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

[AlexB23]

Ok.

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).

Awesome stuff. Hey, both Christians and non-Christians can enjoy science and math. We found something in common. My TI-84 CE uses a micro-USB port (outdated for 2010s/2020s standards). Funny story, I lost three TI-84 calculators during high school from 2014-2018, and broke one also cos I exposed it to humidity on purpose, cos I have ADHD and mild impulsivity. So, a few years after high school, I decided to get a TI-84 CE, and it is still working, and I wrote a program two years ago to compute black body emission spectra for objects of different temperatures, and also made a rough calculation for how much energy solar panels can get, when you type in your latitude and day of year into the calculator.

My calculator is collecting dust (maybe I watch too much sci-fi and a bit of anime now since 2021 such as Hunter X Hunter, One Piece, Studio Ghibli stuff, Azumanga Daioh, Cowboy Bebop, etc), so I should break it out again and make more programs in TI-BASIC.

 

[SelfSim]

Sheesh .. I even remember owning an HP 25 at high school. It came with the revolutionary, magic 'Enter' button .. which made understanding the basic principles of computer operation a little more intuitive .. sigh (again) .. man, I must be old! ..

PS: Ooops! Evidence that I am gettin' old: It was the less expensive HP 21 .. still had the Enter button tho'.

 

[AlexB23]

Sheesh .. I even remember owning an HP 25 at high school. It came with the revolutionary, magic 'Enter' button .. which made understanding the basic principles of computer operation a little more intuitive .. sigh (again) .. man, I must be old! ..

PS: Ooops! Evidence that I am gettin' old: It was the less expensive HP 21 .. still had the Enter button tho'.

Nice. The oldest HP product that I have ever used was the HP Pavilion desktop computer from 1998, and I used it for classic kids games such as Jump Start in the mid-2000s. It probably had a 20 or 40 GB disk, and way under half a gigabyte of RAM. NVIDIA graphics. For comparison, a cheap $200 Android such as a Motorola G7 which I own (and will get rid of soon for a Samsung A55 series in 2024) could run circles around this PC.

It looked similar to this computer (not mine, as I dismantled the Pavilion in 2012 or 2013 and my parents threw it out responsibly)

 

[partinobodycular]

It should read: 'I think, therefore I think that I am'.

I like it... but I still a have a hard time getting past the 'I think' part. It implies that my thoughts... which for all I know is all that exists... are thinking themselves.

Therefore I assume that something exists besides this mental construct, which is in fact the actual source of it. And that's where Occam's Razor comes in, because the generally accepted theory is that either quantum foam, or quantum fields, or strings, or some such immaterial substratum somehow gives rise to 'stuff'... you know, particles, and atoms, and galaxies, and stars, and planets, and us. And then that 'stuff' somehow gives rise to consciousness. And voila... here I am, good old self-aware me. Just that easy.

But then I have to ask myself... why do we need the 'stuff'?

Why not cut out the 'stuff' entirely, and simply assume that that quantum foam, or quantum fields, or whatever it is, gives rise to consciousness all on its own, and that concomitant with that consciousness is the illusion of everything else. It's actually much simpler that way.

Instead of going from an immaterial thing to a material thing, and then back to an immaterial thing again, why not just assume that it's all one big immaterial thing? Fields, consciousness, and the illusion of reality... not one lick of material stuff in there at all.

Now I am in no way implying that this is true, I may be an epistemological solipsist but I'm not a complete idiot. However, as I've already pointed out, from an Occam's Razor's standpoint it's certainly the simpler explanation. One cause, accompanied by two concomitant effects. Let's call it a trinity then... shall we?

Just re-emphasing what I think is our in-common(?) stance there: there's zip evidence for the existence of some fairly inexpert programmer,

But that then raises the question... what would you expect a simulated reality to look like? You have a hypothesis, and undoubtedly a reasonable one... that reality isn't a simulation, but how do you test it? Or are you just going to assume that it's true? If so, then how does the assumption that it's not a simulation trump the assumption that it is?

