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

[stevevw]

Can you put a foot into a tgest tube?

You'd need a big test tube. But we can test the skin, bone and makeup of the foot as its a physical thing.

By the same argument, distance isn't real either.

Probably so. The idea of distance to a white European will be different to an Indigenous person. Who is right. I mean what does distance even mean in cosmological scales. We could never reach a distant galaxy and even if we did by the time we go there it would no longer even exist or exist in the way it did when we first measured it.

Distance is a mind concept. Two people can look at the distance of a hill to the top. It maybe 1500 metres high. But that is just a quantitative measure. But there is also the conscious experience of that hill. To one the distance is nothing and they scale the hill like it was only 10 feet tall. To the other they see it as an impossible obstacle, like its 15,000 metres and not 1,500 that they struggle to climb it or even give up before attempting.

What is more relevent the quantified measure or the actual experience of the distance which is different for people. Sometimes its the quantified measure but sometimes its the real world experience of that distance that matters. I would say the experience of distance is more relevant as far as relaity is concerned. It actually tells us whats happening by experiencing distance and time.

And your point? Do you have some source that says that the location of the north galactic pole is found by going north from Earth';s north pole?

Well technically yes they appear direct over the north and south poles.

Celestial pole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But there is a very clear definition of north, that can be done by anyone. It's not arbitrary.

But then if you bring it back to time then it becomes arbitray acording to relativity. People in different locations around the word will experience different times, someone at the top of Mt Everest of on a supersonic jet will experience time slower and someone on another planet or universe may experience time completely difference to ourselves.

Please give me a source from a legitimate scientist where they claim that time existed before the Big Bang.

What was before the Big Bang: the theory of Roger Penrose

What was before the Big Bang: the theory of Roger Penrose

The question "What was before the Big Bang?" led Roger Penrose to an interesting cosmological concept in which our Universe is just one link in an endless chain of worlds.

universemagazine.com

Mind-Bending Study Suggests Time Did Actually Exist Before The Big Bang

Mind-Bending Study Suggests Time Did Actually Exist Before The Big Bang

According to a straightforward interpretation of general relativity, the Big Bang wasn't the start of 'everything'.

www.sciencealert.com

The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang

The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang

The hot Big Bang is often touted as the beginning of the Universe. But there's one piece of evidence we can't ignore that shows otherwise.

bigthink.com

How Do We Know The Universe Is Infinite?

How Do We Know The Universe Is Infinite?

Is the universe infinite or do we say that because we have not traveled to or seen its walls yet? This question was originally answered on Quora by Viktor T. Toth.

www.forbes.com

 

[stevevw]

And who says those universes have the same dimension that we would call "time"?

Thats the point. In a multiverse there may be alternative worlds where time is subject to different physics, different dimensions that will distort time as we know it.

So in the overall scheme of things, the fundemental reality that underlies our universe or a multiverse it seems possible that time can mean many things so our understanding of time is just the product of our physical reality but is not the ultimate truth of time in the overall scheme of things when it comes to whats fundemental reality.

Like I said we even have different measures and experiences of time on planet earth. But imagine the differences between different parts of our solar system, galaxy, universe let alone multiverses.

 

[Kylie]

You'd need a big test tube. But we can test the skin, bone and makeup of the foot as its a physical thing.

I think it was quite clear that I was talking about "foot" as a unit of distance, as in "twelve inches."

Probably so. The idea of distance to a white European will be different to an Indigenous person. Who is right. I mean what does distance even mean in cosmological scales. We could never reach a distant galaxy and even if we did by the time we go there it would no longer even exist or exist in the way it did when we first measured it.

Distance is a mind concept. Two people can look at the distance of a hill to the top. It maybe 1500 metres high. But that is just a quantitative measure. But there is also the conscious experience of that hill. To one the distance is nothing and they scale the hill like it was only 10 feet tall. To the other they see it as an impossible obstacle, like its 15,000 metres and not 1,500 that they struggle to climb it or even give up before attempting.

What is more relevent the quantified measure or the actual experience of the distance which is different for people. Sometimes its the quantified measure but sometimes its the real world experience of that distance that matters. I would say the experience of distance is more relevant as far as relaity is concerned. It actually tells us whats happening by experiencing distance and time.

This is completely missing the point. I am talking about actual distance, not the subjective perception of distance.

