Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[Hans Blaster]

Of course human heart miocardium muscle tissue is a complex organs. It come from a consacated host in all 5 eucharistic miracles.

Either you don't understand my question, or you don't want to answer my question, or this translation to Italiano and back is mashing your understanding, but your answer does not even come close to answering my question. I'm not sure there is any point in continuing.

 

[carloagal]

O non capisci la mia domanda, o non vuoi rispondere alla mia domanda, oppure questa traduzione in italiano e viceversa sta distruggendo la tua comprensione, ma la tua risposta non si avvicina nemmeno lontanamente alla risposta alla mia domanda. Non sono sicuro che abbia senso continuare.

Evolution could be disproved if could be demostrate that any complex organ exists that could not possibly have been formed by any numerous successive slides modifications. In the Eucharistic Miracles of buenos Aires, Tixla Messico, Poland on Sokolka and Legnica a human heart miocardium muscle tissue was created supernaturally in a simple host with white blood cells and in agony.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution could be disproved if could be demostrate that any complex organ exists that could not possibly have been formed by any numerous successive slides modifications. In the Eucharistic Miracles of buenos Aires, Tixla Messico, Poland on Sokolka and Legnica a human heart miocardium muscle tissue was created supernaturally in a simple host with white blood cells and in agony.

"Eucharistic miracles" neither prove, nor disprove evolution. They are not related to the subject.

 

[stevevw]

You're probably right, and our pondering of the 'woo' may have simply been the first step, like the one that Einstein took when he imagined himself riding on a photon. The next step for Einstein was to figure out what reality would look like if the speed of light was fixed, as opposed to if it wasn't. And then the third step was to figure out how to set up a test to see if his hypothesis of a fixed speed was actually correct.

So you and I have done what lots of people do, we've taken the first step, we've pondered the 'woo', the next step is to figure out what the difference would be between a reality in which that quantum field is just a field, and one in which it's the advent of consciousness. If there's no difference at all, then there would seemingly be no way to test the idea, and the whole exercise would be somewhat pointless.

So here's the question: what difference would there be between a reality in which that field is just a field, and one in which it's the advent of consciousness?

One possible difference you've already alluded to... our reality is the only reality, and therefore the law of probability suggests that this didn't happen by chance. But how do you test the premise that this reality is the only reality? And then how do you disprove the counterargument that the nature of quantum fields is such that they will always produce realities like this one?

Yeah, now we can appreciate why Einstein was stumped by QM. Visualizing riding on a photon was a piece of cake compared to trying to figure out the ins and outs of Quantum Mechanics, or perhaps it's like you say, we need a paradigm shift in our way of thinking.

Of course there's another possibility, but it requires an even deeper dive into the 'Woo'.

What is that other possibility, I am interested to know.

 

[carloagal]

"Eucharistic miracles" neither prove, nor disprove evolution. They are not related to the subject.

Of course eucharistic miracles disproved evolution. Evolution could be disproved even if a complex organ could be a proof created supernaturally and not with evolutionary process according to Wikipedia and evolutionist Mark Isaak.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course eucharistic miracles disproved evolution. Evolution could be disproved even if a complex organ could be a proof created supernaturally and not with evolutionary process according to Wikipedia and evolutionist Mark Isaak.

Seriously Carlo?

Such "falsification" refers to organs in *LIVING* organisms, not strange bits of flesh without known origin.

 

[Mountainmike]

"Eucharistic miracles" neither prove, nor disprove evolution. They are not related to the subject.

It depends whose definition you use.
I quoted Darwin’s from his theory.

And ( recently ) Living cardiac tissue held in vitro clearly is “life” so pathologists tell us.
Because Leucocytes do not survive for more than hours except in live tissue .


This life did not come from progressive small change.
Since the ( non religious ) pathologist investigating stated it was “ compelling evidence of created tissue”
It clearly is material in origin of life discussion.
Darwins work was the original treatise on evolution for origin of species.
So his criteria is material too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It depends whose definition you use.
I quoted Darwin’s from his theory.

Selectively. A classic quote-mine from Darwin.

And ( recently ) Living cardiac tissue held in vitro clearly is “life” so pathologists tell us.
Because Leucocytes do not survive for more than hours except in live tissue .

Mystery tissue? How does that impact the question of where rats (or any other living creature) came from?

This life did not come from progressive small change.

