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

[James R]

Sarkus:

Your post strikes me as a much more coherent presentation than Write4U's. I can't comment on the extent to which your post reflects Tegmark's contentions, since I haven't delved into the specifics of Tegmark's hypothesis. I think it is clear, however, that we can't rely on Write4U to accurately describe what Tegmark is hypothesising.

Regarding the three numbered points in your post, I am happy to provisionally accept #1, because it is pointless to attempt physics (or, more generally, science) without it. I'm not entirely convinced (as per #2) that maths is mind-independent. Nor am I aware of any demonstration that maths is the only thing that can accurately describe the mind-independent reality. I have no problem with agreeing (as per #3) that identical things are identical; that's more or less a prerequisite for logical reasoning of any kind.

Since you decided not to get into point #2, I won't get into it with you either, for now.

Regarding your expanding map example, it looks to me that the "map" goes through a steady process of evolution to make it more and more life-like. The starting point for the map would be a mental concept of (certain aspects of) the territory in somebody's head. The very next step, however, transforms that concept into a physical object - say a map drawn with ink on paper. That's a major change, right there - perhaps the most important single change in the entire chain. At this point, we've already made the leap from a concept or mental construct to a physical object. Everything in your description from that point on is just an elaboration of the physical object. The physical map gets bigger and is made 3 dimensional. The physical material of the map is diversified so that what started with ink on paper ends up as the entire physical environment of a territory in all its physical detail.

I don't think the example fully captures the map-territory distinction I have been putting to Write4U, because it ignores that vital first step of creating a physical object from a concept. Tegmark also seems to skip over this vital step.

Coming back to the topic of describing our physical universe using maths: we start off with some mathematical concepts in our head. We can write equations and stuff down on paper with ink. But those ink scribbles don't look very much like the physical universe at all - even less so than the paper map of London resembles the physical city of London. And unlike the case of the map of London, I can't really see a point at which the mathematical scribbles would start to look exactly like the physical universe. So, it seems to me that, even ignoring the concept-to-physical representation step, it will be an uphill battle to turn the mathematics into anything resembling a physical universe.

 

[James R]

Peter Woit and Massimo Pigliucci have more cogent criticisms of Shapiro/Tegmark

Thanks. Interesting!

Pigliucci - almost always a reliably cogent skeptic - has the same doubts I have been expressing throughout this thread:

Could it be that theories like MUH are actually based on a category mistake? Obviously, I’m not suggesting that people like Tegmark make the elementary mistake of confusing the normal meaning of words like “objects” and “properties,” or of “physical” and “mathematical.” But perhaps they are making precisely that mistake in a metaphysical sense?​

 

[exchemist]

Thanks. Interesting!

Pigliucci - almost always a reliably cogent skeptic - has the same doubts I have been expressing throughout this thread:

Could it be that theories like MUH are actually based on a category mistake? Obviously, I’m not suggesting that people like Tegmark make the elementary mistake of confusing the normal meaning of words like “objects” and “properties,” or of “physical” and “mathematical.” But perhaps they are making precisely that mistake in a metaphysical sense?​

Haha, I too read that passage.......and immediately thought of Write4U's constant confusion of terms and concepts. But indeed, that is very much the way it strikes me.

 

[Pinball1970]

I am new to thread, so I wanted to say that I have not heard of this. “Quantum” “Quanta” has a definite meaning in science (pretty sure you are aware)

Creationism is non-scientific and is a religious term, the two do not go together.


Quantum is used a little bit like “Organic” a definite scientific meaning but very nebulous when used in lay speak.

 

[Sarkus]

Your post strikes me as a much more coherent presentation than Write4U's. I can't comment on the extent to which your post reflects Tegmark's contentions, since I haven't delved into the specifics of Tegmark's hypothesis. I think it is clear, however, that we can't rely on Write4U to accurately describe what Tegmark is hypothesising.

Aye. What I've presented is from a cursory Googling of his ideas. Maybe the more one reads and absorbs them, the less capable one is of presenting them for others to understand?

I have no problem with agreeing (as per #3) that identical things are identical; that's more or less a prerequisite for logical reasoning of any kind.

Well, it begs the question of what "identical" refers to. Is it possible, for example, for two identical entities exist in separate locations? Or does the description of them necessarily include their spatial positioning within the dimensions of the universe? Thus precluding any two separate things from being considered identical in the meaningful way? This isn't a question for you, but just something to consider when Tegmark, or anyone else, uses the notion.