Well technically yes they appear direct over the north and south poles.

Celestial pole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you think "going north" means an increase in altitude then?

But then if you bring it back to time then it becomes arbitray acording to relativity. People in different locations around the word will experience different times, someone at the top of Mt Everest of on a supersonic jet will experience time slower and someone on another planet or universe may experience time completely difference to ourselves.

And this can only be observed by making objective measurements of it.

What was before the Big Bang: the theory of Roger Penrose

What was before the Big Bang: the theory of Roger Penrose

The question "What was before the Big Bang?" led Roger Penrose to an interesting cosmological concept in which our Universe is just one link in an endless chain of worlds.

universemagazine.com

If there is a chain of predecessors and descendants, then there is still no reason to think that "time" as we understand it in this universe was in any of the others.

Mind-Bending Study Suggests Time Did Actually Exist Before The Big Bang

Mind-Bending Study Suggests Time Did Actually Exist Before The Big Bang

According to a straightforward interpretation of general relativity, the Big Bang wasn't the start of 'everything'.

www.sciencealert.com

And this makes the mistake of trying to use GR in a singularity - something which GR is notoriously BAD at doing. Is there any research to support his idea of Janus points?

The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang

The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang

The hot Big Bang is often touted as the beginning of the Universe. But there's one piece of evidence we can't ignore that shows otherwise.

bigthink.com

Again, this does not show that "time" as we understand it in this universe was in any of the others.

How Do We Know The Universe Is Infinite?

How Do We Know The Universe Is Infinite?

Is the universe infinite or do we say that because we have not traveled to or seen its walls yet? This question was originally answered on Quora by Viktor T. Toth.

www.forbes.com

Why do you think this supports your claim that time was around before our universe was? Can you cut and paste the relevant part of the answer that is given in that link? Because that is talking about how our universe is spatially infinite. It says nothing about time (other than to say the universe is expanding as time flows forward) and nothing about any potential previous universes.

 

[Kylie]

Thats the point. In a multiverse there may be alternative worlds where time is subject to different physics, different dimensions that will distort time as we know it.

So in the overall scheme of things, the fundemental reality that underlies our universe or a multiverse it seems possible that time can mean many things so our understanding of time is just the product of our physical reality but is not the ultimate truth of time in the overall scheme of things when it comes to whats fundemental reality.

Like I said we even have different measures and experiences of time on planet earth. But imagine the differences between different parts of our solar system, galaxy, universe let alone multiverses.

Then why should we call it time?

 

[stevevw]

I think it was quite clear that I was talking about "foot" as a unit of distance, as in "twelve inches."

lol sorry, I really thought you meant a literal foot. So yes we can't put 'inches' in a test tube. Thats the point, its a human concept to break the world up into segments as a measure. We actually changed the measure from 'inches' to metric many years ago. If inches were a set reality in space and time how is it we just changed the way we measured things.

Indigenous peoples don't use centimetre or kilometre. They measure the world in landmarks and symbolic representations.

This is completely missing the point. I am talking about actual distance, not the subjective perception of distance.

But 'the actual distance' is just one aspect of understanding the space between two objects. Its not the only way to understand distance. THis is the point I was trying to make as far as what is reality, what is fundemental reality. Is it the quantified world we measure by devising some method of measurement according to a set of certain criteria we may assume about the world.

Or is there more to it like how we actually experience distance and time, space and time. In fact QM may even point to the possibility of breaching time as we know it such as with time travel or entanglement where information can be transfered in an instant, at the same time without any actual traversing across space and time.

So you think "going north" means an increase in altitude then?

No I am saying the idea of north besides magnetic north which is different because its based on the electromagnetic field. But the idea of north, south, east and west and longtitude and latitude are just a made up grid reference.

They could have put south as north or east as west and still would have a similar point ref just the other way around. We could divide the earth up with other grids however humans choose depending on what 'humans' decide they want to measure will influence how they see the world.

And this can only be observed by making objective measurements of it.

Yes but the point was who is what is the correct time between them at the point in which they are asked at the same time. They will all say different times. So at any specific point in time we would have to say that5 there can be many 'times' on a clock that are correct at the same time in the overall or global sense.

Even though we can check each time and verify it with local settings in the global sense which is more fundemental n single 'time' is correct. I think this relates to Wigners Friend experiement that found there is no objective reality because fundementally two people can have a different objective reality at the same time.

