And that sounds like casting about for justification of a conjecture.
And this sounds like hand-wavy musings of the sort that grad students engage in over beer after finals week when over-abused cognitive facilities make untestable associations.
I’m pondering whether that is a distinction without a difference.
I don’t see how that correlation has anything to do with the stated theory.
Open discussion here, remember?
Excellent clarification! I was struggling with the concept earlier, but this makes things clear.
Penrose is saying that consciousness arises from quantum interactions in microtubules, correct? In other words, consciousness is an emergent property of quantum mechanics instead of quantum mechanics being an emergent property of consciousness.
In the case of the double slit experiment, the inanimate objects recording photons or electrons are the observer.
The rest is just examples of quantum mechanics. What exactly are you trying to evidence here?
Natural selection is natural law.
That’s not a prediction. That’s a description of the proposed mechanism. What you need is a description of the types of patterns we should see in viral insertion into the host genome. That would be a prediction.
Everyone already agrees that viral activity is tied to physiology. What you need evidence for is evidence for interaction between a consciousness and viral activity.
Random with respect to fitness = occur without regard to benefit or harm to organisms
Those mean the same thing. To use another example, the chances of drawing an Ace of Spades from a deck of cards is not increased if I need an Ace of Spades to fill out a straight flush. The draw of the cards is random with respect to the needs of my hand. In the same way, mutations are random with respect to fitness in that needing a specific mutation in a given context does not increase the likelihood of getting that mutation.
When you flip a coin I can guide the coin through the air so that it always lands on heads. However, sometimes the creation is corrupt so it doesn’t work. Therefore, when you get 50% heads and 50% tails the 50% heads were all guided.
Would you be convinced by these claims?
You are claiming that mutations are guided, except for the mutations that cause disease. This is like me claiming I only guide the coin flips that land on heads.
Numerous and obvious examples of fossils that violate a nested hierarchy would falsify the theory of evolution. It is easily falsifiable. As it turns out, the mixture of features in the fossils we find fit the predicted nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution is tested by the fossils we find, not the fossils we don’t find (unlike your model).
This isn’t so for your model. If we found a fossil with a mixture of mammal and bird features you would claim that this is an archetype.
Pedantry: your point is sound but your example is not. If you need an ace of spades to fill out a straight flush, that means you don’t already have an ace of spades, which implies a different probability of drawing an ace of spades than if you were simply drawing a card from a deck.
Correct. However, there are important differences between his theory and ours. For instance, although both our theories suggest human consciousness emerged from quantum mechanics, our theory does not apply this to animals.
I was trying to show that our definition of a (universal) consciousness/common designer and that the fine-tuning constants do provide direct evidence for a universal common designer in nature. Here is a syllogism to convey our point:
The cosmological constant’s remarkable precision, challenging any notion of accidental occurrence in the vast expanse of cosmological history, stands as a testament to its extraordinary nature [5,54]. Similarly, the constancy of the fine-structure constant throughout the annals of the universe, as evidenced by meticulous measurements [52,107], and the absence of variation in the fine-tuning constants further reinforces the notion of a finely crafted cosmos, where even the minutest details are meticulously calibrated [30,107]. Furthermore, the empirical reality of the universal wave-function, which underpins the fine-tuning constants and the entirety of existence [88,99], highlights the deterministic nature of the universe, akin to a blueprint for reality. The striking parallels and functional similarities observed between quantum systems and human cognitive processes [38] hint at a profound connection between the fabric of reality and the intricacies of the human mind [43].
Taken together, these converging lines of evidence suggest the existence of a universal self-collapsing wave-function, conceptualized as a universal common designer, orchestrating the intricate workings of the universe and underlying all of nature’s phenomena. This concept extends Owen’s theory, as he never directly associated the polarizing and adaptive force that established the universal common archetype with human consciousness, despite his Christian beliefs [55].
Support for this theory has been bolstered by confirmed predictions in physics, such as extremely precise measurements of the fine-structure constant [107]. This dimensionless constant, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between light and charged elementary particles, is fundamental to our understanding of physics. Accurate measurements of this constant are crucial because even a small deviation in its expected value could indicate new physics beyond the Standard Model. Such a discovery could help explain unresolved phenomena like dark matter, dark energy, and the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe—issues that the Standard Model currently does not address [107]. Recent studies have pushed the precision of the fine-structure constant measurements to unprecedented levels, and while these have so far aligned with Standard Model predictions, the potential for discovering new physics remains a key focus of ongoing research [107].
This prediction is essentially the same as the Orch-OR theory. So we can’t say it is not a prediction. But, my prediction that 80% of ERV’s are functional I mentioned earlier should suffice.
