I asked for a cite from a reputable textbook. To the extent that that's an appeal to authority, so be it. I'd also appeal to a textbook in response to a claim that Napoleon was never emperor of the French.
Let me remind you again what you wrote:
The answer quantum theory gives is the particles exist in a universal field which mediates or facilitates the interactions of particles in the field, as well as interaction of those particles with the particles of other fields.
One cite from a standard source, please. A book with the title "The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe", by a journalist who does not seem to have much in the way of scientific qualifications, won't hack it.
BTW, good move, omitting the second half of the book's title.
Please tell me how, with respect to the great scientific and mathematical thinkers my essay cites, this situation is qualitatively any different than the one Gallileo faced, some six hundred years ago, at the hands of the ecclesiastic authorities?
Your essay cites one Lynne McTaggart, who is a journalist, for the stuff about the quantum field. It cites Dean Overman, who has degrees in theology, law and business, for the stuff about the beginning of the universe. And you cite Heinz Pagels, who was a physicist once, but is chiefly known as a science writer, for an opinion that scientific laws preceded space and time, which isn't hugely controversial.
Further, on what basis do you impugn the credentials and accomplishments of such thinkers as Tegmark, Penrose, Hawking, Vafa, Yockey, Pattee, Ovrut, Chaitin, Kolgomorov, Grandpierre, et al.?
Nice try. I doubt Chaitin, Kolmogorov and Hawking would want any part of quantum theories of consciousness. Yockey's ridiculous mathematics has been debunked repeatedly . I've given my opinion on Penrose before; despite his denials, IMHO he's motivated by a phlosophical distaste for determinism rather than any outstanding issue in modern physics, although he is a fine mathematician. What you are actually peddling are the bizarre theories of Attila Grandpierre. Grandpierre is a research assistant at an astronomical observatory in Hungary; I doubt he's well known even in his field of solar neutrino research, since he's not at a facility capable of doing frontier research.
Are these your wild speculators, "people not at all well known in the general physics community,” your "obscurantist quantum theorists, that the vast majority of physicists don't accept?"
Which wild speculators do you mean: the ones you list but don't cite, or the ones you cited but haven't listed?
You're claiming that a biological theory of great self-consistency and universality, no significant flaws, accepted by the consensus of the scientific community, should be rejected based on the speculations of a rather unsuccessful research assistant in solar neutrinos in Eastern Europe. Best of luck.
Nice link. Looks like the rebuttal of Hoyle’s and Yockey’s impossibility calculations that Alamo Girl promotes is not so “considerably out of date” after all…
Well you may not have much use for astrophysicist Dr. Grandpierre, RWP. But he is actually quite well-thought of -- by such as NASA, ESA, and EU, at whose conferences he is a frequent invited speaker. (You've been to his web site at Konkoly Observatory, Budapest, based on your remarks -- so you know this is true.) He is about to publish a major article on the organization of the Sun, invited by The Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy -- a peer review journal.
You're entirely entitled to your opinion. But that's a fur distance away from validating the gratuitous criticism you have flung in Attila Grandpierre's direction.