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

[partinobodycular]

Friend, its a model. You even said so yourself above .. then just completely ignored that important observation .. why?

Because I'm doing some classic 'Woo' here. Please don't interrupt my woo-ing with reason and logic, it disrupts the flow.

 

[BeyondET]

Changes yes .. and yet the technologies those very people accept and frequently rely on for their everyday existence, was produced by deliberately putting aside notions of such belief based reality.
By way of (a false) comparison there, do 'hauntings' really matter? Why shouldn't they be ignored when such belief-bases basically lead nowhere?

It's like do you believe fire can burn you? people can tell you it does a belief but until you experience it for yourself either seeing or feeling fire burn your skin. When you do It's no longer a belief base but reality based. When something happens that isn't natural the only word to describe it is supernatural.

 

[SelfSim]

.. When something happens that isn't natural the only word to describe it is supernatural.

There's not a day goes by thesedays, where I don't look at somethin' and say: 'That ain't natural .. right there!

Y'know .. like people worshipping their dogs and calling them their children, Harley ridin' bikers passing by my window with their open exhausts at full screamin' pitch, the look on people's faces when I'm forced into having to run up escalators the wrong way because some dork has taken the 'up' escalator out of action and not frozen the motion of the other one, lazy idiots parking on sidewalks or on blind corners .. the list is endless and I have never once invoked 'Supernatural' .. in spite of the temptation to do so!

 

[carloagal]

Il mio cervello è interamente materiale. Non sono sicuro di come potrebbe essere "troppo materialistico". Non ha senso.

Ho gustato l'Eucaristia. Non ha niente a che vedere con la carne. Proprio come il pane cattivo.

Anche se quei fenomeni eucaristici fossero veri, non avrebbero nulla a che fare con l’evoluzione.

My brain is entirely material. Not sure how it could be "too materialistic". That makes no sense.

I've tasted the eucharist. It is nothing like flesh. Just like bad bread.

Even if those eucharistic phenomena were true, it would have nothing to do with evolution.

This does not compute.

Yes This Eucharic Miracles debunked Darwin evolution theory because Mark Isaak said that evolution can be debunked if a complex organism was being observed in act of creation by a supernatural identity like the Eucharistic that is the corpe of Jesus. Evolution is debunked.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes This Eucharic Miracles debunked Darwin evolution theory because Mark Isaak said that evolution can be debunked if a complex organism was being observed in act of creation by a supernatural identity like the Eucharistic that is the corpe of Jesus. Evolution is debunked.

Umm. No.

Do you know anything about evolution? I have my doubts.

 

[carloagal]

Umm. No.

Do you know anything about evolution? I have my doubts.

According to Wikipedia said hat Evolution could be disproved many times even if we can observed an organism could be created supernaturally or spontaneously.

 

[carloagal]

Uhm. NO.

Sai qualcosa sull'evoluzione? Ho i miei dubbi.

Uhm. NO.

Sai qualcosa sull'evoluzione? Ho i miei dubbi.

Like the Eucharistic Miracles

 

[Hans Blaster]

According to Wikipedia said hat Evolution could be disproved many times even if we can observed an organism could be created supernaturally or spontaneously.

I don't see how making what is essentially a bit of meat disproves the diversification and adaptation of organisms into new species.

This would be the equivalent of saying "lab grown meat" disproves evolution:

Lab-Grown Meat Approved for Sale: What You Need to Know

 

[carloagal]

Non vedo come produrre ciò che è essenzialmente un po' di carne smentisca la diversificazione e l'adattamento degli organismi a nuove specie.

Ciò equivarrebbe a dire che la “carne coltivata in laboratorio” smentisce l’evoluzione:

Carne coltivata in laboratorio approvata per la vendita: cosa devi sapere

Evolution could be disproved if Jesus created alive human heart tissue in the Eucharistic with white blood cells without any sort of evolution process.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution could be disproved if Jesus created alive human heart tissue in the Eucharistic with white blood cells without any sort of evolution process.

