Would this Origin of life model work?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@Meerkat_SK5

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

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

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.

[Tim]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

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

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

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Tim

@Meerkat_SK5

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.

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.

@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.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Mercer

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

@Puck_Mendelssohn

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

@Roy

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.

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

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

What Is a Wavefunction?

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Michael_Okoko

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.

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.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Dan_Eastwood

@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.

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.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Meerkat_SK5

I really believe the lack of 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.

I am reminded of some prior quotes:

@Meerkat_SK5

To be honest, I just throughout that list of species out there for discussion and critique without any rigorous research. It is obviously wrong but I needed to see how wrong so I can have some direction as I research into this further.

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

@Meerkat_SK5

Yes, your assessment is correct here. I never had any interests because Phylogenetic trees only show that there are biochemical similarities between all living things.

…and:

@Meerkat_SK5

I have been doing the best that I can to respond and change my model in response to those critiques. I admit that my presentation of my theory has been complete garbage throughout most of my interactions on here

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.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

@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.

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.

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

@Meerkat_SK5

God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible

Is it possible or impossible for God to create life? Contingent on the existence of God (standard agnostic disclaimer ), 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).

@Meerkat_SK5

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.

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.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5

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.

I do keep trying!
If you cannot provide falsifiability at the “macro” scale, then moving the proposition into the quantum realm is unlikely to be of any help. Perhaps that is an abuse of “moving the goalposts”, but every time I set a target to be falsified you change the goal.

@Meerkat_SK5

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?

Objection! Science is found on being able to observe material evidence. If your argument requires science (or reality) to be redefined, then you really aren’t playing of the same field as anyone else. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong, but you can’t claim to have a scientific hypothesis. After a brief read on the topic, it’s not clear that Idealism allows the concept of falsification.

Proposition: We are alive and self aware of that fact, therefore Idealism demands that our past must be consistent with this thought. If thoughts create our reality, then the temporal inconsistency isn’t really a problem. We simply thought ourselves into existence.

@Meerkat_SK5

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.

It remains that a hypothesis should state some sort of material evidence, which could (at least in theory) contradict the hypothesis. Could God create life? Sure, but how could you ever possibly show that God did not?

@Meerkat_SK5

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

“here” was quite a long quote. You would need to be more specific before I could answer.

@Meerkat_SK5

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.

I see nothing mysterious or constrained here. If random life is possible, then it’s possible for God to act by seemingly random means (I think I covered this already).

@Meerkat_SK5

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.

Suggestion: If you don’t want to do a Deepak Chopra, then you should include the objections to this idea as well.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Dan_Eastwood

Now, is it possible to demonstrate that God did not do something that is otherwise possible?

Yes, actually. I think the fossil record proves that God did not develop life through UCD.

@Dan_Eastwood

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).

I am not quite sure what your point is here. Regardless of whether it is possible by random means, this would need to be demonstrated empirically in order for it to be considered science.

@Dan_Eastwood

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

Well, we were discussing whether my God hypothesis can be ( dis)proven scientifically in the first place. If you are conceding that it can and you want me to proceed further in proving it, then I will do so.

@Dan_Eastwood

If you cannot provide falsifiability at the “macro” scale, then moving the proposition into the quantum realm is unlikely to be of any help. Perhaps that is an abuse of “moving the goalposts”, but every time I set a target to be falsified you change the goal.

Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that “the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws.” In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/57254

In fact, a team of scientists have even succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving. “These experiments show that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles”. Thus, you cannot separate the two realms because quantum mechanics is ultimately fundamental.

Scientists supersize quantum mechanics | Nature

@Dan_Eastwood

If your argument requires science (or reality) to be redefined, then you really aren’t playing of the same field as anyone else. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong, but you can’t claim to have a scientific hypothesis.

I would agree but this does not apply to me.

@Dan_Eastwood

After a brief read on the topic, it’s not clear that Idealism allows the concept of falsification.

Well, it just depends on which form of idealism we are talking about here. The one that I am advocating for does allow for it.

@Dan_Eastwood

It remains that a hypothesis should state some sort of material evidence, which could (at least in theory) contradict the hypothesis. Could God create life? Sure, but how could you ever possibly show that God did not?

A quantum mind must exist to create life on earth

                        OR

A quantum mind must exist to bring life into being on earth

Here’s an experiment showing how a quantum mind does not need to exist to create life on earth by showing how a possible natural condition can create life without it.

Again, A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case.

This is what it means to be “necessary”. This leads me to address your response to this…

@Dan_Eastwood

I see nothing mysterious or constrained here. If random life is possible, then it’s possible for God to act by seemingly random means (I think I covered this already).

