Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[exchemist]

Christ.

 

[Pinball1970]

Christ.

We are on this thread so let's go with the flow. As you said, it keeps it all here.

 

[Pinball1970]

have learned more from our communications in your relatively short time on this forum, than from years of prior and continuing ad hominem exclamations, without any constructive explanatory critiques which in a social sciences context might even be called an "abusive relationship

If this is a reference to James, he does a very difficult job, not just in our exchanges but policing the site. I like him.
If he asks you a question, "I don't know," is a perfectly reasonable answer, you should use that a little more.

As I said, I am ignorant on a lot of the topics on here, I just have a few headlines or an outline.

I am glad you are learning and doing this as a second language must be quite tough. For that you have my respect.

 

[Write4U]

As I said, I am ignorant on a lot of the topics on here, I just have a few headlines or an outline.

I am ignorant on all topics but 2. The mathematical nature of Universal mechanics and Microtubules. Those are the only subjects that interest me and feel informed enough to be able to discuss in general terms because these subjects touch on all subsequent questions of universal mechanics and emergent consciousness.

But for that I am accused of being religiously obsessed because those are the only subjects I research and report on. I don't claim authorship on any of it. AllI do is report with an occasional comment. But when questioned I always respond with considered logic that IMO supports my intuitive understanding of the fundamental issues . My ignorance of formal scientific lingo is not a measure of my analytical IQ or understanding of fundamental issues. Nor is the use of scientific jargon a measure of knowledge of constantly emerging new and updated scientific fields, through modern research methods .

Scientific lingo, also known as scientific terminology or science terms, is a specialized language used by scientists in their professional activities12. It consists of words and terms that represent various concepts, ideas, or physical realities2. These terms are specific to different scientific disciplines and are often referred to as jargon3.

Resolution of Brain-Based Consciousness as a Quantum Information Field​

Academia EduSoft
2019, BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience

This work resolves the brain-based consciousness as an Open Quantum Information Field, created and influenced via the environmental sensory information and operating under the full control of quantum mechanics. The external sensory information, modelled as quantised electromagnetic waves, is assumed to feed the cortical neurons and eventually construct the brainbased consciousness Hamiltonian.

Any external energy/information, instantly reaching to the Hamiltonian of brain-based consciousness, is taken into account as a perturbation. In order to obtain instantaneous wave functions and probability amplitudes well known time dependant perturbation theory is employed. Quantum field theory is finally used to resolve the overall brain-based consciousness and some important conclusions are underlined.

Resolution of Brain-Based Consciousness as a Quantum Information Field

This work resolves the brain-based consciousness as an Open Quantum Information Field, created and influenced via the environmental sensory information and operating under the full control of quantum mechanics. The external sensory information,

www.academia.edu

I make no claims, other than bringing attention to advances in this new and burgeoning science that is directly and tangently related to my stated areas of scientific interest. Why that should give me a reputation of a crank, I can only assign to conservatism and lack of imagination.
This is exciting stuff and every few years more and deeper research information is being published.

I have no intentions (nor could I alter) to curb my enthusiasm in the face of encouraging new scientific findings, that seem to confirm my initial intuition. Scientific nomenclature does not interest me. My aim is to gain a deeper understanding of universal mechanics.
Technical terms don't provide that.

Universal mechanics refers to properties that are independent of the dynamical details of a system and apply to a large class of systems5.

Universality (dynamical systems) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pinball1970]

But for that I am accused of being religiously obsessed because those are the only subjects I research and report on. I

It is when you try and apply one of those things to unrelated topics.
I have no idea about MT, Penrose is one of those rare Geniuses, completely brilliant and completely out there.
There skepticism from the scientific community regarding his and Hameroff's claims.

Regarding Tegmark? The fact he has not followed up on his 2014 thesis for me speaks volumes.
No one else has either, he published a general readers, went on promotion to sell it, made some money then nothing.

 

[Write4U]

Regarding Tegmark? The fact he has not followed up on his 2014 thesis for me speaks volumes.
No one else has either, he published a general readers, went on promotion to sell it, made some money then nothing.

ORCH OR and IIT consciousness via microtubule processes are very much being studied and a lot of progress has been made in regard to fine scale processes that may produce a form of holonomic field that is consciously experienced.

Copilot:
Holonomic brain theory is a branch of neuroscience that proposes that human consciousness is formed by quantum effects in or between brain cells12. Holonomic refers to representations in a Hilbert phase space defined by both spectral and space-time coordinates12. The theory was developed by Karl Pribram2.