Serious question: What do you think evolution is? A brief description, please, without looking it up.

 

[stevevw]

Meaning comes from making and testing models under the auspices of the rules of logic, or from simply choosing beliefs, (eg: @stevevw chooses the latter).

But I don't think belief is just woo and we can use arguements for why phenomenal belief can be a true source of knowledge about the world.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, but now I need to take the nonsense which was my previous post, and try to nudge it a little closer to the 'Not Woo'. To do that, rather than referring to a mind, I'm going to refer to a quantum field. And I'm going to suggest that that quantum field lies at the very border between existing and not existing. Between having an extension in space and time, and having no perceptible physical existence at all. Now from that I can invoke Hawking's hypothesis of something spontaneously arising from nothing, and by doing that I can begin to legitimize what had previously only seemed like 'Woo'. It's still 'Woo', I've just reframed it in terminology that a materialist might accept, namely that that quantum field is the fundamental source of physical reality.

And voila, no need for the supernatural, just a simple quantum field lying at the border between existing and not existing. Between what could be, and what is.

Unfortunately, this is where you and I have a problem, because you insist upon referring to that quantum field as 'something'. But I'm going to beg to differ, and suggest that what that quantum field represents is the very first act of consciousness... which is the realization that 'I am'. It may look like a physical thing, and it may be modelable like a physical thing, but our inability to interact with it suggests that strictly speaking it may not be a physical thing at all. And if you want to refer to it as a mind, then you're more than welcome to do so. Who am I to argue otherwise.

It's at this point that we're left with a dichotomy, wherein the materialist can claim that reality simply arises from a quantum field. No mind, nor God, nor supernatural explanation required. While the anti-materialist can claim the exact opposite, that in glimpsing that quantum field we have in fact gotten a peek into the mind of God. A mind in which all things are possible, and existence first comes to the simplest realization of all, that 'I am'.

Now this is all still just 'Woo', and it's pretty apt to remain 'Woo' until someone a whole lot smarter than me or Einstein can figure out how to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. And even then the question still won't be answered, because quite frankly it may not be answerable.

So the best that I as a solipsist can do is to appreciate this for the mental exercise that it was, and go back to accepting reality and life for the sadly brief and fragile experience that it appears to be. I'll leave God to do God, and you to do you, and I'll wander off into the 'Woo' every now and again, just because I can.

Oh, and I'll sometimes look like an idiot by spouting this nonsense on computer forums as if I have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

Thats a good analogy, I like that. Except I am quite happy living on the other side primarily, in the Woo even though it may often be actual Woo and then know that there is also the non Woo world as a backdrop. So long as you keep in mind the non Woo realities then I think its more fun in navigating the Woo world lol.

I some ways I think science is dabbling in woo as all great dicoveries have come from thinking outside the box at even implausable ideas to begin with. I agree I don't think we will ever know the true makeup of reality or beyond. I think it was Hawking that said once we know the theory of Everything we will know the mind of God.

But as I mentioned its not necessarily about any specific idea that is the answer but that it requires a paradigm shift in thinking as to how we will be able to understand better even the type of questions to ask to move forward beyond the scientific materialist paradigm. Like from classical physics to QP but even more so.

 

[partinobodycular]

But as I mentioned its not necessarily about any specific idea that is the answer but that it requires a paradigm shift in thinking as to how we will be able to understand better even the type of questions to ask to move forward beyond the scientific materialist paradigm.

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'.

 

[Mountainmike]

Serious question: What do you think evolution is? A brief description, please, without looking it up.

It depends who you speak to.
So I throw it back at you. What do you mean by Evolution? A brief description without looking it up please.

The answer is the name Evolution refers to a mush of ideas depending on context. There is no single theory, hypothesis or conjecture.
For some it is common descent. However that is unprovable and untestable so is not even a valid hypothesis..

For others it is defined in molecular biological process, but the common definition of allele change does not even mention progression Just change! And since it is a complete blur before complex life - the genetic structure of the first cells is a complete unknown - it is not a complete idea anyway.

