Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Slowvehicle]

The difference is, I think, that you'd be quite open about what you had done, fairly close to the start of such a presentation. Daniel, on the other hand, has never said anything about his direct sources (as far as I can see).

Indeed.

From the research I did, into the sources he quoted, many of the snippets he quotes are "quote mining" (per hecd2). And - as has also been pointed out - when you look at the full context of many of his quotes, they not only do not "support his argument", but directly contradict it (e.g. the one by James Gunn).

IMHO, it's not only a pretty silly approach to use here in ISF, but a self-defeating one too ... of course many an ISF member will dig into the material he writes - including the quotes - so he can reasonably expect that his direct sources, and the "quote mining", will be discovered.

FWIW, he is equally careless and indiscriminate with his treatment of quotes from his "Scriputres[sic]".

 

[RussDill]

Yay, you looked up some information on quantum mechanics. I'd personally recommend some books on evolution, since you keep asking here about it, but it's a start.

The act of a Conscious Observer/Measurement, collapses the Wave Function and creates the existence of physical objects and the properties they entail....INSTANTLY!! ...

This is a common misconception. I'm not sure where you are picking it up from, but a conscious observer is not necessary to collapse a wave function. If it were, things like quantum computing would be much much easier as even in a completely sealed environment, entanglement only lasts a very short time.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."---
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

This is actually a philosophical view backed by the same common misunderstanding discussed above. In fact, there is something rather strange about the article. The headliner quote in the article that you quoted, is not supported anywhere in the article:

http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

It seems likely that the statement was not actually written by Bernard, but by the editor based on a single statement within the article:

"Underlying this demand is the intuitive notion that the world outside the self is real and has at least some properties that exist independently of human consciousness."

He then discusses a philosophy that rejects that statement, but ultimately he disagrees with the philosophy.

Sir Rudolph Peierls PhD Nuclear Physics....

"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS."
The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74

If you actually read the book, rather than pull the quote from where ever you did, you'll see that its the philosophical musings of various experimenters, not anything supported by experiment. In fact, when asked directly, "So you think consciousness plays a crucial role in the nature of reality?" The simple response was, "I don't know what reality is".

He actually claims that living beings do not operate by the laws of physics, a view not held by other scientists. "the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being (or any other living being), including it's knowledge, and it's consciousness, is untenable."

New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: "There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY". {Emphasis Mine}
SEE: Landmark Parent Paper...
Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677. AND,

You are really going a long way to quote mine here. This quote has nothing to do with consciousness and only relates to the rejection of local realism, that hidden variables do not exist. Here's the article if you want to read the whole thing:

http://sdsu-physics.org/physics180/physics195/Topics/quantum-article2.html

"Quantum Theory thus denies the physically real world INDEPENDENT OF IT'S OBSERVATION". {Emphasis Mine}
Rosenblum B., Kuttner, F: The Quantum Enigma; Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 7

This is a single quote from a book who's purpose (which it itself describes) is speculation. It is without any supporting experiments or evidence. If I quote a book that says the opposite, do I win?

and buried/IMPLODED Materialism.

Sorry, materialism ≠ local realism. Quantum mechanics destroys local realism. In fact, the rejection of local realism directly conflicts with an all knowing God.

"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."---
Martin Rees, Astrophysicist

Again, something stated as a philosophical opinion, not something supported by experimental fact. And again, if I quote an opposite philosophical opinion, do I win? What if I quote 2?

I also find it very odd that you quote from cosmologists to try to support your position, people who by your reckoning, are not actual scientists and are in fact just crackpots.

 

[Daniel]

On a whim, I used Google to see where some of the various quotes Daniel has used in this thread have also appeared.

Call me naive, but I had expected that what Daniel was presenting was his own ideas, based on his own research (well, at least to some extent).

I've certainly not checked all Daniel's sourced quotes in this thread, but in the sample (of ~ten) I've so far checked, I found all but one also appears on various creationist websites (and I'm not sure that that one doesn't; I only checked the first page of Google's results)!

Genetic Fallacy

Genetic Fallacy -- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Did you know that Logical Fallacies...are Fallacious?

You're reduced to Fallacies because you have no coherent "Substantive" arguments.

Thanks for Illustrating.


regards

 

[RussDill]

"There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter."
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10642883


regards

Ah, the same article that concludes, "I suggest that Wachtershauser (1997) is correct in his view that if the historic process of the origin and evolution of the universal ancestor (Darwin, 1872; Woese, 1998) could be followed it would prove to be a purely chemical process."