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

You do realize that my reference to an A.I. was just an analogy, and you should also realize that my self identification as a solipsist means that I have only one example of a conscious being from which to judge... and that's me. Hence, consciousness would seem to be a fundamental attribute of existence itself. Unfortunately I'll never know if an A.I. is conscious, just as I'll never know if you're conscious. Therefore it's moot to ask me who assigned a consciousness that I have no way of knowing exists.

 

[sjastro]

I have mentioned on numerous occasions God is unfalsifiable in science, neither Christians nor atheists can use science to prove or disprove God’s existence.
Here we have a variation on the theme mathematics is in spotlight not science, and the answer is still the same.

An interesting topic which has been raised in this thread is whether mathematics is invented or discovered and has been debated by Christians and atheists for centuries.
The answer can be yes to both.

There is nothing special about the Mandelbrot set, it is clearly a human invention the outline of which was described in this thread.
I wrote up code to produce my own pretty pictures and more importantly have used it to test the relative performance of different processors.

An example where the mathematics was both invented and discovered comes from quantum mechanics.
In the late 19th century scientists invented the empirical relationship describing the energy level spacings versus wavelength λ in the hydrogen spectrum known as the Rydberg formula.

Rₕ is Rydberg’s constant for the hydrogen atom, n₁ and n₂ are known as the principal quantum numbers where n₂ > n₁.
Scientists had very little idea at the time of how the empirical relationship worked or why Rₕ had a value of 1.097×10⁷ m⁻¹.

In the 19th century the French mathematician Edmond Laguerre found a general method of solving differential equations one particular example being the equation.

The solutions to this equation were named associated Laguerre polynomials.

When quantum mechanics was formulated in the 1920s, Schrödinger’s wave equation for the hydrogen atom was found to be.

On solving this equation, it was discovered associated Laguerre polynomials formed part of the solution from which Rydberg’s formula could be derived instead of being empirically determined and also explained the value of the constant Rₕ.

 

[AlexB23]

I have mentioned on numerous occasions God is unfalsifiable in science, neither Christians nor atheists can use science to prove or disprove God’s existence.
Here we have a variation on the theme mathematics is in spotlight not science, and the answer is still the same.

An interesting topic which has been raised in this thread is whether mathematics is invented or discovered and has been debated by Christians and atheists for centuries.
The answer can be yes to both.

There is nothing special about the Mandelbrot set, it is clearly a human invention the outline of which was described in this thread.
I wrote up code to produce my own pretty pictures and more importantly have used it to test the relative performance of different processors.

An example where the mathematics was both invented and discovered comes from quantum mechanics.
In the late 19th century scientists invented the empirical relationship describing the energy level spacings versus wavelength λ in the hydrogen spectrum known as the Rydberg formula.

View attachment 340220


Rₕ is Rydberg’s constant for the hydrogen atom, n₁ and n₂ are known as the principal quantum numbers where n₂ > n₁.
Scientists had very little idea at the time of how the empirical relationship worked or why Rₕ had a value of 1.097×10⁷ m⁻¹.

In the 19th century the French mathematician Edmond Laguerre found a general method of solving differential equations one particular example being the equation.

View attachment 340221

The solutions to this equation were named associated Laguerre polynomials.

When quantum mechanics was formulated in the 1920s, Schrödinger’s wave equation for the hydrogen atom was found to be.

View attachment 340224

On solving this equation, it was discovered associated Laguerre polynomials formed part of the solution from which Rydberg’s formula could be derived instead of being empirically determined and also explained the value of the constant Rₕ.

And here is a visual (for people who think visually) of what the energy levels in the hydrogen atom are. When an electron drops down from a higher energy level to a lower energy level, a photon is emitted, of a certain energy which corresponds to a certain wavelength (color). The Rydberg formula is located in the left of the image, with numerical values substituted in.

 

[SelfSim]

I like it... but I still a have a hard time getting past the 'I think' part. It implies that my thoughts... which for all I know is all that exists... are thinking themselves.

