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

[Hans Blaster]

My comment was based off of the fine-tuning principle.

Which isn't a principle of physics, but rather an argument for intention.

But the Mandelbrot set is just pure math, and has no application to proving or disproving God. There are plenty of other math or science subjects that a Christian could use that hold much more weight, such as the Big Bang, meaning the universe had a beginning, just as the Bible said creation had a beginning, and the priest/astronomer Georges Lemaitre.

Those would be a bunch more of those arguments. Most are much weaker than even the weak fine-tuning argument.

I am not sure if you are Christian or agnostic,

Neither, I am a physicist.

but whatever the case, we can both agree that the Mandelbrot set is the weakest tool in the arsenal for apologists to use to prove God's existence. And hey, that is coming from a Christian guy.

Yeah. It's just math. Not really a demonstration of the divine.

 

[AlexB23]

Which isn't a principle of physics, but rather an argument for intention.

Those would be a bunch more of those arguments. Most are much weaker than even the weak fine-tuning argument.


Neither, I am a physicist.

Yeah. It's just math. Not really a demonstration of the divine.

It is cool that you are a physicist. What type of physics do you work with? My favorite branch of physics is probably astrophysics, kinematics or maybe engineering physics. Quantum physics is complex, but also fascinating. But yeah, fine-tuning is an argument for intention.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is cool that you are a physicist. What type of physics do you work with? My favorite branch of physics is probably astrophysics, kinematics or maybe engineering physics. Quantum physics is complex, but also fascinating. But yeah, fine-tuning is an argument for intention.

I don't reveal that, but those are some fun fields. I use an anonymous handle for a reason.

 

[AlexB23]

I don't reveal that, but those are some fun fields. I use an anonymous handle for a reason.

Ooh, top secret physics. If you work with nuclear physics, Sr-90 would make a great energy source for a space probe, as it has a power density of 0.46 W/g in the form of SrTiO3, and it has a half-life of nearly 30 years. Much cheaper compared to Pu energy sources. We need to send out more space probes to the Kuiper belt, as the asteroids and comets there are preserved, and could shed light on what materials were common in the early solar system.

Sr metal for RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator): Properties of selected radioisotopes. A bibliography, part 1 - Unclassified literature - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

 

[honey badger]

The Mandelbrot Set is a complex Mathmatical equation which seems to reveal infinite patterns in Math. It also is known for containing Fractals, the Fibonacci Sequence and Pi (Golden Circle.

It seems when all the numbers in the Mandelbrot Set are given a point of colour they form an unusual pattern which was a surpirse to Mathmaticians.

These patterns add up perfectly containing Fibonacci Sequences that can go on forever creating more and more complex patterns that are self similar in that the same Mandelbrot patterns repeats forever spurning out new patterns that become Mandelbrot patterns. This seems to be beyond what any human could have compreheneded or created.

The facinating thing is these patterns are seen in nature, in some flowers like Sun flowers and vegetables like the Cauliflower, on Pine cones, branches and leaves of trees, in river systems, coast lines, snow flakes, lightening bolts and spiral galaxies.

Is this a sign of some underlying Mind behind nature. Is Math discovered or invented or both. Why does the universe and nature fit so well with Math and how is it that we as intelligent beings are designed to know this.

the 66 books of the bible are full to overflowing with these same patterns ....

 

[partinobodycular]

Why when theres a growing body of research and ideas around the universe, nature and reality being linked to Information, Math, Knowledge and Mind. The reason being that is where the evdience is pointing so its not just an assumption. In fact the Mind/Information paradigmatic shift in thinking seems to render more simple arguements that can account for the many Hard Problems the naturalistic and materialist view faces.

I don't mean to rain on your parade... after all I'm a solipsist, if anybody is going to be amenable to the idea of the primacy of consciousness it's going to be me. Unfortunately your arguments for it leave a whole lot to be desired. In fact they're nothing more than 'God of the Gaps' arguments. I.E. find an effect that science can't explain and then shove your favorite mythos into the void. It's worked pretty well for God and New Age philosophies, so why not for the primacy of consciousness as well. But what it lacks, is what all such speculative theories lack... supportive evidence. Relativity has evidence. Quantum Mechanics has evidence. But observer created reality ain't got no evidence... it's just got gaps.

