2 of 5
2
Do atheists believe in some intelligent entity?
Posted: 06 December 2016 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
MikeYohe - 06 December 2016 09:06 AM
peter.berry - 05 December 2016 04:10 PM

For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest.  We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks.  Don’t forget the consciousness bit.  If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine.  All this is for me still pretty awesome.  Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe.  And photons might look different elsewhere.  But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory.  I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.  The theory of the “we are the God”, for me also falls in the creator theory.

I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness.  Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator?  The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions.  A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?

 

I cannot get a handle on your complete thought here. What the hell is a “non-creator”? OK, I agree you are looking for answers as we all are or were. Myself I first looked at past history. And the first question was;
 
Q. Did life begin on earth?
 
A. We don’t know.
 
We do know that all things including earth are made of matter. And matter is still falling on earth all the time. Matter could have brought life with it to earth. And it could have been more than single cells. For example tardigrades could have come to us from outer space.
 
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/the-weird-genome-of-water-bears-tardigrades-more-than-a-sixth-of-it-was-swiped-from-distantly-related-species/
 
It is looking like all living organisms share a beginning ancestry. And it seem a little confusing when things like fungi (mushrooms) have now been revealed as being closer to animals like humans than to other plants like lettuce.
 
Then pre-history tells us that man came to the conclusion that the universe was made from matter and the earth was also made from this matter. Next they said that how the universe came to be, mankind may never know. Therefore one should come to the conclusion that mankind will not be able to answer all questions at this time.
 
Today we have the big bang theory. And a rough timeline for that. We have life on earth and a timeline for that.
 
Now we are at the point I want to get at, “Intelligent creator”. What does that mean? So, the next thing I would look at is “intelligent” the same thing as “knowledge”. That is the my question to you.

Warning Peter. This is one of those weird topics Yohe gets off on quite often. He has also called gods knowledge, and asserted the gods bred mankind to serve them, or some such similar nonsense. I don’t are enough to look up his exact words. Be forewarned that engaging Yohe on this topic will be a useless diversion from reality.

Edit: Domestication. That’s the term Yohe uses. He believes the gods (aka knowledge) domesticated mankind to do manual labor for them so they could party or something.

[ Edited: 06 December 2016 12:05 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2016 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
peter.berry - 05 December 2016 04:10 PM

For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest.  We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks.  Don’t forget the consciousness bit.  If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine.  All this is for me still pretty awesome.  Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe.  And photons might look different elsewhere.  But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory.  I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.  The theory of the “we are the God”, for me also falls in the creator theory.

I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness.  Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator?  The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions.  A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?

No and no. “Awesomeness”  means nothing. It’s simply an emotional response. In no way does it support a creator claim. That’s no more than wishful thinking.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2016 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21

Reality is a poem on the tip of my tongue that I can’t quite remember,
familiar yet distant. It’s a form seen through a veil…. as a scientist you live life as if every mystery is there for us to discover and understand.—Natalie Batalha, astronomer

Out of the cradle onto dry land
here it is
standing:
atoms with consciousness;
matter with curiosity.—Richard Feynman

The spotlight passes but, exhilaratingly before doing so it gives us time to comprehend something of this place in which we fleetingly find ourselves and the reason that we do so.
We are alone among animals in foreseeing our end. We are also alone among animals in being able to say, before we die, yes, this is why it was worth coming to life in the first place. - from Unweaving of the Rainbow

After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.
Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.” Richard Dawkins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2016 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeYohe - 06 December 2016 09:06 AM
peter.berry - 05 December 2016 04:10 PM

For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest.  We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks.  Don’t forget the consciousness bit.  If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine.  All this is for me still pretty awesome.  Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe.  And photons might look different elsewhere.  But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory.  I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.  The theory of the “we are the God”, for me also falls in the creator theory.

I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness.  Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator?  The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions.  A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?

I cannot get a handle on your complete thought here. What the hell is a “non-creator”? OK, I agree you are looking for answers as we all are or were. Myself I first looked at past history. And the first question was;
 
Q. Did life begin on earth?
 
A. We don’t know.
 
We do know that all things including earth are made of matter. And matter is still falling on earth all the time. Matter could have brought life with it to earth. And it could have been more than single cells. For example tardigrades could have come to us from outer space.
 
