Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[Write4U]

By the way, it looks like you missed my helpful post #265, above, too.

There, I pointed out that toroidal planets have nothing to do with toroidal universes. Here I will add that toroidal magnetic fields have nothing to do with toroidal universes, either. Nor do toroidal circulations of magma in the Earth's mantle. Nor do "toroidal dipoles".

Ohh James, you are missing the point altogether. Toroidal self-forming is a universal guiding equation.
In solids the toroidal forces are not expressed, but they are there!

DaveC is correct. Mention the word "toroidal" and it sends you off on a mission to gather random cut-and-pastes from all over the internet. Any mention of the word is enough for you to cut and paste a random chunk and post it here, regardless of relevance to the discussion here. 95% of the time, those random cut-and-pastes are irrelevant as answers to the specific question (s) I asked you and/or they tell me something obvious that I already knew but did not ask you about - something that was never raised as a point of disagreement.

Then what are complaining about? If you agree with the stuff I quote, then where is the controversy? I never post random cut-and-paste from all over the internet unless they "speak" of more fundamental common denominators.

"Toroidal Universes" (multiverse) is an entirely defensible proposition of a universal geometry.

 

[Write4U]

Impulse response
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Impulse response from a simple audio system. Showing, from top to bottom, the original impulse, the response after high frequency boosting, and the response after low frequency boosting.

In signal processing and control theory, the impulse response, or impulse response function (IRF), of a dynamic system is its output when presented with a brief input signal, called an impulse (δ(t)). More generally, an impulse response is the reaction of any dynamic system in response to some external change. In both cases, the impulse response describes the reaction of the system as a function of time (or possibly as a function of some other independent variable that parameterizes the dynamic behavior of the system).

In all these cases, the dynamic system and its impulse response may be actual physical objects, or may be mathematical systems of equations describing such objects.

Since the impulse function contains all frequencies (see the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta function, showing infinite frequency bandwidth that the Dirac delta function has), the impulse response defines the response of a linear time-invariant system for all frequencies.

Mathematical considerations[edit]
See also: Vector autoregression § Impulse response, and Moving average model § Interpretation

Mathematically, how the impulse is described depends on whether the system is modeled in discrete or continuous time. The impulse can be modeled as a Dirac delta function for continuous-time systems, or as the Kronecker delta for discrete-time systems.

The Dirac delta represents the limiting case of a pulse made very short in time while maintaining its area or integral (thus giving an infinitely high peak). While this is impossible in any real system, it is a useful idealisation. In Fourier analysis theory, such an impulse comprises equal portions of all possible excitation frequencies, which makes it a convenient test probe.

Any system in a large class known as linear, time-invariant (LTI) is completely characterized by its impulse response. That is, for any input, the output can be calculated in terms of the input and the impulse response. (See LTI system theory.) The impulse response of a linear transformation is the image of Dirac's delta function under the transformation, analogous to the fundamental solution of a partial differential operator.

It is usually easier to analyze systems using transfer functions as opposed to impulse responses. The transfer function is the Laplace transform of the impulse response. The Laplace transform of a system's output may be determined by the multiplication of the transfer function with the input's Laplace transform in the complex plane, also known as the frequency domain. An inverse Laplace transform of this result will yield the output in the time domain.

To determine an output directly in the time domain requires the convolution of the input with the impulse response. When the transfer function and the Laplace transform of the input are known, this convolution may be more complicated than the alternative of multiplying two functions in the frequency domain.

The impulse response, considered as a Green's function, can be thought of as an "influence function": how a point of input influences output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_response

I'm sure you see this as irrelevant, but that is because you are missing the common denominators relating to the nature and origin of the Universal geometry and its mathematical characteristics in all these scientific observations.

Everything I have posted is in some way related the OP title. These are not superficial propositions, but explanations of fundamental aspects of spacetime at its most subtle levels to gross expression in our subjective reality.

 

[James R]

Bohm proposed that particles do not have duality and any resemblance to a wave function is due to the particle being guided (riding) the pilot wave. He is the one who solved the duality conundrum.

Is the field due to the pilot waves directly detectable? If not, then it doesn't solve "duality problem", because there's no way to tell that the particles are separate from the wave function.

 

[James R]

Outside the Universe there is nothing.