Regarding your expanding map example, it looks to me that the "map" goes through a steady process of evolution to make it more and more life-like. The starting point for the map would be a mental concept of (certain aspects of) the territory in somebody's head. The very next step, however, transforms that concept into a physical object - say a map drawn with ink on paper. That's a major change, right there - perhaps the most important single change in the entire chain.

Sure, but Tegmark is only considering the mind-independent reality. I.e. that external physical reality. A concept is mind-dependent, and thus not "real" within the terms of the "theory".

Think of it as symbols scratched on a wall. The mind-independent reality is the indentations in the medium, whereas the mind-dependent reality would be the words, and meaning thereof, that a mind might apply to those symbols. Tegmark is only concerned with that mind-independent reality. If it's not mind-independent then it's not "real". So when talking of the "map" and the place, it needs to start with the physical "map", not the concept.

I don't think the example fully captures the map-territory distinction I have been putting to Write4U, because it ignores that vital first step of creating a physical object from a concept. Tegmark also seems to skip over this vital step.

He doesn't skip over it because it is, or seems to be, not relevant to the theory. He posits that the external physical reality is a mathematical structure. One can not really counter that by arguing about internal non-physical realities, can one?

Coming back to the topic of describing our physical universe using maths: we start off with some mathematical concepts in our head. We can write equations and stuff down on paper with ink. But those ink scribbles don't look very much like the physical universe at all - even less so than the paper map of London resembles the physical city of London. And unlike the case of the map of London, I can't really see a point at which the mathematical scribbles would start to look exactly like the physical universe. So, it seems to me that, even ignoring the concept-to-physical representation step, it will be an uphill battle to turn the mathematics into anything resembling a physical universe.

Ignoring that his theory is about the external physical reality, yours seems to be an argument from incredulity, does it not? Which is fair enough. I'd wager most who consider what Tegmark says consider it to just be beyond credulity. Possibly that's because they don't understand it, but even most of those who seem to understand it have criticisms. I certainly don't believe it, but then I also certainly don't know enough either way.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against what Tegmark proposes, I'm just exploring. But try these syllogisms:
P1 - Something perfectly described by maths is considered a mathematical structure.
P2 - Mind-independent reality can be perfectly described by maths.
C - Mind-independent reality is considered a mathematical structure.

P3 - Something that perfectly describes another thing is identical to, and thus is, that other thing.
P4 - Mathematics perfectly describes mind-independent reality
C - Mind-independend reality is mathematics

I think these are at least valid, although I would question whether P2 and P4 are sound. Tegmark certainly seems to think so, and maybe this is the crux of his position.
As for the usefulness, even if true, that's another story.

 

[exchemist]

I am new to thread, so I wanted to say that I have not heard of this. “Quantum” “Quanta” has a definite meaning in science (pretty sure you are aware)

Creationism is non-scientific and is a religious term, the two do not go together.


Quantum is used a little bit like “Organic” a definite scientific meaning but very nebulous when used in lay speak.

Yes “quantum” can be an adjective, qualifying a noun, e.g. “quantum chemistry”, which I studied at university. And a quantum, or the plural quanta, is a noun with a meaning.

 

[DaveC426913]

Quantum is used a little bit like “Organic” a definite scientific meaning but very nebulous when used in lay speak.

Yup.

Even better when it's used naked, as if it has meaning that way:

c) quantum (self-organization)

Also: welcome!

 

[Write4U]

I don't think that explaining these sorts of things to you in depth is going to help solve your problem.

I don't think you need to explain "these sort of things" to me in depth. T

The only thing that matters, for the purposes of our discussion, is that none of these constituents of atoms is made of "mathematics". Atoms are stuff. Mathematics is concepts. You can't make stuff out of concepts.

I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics. I claim they are made guided by universal mathematical principles.

Do you think a mathematical description of how an apple accelerates as it falls off a tree is the same as an apple falling off a tree?

Does the apple fall from the tree differently than as described with mathematics?
Spare me your straw men!

I'm happy to break it down for you.
You claim there is a "generic universal mathematics". Using the definition of "generic properties" that you posted - which, by the way, I don't for a moment believe you looked up until just before you posted post #393 - you are saying that there are universal mathematical properties that apply to "typical" examples but which might have exceptions.
The qualifier "universal" implies that mathematics is "out there" everywhere in the universe, even though you can't show a single place where mathematics is to be found, other than mathematics written down or talked about by human beings.

