Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[stevevw]

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just that - an interpretation, and it is not the one held by the majority of physicists. It is no secret that quantum theory is poorly understood, but it is used because it yields correct results.

yes I have read that some say the many world idea is unproven and its just an idea. I have also read that it is true and they will go into why. So there's some debate over the subject just like the many other ideas such as string theory and hologram dimensions. But it seems that many scientists are coming up with these ideas as genuine efforts to explain things. They are not coming up with logical explanations though. They are coming up with strange and far fetched ideas one after the other. So even though they are just ideas the fact that they continually turn to these types of explanations shows that they believe that the answer is going to be along these lines.

So if multiverses fail for now another ideas that is based in other dimensions and realities will come and replace it until they find one that will fit best. I dont know what they just dont include God and spiritual dimensions as they seem to be just as good as any of them. God has some merit in that it claims to be all things which is exactly what the theory of everything is. It claims to be able to create something from nothing which is a big issue for many of the theories. It claims design which is what we see in a finely tuned universe and life.

 

[lesliedellow]

yes I have read that some say the many world idea is unproven and its just an idea. I have also read that it is true and they will go into why. So there's some debate over the subject just like the many other ideas such as string theory and hologram dimensions.

No physicist would make so bold as to say that the many worlds interpretation was correct. Even if it is the one some of them prefer, they know full well that the majority of their colleagues are still signed up to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

But it seems that many scientists are coming up with these ideas as genuine efforts to explain things. They are not coming up with logical explanations though. They are coming up with strange and far fetched ideas one after the other. So even though they are just ideas the fact that they continually turn to these types of explanations shows that they believe that the answer is going to be along these lines.

Twentieth century physics certainly came up with some ideas which were weird by the standards of everyday experience, but the fact remains that those ideas have been experimentally verified. Having said that, some physicists (Max Tegmark comes to mind) seem to have taken that weirdness as a licence to let their imaginations run wild.

So if multiverses fail for now another ideas that is based in other dimensions and realities will come and replace it until they find one that will fit best.

Well yes, that is how science works - to try out different ideas, until one of them fits the data.

I dont know what they just dont include God and spiritual dimensions as they seem to be just as good as any of them. God has some merit in that it claims to be all things which is exactly what the theory of everything is. It claims to be able to create something from nothing which is a big issue for many of the theories. It claims design which is what we see in a finely tuned universe and life.

Because God isn't a scientific hypothesis, in that his existence can neither be falsified or verified. That doesn't mean that he doesn't exist; it just means that his existence is not something science can address. Besides which, it would be more than a bit presumptuous of creatures to want to put their Creator under a microscope - as if he was some kind of scientific specimen. So from both a scientific and a theological point of view, having God as part of a scientific theory is a non starter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So if what scientists see causes them to come up with these ideas to fit them into the fabric of reality then this must be where the answer will lie. Just about all their ideas are along these lines. There is no other way for them to explain things so that would mean they really believe that the explanation has to be outside the parameters of our reality to be able to fit what they see.

No, it's nothing to do with anything 'outside the parameters of our reality' (whatever that means) - they're trying to come up with ways to visualize how our reality works.

Then why do they come up with them in the first place. If the evidence tells them that those sort of ideas best fit what they see then what else could they use an the explanation. Maybe they are basing everything on the wrong premise to begin with.

I was referring to your suggestion, "[if multiverses]... then why not a spiritual realm or life after death or that our conscience moves on after death to other dimensions." The latter are fanciful, not scientific, ideas; our best scientific model invalidates them. Physicists base multiverse hypotheses on the implications of an empirically tested, working model of how our reality behaves.

Well to begin with its not me that is coming up with these ideas its the scientists who do the work. They base it on the results of the quantum world also and have come to these conclusions.

You were fantasising about stuff that is contrary to quantum science.

Besides I thought that no scientists has come up with anything that fits quantum field theory as yet.

Not sure what you mean by that; all the popular interpretations 'fit' QFT.

So anything that seems a little out of the ordinary may be just as possible as anything.

No.

Afterall as you said the main stream scientists havnt been able to come up with anything based on their own calculations.

I don't recall saying that - link?