'I think' is an observation made via self-awareness. 'Therefore' denotes inductive reasoning at play .. what follows is pattern recognition and its conclusion of: 'I am'. 'I am' is a conclusion and is the singular present tense of the verb 'be' (or exists) .. therefore existence is a conclusion .. and not a material or physical 'thing' (or object) as just about everyone assumes. The thinker created the meaning of what exists there .. ie: themselves (or 'I').
If you allow me, I think you're stuck on the undistinguished (and unevidenced) assumption that 'existence' (or what is real) is somehow separate from the mind that assigns the word its meaning .. which sort of happens in just about every conversation any of us have .. for some oddly, never distinguished, (at least overtly), reason.

Therefore I assume that something exists besides this mental construct, which is in fact the actual source of it. And that's where Occam's Razor comes in, because the generally accepted theory is that either quantum foam, or quantum fields, or strings, or some such immaterial substratum somehow gives rise to 'stuff'... you know, particles, and atoms, and galaxies, and stars, and planets, and us. And then that 'stuff' somehow gives rise to consciousness. And voila... here I am, good old self-aware me. Just that easy.

The 'source' of it, is unknown because there's no known test (independent from our own thinking) which can produce the evidence needed to substantiate that existence (or reality) is unequivocally independent from our own thinking. This is science's honest, inductive conclusion.
This is why science is separate from philosophy, where in philosophy, things are just made up (or assumed to be so) to apparently give philosophers a warm and fuzzy.

But then I have to ask myself... why do we need the 'stuff'?

Why not cut out the 'stuff' entirely, and simply assume that that quantum foam, or quantum fields, or whatever it is, gives rise to consciousness all on its own, and that concomitant with that consciousness is the illusion of everything else. It's actually much simpler that way.

Instead of going from an immaterial thing to a material thing, and then back to an immaterial thing again, why not just assume that it's all one big immaterial thing? Fields, consciousness, and the illusion of reality... not one lick of material stuff in there at all.

Now I am in no way implying that this is true, I may be an epistemological solipsist but I'm not a complete idiot. However, as I've already pointed out, from an Occam's Razor's standpoint it's certainly the simpler explanation. One cause, accompanied by two concomitant effects. Let's call it a trinity then... shall we?

But that then raises the question... what would you expect a simulated reality to look like? You have a hypothesis, and undoubtedly a reasonable one... that reality isn't a simulation, but how do you test it? Or are you just going to assume that it's true? If so, then how does the assumption that it's not a simulation trump the assumption that it is?

There's another alternative which is simply not to talk about something we know is untestable and unevidenced. The universe is a simulation idea, fits into this category and is thus a waste of time. How much simpler can it get than that?

You do realize that my reference to an A.I. was just an analogy, and you should also realize that my self identification as a solipsist means that I have only one example of a conscious being from which to judge... and that's me. Hence, consciousness would seem to be a fundamental attribute of existence itself. Unfortunately I'll never know if an A.I. is conscious, just as I'll never know if you're conscious. Therefore it's moot to ask me who assigned a consciousness that I have no way of knowing exists.

Consciousness is fundamental. Without the concept, all contenders .. everything .. including the Razor, science religion, existence, us, etc, all disappear into oblivion. There's nothing to talk about in that scenario so we take consciousness as a fundamental for the purposes of us being able to reason and ultimately converse.

 

[SelfSim]

I have mentioned on numerous occasions God is unfalsifiable in science, neither Christians nor atheists can use science to prove or disprove God’s existence.
Here we have a variation on the theme mathematics is in spotlight not science, and the answer is still the same.

An interesting topic which has been raised in this thread is whether mathematics is invented or discovered and has been debated by Christians and atheists for centuries.
The answer can be yes to both.

There is nothing special about the Mandelbrot set, it is clearly a human invention the outline of which was described in this thread.
I wrote up code to produce my own pretty pictures and more importantly have used it to test the relative performance of different processors.

An example where the mathematics was both invented and discovered comes from quantum mechanics.
In the late 19th century scientists invented the empirical relationship describing the energy level spacings versus wavelength λ in the hydrogen spectrum known as the Rydberg formula.

