Proof there is a God

river said:
Galaxies are made from a collection of stars ? BB thinking no doubt.

Hmmm... Well continue. If I disagree .......well because I do.

Anyway
Click to expand...

From my understanding of your thinking, you may be interested in the above. post# 260
 
dabrain, post: 3336024, member: 268477"]This is dubious. You may have good reason for proposing this, but I don't think you could substantiate this claim as certain. Maybe I'm wrong about, though.

I would say that the universe is self-sustaining, certainly. Whether or not it is self-reliant in a complete sense is questionable. I suppose this harks back to the old necessary-contingent argument. For example, is it self-reliant when it comes to its origins? I think that's up for grabs at the moment.

And anyway, people have imagined many needs (real or otherwise) that lead to assuming the existence of God, beyond the question of the universe's self-reliance.
Click to expand...

IMO, that was only because there was no coherent scientific replacement for the concept of God. But now there is such a replacement, Mathematical Potential (The Implicate) . It has the ability (functional potential) to do all that is attributed to "the hand of God'.

The only difference is that this replacement does not require worship, however it does demand respect for its functions..
Respect for the causal mathematical functions, which can be influenced, not by our thoughts , but by our actions
.
If you have not seen it yet, do have look, there is good stuff in this video.

This is the exact opposite from assuming that worship and prayer (thoughts) can influence the functions of God, in spite of our actions.
 
Last edited:
river said:
Because plants think and adapt to their enviroment.
Click to expand...
Just once I'd like to read a coherent reasoned response from you.
I'll ask again:
What makes you think that the existence of the universe is "proof" of "god or being that has a brain"?
Why do you (apparently) conflate "god" and "being with a brain"?
 
river,
Because plants think and adapt to their enviroment.
Click to expand...
That is a perfect example of assigning intelligence to fundamentally simple natural bio-chemical phenomena.

First: the movement of flowers, tracking the position of the sun is called "heliotropism" or "phototropism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliotropism

These are bio-mechanical functions caused by sensitivity of the flowers or leaves to a range of external energy or irritants.
Plant perception is the ability of plants to sense and respond to the environment to adjust their morphology, physiology and phenotype accordingly.[1] Other disciplines such as plant physiology, ecology and molecular biology are used to assess this ability. Plants react to chemicals, gravity, light, moisture, infections, temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations, parasite infestation, disease, physical disruption, sound,[2] and touch.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)

While some of this behavior may seem intelligent, it is purely chemical. The precision (adaption) is the evolutionary product of hundreds of millions of years of refinement through natural selection.
 
Last edited:
IMO, much confusion is caused by the pseudo-intelligent dynamic mathematical functions in nature.
Many apparently intelligent behaviors are purely mathematical and do not involve a brain or even a neural network.
IOW, the organism's sensory abilities are always mathematical and gives the appearance of intelligence, because they are so predictable and seemingly intentional. While it is true that these actions are purposeful, they are not intentional, but a result of external stimulati.
 
Write4U said:
All we need is look at the universe to find proof of order emerging from chaos. Galaxies (collection of stars) did not just appear. The were ordered from a random collaction of stars. Moreover, the Fibonacci Sequence is apparent in spiral galaxies, such as our own as well as in flowers, such as the daisy. This means this mathematical constant shows up in many unexpected places.
IMO, a dynamic chaotic condition will eventually order itself through a mathematical funcion
Click to expand...

I would like to address this objection. You assert that galaxies were ordered from a random (chaotic) collection of stars, and that this is proof of order emerging from chaos. The problem with this assertion is that the order did not arise spontaneously within that collection of stars. Rather, there exists an underlying set of laws that, by natural movement, caused the stars to become ordered.

What you're suggesting about the initial zero-state condition as being in total chaos doesn't allow for this possibility. That is because outside of this initial zero-state condition, nothing existed that could have brought it to order (like the underlying set of laws). In fact, your position appears to be that the initial zero-state condition moved from perfect equilibrium (which I would interpret as complete order) to a state of disequilibrium (a mixed state of order and disorder, or a state of imperfect order). This is the opposite of what you propose above, which is that it was a state of total chaos (no order, and therefore disequilibrium) moving toward a state of order (equilibrium).
 