Yes, that is what the prediction from the Orch-OR theory entails. Quantum effects in microtubules would be example of consciousness. Let me show you a visual model to help you out:
Around 4.7 to 4.2 billion years ago, pi electron resonance clouds within single-chain amphiphile molecules aggregated into geometric pi-stacks, forming viroids conducive to self-collapse (SC) events within Earth’s deep-sea hypothermal vents [50]. Over time, natural selection and convergent co-option led to the assembly of viroids into highly organized local domains containing key biomolecules characteristic of DNA/RNA viruses or molecules [50]. Subsequently, these assemblies evolved into various species of unicellular organisms involving the self-collapse of quantum wave functions within the microtubules of viruses throughout evolutionary history [50]
Yeah but define what it means to be harmful or beneficial to the organisms. My bet is that you are adhering to the selection-effect definition while I am adhering to the causal role definition and thus it is not the same thing.
No, I am acknowledging that there are other explanations for those instances that prevent the theory from being falsified or disconfirmed. But, this does not mean it is unfalsifiable. This is no different than proposing hypothesizes like the artifact hypothesis and punctuated equilibrium in order to prevent Darwin’s theory from being falsified while still being a falsifiable theory.
You are assuming that common descent is only explanation for those nested patterns when you say this though. But, I don’t accept that premise. Our theory makes the same prediction and thus you are showing how our theory is falsifiable as well.
Also, there are other aspects of our theory that make it falsifiable. For instance, we would expect humans to possess cognitive qualities that deviate from what might be predicted based on evolutionary descent, as suggested by the discovery of the endorestiform nucleus [60]. For example, if subsequent research establishes a significant correlation between the volume or size of the endorestiform nucleus and fine motor control in human brains [60], such a feature would not be found in non-human nephesh brains, or if present, would display markedly different characteristics compared to human brains. However, if contrary to expectations, the endorestiform nucleus is found in non-human nephesh brains or exhibits a significantly different volume or size compared to human brains, it would pose a serious challenge to Owen’s extended theory, akin to the hippocampus minor controversy [27].
Such findings would suggest that humans, rather than being fundamentally distinct, differ from other animals only in degree, undermining the exceptional status attributed to humans. Furthermore, this raises questions about whether Christianity, which posits a unique conception of God and reality, provides the most accurate explanation. Thus, it casts doubt on the validity of Owen’s theory.
No, they are actually distinct from traditional natural laws like gravity. Fuz Rana does a good job explaining why:
Remember that according to evolutionary theory, we should not expect to see underlying rhyme or reason to protein complex structure. Yet this latest discovery highlights exactly that—orderliness and intelligibility in nature. Such a scenario harmonizes with the Christian worldview’s belief that God, who has revealed Himself to human beings through His creation, created the universe.
This advance also means that yet another key biochemical feature is not historically contingent but is fundamentally specified by the laws of nature. This reality strikes down a tenet of evolutionary theory. It also means that shared structural features of protein complexes cannot be used to infer evolutionary relationships.
This discovery also lends support to the existence of a biochemical anthropic principle. It is remarkable to think that protein complexes are a manifestation of the laws of nature and are, at the same time, precisely the types of structures life needs to exist. I interpret this “coincidence” as evidence that our universe has been designed for a purpose.
Finally, while this insight challenges evolutionary theory, it also challenges one of the most popular arguments for intelligent design—namely, the use of probability calculations to demonstrate that random processes can’t generate information-rich biomolecules, such as proteins. As I’ve pointed out before, this line of argumentation is faulty.5 The work by the UK team demonstrates that if protein structures are specified by the laws of nature, then physicochemical (and maybe even biochemical) constraints force proteins into a limited region of protein space. Though protein space is vast, in principle, in reality much of it can’t be occupied because only a subset of protein structures is viable per the laws of physics and chemistry.
Overall, the new periodic table for protein complexes reveals that the structure of biological systems may reflect some deep and underlying principles that arise from the very nature of the universe itself. And as a Christian, I find that notion to resonate powerfully with the idea that life manifests from an intelligent agent—namely, God. A Periodic Table for Protein Structures Reveals Biochemical Design - Reasons to Believe
That doesn’t follow. The designer could have set the constants of the universe and then walked away to let it run itself out without knowing what the results would be, nor spending any time interacting with the universe after that point.
It is no different than thermodynamics. Both are a stochastic process.
The only problem is that your definition of functional is circular. If the ERV exists you count that as function.
That’s not a prediction. It’s like saying “life evolves” is a prediction of the theory of evolution.
I see no connection to anything I know about viruses. Viruses are just DNA/RNA that happen to promote their own replication through the use of host proteins. Pi-stacks and self collapse have nothing to do with it.
The causal role has no connection to benefit or harm, so your definition is meaningless to begin with.
They aren’t scientific explanations.
Punctuated equilibria makes scientific predictions. That’s a big difference.
It’s the only scientific explanation. Like I said before, I could cite invisible pink gravity unicorns as an explanation for gravity. That doesn’t make relativity go away as a scientific explanation.
What??? That reads like a bunch of nonsense.
That’s a completely subjective opinion. That’s not science.
The theme to your posts seems to be any explanation is science. That’s not how it works.