View attachment 340220


Rₕ is Rydberg’s constant for the hydrogen atom, n₁ and n₂ are known as the principal quantum numbers where n₂ > n₁.
Scientists had very little idea at the time of how the empirical relationship worked or why Rₕ had a value of 1.097×10⁷ m⁻¹.

In the 19th century the French mathematician Edmond Laguerre found a general method of solving differential equations one particular example being the equation.

View attachment 340221

The solutions to this equation were named associated Laguerre polynomials.

When quantum mechanics was formulated in the 1920s, Schrödinger’s wave equation for the hydrogen atom was found to be.

View attachment 340224

On solving this equation, it was discovered associated Laguerre polynomials formed part of the solution from which Rydberg’s formula could be derived instead of being empirically determined and also explained the value of the constant Rₕ.

Ha! I actually pulled up our past conversation about the Madelbrot set to remind me of how its derived and plotted, before I decided to drop in on this one. That thread is definitely a 'keeper'. Thanks for your assistance on that one .. much appreciated.

Hmm .. the 'discovery' part there, was of great value in furthering both scientific and mathematical knowledge .. but one has to wonder whether anyone would have paid much attention to Laguerre polynomials as being a solution to an equation that wasn't first associated with QM and the hydrogen atom from Physics(?)
I think the important 'discovery' there, (as with other examples), was about the importance of the intersection of mathematicians' unyielding efforts to find solutions to equations, (without necessarily having any real objectives other than general exploration of maths), with lingering concerns amongst physicists who can't quite pin down a reason for something in Physics(?)
The intersection of the two slightly independent trajectories in the respective fields there, made for the big step forward .. a bit like seeing the Mandelbrot plot for the first time, or seeing the detailed surface of Pluto for the first time, or finally nailing the Higgs mass, etc.
Goodness me!! That thought even supports the noble search for more research into string theory! (Chuckle, chuckle).

 

[stevevw]

That book chapter is not helping your case. It too was nothing more than a (lengthy and rambling) essay of a largely philosophical bent. I mean, seriously, Geller, Sheldrake, "Psi", pfft. Really?

Thats a pity you see things that way. I linked that article because it took a broad view of consciousness and fundemental reality. So dismissing it based on certain people or associations seems closed minded.

The article actually went into good arguements and the science behind why ideas like 'Information, Math and Mind' have come into popularity as possible explanations for what we are finding especially in QM. So the evdience is much broader than you give credit and it seems to me you have already made your mind up which points more to a philsophical position than science.

(And the notion that all of this stuff somehow gets to the kind of god you care about is laughable. Even the most "scientific" of the speculations gets to something far from the Christian notion.)

Most of what is mentioned in the article is not related to proving God but rather supporting the idea of something like Mind being fundemental. Not for religious reasons though ideas like the ancient mystics held is based on similar ideas within Panpsychicism but thats not religious really.

Most of the ideas are actually based on Math and science and argued interpretations of QM data for the Observer effect and Mind/Consciousness as fundemnetal reality.

And here I thought they were just wandering in the gaps that evidence and solid theory leave behind -- speculation.

I disagree that its just spectulation. Like I said its not based on the God of the gaps and in fact most ideas have nothing to do with religion. Thats a stereotypical position which makes assumptions about what alternative ideas that don't cvonform to the mate5rialist ontology. It dismisses the logic and arguements when the opposing view has no better explanation or arguement. At the very least we don't know and need to be open to all possibilities.

I've never done any research on consciousness. I'm a physicist, not a psychologist or neurobiologist, and a skeptic of philosophy.

That explains things then. Consciousness naturally transcends the materialistic physical paradigm. That in itself tells us that it cannot explain consciousness or what fundemental reality is because we know there is more to reality than what we sense, what we see.

OK, but hardly a household name like Wheeler.

But nevertheless a very prominent name in the field of Consciousness and cognition. If one is to be able to understand Consciousness then it would be expected that they understand what those who specialize in it have to say.

 

[stevevw]

The grave error in the essay is in the implied usage of the word "mind". Individuals have separate minds. The phenomena are such as to suggest as if they had been created by some mind (some of us believe, on other grounds, that it was our particular God's mind). They don't prove it. They don't "explain" it. Some things don't need "explanation". The aesthetics in nature is exactly aesthetics, neither more nor less. Aesthetics is meaningful for reason. Describing it, is poetry with some logic thrown in and that's good in itself. Facile "apologetism" with its "gotchas" as its panaceas has harmed honesty on all sides.

