs with a bias reflecting overall relatedness, even though the initial transfers may have been biased by other factors. We have previously shown that biased gene transfer CAN CREATE and maintain phylogenetic patterns that resemble the signal created through vertical inheritance [16].”
Biased gene transfer and its implications for the concept of lineage (nih.gov)
Yes, John. That’s Correct! I was hoping and expecting you to point this out actually. For instance, although Jesus is human , Jesus cannot sin like humans because a perfect being is immutable and cannot violate his own nature while an imperfect being changes all the time and can violate those principles.
Now, @Dan_Eastwood claimed that I was assuming there was God in order to come to this conclusion, but this is not the case . According to the Orch-OR theory, Digital information and consciousness are not materialistic but idealistic and there is solid evidence for this as I explained to @Tim above.
We also have evidence that God is human-like. For instance, the DNA molecule shares many aspects in common with computer systems engineering and other engineering fields, which can’t be explained by a bottom-up process nor without human intervention. This is also the reason why common design should be considered mutually exclusive terms because common descent is considered to strictly be a bottom-up process while common design is or can be a mix between the two processes. Just read these two sources for more:
Survey of Engineering Models for Systems Biology (hindawi.com)
Because that is what they did in this study:
Correct! Instead, it describes the data as being shared modules that the designer used not nested hierarchies because modules better explain the data. This is what Winston’s model entails. Those patterns reflect a dependency graph NOT a nested hierarchy.
I agree. This is why limited common ancestry and HGT is the mechanism that explains most of the common descent patterns. To be clear, HGT and Winston’s model explain HOW we got those common descent patterns and similarities from a UNIVERSAL common design perspective.
This is important to establish in order to potentially provide a competing model to universal common descent. This means that I also agree that common design does not explain instances of recent closely related nested hierarchies, such as ancient humans to modern humans. But this is not a problem since it allows for limited common ancestry.
Yeah but, this study suggests that we could find many more functional sequences in the future, which is a prediction of the model:
Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes | Nature
I actually edited it to say that and corrected some of the grammer before you responded but was apparently too late. Yes, the list I provided is what I propose for basic types. If you want to come back and argue that these examples can be explained by the artifact hypothesis, then that is fine. Genuine gaps in the fossil record will just be a prediction for the separate creation/common design model along with finding convergent evolution within genes between species.
No, I was not. I was merely trying to show that common descent explains the evidence differently on a fundamental level, which would make both models incompatible as a result. This is why I did not go in-depth with my response on biogeography since I am not trying to show it is wrong but just different.
That being said, I do think there are some instances where Common design does better explain the biogeography distribution and the fossil record because it does not depend on ad-hoc justifications.
Right back at you, John. This is basically what you are doing now in regards to your distinction between common design and separate creation. It is completely arbitrary and unfounded. This is my wheel house you know so I definitely have authority to say this and I have already provided support for what I am saying. Nevertheless, this is an irrelevant point to fight over since it looks like it is merely a semantics disagreement. If you personally think the term should be understood and used differently without any justification , then that is fine.
Besides, we have done a good job at ironing out the details and issues of the model. At this point, the only thing that I feel needs a response from you given your background is whether the origin of life/viruses model I presented actually works with the data. It is important because this is the only model that could be considered my own work. If you feel that there are more things that need to be ironed out as well, then go ahead and list them.
Since you have consistently shown a lack of interests and effort to truly engage my arguments, you will have to read my responses to @Tim and follow along there.
Unless it is from a quantum physics journal, this will not be necessary since it won’t negate the studies that show how the wave-function is real and transcends chemistry and classical physics.
But not quantum thermodynamics, unless maybe you have some new physics and have been holding out on us?
This can ONLY be assumption. Otherwise we’d like to see some examples of perfect being to verify your claim.
It is repeatedly the case, which is why I gave up the discussion. The next time you tag me, please have sometime new to say.
No, you are unable to judge that sort of thing. I didn’t accept that at all.
No. “Common design” is a vacuous term that seems to refer only to the idea that there is a single creator but says nothing about the manner of creation, whether through evolution or fiat. Or whatever else.
No. I provided a quote that supported my claim, which isn’t new at all, just the same thing I’ve been saying about that paper from the beginning. If you can’t read and understand what the quote says, there’s no point in putting out another.
You will note that they’re referring only to prokaryotes in which HGT is common and promiscuous.