Origin of life is not part evolution theory.

Since the ( non religious ) pathologist investigating stated it was “ compelling evidence of created tissue”
It clearly is material in origin of life discussion.

Origin of life is not part evolution theory.

Darwins work was the original treatise on evolution for origin of species.
So his criteria is material too.

So?

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course eucharistic miracles disproved evolution.

No more than Jesus walking on water disproved gravity and density.
Evolution is observed an measured constantly in living populations. Gravity is also observed.

It depends whose definition you use.
I quoted Darwin’s from his theory.

No. You alleged what someone said about it.

This life did not come from progressive small change.

Darwin didn't say where life came from. He assumed that God created the first living things. You'd be more effective against science if you knew more about it.

It clearly is material in origin of life discussion.
Darwins work was the original treatise on evolution for origin of species.

Origin of species, not origin of life. But miracles don't rule out any observed phenomena. They are, by definition, exceptions by divine will.

 

[Mountainmike]

No. You alleged what someone said about it.

You really do demonstrate how pointless it is to attempt a serious scientific discussion.

I have actually read it! Have you?
Most of the commenters here never read the background to their opinions,
Some even have contempt for the few of us who are well read!
I went back to the original I have and have read. These are the words he used..


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”

Just as I said. Living heart tissue that came from other than small change disproves his theory.
Eucharistic miracles clearly are evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

You really do demonstrate how pointless it is to attempt a serious scientific discussion.

Telling us (absent quotation) what someone said about what Darwin said, isn't even an attempt.

I have actually read it! Have you?

Yep. And because you have never read what Darwin said about it you were easy to mislead.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”

So you found it. But it's not what your guy said, is it? Guess why.
So show us one of those. Not a cell, not tissue. An organ.

Even so, you can't even show us a cell or tissue that couldn't have been formed by formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Your stuff already existed in humans by gradual evolution. If God miraculously copied it, that's no more a refutation of evolution than Jesus walking on water is a refutation of gravity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You really do demonstrate how pointless it is to attempt a serious scientific discussion.

It does become difficult.

I have actually read it! Have you?
Most of the commenters here never read the background to their opinions,
Some even have contempt for the few of us who are well read!
I went back to the original I have and have read. These are the words he used..


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”

And yet you used a classic selective quote mine of that text.

Just as I said. Living heart tissue that came from other than small change disproves his theory.
Eucharistic miracles clearly are evidence.

Let us suppose for one moment that these eucharistic miracles (em) are real, that the "real presence of Jesus" in the eucharist took the form of cardiac tissue. How does that alter *ANY* thing else in the natural world. Does it alter gravity? Does it affect QM? Does it alter protein folding? Does it change economics? (OK, that's a stretch, economics isn't a science.)

It doesn't. And it doesn't change evolution or the origin of life or imply anything about them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just as I said. Living heart tissue that came from other than small change disproves his theory.
Eucharistic miracles clearly are evidence.

It's not what you suppose it is. The transubstantiation is not what you suppose it to be:

Although the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents has been used by Catholic theologians, the Council of Trent opted for a broader distinction of substance and species, which does not necessarily imply any particular theory about the nature of the relationship (whether “accidental” or otherwise) between what a thing is and its sensible attributes. All this necessarily pins down is that the eucharistic elements continue to manifest all the physical properties of bread and wine, but what they are has been completely changed.

Why Does the Church Use the Words "Substance" and "Accidents" in the Doctrine of the Eucharist?

Actually, the magisterium’s language isn’t that spec...

www.catholic.com

An accident (Greek συμβεβηκός), in metaphysics and philosophy, is a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. An accident does not affect its essence.[1] It does not mean an "accident" as used in common speech, a chance incident, normally harmful. Examples of accidents are color, taste, movement, and stagnation.[2] Accident is contrasted with essence: a designation for the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic theologians have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood. In this example, the bread and wine are considered accidents, since at transubstantiation, they become incidental to the essential substance of body and blood.

In modern philosophy, an accident (or accidental property) is the union of two concepts: property and contingency. Non-essentialism argues that every property is an accident. Modal necessitarianism argues that all properties are essential and no property is an accident.

Accident (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mountainmike]

Telling us (absent quotation) what someone said about what Darwin said, isn't even an attempt.

Yep. And because you have never read what Darwin said about it you were easy to mislead.