I don't think its explaining Mind as in the Mind of God or any god. The idea of Mind or Information as fundemental to reality has much more wider appeal including arguements from Information theory and physics as related to QM. In that sense it should be something with wide appeal and that is why it is coming into focus more even in mainstream science.

 

[stevevw]

Except for one really tiny detail... it's completely wrong.

Perhaps so but there have been several different modern day versions as well. But the basic idea has not been refuted, that measurement and the observer influence reality. That the oberser and the physical realm are interconnected and cannot be regarded as seperate aspects and they effect each other but with the obersevers conscious participation objective reality is created.

That was the basis for John Wheeler's Participatory Universe about how reality is revealed by the observer because we cannot seperate ourselves out of the equation and the only true reality is one that involves the subject being included in what is real or not.

That has been supported across a number of theories, arguements and scientific experiements. The same article goes into those ideas with support. Basically an Mind and Information espistemology pertaining to an ontological reality that is fundementally information and Mind.

It was suggested by the pioneers of QM like Heisenberg and Pauli and Philosophers like Kant and Nagal developed further by physicists like Wheeler, Wigner and Stapp. Still further by Chalmers and Koch and many others.

It seems due to the inability of the material reductionist paradigm to explain things like consciousness and mind, how the subject fits into reality there is a growing support for ideas that transcend the material ontology. That is not the result of religious belief but where our thinking has naturally been directed towards explanations which seem to better fit the data.

 

[SelfSim]

... Consciousness naturally transcends the materialistic physical paradigm.

i) How exactly do you measure that, in order to reach that conclusion?
ii) Its like saying a y-axis, on a 2d graph, trancends an x-axis.

The term 'transcends', as you have used it, is completely without meaning there .. aka: word-salad.

That in itself tells us that it cannot explain consciousness or what fundemental reality is because we know there is more to reality than what we sense, what we see.

How do you come to know, 'there is more to reality than what we sense, what we see' ,when your whole argument for that is balanced on a term which has no meaning in the context in which you have used it .. (ie: 'transcends')?

 

[stevevw]

While the thought experiment talks about 'delayed choice', the choice is not actually made by a human observer consciously flipping a switch in the physical experiments, but rather by some quick computer switching. In the case of Jacques, a "quantum random number generator" was used to 'choose'.

Henry Stapp thought that assuming the device itself was responsible for the observation seemed wrong as it was more logical to assume that the device was not also part of the quantum world fundementally. The most logical simplest assumption would be that the observer had direct access to what was happening rather than being a third party measuring what was happening through a machine because the conscious mind is observing directly what is happening and not seperated from it.

In his seminal paper “Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature”, Henry Stapp argues: “From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe.

Reality and consciousness are closely and deeply entangled stances, so they do not exist isolated. The measurement problem, or also the act of observation is grasped and explained differently once entanglement is incorporated in the corpus of science. This is probably the most fundamental achievement of quantum science (STAPP, 1993). In other words, the universe cannot be explained in the absence of life; moreover, the universe and life are deeply intertwined. To be sure, quantum entanglement is a much more robust relationship than, say, correlation.

Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp, 2001). According to Stapp, two factors seem to be involved in any measurement: the observer (the one who is asking the question) and the observed (i.e., matter/nature).

However, according to Stapp (who was a collaborator of Werner Heisenberg), quantum theory transcends this dualistic dichotomy between epistemology and ontology because it was realized that the only “thing” that really existed is knowledge. That is, ontology is always defined by epistemology which is primary.

In simple terms, knowledge (a faculty of the human mind) is primary and matter secondary (i.e., Stapp argues for “the primacy of consciousness”). In a sense, quantum physics addressed a quintessential and long-standing philosophical problem, namely how epistemology and ontology interact and interrelate to each other.