 

[JeanTate]

Genetic Fallacy

Genetic Fallacy -- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Did you know that Logical Fallacies...are Fallacious?

You're reduced to Fallacies because you have no coherent "Substantive" arguments.

Thanks for Illustrating.

<snip>

You seem to be quite fond of "Logical Fallacies" (caps for emphasis, eh? )

FWIW, here's the part of my post which you (conveniently?) omitted (bold added):

"While such an - apparently - deceitful approach is not exactly verboten here in ISF (as far as I know), I think it's fair to say that it's regarded by almost all ISF members are pretty bad form. It's certainly not what one expects in a science-based discussion.

It also may go some way to explaining why Daniel seems so reluctant to engage in a meaningful dialog.

Now back to Danielscience ...."

May I quote someone who posted here, in this thread, recently? "Thanks for illustrating" (I dropped the unnecessary cap; may I ask, where did you learn to write English, in Germany perhaps?)

 

[Shalamar]

Genetic Fallacy

Genetic Fallacy -- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Did you know that Logical Fallacies...are Fallacious?

You're reduced to Fallacies because you have no coherent "Substantive" arguments.

Thanks for Illustrating.


regards

Yes. You illustrate it well. Your entire argument is an Appeal to Ignorance, and an Appeal to incredulity. This is why it's hard to converse with you. You dismiss everything your detractors say by appealing to incredulity.

Then when people post links, and information to support evidence that supports evolution, the Theory of Evolution, or anything else science, you counter with an appeal to ignorance (What is "evolution"???)

 

[Daniel]

Yay, you looked up some information on quantum mechanics. I'd personally recommend some books on evolution, since you keep asking here about it, but it's a start.

Unsolicited advice, eh? Thanks

"evolution", what's that? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

This is a common misconception. I'm not sure where you are picking it up from, but a conscious observer is not necessary to collapse a wave function.

You got some problems (like Mount Everest types):

1. "Quantum Theory thus denies the physically real world INDEPENDENT OF IT'S OBSERVATION". {Emphasis Mine}
Rosenblum B., Kuttner, F: The Quantum Enigma; Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 7


2. I said "A Knower" of the "which-path Information".

You're not sure where I'm picking it up from?? rotflol, how about these for a start...

1) every double-slit experiment, 2)every delayed choice experiment, 3)every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2, 3 show exactly the same results - if the which-path is known or can be known, no interference; if the which-path is not known or can't be known, there is interference.

The Magnificent 7:

1. Kim, Y.-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5.
The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information solely collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005.

2. Richard Conn Henry (2005); The Mental Universe, Nature; Vol 436, 7 July 2005
Pummels "Decoherence" and asserts Wave Function Collapse is initiated by human minds ["KNOWERS"] and that the Universe is a mental construct.

3. Gröblacher, S. et al. (2007). An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, pp. 871-875.
In this Landmark Paper, the authors violate both Bell's Inequality (again) and Leggett's Inequality revealing that the concept of locality is not consistent with Quantum Experiments and that intuitive features of Realism should be abandoned. Physicsworld April 20 2007, speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’ New Scientist 'Reality Check' 23 June 2007..."There is no objective reality beyond what we observe".

4. Lapkiewicz, R. et al. (2011). Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system. Nature 474, pp. 490–493.
The authors show that, unlike what one would expect if reality were independent of mind "Realism", the properties of a quantum system DO NOT EXIST prior to Measurement; via validating the Kochen-Specker Theorem. Renowned QM Physicist Anton Zeilinger, in a related New Scientist article June 2011 suitably titled “Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it,” is quoted as saying that “there is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality.”

5. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013). Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again).
"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."

[**Ergo, The LACK of Path Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."

6. Manning A.G et al: Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343, April 2015.
"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".

7. Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759
"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism.

If you actually read the book, rather than pull the quote from where ever you did, you'll see that its the philosophical musings of various experimenters, not anything supported by experiment.

Huh?? There are Literally Thousands of Experiments!!

And your evidence...

In fact, when asked directly, "So you think consciousness plays a crucial role in the nature of reality?" The simple response was, "I don't know what reality is".

That's right he doesn't know, do you?

Sorry, materialism ≠ local realism.

Ahhh Yea, it does...

Realism--- at it simplest and most general, is the view that entities of a certain type have an objective reality, a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_realism.html

Materialism --- a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism

And they got CRUSHED (not limited to)...