If there is a chain of predecessors and descendants, then there is still no reason to think that "time" as we understand it in this universe was in any of the others.

The point is there could be different universe that keep getting birthed and rebirthed in a multiverse. Ours may come to an end while another different one may pop up with similar physics some time or could have completely different physics and space and time. Ours is not so special within a multiverse of unlimited variations.

And this makes the mistake of trying to use GR in a singularity - something which GR is notoriously BAD at doing. Is there any research to support his idea of Janus points?

The Janus Point is just the latest in a line of ideas like the Multiverse, Big Bounce ect to try and explain how our universe came to be. So none can really be verified scientifically but they are based on the data.

The problem is as the article says "physics breaks down at the singularity, leading to a mix of speculations on what little we can tease out of the physics that still makes sense". So the science is taking us back to a point where it cannot apply and yet it leaves unexplained what happens up to that point.

Therefore because the physics breaks down whatever idea is going to explain things is going to be counter intuitive because it requires new physics, new dimensions that don't conform to what we understand through time and space.

Again, this does not show that "time" as we understand it in this universe was in any of the others.

This is a bit similar to the other ones and in fact they are all pretty much the same in proposing some universe before our universe meaning our universe was not the beginning but a carryover from another universe or event such as a Big Crunch that created another singularity or like Bubble universes as a result of quantum foam.

The point is if our universe is the result of a multiverse or a rebirthed universe then the universe before ours also contains space and time but not necessarily the same. But still having time in its own way to be able to start and end and then be rebirthed ad infinitum.

Why do you think this supports your claim that time was around before our universe was? Can you cut and paste the relevant part of the answer that is given in that link? Because that is talking about how our universe is spatially infinite. It says nothing about time (other than to say the universe is expanding as time flows forward) and nothing about any potential previous universes.

The point is if our universe is infinite then what does that do to time.

 

[stevevw]

Then why should we call it time?

I guess thats what we came up with to help understand the experience of past, present and future.

An interesting thing is that the past as memories can become the present. You can relive that experience like it becomes your new past experience that replaces the original one, or changes how you percieve the past.

That seems to suggest that we can measure time gone by through years which is one way to understand time as far as volume is concerned. But we can also understand time through conscious experience. A past event can be transported to the future at an instant making it real again for the present.

This seems to mean in some ways 'time' is non local. It is not restricted to measures in set quantities that flow in one direction from past to present. Our conscious experience is not restricted by the measure of time and space in the classical sense.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why don’t you mention that He changed his mind?

Because after many attempts, the closest that I can come to confirming this is the following quote from Dr. Castanon, or some version thereof:

In September of 2003 I went again to Professor Robert Lawrence who confirmed that in the light of the new investigations one could conclude that the sample could correspond to the tissue of an inflamed heart.

Unfortunately this statement is ambiguous. All that this quote seems to suggest is that Dr. Lawrence acknowledged that the sample could be interpreted as corresponding to the tissue of an inflamed heart. However, it doesn't say that he agrees with that interpretation, just that it could be interpreted that way.

So unless you can confirm Dr. Lawrence's alleged change of opinion I'm going to stick with what I can confirm, that the first two sources consulted simply concluded that the sample contained... in your words... epithelial material.

 

[SelfSim]

... A past event can be transported to the future at an instant making it real again for the present. This seems to mean in some ways time is non local.

The example you cite there requires, at the very minimum, a single time perceiving (human) observer.
I'd say that's about as local as anyone could define a meaning for 'local'(?)
Your second sentence therefore doesn't logically follow on from the first.
Non sequitur.

 

[stevevw]

The example you cite there requires, at the very minimum, a single time perceiving (human) observer.
I'd say that's about as local as anyone could define a meaning for 'local'(?)
Your second sentence therefore doesn't logically follow on from the first.
Non sequitur.

Not really as far as I understand. To experience non local interactions would require humans to be open to those interactions. Under classical objective reality interactions are restricted by volume and distance.

So if we can relive a past event today this requires an ability to experience those events again. So it requires conscious experience because this is not restricted by volume and distance because consciousness cannot be measured as such.

Its also governed by knowledge. Gaining knowledge of the event can instantly change the past so memories and existing knowledge are not fixed by time or space (volume or distance).

Counterintuitively this is what John Wheeler was talking about when he said observers can create reality even changing the past into a new reality which then effects our present.