I would say thats why some are using these ideas about the mind and other dimensions. The dimensions that make up multiverses may be the dimensions where our conscious can occupy, who knows. The quantum world indicates that there maybe an observer effect so maybe our conscience does play a role.

No, and no it doesn't. Also, try to remember the difference between conscience and consciousness.

Like I say there is a lot of work going on with this field and there is some unusual findings. There is some evidence for this with studies in NDE, past lives and other things to do with the mind. The point is that the scientists that come up these ideas also base it on the same evidence. They are just speculating the same as hat those d with things like multiverses.

No. I've already covered this.

Now, some physicists and philosophers think it is time to reconsider the notion of falsifiability. Could a theory that provides an elegant and accurate account of the world around us—even if its predictions can’t be tested by today’s experiments, or tomorrow’s—still “count” as science?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

Right; as I thought, that's not about lowering the criteria for scientific verification or changing the evidence needed to prove a hypothesis. It's about dropping Popperian falsifiability as a criterion for a hypothesis to be considered 'scientific' - something that has been debated since Popper first proposed it.

I thought quantum physics also predicts many possible outcomes. This is then used for creating parallel dimensions where the alternative outcome happens in a parallel world from choices made which is based on the Schrodinger cat model. This can then be repeated over and over because each new dimension also can have its own many possible outcomes. The existence of many other worlds helps remove the randomness from quantum physics and also all physics.

There is no 'Schrodinger cat model'; Many Worlds doesn't create parallel dimensions or 'remove the randomness' from physics.

... people are wondering whether the first two concepts might actually represent the same underlying idea.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...nd-the-multiverse-the-same-idea/#.Vm6HTl6LW18

That's arguing for a new kind of cosmological multiverse, based on Many Worlds.

...Some may call it magic because it acts outside the science which can explain it in logical terms. But I see quantum physics similar to this in some ways. maybe what we are calling magic or healing, miracles, spirit worlds is something that can be explained in scientific terms. We just havnt got the language or means to explain or measure it at the moment.

Nope.

Look at the LHC which had to be built to measure what happens in the micro world. They are saying there are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence.

That's quantum uncertainty, 70+ years old; not particularly to do with the LHC.

Spooky action at a distance seems to acts in contradiction to physics.

No, it is physics.

there may be a connection to the mind or soul whatever that is which completes the picture of how everything works.

Nope.

What about quantum suicide.

What about it?

It really does my head in this stuff.

So think about something else.

 

[Michael]

No, it's nothing to do with anything 'outside the parameters of our reality' (whatever that means) - they're trying to come up with ways to visualize how our reality works.

Except they cannot visualize how it works without inventing "hypothetical" forms of matter and energy that defy empirical testing on Earth. Why is that? When has 'space expansion' ever been shown to have any tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. Define 'reality'. So called 'scientists' are always relying upon the 'unseen' in the lab in some effort to define "reality'.

I was referring to your suggestion, "[if multiverses]... then why not a spiritual realm or life after death or that our conscience moves on after death to other dimensions." The latter are fanciful, not scientific, ideas; our best scientific model invalidates them.

Actually it doesn't.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
http://www.inquisitr.com/1812664/hu...m-theory-consciousness-science-religion-true/

Physicists base multiverse hypotheses on the implications of an empirically tested, working model of how our reality behaves.

When you use the term"empirically tested", what *exactly* do you mean? I can empirically "test" the tangible effect of an electromagnetic field on the movement of a charged particle. How do I "empirically" test that 'dark energy" A) empirically exists in nature to start with, and B) has some tangible effect on a universe made of charged particles? How do I 'empirically test' multiple extra dimensions of spacetime in controlled experiments?

You were fantasising about stuff that is contrary to quantum science.

Not at all. QM theories, orch-or being the most interesting, do "predict" the existence of a "soul' that could exist outside of a human form.

 

[stevevw]

Except they cannot visualize how it works without inventing "hypothetical" forms of matter and energy that defy empirical testing on Earth. Why is that? When has 'space expansion' ever been shown to have any tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. Define 'reality'. So called 'scientists' are always relying upon the 'unseen' in the lab in some effort to define "reality'.



