Thread: On Gravity, Oreos and a Theory of Everything

From another thread

Steve Wrote;
Metatron: As soon as the word, "multiverse' is used, the discussion descends into the not scientific. There is no such scientific model being used, which involves or defines 'multiverse'.

Skinwalker Wrote;
I'm afraid I must agree with Steve on this.

I split this thread out of the Biology subforum's Next Stage in Human Evolution.

The topic of the above thread is one that I think could earn some serious discussion and the quantum mumbo-jumbo has been moved until such time as someone can quantify or qualify it's placement elsewhere.

Their seems to be a consensus on this site that quantum mechanics on the macromolecular level is mumbo jumbo so I have posted several scientific sources that clearly state otherwise and they have yet to be addressed by the moderator.

It has also been stated that the term multiverse is not scientific. From today’s New York Times.

On Gravity, Oreos and a Theory of Everything


By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: November 1, 2005


In the summer of 1998, after postdoctoral stints at Harvard and the University of California, Berkeley, she was a tenured M.I.T. professor ready to move to Princeton. She wondered then whether parallel universes could help solve a vexing problem with a favorite theories of particle physicists.

This was not the first time that theorists had tinkered with the extra dimensions of string theory, dimensions that had been presumed to be coiled out of sight of experiment, into tight loops so small that not even an electron could enter. In 1998, three theorists - Nima Arkani-Hamed of Harvard, Gia Divali of New York University and Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford (a group known in physics as A.D.D.) - had surprised everybody by suggesting that if one or two of the curled-up extra dimensions had sizes as big as a tenth of millimeter or so (gigantic on particle physics scales), gravity would be similarly diluted and weakened.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Wrote;
Metatron: As soon as the word, "multiverse' is used, the discussion descends into the not scientific. There is no such scientific model being used, which involves or defines 'multiverse'.

Seminar Outline

Latest theories about the Universe & Its Governing Laws

Date: Saturday, November 5, 2005
Time: 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Speakers: Professor Raphael Bousso, Professor Anthony Aguirre and Professor John Terning
Location: University of California, Berkeley

Extra Dimensions
Professor John Terning
University of California, Davis
There has been a revolution in our thinking about extra dimensions. A new understanding of the feasibility of localizing four dimensional gauge theories in higher dimensional spacetimes has led to a variety of phenomenologically viable models, and even to the possibility of localizing gravity. Unlike older theories of extra dimensions, much of the focus now is on extra dimensions with sizes on the order of one thousandth of a proton width or larger! Thus, there is a potential for discovery at current and soon-to-be-completed colliders, and in some cases table-top experiments. In addition there are tremendous implications for cosmology. The following topics will be covered:
Einstein and the Fourth Dimension
Waves in a Fifth Dimension
String Theory and Branes
Experimental Tests of Extra Dimensions

Simply.
I respectfully request a response from the moderator, Does the use of “multiverse” and “quantum biology” in the context of my usage constitute pseudoscience ?

If it does precisely how ?

I'm no Moderator and certainly not moderate, but here are some thoughts, largely at random.

Multiverse:
You wont get very far quoting newspaper articles as evidence on a science forum. Articles from peer reviewed journals are the required currency of payment when the debate gets down to the nitty gritty.

I had a quick look in Nature and The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. There were no references to the multiverse in PNAS, and only within book reviews (generally books by Sir Martin Rees)in Nature.

That said, the concept of multiple Universes is not new; it is an integral part of some theories [some versions of string theory, for example]; it is therefore superficially puzzling as to why Steve and SkinWalker would deny this. Methinks the lady doth protest to much.

This could be an entire side thread - it is remarkable that a non-falsifiable fairy story like string theory has occupied the minds of some of our brightest thinkers for the last three decades. It is comforting to know it will likely have faded into well deserved oblivion within another three, joining phlogiston as a historical curiosity.

Quantum Biology
You have not demonstrated it is a new field of science.

You have persistently used jargon rather than defining your terms.

You have lumped together phenomena of great diversity whose only common thread is that they occur to atoms, then declared "Look! Do you see the Quantum Cohesion present here? Surely you see it."

I don't think anyone is denying that there is a field of science called quantum biology. It is, however, not new, nor does it concern itself with what you say it does.

Ophiolite

What does any of the above post have to do with my post.


This thread is not about what you think is new and what is old news in science.

It is about the validity of multiverces and quantum biology being science or pseudoscience in the context of my references, quotes and view points.

If you want to jump in great, but please stick to the subject of the thread.




Simply.
I respectfully request a response from the moderator, Does the use of “multiverse” and “quantum biology” in the context of my usage constitute pseudoscience ?

If it does precisely how ?

there is no evidence for or against a Multiverse, hence there is no scientific theory of multiverses just speculation.

i havn't paid attention to the quantum biology thread so i know nothing of the topic.

i'm not a Mod or Admin but i'm answering the question anyway.
i think Ophiolite was telling you the same thing, it's pseudoscience because there is no theory or evidence dealing with a multiverse.

Originally Posted by wallaby

there is no evidence for or against a Multiverse, hence there is no scientific theory of multiverses just speculation.i havn't paid attention to the quantum biology thread so i know nothing of the topic.

i'm not a Mod or Admin but i'm answering the question anyway.
i think Ophiolite was telling you the same thing, it's pseudoscience because there is no theory or evidence dealing with a multiverse.

wallaby
Again, Read the thread before you post please.

Seminar Outline

Latest theories about the Universe & Its Governing Laws

Date: Saturday, November 5, 2005
Time: 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Speakers: Professor Raphael Bousso, Professor Anthony Aguirre and Professor John Terning
Location: University of California, Berkeley

Extra Dimensions
Professor John Terning
University of California, Davis
There has been a revolution in our thinking about extra dimensions. A new understanding of the feasibility of localizing four dimensional gauge theories in higher dimensional spacetimes has led to a variety of phenomenologically viable models, and even to the possibility of localizing gravity. Unlike older theories of extra dimensions, much of the focus now is on extra dimensions with sizes on the order of one thousandth of a proton width or larger! Thus, there is a potential for discovery at current and soon-to-be-completed colliders, and in some cases table-top experiments. In addition there are tremendous implications for cosmology. The following topics will be covered:
Einstein and the Fourth Dimension
Waves in a Fifth Dimension
String Theory and Branes
Experimental Tests of Extra Dimensions

wallaby wrote:
there is no evidence for or against a Multiverse, hence there is no scientific theory of multiverses just speculation.i havn't paid attention to the quantum biology thread so i know nothing of the topic.

i'm not a Mod or Admin but i'm answering the question anyway.
i think Ophiolite was telling you the same thing, it's pseudoscience because there is no theory or evidence dealing with a multiverse.

Sorry, Your wrong here.

pseu·do·sci·ence (sū'dō-sī'əns)
n.
A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation

Many-worlds interpretation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Everett many-worlds interpretation)

The many-worlds interpretation (or MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that proposes the existence of multiple "parallel universes", all of which have the same physical laws and constants, but occupy different states. MWI was initially formulated by Hugh Everett as an alternative to wavefunction collapse used in the Copenhagen interpretation to explain non-deterministic processes (such as measurement) in quantum mechanics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, the many-worlds interpretation is motivated by behavior that can be illustrated by the double-slit experiment. When particles of light (or anything else) are passed through the double slit, a calculation assuming wave-like behavior of light is needed to identify where the particles are likely to be observed. Yet when the particles are observed, they appear as particles and not as non-localized waves. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed a process of "collapse" from wave behavior to particle-like behavior to explain this phenomenon of observation.

By the time John von Neumann wrote his famous treatise Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik in 1932, the phenomenon of "wavefunction collapse" was accommodated into the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics by postulating that there were two processes of wavefunction change:

The discontinuous probabilistic change brought about by observation and measurement.
The deterministic time evolution of an isolated system that obeys Schrödinger's equation.
The phenomenon of wavefunction collapse for (1) proposed by the Copenhagen interpretation was widely regarded as artificial and ad-hoc, and consequently an alternative interpretation in which the behavior of measurement could be understood from more fundamental physical principles was considered desirable.

Everett's Ph. D. work was intended to provide such an alternative interpretation. Everett proposed that for a composite system (for example that formed by a particle interacting with a measuring apparatus) the statement that a subsystem has a well-defined state is meaningless. This led Everett to suggest the notion of relativity of states of one subsystem relative to another.

Everett's formalism for understanding the process of wavefunction collapse as a result of observation is mathematically equivalent to a quantum superposition of wavefunctions. Since Everett stopped doing research in theoretical physics shortly after obtaining his degree, much of the elaboration of his ideas was carried out by other researchers.

Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

Rory Coker, Ph.D.

The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing -- in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding the nature of science -- the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

The quotes of Steve then me are misleading. Though it could very well be my own fault for not being specific in what it was I agreed with him on.

It wasn't so much his comment on multiverse, but this:

Your posts are using words, but you are not using the scientific words correctly, nor does the use of your 'other' words state anything which means anything necessarily scientific.

You've quote-mined several sources, some of which you've linked to, but few if any are proper citations to peer-reviewed literature.

You've made associations of quantum mechanics to biology without actually saying anything. To date it has all been double-talk.

Years ago, I read David Deutsch's, The Fabric of Reality -most of which I've since forgotten, but I came away with the sense that this professor at Oxford, a big proponent of multiverse theory, was still not completely convinced. I highly recommend the read, however, as it was very stimulating for the brain.

Back to quantum mechanics as it relates to biology. My suggestion is that you revisit those threads, provide real citations, and clearly state how you think quantum theory is necessary in biology or at the macromolecular level. All you've given so far are some post-modernist rantings of a largely esoteric topic. This is what is known as pseudoscience.

wow you needed 2 posts to take a decent shot at me. that makes me feel realy special.

there is a lot of theory behind the idea of a multiverse. but no experimental evidence, even if experiments have been proposed that does not mean there is even a hint of evidence.

MWI is born out of some quantum mechanical 'facts', i guess we could call them that. hence this theory has some more credibility than the idea of a multiverse, wich is slightly different.

do you assume that i know nothing about multiverses and MWI?

i like these theories and i think they may one day become accepted into our current model of everything, but until that day it is still pseudoscience.

SkinWalker wrote; Back to quantum mechanics as it relates to biology. My suggestion is that you revisit those threads, provide real citations, and clearly state how you think quantum theory is necessary in biology or at the macromolecular level. All you've given so far are some post-modernist rantings of a largely esoteric topic. This is what is known as pseudoscience.

SkinWalker wrote;
{quote-mined several sources,}

{real citations}
{some post-modernist rantings of a largely esoteric topic}

This is avoidance and innuendo, not debate, explain by taking an example of what I posted and then explain with information how it is suedoscience and not science, and then I can counter with information of my own.

Again;

I respectfully request a response from the moderator, Does the use of “multiverse” and “quantum biology” in the context of my usage constitute pseudoscience ?

If it does precisely how ?

wallaby wrote

i like these theories and i think they may one day become accepted into our current model of everything, but until that day it is still pseudoscience.

Incorrect,
Read the definition of suedoscience that I provided.

wallaby wrote;

MWI is born out of some quantum mechanical 'facts', i guess we could call them that. hence this theory has some more credibility than the idea of a multiverse, wich is slightly different.