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/the-weird-genome-of-water-bears-tardigrades-more-than-a-sixth-of-it-was-swiped-from-distantly-related-species/

I love tardigrades, they are truly amazing little creatures.. But while it may be possible that life on earth was imported, IMO, it is more likely that life began on earth.
As Hazen noted, the earth offers a “balanced menu” including all the ingredients for creating bio-chemicals and bio-molecules.

It is looking like all living organisms share a beginning ancestry. And it seem a little confusing when things like fungi (mushrooms) have now been revealed as being closer to animals like humans than to other plants like lettuce.

OTOH, this enormous variety which includes transitory stages from bio-molecules to living organisms actually argues for the earth as the *mother* of earth-life. There is no compelling reason why this is NOT so.

Then pre-history tells us that man came to the conclusion that the universe was made from matter and the earth was also made from this matter. Next they said that how the universe came to be, mankind may never know. Therefore one should come to the conclusion that mankind will not be able to answer all questions at this time.

I agree, we don’t know enough about the imperatives for the BB, but that is fairly irrelevant to the emergence of life on earth a few billion years later.

Today we have the big bang theory. And a rough timeline for that. We have life on earth and a timeline for that.

Right, and it appears that these time-lines are perfectly compatible with our known evolutionary time-lines of the emergence of more and more complex organism, eventually producing several highly advanced species, such as hominids.

Now we are at the point I want to get at, “Intelligent creator”. What does that mean? So, the next thing I would look at is “intelligent” the same thing as “knowledge”. That is the my question to you.

  Ok, let’s first look at the implication contained in the word “knowledge” from a purely physical aspect. In physics, “knowledge” is comparable to *inherent potential, such as expressed in the equation   E = Mc^2,  which is an expression of equality, viewed from a different perspective.

Thus one could make an argument that this represents a non-intelligent form of “knowledge”, which can be symbolized by that famous equation. Of course this is not the same as human type intelligence and knowledge, But mathematically it makes no difference if human science knows this or not.  E = Mc^2 is a timeless constant mathematical potential of all matter.in the universe. No intelligence is necessary for this equation to be true. We have just been able to translate this energetic potential in scientific symbolic language, IOW we learned this knowledge strictly from observation of actual events and patterns of events.

As Antonson demonstrated , we can make a parabola from purely straight lines.  When you think of it, this is a remarkable mathematical phenomenon..  But it needs not be “intelligent”, just mathematically correct.  We KNOW that the universe works mathematically.  If it can do that, why is a “guiding hand” necessary?  Space-time is a mathematically self transforming condition.

By Occam’s Razor, an intelligent creator is not essentially necessary. Mathematical functions are the guiding rules for all events in the universe and seem to be able to create everything we can observe. The Potential for orderly change is a built-in property of space-time.

One could create an scientific equation:  Potential =  God {minus self awareness)

[ Edited: 07 December 2016 12:42 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2016 09:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01

1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand”. Totally not logical.
 
Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 12:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeYohe - 06 December 2016 09:08 PM

1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand”. Totally not logical.
 
Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.

Oh, that is the crux of the matter.
The irony is that we don’t know if we are intelligent enough to understand how the Beginning came about, until and unless we have sufficient knowledge. Then the question becomes reversed and it assumes we are intelligent enough, but lack just a few last pieces of the puzzle.

The Tegmark clip shows the underlying simplicity of the universal mathematical functions and in our ability to symbolize them from recurring mathematical patterns. We can write down what we see. Then we can search for that which makes it able to be seen.  The very simplicity of his hypothesis is so elegant and constant that IMO, a natural mathematically functioning universe will eventually reveal the ultimate causality of Energy. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I

But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB.
He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.
http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?

I may even have posted these before, but both these lectures are entertaining and mind-expanding. I’m an empath… big surprise

[ Edited: 07 December 2016 12:45 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 01:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
peter.berry - 30 November 2016 03:05 PM

I appreciate that atheists do not believe in a God in the religious sense of the word.  But do most atheists agree that some intelligent entity initiated or guided the process?


I am willing to accept that if you throw enough atoms together in some space-time machine you end up with us… but ‘someone or thing’ coded those atoms!  Are scientists then in the process of getting to know this ‘someone or thing’ by deciphering its work of art. And also perhaps what the purpose of this work of art is.


I have heard at some stage the theory that because the Big Bang has a beginning and an eventual end, when all hydrogen and helium are depleted, the logical deduction points to some purpose… that is; a project has a purpose.


