This thread should end right here imo. Nothing is gained by interaction with Meerkat. His OP is so incoherent it doesn’t even have the capacity to mislead anyone.
4 Likes
Point taken, but interaction is voluntary. This is not the first discussion to go beyond the point of useful interaction, but by all means go do something more useful with your time. 
Everyone have a good July 4th weekend! 
5 Likes
Yes, I agree. I noticed that your guy’s lack of expertise in basic quantum physics and your metaphysical premises and biases is preventing you guys from accurately supporting your assertion that my theory is unscientific. So far, nobody has pinpointed a single area in my presentation that suggest an inherently unscientific component that renders the whole theory to be unscientific.
So I will just create another topic soon that will allow everyone to explain to me why it should not be taught in science instead. If your reason is going to be because there is not a scientific consensus, then you can explain to be why we should make the scientific consensus the gatekeeper of what is science and what should be taught in science classes.
In that case, what makes you think that learning the quantum mechanical mechanisms that govern evolutionary biology would require a deeper understanding and therefore be harder at that education level?
I am not sure I follow you here . You specifically said in the beginning:
“[ID] has no practical application leading to students finding jobs after graduation. Why teach Common Design as science when it has no scientific applications? This seems more suited to a philosophy of religious studies class.”
Then, I showed you a video of Casey explaining how there is practical applications. Then, you suggested that Casey was making baseless claims. Then, I gave you an article that does suggest there is practical applications.
Thus, this is not about ID proponents not applying the ID perspective themselves but it’s about whether the ID perspective has any practical applications when applied to biology. Clearly, the article suggests that it does and thus can create jobs for them based on using that ID/Engineering approach rather than an unguided or strictly common descent approach to living systems.
Also, engineers are essentially the same as intelligent designers:
“Engineers are also designers, but with one added wrinkle: analysis. Like a designer, an engineer will plan out their creation before beginning implementation. But engineers also plan beyond the implementation to consider mass production and maintenance needs, stress, environmental effects and wear-and-tear, cost to produce and to maintain, and a host of other factors that may not affect form or function but do affect practicality. Evaluating the design against these factors takes both technical knowledge and mathematical analysis.”
Maker vs. designer vs. engineer — what’s the difference? - Electronic Products
It’s so funny you point this out because I actually have done this many times already before I came on to PS. Also, I agree that the theory is ready to go to the next level. As I said before, I went as far as I possibly could with it and made all the necessary changes and omissions to the theory we constructed together on this forum. Now, I am confident that this theory has been torn apart and improved on enough for scientists to take notice and they can take it to the next level this time around.
However, I found out in the past that this is not God’s main calling for me when it comes how I should advance the gospel. So it would have to be a Christian scientist who wants to take this to the next level for me.
Nevertheless, let’s assume I was qualified and desired to send it to peer-review again. As far as my research tells me, all the experiments in quantum physics that need to be done or have been proposed to support the Universal common designer theory have been done already. This includes the models or predictions within models that have been published already by Penrose and his partner, which would make submitting an article redundant and pointless. The only thing I can think of that would bring any sort of novelty to the scientific community or a journal is a clear-cut way to falsify the theory that was testable in the near future.
Anyhow, there is something I have been meaning to ask you. In the past, you specifically said…
You then suggested that God cannot be falsified using the methods that Sean Carrol suggested because there is no way to decipher whether God is just using naturalistic causes to achieve his goals. If you didn’t recall, I actually agreed with you , to some extent, that you can’t disprove a deistic God that “began the process of evolution, producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws its development has followed.” Then, following the establishment of this process, this Creator withdraws from active involvement with the world.”
Instead, when I argued that God can be falsified with the methods I proposed, I only meant this in the realm of science and for a theistic God with a human nature. A deistic God could still exist in the realm of philosophy and theology if God was ever falsified. Sean Carrol , the atheist physicist I mentioned before, even suggested.
However, you insisted that this still makes it unfalsifiable or unscientific. So why does an unfalsifiable deistic God make a theistic God with a human nature also unfalsifiable? Let’s not forget, Young earth creationism was considered falsifiable and part of science in the past. Once it was falsified, it was still true in a philosophical and theological sense because of the appearance of age arguments.