So you found it. But it's not what your guy said, is it? Guess why.
So show us one of those. Not a cell, not tissue. An organ.

Even so, you can't even show us a cell or tissue that couldn't have been formed by formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Your stuff already existed in humans by gradual evolution. If God miraculously copied it, that's no more a refutation of evolution than Jesus walking on water is a refutation of gravity.

The quotation is exactly as I stated. I gave references the first times.

I cannot be bothered to repeat , or even look it up again. Knowing none of you take a blind bit of notice
You would all rather pick nits than deal with the science.

The heart is an organ, or hadn’t you noticed. But put in context of that section, he meant organism too.

There are plenty of forensic reports on eucharistic miracles. You will find them if you care.

It does become difficult.

And yet you used a classic selective quote mine of that text.

Let us suppose for one moment that these eucharistic miracles (em) are real, that the "real presence of Jesus" in the eucharist took the form of cardiac tissue. How does that alter *ANY* thing else in the natural world. Does it alter gravity? Does it affect QM? Does it alter protein folding? Does it change economics? (OK, that's a stretch, economics isn't a science.)

It doesn't. And it doesn't change evolution or the origin of life or imply anything about them.

Picking nits. I cannot be bothered to to look up either the quote or the reference again. I have done both in the past.
The gist is what I suggested.

The natural world is "what happens" so if eucharistic miracles happen, they are natural too.
The supposed "supernatural" dichotomy is invention by those wishing to raise a subjective bar against things they do not like!

As for "gravity" and QM they are part of a model of observations of the universe, of the bits which repeat well enough to model, they are not the universe itself. So the model remains unaltered, but the model does not model all there is, (and Hawking even agreed with me in the end, no one model can ever model all that there is and the models actually contradict - see his last book) but it never did model all there is, and it was only ever a model , so so what?

Until you give me YOUR definition of the scope and context of evolution we will not know whether they violate your definition
They are clear evidence that violates darwins theory within the frame of reference he set. He would probably have chosen his words more carefully if he had heard of them.

Evolution is an abused word that means as many things as their are authors..

Out of interest, whilst he mentions common descent in the book, he acknowledges elsehwere that "common descent" is pure presupposition.
Indeed no scientist should ever assume it based on standard chemistry.
Because IF concentrationsof components, physical, thermodynamic and quantum barrier condidions, favour the chemical formation of a cell, from non living components then they favour repeats and multiple starts that diverged. But then little is known of the development or origin of the cell. The first cell is completely unknown, The simplest known cell is hideously complex. The pathway between the two is unknown. So most of the "presumption" of development of life is at best extrapolation just from observations of the end of the journey. All a big unknown.

On the other hand In our time recently living traumatized heart cells appeared in multiple communion hosts. multiple continents.
So at least there is some evidence for creation of tissue, (however weak you think it is , it will seem a lot stronger if ever you study it), at least there is some. There is none for abiogenesis which is the name of a hole in a theory of origin of life. It is not the name of a piece of a theory. Abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis.
.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Picking nits. I cannot be bothered to to look up either the quote or the reference again. I have done both in the past.
The gist is what I suggested.

It still implies meaning outside of context which I gave to you.

The natural world is "what happens" so if eucharistic miracles happen, they are natural too.
The supposed "supernatural" dichotomy is invention by those wishing to raise a subjective bar against things they do not like!

If you want to provide a natural mechanism, fine, feel free to do so. But in the normal scheme of things this is supernatural and that has no impact on the natural world.

As for "gravity" and QM they are part of a model of observations of the universe, of the bits which repeat well enough to model, they are not the universe itself.

So, who said they were?

So the model remains unaltered, but the model does not model all there is, (and Hawking even agreed with me in the end, no one model can ever model all that there is and the models actually contradict - see his last book) but it never did model all there is, and it was only ever a model , so so what?

What ever that was, the "so what" was that even if true and even if miraculous your "em" have no impact on anything outside those specific churches. They say nothing about the origin of live or the universe or QM, etc.

Until you give me YOUR definition of the scope and context of evolution we will not know whether they violate your definition
They are clear evidence that violates darwins theory within the frame of reference he set. He would probably have chosen his words more carefully if he had heard of them.

Evolution is the process (or processes) by which new species develop. (Notice, not related to weird things in churches.)

Evolution is an abused word that means as many things as their are authors..

