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

[SelfSim]

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.

I remember being terrorized by some delusional priest about the prospect of actually biting into that thing with my teeth .. (by accident or not). If I had bitten into it to polish it off, I think I'd been made to believe I would have ended being discommunicated from the human species! Kids were always assumed to be guilty of everything .. (regardless of any evidence of guilt of course).

Also, our host supplies must've been really stale .. it took ages to dissolve and I usually ended up with a gobful of drool which was impossible to retain in my mouth!

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around your argument, it's a work in progress. But perhaps you can help me out. You're saying that we actually perceive things, and then the mind takes what it perceives and attempts to put it into a coherent form. Is that correct? So it's in some sense a hybrid of the mind dependent reality hypothesis, in that it's a subjective interpretation of a limited input from an objective reality.

Let me know if I'm getting closer.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok .. (since you asked):

I'm still trying to wrap my head around your argument, it's a work in progress. But perhaps you can help me out. You're saying that we actually perceive things, and then the mind takes what it perceives and attempts to put it into a coherent form. Is that correct?

Basically .. yep

So it's in some sense a hybrid of the mind dependent reality hypothesis, in that it's a subjective interpretation of a limited input from an objective reality.

No the Mind Dependent Hypothesis produces abundant evidence of mind dependence ... I'm not deviating from that in any way (that I'm aware of).

The distinction of objective/subjective is also a model created by the mind, in its pursuit making sense of its perceptions.
Objective reality is the outcome of testing via the scientific method (followed by inference).. and not some preconceived assumption (before testing) that it exists independently from the mind. For the purposes of establishing objectivity, that testing is all that matters.

Subjective reality is based on beliefs, where the beliefs are assumed as being real, (even when they don't stand up to tesing). Beliefs are all that matters, so reality is then established upon the belief .. and it takes a mind to create beliefs, so this way is still mind dependent.

PS: The thing to notice is that the aim is to shift our focus away from the completely untestable notion of things existing independently from our perceptions, or our minds. The latter notion of true mind independence is completely nonsensical as we need our minds in everything we think about, or sense, or try to make sense of our perceptions in saying whether something is real or not..

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

Already stated.
The samples are determined by pathology to be recently live tissue. So they are “ life”

But They are not from a dead victim, ( for a variety of reasons)
and are inexplicable by science ( for a variety of reasons)
They appeared in real time in bread. So not progressive change in Darwin’s meaning)

So they are evidence of an alternative origin of life, to abiogenesis/evolution.
except unlike abiogenesis which is pure conjecture, this was witnessed , there is evidence in multiple cases , multiple teams and continents, evidence which was analysed.

Notice in most of my posts I am careful to say “ so called “ miracles for the reason miracle is attributing agency and science is far too limited a tool to attempt to ascribe agency .

( in comparison - Neither can science comment on agency of where gravity came from, or why it is like it is.. Science cannot enter that debate.)


We have been this way before.
You either study them or you don’t.

The EM are not the only spontaneous evidenced appearance of life Where there was none.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Already stated.
The samples are determined by pathology to be recently live tissue. So they are “ life”

But They are not from a dead victim, ( for a variety of reasons)
and are inexplicable by science ( for a variety of reasons)
They appeared in real time in bread. So not progressive change in Darwin’s meaning)

So they are evidence of an alternative origin of life, to abiogenesis/evolution.
except unlike abiogenesis which is pure conjecture, this was witnessed , there is evidence in multiple cases , multiple teams and continents, evidence which was analysed.

Creating animal tissues by "miracle" doesn't determine in anyway how life generally was created on Earth. It just doesn't. If it is a real miracle, it doesn't mean that that is how life started on Earth. If it is fraudulent, it doesn't mean a god didn't create life. It is irrelevant to the origin of Earth life and even more so to evolution.

Notice in most of my posts I am careful to say “ so called “ miracles for the reason miracle is attributing agency and science is far too limited a tool to attempt to ascribe agency .

( in comparison - Neither can science comment on agency of where gravity came from, or why it is like it is.. Science cannot enter that debate.)


We have been this way before.
You either study them or you don’t.

The EM are not the only spontaneous evidenced appearance of life Where there was none.

The only EM I am interested in involves Maxwell's equations.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

A bit of tissue isn't an organ. Again, your unfamiliarity with biology trips you up.

In fact, the miracle is in the substance of the bread and wine, not the accidental properties of it.