What follows does not in fact follow, and is more word salad that doesn’t constitute an argument.
Ah, so that was another unattributed quote. Please stop this dishonest practice. And it’s a quote from the abstract of a paper you have not read, and I doubt you even understand the abstract, just the word “convergence”.
But modules do not in fact explain the data. Nor does Ewert’s model have anything to do with sequence comparisons. I grow weary of the word salad. Until you can specify what parts of the tree of life are separate creation and what parts are common descent, nothing can be tested. You have no model.
That study suggests nothing of the sort. Perhaps that was the wrong link?
Then you are talking nonsense, as many of your basic types are nested within other basic types, several of them are not taxa at all, and the ones that are taxa span the range from phyla to individual species. This is an incoherent hypothesis that’s impossible to discuss.
Please mention and explain some of these instances.
I’m afraid you have no wheel house and no authority whatsoever. You are still wasting my time and yours.
1 Like
Right, I’ll take your latest reply as an admission of your dishonesty. You aren’t interested in the discussion, so I’ll stop trying.
5 Likes
Which of these are you proposing as a basic type?
Karl Marx said that history repeats, “first as tragedy, then as farce.”
-
I find it odd that you are only now raising this “fundamental basis in[sic] which [your] entire case rest’s on”.
-
We have no more reason to believe that @Meerkat_SK5 understands philosophical Idealism, than that they do quantum physics or biology. (And, speaking for myself, at this late stage in the conversation, I’m wholly unwilling to introduce another new topic into the discourse.)
I’ve already cast considerable doubt on this claim:
&
What we have is merely “experimental confirmation that the [matter field] is real.”
Given that none of these sources even mention a “conscious observer”, “consciousness”, or anything related, it is hard to see that they could (even potentially) “establish” anything of the sort.
I didn’t, I merely tried to make some sort of sense of your garbled hot mess.
As I pointed out, neither String Theory nor Orch-OR are "scientific theories, so it makes no sense to claim “Orch-OR theory is supposed be a scientific theory like string theory”.
No. What I “can see” is that:
-
You are conflating scientific theories with explanations.
-
I take it you meant this “particular aspect” to be your claim that each “proposes a mechanism as to HOW quantum mechanics becomes classical”. This claim is unsubstantiated for both hypotheses.
Oh please Meerkat:
-
Wikipedia isn’t alone in calling it a “controversial hypothesis”. See here and here for a couple of further examples (I’m sure I could find more if I looked hard enough).
-
“Penrose and Hameroff['s] published responses” are merely an opinion piece, not a presentation of any new evidence. And your quote from it is merely their opinion, not established fact.
-
You have presented no evidence that Orch-Or has either ceased to be controversial, nor that it has become more than a mere hypothesis.
Thank you for quoting me out of context. I originally ended that statement by saying that until you found such an article:
I never said that if you found such an article I would automatically accept your position.
And you still haven’t found such a peer-reviewed article! You quote from a book chapter, by none other than Penrose and Hammeroff themselves (who we already knew were ‘all in’ for this hypothesis). It is again not evidence, merely their opinion (and we already knew that they supported Orch-OR).
So you are still exactly nowhere.
Your complete lack of reading comprehension is showing again.
-
They did not say “Orch-OR” but “OR” – Object Reduction (and more specifically the Diósi–Penrose model, DP, of it). Orch-OR merely assumes DP-OR (which is itself merely another interpretation of QM, not an established fact in its own right).
-
It does not say that QM “becomes” classical, merely that DP-OR “bridges” the two.
It is exactly that.
Our “preferences” are for sources that say the same things as your claims citing them say. Otherwise you can cite the works of Shakespeare for a claim that the Moon is made of green cheese. This “preference” is the basis of all logic, and ignoring it is the root cause, in some shape or form, of every logical fallacy.
Your problem goes far beyond that. You have claimed that Rana is an “acknowledged expert” in a field where he has no expertise. You have claimed that Raatz is a quantum physicist when he isn’t one. You clearly have no capacity for determining who is or isn’t an expert.
Given I rather doubt that you have read Owen’s work, I am skeptical of this claim. Rana does not give a sufficiently detailed account of Owen’s model, so his piece would not seem an adequate basis for this claim. And you would be doing Owen a disservice to attribute your own dumpster fire of a “theory” to him.