This isn't to say that a case can't be made for consciousness as the fundamental structure of reality... it's just that it's gonna look a lot like philosophy and not very much like science. At least if there is such an argument out there I've spent over fifty years looking for it without any luck. Personally, the best argument I've ever found is Occam's Razor... “All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the best one.” In this case, consciousness as the source of reality is a much simpler explanation than consciousness as the product of reality.

 

[partinobodycular]

the 66 books of the bible are full to overflowing with these same patterns ....

In reality, it isn't the bible that's overflowing with mystical patterns... it's the overactive imaginations of the easily influenced.

 

[honey badger]

In reality, it isn't the bible that's overflowing with mystical patterns... it's the overactive imaginations of the easily influenced.

just because you can not see them does not mean they are not there ... i see them as clear as day ...

 

[partinobodycular]

just because you can not see them does not mean they are not there ... i see them as clear as day ...

I rest my case.

 

[Kylie]

Why does the universe and nature fit so well with Math and how is it that we as intelligent beings are designed to know this.

Because mathematics is the objective language we use to describe the universe.

 

[SelfSim]

.. or, math is the language we can all agree on, for objectifying the universe we all talk about ..

 

[SelfSim]

This isn't to say that a case can't be made for consciousness as the fundamental structure of reality... it's just that it's gonna look a lot like philosophy and not very much like science. At least if there is such an argument out there I've spent over fifty years looking for it without any luck. Personally, the best argument I've ever found is Occam's Razor... “All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the best one.” In this case, consciousness as the source of reality is a much simpler explanation than consciousness as the product of reality.

For a Solipsist, that's a rather funny characterisation of Occam's. Perhaps the reason you've spent over fifty years looking without any luck is because of your characterisation of Occam's(?) Try this one on for size:

Since our goal in science is to understand, and the simplest theory that agrees with data is the best path to understanding, then that's clearly the best theory. That's it, that's the Razor, nothing more. Only philosophers actually believe that the Razor leads to How Things Actually Work, (as if the universe was a simulation made by a fairly inexpert programmer, who therefore had to "keep it simple." )

 

[partinobodycular]

For a Solipsist, that's a rather funny characterisation of Occam's. Perhaps the reason you've spent over fifty years looking without any luck is because of your characterisation of Occam's(?)

Whatever definition of Occam's Razor you choose to go with I have no objection... the gist of it pretty much stays the same.

Only philosophers actually believe that the Razor leads to How Things Actually Work,

Which is why I don't believe that, nor did my version of Occam's Razor imply that. But be that as it may, consciousness as the source of reality is still a much simpler explanation than consciousness as the product of reality. And as a solipsist I'm always looking for the simplest explanation, because it's the only objective way of measuring one unprovable argument against another unprovable argument... i.e. which of them makes the fewest assumptions, along with its corollary, which of them explains the most observations

Oddly enough, even "Cogito, ergo sum"... I think, therefore I am, is a flawed premise, because it assumes that the thoughts and the thinker are one and the same thing. Consider for the sake of argument a conscious A.I., it's actually the computer that's thinking, but are the computer and the A.I. one and the same thing, or is the computer the one that's actually thinking, and the A.I is merely the product of that thinking?

But this is all my problem, and nothing that you need to concern yourself with. I understand that philosophy isn't everybody's cup of tea. Feel free to leave it to us simpleminded folks to ponder.

 

[SelfSim]

Whatever definition of Occam's Razor you choose to go with I have no objection... the gist of it pretty much stays the same.
...
Which is why I don't believe that, nor did my version of Occam's Razor imply that.

Ok .. acknowledged. I was, (perhaps a little unfairly .. apologies for that), leveraging off your post, in order to clarify science's position on the razor, in that the only consciousness evident when classifying things as real, is our own. (The same goes for the Madelbrot pattern).

Just re-emphasing what I think is our in-common(?) stance there: there's zip evidence for the existence of some fairly inexpert programmer, who had to keep the universe simple, in order for us to come to grips with our own human capability of understanding.

Oh and, (just me adding a little more of my own, for readers): its clearly evidenced that its us humans who selected/invented how to plot the Mandelbrot pattern for the purpose of coming up with our own understanding about the iterative behaviours of power law relationships.

Oddly enough, even "Cogito, ergo sum"... I think, therefore I am, is a flawed premise, because it assumes that the thoughts and the thinker are one and the same thing.