If there is an occasional miracle, in which God also changes the accidental properties of the host, it has no implications for science at all. Science does not, and cannot deny that miracles happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

So they are evidence of an alternative origin of life, to abiogenesis/evolution.

God says the earth brought forth living things. I believe Him. You should, too.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Actually option 3 in various forms sounds like what most of the ideas like Panphysicism and its derivatives, Simulation theory, Integrated Information theory and others that make Mind fundemental are being presented in mainstream sciences.

The Mind creating reality idea has been around as long as QM and put forward by some of the pioneers of QM.

 

[Mountainmike]

God says the earth brought forth living things. I believe Him. You should, too.

Who said I don’t? I clearly do. We are arguing how not whether!

We need to separate what we believe from what there is evidence for.

Atheists find that really hard to do. Atheist scientists are by far the worst at checking in their beliefs at the door and letting evidence rule.

The entire smoke of abiogenesis is just creative smoke, there is no fire. No evidence. No mechanism. No structure. And it clearly has enormous conceptual problems with irreducible complexity when using OOL research definitions of life.
The narrative around protocells hasn’t changed or been evidenced in 50 years since proposed.
Considering the volume of money, that is pathetic.

But they try so hard to believe it, an entire pseudoscience has grown up around it, where guess is wrongly promoted to hypothesis , and weak hypothesis is called a theory.

It is a sad reflection of science in our time, that to get funding you must overstate the case, and it helps if you overstate the case for the atheist blind watchmaker , so they do. A lot of academic integrity has gone in overstating that case, and wrongly attacking other evidence if ever a religious , or spiritual context.
Anything that questions life as just chemistry Is taboo!

The only truthful answer from evidence or science is no idea where ancient life came from. For all it is just a belief.

But there is plenty of scientific evidence of new life created in OUR time.
And atheists hate it. Those here won’t even dare look. They are not alone. Several universities have refused to study it knowing the nature of samples! Some high managerial academics whose universities studied it lied about evidence that Their own academics validated!

 

[The Barbarian]

God says the earth brought forth living things. I believe Him. You should, too.

Who said I don’t? I clearly do.

That's what abiogenesis is. So we've resolved that issue.

Atheist scientists are by far the worst at checking in their beliefs at the door and letting evidence rule.

Pretty much like YE creationist preachers. That's why we don't give them much credibility on this issue.

The entire smoke of abiogenesis is just creative smoke, there is no fire.

God's word is pretty good fire, IMO. Sorry it's not your's.

The narrative around protocells hasn’t changed or been evidenced in 50 years since proposed.

There entire journals showing new evidence. That you don't know this is pathetic.

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It is a sad reflection of science in our time, that to get funding you must overstate the case, and it helps if you overstate the case for the atheist blind watchmaker , so they do.

Guess how I know you've never read a research proposal.

But they try so hard to believe it, an entire pseudoscience has grown up around it, where guess is wrongly promoted to hypothesis , and weak hypothesis is called a theory.

If you understood these terms, you'd be more effective discussing them. A hypothesis has to be at least in principle, testable. It must make testable predictions. And only hypotheses that have had their predictions repeatedly verified become theories. Darwin's theory is a theory because the theory makes numerous predictions, many of which have been verified. Incidentally, abiogenesis is not one of those predictions. Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things.

But there is plenty of scientific evidence of new life created in OUR time.

Show us that. Checkable sources.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[I've removed all of your invective against scientists to limit to an actual question of concern to this forum.]

The entire smoke of abiogenesis is just creative smoke, there is no fire. No evidence. No mechanism. No structure. And it clearly has enormous conceptual problems with irreducible complexity when using OOL research definitions of life.
The narrative around protocells hasn’t changed or been evidenced in 50 years since proposed.
Considering the volume of money, that is pathetic.

But they try so hard to believe it, an entire pseudoscience has grown up around it, where guess is wrongly promoted to hypothesis , and weak hypothesis is called a theory.

If you really want to discuss what you view as the "pseudoscience" of OOL research, then why don't you discuss actual evidence for or against the natural origin of life instead of discussing incidents that occurred at least thousands (realistically, billions) of years after the first life on our planet. No miraculous appearance of human tissue speaks to the origin of human and other animal tissue centuries (or eons) earlier.

 

[carloagal]

Questa volta non ho nemmeno contestato il tuo "miracolo". Ho detto, anche se fosse un vero miracolo, che impatto avrebbe sull'origine della vita o sull'evoluzione delle specie? Nessuno di voi due può dimostrare come qualsiasi cosa, tranne un'ostia, sia influenzata da quel miracolo. Altrimenti è irrilevante al di là di quel contesto specifico.