That is not true. The fine-structure constant, integral to electromagnetic interactions between charged particles, acts as a cornerstone in shaping the structure and behavior of atoms, molecules, and materials. This fundamental constant, reminiscent of Owen’s concept of ‘adaptive masks,’ embodies an underlying invariant form or ‘primal pattern,’ influencing the intricate interplay between physical constants, evolutionary processes, and biochemical functions in living organisms [21].
For instance, while core quantum mechanical principles persist, variations emerge in enzyme structures and functionalities among species, reflecting evolutionary adaptations to diverse environmental conditions and ecological niches [57]. Adaptations in electron transfer proteins, driven by factors such as temperature, pH, oxygen levels, and toxin exposure, often lead to convergent evolution among species sharing similar habitats.
Despite structural differences, the essential role of quantum mechanical processes, particularly electron tunneling, remains consistent across species, underscoring the deep connection between physical constants, evolution, and the biochemical intricacies of life [83]. This intricate relationship highlights the dynamic interplay between fundamental physical constants and the adaptive responses of living organisms to their environments.
That is not what observations suggests. For instance, while our research doesn’t address broader questions in quantum physics, as these topics lie beyond the scope of our article, our theory does propose that any deviation in the universe’s expansion rate—especially due to varying amounts of dark energy—could likely disrupt the formation of planets and stars, which are considered essential for life of any kind. For example, if the expansion rate were driven by a larger amount of dark energy, the accelerated expansion would cause cosmic material to be spread too thin, inhibiting the formation of life-supporting environments. Conversely, with a smaller amount of dark energy, the universe would collapse back into a singularity before reaching its current size.
Future research and upcoming experiments, such as the Euclid space telescope, NASA’s Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), and the Simons Observatory currently under construction in Chile, hold promise in addressing whether you are saying is true or not. These missions aim to investigate whether the influence of dark energy was stronger or weaker in the past compared to the present. However, at the moment, there is no evidence of variation in the fine-tuning constants [30], which would suggest a random or arbitrary unguided process.
Again, you are just straw manning the argument time after time. Existing and existing by necessity are two different things.
That’s fine, I think this might be a limitation of your expertise or knowledge of Penrose’s Orch-OR theory. So let’s leave this alone for now.
According to your model and opinion, sure. But, not our theory.
According to your model and theory, sure. But, not our theory.
So does ours.
Our model of nested hierarchy is testable because it hypothesizes that a nested pattern may emerge if the design goal aligns with optimizing organisms for survival, reproduction, and environmental integration. This is an initial hypothesis and one that we propose future studies could test to refine our understanding of nested hierarchy patterns in designed systems. Thus, it is falsifiable.
We would expect humans to possess cognitive qualities that deviate from what might be predicted based on evolutionary descent, as suggested by the discovery of the endorestiform nucleus. Here is an example of how it can be tested to show what I mean:
The Hebrew word nephesh, refer to soulish animals endowed with mind, will, and emotions, capable of emotional bonds with one another and humans (see Ch. 6 [71]).
In contrast, all other animals are not nephesh, either because they are not mentioned in the text or not designated as nephesh (see Ch. 6 [71]).
Investigating Cognitive Qualities:
Experimental Setup: Compare the presence and characteristics of the endorestiform nucleus in human and non-human nephesh brains, focusing on animals that have been reported to bury their dead and exhibit religious practices.
Data Collection Methods: Collect neuroanatomical data on the volume or size of the endorestiform nucleus in human and non-human nephesh brains, along with cognitive performance metrics related to fine motor control.
Statistical Tests: Utilize statistical analysis, such as correlation analysis or linear regression, to examine the relationship between the volume or size of the endorestiform nucleus and fine motor control in human brains, and compare these metrics with those in non-human nephesh brains.
Which means it has nothing to do with evolution specifically. It is how all matter interacts.
Also, we see that different lineages evolve differently, even though all of the fine constants are the same.
That’s dark energy, not a consciousness.
Your definition of necessity is that it exists. Once you throw out fitness you have nothing to judge necessity by.
It is your expertise or knowledge of virology that is the limitation.
If you incorporate benefit and harm then it is no longer the causal definition.
Science isn’t a theory. You continually confuse assertions with evidence. They aren’t the same thing. You need to learn what makes an explanation scientific.
This is a perfect example. Why would a nested hierarchy emerge if design goals align with “optimizing organisms for survival, reproduction, and environmental integration”? That’s gobbleygook.
Engineers face those same issues, and their designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely NO REASON why a nested hierarchy would be required. You also offer no experiments to test this.
How do you determine what would be predicted from evolutionary descent???
My sister was a production and quality engineer for a circuit board plant, and from what she said about board design I have to agree. Previously designed sections might or might not be used again, but there was no “ancestry” chart that would have made any sense except “This will work here, use it”.
Having avoided posting any extracts from the paper for over a week, @RTBsupporter is now posting large sections of it even when not requested to, despite his previous complaints and excuses not to.
Discussion: This is not consistent with any of the reasons given for not posting extracts, but is consistent with @RTBsupporter now having regained access and/or permission to post extracts, and suggests the above hypothesis was correct.