Its also a logically flawed statement. It should read: 'I think, therefore I think that I am'. (Namely because thinking is all a thinker can do).
Then, the thinker of the thoughts is also actually (apparently) able to create reality via the assertion in the 'I am' part.

Descartes' logic therefore was actually in error in his famous original statement! Hilarious!

Whether the thinker and the thoughts are one in the same, is almost frivilous in comparison with the evidenced observation made in my second statement there.

Consider for the sake of argument a conscious A.I., it's actually the computer that's thinking, but are the computer and the A.I. one and the same thing, or is the computer the one that's actually thinking, and the A.I is merely the product of that thinking?

Who is it that's assigned consciousness and (artifical) Intelligence in your, (underlined), assumed premise there? Was it a human?

I've been keeping quiet lately, but I've been watching the AI threads that come up and I think the best evidenced argument I've seen is that the so-called 'intelligence' believed to be displayed, as an evidenced product of unsupervised learning techniques, is way beyond our understanding.
In that case, I don't think the concepts of consciousness, or intelligence, are even relevant .. the wrong questions are being posed in that scenario, I suspect ,because of obsessions with philosophy rather than science. Intelligence and consciousness are being imposed onto that observation .. Its backwards thinking and a circular argument.

 

[stevevw]

As a Christian and somewhat of a nerd, that video seems like clickbait. God invented math, and humans invented the study of math, but the Mandelbrot set is just how the numbers work out, and is a poor example to prove or disprove God inventing math. A better example would be the fine-structure constant, a value that determines how charged electrons and light interact: Current advances: The fine-structure constant.

If the fine structure constant was off by a bit, we wouldn't be here. If other constants were off slightly, the universe or life would not exist.

Yes I think the fine tuning arguement is another piece of evidence for Gods creation. But the Mandelbrot set is more than just hpw the numbers work out. They reflect Gods eternal quality as the numbers form patterns that are all related and can go on forever. They also are refelected in nature. For example the leaves of fern trees or the natural patterns spiral galaxies make.

I don't think humans created that maths but rather discovered it. As far as the Mandelbrot set is concerned I don't think anyone figured that it would reveal such complexity and infinite patterns.

 

[AlexB23]

Yes I think the fine tuning arguement is another piece of evidence for Gods creation. But the Mandelbrot set is more than just hpw the numbers work out. They reflect Gods eternal quality as the numbers form patterns that are all related and can go on forever. They also are refelected in nature. For example the leaves of fern trees or the natural patterns spiral galaxies make.

I don't think humans created that maths but rather discovered it. As far as the Mandelbrot set is concerned I don't think anyone figured that it would reveal such complexity and infinite patterns.

Yeah, but the Mandelbrot set is just math doing its thing. If you want real math that points to God, look at the Fibonacci sequence in nature.

Fibonacci in nature: How Many Times Have You Spotted Fibonacci In Nature? Here Are 7 Examples For You... - The Stemettes Zine

 

[SelfSim]

... If the fine structure constant was off by a bit, we wouldn't be here. If other constants were off slightly, the universe or life would not exist.

Yes I think the fine tuning arguement is another piece of evidence for Gods creation. But the Mandelbrot set is more than just hpw the numbers work out. They reflect Gods eternal quality as the numbers form patterns that are all related and can go on forever. They also are refelected in nature. For example the leaves of fern trees or the natural patterns spiral galaxies make.

The Fine Structure constant is as it is .. Any musings about how it could be other than it is, only serves to placate the beliefs of the persons doing the musing.
Fractal patterns observed in nature are due to the tendency towards repetitions and recursions of already dynamic physical processes.
Fern leaf patterns, (for eg):

... exemplify fractals in nature. Their leaf structures can be explicated using advanced mathematical concepts such as self-similarity, recursion, and iteration.

The fern leaf originates as a single structure, referred to as the “frond.” As the frond develops, it bifurcates into smaller structures called “pinnae.” Each pinna subsequently divides into smaller structures known as “pinnules.” This pattern of division persists, with each pinnule subdividing into progressively smaller structures.

This division pattern can be mathematically described through recursion. Recursion is a process wherein a function repeatedly calls itself, with each call utilizing a smaller version of the input. In the context of ferns, the frond represents the initial input, and each frond division constitutes a smaller input version. This process continues until the smallest structures, the pinnules, are attained.