So the idea "all life came from evolution" , particulary blind watchmaker style is a faith statement not a scientific statement.
Since nobody has any idea what first life was or how it came to be.


So it is all about context.
In the context of this...

For Darwin HIS definition is clear by his falsification criterion. For him it was progressive small change.
"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 that is Darwins definition.

In the multiple forensically analysed eucharistic miracles, where once was bread came recently living Cardiac tissue, so it is evidence in disproving darwins theory. Heart tissue from bread does not fit even the biggest stretch of Darwins evoution theory.
Even if it was only five times, (rather than an occasional window on a more general substance change) one is enough to disprove darwin

So I repeat the question out of interest, not intent to argue. What is YOUR definition of the word "evolution" that seems to have so many meanings to so many people?

 

[Mountainmike]

As the song continues. Proof. Proof is the bottom line for everyone.

Generally, but I find [and the inner voice in my head wanted to continue this sentence 'your lack of faith disturbing' once I started typing it.] "faith" to be a confusing term when discussed in a place with so much religious context (such as CF). Therefore, I have resolved to never use the word "faith" for anything but the religious kind lest it foster confusion. (As you can clearly see from this site, many posters respond to any use of that word, even in non-religious contexts, as if it is only religious in nature. This leads to vile claims like "science is a religion". I also try not to use "believe" for similar reasons.)


You (and others) keep calling me that, but I don't really care about money.

Science is inherently naturalistic so we must look at potential natural explanations *first*.

[citation needed]

Hardly. I have no problem uncovering frauds or referring to them as such. This is quite common, if not universal.

another assertion presented without reference.

I've been attending conferences and colloquia for 25 years and only have see two things that come even close to this. The first involved an application of applied physics to something outside the normal scope of physics and a professor who seem indignant that the presented work wasn't "really physics". (I was a little embarrassed for the department that day.) The second case involves someone who presented work inspired by his own specialty, but that didn't properly consider the full nature of the new problem he was trying to solve. We pushed back hard on his presentation and argued against his questions later in the conference. To this day, I don't think I've ever cited his work, though he recently cited mine. This is the problem with trying to apply your work outside your expertise -- sometimes you just don't know what you're talking about.



I know of one person who got a "sneaky bad recommendation" (why I don't know), but he got the job anyway. Perhaps some day I'll tell you about the two follow-on papers I probably killed while refereeing the first one.

On the wider issues, the ego clashes of some senior academics is breathtaking. It really does not helps science one bit.

In the UK the antipathy between the Oxford and Imperial epidemiologists undoubtedly affected the projection, when both should work together for the common good they worked against each other. Or getting francis collins to shake ventners hand to use an american example! .
The shroud dating was sacrificed on the ego clash between the new kid on the block Halls at Oxford, and the (far better qualified) old guard at Harwell pushed out. Then the utter disdain of Gove for everyone else did the rest.. Gove condemns himself by his own hand. You should read his emails , they are a disgrace to science.

Hardly. I have no problem uncovering frauds or referring to them as such. This is quite common, if not universal.

This deserves special mention.

First because it is an abberation of scientific process: You can only investigate and accept the evidence which every way it points.
You cannot only consider your role as uncovering fraud or assume fraud without biassing your entire outlook. It is part of what destroyed the shroud dating. An unscientific mentality.

It also illustrates an attitude problem you have demonstrated here...
. I have little doubt in your day job, you are objective.
I actually respect you from past posting.
But You are certainly not objectivge around phenomena with a religious dimension.

By way of example.
In arizona there is a full size manikin of the victim of the shroud and a full size shroud replica. There were measurements taken in 1978 that showed the basic body morphology.

Along came Kylie 2 or 3 years ago with a piece of pseudoscience ( which name is too good for what she did..) , using an uncalibrated doll, convincing herself the shroud did not fit the head of the doll
"ergo the shroud was a fraud" . A CGI rendering was there to convince doubters in our video world ignoring the fact the CGI was based on the same misrepresentation. .
And yet real science had already proved this argument bunk decades ago. Lifesize replicas prove it fits!
Yet Kylie had failed to even look it up.

