Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Translatable with human symbolic algebraic mathematics of values and functions. E = Mc^2limited patterns via limited matter and limited energy?
energy is matter is energy?
Last edited:
Translatable with human symbolic algebraic mathematics of values and functions. E = Mc^2limited patterns via limited matter and limited energy?
energy is matter is energy?
I agree.Actually they are very a propos. Physical patterns are designs by definition.
The question is if the patterns (designs) are self-ordered or if someone ordered them. I maintain it is the mathematical nature of the universe that allows specific patterns (designs) to self-order without the need for a motivated supernatural mathematician..
Sure, but that's cheating.I know the answer to my question..so obvious that you miss it...and it has been said before only a little differently...
Who designed the designer?
Answer...the same folk who designed the intelligent design arguement,
"Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the designer exists...."
"Who designed the designer"?Sure, but that's cheating.
The question is implicitly predicated with (and expects the contributors to grant) the predendum: "Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the designer exists...."
The notion of an intelligent designer seems to be religions contribution to science... Not.
But it stuck me today to enquire who designed the designer.
Did God design the designer or was the designer an alien sent here to design life suitable for the planet Earth.
Alex
They aren't. They develop and grow, instead.I look inside living things and see that all animals AND humans are coded, even with a randomise function!
Abiogenesis via Darwinian evolution is the best explanation so far, for what you see. That's certainly what it looks like. "Belief" is not involved.The alternative... abiogenesis? If I could see a demonstration of this, I would believe,
They aren't. They develop and grow, instead.
Abiogenesis via Darwinian evolution is the best explanation so far, for what you see. That's certainly what it looks like. "Belief" is not involved.
davewhite04 said:
I look inside living things and see that all animals AND humans are coded, even with a randomise function!
But that is indicative of pattern forming, no? A fractal develops and grows, A human pattern develops and grows.They aren't. They develop and grow, instead.
I agree, but rather than arguing against developing and growing patterns, evolution is itself a pattern forming function, the gradual growth of patterns into ever greater complexity of both physical and environmental patterns.Abiogenesis via Darwinian evolution is the best explanation so far, for what you see. That's certainly what it looks like. "Belief" is not involved.
Really interesting, never heard of it before. Will remember it, and hopefully have the time to read up on it properly one day. I'm no good at maths so might struggle.Tegmarks' mathematical universe,
You won't have to.Will remember it
It touches on the fundamentals of all scientific disciplines, no?You won't have to.
You'll be reminded a hundred times, across a score of posts, for the foreseeable future.
Okay mate. I'll learn it off youIt touches on the fundamentals of all scientific disciplines, no?
p.s. Dave, I know I do introduce Bohm and Tegmark a lot but that is for the newer readers who might not look back far enough to find these, what I believe to be important scientific perspectives. Worthy of repeated revisiting.
It is also hard not to cite Einstein often. GR touches on everything also, no? Darwin (evolution)?
Understanding Tegmark is easy. No need to be a mathematician. In fact, it is easier to understand than many previously accepted theories. David Bohm is a lot deeper when we get into the philosophical perspectives of the universe.Really interesting, never heard of it before. Will remember it, and hopefully have the time to read up on it properly one day. I'm no good at maths so might struggle.
Yes, it does by rendering an intelligent causality moot. Mathematics form an abstract self-referential pseudo-intelligence which is "sufficient unto itself".So does this eliminate the need of a designer?
I'm looking for the thread, is it in this sub-forum?Understanding Tegmark is easy. No need to be a mathematician. In fact, it is easier to understand than many previously accepted theories. David Bohm is a lot deeper when we get into the philosophical perspectives of the universe.
But according to both, the single common denominator in the universe is it's mathematical nature which can be found in all self-forming and self-similar patterns which make up everything in the universe, as well as the universe itself.
Yes, it does by rendering an intelligent causality moot. Mathematics form an abstract self-referential pseudo-intelligence which is "sufficient unto itself".
I'm sure you have no problem visualizing patterns in physical things . This lecture by Tegmark goes deeper and proposes that consciousness itself is a pattern and more importantly that we already have all the knowledge of how this becomes explicated in reality.I'm looking for the thread, is it in this sub-forum?
I'm sure you have no problem visualizing patterns in physical things . This lecture by Tegmark goes deeper and proposes that consciousness itself is a pattern and more importantly that we already have all the knowledge of how this becomes explicated in reality.
Once this is understood, a lot of prior assumptions and conflicting arguments go away and things get conceptually simpler. Just as cool as all other possible explanations....![]()
Play the link. You'll see where he is going with concept of a purely mathematical universe.I think consciousness is external. Personal experience. No evidence.
What I picked up on is pretty major, which made up my mind.Play the link. You'll see where he is going with concept of a purely mathematical universe.