Write4U said: ↑
All we need is look at the universe to find proof of order emerging from chaos. Galaxies (collection of stars) did not just appear. The were ordered from a random collection of stars. Moreover, the Fibonacci Sequence is apparent in spiral galaxies, such as our own as well as in flowers, such as the daisy. This means this mathematical constant shows up in many unexpected places.
IMO, a dynamic chaotic condition will eventually order itself through a mathematical function
Click to expand...
IfIonlyhadabrain said:
I would like to address this objection. You assert that galaxies were ordered from a random (chaotic) collection of stars, and that this is proof of order emerging from chaos. The problem with this assertion is that the order did not arise spontaneously within that collection of stars. Rather, there exists an underlying set of laws that, by natural movement, caused the stars to become ordered
Click to expand...
You onviously have not read close enough. Your post actually confirms my argument. Where did I assert a "spontaneous ordering"? I cited a "mathematical function", which you must have missed.

In my mind "a mathematica function" means an "underlying mathematcal law". I even cited one mathematical aspect of a mathematical ordering function in spiral galaxies. i.e. the Fibonacci Sequence.

I assumed that Gravity need not even be mentioned as an underlying mathematical law. That is so obvious, I won't insult anyone's intelligence, by pointing this out.

The point of my statement was that galaxies do not just form into random shapes but that even at such large scale will form into mathematically formed structures. The Fibonacci Sequence is observable in spiral galaxies as well as in daisies.

But, if I am wrong, do tell how does a Galaxy form?
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
You onviously have not read close enough. Your post actually confirms my argument. Where did I assert a "spontaneous ordering"? I cited a "mathematical function", which you must have missed.

In my mind "a mathematica function" means an "underlying mathematcal law". I even cited one mathematical aspect of a mathematical ordering function in spiral galaxies. i.e. the Fibonacci Sequence.

I assumed that Gravity need not even be mentioned as an underlying mathematical law. That is so obvious, I won't insult anyone's intelligence, by pointing this out.

The point of my statement was that galaxies do not just form into random shapes but that even at such large scale will form into mathematically formed structures. The Fibonacci Sequence is observable in spiral galaxies as well as in daisies.

But, if I am wrong, do tell how does a Galaxy form?
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing that point. I agree with all of this above. My basic point was that you cannot use such ordering from chaos to support an argument of order arising out of total chaos on it's own, because the order that we observe rising out of chaos only does so because of the referenced underlying laws, but this wouldn't be the case with respect to total chaos. I was trying to point out the false equivalence.
 
spidergoat said:
So when I pour cream in my coffee and stir, that's actually creating order?
Click to expand...
Actually yes, but I would prefer to use the term "maintains order". Bohm proved it and used your very example to illustrate.
The holomovement is, admittedly, a rather subtle concept to grasp; indeed, it is generally invisible to us. Bohm proposes that the holomovement consists of two fundamental aspects: the explicate order and the implicate order.
He illustrates the concept of the implicate order by analogy to a remarkable physical phenomenon. Consider a cylindrical jar with a smaller concentric cylinder (of the same height) inside it that has a crank attached, so that the inner cylinder can be rotated while the outer cylinder remains stationary. Now fill the annular volume between the two cylinders with a highly viscous fluid, such as glycerine, so that there is negligible diffusion. If a droplet of ink is placed in the fluid, and the inner cylinder is turned slowly, the ink drop will be stretched out into a fine, thread-like form that becomes increasingly thinner and fainter until it finally disappears altogether. At this point it is tempting to conclude that the ink drop has been thoroughly mixed into the glycerine, so that its order has been rendered chaotic and random. However, if the inner cylinder is now rotated slowly in the opposite direction, the thin ink form will reappear, retrace its steps, and eventually reconstruct itself into its original form of the drop again. Such devices have been constructed, and the effect is quite dramatic.
Click to expand...
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:
 
Last edited:
IfIonlyhadabrain said:
I wasn't arguing that point. I agree with all of this above. My basic point was that you cannot use such ordering from chaos to support an argument of order arising out of total chaos on it's own, because the order that we observe rising out of chaos only does so because of the referenced underlying laws, but this wouldn't be the case with respect to total chaos. I was trying to point out the false equivalence.
Click to expand...