"NO NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
Xiao-song Ma, et al; Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 1221–1226, doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1213201 110; 2013.

Quantum mechanics destroys local realism.

Ya don't say?

In fact, the rejection of local realism directly conflicts with an all knowing God.

And.....? How so....?

I also find it very odd that you quote from cosmologists to try to support your position, people who by your reckoning, are not actual scientists and are in fact just crackpots.

Cosmologists?? Like who?


regards

 

[Daniel]

Ah, the same article that concludes, "I suggest that Wachtershauser (1997) is correct in his view that if the historic process of the origin and evolution of the universal ancestor (Darwin, 1872; Woese, 1998) could be followed it would prove to be a purely chemical process."

Well thanks for his "Speculation"/'beliefs'; was he a democrat, believe in Integrity in State Government, jogging in the rain....what was his favorite color??

I don't remember querying for them.

Kinda shocking since he is an evolutionist.


regards

 

[Daniel]

You seem to be quite fond of "Logical Fallacies" (caps for emphasis, eh? )

Well, I surely can identify them; just look @ your posts.

FWIW, here's the part of my post which you (conveniently?) omitted (bold added):

"While such an - apparently - deceitful approach is not exactly verboten here in ISF (as far as I know), I think it's fair to say that it's regarded by almost all ISF members are pretty bad form. It's certainly not what one expects in a science-based discussion.

Well I don't chase downstream, artifacts of already established Logical Fallacies.
It's one of my Refrigerator Rules.

Post a cogent "Substantive" argument or be ignored.


regards

 

[Son of Inigo]

And I've already told and SHOWED you numerous times; One Last Time, Ready....

I don't know the AGE of the Earth or Universe. It can't be Scientifically VALIDATED because you don't have any Viable...."Independent Variables".

In fact, it's Non-Sequitur Fallacy with The Scientific Method...since it's goal is to elucidate "Cause and Effect" relationships, for goodness sakes.

Is there something here that's particularly confusing you need me to elaborate on??{

Observation #1: An ice field gets a layer of dust deposited on it in the summer.

Observation #2: That dust layer gets covered up by fresh snow falling in the winter.

The cause of the layering is the annual dusting during the summer, followed by the fall of fresh snow in the winter.

These would also be your 'Independent Variables'. (as I explained many posts ago).

The effect of this annual cycle is that the age of the ice field can be reliably determined.

The experiment is drilling a core from the ice field and verifying that it is indeed an reliable indicator of the age of the ice field by calibrating the dust layers to known dusting events, such as volcanic activity. Finding volcanic dust and debris that corresponds to the expected layer in which a historically documented volcanic event took place, validates that reliability. Drilling other ice cores from geographically separated ice cores of various thickness and finding the same corresponding dusting events in the expected layers, corroborates the findings.

What is so hard about that? Observation, cause, effect and experiment.

Just like you keep asking for, and I (we) keep demonstrating for you.

Would you like me to do the same again for tree rings? Almost the same principle applies to them as well.

1. What were the other two?

2. Because Germ Theory has the "Process/Mechanism" (The Cause) of "The Effect" which has been repeatedly supported/Validated by Experiment for ~200 Years.

1. Sun circling the earth.
2. Flat earth.

If not, WHY not?

That's what a Scientific Theory is...

And that is what dating the age of the ice fields is, a scientific theory.

See the connection??

Yes I do, both germ theory and the ice core experiment are scientific theories.

Why you cannot seem to connect the two is truly what we are trying to understand.

ETA: Remember Daniel, I readily admit to not being a trained scientist. However, I was taught 'creation science'. I passed many tests that tested my knowledge and understanding of it. I have the transcripts to prove it. I know your arguments from the inside, I used to use them myself. And I fear that you are having as much success as I did with them, which is to say, none.

 

[Reality Check]

You got some problems (like Mount Everest types):

Let us list some real problems, Daniel

1. The repeated demand for us to write you a textbook on the scientific theory of evolution when you know that there are plenty of source, e.g. textbooks.
   4 March 2016 Daniel: It is a lie to state that the scientific theory of evolution does not exist since textbooks on TOE exist, etc.!
2. Continuously flooding the thread with quotes about well known science with irrelevant emphasis such as the rather dumb list of QM quotes in this post.
3. The fantasy that you are listing problems with QM !
4. Implying that QM is philosophy with a reference to philosophical realism!
   Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the "realistic" assumption that all objects must objectively have a pre-existing value for any possible measurement before the measurement is made.
5. Shooting yourself in the foot with realism and materialism definitions that are different.
   Thus materialism ≠ local realism.