What do mean by "outside the universe"? We've already been over this, haven't we?

Where is this "outside of the universe", of which you speak? Is the outside detectable? Does the outside have any effects on the inside? What evidence is there?

Yet the Universe is expanding, not into nothing but outward, creating space from nothing.

I don't know whether "creating space" is a good description of what's happening. Now you're speaking as if "space" is a substance.

And it was able to do so @ FTL, ending the BB, because the creation of space where there was none, was unobstructed and perfectly permitted without any restrictive mathematical values.

Mathematical values can't restrict anything.

Here is where CDT proposes a fractal unfolding of the spacetime fabric (geometry).

What does that mean? Please explain in your own words.

What does it mean for spacetime to be "folded"? What is this "fabric" you refer to? Geometry is just a concept, not a substance. What's a "fractal unfolding"?

Can I do a fractal unfolding of a bed sheet, say? What would that look like, and how would it differ from a regular unfolding?

And a fractal Universe would answer the question of "irreducible complexity" and reduce it fundamentally to a simple causal function. Input --> Function --> Output, the biblical triune.

What's the question of "irreducible complexity"? I'm only aware of that term in the context of Creationism, which is bunk.

What's the "biblical triune"?

Do you think Bohm has proved the Christian bible, or something? Why are you going all religious, suddenly?

Impulse response
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevance: zero.

I'm sure you see this as irrelevant, but that is because you are missing the common denominators relating to the nature and origin of the Universal geometry and its mathematical characteristics in all these scientific observations.

Tell me what the common denominators are, of which you speak. Common between what and what?

You haven't mentioned any scientific observations, as far as I'm aware.

Everything I have posted is in some way related the OP title.

Most of what you've posted is completely irrelevant. On the other hand, this thread was pretty junky from the start, so your addition of junk probably hasn't made it noticeably worse.

These are not superficial propositions, but explanations of fundamental aspects of spacetime at its most subtle levels to gross expression in our subjective reality.

Which propositions are you referring to?

 

[exchemist]

Ohh James, you are missing the point altogether. Toroidal self-forming is a universal guiding equation.
In solids the toroidal forces are not expressed, but they are there!
Then what are complaining about? If you agree with the stuff I quote, then where is the controversy? I never post random cut-and-paste from all over the internet unless they "speak" of more fundamental common denominators.

"Toroidal Universes" (multiverse) is an entirely defensible proposition of a universal geometry.

You have neither posted nor described any equation, “guiding” or otherwise. “Toroidal self-forming” is an adjectival phrase, requiring a noun for it to make sense. It is not an equation.

You are posting gibberish again.

 

[Write4U]

Is the field due to the pilot waves directly detectable? If not, then it doesn't solve "duality problem", because there's no way to tell that the particles are separate from the wave function.

Yes there is. By observing the collapse. You just cannot predict it.
Particles are physical objects with a value. A wave is a behavior characteristic and is by definition not a particle.

Convention requires the wave collapse at time of observation. Observation is causal to collapse of the wavefunction and the "unfolding" (quantum change) of the physics. Right?

Well, Bohm and to my delight now Roger Penrose, have questioned this perspective.
Their common scientific denominator is in positing this utterly fantastical mental consruct (result before cause) in the reverse, i.e. It is the wave function collapse that is causal to the observation. But the collapse happens regardless of observation by a third party.

The argument basically consists of the introduction of another, deeper level of reality and that is the fact that spacetime itself exhibits a dynamical wavelike function. A Pilot Wave function that underlies all reality and that is the guiding force of the behavior of individual particles.

The mathematics of both remain exactly the same, but it solves the duality problem. Read it!

 

[Write4U]

You have neither posted nor described any equation, “guiding” or otherwise. “Toroidal self-forming” is an adjectival phrase, requiring a noun for it to make sense. It is not an equation.

You are posting gibberish again.

Well, you may wish to revisit the topic "Torus" again.
It is evident that the toroid is a self organizing mathematical function or principle all throughout the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus

In mathematics, a toroid is a surface of revolution with a hole in the middle. The axis of revolution passes through the hole and so does not intersect the surface. For example, when a rectangle is rotated around an axis parallel to one of its edges, then a hollow rectangle-section ring is produced. Wikipedia

Can a black hole be a torus?