As to Tegmark and the traditional argument that mathemarics are the descriptive map but not the terrain, my question is that when we look at his descriptive map of the universe, are we looking at a non-existent terrain, or is a map really descriptive of a real terrain in codified mathematical terms.
The standad argument is that "the map is not the terrain", makes no sense at all. If there is a description of the terrain, then the terrain actually exists and the map is a codified representation of the terrain that really exists, no? We are not talking about maps in Hobbit stories.

If not, how would a map be of any use for guiding the way over and through the terrain, no? Wherever I look in science I see nothing but maps scientifically describing and guiding us through all "known" universal terrains. We even use mathematical terms like "constants and universal laws" .
If these "terrains" did not exists how could we apply these codified mathematics and get predictable results.

The universe does not use a codified language, it uses abstract (generic) logical mechanics and guiding equations. Humans have invented a codified language that closely approximates universal mechanics. Throughout history, some very brilliant minds have discovered and recognized this "reasonable effectiveness".
Maths work in the human world. There is no reason why they should not work in the non-human world. And the maps we have drawn work practically in all facets where humans imitate universal mechanics. I always thought that ability to predict results counted as proof.

 

[Write4U]

This fundamental argument strikes my fancy

Tegmark points out that these mathematical structures are often identical to the underlying structures in nature. We have a tendency to view mathematical structures as abstract and separate from physical reality. But if those abstract structures match the physical ones, if we have two descriptions that are equivalent, then it makes sense to regard them as describing the same thing.

Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

I recently read Max Tegmark’s latest book, ‘Our Mathematical Universe‘, about his views on multiverses and the ultimate nature of reality. This is the fourth and final post in a series on the conc…

selfawarepatterns.com

 

[Pinball1970]

This fundamental argument strikes my fancy

Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

I recently read Max Tegmark’s latest book, ‘Our Mathematical Universe‘, about his views on multiverses and the ultimate nature of reality. This is the fourth and final post in a series on the conc…

selfawarepatterns.com

I don't buy it

 

[C C]

This fundamental argument strikes my fancy

Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

I recently read Max Tegmark’s latest book, ‘Our Mathematical Universe‘, about his views on multiverses and the ultimate nature of reality. This is the fourth and final post in a series on the conc…

selfawarepatterns.com

• QUOTE: . . . Now, immediately we have to do an important semantic clarification. When Tegmark refers to mathematics, he isn’t referring to the notation, the nomenclature, or the techniques that we use to express or explore mathematics. The ancient Greeks worked in math with a different notation than we use today, and no doubt an alien from Andromeda would have a radically different notation and process than anything humans have conceived of. But all these notations and processes should refer to the same underlying structures, the same underlying realities.
  
  [...] Addressing commons criticisms of the MUH, Tegmark spends a chapter on time. Mathematical structures are timeless structures, so how does that relate to a universe that evolves with time? Thinking in terms of spacetime, with time as one of the dimensions, the universe, including all of its history, could be viewed as a static structure. Tegmark uses the example of a DVD movie that appears to change when watching it, but is actually a static unchanging construct. He describes this concept in fascinating detail, in a manner that I can’t do justice to here.

Though indispensable for conveying the idea of non-ephemeral existence quickly, the simplicity of a traditional "block-universe" structure can't cope with Tegmark's (and others') extravagant and complicated multiverse conceptions.

So that's arguably one way to make sense of this contemporary Pythagoreanism, is that it revolves around granting concreteness to complicated, static geometric forms. Or the latter being the corporeal counterpart of what abstract mathematical description alludes to or can contingently be converted into. [CNRS: "Mathematics operates in two complementary ways. In the 'visual' one the meaning of a theorem is perceived instantly on a geometric figure. The 'written' one leans on language, on algebra; it operates in time."]

Otherwise, such mathematical realists would still be confined to the presentism or "nowism" view of time, which causally demands an add-on stratum that is generating, regulating, and replacing those briefly existing configurations of the world (that is, if one desires to avoid appealing to "the process just magically happens").

If in that context, their "mathematical realism" would be stuck in the "spirituality" of classical Pythagoreanism -- where generating and governing principles are something akin to immaterial entities, rather than a dimensionally extended material framework that's merely conforming to its own built-in patterns. No mystical add-ons required (with the latter), though the simulation theorists would still try to introduce their hidden computational level (below), that Tegmark antiseptically rids of presentism, too.