How are they different?

wallaby wrote; do you assume that i know nothing about multiverses and MWI?

Don't know,... but you, like many, do not understand the differenance's between suedoscience and theoretical modeling based on experimentation and observation.

Originally Posted by Metatron

wallaby wrote

i like these theories and i think they may one day become accepted into our current model of everything, but until that day it is still pseudoscience.

Incorrect,
Read the definition of suedoscience that I provided.

right we all follow your definitions and your word is final.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific

try that definition.

wallaby wrote;

MWI is born out of some quantum mechanical 'facts', i guess we could call them that. hence this theory has some more credibility than the idea of a multiverse, wich is slightly different.

How are they different?[/quote]

from what i have read MWI deal with the Universe having the properties of a wave, hence the universes state/ wave function depends upon its energy. hence the universe we are in is just one of the possible states. or something like that...

a multiverse is a physical sort of thing with many universes inside.

Originally Posted by Metatron

wallaby wrote;You've made associations of quantum mechanics to biology without actually saying anything. To date it has all been double-talk.

What are you referring to as "double-talk" if you sited exactly what you are reffering to, I than can define and defend the point otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

where did i say that? :?

;You've made associations of quantum mechanics to biology without actually saying anything. To date it has all been double-talk.



where did i say that?

Opps, sorry I am geting you you confussed with Skinwalker

Skinwalker wrote;

You've made associations of quantum mechanics to biology without actually saying anything. To date it has all been double-talk.

wallaby wrote i like these theories and i think they may one day become accepted into our current model of everything, but until that day it is still pseudoscience.

To the both of you parrots..
What are you referring to as "double-talk" or "suedoscience" if you sited exactly what you are reffering to, I than can define and defend the point otherwise the both of you are just blowing smoke.

wallaby wrote;

MWI is born out of some quantum mechanical 'facts', i guess we could call them that. hence this theory has some more credibility than the idea of a multiverse, wich is slightly different.

Metatron wrote;How are they different?

wallaby wrote;from what i have read MWI deal with the Universe having the properties of a wave, hence the universes state/ wave function depends upon its energy. hence the universe we are in is just one of the possible states. or something like that...

a multiverse is a physical sort of thing with many universes inside.

Incorrect, they are referring to the same phenomenon


From Wikipedia

Many world interpretation of quantum physics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. Other interpretations include the Copenhagen and the consistent histories interpretations. The multiverse proposed by MWI has a shared time parameter. In most formulations, all the constituent universes are structurally identical to each other and though they have the same physical laws and values for the fundamental constants, they may exist in different states. The constituent universes are furthermore non-communicating, in the sense that no information can pass between them. The state of the entire multiverse is related to the states of the constituent universes by quantum superposition. Related are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.

I've already answered your question.

The answer is 'Yes.'

Your use of quantum mechanics in association with biological application has, to date, amounted to nothing more than pseudoscience.

It is fake science because all you've done so far is post a few quotes from other sources without really discussing their relevance or establishing your own position on the subject. Your quotes are very likely out of context and probably from post-modernist or fringe sources to begin with, though I won't stand by that assertion as I've not examined each for curricula vitae.

Yes, it is pseudoscience. But I'm referring to your use of quantum this and quantum that, not necessarily your use of 'multiverse,' as I stated earlier.

My suggestion: revisit your other threads, clearly define your position without the double-speak, and properly cite peer-reviewed sources. Forget the quote-mining.

Definitions

quote-mining
pseudoscience
multiverse
double speak
peer-reviewed
citation

SkinWalker wrote
Yes, it is pseudoscience. But I'm referring to your use of quantum this and quantum that, not necessarily your use of 'multiverse,' as I stated earlier.

My suggestion: revisit your other threads, clearly define your position without the double-speak, and properly cite peer-reviewed sources. Forget the quote-mining.

Quote mining is when you take quotes out of context.


You cannot accuse me of falsely representing quoted material,
or misrepresentation of evidence without being specific about what you are referring to precisely.


Being a moderator does not give you any special right to accuse with innuendo then lock a thread or accuse with innuendo and then avoid proper honest debating, This is not only improper it is egocentric.

debate
verb
To put forth reasons for or against something,

SkinWalker ;Wrote

Your quotes are very likely out of context and probably from post-modernist or fringe sources to begin with, though I won't stand by that assertion as I've not examined each for curricula vitae.

Why didn’t you do this before you accused me of posting pseudoscience and taking quotes out of context?

If information is unfamiliar and strange do you dismiss it as a reflex?

Gee, I'm probably nuts for entering this thread. However...

There *is* a vast difference between Everett's hypothesis (or Hawking's "Wave Function of the Universe") and Quantum Physics.

There is absolutely zero experimental or observed evidence for the "Many Universe's" hypothesis. None. It's a mathematical construct only.

The proof of Quantum Physics is sitting in front of you, which you're using to post your reply. Unless you're willing to state that the tunnelling effect of a Josephson Junction - which is the mechanism that Transistors use - is a myth.

A hypothesis is an idea only. Until it's at least experientally shown to be correct (with or without modification), it's just an idea, nothing more.

Entire industries are built on Semiconducters.

Major difference.

Yevaud wrote

A hypothesis is an idea only. Until it's at least experientally shown to be correct (with or without modification), it's just an idea, nothing more.

Multiverces and Quantum biology are ideas and theoretical models based on experimentation and observation. No one here is saying otherwise. What I am etempting to do is debated whether these subjects are real science, or pseudoscience.

SkinWalker ;Wrote

Your quotes are very likely out of context and probably from post-modernist or fringe sources to begin with, though I won't stand by that assertion as I've not examined each for curricula vitae.

These are my , “fringe sources” as you call them.

Lisa Randall studies particle physics and cosmology at Harvard University , where she is Professor of Theoretical Physics. Her research concerns the fundamental nature of particles and forces and how matter's basic elements relate to the physical properties of the world that we see. Prof. Randall's research has worked on a wide variety of ideas for what might lie beyond established particle physics and cosmological theories. She has worked on grand unified theories, technicolor, supersymmetry, cosmological inflation, baryogenesis, and, most recently, theories of extra dimensions of space. She has made seminal contributions in all these areas and as of last autumn, was the most cited theoretical physicist of the past five years.
Professor Randall earned her PhD from Harvard University and held professorships at MIT and Princeton University before returning to Harvard in 2001. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a fellow of the American Physical Society, and is a past winner of an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship, a National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award, a DOE Outstanding Junior Investigator Award, and the Westinghouse (now Intel) Science Talent Search. In 2003, she received the Premio Caterina Tomassoni e Felice Pietro Chisesi Award, presented at the University of Rome , La Sapienza. Prof. Randall has helped organize numerous conferences and has been on the editorial board of several major theoretical physics journals.

In 1981 Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University and Howard Georgi of Harvard University proposed the supersymmetric extension to the standard model. Revolutionary at the time, it is now accepted by many physicists. Dimopoulos has been strongly driven in his research by a desire to understand what lies beyond the standard model. His contributions have included work on grand unified theories of baryogenesis, which would provide an explanation of the origin of matter. Jointly with Stanford colleague Nima Arkani-Hamed and Gia Dvali of ICTP, Trieste, Italy, he has proposed an audacious solution to the problem of explaining the weakness of the gravitational force. The proposal invokes new large dimensions accessible to the graviton. Among the extraordinary implications of this thinking is the notion that our entire universe is a single point in space of extra dimensions, and is but one of innumerable parallel universes. Thanks to this work, Dimopoulos has recently been a mainstay of the Physics Top Ten—one of the trio's papers on this subject has ranked among physics's most cited for more than a year (see table on next page, paper #3).
Dimopoulos grew up in Athens, Greece, and earned his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1978. He has been Professor of Physics at Stanford since 1979, and has received an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Award.

John Terning
Associate Professor of Physics
Department of Physics
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616-8677
Associate Professor of Physics, University of California, Davis
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship: Apr. 96
Superconducting Super Collider Fellowship: Sept. 92 - Aug. 93
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Postdoctoral Fellowship: Sept. 90 - Aug. 92
Ph.D. in Physics, University of Toronto, advisor: Professor Bob Holdom, 1985-1990.
M.Sc. in Physics, University of Toronto, advisor: Professor Bob Holdom, 1984-1985.
B.Sc. in Physics, University of Alberta, 1980-1984.

David Bohm
David Bohm (1917-94) was one of the foremost theoretical physicists of his generation and one of the most influential theorists of the emerging paradigm through which the world is increasingly viewed. Bohm's challenge to the conventional understanding of quantum theory has led scientists to re-examine what it is they are doing and to question the nature of their theories and their scientific methodology. He brought together a radical view of physics, a deeply spiritual understanding and a profound humanity. In the years before his death in 1992, Bohm lectured worldwide on the meaning of physics and consciousness.
In an interview in 1989 at the Nils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, where Bohm presented his views, Bohm spoke on his theory of wholeness and the implicate order. The conversation centered around a new worldview that is developing in part of the Western world, one that places more focus on wholeness and process than analysis of separate parts. Bohm explained the basics of the theory of relativity and its more revolutionary offspring, quantum theory. Either theory, if carried out to its extreme, violates every concept on which we base our understanding of reality. Both challenge our notions of our world and ourselves.
He cited evidence from both theories that support a new paradigm of a more interrelated, fluid, and less absolute basis of existence, one in which mind is an active participant. "Information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance." He discussed forms, fields, superconductivity, wave function and electron behavior. "Wave function, which operates through form, is closer to life and mind...The electron has a mindlike quality."

Originally Posted by Metatron

Multiverces and Quantum biology are ideas and theoretical models based on experimentation and observation. No one here is saying otherwise. What I am etempting to do is debated whether these subjects are real science, or pseudoscience.

Yeah, I know all of those names, sure. And the one thing that's absent in every last citation there is experimental confirmation of these hypotheses. They are, as I said, mathematical constructs only.

There is, at the present time, no way to experiment with additional dimensions at *all* - none. So "the multiverse" is *not* based on either experimentation nor observation. For that matter, neither is "Quantum Biology."

Are they "Pseudoscience?" Hard to say. In fact, in the absence of any evidence or proof whatsoever, impossible to say.

The Higgs Boson is a nifty, predicted, force-mediating particle. But until it's actually detected in a collider, it's just a neat idea. Even if it appears to work on paper.

Basic military dictum: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" (Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder).

Yevaud wrote;
Yeah, I know all of those names, sure. And the one thing that's absent in every last citation there is experimental confirmation of these hypotheses. They are, as I said, mathematical constructs only.

There is, at the present time, no way to experiment with additional dimensions at *all* - none. So "the multiverse" is *not* based on either experimentation nor observation. For that matter, neither is "Quantum Biology."
A hypothesis is an idea only. Until it's at least experientally shown to be correct (with or without modification), it's just an idea, nothing more.

I’m afraid You’ve got it backwards the observations made of the double slit experiment is the source of the hypotheses of multiverces.

Yevaud wrote;

Are they "Pseudoscience?" Hard to say. In fact, in the absence of any evidence or proof whatsoever, impossible to say.

Read on the evidence presented including the definition of Pseudoscience.