It seems knowledge and memory (mind and consciousness) can over ride what we think of as space and time which implies they are more fundemental and time and space is just a Mind concept we use to help us navigate the physical world.

 

[SelfSim]

Not really as far as I understand. To experience non local interactions would require humans to be open to those interactions. Under classical objective reality interactions are restricted by volume and distance.

So if we can relive a past event today this requires an ability to experience those events again. So it requires conscious experience because this is not restricted by volume and distance because consciousness cannot be measured as such.

Its also governed by knowledge. Gaining knowledge of the event can instantly change the past so memories and existing knowledge are not fixed by time or space (volume or distance).

Counterintuitively this is what John Wheeler was talking about when he said observers can create reality even changing the past into a new reality which then effects our present.

It seems knowledge and memory (mind and consciousness) can over ride what we think of as space and time which implies they are more fundemental and time and space is just a Mind concept we use to help us navigate the physical world.

The concept of time is fundamental to how our human minds make sense. It is our concept.
The only minds/consciousness we have evidence for, thus far, is restricted to Earth-life.
The notion that time is somehow magically, 'a thing', which stands independent of our sense-making, lacks any objective evidence.

 

[stevevw]

The concept of time is fundamental to how our human minds make sense. It is our concept.
The only minds/consciousness we have evidence for, thus far, is restricted to Earth-life.
The notion that time is somehow magically, 'a thing', which stands independent of our sense-making, lacks any objective evidence.

I agree the idea of 'time' that humans came up with in an attempt to describe their experience in the world is an abstract idea created by Mind. It has no real substance apart from when we may panick if we are not keeping to it or remembering birthdays.

But thats only a western concept and others from different cultures have created their own version of what their experience of moving through the world is which shows the concept of time is subjective.

But our conscious experience of moving through this world is not like the human made rationalisations of time but transcends this. I think Indigenous peoples offer some insights as they don't conform to western ideas of time. Also belief, religion or spirituality and transcedental meditation which may tap into this more fluid notion of time.

 

[SelfSim]

.. It has no real substance ...
But thats only a western concept and others from different cultures have created their own version of what their experience of moving through the world is which shows the concept of time is subjective.

Time is objectified in Physics by defining it operationally, as being what a clock reads.
That's a substantial step forward from the never ending arm-waving, evident from religions, philosophy and your non-western cultures there.

But our conscious experience of moving through this world is not like the human made rationalisations of time but transcends this. I think Indigenous peoples offer some insights as they don't conform to western ideas of time. Also belief, religion or spirituality and transcedental meditation which may tap into this more fluid notion of time.

Resulting in what returns of substance, exactly?

 

[stevevw]

Time is objectified in Physics by defining it operationally, as being what a clock reads.
That's a substantial step forward from the never ending arm-waving, evident from religions, philosophy and your non-western cultures there.

Fair enough but you have just wiped out the majority of human experience as being "arm waving and non-substancial". To even make this claim requires a belief beyond science epistemically by claiming there is only one way we can know reality that relates to our experience of time and space.

Its also claiming that our present understanding of time and space is complete and yet we know that according to QM time and space can be non local.

Resulting in what returns of substance, exactly?

When I say 'time is fluid' I don't mean as in the substance of liquid but metaphorically as not fixed by quantified meausres such as it can move back and forth or change instantly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Fair enough but you have just wiped out the majority of human experience as being "arm waving and non-substancial". To even make this claim requires a belief beyond science epistemically by claiming there is only one way we can know reality that relates to our experience of time and space.

So what? Physics doesn't care about your feelings, nor does reality.

Its also claiming that our present understanding of time and space is complete and yet we know that according to QM time and space can be non local.

When I say 'time is fluid' I don't mean as in the substance of liquid but metaphorically as not fixed by quantified meausres such as it can move back and forth or change instantly.

Metaphor is useless if it only serves to confuse things and obfuscate reality.

 

[SelfSim]

Fair enough but you have just wiped out the majority of human experience as being "arm waving and non-substancial". To even make this claim requires a belief beyond science epistemically by claiming there is only one way we can know reality that relates to our experience of time and space.

Substance asserted without evidence, can be excluded by the physics of substance.

Its also claiming that our present understanding of time and space is complete and yet we know that according to QM time and space can be non local.