Putting Mind Back into Nature: A Tribute to Henry P. Stapp
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

 

[SelfSim]

It seems due to the inability of the material reductionist paradigm to explain things like consciousness and mind, how the subject fits into reality there is a growing support for ideas that transcend the material ontology.

There goes that meaningless term again .. aka: 'transcends'.

When last I looked, ideas are expressed in tangible contexts, using the common meanings of everyday language. That language is always expressed by invoking commonly understood meanings, denoted by specifically chosen parts of speech known as; verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjuctions, etc.
What are ideas if they can't be conveyed by the meanings expressed in these obviously 'non-transcendent' parts of speech?

 

[stevevw]

i) How exactly do you measure that, in order to reach that conclusion?
ii) Its like saying a y-axis, on a 2d graph, trancends an x-axis.

Well it depends on the assumptions you make. Materialism assumes that consciousness is created by physical mechanisms. But consciousness itself is not physical.

So already we have a measurement problem that transcends the material and physical. That may not prove what exactly consciousness is and how it occurs. BUt it does lay the explanation somehwre beyond the physical. You can'y look at a neuron or electrical signal and say that is where the experience of red is situated and never will be able to do so.

That is what Chalmers called the Hard problem of consciousness in that no material or physical explanation even if we mapped out the entire correlates for consciousness could explain the nature of conscious or come up with a theiry of consciousness as one is quantifying things and the other is by nature qualitative.

The term 'transcends', as you have used it, is completely without meaning there .. aka: word-salad.

How do you come to know, 'there is more to reality than what we sense, what we see' ,when your whole argument for that is balanced on a term which has no meaning in the context in which you have used it .. (ie: 'transcends')?

Ok so you can use another word iof you like so long as it means that the any explanation of consciousness will be outside the material/physical paradigm.

We come to know there is more to reality because our own Minds tell us this and our own minds are the only real measure of reality. For all we know we could be in some simulation and don't know it.

Even science suggests there is some dimensions that transcend the classical material/physical view of fundemental reality being made up of ting solid bits of matter, that basically at the bottom we don't have anything physically real even if its fields or forces of energy vibrations.

So wherever idea we are going to formulate to explain everything is going to have to include some counter intuitive ideas that step outside the standard theories. So in some ways science itself through the discovery of QM is how we know.

 

[stevevw]

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

But that implies then that the fundemental reality of the universe is non physical ontology.

 

[SelfSim]

Well it depends on the assumptions you make. Materialism assumes that consciousness is created by physical mechanisms. But consciousness itself is not physical.

Ok, for the sake of the argument, lets take a dictionary definition of consciousness: 'consciousness is the state of being aware of, and responsive to, one's surroundings'.
Would you say that one's surroundings are not objectively testable, (in Physics), therefore consciousness is not objectively testable?
So what exactly are those paramedics doing with that non-responsive patient in a trauma situation?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Henry Stapp thought that assuming the device itself was responsible for the observation seemed wrong

Seemed wrong? If he looks at a thermometer or a speedometer, does he doubt the device is responsible for making a measurement? Making it a measurement involving 'spooky' quantum mechanics does not change what measuring devices do.

as it was more logical to assume that the device was not also part of the quantum world fundementally. The most logical simplest assumption would be that the observer had direct access to what was happening

The scientist had no effect on the quantum random number generator. Or if he does, and it can be measured, that would be a critical demonstration of psychic powers. The device did its thing, and the scientist's 'observation' of the results did not alter the outcome.

I would not place any big bets on Stapp's ideas about QM ever gaining traction.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats a pity you see things that way. I linked that article because it took a broad view of consciousness and fundemental reality. So dismissing it based on certain people or associations seems closed minded.

It is very difficult to take anything seriously that takes seriously frauds and delusion. Geller is a fraud. Period. James Randi demonstrated it clearly. (If Geller thinks he has powers, it is only because he has conned himself.) Sheldrake is another fraud. As for "Psi" it is a catch-all term for all of that stuff that doesn't really happen. None of that section was credible in the least and the whole chapter suffers the stench of it. No pity is needed for a bit of hard-headed realism.