In reference to the "Double-Slit" experiment, please also read about particle-wave duality. No "alternate universe's" required. Trust me, I *do* understand this subject. A wave collapsing into particle-like nature does not require Everett's theory to be valid.

And it still isn't observation and evidence. You're applying the observations and results of one physical mechanism, willy-nilly, to another one. That's not how it works.

Metatron, you've made some vague correlation between quantum mechanics and wave functions with molecular biology with the apparent assertion that this is key to understanding evolution.

When criticized, questioned or challenged, you resort to quoting chunks of text that belong to other people in an attempt to offer validity to your position, but I've yet to see where you clearly state your position.

Until such time, your methodology is pseudoscientific. It presents some of the vernacular of science, but without any clear direction.

Please pick one of your threads (the closed one is reopened, by the way) and clearly state your position, citing literature as needed. Also, some proper citations would be very useful in any survey of scholarly literature.

To date, you've yet to even convince us that you even understand the literature you are quoting, much less that you are able to draw an hypothesis from it. My criticisms may be harsh, but are not intended to belittle or insult. I seek only to see your discussions become fruitful/productive.

Yevaud wrote; In reference to the "Double-Slit" experiment, please also read about particle-wave duality. No "alternate universe's" required. Trust me, I *do* understand this subject. A wave collapsing into particle-like nature does not require Everett's theory to be valid.

Yet another view currently enjoying some attention, although not as a result of Bell's efforts, is the many-worlds interpretation, which was invented in the 1950s by Hugh Everett III of Princeton.The theory sought to answer the question of why, when we observe a quantum phenomenon, we see only one outcome of the many allowed by its wave function. Everett proposed that whenever a measurement forces a particle to make a choice, for instance, between going left or right in a two-slit apparatus, the entire universe splits into two separate universes; the particle goes left in one universe and right in the other.


Although the theory was long dismissed as more science fiction than science, it has been revived in a modified form by Murray Gell-Mann of the California Institute of Technology and James B. Hartle of the University of California at Santa Barbara.They call their version the many-histories interpretation and emphasize that the histories are "potentialities" rather than physical actualities. Gell-Mann has reportedly predicted that this view will dominate the field by the end of the century.
An intriguing alternative, called the many-minds view, has been advanced by David Z. Albert, a physicist-turned- philosopher at Columbia University, and Barry Loewer, a philosopher from Rutgers University. Each observer, they explain, or " sentient physical system," is associated with an infinite set of minds, which experience different possible outcomes of any quantum measurement. The array of choices embedded in the Schrödinger equation corresponds to the myriad experiences undergone by these minds rather than to an infinitude of universes. The concept may sound far-fetched, but it is no more radical, Albert argues, than the many histories theory or even the Copenhagen interpretation itself

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Metatron, you've made some vague correlation between quantum mechanics and wave functions with molecular biology with the apparent assertion that this is key to understanding evolution.

When criticized, questioned or challenged, you resort to quoting chunks of text that belong to other people in an attempt to offer validity to your position, but I've yet to see where you clearly state your position.

Until such time, your methodology is pseudoscientific. It presents some of the vernacular of science, but without any clear direction.

Please pick one of your threads (the closed one is reopened, by the way) and clearly state your position, citing literature as needed. Also, some proper citations would be very useful in any survey of scholarly literature.

To date, you've yet to even convince us that you even understand the literature you are quoting, much less that you are able to draw an hypothesis from it. My criticisms may be harsh, but are not intended to belittle or insult. I seek only to see your discussions become fruitful/productive.

The Second Ring of Life; The Vesica Attractor
by Christopher Humphrey

Abstract

The fossil record shows a disparity in the formation of complex body plans.
The individual eukaryote cannot build these structures. They do not carry within themselves a blue print for an overall structure. Science today is attempting to answer these questions via genomic constraints.

Recently discovered fossil evidence has led this author to develop a new evolutionary model that suggest the following;The missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function acting on a mass of oolitic spheres bound by a microbial substrate.
This substrate crystallized into an archetypal pattern, the first complex animal life. [source of a body plan pattern] that then spawn an entire phyla.
This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla.
Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time.
This model not only accounts for the original forms, but also genetic control patterns of punctuated equilibrium. This is what the new evidence is showing in the context of the fossil record.



The Mystery of the Cambrian


Just prior to the Cambrian explosion, the sea contained a few multi-celled organisms, worms, sponges, and an assortment of single celled protozoan, but mostly filaments of blue green algae called cyanobacteria. Suddenly, 530 million years ago, something triggered an explosion of complex life. These original basic forms are the first and largest classification of animals called the phyla. Phyla include fish, snails, trilobites, crustaceans, ect. Two things that they have in common is they are very complex and they appeared at approximately the same time in the fossil record, seemingly without a history of development. This fact has puzzled evolutionary biologists since Darwin. This great scientist was aware of the problem, but assumed further fossil discoveries would fill in the gaps. However, to this day no precursors to these creatures can be found, infact, recently discovered fossil beds in China have pushed back the emergence of highly evolved fish to the first spark of the explosion.
Current genome research has suggested the phyla arose separately, simultaneously and abruptly, from a common "primordial pond" of genetics. (Senapathy) (Independent Birth of Organisms, Genome Press, 1994).
It has been postulated by (Behe) (Darwin’s black box) that the biological systems of these creatures could not have evolved from simpler origins. They would had to have been pre-designed and constructed all at once like a watch. He calls this " Intelligent Design" and has gained some support even though it smacks of creationism, which has its roots in a theological view. In hindsight, irreducibility is on the right track as far as a logistical approach, but still falls short on locating a blueprint.

Ironically, the reaction to all this, by some of the neo-Darwinist, has been to take a dogmatic position, defending the text that states the phyla arose in a step-by-step process, and that the fossil record completely supports it, which isn't really true, but who can blame them for defending that position as no new model can explain the gap, and it is currently the consensus view.
At the calm periphery of controversy we have the newest theoretical approach. These physics, biologists, and mathematicians deal in a systematic view of the world as patterns of relationships, rather than the traditional approach of reductionism. This type of ''systems view'' sees the world as patterns that contain information which can be utilized to see more patterns in a framework of connections that can be used as models. This type of science to me, represents an advanced perspective. A paradigm based not in the old hunter gatherer mentality, but on the predilection to see the universe as a network of cooperative functions, rather than unrelated parts to be collected and dispatched into categories.

One of these advanced perspective, "autopoeises" developed by (Mantarana; Varela,) States that an organism can be defined as a cycle of relationships unified into a circle of self creation, that contains component parts, which make parts, that in turn make those parts, in a recursive cycle of self-making. This unified system can simply be visualized as a ring.
In the pre-Cambrian Sea, these "rings", cells floated about dividing, some formed symbiotic bonds with other cells, and eventually merged into cells of more complexity. These cells we call eukaryote. They are the cells that make up the complex animals that are about to suddenly and mysteriously appear in the Cambrian.
So now we can ask, how did these eukaryote form into these complex circular systems so suddenly? What was the unifying force that brought the separate rings together into one? "One ring to rule them all."
The answer came to me in the form of a Rosetta stone of the Cambrian era. This artifact told the story of how many came together as one, and in so doing, created a new world. This stone is in the form of a ring itself, and written on this one ring is the most ancient of languages, geometry. This sacred music of the universe tells a story of self-making, whispered in the sea by many, and brought together into one rhythmic pulse.

The Sea of Self-Making

Another theory from the top systems biologist of our time (Kauffman)( Origins of order) states that once a system reaches a threshold of complexity it can, under the right conditions, spontaneously form into a higher organizational state. He calls this "Order for free." The following process will attempt to show how life forms can emerge all at once, into rings of higher order, from a point of spontaneous organization.
This point being an attractor that starts by recapitulating pre-existing organizational phases of its environment, These "vesica attractors" begin as a points of instability between the microcosm and the macrocosm. This instability manifesting initially into concentrically formed mineral spheres called oolites. These spheres are connected by filaments of cyanobacteria that form a fabric. This fabric is then rolled together into a concentric wheel or bagel configuration that contains an enfolded pattern that represents the ebb and flow of waves and tides. This embryonic form emerging as a self-constructed, self-contained micro-environment in a stunningly short period of time.
The phases of development for the original body plans start with the simple attractor moving in smooth transitional phases from the point attractor, forming mineral spheres. The cycle attractor, cyanobacterial filaments that bind and order the spheres into a contained recursive structure. The torus attractor that opens a central aperture and connects the internal environment with external dynamics (cyclical flow of waves and tides) and then finally the self reflexive, "vesica attractor" that becomes fertilized by a eukaryote cell that enters though the central "vesica aperture" in this phase the complex cells adopt the energetic pattern built by the oolites and cyanobacterial filaments. This scenario also representing a recurring theme of evolution. The mineral kingdom preparing the environment for the simple photosynthetic cell, that intern prepares the environment for the more complex animal cell. If these phases are completed successfully, a unification results between the microcosm and the macrocosm. This dynamic link represented by the emergence of an animal of complex form.

"The vesica is the interlocking of two realms--an overlapping where two worlds merge and exchange force fields."(Gail Thomas, Ph.D)

These attractors seem to form as connecting points between two converging evolutionary arcs that overlap and spiral together to complete a circuit. These points constructing a contained biological system patterned after forces below and above, and can account for almost all the body plans that emerged during the Cambrian. Morphological disparity can be simply be traced to variances in perturbations in the separately emerging attractors.
The levels of organizations in non-biological realms that precede the emergence of life, begin as points that spiral inward. These basins form into attractors that bring order out of chaos, although the order may have existed as pre-existing probabilities, that curled up into basins where energetic thresholds are reached, or more precisely focuses pre-existing order at large into a nexus point. These nexus points form everything from black holes, stars, galaxies, to planets that make up the macro-universe. This spin is also the underlying dynamic that sustains the micro-universe of elemental particles.
What I see as a fundamental difference in the vesica attractor is in its spiraling form, it is not like any other attractor that proceeded it, in that its construction is not simply a spiral that spins in the same direction, but is formed by turning back on itself in a cycle of recursion. This recursive cycle having been patterned after the ebb and flow of tide and wave pulses. This cycle recorded in concentric layers of enfolded oolitic spheres connected by filaments of cyanobacteria.




Once the form reaches a critical mass it becomes stationary and is reformed into an egg shaped vessel. The wave pulse then becomes internalized bringing the inner clockwork pattern into a dynamic synchronicity with the macro-environment at large. These layers form a symmetrical pattern of embedded concentric channels that unite at a central basin. Seawater is directed into right and left apertures that have opened into logarithmic spirals. This energetic form being shaped by the balance between internal structure and external flow. This recursive logarithmic structure appears to be the key in the self-reflexive nature of a biological system.