Chaos is infinitely complex, however parts of this complexity is reducible to simpler constructs through the mathematical function. And as the very nature (essence) of the universe is mathematical, it is qute reasonable to assume that within this infinite complexity, simpler complexities may be formed. And that is the beginning of the Implicate order within the infinite potential of infinite complexity.
Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.
Click to expand...
But more importantly this excerpt:
Spontaneous order[edit]
Under the right conditions, chaos will spontaneously evolve into a lockstep pattern. In the Kuramoto model, four conditions suffice to produce synchronization in a chaotic system. Examples include the coupled oscillation of Christiaan Huygens' pendulums, fireflies, neurons, the London Millenium Bridge resonance, and large arrays of Josephson junctions.[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
IfIonlyhadabrain said:
Out of curiosity, how much of Bohm's theory do you subscribe to?
Click to expand...
Pretty much everything. I admit I don't know, but suspect that he was an atheist.

Let me qualify myself as interested layman in physics, but I do a fair amount of research on subjects I am not familiar with. Not knowing the scientific language, I rely mostly on the accompanying narratives and examples. Usually, I get the fundamental essence of the theory and its place in the hierarchy of orders.

That said, of all the attempts at describing fundamental properties of the universea, I find his concept of hierarchical mathematical orders from the infinitely small to the gross expression in reality, very compatible with my own thinking, which is founded on the my confidence that the wholeness of the universe is "in essence" mathematical. It is only mathematical in the abstract.

(The entire theory of 'Determinism" rests on a few (some 32) predictable universal mathematical constants and equations.)
----------
In addition to being an eminent physicist and close friend of Einstein, Bohm was also schooled in neuro-science of the brain, giving him the authority to speak knowledgeable on the more philosophical aspects of his theories. However, as atheist, I am less interested in that area of Bohm's worldview.
But then I ran across;
Wholeness and the Implicate Order, David Bohm,1980
"I would say that my scientific and philosophical work, my main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality in general and consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which is never static or complete, but which is in an unending process of movement and unfoldment. Thus, when I look back, I see that even as a child I was fascinated by the puzzle, indeed the mystery, of what is the nature of movement.

Whenever one thinks of anything, it seems to be apprehended either as static or as a series of static images. Yet, in the actual experience of movement, one senses an unbroken, undivided process of flow, to which the series of static images in thought is related as a series of 'still' photographs might be related to the actuality of a speeding car.

Then there is the further question of what is the relationship of thinking to reality. As careful attention shows, thought itself is in an actual process of movement. That is to say, one can feel a sense of flow in the 'stream of consciousness' not dissimilar to the sense of flow in the movement of matter in general. May not thought itself thus be part of reality as a whole? But then, what could it mean for one part of reality to know another, and to what extent would this be possible? Does the content of thought merely give us abstract and simplified 'snapshots' of reality, or can it go further, somehow to grasp the very essence of the living movement that we sense in actual experience?" (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
Click to expand...

But when I was introduced to CDT (causal dynamical triangulation), Renate Loll, which proposes a non-pertutbative, background independent, (fractal) "unfolding" of space-time itself, and seems a perfect fit for Bohm's "Wholeness and Implicate order", my confidence in Bohm's work was drastically reinforced.

IMHO, just these two proposed fundamental aspects of the universe go a long way toward an abstract mathematical TOE, a self organizing hierarchical order of causalities resulting in subjective (semi-autonomous) physical realities.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
I assumed that Gravity need not even be mentioned as an underlying mathematical law.
Click to expand...
The universe doesn't operate on mathematical laws. It operates on physical laws. Mathematical laws only describe the physical laws. You can formulate a mathematical law to describe any old nonsense.
 
sideshowbob said:
The universe doesn't operate on mathematical laws. It operates on physical laws. Mathematical laws only describe the physical laws. You can formulate a mathematical law to describe any old nonsense.
Click to expand...
Not even that, it doesn't run on laws, laws are descriptions of how we guess things work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top