I think “random” is the wrong term to use here. What you really mean is “natural law” if I am not mistaken. If so, I would agree BUT the question is whether this natural law was a guided process or not, which we can test, as I showed and explained to you before.

@Dan_Eastwood

Suggestion: If you don’t want to do a Deepak Chopra, then you should include the objections to this idea as well.

The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.

I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more. I have already gave you the source that verifies all this. In fact, here is a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address:

"Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105).

Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters. With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively. As the enigmatic riddle of consciousness has remained intractable, we need more theories and hypotheses to attract enough attention and maintain lively debate. This conflict is the only way for human beings to explore the truth. Since there is no conclusive scientific mechanism of consciousness, as one of the most systemic and convincing theories among various theories of consciousness, the Orch-OR theory deserves our deeper understanding and study."

Do you know of a new peer-reviewed objection of their article after 2019 that they failed to address?

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

I think the fossil record proves that God did not develop life through UCD.

You really will have to explain yourself some time. The fossil record has nothing to do with UCD, as there is no reason to believe that the universal ancestor would have left any fossils, and most of the fossil record is of animals, hundreds of millions of years after any event relevant to the UCD.

I would like to point out that I am in fact a biologist, an actual expert on the subject of evolution. I say that purely because you claim that people don’t understand you because they aren’t experts. That is not the reason.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

You really will have to explain yourself some time. The fossil record has nothing to do with UCD, as there is no reason to believe that the universal ancestor would have left any fossils, and most of the fossil record is of animals, hundreds of millions of years after any event relevant to the UCD.

No, I mean universal common descent throughout the whole fossil record in the form of gradualism.

@John_Harshman

I would like to point out that I am in fact a biologist, an actual expert on the subject of evolution. I

Yes, but not in every field of biology. such as paleontology.

@John_Harshman

I say that purely because you claim that people don’t understand you because they aren’t experts. That is not the reason.

Yes, but I only meant that in terms of quantum physics. Sorry for the confusion. I went back to change it.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@John_Harshman

You really will have to explain yourself some time.

He won’t, you know. He will just go on assuming that when people give up on attempting to reason with him, this means he’s won that round of the argument and it’s time to move on and open a new thread where Deepak-style insights will overturn all of science. As rhetorical strategies go, this is an interesting one, but it’s not a winner, for sure.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

No, I mean universal common descent throughout the whole fossil record in the form of gradualism.

That’s not what universal common descent means. I also think you have no real idea what gradualism is or what the fossil record shows. But since you refuse to discuss it we’ll never be entirely sure.

@Meerkat_SK5

Yes, but not in every field of biology. such as paleontology.

As it happens, my graduate education entailed quite a bit of paleontology. So I do claim considerable familiarity with the relevant subjects and with the technical literature.

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

@John_Harshman

I would like to point out that I am in fact a biologist, an actual expert on the subject of evolution. I

Yes, but not in every field of biology. such as paleontology.

Given your reliance on Apologists in general, and your heavy reliance on RTB in particular, I find this quibbling more than a little ludicrous. Hugh Ross has no qualification or experience even remotely relevant to biology. And the relevance of even Fazale Rana background (“… a PhD in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University. He later pursued postdoctoral studies in the biophysics of cell membranes.”) would appear tenuous at best.

Does Michael Jones of ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ have any academic background in QM? I rather doubt it (and his webpage certainly doesn’t mention any).

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

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.

You can believe that if you prefer, but the actual reasons are your tendencies to spout gibberish about topics you don’t understand and cite papers you haven’t read.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Michael_Okoko

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.

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.

Nope. The issue is you don’t understand basic physics in the first place.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

Moving this topic to Side Conversation, it’s impossible to moderate each post and is, IMO, well past it’s useful life when people start the credentials battle. Posts will not be held for moderator approval so please use the flagging system if there is something that violates the community guidelines so a moderator is alerted.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

That’s not what universal common descent means. I also think you have no real idea what gradualism is or what the fossil record shows. But since you refuse to discuss it we’ll never be entirely sure.

Sure, we will discuss it more later in the next topic. I am just focused on addressing the most fundamental aspect of my overall argument right now so no one will complain about me not addressing past criticisms.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

I am just focused on addressing the most fundamental aspect of my overall argument right now so no one will complain about me not addressing past criticisms.

If you don’t want to talk about something, don’t bring it up. That’s one reason people complain about you not addressing past criticisms: you tend to put off discussion until…well, until never. Another reason is that you never actually address anything, just repeat your prior assertions in slightly different words.