Another key in the self-making ability of the embryonic material that forms the vesica attractor is in it's ability to shape-shift around the tendency of a fluid to seek an ordered path though and around a medium. This medium having a fine balance of cohesion and plasticity.
The next key is in the mineral content of the spheres. Aragonite, this form of calcium carbonate has properties that promote microbial growth and acts as a mineral substrate for initiating an autopoetic biochemical cycle. This mineral has been discovered to be a fundamental element in maintaining an autopoetic system in coral reefs and closed artificial systems such as salt water aquariums.
Another important roll of the oolites is in their ability to act as a dynamic scaffolding. As the aragonite spheres dissolve though chemical and mechanical forces, a synergy unfolds throughout the emerging structure, As the oolites shrink they become point attractors among the eukaryote cells, that have now adopted the fluid energetic pattern left by the cyanobacteria filaments. As the oolites lose mass they induce the production of new filaments that emerge from the outer cellular membranes of the eukaryotes. Anchoring proteins extend through the plasma membrane to link to the emerging cytoskeleton structure. Simply put, as the temporary oolitic scaffolding deconstructs, it constructs it's permanent replacement. These Anchoring-type junctions not only hold cells together but provide tissues with structural cohesion. These junctions are produced more abundantly in tissues that are subject to higher mechanical stress such as the outer skin and heart. Connective tissues begin forming flexible geodesic scaffolding by drawing in and connecting to points in space where the oolites have now vacated. These connecting points form the extracellular matrix, meanwhile the vesica apertures acts as a cycle attractor spiraling inward keeping a central tension as the embryo loses mass and takes shape, simultaneously providing a flow of renewing sea water though the recursive system as it pulses in time with wave cycles. The central apertures begins to coil in slack in the form of a layered network of connected cells. This dense mass of wound together cells will form heart tissue. This tension that connects eukaryote cells in a medium of cohesion is called (tensegrity). Tensegrity results in a crystallization of connections in the architecture of the emerging organism, enabling the individual cell though it's own intracellular matrix to respond to a potential fitness space. This crystallization of the recursive dynamic structure might well result in an "algorithmic self-assembly" of genetic probabilities.
Developing layers of the body plan are connected from heart, shell, exo-skeleton or notochord, down to the strands of DNA in the cells nucleus by this network of filaments, thus tuning the cells information bank to circuits of communication though the internal structure, then out to the universe at large. A current of information begins to flow between the micro-cellular universe below to a cognitive landscape of the macro-universe above. "Cogito ergo sum"

"Morphology is not only a study of material things and of the forms of material things, but has its dynamical aspect ... in terms of force, of the operations of energy. This is a great theme. Boltzmann, writing in 1886 on the second law of thermodynamics, declared that available energy was the main object at stake in the struggle for existence and the evolution of the world" D'Arcy Thompson, On Growth and Form, 1917
..to (in)form buildings with thematic meaning, they must convey a gestalt, the whole must be more than the sum of the parts, and there must also be an ambiguity and paradox immanent within that gestalt, as a tension. (And quoting Heckscher on composition...) It is the taut composition which contains contrapuntal relationships, equal combinations, inflected fragments, and acknowledged duality's. It is the unity which maintains, but only just maintains, a control over the clashing elements which compose it. Chaos is very near, its nearness, but its avoidance, gives ...force" Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1966

"There is geometry in the humming of the strings... there is music in the spacing of the spheres". Pythagoras

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_...-t-000007.html

Chaos and Complexity

One of the themes straddling both biological and physical sciences is the quest for a mathematical model of phenomena of emergence (spontaneous creation of order), and in particular adaptation, and a physical justification of their dynamics (which seems to violate physical laws).
read the remainder of this quote at: http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html

My own singularity model is more close to René Thom’s Catastrophe Theory, and Stuart Kauffman’s autocatalytic sets. However my model is even more radical.

I am proposing that complex life formed as separate but adjacent quantum fields collapsed together, or more precisely spiraled together forming a singularity.
This singularity representing a microcosm of the environment as a whole resulting in cognition. These points becoming the well spring of life during the Cambrian explosion.
These original archetypal life forms are silicon [micro-quartz crystals] based at the extracellular level and carbon based at the intracellular level.

This model pin points what is missing in our current evolutionary models, the the CPU. Where there is a ram there must also be a rom.

This Gaia egg or{ vesica attractor }. Represents natural self-organizing attractor models, as follows; point attractor-cycle attractor-torus attractor-vesica attractor.
This new evidence also shows we did not invent the first silicon based CPU, nature did. Our current silicon based driven singularity will connect the collective consciousness of mankind into a dynamic cohesive whole. This next step being the same process repeating itself on the next cyclical level.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Remembering always what the World-Nature is, and what my own nature is, and how one stands in respect to the other - so small a fraction of so vast a Whole ñ bear in mind that no man can hinder you from conforming each word and deed to that Nature of which you are a part. Marcus Aurelius

--------------------
-------
--

I think we missed the publication title and the remainder of the article. Where's the methodology section? The Discussion section? The paper's bibliography? Citing the publication and date would have made it easier for us to see where this author was coming from (and perhaps where he is attempting to go).

Originally Posted by Metatron

The fossil record shows a disparity in the formation of complex body plans.
The individual eukaryote cannot build these structures. They do not carry within themselves a blue print for an overall structure. Science today is attempting to answer these questions via genomic constraints.

I'm beginning to see why we don't have the publication. Is it in a creationist/intelligent design rag? I sense the inevitable "designer" argument looming.

But if a eukaryote cannot develop into complex structures, how then does the blastocyst become a Metatron? You were once but a "eukaryote," you know.

Originally Posted by Metatron

Recently discovered fossil evidence has led this author to develop a new evolutionary model that suggest the following;

Where's this "evidence" exactly? What does it look like? What's its measurements? What's its composition? Its provenience? Under what controlled situations was it analyzed? Is the evidence even testable? Reproducible?

Originally Posted by Metatron

The missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function acting on a mass of oolitic spheres bound by a microbial substrate.
This substrate crystallized into an archetypal pattern, the first complex animal life. [source of a body plan pattern] that then spawn an entire phyla.

You do realize what an oolite/ooid is don't you? It isn't a form of life, but a geologic formation. Often it is created by shell fragments of former living creatures, but an oolite is a sedimentary rock containing ooids. An ooid is a spherical formation created when a piece of carbonate material comes to rest in the sediment of a shallow sea or lagoon. Over millions of years, the calcium carbonate material precipitates, leaving a series of concentric rings until, finally, the original material is chemically dissolved, leaving a sphere. It wasn't a microbe, eukaryote, animal, or any other form of life.

Whoever the author is, he is surely misinformed.

Originally Posted by Metatron

This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla.
Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time.

Poppycock. Sustained by what? Information bank for phyla? What phyla? It's a geologic formation. There are no phyla. There is no "information bank."

Originally Posted by Metatron

The Mystery of the Cambrian

Just prior to the Cambrian explosion, the sea contained a few multi-celled organisms, worms, sponges, and an assortment of single celled protozoan, but mostly filaments of blue green algae called cyanobacteria. Suddenly, 530 million years ago, something triggered an explosion of complex life. These original basic forms are the first and largest classification of animals called the phyla. Phyla include fish, snails, trilobites, crustaceans, ect. Two things that they have in common is they are very complex and they appeared at approximately the same time in the fossil record,

This is a common misconception among the undereducated. It is becomin increasingly clearer that the "author" hasn't any real education in either biology or geology. The so-called Cambrian "explosion" didn't occur overnight. Indeed, it is quite likely that it took place over many millions of years. Moreover, the point of entry for "complex" phyla (the term "phyla" isn't restricted to just the complex organisms the author seems to imply) may well have been much earlier than we even have evidence for since the paleontological record that far back is limited by disconformities in the strata and the durability of the organisms that may have had the opportunity to fossilize -an opportunity that is subject to pristine conditions. I refer you to the Burgess Shale formation as an example of the type of questions the Cambrian "explosion" might face.

Originally Posted by Metatron

It has been postulated by (Behe) (Darwin’s black box) that the biological systems of these creatures could not have evolved from simpler origins. [...] In hindsight, irreducibility is on the right track as far as a logistical approach, but still falls short on locating a blueprint.

And Behe (1996) has been well rebuked by professional biologists on every contention he has made, particularly his "irreducible complexity" mumbo jumbo. I wonder if the author, this Christopher Humphrey, has read any of the works of these professional biologists (Chaitin 2003; Sunkelberg 2003; Korthof 1997; Ussery 2004)?

Originally Posted by Metatron

One of these advanced perspective, "autopoeises" developed by (Mantarana; Varela,) States that an organism can be defined as a cycle of relationships unified into a circle of self creation, that contains component parts, which make parts, that in turn make those parts, in a recursive cycle of self-making. This unified system can simply be visualized as a ring.

And here is evidence of the author's incompetence, really. The appropriate citation would have been (Maturana & Varela, 1980) or (Maturana & Varela, 1987). Moreover, it would be more accurate to describe Maturana's and Varela's notion is one in which cells are first order autopoietic systems and multicellular systems are second order autopoietic systems. And one where a multicellular living system is realized through the autopoiesis of its cellular components and, through its own realization as a multicellular totality, makes possible the self-production of its components. Autopoiesis is Greek for "self-production."

Originally Posted by Metatron

In the pre-Cambrian Sea, these "rings", cells floated about dividing, some formed symbiotic bonds with other cells, and eventually merged into cells of more complexity. These cells we call eukaryote. They are the cells that make up the complex animals that are about to suddenly and mysteriously appear in the Cambrian. So now we can ask, how did these eukaryote form into these complex circular systems so suddenly?

When the author says "pre-Cambrian", do you think he means [i]just[i] before the Cambrian or during the largely 15-20 million of years prior to the Cambrian. The author is painting the picture that there was an overnight development of organisms from allpoietic to autopoietic. From bacterium to eukaryote. From Eukaryote to trillobite. This process likely took many millions of years. But this is a flaw which is characteristic in those not well educated on geology, paleontolgy, or biology. Known faunal assemblages of the Cambrian "explosion" occur in a 15-20 million year period (Conway Morris, 2000)

Originally Posted by Metatron

What was the unifying force that brought the separate rings together into one? "One ring to rule them all."
The answer came to me in the form of a Rosetta stone of the Cambrian era. This artifact told the story of how many came together as one, and in so doing, created a new world. This stone is in the form of a ring itself, and written on this one ring is the most ancient of languages, geometry. This sacred music of the universe tells a story of self-making, whispered in the sea by many, and brought together into one rhythmic pulse.

And we are left to wonder about this mysterious and secret artifact. I'm reminded of the "alien implants" of alien abduction lore -often cited as clear evidence, but available for none to examine; no provenience to check.

The rest of this alleged "article" must either wait until such time as I'm no longer bored with it or a continued temptation to comment on it overcomes me once again. I find the author's assertions both trite and pseudoscientific. The pseudoscience of the paper has been demonstrated enough by my rebuttal to it above to warrant moving the thread to the appropriate forum without having to subject myself to the banalities of Humphrey's writing style and lack of understanding in geology, paleontology and biology. There is an attempt to sound scientific in his writing, but it doesn't come through in the end.

It also hasn't completely escaped me that Humphrey and Metatron are likely the same person.


References

Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Touchstone

Chaitin, Gregory J. (2003). Randomness and mathematical proof. In From Complexity to Life, Niels Henrik Gregersen, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Conway Morris, S. (2000). The Cambrian "explosion": slow fuse or megatonnage? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 97, pp. 4429-4429.

Dunkleberg, Pete (2003). Irreducible complexity demystified.