• Max Tegmark: [...] Suppose that our universe is indeed some form of computation. A common misconception in the universe simulation literature is that our physical notion of a one-dimensional time must then necessarily be equated with the step-by-step one-dimensional flow of the computation. I will argue below that if the MUH is correct, then computations do not need to evolve the universe, but merely describe it (defining all its relations).
  
  The temptation to equate time steps with computational steps is understandable, given that both form a one-dimensional sequence where (at least for the non-quantum case) the next step is determined by the current state. However, this temptation stems from an outdated classical description of physics: there is generically no natural and well-defined global time variable in general relativity, and even less so in quantum gravity where time emerges as an approximate semiclassical property of certain “clock” subsystems.
  
  Indeed, linking frog perspective time with computer time is unwarranted even within the context of classical physics. The rate of time flow perceived by an observer in the simulated universe is completely independent of the rate at which a computer runs the simulation.
  
  Moreover, as emphasized by Einstein, it is arguably more natural to view our universe not from the frog perspective as a 3-dimensional space where things happen, but from the bird perspective as a 4-dimensional spacetime that merely is.
  
  There should therefore be no need for the computer to compute anything at all — it could simply store all the 4-dimensional data, i.e., encode all properties of the mathematical structure that is our universe. Individual time slices could then be read out sequentially if desired, and the “simulated” world should still feel as real to its inhabitants as in the case where only 3-dimensional data is stored and evolved.
  
  [...] In conclusion, the role of the simulating computer is not to compute the history of our universe, but to specify it. ... Each relation of the mathematical structure is thus defined by a computation. In other words, if our world is a well-defined mathematical structure in this sense, then it is indeed inexorably linked to computations, albeit computations of a different sort than those usually associated with the simulation hypothesis: these computations do not evolve the universe, but define it by evaluating its relations. --The Mathematical Universe (paper)
  _

 

[Write4U]

When Tegmark refers to mathematics, he isn’t referring to the notation, the nomenclature, or the techniques that we use to express or explore mathematics.

I have always recognized and separated human codified mathematics from the inherently abstract universal mathematical principles that does not deal with numbers per se, but with interactive relational "values" in a dynamical environment.

Addressing commons criticisms of the MUH, Tegmark spends a chapter on time. Mathematical structures are timeless structures, so how does that relate to a universe that evolves with time? Thinking in terms of spacetime, with time as one of the dimensions, the universe, including all of its history, could be viewed as a static structure.

Is that even necessary? We know the universe is a dynamic structure. But does that negate the concept of mathematically guided dynamics?

I don't accept that even in a multiverse there might be universes with different mathematics. There may be different conditions and values, but the fundamental mathematical mechanics don't change. They are universal, even from a relativistic perspective.

Copilot:
Quantum mechanics is fully compatible with the principle of relativity, which states that physics is the same for all inertial observers1. Special relativity, which describes how time and distance are affected by movement, replaces Newtonian mechanics2. Quantum field theory unifies quantum mechanics, special relativity, and interaction4. Relativistic mechanics, compatible with special and general relativity, provides a non-quantum mechanical description of moving objects5.

 

[Pinball1970]

Is that even necessary? We know the universe is a dynamic structure. But does that negate the concept of mathematically guided dynamics?

We have repeatedly done this to death, if you want a re-run I'm out.

 

[Write4U]

Sorry to hear that, but so far and other than some vague denials, I have not heard a conclusive refutation that a mathematically (logically) functioning Universe is not a potential viable hypothesis with a high amount of observable evidence.
Human maths are the proof of codified observational axioms.

The Axioms of Objectivism​

Posted on June 24, 2012

An axiom is a statement that provides the basic foundation for other knowledge. It is a statement that cannot be proved by reference to any more basic statements, because it provides the most basic conceptual foundation of all proofs. A genuine axiom must be self-evident, because a statement that cannot be proved in any manner, yet is not self-evident, is simply an arbitrary assertion. And arbitrary assertions don’t constitute knowledge, but are just groundless fantasies or imaginings.

The philosophy of Objectivism has three axioms that it holds are implicit in any claim to knowledge of any sort. They are as follows:
“Existence exists.”
“Consciousness perceives existence.”
“An existent is itself.” (Often referred to as “A is A,” or the Law of Identity.)