The universe is a dynamic object. The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order. But then "chaos theory, in mechanics and mathematics, the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws."

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1]

Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

continued...

 

[Write4U]

....continued,

Deterministic system

In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.[1] A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.[2]

In physics[edit]
parabolic projectile motion showing velocity vector
The trajectory of a projectile launched from a cannon is modeled by an ODE that is derived from Newton's second law.

Physical laws that are described by differential equations represent deterministic systems, even though the state of the system at a given point in time may be difficult to describe explicitly.

In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic.

In mathematics[edit]

The systems studied in chaos theory are deterministic. If the initial state were known exactly, then the future state of such a system could theoretically be predicted. However, in practice, knowledge about the future state is limited by the precision with which the initial state can be measured, and chaotic systems are characterized by a strong dependence on the initial conditions. This sensitivity to initial conditions can be measured with Lyapunov exponents.

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

continued.....

 

[DaveC426913]

But then "chaos theory, in mechanics and mathematics, the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws."

This sentence no verb.

 

[Write4U]

....continued,

Lyapunov exponent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Explanations of the Lyapunov exponent

In mathematics, the Lyapunov exponent or Lyapunov characteristic exponent of a dynamical system is a quantity that characterizes the rate of separation of infinitesimally close trajectories. Quantitatively, two trajectories in phase space with initial separation vector 0\delta \mathbf {Z} _{0} diverge (provided that the divergence can be treated within the linearized approximation) at a rate given by
{\displaystyle |\delta \mathbf {Z} (t)|\approx e^{\lambda t}|\delta \mathbf {Z} _{0}|}
where \lambda is the Lyapunov exponent.

The rate of separation can be different for different orientations of initial separation vector. Thus, there is a spectrum of Lyapunov exponents—equal in number to the dimensionality of the phase space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_exponent

You also make a number of claims about this supposed "generic universal mathematics". For instance, you claim that - somehow! - this mathematics can "guide" the behaviours of physical objects (like atoms). You claim this despite the fact that a map of London can't "guide" London to do anything and a mental picture of a brick can't make a brick do anything.

I disagree with that analogy.
It's the mathematical properties of physical objects that guides its behavior.
Example.
Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
If you try to roll each of those mathematical shapes, they will trace a different path as they roll. It's the mathematical dimensions of these shapes that determine exactly how they roll on a flat surface.

Moreover, nobody except you appears to use the term "generic universal mathematics". Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that no such thing exists, other than in your head.

Yes mathematics are not things. Mathematics are the abstract logical rules that "guide" the creation of patterns in nature.

That's a slippery statement. I have already said that we can model the universe (or parts of it, at least) using mathematics. Those models, being mathematical models, necessarily have mathematical properties.

Yes, describing the mathematical properties of the object as it self-organizes in nature (see above). Doesn't that prove the point?

The physical universe also "behaves like" some mathematical models we create, though often only in some appropriate approximation. So, it is not unreasonable to say that the universe "behaves in a mathematical manner".

Now were talking!

However, that is a conclusion that can only be reached by analogy - by comparing the observed real-world behaviours of the physical universe with the conceptual mathematical models we have developed.

But you overlook the fact that the models are fashioned after and function the same as the real-world behaviours. And that is where I cite "common denominators" (even in the abstract).

Is it surprising that the real-world universe reflects certain mathematical models that we invented? I don't think so. After all, our aim in making those conceptual models in the first place was to try our best to accurately describe and to try to predict how the real-world universe behaves.

IOW copying the observed behaviors and symbolizing the values and functions that makes the real-world work and that we can use for practical human applications.

What you're forgetting is that there are also a lot of unsuccessful mathematical models of (different aspects of) our physical universe. You're remembering the hits and forgetting all the misses.

But that is not how the Universe presented the evidence. It was our inability to understand or measure the mathematics of the event.
I already cited the physicist who declared that "if you ask the universe a question and you ask it with the proper mathematics the universe will respond with the desired answer." I think the Higgs boson is proof of that.

The word "law", there, should suggest something to you. Where do we find laws? In law books written by human beings. Where do we find the "laws of physics"? In physics books written by human beings.