Korthof, Gert (1997) Does Irreducible Complexity refute neo-Darwinism? [updated 7/2/05]

Maturana, Humberto & Varela, Francisco (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky eds., vol 42. Dordecht: D. Reidel

Maturana, Humberto & Varela, Francisco (1987).The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding.
New Science Library (Shambhala), Boston, 1987

Ussery, David W. (2004). Darwin's Transparent Box: WThe Biochemical Evidene for Evolution. In Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Matt Young and Taner Edis, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press

Originally Posted by Metatron

wallaby wrote;

MWI is born out of some quantum mechanical 'facts', i guess we could call them that. hence this theory has some more credibility than the idea of a multiverse, wich is slightly different.

Incorrect, they are referring to the same phenomenon


From Wikipedia

Many world interpretation of quantum physics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. Other interpretations include the Copenhagen and the consistent histories interpretations. The multiverse proposed by MWI has a shared time parameter. In most formulations, all the constituent universes are structurally identical to each other and though they have the same physical laws and values for the fundamental constants, they may exist in different states. The constituent universes are furthermore non-communicating, in the sense that no information can pass between them. The state of the entire multiverse is related to the states of the constituent universes by quantum superposition. Related are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.

ok so they may be the same. but what evidence do you have that will move these theories out of psudoscience and into a scientific theory.

I'm beginning to see why we don't have the publication. Is it in a creationist/intelligent design rag? I sense the inevitable "designer" argument looming.

The model is based on chaos theory your “sense” is incorrect, therefore this statement is misleading and deceptive.

But if a eukaryote cannot develop into complex structures, how then does the blastocyst become a Metatron? You were once but a "eukaryote," you know.

I said the single cell eukaryote cannot contain prior information within itself for complex structures then explain how this structural information is attained.

This statement is misleading and deceptive.

You do realize what an oolite/ooid is don't you? It isn't a form of life, but a geologic formation. Often it is created by shell fragments of former living creatures, but an oolite is a sedimentary rock containing ooids. An ooid is a spherical formation created when a piece of carbonate material comes to rest in the sediment of a shallow sea or lagoon. Over millions of years, the calcium carbonate material precipitates, leaving a series of concentric rings until, finally, the original material is chemically dissolved, leaving a sphere. It wasn't a microbe, eukaryote, animal, or any other form of life.

I never suggested oolites are a form of life this is a misrepresentation and deception.

Poppycock. Sustained by what? Information bank for phyla? What phyla? It's a geologic formation. There are no phyla. There is no "information bank."

I ‘m at a loss here “It's a geologic formation” “There are no phyla”

I believe you are just confused here, what are you talking about exactly?

This is a common misconception among the undereducated. It is becomin increasingly clearer that the "author" hasn't any real education in either biology or geology. The so-called Cambrian "explosion" didn't occur overnight. Indeed, it is quite likely that it took place over many millions of years. Moreover, the point of entry for "complex" phyla (the term "phyla" isn't restricted to just the complex organisms the author seems to imply) may well have been much earlier than we even have evidence for since the paleontological record that far back is limited by disconformities in the strata and the durability of the organisms that may have had the opportunity to fossilize -an opportunity that is subject to pristine conditions. I refer you to the Burgess Shale formation as an example of the type of questions the Cambrian "explosion" might face.

The Cambrian explosion occurred within about ten million years, geologically that is over night.
The fossil record shows an abrupt appearance of the simple and complex animals about 530 million years ago.

This model based on fossil evidence shows how life arose in a non-linear way.

First you invite me to post my model on any thread I chose and then you immediately shift it into the pseudoscience and use innuendo to label it as intelligent design.

This is deceitful and deceptive.

And Behe (1996) has been well rebuked by professional biologists on every contention he has made, particularly his "irreducible complexity" mumbo jumbo. I wonder if the author, this Christopher Humphrey, has read any of the works of these professional biologists (Chaitin 2003; Sunkelberg 2003; Korthof 1997; Ussery 2004)?

Again I am not a intelligent design proponent the suggestion is misleading. I was referring to arguments on both sides of intelligent design and Neo-Darwinist and the clearly sided with the complexity community.

This is a deceitful and deceptive
Have you no shame what’s so ever.

And we are left to wonder about this mysterious and secret artifact. I'm reminded of the "alien implants" of alien abduction lore -often cited as clear evidence, but available for none to examine; no provenience to check.

Now you say there is no artifact, I have photos and it does exist.

It also hasn't completely escaped me that Humphrey and Metatron are likely the same person.

Since the article was not in quotes makes it kind of obvious, it did seem to escape you why I put my name on it.

Again you are utilizing innuendo and deception.

Yes, Metatron, but you're still only showing me references to *ideas* that aren't / haven't been experimentally proven. The wavelike / particle duality of a photon is well-known, and is an *observed* phenomenon. Everett's - or Gell-Mann's - is just a concept.

For what it's worth, I generally have no problem bandying around ideas at all. But since the main emphasis of this discussion is "is this pseudo-science," then allow me to point something out to you. This is generally the point where people begin to refer to the idea as Pesudo-science: when an idea with no experimental proof, and none likely, is put forth as *fact*

On that basis, one could state that aspects of Heterotic String Theory are, in fact, Pseudo-science, as it's unlikely we'll ever be able to directly image those compactified extra dimensions.

On the other hand, String Theory in all of it's variations, *does* make predictions that are borne out by observation. Everett's theory does not. And to just say, "this particular phenomenon *must* be proof of Everett's Hypothesis" is all fine and well, but it's not the same thing at all. String theory provides answers to the previously unanswered. Everett's theory, used this way, is an attempt to *supplant* a phenomenon that already *has* a workable answer.

It's a fine distinction, but there it is.

*Blah. Must head off for work shortly. I'll get back to this tonight*

Yevaud wrote;

Yes, Metatron, but you're still only showing me references to *ideas* that aren't / haven't been experimentally proven. The wavelike / particle duality of a photon is well-known, and is an *observed* phenomenon. Everett's - or Gell-Mann's - is just a concept.

Yes, ideas and concepts that have emerged from the sum total of prior experimentation and hypothetical modeling that spawn more ideas and concepts that lead to more experimentation so on and so forth, until finally a practical application is made utilizing a deeper understanding of the world we are living within. This is science. The model I am attempting to present is showing that biological and cognitive systems are fundamentally a concentrically layered quantum field, Chemistry is secondary.

If this holds true, and I believe from the new discoveries in quantum biology it will, the practical applications are to say the least profound, and far reaching.
Once the biological field pertaining to physiology is understood as a layered field of quantum energy it can be stabilized or tuned.
Bio-chemistry will then follow after.

For what it's worth, I generally have no problem bandying around ideas at all. But since the main emphasis of this discussion is "is this pseudo-science," then allow me to point something out to you. This is generally the point where people begin to refer to the idea as Pesudo-science: when an idea with no experimental proof, and none likely, is put forth as *fact*

On that basis, one could state that aspects of Heterotic String Theory are, in fact, Pseudo-science, as it's unlikely we'll ever be able to directly image those compactified extra dimensions.

On the other hand, String Theory in all of it's variations, *does* make predictions that are borne out by observation. Everett's theory does not. And to just say, "this particular phenomenon *must* be proof of Everett's Hypothesis" is all fine and well, but it's not the same thing at all. String theory provides answers to the previously unanswered. Everett's theory, used this way, is an attempt to *supplant* a phenomenon that already *has* a workable answer.

It's a fine distinction, but there it is.

Yevaud,
I can see you understand the text very well and are honest in your approach. You also stated you can appreciate concepts.
So I would appreciate your help here in a thought experiment to get across a basic concept of this model.

Here's the simple question seeking a simple answer: Why is water the perfect medium for life?

Hmm.

Well, water is metastable. Because of Dipole interaction, it's a universal solvent for pretty much any ionic substance. It has useful phase-changes. It's quite stable. It can bond with a whole range of things. And it's liquid in an ideal temperature range.

Kind of an odd molecule, is H2O, in those respects.

Not to mention, there's discussions I've been in, in which it's pointed out that Oxygen is a prime requirement for high-activity organisms. In fact, it may well be that it was a prime mover behind the development of such a wide range of life, including and especially intelligent life. And obviously, the link between Oxygen and H2O is very apparent.

It's not one of those widely known, but there is what is euphemistically known as the "Life Zone." This is an orbital range here is the Sol system, that ranges from inwards of Earth (but not as far as Venus), and out to beyond Mars. And Earth, it's believed, is within 5% of the inner edge of this zone, meaning that we are at about the upper limit for highly active organisms. Without, that is, going over the edge and becoming another Venus, due to a runaway Greenhouse effect.

This the sort of thing you meant?

Btw, I must work again tomorrow, so I will be around until about 11:30pm, EST. After that, I'll have to get back to this topic tomorrow evening after work.

Originally Posted by Metatron

I'm beginning to see why we don't have the publication. Is it in a creationist/intelligent design rag? I sense the inevitable "designer" argument looming.

The model is based on chaos theory your “sense” is incorrect, therefore this statement is misleading and deceptive.

Perhaps it leads other readers to different conclusions than you'd like, but I don't consider it misleading nor deceptive. It was simply a statement of my own observations and opinion based on the same.

Originally Posted by Metatron

But if a eukaryote cannot develop into complex structures, how then does the blastocyst become a Metatron? You were once but a "eukaryote," you know.

I said the single cell eukaryote cannot contain prior information within itself for complex structures then explain how this structural information is attained.

This statement is misleading and deceptive.

Which statement? Yours or mine? Why can a eukaryote not contain the information within its DNA or other complex proteins that were precursors to DNA? Richard Dawkins wrote a wonderful chapter in his book, The Selfish Gene (1989, pp. 12-20), in which he described the very process. His assertion, I dare say, is is more lucid and testable than your own. In order to assert that some sort of irreducible complexity exists that cannot be explained, you must first demonstrate why a cell (eukaryotic or otherwise) can not contain the knowledge it needs to develop into its ultimate form. You can't simply posit "it cannot be" and expect everyone to nod their heads in agreement.

Originally Posted by Metatron

I never suggested oolites are a form of life this is a misrepresentation and deception.

So I looked back over what you said and, true enough, it can be construed that you did not mean to imply that ooids and their oolite formations are forms of life. But let's examine what you said more closely:

The missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function acting on a mass of oolitic spheres bound by a microbial substrate.
This substrate crystallized into an archetypal pattern, the first complex animal life. [source of a body plan pattern] that then spawn an entire phyla.
This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla.
Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time.
This model not only accounts for the original forms, but also genetic control patterns of punctuated equilibrium. This is what the new evidence is showing in the context of the fossil record.

The missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function acting on a mass of oolitic spheres bound by a microbial substrate. A bold claim. We wait, breaths abaited, to see this "evidence" you have. Indeed, I'm eager to know of its provenience and the methodologies you used to determine its age and the microbial nature of the "substrate."

This substrate crystallized into an archetypal pattern, the first complex animal life. This is the point at which I assumed you were talking about the individual ooids, but apparently you are referring to the sediment (which you claim is "microbial") in which the ooids reside. But the very act of claiming this matrix to be the "first complex animal life" is the part where pseudoscience probably takes over and the scientific method is very likely discarded because it doesn't work for you.

