Would this Origin of life model work?

Then show me a wave function that is independent of matter and energy.

Matter is already there, and energy is already present in the matter and being emitted.

You don’t seem to understand the basics of quantum mechanics, so what good would the video do?

1 Like

Wave-functions are not just a useful fiction but an actual fundamental part of objective reality. BTW, both the genetic code and wave-functions involve Shannon information as well. You can watch this video from 0:00 to 11:30 for all the evidence, but I recommend you watch the whole thing based on what I read on your response:

The Emergent Universe - YouTube

This doesn’t help. Moving your goalposts in to QM does not address the problem of falsification. What possible evidence could confirm your hypothesis, and what possible evidence would refute it? It’s not possible to refute divine (supernatural) action.

That will do nicely. You are conflating the creation of information with the creation of DNA. That’s not the only way that information can be coded. Further, “bits” and “digital” are human labels/units of convenience. “Digital information” was not created, “Information” was created and can be coded digitally. ANY information can be coded digitally.

Humans creating life does not exclude the possibility a QM (God) also creating life. God is sufficient, but may not be necessary. To prove divine necessity would require access to a helpful divinity for testing, which is beyond the realm of science. If such a divinity wish to provide proof of their existence, they could easily do so without going through all this silliness. A mischievous divinity might provide disproof of their existence and we would be none the wiser.

Then it seems you have not understood my criticisms. I don’t think I can define thing any better than I already have.

This is your hypothesis, and obviously you will not be satisfied until you can fully understand it for yourself. Good scientific hypotheses can usually be stated in a single simple sentence (definitions may be longer). My advice is to simplify: Break the question down into smaller pieces until it cannot be made simpler, then build it back up one piece at a time. Question every assumption along the way, because a test of a hypothesis is also a test of your assumptions.

3 Likes

Strawman! I never called or implied wavefunctions are “useful fiction”. I clearly stated they were mathematical equations that allowed us to compute the state of a quantum system. It can be used to calculate the probability of finding an electron within a given volume of space, for example.

Of what relevance is Shannon information to a wavefunction?

My response, AFAIK, is line with the current understanding of quantum mechanics. That you find it wanting indicates you misunderstand some fairly simple concepts related to it. For example, you think a wavefunction is an entity, but that is wrong. Its an equation, like the equations of Newton’s laws of motion.

2 Likes

Random mutations can also add Shannon information to a genetic sequence.

4 Likes

Moving the goalpost! ??? No, I am just making sure we understand each other better. You even said yourself that PS’s goal is to establish Common Ground for understanding each other.

Now, what I am about to tell you is something I mentioned to you before in previous topics. If you did not read it last time around, then I am really going to need you to read it this time. Otherwise, I don’t see how we will be able to move forward in our conversation. I will try to be clear and concise this time around.

One of the two biggest reasons why people believe God cannot be a scientific hypothesis is the false presupposition of materialism or substance dualism. Most people often forget or don’t realize that there is a third option: Idealism . Let me bring some context before I elaborate on this:

What is Objective Reality?

Realism is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. Naturalism is the viewpoint that only natural laws and forces govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws in the form of either materialism or idealism.

Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are consciously pursued in accordance with those ideas.

Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.

However, Substance dualism is unparsimonius and untestable while materialism has been disconfirmed so many times by experiments that a consensus on the matter has developed [just ask for reference]. This leaves us with a form of idealism that places wave-functions and human consciousness as representing objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from.

Therefore, when you say things like “It’s not possible to refute divine (supernatural) action”, all you are doing is attacking a strawman because the natural vs supernatural dichotomy is a hallmark of substance dualism. But, I am arguing for idealism where there is only one substance and one reality that exists, which would fundamentally be a Quantum reality.

I am not sure I understand what you were suggesting here.

I think I see what you are trying to argue now. Another user made a similar objection when he said…If ‘God moves in mysterious way’, how can we tell if the hypothesis is disproven, or if God is just being mysterious again?

As I told @Tim, God’s actions would only be unconstrained like this in regards to his relationship with mankind NOT with his relationship with nature and the animal kingdom.

If you insist otherwise, then what is the basis for this claim on your end.