When I say 'time is fluid' I don't mean as in the substance of liquid but metaphorically as not fixed by quantified meausres such as it can move back and forth or change instantly.

I agree with @Hans Blaster's comment on the obfuscation introduced by metaphors here.

 

[partinobodycular]

So if we can relive a past event today this requires an ability to experience those events again. So it requires conscious experience because this is not restricted by volume and distance because consciousness cannot be measured as such.

Excuse me for butting in here, but I see this quite differently. If reality exists as you seem to describe it, and it's somehow possible to interact with the past... then the conclusion would have to be that we can't interact with the past. I realize that that seems like a heck of a Catch-22, if it's possible to interact with the past, then that means that we can't interact with the past.

Richard Feynman used to describe why light always travels in a straight line by explaining that the photon takes every possible path from the source to the observer, and this includes paths that travel both forward and backward through time, and if one sums up all of these paths the only ones that survive are the ones that take the straight path from the source to the observer. All others are destroyed by interference before ever actually existing. And voila, you end up with light always traveling in a straight line, and what that means is that all the paths that traveled forward or backward through time got destroyed. Hence, at least for photons, in a world where time travel is possible... time travel isn't possible, because the only things that survive in a reality where time travel is possible, are things that don't time travel.

So if one wonders what would happen if we could interact with the past and the future, then all that we have to do is to take a cue from those photons, and without having to do the whole sum over histories thing, simply assume that in a reality where time travel is possible, the only versions that survive are the one's in which we don't time travel.

This also means that this particular version of 'reality' is our equivalent of a straight line. 'A' follows 'B' in a linear series of cause and effect, because any series that diverges from that path gets destroyed.

The conclusion: the source of reality is such that it will by its very nature give rise to linear series, with no discernible need for intent. But this isn't to assume that that intent isn't there anyway. Theists may well be correct, and reality may simply be the product of God's nature, and I wouldn't disagree. Where I would question them however, is in their understanding of God. When He starts walking around in a garden, then me and many theists are gonna have a problem.

 

[SelfSim]

The conclusion: the source of reality ..

... is a mystery.
End of story.

 

[partinobodycular]

... is a mystery.

True, none-the-less, being an advocate of the Principal of Sufficient Reason, I'm a firm believer in the premise that there has to be a logical explanation for why things are the way they are. Now as to why they are at all, that question would have to extend to God Himself, and may indeed be unanswerable.

End of story.

Is that the end of the story... or the beginning of the story?

 

[carloagal]

Because after many attempts, the closest that I can come to confirming this is the following quote from Dr. Castanon, or some version thereof:


Unfortunately this statement is ambiguous. All that this quote seems to suggest is that Dr. Lawrence acknowledged that the sample could be interpreted as corresponding to the tissue of an inflamed heart. However, it doesn't say that he agrees with that interpretation, just that it could be interpreted that way.

So unless you can confirm Dr. Lawrence's alleged change of opinion I'm going to stick with what I can confirm, that the first two sources consulted simply concluded that the sample contained... in your words... epithelial material.

For you that tissue is visible behind the lawyer Ron Tesoriero is epidermis or myocardium heart muscle tissue? Plus DNA confirm was human origin.

 

[partinobodycular]

For you that tissue is visible behind the lawyer Ron Tesoriero is epidermis or myocardium heart muscle tissue? Plus DNA confirm was human origin.

A link would've been sufficient, and I'm already quite familiar with this website, and hundreds of others that make the same exact claims. However, at this point we're not concerned with yours or my interpretation of the samples, we're concerned with the interpretation of the first two experts consulted, who identified the samples as containing... in @Mountainmike's terminology... 'epithelial material'. Which is a pretty broad term as both plants and animals contain epithelial material.

The question then is how do we get from simply epithelial material to traumatized cardiac tissue from a still living patient. That's a pretty big gap if the interpretation is as blatantly obvious as people like you seem to think it is.

But first, what I'm trying to confirm is whether Dr. Robert Lawrence actually changed his mind after hearing what other experts had to say. Every quote that I can find which makes this claim, doesn't actually say that he changed his mind. Just that he could understand how the samples could be interpreted that way, not that he actually agreed with that interpretation.

What makes the timeline interesting is how the experts progressively get from mere epithelial material to traumatized cardiac tissue from the left ventricle of a still living patient.

At this point I'm just trying to get the facts right.