1. what is the alleged evidence?
2. where is the alleged evidence?
3. what controls are used to analyze the evidence?
4. what is the exact provenience of the evidence?
5. what methods were used to obtain absolute dating of the evidence
6. what methods were used to determine the microbial nature of the "substrate"
7. what methods lead you to believe that the individual ooids influenced the microbial "substrate" to "then spawn an entire phyla?"

This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla. What leads you to this conclusion? How does the "phyla" get its information? What medium is it conveyed upon?

Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time. Huh? From the matrix of an oolitic sediment? One that may or may not be microbial (which is, to date, an unsupported claim)? How is this alleged genetic information released differently than the way genetic information is currently transmitted (via protein strands)? What leads you to believe there are "pulses over time?" Did it just sound cool when you said it out loud? Or is there some trace evidence that we can measure and/or observe?

This model not only accounts for the original forms, but also genetic control patterns of punctuated equilibrium. First, what is the model? You've not actually established one. Second, what are the "original forms" that need accounting for? Third, are you suggesting that the alleged evidence that you have proves PE? If so, where is the Nobel Prize that you've earned?

This is what the new evidence is showing in the context of the fossil record. Who has this evidence? Who has analyzed it? What are their credentials? Plus, all the other questions about this alleged evidence you have.

Originally Posted by Metatron

Poppycock. Sustained by what? Information bank for phyla? What phyla? It's a geologic formation. There are no phyla. There is no "information bank."

I ‘m at a loss here “It's a geologic formation” “There are no phyla”

I believe you are just confused here, what are you talking about exactly?

I'm talking about your alleged "microbial substrate" that you claim is a new "phyla." Where is the evidence? You've described a rock. What you've not described is anything that was once living, nor anything that is responsible for anything being alive.

Originally Posted by Metatron

The Cambrian explosion occurred within about ten million years, geologically that is over night.

The so-called "Cambrian explosion" was not a single event, but likely a series of events that took place globally over a period that can be demonstrated to have occurred between a 15-20 million year period (Conway Morris, 2000 - above). Geologically, this may be "overnight," but you will have to work very hard to demonstrate that life simply could not have evolved and adaptively radiated in to niches that had no competition.

But this is only through what we are able to observe in the fossil record. This is important because of several things: 1) the fossil record is subject to disconformities that can interrupt or even destroy it (mountain forming, erosion, etc); 2) fossils that are present in this record are available because they chanced to be subjected to the right conditions at the right time (soil/water pH, depositional matrix, depositional rate, etc); and 3) the faunal assemblages of the Cambrian are very small and very simple compared to the more robust faunas of later epochs -they don't preserve well.

Originally Posted by Metatron

The fossil record shows an abrupt appearance of the simple and complex animals about 530 million years ago.

Only to those under-educated in the subjects of paleontology, geology and biology.

Originally Posted by Metatron

This model based on fossil evidence shows how life arose in a non-linear way.

I'm not aware of anyone who postulates that "life" on this planet evolved in a linear fashion. I'm sure such people exist, but I've not met them. That life did not evolve in a linear fashion is readily apparent to anyone educated in the above subjects. Why do we need your elusive model to re-establish this?

Originally Posted by Metatron

First you invite me to post my model on any thread I chose and then you immediately shift it into the pseudoscience and use innuendo to label it as intelligent design.

This is deceitful and deceptive.

No, sir. It is appropriate, and I have clearly established it to be so. There is a distinct lack of scientific method to your "model." Indeed, as a model, it fails to appropriately, accurately, and efficiently describe what you are asserting. There is no apparent methodology, much less one that can be reproduced or tested. It has not the possibility of being falsified, because no one else appears to know of this "evidence."

Originally Posted by Metatron

This is a deceitful and deceptive
Have you no shame what’s so ever.

Allow me to comment on your continued accusation of deception and deceitfulness. First, I notice that whenever you are criticized or your ideas are challenged or questioned, the challenger is accused of being deceitful/deceptive. Second, I'm am not attempting to deceive anyone. Indeed, what would be my motive for deception? What is my stake in the endeavor? I offer my impressions and opinions regarding the work you present. Overall, it is shabby and poorly attempted as a "scientific paper," and a high school student could have done better, but I can accept that not everyone with a good idea (or even a bad one) has the expertise to write a scientific report and would be happy to assist in shaping it up technically if you were to ask -regardless of what I felt about the content.

What I object to, however, is the attempt to present poor methodology as science in a science forum and expect not to have your work criticized. It fails to meet the rigors of the scientific method. The assertions are without merit and have not been appropriately demonstrated. It meets many of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, such as a casual approach to evidence and irrefutable hypotheses (Casti, 1989). But most of all, it fails to adhere even in part to the hypothetico-deductive process.

Originally Posted by Metatron

And we are left to wonder about this mysterious and secret artifact. I'm reminded of the "alien implants" of alien abduction lore -often cited as clear evidence, but available for none to examine; no provenience to check.

Now you say there is no artifact, I have photos and it does exist.

I don't "say there is no artifact," I question its existence. Care to share with us? And not just photos, but provenience as well as the results and methods of analyses?

Demonstrate for us the science behind what you are asserting. Then lets see about moving the thread (or creating a new one) in an appropriate forum. But, until then, this is the appropriate sub-forum for the topic.

References

Casti, John (1989). Paradigms Lost: tackling the unanswered mysteries of modern science. New York: Avon

Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Skinwalker Wrote;Demonstrate for us the science behind what you are asserting. Then lets see about moving the thread (or creating a new one) in an appropriate forum. But, until then, this is the appropriate sub-forum for the topic.

-------------------------------

DISSIPATIVE STRUCTURE
A system that exits far from thermodynamic equilibrium (see thermodynamics), hence efficiently dissipates the heat generated to sustain it, and has the capacity of changing to higher levels of orderliness (see self-organization). According to Prigogine, systems contain subsystems that continuously fluctuate. At times a single fluctuation or a combination of them may become so magnified by possible feedback, that it shatters the preexisting organization. At such revolutionary moments or "bifurcation points", it is impossible to determine in advance whether the system will disintegrate into "chaos" or leap to a new, more differentiated, higher level of "order". The latter case defines dissipative structures so termed because they need more energy to sustain them than the simpler structures they replace and are limited in growth by the amount of heat they are able to disperse. (Krippendorff)

-------------------------------------------

SYSTEMS THEORY:

Systems theory or systems science argues that however complex or diverse the world that we experience, we will always find different types of organization in it, and such organization can be described by principles which are independent from the specific domain at which we are looking. Hence, if we would uncover those general laws, we would be able to analyze and solve problems in any domain, pertaining to any type of system. (Principia Cybernetica)

--------------------------------------------------

Systems science is a way for us to understand life as a system of cooperative networks. This is an extremely important field of study, and is being applied currently to many problems.


What my discovery shows is how nature forms these cooperative relationships on the cellular level.


As I was discovering this process, I realized this spontaneous jump to a higher ordered state has been happening though all the stages of order from the big bang on. One system emerging from within another.




http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html

------------------------------------------

According to the “Vesica Attractor” model

Multi-celled life forms emerge separately from a common gene pool.
This pool absorbs information from the outer support matrix and distributes this information via (HGT) through conjugation this bio-mass becomes a homogenous evolving substrate. Once a threshold is reached, simple multi-cellular life begins to appear directly from this substrate, their intricacy reflecting the complexity of the substrate.

Forms like the Vendian emerge first as a precursor to the Cambrian explosion. This event represents separately emerging symmetrical vesica attractors, forming archetypal geometric patterns depending on perturbations in these separate systems.

These initial forms spawn an entire phyla. This model was arrived at by a single embryonic fossil discovery, But can also be seen though the lens of current genomic research.

Metatron wrote:
The fossil record shows an abrupt appearance of the simple and complex animals about 530 million years ago.

Skinwalker wrote

Only to those under-educated in the subjects of paleontology, geology and biology.

Here are some paleotologist, geologist and biologist that agree with my veiw of the fossil record.

A quote from The Cambrian Big Bang;
'' Furthermore the postulation of exclusively soft-bodied ancestor for hard-bodied Cambrian organism seems implausible on anatomical grounds many phyla such as brachiopods and arthropods could have not evolved their soft parts first and then added shells later , since their survival depends in large part upon their ability to protect their soft parts from hostile environmental forces. Instead soft and hard parts had to arise together.

As Valentine notes in the case of brachiopods, “the brachiopod bauplane cannot function without a durable skeleton.” To admit that hard-bodied parts in the Cambrian animals had not yet evolved. As Chen and Zhou explain: [A]nimals such as brachiopods and most echinoderms and mollusks cannot exists without mineralized skeletons. Arthropods bear jointed appendages and likewise require a hard, organic or mineralized skeleton. Therefore the existence of these organisms in the distant past should be recorded either by fossil tracks and trails or remains of skeletons. The observations that such fossils are absent in the Precambrian strata proves that these phyla arose in the Cambrian.
quote:

-------------------------------------------

If invertebrates with hard parts evolved from soft-bodied creatures, that change had to be gradual and there would have been many intermediate stages permitting a gradual acquisition of hard parts and changes in the way of life of these creatures. This gradual acquisition of hard parts by these many creatures should be abundantly documented in the fossil record. Fossils of thousands of these intermediate stages should grace museum displays. None have been found .(Evolution: the fossils still say no! , Duane Gish, 1995, p. 68)quote

Metatron's quotes in this section can be found at: http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/...ntinuties.html

Because the "quotes" were copy/pasted directly from that site, they were deleted and the link provided to ensure The Science Forum can conform to Fair Use standards.

Metatron's quotes in this section can be found at: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/men...rstshelled.htm

Because the "quotes" were copy/pasted directly from that site, they were deleted and the link provided to ensure The Science Forum can conform to Fair Use standards.

--------------------------------------

Skinwalker wrote;
1. what is the alleged evidence?
2. where is the alleged evidence?
3. what controls are used to analyze the evidence?
4. what is the exact provenience of the evidence?
5. what methods were used to obtain absolute dating of the evidence
6. what methods were used to determine the microbial nature of the "substrate"
7. what methods lead you to believe that the individual ooids influenced the microbial "substrate" to "then spawn an entire phyla?"

This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla. What leads you to this conclusion? How does the "phyla" get its information? What medium is it conveyed upon?

Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time. Huh? From the matrix of an oolitic sediment? One that may or may not be microbial (which is, to date, an unsupported claim)? How is this alleged genetic information released differently than the way genetic information is currently transmitted (via protein strands)? What leads you to believe there are "pulses over time?" Did it just sound cool when you said it out loud? Or is there some trace evidence that we can measure and/or observe?

The Emergence of a Science of Emergence

Prigogine's non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Haken's synergetics, Von Bertalanffi's general systems theory and Kauffman's complex adaptive systems all point to the same scenario : the origin of life from inorganic matter is due to emergent processes of self-organization. The same processes account for phenomena at different levels in the organization of the universe, and, in particular, for cognition. Cognition appears to be a general property of systems, not an exclusive of the human mind.