The article actually went into good arguements and the science behind why ideas like 'Information, Math and Mind' have come into popularity as possible explanations for what we are finding especially in QM. So the evdience is much broader than you give credit and it seems to me you have already made your mind up which points more to a philsophical position than science.

This was the closest thing to "science" in that whole chapter, and though you may not know it, I have been dismissive of "information theory" for a long time, especially the notion that "information is fundamental." Nothing in it seems like anything but comp.sci. and other applied math people getting out ahead of their skis. (Perhaps a case of "physics envy".)

Most of what is mentioned in the article is not related to proving God but rather supporting the idea of something like Mind being fundemental. Not for religious reasons though ideas like the ancient mystics held is based on similar ideas within Panpsychicism but thats not religious really.

Bring ancient mystics into the fold doesn't help one bit. I'm glad you understand you are nowhere near proving a god with this, but I must wonder what the point is then (see thread title).

As for "mind is fundamental" that's even more far-fetch than "info is fundamental". We literally have a category of objects (in grammar) known as "inanimate" objects which are objects without "mind". We distinguish between the ones with mind and without and have done so for as long as anyone knows. (There are some category error involved in some of the specific classifications, but that is neither here nor there.) My car is an internally powered object capable of movement, yet, it never goes anywhere unless I command it to. It is mindless. Mind is clearly the property of living things, and when examined closely, only of some animals.

Most of the ideas are actually based on Math and science and argued interpretations of QM data for the Observer effect and Mind/Consciousness as fundemnetal reality.

I disagree that its just spectulation. Like I said its not based on the God of the gaps and in fact most ideas have nothing to do with religion. Thats a stereotypical position which makes assumptions about what alternative ideas that don't cvonform to the mate5rialist ontology. It dismisses the logic and arguements when the opposing view has no better explanation or arguement. At the very least we don't know and need to be open to all possibilities.

When you (or rather they) put other meanings on quantum weirdness, that is exactly what they are doing -- speculating in the gaps left behind by better demonstrated ideas.

That explains things then. Consciousness naturally transcends the materialistic physical paradigm. That in itself tells us that it cannot explain consciousness or what fundemental reality is because we know there is more to reality than what we sense, what we see.

Really? All conscious things I have ever come across are animals made of material.

But nevertheless a very prominent name in the field of Consciousness and cognition. If one is to be able to understand Consciousness then it would be expected that they understand what those who specialize in it have to say.

As my master once said:

"I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other; I've seen a lot of strange stuff. But I've never seen anything to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything."

 

[sjastro]

Ha! I actually pulled up our past conversation about the Madelbrot set to remind me of how its derived and plotted, before I decided to drop in on this one. That thread is definitely a 'keeper'. Thanks for your assistance on that one .. much appreciated.

Hmm .. the 'discovery' part there, was of great value in furthering both scientific and mathematical knowledge .. but one has to wonder whether anyone would have paid much attention to Laguerre polynomials as being a solution to an equation that wasn't first associated with QM and the hydrogen atom from Physics(?)
I think the important 'discovery' there, (as with other examples), was about the importance of the intersection of mathematicians' unyielding efforts to find solutions to equations, (without necessarily having any real objectives other than general exploration of maths), with lingering concerns amongst physicists who can't quite pin down a reason for something in Physics(?)
The intersection of the two slightly independent trajectories in the respective fields there, made for the big step forward .. a bit like seeing the Mandelbrot plot for the first time, or seeing the detailed surface of Pluto for the first time, or finally nailing the Higgs mass, etc.
Goodness me!! That thought even supports the noble search for more research into string theory! (Chuckle, chuckle).

Whether mathematics is discovered or invented is ultimately a matter of timing.
About 80 years after Newton came up with his laws of motion, Joseph-Louis Lagrange came up with a different version of classical physics to Newton's.

​

Newton's laws of motion were empirically derived and the mathematics invented to explain the observations.
In Lagrangian mechanics, Newtons laws of motion are mathematically derived from the principle of least action.
If Newton never existed, the laws of motion would become a prediction to be supported by experiment and observation, which is the opposite to constructing the mathematics based on observations as Newton had done.