These three metaphysical axioms form the fundamental base of Objectivism. A corollary of the Law of Identity is the Law of Causality, which states that an entity acts as itself.
more... https://objectivismindepth.com/2012/06/24/the-axioms-of-objectivism/

To me this posit answers all metaphysical and physical question about an apparent quasi-intelligent design of a Universe that causally acts as itself.

It's more than the incomplete concept of chaotic physics and less than the superfluous concept of an intellignt designer God.
Its Mathematical, right in the axiomatic objective middle.

 

[exchemist]

ZZZzzzzzz...............

 

[James R]

Thanks Pinball for your input. I am well aware of my limited scientific terminology. But that has nothing to do with conceptual understanding.

It is clear that you don't understand a whole bunch of concepts, quite apart from the matter of your misuse of scientific terms.

I am not doing science, I don't want to do science.

This much is also clear.

And this sub-forum is not for doing science.

This sub-forum is a dumping ground for stuff that pretends to be science, while not actually being science.

I am discussing new and/or controversial hypotheses in conversational terms...

In some cases, despite your protest that you aren't doing science, you are putting forward your own hypotheses.

Unfortunately, you can't support any of them with evidence or even a coherent explanation and you rarely even make an attempt to support them.

Moreover, you continually ignore all objections raised against your ideas. You simply refuse to respond in a way that addresses the issue. In one case, you're up to TWENTY-FOUR non-responses, and that's only since I started counting them.

You fail to answer question after question about your claims. You respond selectively and usually concentrate on side issues, using them to introduce irrelevancies that do not address the questions you were asked.

And my use of (technical) terms are always posited in their most generalized context . When I say "potential", I mean "that which may become expressed in reality" . When I say "function" it refers to ability to perform a specific pupose or role, nothing more, nothing less.

You are being disingenuous. For instance, over and over again, you have referred to "mathematical functions", while continually demonstrating that you don't know that a mathematical function is.

You claim that mathematical functions can somehow cause effects in the physical world, But how could they? [TWENTY-FIVE?] You won't ever say, because you know that your entire thesis sinks because of this problem.

When I say "differential equation" or "difference equation", I use the terms in their most general context as it relates to differences (change) within systems.

YOu should be disqualified from using those terms at all. Despite having it explained to you on several occasions, over a period of years, you still have not the foggiest idea about what a differential equation is.

Nor have you made any effort to ask questions of us to try to remedy your misunderstanding or to actually find out what they are.

Differential equations are used to model the dynamics of a system, representing its behavior using physics laws.

That is correct, but it doesn't help you to know what they are.

They are used to codify system dynamics (change) and steady state (rest) relational values.

That is incorrect word salad bullshit that you just made up.

Why do you do keep doing that?

There are no "relational values". That's just something you made up. Even you can't explain the term you invented. But you persist in your bullshit anyway.

You have no shame.

 

[James R]

I am ignorant on all topics but 2. The mathematical nature of Universal mechanics and Microtubules.

You have yet to show anybody here that you have the faintest clue about "universal mechanics". I doubt you even know what "mechanics" is, let alone how it might apply to the entire universe.

As for microtubules, there was a thread that ran for years, in which all you managed to do was to cut and paste from articles written by other people that you couldn't understand.

Your faith that consciousness is to be found in microtubules is just your blind following of one of your chosen Prophets: in this case, Hammeroff. You don't understand what it is that he wrote or said, but you'll follow him to the ends of the earth.

Why? Who knows? You can't explain why you have blind faith. By definition, you don't need reasons for that.

But for that I am accused of being religiously obsessed because those are the only subjects I research and report on.

You could have spent some of your time on this forum trying to learn some science. But here you are, just yesterday, telling us all proudly that you don't want to know any science or do any science - as if that is some kind of virtue or excuse for your pseudoscience.

Ignorance isn't an excuse, Write4U. Not if you have an opportunity to do something about it but you refuse at every turn.

I don't claim authorship on any of it. AllI do is report with an occasional comment.

... more or less at random.

There's no value in what you "report".

All you are really doing is trying to evangelise your faith. Not a good look on a science forum.

But when questioned I always respond with considered logic that IMO supports my intuitive understanding of the fundamental issues .

Don't tell lies. When questioned, you usually ignore the question and try to distract by posting something unrelated or otherwise irrelevant. That's if you can even remember that the question was asked long enough to give it any attention at all.

My ignorance of formal scientific lingo is not a measure of my analytical IQ or understanding of fundamental issues.