A science of emergence, as an alternative to traditional, reductionism, science, could possibly explain all systems (living and not).Quote

http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html

The simple animals before the Cambrian such as a jellyfish and worms did not have the genetic diversity to form complex cellular networks and formed around differing dynamics. Some jellyfish for instance relates to the environment in cycles that move up and down with the sun, and still posses a symbiosis with the photosynthetic cells. In the more advanced vesica attractor the simple photosynthetic cells and oolites allowed the now more genetically diverse eukaryote cells a way to bridge an organizational gap the eukaryotes could not do this alone.
They needed an energetic " stepping stone " until the structure was up and running.
They needed a circulatory system, that could be built and sustained all at once and crystallized into a cohesive whole.This is what this artifact is showing A frozen mid point in this self construction process

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/fractals/lorenz

This vesica attractor represents an emerging eukaryote system that crystallizes though successive stages from higher to lower order iteration matrices, while being shaped by an internal and external fluid dynamics.
An attractor in the form of a mobile circular mass of cyanobacterail filaments and oolites capture and contain a circular flow of sea water after it comes to rest.
This internalized flow inside the micro-environment is then captured a second time, and further ordered by Eukaryote cells as they reproduce in this layered internal system. The eukaryote growth appears to radiate out from these flow channels, creating a recursive symmetrical circulatory system.

To visualize this layered pattern take a pencil, tape the end of a ribbon around the pencil now wrap the ribbon tightly three or four times in a clockwise direction. Now reverse the direction counterclockwise do this about 7-8 times. Now tape down the outside all the way around tightly. now wrap your thumb and forefinger around the ribbon in a circle. take the end of the pencil and turn in a ratcheting motion. You will get a rough idea of the internal dynamic of the vesica attractor. A central paisley turning in unison with the surrounding layers resembling a circulating toaist Mandela , contained in a torus or bagel structure.

I believe this recursive concentric system is the bases for most, if not all the complex body plans of the higher taxon that emerged during the Cambrian. This particular scenario reflects one of a fish, the most perfect of all the emerging vesica attractors. differing body plans would result from differing perturbations of separately emerging attractors. As the eukaryote system develops, the layered structure begins to differentiate as the oolitic matrix shrinks. A tension emerges throughout the system and starts to divide into three main domains. The still open heart cavity, the outer layers conforming around external dynamics. The domain of loosely bound middle layers that will form into some of the internal organs, but at the moment only contain a developing symmetrical circulatory system powered by external forces.

As the oolites shrink the domains begin to differentiate even further. This ever increasing tension crystallizes the form in an descending order of smaller domains of connectives, until the oolites have completely dissolved leaving in there place a vast patterned array of flexible geodesic scaffolding. called the extra-cellular matrix, at this phase the connectives is on a very fine cellular level, also at this stage the central heart tissue forms by coiling connected cells inward like a watch spring, separating from the outer right and left apertures that have now become subject to their own domain of connectives, a few layers of this heart tissue will be taken by the apertures as they differentiate from the central chamber. Two very critical steps take place at this stage. A connection is maintained though this tissue between the chamber and apertures while the heart chamber is enclosed as apertures shift and redirect and access an second outer layer. The sea water is redirected into this new layer opening a second cavity. This new chamber forms the, mouth, digestive system and anus and the apertures form the gill slits. A flow is maintain throughout this process but now blood cells begin to circulate though the enclosed internal circulatory system. The yet unformed mouth acts as an placental attachment to the oolitic bed which provides a nursery food of mineral spheres and algae. This substance begins to help form the developing digestive track.

The developing cellular matrix begins to respond to, and is further ordered by a finer flow of information now passing from the cellular microcosm to the macrocosm of the environment.
A cognitive system forms around this flow of light, sound and movement between these two worlds. This connecting flow of information is the key to an understanding the evolutionary roll of cognition in a biological system. Once this synergetic vortex is opened and set in motion it becomes a self-sustaining system. These original connecting points have been the central circulating force of information in evolution ever since.


FOR IMAGES

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_...-t-000007.html

The fossil has a opening all the way though the center just as the photo-shop rendering.

This representation is what I think this embryo would have looked like when it was alive. The right intake aperture became dominant over the left, resulting in an asymmetrical growth of extruding mineralization around the left aperture.

This particular vesica attractor would have resulted in a conch, or gastropod design.
The dominant right intake would develop a gill while the left developed a spiraling shell and central axis of the [columella.]

This would keep spiraling until the shell enclosed the left aperture complexly. This left spiraling point then became what most would assume as the front. Myself included.

If both chambers keep a symmetrical flow, which would have been very rare, the result would be a symmetrical body plan and two gills.

If the attractor retained the shell and a symmetrical flow though the apertures, the result would be a cephalopod. This shell is not a genetic adaptation but more precisely the a receipt from paying {Schrödinger entropy debt} http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution9.html

{The oolitic mass would shrink [dissipate] during this pulse into a higher ordered state.}

A fish’s body plan is the most perfect of all the possible out comes, and looks as though it only occurred once. All the myriad shell designs now appear to me as beautiful attempts at a fish’s body plan. Even natures screw up’s are geometrical marvels.

The fossil came from a creek bed cutting down though early Cambrian strata This strata is made up of dolomite limestone. The strata this originated from developed layers of a microbial mats in fine silty mud, that is devoid of any particles that would induce the growth of stromatalites, so instead you just find layers of cyanobacteia. When fine quartz particles our introduced, oolites are formed.

Skinwalker wrote;This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla. What leads you to this conclusion? How does the "phyla" get its information? What medium is it conveyed upon?

Skinwalker wrote;
Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time. Huh? From the matrix of an oolitic sediment? One that may or may not be microbial (which is, to date, an unsupported claim)? How is this alleged genetic information released differently than the way genetic information is currently transmitted (via protein strands)? What leads you to believe there are "pulses over time?" Did it just sound cool when you said it out loud? Or is there some trace evidence that we can measure and/or observe

You really should read this again, and think carfully about what it means.


My own singularity model is more close to René Thom’s Catastrophe Theory, and Stuart Kauffman’s autocatalytic sets. However my model is even more radical.

I am proposing that complex life formed as separate but adjacent quantum fields collapsed together, or more precisely spiraled together forming a singularity.
This singularity representing a microcosm of the environment as a whole resulting in cognition. These points becoming the well spring of life during the Cambrian explosion.
These original archetypal life forms are silicon [micro-quartz crystals] based at the extracellular level and carbon based at the intracellular level.

This model pin points what is missing in our current evolutionary models, the CPU, Where there is a ram there must also be a rom.

This Gaia egg or{ vesica attractor }. Represents natural self-organizing attractor models, as follows; point attractor-cycle attractor-torus attractor-vesica attractor.
This new evidence also shows we did not invent the first silicon based CPU, nature did. Our current silicon based driven singularity will connect the collective consciousness of mankind into a dynamic cohesive whole. This next step being the same process repeating itself on the next cyclical level.

Archetypal Desent

The universe designs networks of finer and finer connections. Biological \cognitive systems are the finest of these networks, embedded inside a whole hierarchy, like layers of an onion. The First layer we theorize was the big bang. This initial pulses of sends out waves of energy and atoms that curl into points of swirling matter. At the center of this points vortices form. From these black holes implode sending out a second pulse a gravity waves.
These waves curl into points forming stars bound into the matrix of the galaxy. This structure contains a balance of forces enabling all points to interact though gravity. Some stars explode then create complex elements in a third pulse of energy. This assemblage of elements curl into a yet more complex internal matrix of solar systems.

Now the stage is set for pre-existing possibilities to form networks of life. Life and Intelligents will manifest though the natural flow patterns inherent between waves and elements. The elements will firstly juxtapose themselves one to another forming simple chemical matrixes, organic molecules.

The very early earth probably was completely covered by water, the first cells appeared almost immediately, I tend to see this layer of water and simple cells as more of an differentiated catalytic layer, somewhat like the ozone layer although much more complex. More closely related to the planet system rather than to a biological system. We always tend to think of these first cells in terms of what they are going to become rather than what they represented at the time, just another layer of organization between many others.

System emerge from within systems.

Once these biological systems become self-replicating they can continue drawing additional information from these outer matrices.
This is why living systems behave in this way, this instability enables the system to collect information in mathematical process {Algorithmic iteration} therefore the system builds more and more internal complexity , patterned after its surrounding matrices, or Environment.

Cambrian Explosion

I see this event as a collapse of information into a point, as the system at large reaches a threshold of complexity.
These points, [complex animal life]are then kept stable by its surrounding parent matrix.

Conciseness is merely another information gathering system that has been compressed from the biological system that surrounds it.

Communication technology is yet another compression point by our cognitive systems.
System emerge from within systems, and they all compress information from waves.

That’s what life is doing capturing information at large. Waves in the form of light and sound and compressing it into a cohesive quantum field.

What This new model {“Archetypal descent” }is showing, is major creative changes can only happen by a consideration of the whole system, What I am proposing is that there exist in the system a yet undiscribed original central life form {an archetype} that can acquire information and then release it in pulses like a wave pattern.[punctuated equilibrium]
This fossil is showing that just prior to the Cambrian explosion complex life forms emerged, or more precisely where catalyzed directly from the environment at large.
These components of wave dynamics ,cellular metabolic systems, tensional geometry, combined with a silicon-carbon based matrix.
Keep in mind the fossilized embryonic form emerged directly from the environment. This enabled it to form a “super-structure” made up of elements that make it extremely stable. This has never been postulated before, however it does follow an informational pattern.

As a sculptor I can tell you this the only way to create morphology, is by considering the compositional whole as it relates to the individual components.

I am also aware of all the factors that go into accumulating information from Natural selection\ random mutation. These are the probability patterns. These probabilities need to be placed in a framework where they can be coordinated into composition to bring about change. And at the same time keep systems stabilized.

These systems models must adhere to an even more rigorous standard of informational context than the present reductionism models, by fitting into an even larger framework that takes into consideration all the non-living stages of organization that occurred proceeding the emergence life, and It is does!
One Example;
When a galaxy forms, the first event is the formation of a black hole, as a result of this implosion of information, a signal is released in the form of a gravity wave. This wave pattern creates stars, these stars form around the central ‘archetype’ the black hole, in an evolving disk of dynamical information.

While at the same time the central black hole remains stable, connecting all points of information to one central point.
Now if you examine this disc you see that vortices form around second generation black holes, stabilizing a domain within a domain. And further still the more temporal aspect of solar systems embedded in the more eternal domain of the central black hole. This duality of the central archetype anchoring an internal evolving system, is how the universe is constructed,
in a non-living evolving system or living system.

Ophiolite, there is a point. If you look at Metatron's quote from U of Berkeley, there is NOT the slightest mention of the word, 'multiverse". That's the point being made here. Multiple universes are discussed in theoretical physics as that, from Wheeler onwards to present.

BUT, and this is the big point, almost whenever and wherever one sees the 'multiverse' word used, it's Raelians, pseudoscientists and others in that same fringe culture.

I do NOT object to rational, scientific discussions of multiuple universes, but one never sees that in the above 'fringe' groups. In fact, use of the word, 'multiverse', which is not a scienitfic term, BTW, rather well demarcates those IN such a fringe group. I'd add that term to your vocab's 'connotations' list. :wink:

"Life and Intelligents(sic) will manifest in the natural flow patterns interacting between waves and elements."

The whole paragraph is just jargon and gobbledegook. What does that mean in real, or scientific or evidentiary terms?

It means nothing. There is NOT a single existing event to which we can point, as a "flow pattern between waves and elements'. NOR is there an "intelligents manifesting in natural flow patterns".