Actually it doesn't.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
http://www.inquisitr.com/1812664/hu...m-theory-consciousness-science-religion-true/



When you use the term"empirically tested", what *exactly* do you mean? I can empirically "test" the tangible effect of an electromagnetic field on the movement of a charged particle. How do I "empirically" test that 'dark energy" A) empirically exists in nature to start with, and B) has some tangible effect on a universe made of charged particles? How do I 'empirically test' multiple extra dimensions of spacetime in controlled experiments?



Not at all. QM theories, orch-or being the most interesting, do "predict" the existence of a "soul' that could exist outside of a human form.

You have put it in a nut shell for me so thank you. I dont completely understand these things but I know enough to realize that science can present things without them being empirically tested to fit what they see and explain our reality in the light of quantum effects. I just wonder why they always exclude other possibilities which are also loosely based on the same calculations but may suggest something happening beyond our material world. Its like they can postulate all sorts of things and when someone tries to suggest something outside their accepted parameters its suddenly all fantasy and woo.

I think we need to have an open mind about this. I realize that there is a fine line between stepping into all sorts of ideas that may not be supported by evidence but it doesn't mean that there may be some things that are beyond what the accepted criteria is for being hypothesized. Some of the ideas put forward such as what you have linked have some merit. They may not be completely validated as yet but they are worth considering and are not entirely based in fantasy.

 

[lesliedellow]

You have put it in a nut shell for me so thank you. I dont completely understand these things but I know enough to realize that science can present things without them being empirically tested to fit what they see and explain our reality in the light of quantum effects.

Two conspiracy theorists together. How wonderful.

 

[stevevw]

Two conspiracy theorists together. How wonderful.

Any more people and it may become something real.
So what is your take on it. Do you believe in any spiritual realm or other dimensions that are beyond science explanations.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except they cannot visualize how it works without inventing "hypothetical" forms of matter and energy that defy empirical testing on Earth. Why is that? When has 'space expansion' ever been shown to have any tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment with real control mechanisms.

I have no idea what you're on about; I was referring to interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Actually it doesn't.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
http://www.inquisitr.com/1812664/hu...m-theory-consciousness-science-religion-true/

Dubious claims of macro-scale QM effects, but nothing solid, and nothing but vague speculation as far as consciousness goes. I'd like to see Bandyopadhyay's paper - but if there is one, I can't find it; have you seen it? if so, please share the link.

When you use the term"empirically tested", what *exactly* do you mean?

Experimental verification of predictions.

How do I "empirically" test that 'dark energy" A) empirically exists in nature to start with, and B) has some tangible effect on a universe made of charged particles? How do I 'empirically test' multiple extra dimensions of spacetime in controlled experiments?

I have no idea; I'm not suggesting either has been empirically tested.

Not at all. QM theories, orch-or being the most interesting, do "predict" the existence of a "soul' that could exist outside of a human form.

Not really, no. As above, there seems to be little more than some dubious neurophysiological claims, and a lot of speculative handwaving.

 

[lesliedellow]

Any more people and it may become something real.
So what is your take on it. Do you believe in any spiritual realm or other dimensions that are beyond science explanations.

Since I describe myself as a Calvinist, I necessarily believe in God.

Does that mean I believe science has anything to say about the existence of God? No it doesn't.
Does that mean I think the findings of science can simply be ignored? No it doesn't.
Does that mean I think that scientists worldwide, including the Christians amongst them, are engaged in a grand conspiracy against Christianity? No it doesn't.

 

[stevevw]

Ok so I found this article on consciousness and quantum mechanics. As far as I understand this explains how we can deduce from quantum physics that there can be a non physical aspect to existence. You will have to read the entire article but I have highlighted some points.
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism --- at least with regard to the human mind --- is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, “the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”

How, one might ask, can quantum mechanics have anything to say about the human mind? Isn’t it about things that can be physically measured, such as particles and forces? It is; but while minds cannot be measured, it is ultimately minds that do the measuring. And that, as we shall see, is a fact that cannot be ignored in trying to make sense of quantum mechanics. If one claims that it is possible (in principle) to give a complete physical description of what goes on during a measurement --- including the mind of the person who is doing the measuring --- one is led into severe difficulties.