Also, what makes you think falsifiability is a requirement for a theory being considered scientific. Your colleague Jordan seems to think otherwise: “Besides falsifiability not being a sufficient criteria for a hypothesis to be scientific…”
I think you misunderstood the point of why I referenced this experiment and why it does support the theory I’m presenting. It was not to show that the consciousness of the observer physically and directly caused the collapse under measurement like some sort of ESP psychic power. Instead, it is to show that the conscious observer plays a fundamental role in causing the collapse. There is a difference.
For example, the observer must first specify or think of which particular wave-function he intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. Then, only the observer can recognize the answer and understand the results after he chooses between the many possible outcomes.
This is what majority of physicists believe is the case according to poll:
Question 10: The observer
a. Is a complex (quantum) system:
39%
b. Should play no fundamental role whatsoever:
21%
c. Plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role:
55%
d. Plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness):
6%
On the other hand, the evidence supporting the Orch-OR theory goes a step further in establishing that the consciousness of the observer also has the distinguished role of collapsing the wave function because consciousness under Orch-OR is quantum mechanical in nature. This is what they mean by having a distinguished physical role from the measurement apparatus.
“…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 (2009)
by Diederik Aerts , Sven Aerts , Liane Gabora
Thus, only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually DISCONNECTED choice” demonstrate if I am not mistaken, of course [just ask for reference]. The non-physical mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.
I hope that clears things up here.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone mentioned any “ESP psychic power”. Moreover the only way to determine if consciousness observer played “a fundamental role in causing the collapse” is to demonstrate that the absence of a conscious observer makes a difference. Perhaps you can point to an experiment that does so. This one certainly does not.
Much of this is true of all experiments. And, since there seems to be no need for the choice in this particular experiment to be made by a conscious observer why would there need to be in the other choices in setting up the experiment?
That seems to say that only conscious observers can set up experiments which is rather trivial. The real question is what role the observer plays. None of the studies you refer to make the claim that the apparatus would behave differently if the setup were not chosen by a conscious observer.
1 Like
And we’re back to this balderdash again.
As I said 8-9 months ago:
ENOUGH!
I am sick and tired of you constantly casting aspersions about others’ “understanding of the quantum physics”, when you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of your own.
I therefore have three questions for you:
- What is your formal background in physics?
- What is your formal background in calculus?
- What books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by actual quantum physicists have you read? (As opposed to Youtube videos by apologists.)
This appears to be as true now as it was then, and his continued failure to assimilate this point is further demonstration that @meerkat_SK5 appears unable to learn, which is why I have given up interacting with them, why I agree that this thread should be closed, and would wonder if any further follow-up threads on this topic serve any real purpose.
3 Likes
Now I’m curious. Where have you sent your manuscript? What was the response?
I did that. Read above the TL;DR.
Yes, it’s quite clear you do not follow.
So let’s teach engineering in high schools, no one would argue with that. That would give student employable skills, Note that we can teach basic engineering principles without resorting to Quantum mumbo jumbo to justify anything. No one questions the fact that humans can and do design things. Also, there is no need to presuppose the existence of humans. 
As for Luskin and ID, there is no explaining nonsense. It simply fails on it’s own (lack of) merits.
I’, splitting this in smaller bits for response.
You then suggested that God cannot be falsified …
Stop right there. God cannot be falsified in a scientific sense. Full Stop. (See the Omphalos Argument.) The best you can do is put some limits on what the Christian God might do based on Christian theology. You might be able to argue the theology is wrong, but theology is not science.
Let’s not forget, Young earth creationism was considered falsifiable and part of science in the past.
No. YEC is religion not a science. CREATION SCIENCE is the YEC attempt to prove God by science, and easy to falsify by application of the Law of Physics.