Addendum, in the gush of @Meerkat_SK5’s claims, I missed addressing this:
-
As to your bolded comment, it has already been pointed out to you that we do not require “counter sources or articles” to establish that your own sources do not support your claims.
-
I am sick to death of your constant whining about our “level of expertise” when you have no expertise whatsoever, nor even competence in the fields under discussion, and base your understanding on the likes of Jones, Rana and Ross, who likewise lack expertise.
-
Nothing that you have claimed here is “well-established”. They are pervasively based upon your grossly inexpert misinterpretation of sources rather than claims that the sources themselves make.
But I will take your statement as a template. The following applies to everything you have said to date and will likely be applied repeatedly in the future:
These claims are made by @Meerkat_SK5, who has no “level of expertise” in the fields under discussion, and has failed to provide sources that support their claims. Therefore, per @Meerkat_SK5’s own dictum, I will neither accept nor address these claims.
This should cut down on the bandwidth considerably. 
(Admittedly, this statement could be summarised, if somewhat cryptically, by a single word: “balderdash”.)
5 Likes
@Tim, I sympathize deeply with your attempts to reason here. But I think it’s of no use.
Some people understand the structure of reason. Others think that what must be well-bounded, well-defined, rigorous and compelling can be substituted for by a bag of half-eaten shmoos, some duct tape and a series of paper clips to sort of link the odd bits together. Such people see nothing the matter with pushing on a rope, since pulling on a rope works so well. And as they pile untenable proposition upon untenable proposition, they get a heady feeling that these saltations from one bad idea to another are really amounting to something, and that there is not only merit to the ideas but also a kind of brilliance that emerges from the cadence and the spirit of this awkward dance itself.
What I’m saying is: you want to save people from folly. But, regrettable though it may be, there are some who cannot be saved. They have to want to understand, and they have to have the inner conservative (small “c” here) nature that says that it is better to understand small things well than large things badly. To them, lack of rigor smacks of brilliance and outside-the-box thinking, even as the box rests over their own eyes.
@Faizal_Ali suggested, a long while ago, that ignoring this nonsense was the best way to go. I didn’t heed his advice then. But I am increasingly persuaded that he saw where this was headed, and I nominate him for the title of Prophet.
10 Likes
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
I assure you I have forgotten nothing.
4 Likes
What exactly do you mean here? Do you mean that these are basic types and the others are not? But how can invertebrate phyla and insect both be basic types? How can the Vendian fossils, Kimberella, and Dickinsonia all be basic types? How can Triassic animals be a basic types? How can both placental mammals (assuming that’s what you mean) and Homo both be basic types? Each of the ones that really are groups is nested within another. Basic types can’t be nested. Further, do you really want to make all birds a single basic type, and all insects? That’s allowing for a whole lot of evolution.
2 Likes
I have decided to take @Puck_Mendelssohn’s excellent advice here.
Therefore, I will restrict myself to repeating the following comments, which seem as applicable now as when I first stated them:
@Meerkat_SK5 has demonstrated no solid basis for their claims in quantum physics. (As a “controversial hypothesis”, Orch-OR would not provide such a solid basis in quantum physics, even if their claims had a solid basis in Orch-OR, which they don’t.)
@Meerkat_SK5 has demonstrated that they are incapable of telling if a source has expertise in quantum physics or not. (I would also suggest that @CrisprCAS9 has demonstrated that @Meerkat_SK5 is likewise incapable of distinguishing whether a source provides evidence or not.)
@Meerkat_SK5 has demonstrated that they are likewise incapable of demonstrating sufficient reading comprehension to learn about quantum physics.
This all suggests that the following “lack-of-effort” reaction is the the most reasonable reaction to anything further they have to say on the topic: @Meerkat_SK5 says “quantum”, therefore @Meerkat_SK5 is so likely to be wrong that it’s really not worth bothering looking more deeply into the matter.
& (more recently)
These claims are made by @Meerkat_SK5, who has no “level of expertise” in the fields under discussion, and has failed to provide sources that support their claims. Therefore, per @Meerkat_SK5’s own dictum, I will neither accept nor address these claims.
Or, more succinctly, “Balderdash”. 
3 Likes
That can be arranged …
2 Likes
I don’t think it took any great gift of prophecy to see where this was likely headed. And I readily admit that I am often the last person to heed the advice I gave there. 
5 Likes
Hey, at least you predicted it in advance, rather than the old prophet’s trick of predicting it after the fact.
2 Likes