To recap: (a) Probabilities in quantum mechanics must be the probabilities of definite events. (b) When definite events happen, some probabilities should jump to 0 or 100%. However, (c) the mathematics that describes all physical processes (the Schrödinger equation) does not describe such jumps. One begins to see how one might reach the conclusion that not everything that happens is a physical process describable by the equations of physics.

Thus, the traditional view is that the probabilities in quantum mechanics --- and hence the “wavefunction” that encodes them --- refer to the state of knowledge of some “observer”. (In the words of the famous physicist Sir James Jeans, wavefunctions are “knowledge waves.”) An observer’s knowledge --- and hence the wavefunction that encodes it --- makes a discontinuous jump when he/she comes to know the outcome of a measurement (the famous “quantum jump”, traditionally called the “collapse of the wave function”). But the Schrödinger equations that describe any physical process do not give such jumps! So something must be involved when knowledge changes besides physical processes.

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

 

[lesliedellow]

How, one might ask, can quantum mechanics have anything to say about the human mind? Isn’t it about things that can be physically measured, such as particles and forces? It is; but while minds cannot be measured, it is ultimately minds that do the measuring.

For once we agree. That science will be able to give an account of consciousness, without a fairly major paradigm shift, seems unlikely in the extreme. That does not mean, however, that it is legitimate to import theology into science, or science into theology.

 

[stevevw]

Since I describe myself as a Calvinist, I necessarily believe in God.

Does that mean I believe science has anything to say about the existence of God? No it doesn't.
Does that mean I think the findings of science can simply be ignored? No it doesn't.
Does that mean I think that scientists worldwide, including the Christians amongst them, are engaged in a grand conspiracy against Christianity? No it doesn't.

I agree with what you say. But my point was more about if you believe in God then I assume you will believe in things like miracles or the Holy Spirit or the souls perhaps. But you will believe in Gods power that can operate beyond what science tells us. You will believe in an afterlife. So in scientific terms these things may have an explanation or at least try to be explained as science likes to explain everything. How do we know that some of the things we see are not the qualities of Gods creation. I agree that all things have a physical and biological aspect to them. But ultimately there has to be a point where Gods creation comes into play. Especially with things like quantum physics and the beginning of existence, time and space. Or how our amazingly complex code of life can come from nothing or be created from a naturalistic process.

If there is a God then there has to be a point where He comes into it otherwise whats the point. Science tries to explain things like something from nothing and this maybe just an attempt to explain Gods handy work. But they will try. So how do we know that some of the things that science is trying to put explanations on is something that may never be able to be explained in scientific terms because its beyond that. As the bible says God is beyond the comprehension of mere man. I believe that as we move close to the core of life and existence we are seeing the work of God more and this is also the point at which science is having a hard time explaining. But we need science to help us understand Gods work and we wouldn't be able to get to this point without the science. But I believe this just gives us a deeper appreciation of Gods creation.

 

[Michael]

I have no idea what you're on about; I was referring to interpretations of quantum mechanics.

I was referring to "science" in a more general sense, but the same criticism applies to QM. "Gravitons" for instance are proposed, and "unseen" (in the lab) carrier particles of gravity in QM oriented descriptions of gravity. Often various areas of science rely upon claims that remain "acts of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

Dubious claims of macro-scale QM effects, but nothing solid, and nothing but vague speculation as far as consciousness goes.

I love how you personally get to decide what is "dubious" and what's not. What exactly is "dubious" in your opinion, and what makes it "dubious"?

I'd like to see Bandyopadhyay's paper - but if there is one, I can't find it; have you seen it? if so, please share the link.

Actually the theory is by Penrose and Hammeroff. Here's a link:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

You can also find mathematical validations by various authors:

http://pubs.sciepub.com/bse/2/3/1/index.html
http://www.tgdtheory.fi/public_html/articles/microtubule.pdf

Experimental verification of predictions.

Well, according to the authors, ORCH-OR has made a number of predictions that have been verified in the ordinary manner. Again, I don't see how come you personally get to decide what the whole of science says or doesn't say about consciousness.

I have no idea; I'm not suggesting either has been empirically tested.
Not really, no. As above, there seems to be little more than some dubious neurophysiological claims, and a lot of speculative handwaving.

It seems to me that you're the one doing all the handwaving. I've provided you with published and peer reviewed materials that demonstrate that your claim about "science" ruling out any type of consciousness surviving physical death is simply not true. You can "pretend" whatever you want in relationship to that topic, but the reality is quite different in terms of actual published materials.