Well, I was not necessarily trying to provide a novel scientific hypothesis from an original research standpoint within this topic. Instead, it was constructed as more of a review article where I accumulate the results of many different articles on a particular topic into a coherent narrative to argue that current literature already supports how a quantum mind must have created life/viruses on earth.

1 Like

I just trying to show that “digital information” can either mean or involve mathematics or linguistics and encompasses both.

Well, it’s both. If you say otherwise, then it’s clear you did not watch the video.

Oops the wavefunction is a function not an equation, my bad and it is not like Newton’s laws of motion which are equations. The wavefunction is a function that satisfies the Schrödinger wave equation.

Its worth reiterating that a wavefunction provides a mathematical description of a quantum system. I think there is some debate on whether it describes an actual physical object or just probabilities. @dga471 might be able to give us the specialist touch here.

Yes, and I can remember being thoroughly unconvinced by you at the time. If you wish to convince @Dan_Eastwood on this issue, I’d suggest that you need to do a better job.

How did you come to the conclusion that the video is correct and @Michael_Okoko is not?

Or, of course, @Michael_Okoko is right and the video is wrong. Since he is right, that seems more likely.

2 Likes

@Meerkat_SK5 : It should be clear that you aren’t communicating anything to anyone here. Is it possible that the problem lies with you rather than with everyone else?

4 Likes

Even more likely is that @Michael_Okoko is right and the video is right, and @Meerkat_SK5 doesn’t understand (or didn’t watch) the video.

3 Likes

Are you suggesting that some random Apologist on Youtube might not be the final word on QM? I’m flabbergasted.

2 Likes

@Meerkat_SK5 Any constraint on divine action can ONLY be assumed, and then it would defy omnipotence. My basis to object is the lack of basis to your claim.

1 Like

Superposition principle in action. When we try to figure out which is right, we will see what the wavefunction collapses to :laughing:

Furthermore, @Meerkat_SK5 the article below provides a painless introduction to the wavefunction:

3 Likes

Oh really! This would be great. I really believe the lack of [quantum physics] experts within our discourse is the main reason there is a disconnect between what I am presenting and the lack of acceptance that is preventing us from moving forward. But, I am not an expert in quantum physics as well so it could just be me like what others have suggested here.

I think your objection is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like “almighty” or “omnipotent.” These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God’s power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power, and the Bible affirms this (Job 11:7-11, [37:23]; 2 Corinthians [6:18]; Revelation 4:8; etc.).

God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew [19:26]) where man’s ability is being shown in contrast to God’s), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.

Also, keep in mind, your objection is assuming that God only has the attribute of omnipotence, but obviously this cannot be the case if we are talking about the Christian God. For instance, the attributes of the Christian lGod have to work in accordance with each other in a logically consistent manner because he is who he is (i.e. the law of identity) and cannot not be who he is at the same time (i.e. law of non-contradiction). This means that God cannot make himself cease to exist because this would conflict with him being a necessary being. God cannot make a square circle because this would conflict with his omniscience. God cannot lie because it would conflict with his omnibenevolence. God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift because it would conflict with his omni-potency

God cannot create and develop a world that does not have God intimately involved in the process every step of the way because it would conflict with his “Personal’ nature. Thus, God must be true to “all” his attributes, because to do otherwise would be to deny his own self.

I am reminded of some prior quotes:

…and, speaking here of your lack of knowledge of basic phylogenetic concepts:

…and:

I suspect that the reason for non-acceptance of your views is that your views are wrong, and that the sincere and helpful efforts of many people to show you how badly wrong they are have fallen upon deaf ears. The result is that your attempts at molding the bad science of ID Creationism into bad philosophy of science and a bad research program have been, well, bad.

4 Likes

I notice you ignored the bit about your own claim having no basis.

Is it possible or impossible for God to create life? Contingent on the existence of God (standard agnostic disclaimer :wink: ), I would have to say “possible”. Now, is it possible to demonstrate that God did not do something that is otherwise possible?

This also contradicts the second part of your experiment, where life is demonstrated by “random” means. If creating life is possible, then it should also be possible by random means, however unlikely (skipping that other argument about what random really means).

Here you admit to assuming that which you hope to prove. Can we stick a fork in it and call this done?

Actually, I still mean to reply to some of the bits about Idealism, but this wraps up another part of it.

4 Likes