The argument that "a conscious observer is not necessary to collapse a wave function" is really easy to understand. Quantum events happened for billion of years before human beings existed or even life on Earth !
We have detected light from stars more then 6000 light years away and so more than 6000 years old.
We have detected light from galaxies billions of light years away and so billions of years old.
We have detected quantum events from before stars or galaxies existed (the CMB).
We have good evidence of quantum events about a second after the Big Bang (the neutrino equivalent of the CMB).

 

[abaddon]

Daniel, a question for you. Who did Cain marry and why did he build a city?

 

[Beady]

Daniel, a question for you. Who did Cain marry and why did he build a city?

Also, *how* does one man build a city?

Oh crap!

 

[John Jones]

[...]




At this point, it's probably a good idea to drop out.

Excellent advice. I have no problem recommending that you follow it immediately.

 

[Reality Check]

First of all, The Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) Research is an INVALID Scientific Inquiry; UNLESS...somebody has OBSERVED Life from Non-Life.

Whoops, I should not look back in the thread to find really outrageously ignorant clams like this.

1. The Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago with no life.
2. Life appears on Earth abut 4 billion years ago.
3. Thus Abiogenesis is needed !

The stupidity of implying that life existed to OBSERVE before life existed should be obvious.
Repeated ignorance abut science, e.g. no one in science needs to directly observe an event to have confidence that it happened. We have not directly observed an atom on the Sun emitting light but we accept that the Sun emits light because we observe the light .

 

[Daniel]

Observation #1: An ice field gets a layer of dust deposited on it in the summer.

Observation #2: That dust layer gets covered up by fresh snow falling in the winter.

The cause of the layering is the annual dusting during the summer, followed by the fall of fresh snow in the winter.

These would also be your 'Independent Variables'. (as I explained many posts ago).

Please define: Independent Variables...? (CITE Source)

THEN... Identify the "Independent Variables" in your scenario above?

The ask yourself, "are these Viable Independent Variables??"

The experiment is drilling a core from the ice field...

That's not an "Experiment", that's "Drilling". What's your "Independent Variable" here....the on/off switch?

Would you like me to do the same again for tree rings? Almost the same principle applies to them as well.

Yes, please post it in the: "This is what you don't do in Science" thread.

1. Sun circling the earth.
2. Flat earth.

See those previous responses.

And that is what dating the age of the ice fields is, a scientific theory.

That's Kooky Talk.

Yes I do, both germ theory and the ice core experiment are scientific theories.

This is inane.

Why you cannot seem to connect the two is truly what we are trying to understand.

Well one (Germ Theory), is based on "Cause and Effect" the other (ice cores) is an Extrapolation off a Guess.

ETA: Remember Daniel, I readily admit to not being a trained scientist.

Then stop hammering the c4 fire and educate yourself. You have to know what: The Scientific Method, Scientific Hypothesis, and Scientific Theories are, to pass 5th Grade General Science.


regards

 

[JeanTate]

As readers of this - and the other - thread know, Daniel is keen on logical fallacies.

I'm wondering if there's a name for the 'god of the gaps' argument*? Is it, perhaps, a version of a well-known logical fallacy?

In looking at the sources Daniel cites, I was struck by how often he uses the 'appeal to authority' line; you know, of all the quotes he could have used mined, he seems to like using ones by Nobel Prize winners, or other very high profile scientists (what's the name of this logical fallacy, Daniel?).

But another thing struck me, the age of many/most of his quotes (I'm nowhere near the first to notice this; it's been commented on by lots of posters, sometimes several times each). I mean, in the fields of science Daniel seems keen on exploring, particularly to do with DNA and information, progress these last decade or three has been spectacular. And quite a few of Daniel's quotes are now quite quaint, revealing what today we might see as a lack of imagination or short-sightedness (no slight or other negative vibe towards the scientists quoted; given the time and the natural conservatism of scientists, quite understandable).

It seems to be a feature of Danielscience that the relevance of these quotes, in the context of the scientific fields today, is irrelevant; they serve to support his narrative and that's all that matters (to him).