My problem is i am certain you "liked" her post at the time, about which I was gobsmacked although I said little
Presumably because you "Like" the conclusion. But there was no science , it was bunk.
Why did you "Like" it?

You are not alone. That is an attitude problem amongst many atheists studying phenomena with religious over tones.
It is why the real science of the srhoud gains little traction.
And as for "peer review" it is a joke. A method of "copying" the shroud by Garlaschelli passed peer review in a technical journal with chemistry aspect. None of the reviewers seemingly noticed there is no pigment on the shroud, the mark is not pigment it is a thin layer dehydration oxidation of cellulose. So Garlaschelli failed even basic scientific integrity. That paper got linked here as "evidence"

For sure there are also pious frauds and wishful thinking. Indeed many frauds.
They anger me, because they serve only to cloud the overall picture.
I have no problem that Civattecchia bleeding statue was proven a fraud by DNA. Good riddance.
I equally have no problem that Cochambamba bleeding statue passed every test of authenticity thrown at it.

But a scientist must learn to discard all wishful thinking.

The original sturp team did. And all but the fraudulent dating points at early holy land origin of a crucifixion victim.
Even michael tite who botched the dating management so badly now admits it is a crucified man not a fake!

But as Mark Twain said. "A lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on"
The fraudulent daters sabotaged research for a decade, because they went in assuming it was a fraud, then had the mother of all crises when the shroud would not give them a homogeneous date. So they fiddled it, then hid the raw data.
I hope you have utter contempt for them.

 

[SelfSim]

In the multiple forensically analysed eucharistic miracles, where once was bread came recently living Cardiac tissue, so it is evidence in disproving darwins theory. Heart tissue from bread does not fit even the biggest stretch of Darwins evoution theory.

What yeast and cardiomyocytes share: ultradian oscillatory redox mechanisms of cellular coherence and survival:

Minimally invasive continuous monitoring of mitochondrial functions in yeasts (by membrane inlet mass spectrometry), and in cardiomyocytes by two-photon microscopy, reveal that these two evolutionary-distant systems exhibit strikingly similar oscillatory features. The evidence suggests conservation of an indispensable core metabolic function in the form of intrinsically rhythmic organization involving redox balance. Continuous oscillatory states are observable on multiple timescales, an obligatory requirement for the synchronization and coordination of reactions, events and processes of the coherently-functioning cellular network.

Its not surprising your so-called 'scientific researchers could also have been duped in their so-called 'forensic studies', by the evolutionary conferred similarities of the two respective cell types.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It depends who you speak to.

Let's see. I was in an exchange with a specific poster, used the second person singular pronoun, and there was clearly a disconnect in understanding, so who do you (2nd person, singlar) think I (1st person singular) was talking to?

So I throw it back at you. What do you mean by Evolution? A brief description without looking it up please.

Since there is not conversation that is broken and needs clarification, this is pointless.

The answer is the name Evolution refers to a mush of ideas depending on context.

A mush you (2nd person, singlar) say. Sigh. I would say that evolution is not just a single claim but a network of them.

There is no single theory, hypothesis or conjecture.
For some it is common descent.

That is one component usually included in modern evolutionary theory.

However that is unprovable and untestable so is not even a valid hypothesis..

Common decent is the *best* demonstrated part of evolutionary theory. The genetic evidence is extremely strong for common decent.

For others it is defined in molecular biological process, but the common definition of allele change does not even mention progression Just change!

Evolution doesn't proscribe a "progression", so yes the change in allele frequencies in a population is one aspect of general evolution theory and what biologists are referring to when they say a population has evolved. (Remember that base word evolution is just change.)

And since it is a complete blur before complex life - the genetic structure of the first cells is a complete unknown - it is not a complete idea anyway.