Your determined refusal to learn any "scientific lingo" is a measure of your determination to remain ignorant.

You do no analysis. Until you do, you're in no position to make claims about your "analytical IQ".

Nor is the use of scientific jargon a measure of knowledge of constantly emerging new and updated scientific fields, through modern research methods .

Bizarre. Do you really think that you can get "knowledge of ... scientific fields" without understanding any of the terminology of science? If so, you're truly delusional.

I make no claims....

Don't tell lies. You're constantly repeating the same two or three, tired claims.

No matter how many times you are told you're in error, and why you're in error, you just repeat.

... other than bringing attention to advances in this new and burgeoning science that is directly and tangently related to my stated areas of scientific interest.

You just stated, above, that you have no areas of scientific interest.

Which is the lie, and which is the truth, Write4U? You can't have it both ways.

Why that should give me a reputation of a crank, I can only assign to conservatism and lack of imagination.

You're a crank because (a) you're unable to justify your faith-based claims, and (b) because you post like a crank, ignoring objections, repeating previously-debunked claims endlessly, making weak excuses for why you have no answers, posting stuff that literally makes no sense, and so on.

If you're going to accuse me of "conservatism and lack of imagination", do it to my face, Write4U. And bring some evidence in support of your accusations. If you can't do that, or you don't have the guts, then you need to stop trying to demonise your opponents.

I have no intentions (nor could I alter) to curb my enthusiasm in the face of encouraging new scientific findings, that seem to confirm my initial intuition.

Think about this, Write4U: have you ever seen a "new scientific finding" about microtubules or Bohmian mechanics or Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis that has not seemed to you to confirm your initial faith intuition?

Really think about it. If you can't come up with any examples of stuff that hints at even potential disconfirmation of you existing beliefs, then maybe you have some blinkers on.

Scientific nomenclature does not interest me.

Then you shouldn't try to discuss science.

My aim is to gain a deeper understanding of universal mechanics.

That's just something you made up. Mixing word salad won't even give you a deeper understanding of anything. Stop deluding yourself.

Universal mechanics refers to properties that are independent of the dynamical details of a system and apply to a large class of systems.

This is wikipedia's definition, not yours. Because you don't have a definition. You just have a buzz word. You made it up and then you went googling for some mention of the same words, somewhere.

What I think you had in mind, before the googling to try to justify yourself, was the idea that the entire physical universe has some mathematical processes (which you call "mechanics") that determine how the physical universe behaves (somehow!).

You can't find anything to support that claim, of course, so you change it up and pretend that you really meant something that has a sensible meaning, like the one you found on wikipedia.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Stop lying to yourself and to other people.

 

[James R]

Tegmark points out that these mathematical structures are often identical to the underlying structures in nature. We have a tendency to view mathematical structures as abstract and separate from physical reality. But if those abstract structures match the physical ones, if we have two descriptions that are equivalent, then it makes sense to regard them as describing the same thing.

The problem here is that "abstract structures" can never "match" physical ones, unless by "match" you mean something different from "are the same as".

Tegmark is pretending when he says that "mathematical structures" are identical to "underlying structures in nature". They can't be identical because the "underlying structures" are physical structures while the "mathematical structures" are conceptual.

The mental concept of a cube is not identical to a cube of wood or metal, for reasons that should be quite obvious. You can hold a metal cube in your hand. You can't hold the idea of cube in your hand, so the idea is not identical to the cube.

How could it be? [TWENTY-SIX]

Since you're so fond of Tegmark's claims, Write4U, why have you not managed to even begin to try to address this basic problem no less than TWENTY-SIX separate times (since I started counting)?

Are you going to ignore it this time, too?

 

[James R]

The standad argument is that "the map is not the terrain", makes no sense at all.

You believe that a map of England is the same as England (it's physical land, etc.)?

Tell me you actually believe that. Go on. Don't ignore.

Go ahead and make a fool of yourself.

If there is a description of the terrain, then the terrain actually exists and the map is a codified representation of the terrain that really exists, no?

You didn't think that through at all, did you?

Open up a copy of Lord of the Rings. Inside, you will find a map of Middle Earth.

Do you think that Middle Earth has terrain that actually exists (as something other than a concept in somebody's head)?

Go on. Make a fool of yourself.

We are not talking about maps in Hobbit stories.

I am. Answer the question.

If not, how would a map be of any use for guiding the way over and through the terrain, no?