Out of interest, whilst he mentions common descent in the book, he acknowledges elsehwere that "common descent" is pure presupposition.

Because he didn't have access to the genetic data.

Indeed no scientist should ever assume it based on standard chemistry.

I don't know what that even means. I thought I needed to check your post to see what line you were replying to, but it's all one block of text.

Because IF concentrationsof components, physical, thermodynamic and quantum barrier condidions, favour the chemical formation of a cell, from non living components then they favour repeats and multiple starts that diverged. But then little is known of the development or origin of the cell. The first cell is completely unknown, The simplest known cell is hideously complex. The pathway between the two is unknown. So most of the "presumption" of development of life is at best extrapolation just from observations of the end of the journey. All a big unknown.

Is this some sort of attempt to discuss the origin of life? It is a bit confused. (If so, ems have nothing to do with the origin of life either)

On the other hand In our time recently living traumatized heart cells appeared in multiple communion hosts. multiple continents.
So at least there is some evidence for creation of tissue, (however weak you think it is , it will seem a lot stronger if ever you study it), at least there is some. There is none for abiogenesis which is the name of a hole in a theory of origin of life. It is not the name of a piece of a theory. Abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis.
.

Now I know you are talking about OOL, but the "miraculous" generation of tissue in modern churches don't say anything about the distant past. This whole argument is just odd.

 

[partinobodycular]

What is that other possibility, I am interested to know.

I'm sure that you're already aware of it, but I'll try to give you my take on it, as best I can. But as I said, it's not as simple as the first two are, so it may require a deeper dive into the 'woo'. But so long as you're open minded we can give it a go.

Up until now we've been considering the possibility that the source of reality is a quantum field, and within that we have two options.

Option #1 is that that quantum field is just a field.
Option #2 is that that field is actually the quintessence of a mind.

Option #3 is where it starts to get tricky, because in Option #3 that field is just an illusion, and the mind, be it a collective mind, or an individual mind is either the sole source of reality, or the nexus around which reality forms. There are many variations on this theme, but @SelfSim comes to mind, if I understand his argument correctly. In general they're referred to as mind dependent realities.

To the best of my understanding the mind in these scenarios begins with the present, and from that creates the past, the future, and the source. And by 'source' I mean the hierarchical first cause. Think of everything around you as being made of matter, which is made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of particles, which arise out of that quantum field. So while the Big Bang might represent the mind's concept of a temporal first cause, the quantum field represents the mind's concept of a hierarchical first cause. But they're both part of an illusion created by the mind.

An easy way to understand this is to envision an AI, be it a Chatbot, or an AI Art Generator. All that you have to do is to give it the essence of what you want and it'll create either a story or a work of art that may be practically indistinguishable from something that actually exists. Now imagine that that's what the mind does, it creates reality. And to the best of its ability it creates everything back to and including that temporal and hierarchical first cause. It's the mind attempting to create a coherent context for its own existence. It's what you might expect to get if you had an AI that was powerful enough to create, and place itself at the center of, a simulated reality.

That is in essence what Option #3 is... a mind dependent reality. I must admit that I'm kinda partial to the idea, but I must also admit that I have some unanswered questions. For example, AI's need to be trained on something. They don't create things out of whole clothe. But what if they could? What if all they had was the conscious awareness that 'I Am"? Could everything else flow from that one simple realization?

Anyway, maybe it would've been better if I hadn't mentioned Option #3. But then again that may be part of the problem with people, they get fixated on one particular idea, and the only way for them to engage with any opposing ideas is in direct conflict with those who hold them. That 'resolution through conflict' may be a holdover of our past, but it's certainly one that we should try to overcome.

 

[SelfSim]

As for "gravity" and QM they are part of a model of observations of the universe, of the bits which repeat well enough to model, they are not the universe itself.

So, who said they were?

I will.
All I have to do is ask what is meant by 'the universe itself' and we'll all see, (aka: observe), a model emerge in the form of the answer to that simple question.

Oh .. and non-repeatability doesn't have to be an exclusion principle for observational models. Well constrained theoretical concepts not yet observed to have repeated, can still from the basis of what is being tested in observational models.

 

[Mountainmike]

It still implies meaning outside of context which I gave to you.

If you want to provide a natural mechanism, fine, feel free to do so. But in the normal scheme of things this is supernatural and that has no impact on the natural world.

So, who said they were?