Sure, but these were not flights of fancy, they were all based on observation of natural behaviors.
Are you dismissing "Universal Constants" as the Universe's unwritten laws.

In this example, you refer explicitly to a "law of falling bodies" and you even admit there was a human being called Galileo who wrote it down. Before that it was not a recognised "law" (rec·og·nised, adjective)

Non-Oxford British English standard spelling of "recognized".

 

[Write4U]

...continued,

So, you're right: the "law of falling bodies" did not exist until Galileo wrote it down and called it that (assuming he called it that).

It did not exist as a codified and symbolized Law, but it surely existed as a natural behavior before Galileo was a gleam in his daddy's eyes.

All other "laws of physics" work the same way. Newton's laws of motion didn't exist until Newton wrote them down. Einstein's theory of relativity didn't exist until Einstein came up with it. etc.

Newton was not dreaming when he watched that apple fall. (he was however hallucinating (Seth), )

Of course not. We have already talked about this. Writing down a "law" can't change the way physical objects behave. The "laws" are conceptual. They are models that help us to describe and predict how the physical universe behaves.

Yesssssssss, and it behaves in a manner we have named a "mathematical manner".
Human mathematics are fashioned after natural phenomenal behaviours.

There were certainly suggested "laws of motion" before Newton came along. Aristotle had different "laws of motion", for instance. And you know what? Aristotle's laws didn't accurately describe how real-world objects behave. So what happened? Out with Aristotle's laws; in with Newton's laws!

But not "out with the universal laws", they remained the same regardless of our several efforts to describe and codify them properly.

Do you think that, before Newton, objects followed Aristotle's laws of motion, and then suddenly when Newton came along the universe changed to bring itself into alignment with the new laws?

But that is what you are claiming! The Universal mathematical behaviors did not change one iota. Our observations were more refined and accurate and aligned with reality! Not the other way around.
Universal mathematics emerged from the initial state of chaos and as virtual values transmuted into particles which then self-organized into atoms, molecules, chemistry, biochemistry, cells, brains, and the concept of a mathematical chronology of events, time . No one asks if time is a human invention and has no relation to spacetime.

Now, before you start complaining, let me anticipate an argument you'll want to make. Why not turn this around? Why not say that the universe has its "generic universal mathematics", and it's us humans that need constantly to "catch up" with what the universe already "knows"? In one sense, this is unproblematic. The universe behaves as it behaves, and it is up to us humans to describe it as best as we can. That's standard science. And yes, the best physical models use mathematics.

And that suggests that the universe uses mathematics, no?
We are in perfect agreement. I just don't see the objection. When it walks like a duck and quacks like duck, it is a not a duck?

The mistake lies in imagining that the models - the mathematics - is already "out there" somewhere in the physical universe, just waiting to be discovered.

How is it that we are constantly discovering new mathematics in cosmology?

There are no "natural" maths books to be found. Atoms don't do math.

Of course they do. We call it chemistry. Chemistry is a very orderly mathematical process. That's why we can measure precise prescriptions in response to the demands of certain medical conditions.

We won't find ancient stone tablets anywhere, on which some deistic universal "god" has written down its mathematical laws.

No, because there is no God. But what some 4.85 billion people mistake for a God (the Intelligent Designer) is the result of mathematical functions which appear to be "intelligent", but is only a quasi-intelligent
mathematical property of this universe.

It sounds to me like you don't understand what an analogy is. Grab that dictionary again.
There is an analogy, but it's just that - an analogy. We can use flowery language to talk about the "mathematics of the universe", but what we're really talking about is either the observed behaviour of the universe or our mathematical models of that behaviour.

Universal Constants are the observed behaviors of the universe, no?
And if that model accurately imitates the observed behavior and its mathematical regularities, we may assume that mathematical order is a major aspect of that object.
If I describe a stick of licorice, the words are not licorice, but the object the words describe is a stick made of generic (or manufactured) licorice.

The failure to recognise that this is an analogy is the same map-territory problem you've had all along

There is no cognitive failure of the differences in a "description of the mathematical aspects" and the "actual generic universal mathematical aspects" that the descriptions symbolize or the photographs illustrate.

7 Beautiful Examples Of The Fibonacci Sequence In Nature

Nature is beautiful (and so is math)

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/7-beautiful-examples-fibonacci-sequence-nature

 

[Write4U]

This sentence no verb.

It was a quoted sentence, go figure.