Using ESA's Integral and XMM-Newton observatories, an international team of astronomers has found more evidence that massive black holes are surrounded by a doughnut-shaped gas cloud, called a torus.

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/88865/could-a-torus-shaped-black-hole-exist

 

[Write4U]

What's the question of "irreducible complexity"? I'm only aware of that term in the context of Creationism, which is bunk.

Would that be Quantum Creationism?

What's the "biblical triune"?

A "common denominator" triangulation.

Do you think Bohm has proved the Christian bible, or something? Why are you going all religious, suddenly?

Both speak of a fundamental triangulation, 3 dimensions ? You know I am an atheist. God is a superfluous idea.
But if you cannot see the similarities, then you are not looking deep enough.

 

[exchemist]

Well, you may wish to revisit the topic "Torus" again.
It is evident that the toroid is a self organizing mathematical function or principle all throughout the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus

No it is not. A toroid is just a geometrical shape. It is neither "self-organising", nor a "function". Still less is it an "equation".

 

[Write4U]

No it is not. A toroid is just a geometrical shape. It is neither "self-organising", nor a "function". Still less is it an "equation".

It is a self-organizing pattern observable everywhere you look.
Everything is self-organizing. There is no magical hand from Merlin. There are mathematical functions.
Look for "toroidal functions"

Toroidal Function

Toroidal functions are a class of functions also called ring functions that appear in systems having toroidal symmetry. Toroidal functions can be expressed in terms of the associated Legendre functions of the first and second kinds (Abramowitz and Stegun 1972, p. 336):

for . Byerly (1959) identifies

as a "toroidal harmonic."

The toroidal functions are solutions to the differential equation for

of Laplace's equation in toroidal coordinates.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ToroidalFunction.html

 

[DaveC426913]

It is a self-organizing pattern observable everywhere you look.

No it isn't.

There are mathematical functions.

Mathematics was invented by humans. Trigonometry - some of the math used to describe toroids - was invented by humans.
Nature does not use cotan and cosecant.

This has been explained to you many times. You have no excuse.

Reported for pedaling pet ideas.

 

[exchemist]

It is a self-organizing pattern observable everywhere you look.
Everything is self-organizing. There is no magical hand from Merlin. There are mathematical functions.
Look for "toroidal functions"

Toroidal Function

for . Byerly (1959) identifies

I know there are such things as mathematical functions, you numskull. But a toroid is just a shape. It can be described, in coordinate geometry, algebraically, by a mathematical function, sure. So can a sphere. But the term "toroid" describes just a shape. That is why, to describe the equation you have copy/pasted, you need to say "toroidal function", not just "toroid".

 

[Write4U]

you need to say "toroidal function", not just "toroid".

Thank you.

 

[Write4U]

No it isn't.
Mathematics was invented by humans. Trigonometry - some of the math used to describe toroids - was invented by humans.
Nature does not use cotan and cosecant.

This has been explained to you many times. You have no excuse.

Reported for pedaling pet ideas.

Wow, how dare I have ideas that differ from your little world?
You must be the science Gestapo, cleansing the world of alternate theories. Who the hell do you think you are?

JUNE 8, 2015
How mathematics reveals the nature of the cosmos
by Joshua Carroll, Universe Today

Let us discuss the very nature of the cosmos. What you may find in this discussion is not what you expect. Going into a conversation about the universe as a whole, you would imagine a story full of wondrous events such as stellar collapse, galactic collisions, strange occurrences with particles, and even cataclysmic eruptions of energy.

You may be expecting a story stretching the breadth of time as we understand it, starting from the Big Bang and landing you here, your eyes soaking in the photons being emitted from your screen.

Of course, the story is grand. But there is an additional side to this amazing assortment of events that oftentimes is overlooked; that is until you truly attempt to understand what is going on.

Behind all of those fantastic realizations, there is a mechanism at work that allows for us to discover all that you enjoy learning about. That mechanism is mathematics, and without it the universe would still be shrouded in darkness.

In this article, I will attempt to persuade you that math isn't some arbitrary and sometimes pointless mental task that society makes it out to be, and instead show you that it is a language we use to communicate with the stars

Mathematics almost certainly came about from very early human tribes (predating Babylonian culture which is attributed to some of the first organized mathematics in recorded history), that may have used math as a way of keeping track of lunar or solar cycles, and keeping count of animals, food and/or people by leaders. It is as natural as when you are a young child and you can see that you have one toy plus one other toy, meaning you have more than one toy.