Needless to say the replication pattern there comes from gene expression, commonly known as being part of bio-molecular growth.

I don't think humans created that maths but rather discovered it.

Iteration and recursion were developed to find approximate solutions for equations:

Iteration is a repeated mathematical process that allows us to find approximate solutions for equations.

As far as the historical origins of iteration is concerned, see here:
Iterative solution of linear systems in the 20th century:

Although iterative methods for solving linear systems find their origin in the early 19th century (work by Gauss), the field has seen an explosion of activity spurred by demand due to extraordinary technological advances in engineering and sciences. The past five decades have been particularly rich in new developments, ending with the availability of large toolbox of specialized algorithms for solving the very large problems which arise in scientific and industrial computational models. As in any other scientific area, research in iterative methods has been a journey characterized by a chain of contributions building on each other.

Human thinking performed those 'buildings' (via contributions) .. Same as humans created: stone axes, wheels, space-shuttles, EVs, AI's, etc.

As far as the Mandelbrot set is concerned I don't think anyone figured that it would reveal such complexity and infinite patterns.

Do you have any evidence to support that rather huge claim? (Rhetorical question there, of course).

 

[SelfSim]

Yeah, but the Mandelbrot set is just math doing its thing. If you want real math that points to God, look at the Fibonacci sequence in nature.

Fibonacci in nature: How Many Times Have You Spotted Fibonacci In Nature? Here Are 7 Examples For You... - The Stemettes Zine

How do you think it got the name 'Fibonacci' sequence? Where do we find that 'object' in (supposedly) God's nature?
(Oh hang on .. that's a human's name .. now I get it! )

 

[AlexB23]

The Fine Structure constant is as it is .. Any musings about how it could be other than it is, only serves to placate the beliefs of the persons doing the musing.
Fractal patterns observed in nature are due to the tendency towards repetitions and recursions of already dynamic physical processes.
Fern leaf patterns, (for eg):

Needless to say the replication pattern there comes from gene expression, commonly known as being part of bio-molecular growth.


Iteration and recursion were developed to find approximate solutions for equations:

As far as the historical origins of iteration is concerned, see here:
Iterative solution of linear systems in the 20th century:

Human thinking performed those 'buildings' (via contributions) .. Same as humans created: stone axes, wheels, space-shuttles, EVs, AI's, etc.
Do you have any evidence to support that rather huge claim? (Rhetorical question there, of course).

Well, the reason I replied to @stevevw is to show that fractals are a bad argument for God, and that there are better examples in nature that may show that a creator may exist (which I do believe). If Christians want to have a change of showing how the universe supports God's existence, they got to do better.

And for recursion, that stuff is pretty cool. I have programmed my TI-84 calculator and in Python to work with recursion, and for the calculator, to calculate pi after modifying someone else's program slightly to display estimated computation time. The calculator ran out of RAM, when calculating the 1200th-ish digit though, and took over a day to generate the digits. The TI-84 calculator has the same order of magnitude computing power as a 1940s vacuum tube computer such as the ENIAC, as it took over a day for that machine to crunch out a few thousand digits of pi. For comparison, a modern smartphone may have he computing power of a 1980s or even 1990s supercomputer.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, the reason I replied to @stevevw is to show that fractals are a bad argument for God, and that there are better examples in nature that may show that a creator may exist (which I do believe). If Christians want to have a change of showing how the universe supports God's existence, they got to do better.

Ok.

And for recursion, that stuff is pretty cool. I have programmed my TI-84 calculator and in Python to work with recursion, and for the calculator, to calculate pi after modifying someone else's program slightly to display estimated computation time. The calculator ran out of RAM, when calculating the 1200th-ish digit though, and took over a day to generate the digits. The TI-84 calculator has the same order of magnitude computing power as a 1940s vacuum tube computer such as the ENIAC, as it took over a day for that machine to crunch out a few thousand digits of pi. For comparison, a modern smartphone may have he computing power of a 1980s or even 1990s supercomputer.

Brings back memories .. I used a Ti59 with a real built-in magnetic card reader during my undergraduate exams in the 1980s.
Still have it too I think .. a real piece of history there .. (as I guess I am now too .. sigh).