It is not necessary to know the genetic structure of any particular organism for evolution to be complete idea. The standard evolution theory doesn't break down at the first reproducing organisms, it only starts then. (It is not a theory of the origin of life.)

So the idea "all life came from evolution" , particulary blind watchmaker style is a faith statement not a scientific statement.

It would be a gross misstatement as evolution covers the change and diversification of life, not it's origin. This is what the other poster seems to not understand.

Since nobody has any idea what first life was or how it came to be.

As do you (2nd person, singlar).

So it is all about context.
In the context of this...

For Darwin HIS definition is clear by his falsification criterion.

Oh, so there are falsification criteria. So much for your previous claim.

For him it was progressive small change.
"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 that is Darwins definition.

Going for a classic quote mine, I see. Darwin continued: " But I can find out no such case." Here's the whole paragraph:

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. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=207

In the multiple forensically analysed eucharistic miracles, where once was bread came recently living Cardiac tissue, so it is evidence in disproving darwins theory. Heart tissue from bread does not fit even the biggest stretch of Darwins evoution theory.
Even if it was only five times, (rather than an occasional window on a more general substance change) one is enough to disprove darwin

So I repeat the question out of interest, not intent to argue. What is YOUR definition of the word "evolution" that seems to have so many meanings to so many people?

It isn't spontaneous transformation of dead plant cells into human flesh. You are off topic as was the poster I was replying to.

 

[carloagal]

Sì invece, perché nei Miracoli Eucaristici

Vediamo. Stavo facendo uno scambio con un utente specifico, ho usato il pronome della seconda persona singolare e c'era chiaramente una disconnessione nella comprensione, quindi secondo te (2a persona singolare) con chi stavo parlando (2a persona singolare)?

Poiché non c'è conversazione interrotta che necessiti di chiarimenti, questo è inutile.

Una poltiglia che dici tu (2a persona, singolare). Sospiro. Direi che l'evoluzione non è solo una singola affermazione ma una rete di esse.

Questa è una componente solitamente inclusa nella moderna teoria evoluzionistica.

La dignità comune è la parte *migliore* dimostrata della teoria evoluzionistica. Le prove genetiche sono estremamente forti per il bene comune.

L'evoluzione non prescrive una "progressione", quindi sì, il cambiamento nelle frequenze alleliche in una popolazione è un aspetto della teoria generale dell'evoluzione e ciò a cui si riferiscono i biologi quando dicono che una popolazione si è evoluta. (Ricorda che la parola base evoluzione è semplicemente cambiamento.)

Non è necessario conoscere la struttura genetica di un particolare organismo perché l'evoluzione sia un'idea completa. La teoria standard dell'evoluzione non crolla ai primi organismi che si riproducono, ma inizia solo allora. (Non è una teoria dell’origine della vita.)

Sarebbe un grave errore poiché l’evoluzione copre il cambiamento e la diversificazione della vita, non la sua origine. Questo è ciò che l'altro poster sembra non capire.

Come te (2a persona, singolare).

Oh, quindi ci sono criteri di falsificazione. Questo per quanto riguarda la tua precedente affermazione.

Vado per una citazione classica, la mia, vedo. Darwin continuò: "Ma non riesco a scoprire nessun caso del genere". Ecco l'intero paragrafo:


http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=207


Non è la trasformazione spontanea di cellule vegetali morte in carne umana. Sei fuori tema come lo era il poster a cui stavo rispondendo.

Yes instead because in the Eucharistic Miracles we have the creation in supernaturaly way of complex organism like human heart muscle tissue in the bread, the Eucharistic created supernaturally without evolutionary process.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sì invece, perché nei Miracoli Eucaristici

Yes instead because in the Eucharistic Miracles we have the creation in supernaturaly way of complex organism like human heart muscle tissue in the bread, the Eucharistic created supernaturally without evolutionary process.

Is a heart an organism? Is a bit of tissue an organism? Where does tissue normally come from?

 

[carloagal]

Il cuore è un organismo? Un pezzetto di tessuto è un organismo? Da dove proviene normalmente il tessuto?

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