As you get older, you develop the ability to see that 1+1=2, and thus simple arithmetic seems to be interwoven into our very nature. Those that profess that they don't have a mind for math are sadly mistaken because just as we all have a mind for breathing, or blinking, we all have this innate ability to understand arithmetic.

Mathematics is both a natural occurrence and a human designed system. It would appear that nature grants us this ability to recognize patterns in the form of arithmetic, and then we systematically construct more complex mathematical systems that aren't obvious in nature but let us further communicate with nature.

more ..... https://phys.org/news/2015-06-mathematics-reveals-nature-cosmos.html[/quote]

 

[Write4U]

Mathematics was invented by humans. Trigonometry - some of the math used to describe toroids - was invented by humans.
Nature does not use cotan and cosecant.

That is a misdirection. Mathematical symbols were invented by humans, but the mathematical nature of reality is being revealed via naturally occurring mathematical functions.
We can accept that there is an abstract "logical method" by which the universe operates because we can find mathematical expressions at every level of size or complexity. Humans did not invent mathematics. Humans symbolized mathematics. And if mathematics are done properly the universe will respond in a reciprocal manner.

Very simple organisms follow mathematical "guidance" in the self-formation of the most efficient growth patterns that allow for maximum energy conservation. Natural selection does the rest.

Nature functions in a manner we can understand and copy, using mathematics. Ask Peter Higgs, he made a prediction based on mathematics that was applicable at quantum level. Ask daisies why their petal count is what we have named the Fibonacci Sequence. Ask Lemurs if they know how to differentiate between "more and less". Nature was using exponential functions (expansion) at the very beginning of time (a symbolic incremental measurement of duration), long before man his entrance.

If mathematics WORK at this fundamental level then there is no reason to doubt the mathematical properties (functions) that reality itself rests on.

People also ask
How is math used in cosmology?

Mathematics has played a big role in understanding the subatomic particles which form the matter of living things, planets and stars. Second, geometers have been working with physicists and astronomers to understand the geometry of the space we live in.

Mathematics and Cosmology

There is no way for us to venture out into a Dark Nebula and watch in real time a star being born. Yet, through mathematics, we are able to understand how these things exist and work. When you set about to learn math, you are not only expanding your mind, but you are connecting with the universe on a fundamental level.

You can, from your desk, explore the awesome physics at the event horizon of a black hole, or bear witness to the destructive fury behind a supernova. All of those things that I mentioned at the beginning of this article come into focus through mathematics.

The grand story of the universe is written in mathematics, and our ability to translate those numbers into the events that we all love to learn about is nothing short of amazing. So remember, when you are presented with the opportunity to learn math, accept every bit of it because math connects us to the stars.

https://phys.org/news/2015-06-mathematics-reveals-nature-cosmos.html

 

[billvon]

That is a misdirection. Mathematical symbols were invented by humans, but the mathematical nature of reality is being revealed via naturally occurring mathematical functions.

Math is used to explain the functioning of the universe. It's a good - but sometimes imperfect - tool. The universe is not composed of math.

Ask Lemurs if they know how to differentiate between "more and less".

Lemurs have neural networks that they have evolved to help them survive. You can use math to describe them. But lemur brains are not made of math.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yet ANOTHER thread has been infected by the Write4U-The-Universe-Is-Math virus.

Is an antibiotic going to arrive soon enough to save it?



Or do we let Kurt Russell loose on SciFo with a flamethrower to save the rest of the internet?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Again, you have ignored many specific questions I asked you. Why do you do that?

Here's what you missed:

• Where is this "outside of the universe", of which you speak? Is the outside detectable? Does the outside have any effects on the inside? What evidence is there?
• What does it mean for spacetime to be "folded"? What is this "fabric" you refer to?
• What's a "fractal unfolding"? Can I do a fractal unfolding of a bed sheet, say? What would that look like, and how would it differ from a regular unfolding?

Yes there is. By observing the collapse. You just cannot predict it.
Particles are physical objects with a value. A wave is a behavior characteristic and is by definition not a particle.

What I asked you was: "Is the field due to the pilot waves directly detectable?"