I'm also wondering if there's a deeper connection: I understand that creationists regard the bible as inerrant, so perhaps there's a projection going on? Daniel may regard the words of scientists as also inerrant (or nearly so), and as not needing to be understood in the context of both the work from which they are mined, and the state of the scientific field at the time.

What do you think?

* let me know if you are unaware of this (I'd be happy to explain). I think Daniel has used it, or something very similar, quite a few times in both this and the other thread.

 

[abaddon]

Also, *how* does one man build a city?

Oh crap!

How interesting that once the posit falls over on merit, the proponent dives for cover. One would never have thought that.

 

[RussDill]

"evolution", what's that? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Again, this must be incredibly frustrating for you that everyone is keeping the scientific theory of evolution a secret from you. It's really a shame there is no other people on this planet and no other sources other than this forum that could provide that information, isn't it?

How can one have a rational online discussion with someone who makes such disingenuous statements. You know exactly were to find information on the theory of evolution.

1) every double-slit experiment, 2)every delayed choice experiment, 3)every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2, 3 show exactly the same results - if the which-path is known or can be known, no interference; if the which-path is not known or can't be known, there is interference.

These occur without any conscious element. The "known" portion of the experiment is an interaction with another particle or system of particles. In fact, I'm not aware that anyone actually looks at the data for which slit each photon or election has gone though. The interference pattern does not suddenly disappear when one reads through the data the experiment produces.

Many pop-sci books and articles seem to intentionally confuse the issue as it makes for more interesting reading.

1. Kim, Y.-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5.
The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information solely collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005.

In these experiments, the knowledge and delayed choice occurs in nanoseconds, and the knowledge is stored in a particle. There is not even enough time for the information to even reach a conscious observer for them to have any effect on the experiment. Since you read the paper, can you point out where it mentioned conscious observers?

2. Richard Conn Henry (2005); The Mental Universe, Nature; Vol 436, 7 July 2005

Not sure why you put this here, it's a essay containing a theory that is unsupported by experiment. I'm sure if you ask him, he'd agree that his is a philosophical interpretation. The only experiment he lists is the Renninger negative result experiment. The Renninger experiments once again are an experiment that do not include a conscious observer, the interaction occurs before the information could even reach a conscious observer.

BTW, Richard Conn Henry is a cosmologist, you can view his many publications, the vast majority on cosmology, here: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/henryDir/publications.html

Of course, it is the only link here that mentions the mind in any way.

3. Gröblacher, S. et al. (2007). An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, pp. 871-875.

OK, once again, we've rejected non-local realism. I'm not sure where you got your abstract, but the actual abstract states: "According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions." rather than conflating nonlocal realism with just realism/reality or just locality.

4. Lapkiewicz, R. et al. (2011). Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system. Nature 474, pp. 490–493.

This paper at no point mentions the mind or consciousness. You are once again just posting a link that proves the merits of quantum mechanics as it is understood by the majority of scientists in the field.

5. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013). Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.

Another article that doesn't mention mind or consciousness.

[**Ergo, The LACK of Path Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

And the paper describes the path information as having nothing to do with conscious minds.

6. Manning A.G et al: Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343, April 2015.

Still no mention of mind or consciousness.

7. Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759
"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism.

Again, your misunderstanding. I know in your posts you tack on extra words that add no meaning, and put things in caps that also don't add meaning, but here, realism without the non-local part means a completely different thing. So no, not "goodbye realism"

Huh?? There are Literally Thousands of Experiments!!

Name a single experiment that links quantum behavior with human observation.

That's right he doesn't know, do you?

You're the one using him to try to declare the nature of reality, not me.

Realism--- at it simplest and most general, is the view that entities of a certain type have an objective reality, a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Sigh, again, none of the experiments you've linked claim to disprove realism. I see what your misunderstanding is here and I'm glad we've been able to address it.

And.....? How so....?

If he were God knows all, he would be continually observing the properties of every particle in the universe. This observation would not be possible without either hidden variables (which have been proved not to exist) or by collapsing the wave functions of all particles, entanglement would be impossible.

Cosmologists?? Like who?

Pascual Jordan and Richard Conn Henry to start.

 

[Reality Check]

AsI'm wondering if there's a name for the 'god of the gaps' argument*? Is it, perhaps, a version of a well-known logical fallacy?

A form of argument from ignorance maybe?
Scientists are ignorant about X, I am ignorant amount X, We are ignorant about X ... thus God.

Or begging the question: God does everything. We do not know what does X. Thus God does X.