 

[DaveC426913]

It was a quoted sentence, go figure.

And yet, you didn't quote it. It is written in your words. (for reference: post 408, penultimate paragraph)

The reason I mention it is because it appears to be yet another symptom of you writing stuff without bothering to read or understand it.

So if you claim you're quoting someone, then who and where?

 

[billvon]

The reason I mention it is because it appears to be yet another symptom of you writing stuff without bothering to read or understand it.

Reading is dangerous. It can make the poster realize that his excellent evidence does not quite support his favorite theory.

 

[Write4U]

And yet, you didn't quote it. It is written in your words. (for reference: post 408, penultimate paragraph)

The reason I mention it is because it appears to be yet another symptom of you writing stuff without bothering to read or understand it.

So if you claim you're quoting someone, then who and where?

Let's give it a try.

chaos theory, in mechanics and mathematics, the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws.

https://www.britannica.com/science/chaos-theory

OK?
Let's add another quote.

All mathematical functions are deterministic functions. This means they return the same results each time they are called with a specific set of input values.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/s...mathematical-functions-azure-stream-analytics

 

[Write4U]

We are all communicating. It's just not the message you are able to hear.

To be explicit: there is no path via communication that leads to your ideas being viable.

What remains is "That is not true; this is how it actually works." Which is what we have been communicating you all along. You are not interested. We have been extremely patient in communicating. If you want better communication, look inward.

All there is from you is "that is not true", without the explanation of how it actually works.

 

[Write4U]

Reading is dangerous. It can make the poster realize that his excellent evidence does not quite support his favorite theory

Au contraire, It makes this poster realize that he has been reading excellent evidence supporting his favorite theory published and peer reviewed by reliable sources.

And what is it I should be reading? Scientific papers are not acceptable? Should I read about pink unicorns?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics. I claim they are made guided by universal mathematical principles.

You're telling me that you disagree with Tegmark's hypothesis, then.

Is that correct?

This strikes me as a significant change from the position you espoused earlier in this thread.

Does the apple fall from the tree differently than as described with mathematics?

Of course it does!

A description of an apple is not an apple.

The universe is a dynamic object.

Okay...

The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order.

Did it? How did order come from that state of complete chaos, then?

Deterministic system
In physics[edit]
parabolic projectile motion showing velocity vector
The trajectory of a projectile launched from a cannon is modeled by an ODE that is derived from Newton's second law.
In mathematics[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system

continued.....

Relevance of all of this: zero.

Lyapunov exponent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Explanations of the Lyapunov exponent

Relevance of this: zero.

I disagree with that analogy.
It's the mathematical properties of physical objects that guides its behavior.

How does this "guiding" happen, exactly? What is the mechanism?

Can you give me a single example that shows how a "mathematical property" can cause something to happen in the physical universe? Remember: I want an explanation of the causal connection - the active "guiding" you allege is there. I'm not interested in your just giving another example of how a mathematical model can be used by human beings to describe a physical system.

Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
If you try to roll each of those mathematical shapes, they will trace a different path as they roll. It's the mathematical dimensions of these shapes that determine exactly how they roll on a flat surface.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Yes mathematics are not things. Mathematics are the abstract logical rules that "guide" the creation of patterns in nature.

How can anything which is abstract affect the physical world? I have asked you this many times, but you have yet to give a single example of such a thing.

Yes, describing the mathematical properties of the object as it self-organizes in nature (see above). Doesn't that prove the point?

My point, or your point? What are you talking about?

But you overlook the fact that the models are fashioned after and function the same as the real-world behaviours.

I have overlooked nothing.

A mathematical model does not "function the same" as any physical system. A conceptual model of an apple is not an apple; therefore, it cannot function as an apple. You can't eat an imaginary apple.

IOW copying the observed behaviors and symbolizing the values and functions that makes the real-world work and that we can use for practical human applications.

You are just assuming that there are "values and functions" in the "real world" that can be copied. But as far as I'm aware, mathematical values and functions are only to be found in mental concepts and human-produced works (writings, videos, recordings etc.)

But that is not how the Universe presented the evidence.

You're anthropomorphizing the universe again. The universe isn't a person.

It was our inability to understand or measure the mathematics of the event.

Or, maybe we hadn't invented a good model yet.

I already cited the physicist who declared that "if you ask the universe a question and you ask it with the proper mathematics the universe will respond with the desired answer."