No map is the same as the terrain it depicts.

Go on, try to claim that it is. Try to justify your claim.

Wherever I look in science I see nothing but maps scientifically describing and guiding us through all "known" universal terrains.

Science is an intellectual pursuit. It aims to make more or less accurate models of various aspects of the natural world.

This is not a bug in the system. It's a feature.

We even use mathematical terms like "constants and universal laws".

In the context of theories.

If these "terrains" did not exists how could we apply these codified mathematics and get predictable results.

Nobody is arguing that the natural world doesn't exist. Well, maybe Tegmark is.

Do you believe there is a physical world, Write4U?

The universe does not use a codified language, it uses abstract (generic) logical mechanics and guiding equations.

"The universe", as whole, uses no "language".

"Abstract (generic) logical mechanics" and "guiding equations" are both inventions that are entirely yours, and yours alone. The sad thing is, you can't even define your own terms in a way that makes any sense, let alone justify them as meaningful.

Humans have invented a codified language that closely approximates universal mechanics.

No. There's no such thing as "universal mechanics", in the context you are trying to use that term.

Maths work in the human world.

and only in the human world, as far as we know so far.

There is no reason why they should not work in the non-human world.

How do you know there's no reason? You couldn't have possibly thought through all the possible reasons there could be.

And the maps we have drawn work practically in all facets where humans imitate universal mechanics.

That's just an empty claim. You're literally just making shit up.

I always thought that ability to predict results counted as proof.

There's another thing you don't know about: what "proof" consists of and how it cannot be applied to science, except as a sort of vague figure of speech.

You won't bother to find out, either, I'm guessing.

In fact, if I had to guess, I'd guess that the distinction between "proof" and "supporting evidence" has been explained you before, but the explanation didn't take and now you're back to repeating the same error, having learned nothing, as usual.

 

[James R]

Sorry to hear that, but so far and other than some vague denials, I have not heard a conclusive refutation that a mathematically (logically) functioning Universe is not a potential viable hypothesis with a high amount of observable evidence.

You're fibbing again. Also trying dishonestly to shift the goal posts.

See if you can come up with an answer to post #616, above.

If you can't, I think you need to give up on this lost cause of yours. After all, I have asked you TWENTY-SIX times. That would be enough to get the message through to most people.

 

[James R]

Human maths are the proof of codified observational axioms.

More word salad you just made up.

To me this posit answers all metaphysical and physical question about an apparent quasi-intelligent design of a Universe that causally acts as itself.

And more word salad. "Quasi-intelligent design" is another thing you just made up. It doesn't mean anything.

In fact, taking the words at face value, it's an oxymoron.

 

[Write4U]

Human maths are the proof of codified observational axioms.

James R
More word salad you just made up.

Observed examples of naturally occurring Fibonacci sequence.

To me this posit answers all metaphysical and physical question about an apparent quasi-intelligent design of a Universe that causally acts as itself.

James R:
And more word salad. "Quasi-intelligent design" is another thing you just made up. It doesn't mean anything. In fact, taking the words at face value, it's an oxymoron.

I beg to difference. "Quasi-intelligent" is a perfectly acceptable use of a "combining form" used to draw a distinction between "Intelligent Design" as used in the Kitzmiller trial, and naturally occurring self-organizing patterns in nature.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

and

Quasi-intelligently evolved mathematical growth patterns, naturally selected for energy efficiency and adaptability to the environment.

“Quasi” is a combining form, which is similar to a prefix, but works slightly differently. A prefix adjusts the function of the word, such as “in-” in “inability” or “im-” in “impossible.” A combining form, such as “quasi-,” helps determine a new meaning of the word.

“Quasi” describes something or someone that is closely similar to something else without bridging the gap and becoming that thing. For example, a “quasi-vegetarian” is a person who eats meat extremely rarely, but they can’t claim to be a complete vegetarian.

Word of the day: Quasi

Quasi[KWEI-zi]Part of speech: combining formOrigin: Latin, 15th century1.Seemingly; apparently but not really.2.Being partly or almost.Examples of quasi in a sentence"George was a quasi-Floridian; he loved Jimmy Buffett and followed the Buccaneers, but he lived in North Dakota.""My father never...

www.classiccitynews.com

Copilot;
Quasi-intelligent growth patterns can be observed in nature12345. These patterns include exponential growth, logistic growth, fluctuations, and regular cycles5.