Frankly, you've left the realm of reason, facts and the sciences. There is nothing meaningful, real or reasonable, let alone logical about your statements, either.

It's just words strung together lacking in any kind of practical meaning. It's useless, therefore. And if you think most anyone with a good intellectual training can't see it, then you will find out the hard way. :wink:

"Multiverses and quantum biology are scientific theories based upon observation and experimentation."

These purported theories of yours lack one critical point. There is NO scientific confirmation of them. If you believe that your quantum biology or 'multiverse' is real and existing, then show us the scientific references which show this beyond all reasonable dobut.

But if, as usual, you simply refuse to present the unequivocal, relevant references, other than crank websites, popular media articles and otehr such, As you ALWAYS do, then prepare to be ignored.

There is NO such entity, in the field of biology, commonly accepted as 'quantum biology" We've been here before with you. Where are the scientific references in good, peer reviewed journals?

There are none, because 'multiverse' and quantum biology, as You mean them, are not scientific and NOT part of the scientific body of literature. End of story. That's why it's pseudoscience.

When I asked you to "demonstrate for us the science behind what you are asserting," you gave us a quote that probably originated from Klaus Krippendorf's Dictionary of Cybernetics, and is hardly a description of your methodology or results. I'm talking about science, Metatron, not quote-mining. Your quote was without context and can therefore be discarded.

You claim to have discovered a process, but - and please don't take this as anything but constructive criticism- you fail miserably in modeling this alleged process. You do not seem to have a methodology nor have you demonstrated any results that can be replicated by others. You have a post or two of double-speak about "systems theory" and have established a term you call "vessica attractor" without really describing it. You may think you have, but the outcome is that no one seems to be able to follow your attempts at logic. You claim this is proof of "cooperative relationships on a cellular level," but you haven't explained what you mean by this. The wording is ambiguous, one is left to believe intentionally so.

In looking at one of your main assertions, we see some problems:

Multi-celled life forms emerge separately from a common gene pool.
This pool absorbs information from the outer support matrix and distributes this information via (HGT) through conjugation this bio-mass becomes a homogenous evolving substrate. Once a threshold is reached, simple multi-cellular life begins to appear directly from this substrate, their intricacy reflecting the complexity of the substrate.

Let's look at this paragraph. You are suggesting the following:

Outer support matrix ----> Gene Pool ---> Multi-cellular life forms (in the first two sentences)

In the last sentence, you suggest that multi-cellular life emerges directly from this substrate.

What does this "substrate/matrix" consist of, Metatron?

How does a "gene pool" exist before genes? And if you are suggesting that there are genes to begin with, then why aren't there multi-cellular organisms to which they belong? Moreover, you usage of the term "gene pool" appears to be slightly uninformed. A gene pool is the available DNA to a member of a given population. It doesn't absorb information from its environment. The individual alleles are passed on if the population member to which they belong is fit enough to reproduce. If not, they aren't passed on.

You also say, "This model was arrived at by a single embryonic fossil discovery, But can also be seen though the lens of current genomic research."

Again, so we aren't misleading anyone, let me remind you that your use of the word "model" is premature. Also, I'm curious why you would believe that a sample size of one is good science. Indeed, you've not established that your "single embryonic fossil discovery" is actually what you say it is. You posted a link to some Photoshopped images, but nothing in regard to provenience or methodology of analyses; nothing in regard to absolute dating. Why should we accept your "evidence" on either the basis of a singular sample or complete lack of analyses?

As the oolites shrink the domains begin to differentiate even further. This ever increasing tension crystallizes the form in an descending order of smaller domains of connectives, until the oolites have completely dissolved leaving in there place a vast patterned array of flexible geodesic scaffolding. called the extra-cellular matrix,...

Your use of the word "oolite" is also misinformed. An oolite is a rock formation that contains ooids. You seem to be discussing ooids, and if you are referring to the individual spherical objects, then you are. These are formed when calcium carbonate dissolves over time. A very well understood process. I'm curious who would call their form "extra-cellular matrix" unless they were using it as an analogy.

You later say, "[t]he sea water is redirected into this new layer opening a second cavity. This new chamber forms the, mouth, digestive system and anus and the apertures form the gill slits." Are you still referring to the ooids?

If I understand what you are asserting correctly, you are saying that the environment, the sediment or matrix itself, became the first life on the planet. I don't disagree with that notion, but clearly ooids aren't the evidence. And the process doesn't require "quantum waveform" to make it happen, it only needs chemistry. Amino acids and proteins likely preceded the first single cell organism. Single cell organisms likely engaged in clumping then gave rise to multi-celled organisms. There's no "wave form collapse" needed nor have you demonstrated that one exists. Indeed, I'm surprised you even attempt to make assertions of a mathematically-based discipline like quantum physics without showing any math.

Finally, let me wrap up by saying that I find it interesting that you object to being likened to creationists, but you've copy/pasted large chunks of quotes from at least two creationist websites that were engaged in large-scale quote-mining. Ironically, you've quote-mined the quote-miners. I stand by my assertion that those educated in geology, biology and paleontology understand that the Cambrian "explosion" is a misnomer. It was a series of at least 15-20 million years according to the evidence we have. This series of events could have taken far longer and, indeed, there are likely to be many as yet to be discovered fossils that will give us additional information. It is also very probable that there are faunal assemblages which simply do not survive in the fossil record.

I'll probably not continue to post on this thread or your others, there doesn't appear to be much more to be said. I will, however, continue to read with eagerness for as long as others are willing to continue the discussion.

If I understand what you are asserting correctly, you are saying that the environment, the sediment or matrix itself, became the first life on the planet. I don't disagree with that notion, but clearly ooids aren't the evidence. And the process doesn't require "quantum waveform" to make it happen, it only needs chemistry. Amino acids and proteins likely preceded the first single cell organism. Single cell organisms likely engaged in clumping then gave rise to multi-celled organisms. There's no "wave form collapse" needed nor have you demonstrated that one exists. Indeed, I'm surprised you even attempt to make assertions of a mathematically-based discipline like quantum physics without showing any math.

http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution9.html

"Multiverses and quantum biology are scientific theories based upon observation and experimentation."

These purported theories of yours lack one critical point. There is NO scientific confirmation of them. If you believe that your quantum biology or 'multiverse' is real and existing, then show us the scientific references which show this beyond all reasonable dobut.

But if, as usual, you simply refuse to present the unequivocal, relevant references, other than crank websites, popular media articles and otehr such, As you ALWAYS do, then prepare to be ignored.

There is NO such entity, in the field of biology, commonly accepted as 'quantum biology" We've been here before with you. Where are the scientific references in good, peer reviewed journals?

There are none, because 'multiverse' and quantum biology, as You mean them, are not scientific and NOT part of the scientific body of literature. End of story. That's why it's pseudoscience.

Information originates in the strata.

I don’t blame anyone for being skeptical and confused, but I was hoping for more than just knee jerk reactions, false accusations and stereotyping.

What I was looking for is help.
I am not a scientist and never claimed to be one I am just someone that has always seen science as a light of reason in a confusing world. I remember when I was a boy asking my mother why the bible stories and the Sunday school teacher did not tell the same story of the beginning of life I learned from my science books.
What she told me effected me for the rest of my life,

Know one really knows try to find out for yourself .

This is when I began collecting rocks and seeing them as information.

Pure from the source, The book of the earth.

Because the "quotes" were copy/pasted directly from that site, they were deleted and the link provided to ensure The Science Forum can conform to Fair Use standards.

Deleting my quotes from reputable scientist that disagree with your views and that have nothing to do with intelligent design and then linking my thread to an intelligent design sight that I have no experience with is an unscrupulous and cowardly act.

Your "quotes" were verbatum from those sites. Even the punctuation and structure of the credits.

COPYING THEM them POSTING THEM here as if you mined them yourself is a cowardly act, sir. Moreover, it violates the standards of Fair Use.

I provided the links to each of the pages, so the full effect of what you want ot say is still there. Similarly, I linked your Michael Crichton speech, as this, too, is a Fair Use violation.

I provided the links to each of the pages, so the full effect of what you want ot say is still there. Similarly, I linked your Michael Crichton speech, as this, too, is a Fair Use violation.

You are not telling the truth, You deleted my quotes and then in there place linked an intelligent design sight that I has never been on, and now you delete my Michael Crichton quote and link it back to a site on aliens that I’ve never been. this is obviously an attempt to try to discredited my thread though a misuse of power.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. PeriodMichael Crichton

Metatron wrote:
The fossil record shows an abrupt appearance of the simple and complex animals about 530 million years ago.

Skinwalker wrote
Quote:
Only to those under-educated in the subjects of paleontology, geology and biology.

The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.
Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. (1988)
"A Comparative Study of Diversification Events"
Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183

Darwin was not wrong just incomplete ;

Darwin assumed transitional fossils would be rare and postulated that these gaps would be filled in with new fossil discoveries, yet after 150 years these gaps have not been filled. He also postulated;

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory". Charles Darwin

These views are not contradictory , he was just stating that his model was subject to new evidence. He was making sure that people understood that fact, because he was a great scientist , and understood that all scientific models are only stepping stones to understanding, not dogma
No serious scientist is saying that their no transitional fossils within a phyla.

The gaps exist as major disparity’s in the appearance of these original phyla level body plans.

According to the fossil record, they have no record to the past before the Cambrian, and intermediary’s between each other.

Simply put we understand evolution about as well as gravity, electromagnetism or quantum mechanics.

No matter what anyone says, their still exist in science today a major disparity between our map of the evolution and the actual territory of the fossil record.

This thread is an attempt to address those gap's utilizing self-organization, system science and chaos theory which the consensus here has labeled pseudoscience.


Self-organization
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SELFORG.html


Systems theory

Prigogine's non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Haken's synergetics, Von Bertalanffi's general systems theory and Kauffman's complex adaptive systems all point to the same scenario : the origin of life from inorganic matter is due to emergent processes of self-organization. The same processes account for phenomena at different levels in the organization of the universe, and, in particular, for cognition. Cognition appears to be a general property of systems, not an exclusive of the human mind.

A science of emergence, as an alternative to traditional, reductionism, science, could possibly explain all systems (living and not).

http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html

Originally Posted by wallaby

Originally Posted by Metatron

wallaby wrote;

MWI is born out of some quantum mechanical 'facts', i guess we could call them that. hence this theory has some more credibility than the idea of a multiverse, wich is slightly different.

Incorrect, they are referring to the same phenomenon


From Wikipedia

Many world interpretation of quantum physics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. Other interpretations include the Copenhagen and the consistent histories interpretations. The multiverse proposed by MWI has a shared time parameter. In most formulations, all the constituent universes are structurally identical to each other and though they have the same physical laws and values for the fundamental constants, they may exist in different states. The constituent universes are furthermore non-communicating, in the sense that no information can pass between them. The state of the entire multiverse is related to the states of the constituent universes by quantum superposition. Related are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.

ok so they may be the same. but what evidence do you have that will move these theories out of psudoscience and into a scientific theory.

-----------------------------------------
----------------------
---------------
------

Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle. Lawrence Bragg

-------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------
-----------
--------

Can you see who are the particles and who is the wave in this debate of information.
----------------
-----Lap lap Lap :-D