You claim to understand Bohm's theory, so I thought you might be able to answer a straightforward, direct question about it. But apparently you can't even do that.

Here, you claim that "particles are physical objects with a value". What does "with a value" mean? What kind of value are you talking about? In what sense does a particle "have a value"?

Convention requires the wave collapse at time of observation.

Not convention. This is one of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics. There are others.

Observation is causal to collapse of the wavefunction and the "unfolding" (quantum change) of the physics. Right?

Causal? I doubt it. Theoretically, it's a possibility, but an unlikely one if you ask me.

Well, Bohm and to my delight now Roger Penrose, have questioned this perspective.
Their common scientific denominator is in positing this utterly fantastical mental consruct (result before cause) in the reverse, i.e. It is the wave function collapse that is causal to the observation. But the collapse happens regardless of observation by a third party.

What are you talking about when you say "result before cause"? What result came before the thing that caused it?

And how could a wave function collapse cause an observation?

The argument basically consists of the introduction of another, deeper level of reality and that is the fact that spacetime itself exhibits a dynamical wavelike function.

Penrose's hypothesis about quantum mechanics is nothing like Bohm's.

A Pilot Wave function that underlies all reality and that is the guiding force of the behavior of individual particles.

This is Bohm, not Penrose. Are these pilot waves detectable?

The mathematics of both remain exactly the same, but it solves the duality problem. Read it!

I'm sorry. The mathematics of both of what is exactly the same?

Penrose's hypothesis is very different from Bohm's. The mathematics is not the same.

 

[James R]

Would that be Quantum Creationism?

What's quantum creationism? Can you please explain the main tenets of that hypothesis for me, if this is your pet theory.

A "common denominator" triangulation.

Word salad.

I asked you: what is the "biblical triune". You used that term. I assume it means something to you. So what is it?

If your answer is "a common denominator triangulation" then I have more questions:

• What's being triangulated?
• Why did you use the adjective "biblical"?
• Where does the bible come into this?
• When there is a "common denominator", typically two things (often numbers) are being compared. What are you comparing in your "biblical triune"?

Both speak of a fundamental triangulation, 3 dimensions ?

Both of what speak of a fundamental triangulation?

Science doesn't speak of a fundamental triangulation. Neither does the bible, as far as I am aware.

Can I take it that the question mark you often add at the end of your answers is supposed to indicate that you are just making up this shit as you go along?

You know I am an atheist. God is a superfluous idea.

Superfluous to what?

Earlier, you asserted that your nonsense about quantum mechanics was related to "quantum creationism", which would make it a religious idea, wouldn't it? I think you need to decide whether your religion has a god or not and, if it does, who or what that god is.

But if you cannot see the similarities, then you are not looking deep enough.

Nobody is buying your schtick that you're a deeper thinker, Write4U. All your writings indicate that you're among the most superficial of our members. You can apparently use google search, and you know how to cut and paste things from one web page to another, but that's about as far as your "thinking" extends.

 

[James R]

Even though others have already done this, I want to add my 2 cents on the latest nonsense.

It is evident that the toroid is a self organizing mathematical function or principle all throughout the universe.

Errors in this:

• A toroid is not a mathematical function.
• No mathematical functions are self-organising.
• Toroids are not a principle.
• A mathematical function is not a principle.
• No principles are self-organising.
• Toroids are not found "all throughout" the universe. Typical overreach.

Can a black hole be a torus?

Relevance of this cut-and-paste: zero.

It is a self-organizing pattern observable everywhere you look.

And, one post later a "mathematical function" has magically turned into a "pattern".
Errors in this:

• No patterns are self-organising.
• No pattern is everywhere you look.
• Mathematical functions are not patterns.
• Patterns are not mathematical functions.
• Patterns are not principles.
• etc.

Everything is self-organizing.

Another error.

Toroidal Function

Amount by which this cut-and-paste supports any claim made by Write4U: zero.

Wow, how dare I have ideas that differ from your little world?
You must be the science Gestapo, cleansing the world of alternate theories. Who the hell do you think you are?

Error in this:

• Write4U has no "alternative theories".

JUNE 8, 2015
How mathematics reveals the nature of the cosmos
by Joshua Carroll, Universe Today

Relevance of this cut-and-paste: zero.