Yes instead, according to Wikipedia Evolution could be disproved if you could be demonstrated that a complex organ like human heart muscle tissue could be created suparnaturally or spontaneously.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes instead, according to Wikipedia Evolution could be disproved if you could be demonstrated that a complex organ like human heart muscle tissue could be created suparnaturally or spontaneously.

Do provide that citation and we can discuss it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes instead, according to Wikipedia Evolution could be disproved if you could be demonstrated that a complex organ like human heart muscle tissue could be created suparnaturally or spontaneously.

In the same sense that gravity could be disproved, if Jesus could walk on water. Which is to say, not at all. Miracles do not disprove nature.

 

[partinobodycular]

Yes instead, according to Wikipedia Evolution could be disproved if you could be demonstrated that a complex organ like human heart muscle tissue could be created suparnaturally or spontaneously.

I realize that Hans et al have been deliberately avoiding this line of argument, under the reasoning that it's irrelevant to the validity of evolution, and I can respect that, however, lest you get the idea that there are any credible claims for Eucharistic Miracles, let me set the record straight, there are none. I can understand people's reticence to resurrect this pointless, old debate, but I thought that this should at least be pointed out. Your entire argument is based on one flawed premise.

Okay, everyone may now continue as you were.

 

[The Barbarian]

I realize that Hans et al have been deliberately avoiding this line of argument

I notice that Hans' request for substantiation of a Wikepedia claim has been ignored, for reasons that seem obvious. But even if someone had put such a claim thereon, it would still be false, since miracles do not disprove natural causes.

 

[partinobodycular]

I notice that Hans' request for substantiation of a Wikepedia claim has been ignored, for reasons that seem obvious. But even if someone had put such a claim thereon, it would still be false, since miracles do not disprove natural causes.

I checked, it's there, it's supposedly from the book "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" by Mark Isaak.

 

[sjastro]

It’s unfortunate to see the term "atheist scientists" bandied around in a few posts.
Scientists of atheist or religious persuasion can work together to produce great things as the existence or non existence of God is unfalsifiable in science.

As I have mentioned on frequent occasions, you could not get two more polar opposites in Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam in collaborating and developing the Weinberg-Salam model or electroweak theory which led them to winning the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Weinberg the militant atheist clamed religion was an insult to human dignity while Salam was a devout Muslim who referred to the Quran during his Nobel Prize banquet speech.

On the subject of fields which has also cropped up in this thread, here is a video of a physicist explaining to a biologist, the reality of particles in quantum fields which may or may not be real.
To mathematicians they are not real, physicists are divided on the subject.

 

[partinobodycular]

On the subject of fields which has also cropped up in this thread, here is a video of a physicist explaining to a biologist, the reality of particles in quantum fields which may or may not be real.
To mathematicians they are not real, physicists are divided on the subject.

I've seen this video before, but since you posted it, I have a couple of questions.

#1 In what sense is it true that every point in the field has a value ascribed to it? I mean it's a 'quantum' field after all, so I would expect that if we measure any specific point in the field we'll find a definitive value there, but does it actually have a distinct value when we're not measuring it?

#2 The field was described as being 3 dimensional but modeled in only 2 dimensions, but does it actually have any extension in space and time at all, or is that simply an assumption based upon the fact that no matter where we go... there it is? Thus we're ascribing to it a dimensionality that it doesn't on its own possess?

 

[Kylie]

This is dependent on which interpretation of quantum physics you want to go with. It has been suggested by many physicists including some of its pioneers since the discovery of quantum physics that at the bottom, the underlying reality is not a physical ontology but non physical.

I mean go back before the Big Bang what actual physical stuff was around. So ultimately something physical has to have come from something non physical at one point.

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

A quantum experiment raises deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality.

www.livescience.com

The “von Neumann–Wigner interpretation”, also described as “consciousness causes collapse” of Ψ, postulates that consciousness is an essential factor in quantum measurements. Časlav Brukner at the University of Vienna showed that, under certain assumptions, Wigner's idea can be used to formally prove that measurements in quantum mechanics are subjective to observers.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html

How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?

How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?

Some argue the Big Bang was a rebirth rather than a birth.

theconversation.com

Given that time was one of the things that was formed in the Big Bang, I think it's a bit odd to ask what was around "before" the Big Bang.