The universe isn't a person. Is this another Tegmark quote?

I think the Higgs boson is proof of that.

I previously explained how the Higgs boson was discovered. Have you forgotten?

Are you dismissing "Universal Constants" as the Universe's unwritten laws.

Sounds like word salad.

It did not exist as a codified and symbolized Law, but it surely existed as a natural behavior before Galileo was a gleam in his daddy's eyes.

No. The mathematics of falling objects did not exist until a human being invented it. Like I said.

Human mathematics are fashioned after natural phenomenal behaviours.

Yes. Human-created mathematical models are models of natural behaviours...

But not "out with the universal laws", they remained the same regardless of our several efforts to describe and codify them properly.

How do you know there are "universal laws" that remain the same regardless of our efforts to describe them?

What evidence do you have for that contention?

Without a description or model, how could we hope to know whether a "law" remained the same or not? We'd have nothing to compare with.

Universal mathematics emerged from the initial state of chaos and as virtual values transmuted into particles which then self-organized into atoms, molecules, chemistry, biochemistry, cells, brains, and the concept of a mathematical chronology of events, time.

You allege complete chaos at the start of the universe, right? Then how could "universal mathematics" (or anything else) emerge from that?

"virtual values" is word salad. So is the idea of that word salad "transmuting" into some other word salad.

No one asks if time is a human invention and has no relation to spacetime.

Try googling it. You might find that some people do ask that. Not that it matters.

And that suggests that the universe uses mathematics, no?

Insofar as we humans are part of the universe, it does.

We are in perfect agreement. I just don't see the objection. When it walks like a duck and quacks like duck, it is a not a duck?

Is a mental image of a duck a duck? The mental picture walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Does that make it a duck?

How is it that we are constantly discovering new mathematics in cosmology?

Are we constantly discovering new mathematics in cosmology? Even if we concede that new mathematics is being done, how do you know it is discovered, rather than invented?

Of course they do. We call it chemistry.

Chemistry is not mathematics.

Chemistry is a very orderly mathematical process.

It is not a mathematical process.

That's why we can measure precise prescriptions in response to the demands of certain medical conditions.

Measurement is not (just) a mathematical process.

But what some 4.85 billion people mistake for a God (the Intelligent Designer) is the result of mathematical functions which appear to be "intelligent", but is only a quasi-intelligent mathematical property of this universe.

You claim that mathematical functions are intelligent, now?

Or quasi-intelligent? What does "quasi-intelligent" mean? Does it mean they look intelligent but aren't? Or what? What does "quasi-intelligent" add to "mathematical functions"? Are there mathematical functions that aren't "quasi-intelligent"?

Here's a mathematical function: $f(x)=x^2$. Is that a quasi-intelligent function, or is it a plain old dumb function? Or what?

Do you have a procedure for telling the quasi-intelligent functions from the unintelligent ones?

Universal Constants are the observed behaviors of the universe, no?

No. How could a constant be a "behaviour"?

And if that model accurately imitates the observed behavior and its mathematical regularities, we may assume that mathematical order is a major aspect of that object.

That would be a faulty conclusion. The correct conclusion would be that mathematical order is a major aspect of the model.

If I describe a stick of licorice, the words are not licorice, but the object the words describe is a stick made of generic (or manufactured) licorice.

Right.

And you will agree that the mathematical description of a stick of licorice is not licorice, either. Right?

Licorice isn't made of mathematical functions or universal constants. You can't eat mathematical constants.

There is no cognitive failure of the differences in a "description of the mathematical aspects" and the "actual generic universal mathematical aspects" that the descriptions symbolize or the photographs illustrate.

You have yet to show that there are any "universal mathematical aspects". All you keep doing is asserting that such things exist.

7 Beautiful Examples Of The Fibonacci Sequence In Nature

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/7-beautiful-examples-fibonacci-sequence-nature

Relevance: zero.

 

[James R]

I should probably note here, for interested readers, that I am playing Devil's advocate to a degree in my discussion with Write4U. But if he can't understand or counter the somewhat extreme version of the argument I have put to him, then there's little hope of him grasping important distinctions at a subtler level of explanation.

I just want to say that the views I am expressing in somewhat strident terms do not fully represent my own opinions on the matter, which I hope are a little more nuanced.

Still, I think this form of argument is a potentially useful approach for people who are stuck in a rut of confusion about maps and territories.