 

[Michael]

You have put it in a nut shell for me so thank you. I dont completely understand these things but I know enough to realize that science can present things without them being empirically tested to fit what they see and explain our reality in the light of quantum effects. I just wonder why they always exclude other possibilities which are also loosely based on the same calculations but may suggest something happening beyond our material world. Its like they can postulate all sorts of things and when someone tries to suggest something outside their accepted parameters its suddenly all fantasy and woo.

Well, science as a whole doesn't "always" exclude other possibilities related to the root cause of consciousness. Science often dabbles in the "supernatural" in terms of "hypothetical" cause/effect relationships. That's all I was trying to note.

I think we need to have an open mind about this. I realize that there is a fine line between stepping into all sorts of ideas that may not be supported by evidence but it doesn't mean that there may be some things that are beyond what the accepted criteria is for being hypothesized. Some of the ideas put forward such as what you have linked have some merit. They may not be completely validated as yet but they are worth considering and are not entirely based in fantasy.

I would argue that there is actually now more "empirical" verification to support Orch-OR theory, and the concept of "soul" than there will *ever* be to support inflation theory, dark energy theory, and there is even more empirical evidence to support Orch-OR than there is to support exotic matter claims at the moment.

I simply took exception to both of FB's erroneous claims:

I was referring to your suggestion, "[if multiverses]... then why not a spiritual realm or life after death or that our conscience moves on after death to other dimensions." The latter are fanciful, not scientific, ideas; our best scientific model invalidates them. Physicists base multiverse hypotheses on the implications of an empirically tested, working model of how our reality behaves.

As Orch-OR theory demonstrates, the concept of consciousness surviving physical death is a scientific idea, and science has certainly not invalidated the idea. Furthermore multiverse theory is *not* based upon "empirically tested" ideas, it's based upon ideas which in some cases could *never* be verified empirically.

 

[lesliedellow]

But you will believe in Gods power that can operate beyond what science tells us.

In principle God can do what he likes, but that doesn't mean the miracles are common. If they were, they wouldn't seem miraculous to us.

You will believe in an afterlife. So in scientific terms these things may have an explanation or at least try to be explained as science likes to explain everything.

Whilst nothing can be ruled out, it seems unlikely that science will ever get beyond noting the physical decomposition of the body. Of course, if it became unmistakably clear that (say) ghosts were real, then, after some initial resistance to having settled ideas upset, there would have to be a very major rethink in physics.

How do we know that some of the things we see are not the qualities of Gods creation. I agree that all things have a physical and biological aspect to them. But ultimately there has to be a point where Gods creation comes into play.

From whence do you get the idea that, if something can be scientifically accounted for, it is not part of God's creation? Everything is God's creation.

If there is a God then there has to be a point where He comes into it otherwise whats the point. Science tries to explain things like something from nothing and this maybe just an attempt to explain Gods handy work.

I can do not better than to quote a (Christian) physicist: "Science does not offer the universe as a 'free lunch,' as some allege, but the cost of the cosmic meal is the laws of quantum theory and relativity, graciously provided by the Creator. Every metaphysical scheme has to have its unexplained foundation, for in philosophy nothing comes from nothing. The materialist takes as basic fact the existence of matter. The theist takes as basic fact the existence of a divine creator.

But they will try. So how do we know that some of the things that science is trying to put explanations on is something that may never be able to be explained in scientific terms

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that there are some things we will never be able to explain. But even if there aren't, explaining something scientifically does not put God out of the picture; it only means that some aspect of God's creation is now better understood.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I love how you personally get to decide what is "dubious" and what's not. What exactly is "dubious" in your opinion, and what makes it "dubious"?

I get to decide what is dubious because it's stuff that I doubt. Typically I doubt stuff because I'm unconvinced by it.

Actually the theory is by Penrose and Hammeroff. Here's a link:...

I know; I was referring to the claimed discovery of 'warm temperature quantum vibrations' (by Anirban Bandyopadhyay) behind the 'update & review' that bumped Orch OR back into the media spotlight.

... I don't see how come you personally get to decide what the whole of science says or doesn't say about consciousness.