What ever that was, the "so what" was that even if true and even if miraculous your "em" have no impact on anything outside those specific churches. They say nothing about the origin of live or the universe or QM, etc.


Evolution is the process (or processes) by which new species develop. (Notice, not related to weird things in churches.)

Because he didn't have access to the genetic data.

I don't know what that even means. I thought I needed to check your post to see what line you were replying to, but it's all one block of text.

Is this some sort of attempt to discuss the origin of life? It is a bit confused. (If so, ems have nothing to do with the origin of life either)

Now I know you are talking about OOL, but the "miraculous" generation of tissue in modern churches don't say anything about the distant past. This whole argument is just odd.

Your definiton is materially different from Darwin’s.
You fail to refer to mechanism Or scope.

You love that self serving but false dichotomy of natural/ supernatural.
If it happens it is natural. Including Eucharistic so called miracles,

The point I made was valid in theoretical chemistry .
if concentrations, thermodynamic and / or quantum barriers favour a reaction , it is expected multiple times not once.

So the default assumption of the presumed chemical event postulated for abiogenesis is multiple not, single life starts.

 

[SelfSim]

Option #3 is where it starts to get tricky, because in Option #3 that field is just an illusion, and the mind, be it a collective mind, or an individual mind is either the sole source of reality, or the nexus around which reality forms. There are many variations on this theme, but @SelfSim comes to mind, if I understand his argument correctly. In general they're referred to as mind dependent realities.

Except that what you're referring to, ie: 'reality', is a word to which human minds assign a meaning. This is objectively demonstrable via the scientific method. There are only two known ways of assigning such meanings: via beliefs, or via the scientific method.
The way the meaning is arrived at, is more relevant to how we negotiate our everyday lives than the 'what' (IMHO).

To the best of my understanding the mind in these scenarios begins with the present, and from that creates the past, the future, and the source. And by 'source' I mean the hierarchical first cause. Think of everything around you as being made of matter, which is made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of particles, which arise out of that quantum field. So while the Big Bang might represent the mind's concept of a temporal first cause, the quantum field represents the mind's concept of a hierarchical first cause. But they're both part of an illusion created by the mind.

Its no illusion when there's abundant objective evidence supporting the notion of the obvious mind dependence of how we come up with answers for what your wrestling with there .. aka: 'what is reality?'

An easy way to understand this is to envision an AI, be it a Chatbot, or an AI Art Generator. All that you have to do is to give it the essence of what you want and it'll create either a story or a work of art that may be practically indistinguishable from something that actually exists. Now imagine that that's what the mind does, it creates reality. And to the best of its ability it creates everything back to and including that temporal and hierarchical first cause. It's the mind attempting to create a coherent context for its own existence. It's what you might expect to get if you had an AI that was powerful enough to create, and place itself at the center of, a simulated reality.

Close .. its a mind exploring its own perceptions. There's no need for concerns about the source because that notion, thus far, has been the subject of never ending untestable beliefs.

That is in essence what Option #3 is... a mind dependent reality. I must admit that I'm kinda partial to the idea, but I must also admit that I have some unanswered questions. For example, AI's need to be trained on something. They don't create things out of whole clothe. But what if they could? What if all they had was the conscious awareness that 'I Am"? Could everything else flow from that one simple realization?

Why not? Its how we did it by exploring the perceptions we sense.

Anyway, maybe it would've been better if I hadn't mentioned Option #3. But then again that may be part of the problem with people, they get fixated on one particular idea, and the only way for them to engage with any opposing ideas is in direct conflict with those who hold them. That 'resolution through conflict' may be a holdover of our past, but it's certainly one that we should try to overcome.

Why dismiss out of hand, the only objectively demonstrable notion which produces abundant evidence by direct usage of the scientific method?
We are after all, accepting being in a Physical Sciences mode of thinking mindset, in this forum.

Sooo fixated folks are, on completely untestable philosophical notions, that they have developed a total blind-spot for the glaringly obvious!

 

[Hans Blaster]

You love that self serving but false dichotomy of natural/ supernatural.
If it happens it is natural. Including Eucharistic so called miracles,

I didn't even argue against your "miracle" this time. I said even if it was a real miracle, how does that impact the origin of life or the evolution of species? Neither of you can demonstrate how anything but a communion wafer is affected by that miracle. It is otherwise irrelevant beyond that specific context.