Also, what makes you think falsifiability is a requirement for a theory being considered scientific. Your colleague Jordan seems to think otherwise: “Besides falsifiability not being a sufficient criteria for a hypothesis to be scientific…”
You would have to ask Jordan. I might agree that falsification is not sufficient, but it is necessary. (Statistical theory make a big deal about Necessary and Sufficient )
2 Likes
No, it actually does because quantum erasure experiments are different than double-slit experiments:
‘Here it is most interesting to note, as do the authors in the published version of the paper, that the “choice” of which direction the photon will take at BSA or BSB is made by QM itself. That is, the path at this juncture is 50-50 random. As we will see, this “choice” will determine the information available at the conclusion of the experiment. (The authors note that in other quantum eraser experiments, the choice is made by the experimentalist.’ [emphasis added]
Secondary source: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser (bottomlayer.com)
Secondary source: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained - YouTube
Primary source: Experimental Realization of Wheeler’s Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment (science.org)
Here is another but different experiment that further demonstrates that the observer plays a fundamental role NOT the detector the observer uses:
Primary source: Microsoft Word - Dokument1 (oeaw.ac.at)
I highly recommend you just watch this short video for lay people about this experiment to get a clear and concise understanding of all the sources above:
Secondary source: Quantum Experiment without Interaction - YouTube
Likewise, this is what I said to you and others about that:
"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."
"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."
I will potentially tell you more about this in the next topic I just created following this one after your guys responses:
Consensus should determine what’s taught in science classes. Why? - Peaceful Science
Wasted thread, wasted time.
2 Likes
Agreed. No amount of rephrasing and reformulation would suffice to bring together these half baked pseudo profundities into anything coherent enough to be worthwhile to respond to. With that, I’m done here.
2 Likes
While I tend to agree the thread ought to be closed, you can get the same effect by muting the thread.
1 Like
Then you need to point out a relevant difference and show why it supports your claim.
No support for your claim appears to be in this paper.
1 Like
That is irrelevant to my point that (in spite of you constantly casting aspersions about others’ understanding) you have demonstrated no understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
(Additionally, from memory, your articles did not support your premise, and nobody accepted it.)
The point is that you don’t “know enough on quantum physics” to make a coherent argument in the first place.
If you want to refute that claim, then please answer my previous questions:
- What is your formal background in physics?
- What is your formal background in calculus?
- What books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by actual quantum physicists have you read? (As opposed to Youtube videos by apologists.)
Let my try my own syllogism:
-
Premise @Meerkat_SK5 knows sweet Fanny Adams about Quantum Mechanics.
-
Conclusion @Meerkat_SK5’s “Universal Common Designer theory and model”, which is based on this (lack of) understanding of Quantum Mechanics is therefore incoherent. (A point that everybody on these threads but you would seem to agree.)
-
Premise Incoherent claims cannot be taught. This is because (i) they should not on principle, and (ii) because the attempt will almost certainly prove futile.
-
Conclusion “Universal Common Designer theory and model” cannot be taught.
QED. 
I see absolutely no point in engaging with you further on this subject, until you have demonstrated even a basic understanding of it.
2 Likes
Having noted that those percentages add up to 121%, I looked up the paper. The poll sampled 33 physicists at a single conference. That’s not a large sample.
Immediately after the poll results, the authors write this:
Also, very few adhere to the notion that the observer plays a distinguished physical role (for example, through a consciousness-induced collapse of the wave function).
Since @Meerkat_SK5 is claiming that a conscious observer with a measuring device causes the collapse, not merely an observer, the poll response most relevant to his idea is (d) 6%.
So the majority of physicists polled do indeed believe that the observer plays a role, but the vast majority also think the observer is neither conscious or active, thus do not believe @Meerkat_SK5’s ideas.
@Meerkat_SK5 is once more misrepresenting his sources.
2 Likes
Unconscious particles floating around in the universe regularly cause the collapse of wave functions.
1 Like
“Yeah but how do you show that without consciously reading a number off of some instrument”
That’s always the reply.
Somehow the wavefunction of the milk in your fridge knows to collapse into spoiled milk when you finally open it after 3 weeks, and we are supposed to refrain from inferring the milk was in there going bad all along because we can’t prove it did without being conscious when we do measurements.
The people engaging in this quantum solipsism need help of a sort that isn’t so much related to physics as it is to psychology.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.