I don't, scientific opinion is divided.

I've provided you with published and peer reviewed materials that demonstrate that your claim about "science" ruling out any type of consciousness surviving physical death is simply not true.

The links you supplied demonstrate nothing of the kind. It's unsubstantiated speculation, regardless of tubule vibrations. I'd like to think the Bandyopadhyay work was decent quality, but - as I said - I haven't been able to find it, which is why I asked you about it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... multiverse theory is *not* based upon "empirically tested" ideas...

As my quote you posted shows, that's not what I said.
Just sayin'

 

[Michael]

I agree with what you say. But my point was more about if you believe in God then I assume you will believe in things like miracles or the Holy Spirit or the souls perhaps. But you will believe in Gods power that can operate beyond what science tells us. You will believe in an afterlife. So in scientific terms these things may have an explanation or at least try to be explained as science likes to explain everything. How do we know that some of the things we see are not the qualities of Gods creation. I agree that all things have a physical and biological aspect to them. But ultimately there has to be a point where Gods creation comes into play. Especially with things like quantum physics and the beginning of existence, time and space. Or how our amazingly complex code of life can come from nothing or be created from a naturalistic process.

If there is a God then there has to be a point where He comes into it otherwise whats the point. Science tries to explain things like something from nothing and this maybe just an attempt to explain Gods handy work. But they will try. So how do we know that some of the things that science is trying to put explanations on is something that may never be able to be explained in scientific terms because its beyond that. As the bible says God is beyond the comprehension of mere man. I believe that as we move close to the core of life and existence we are seeing the work of God more and this is also the point at which science is having a hard time explaining. But we need science to help us understand Gods work and we wouldn't be able to get to this point without the science. But I believe this just gives us a deeper appreciation of Gods creation.

I suppose in the final analysis, I simply 'have faith" that science leads us to a deeper appreciation of God's creation, and helps us to understand it 'physically' to some degree, even if we don't have a full or complete physical understanding.

Standard cosmology theory is based on exactly that same principle, since a full 95 percent of it remains a 'dark' mystery, and inflation has never had a tangible effect on anything in a lab experiment. QM oriented theories about gravity are based on such limitations as well. Atheists however, tend to hate to admit that stuff.

As humans learn and grow in our understanding of 'nature', I believe they learn and grow about God. Eventually that will lead us to the 'mechanism' of God's intervention processes and creation methods, but in the meantime it simply remains a mystery, much like the vast majority of the universe remains a mystery to most astronomers.

 

[Michael]

I get to decide what is dubious because it's stuff that I doubt. Typically I doubt stuff because I'm unconvinced by it.

You're welcome to form opinions on any topics you like, but you cannot speak for the whole of science when you make statements like this:

I was referring to your suggestion, "[if multiverses]... then why not a spiritual realm or life after death or that our conscience moves on after death to other dimensions." The latter are fanciful, not scientific, ideas; our best scientific model invalidates them. Physicists base multiverse hypotheses on the implications of an empirically tested, working model of how our reality behaves.

In no way does our "best scientific model" invalidate the concepts of a spiritual realm, life after physical death, or other dimensions. The most you could ever say is that you personally *have faith* in that statement. You cannot speak for the whole of science however.

I know; I was referring to the claimed discovery of 'warm temperature quantum vibrations' (by Anirban Bandyopadhyay) behind the 'update & review' that bumped Orch OR back into the media spotlight.
I don't, scientific opinion is divided.

Did you take a poll or just *assume* what you wanted to believe? I've yet to hear you level a valid criticism to any of the published works that I've suggested. In a scientific debate, that's usually not a good sign. YEC engage in handwaving away published works as well.

The links you supplied demonstrate nothing of the kind. It's unsubstantiated speculation, regardless of tubule vibrations. I'd like to think the Bandyopadhyay work was decent quality, but - as I said - I haven't been able to find it, which is why I asked you about it.

You seem to have dismissed the idea out of hand then, *without* even bothering to read it. That tends to make me wonder about your concept of "scientific neutrality". You seem to be assuming what you like regardless of whether you understand it, or whether you can personally find any flaw in it. These all seem like "conclusions' you reach based upon your preconceived belief system rather than based upon a real scientific criticism.