My belief, or rather gut feel, leans heavily towards an intelligent entity, to the extent that I find it difficult that some atheists end at believing in nothing-nothing. No purpose driven kick-starter that initiated the process…  I am not saying that us humans are neccesarily in the limelight of this experiment, it might be to witness the growth (or evolution) of consciousness of atoms over millennia.


We don’t believe in nothing, we believe in the scientfic method, which demands objective evidence to support claims. “Awesomeness” is not evidence. “Leanings” are not evidence. Feelings are not evidence. Your need or desire to posit a “purpose driven kick-starter” is not evidence. Atheists don’t care if people “lean heavily” toward an intelligent entity. That is simply a preference. We lean heavily toward a rational explanation backed up by evidence for how life began. We don’t care about anyone’s “leanings” toward an explanatin without evidence. We only care about evidence. Without it there is no argument. We accept that we don’t know precisely how life began. We’re ok not knowing until actual, testable evidence comes our way. What we’re not ok with are empty claims and “awesomeness” or “leanings” or theists’ frustrations that atheists don’t mind as much as theists do if we don’t know. We certainly don’t mind enough to dream up an answer with no evidence behind it.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 01:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 06 December 2016 09:08 PM

1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand”. Totally not logical.
 
Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.

It isn’t intelligence we’re lacking. It’s objective evidence. Without objective evidence that there is or was a creator, the default is that there is no creator. We don’t have enough knowledge to establish a math base for creation and all the wishful thinking in the world is not going to create it. For knowledge you need evidence, and none has been presented. Raging at the fact that we don’t know is useless. Pretending we can establish a math base without evidence is also useless.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 02:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26

@ Lois,

I am not sure if I agree with the very last part of your post. Why do we keep looking? Perhaps new equipment will give us new information, until we have sufficient secondary data to infer a mathematical function which was causal to the BB.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14
peter.berry - 05 December 2016 04:10 PM

For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest.  We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks.  Don’t forget the consciousness bit.  If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine.  All this is for me still pretty awesome.  Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe.  And photons might look different elsewhere.  But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory.  I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.

That’s the trouble with the “intelligent creator theory”.  The question of where this creator came from isn’t just a trivial question.  Life is complex.  That’s what separates it from “ordinary” physical matter, like stars and planets.  And by all means don’t forget the “consciousness bit”!  Consciousness didn’t just spring into existence fully formed from a random collision of a couple of molecules.  It was the end result of millions of years of evolution.  If there was an intelligent creator, where did IT come from?  If your “intelligent creator theory” is correct, it would have to have been created by still another intelligent creator, and so on ad infinitum.  So your “theory” hasn’t really answered the question: Where does complexity come from?

I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness.  Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator?  The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions.  A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?

Obviously you haven’t read much of Neil Degrasse Tyson’s work.  We do spend a lot of time wondering at the awesomeness of the universe, wondering and speculating about how we got here, how our consciousness works, what it’s component parts are, how it evolved…  It don’t see that it pushes me toward a creator, for the reason I mentioned above.  Postulating a creator simply does not answer any questions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 07 December 2016 12:36 AM
MikeYohe - 06 December 2016 09:08 PM

1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand”. Totally not logical.
 
Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.

Oh, that is the crux of the matter.
The irony is that we don’t know if we are intelligent enough to understand how the Beginning came about, until and unless we have sufficient knowledge. Then the question becomes reversed and it assumes we are intelligent enough, but lack just a few last pieces of the puzzle.

The Tegmark clip shows the underlying simplicity of the universal mathematical functions and in our ability to symbolize them from recurring mathematical patterns. We can write down what we see. Then we can search for that which makes it able to be seen.  The very simplicity of his hypothesis is so elegant and constant that IMO, a natural mathematically functioning universe will eventually reveal the ultimate causality of Energy. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I

But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB.
He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.
http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?

I may even have posted these before, but both these lectures are entertaining and mind-expanding. I’m an empath… big surprise


The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1581
Joined  2012-04-25
LoisL - 06 December 2016 11:59 AM
peter.berry - 05 December 2016 04:10 PM

For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest.  We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks.  Don’t forget the consciousness bit.  If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine.  All this is for me still pretty awesome.  Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe.  And photons might look different elsewhere.  But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory.  I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.  The theory of the “we are the God”, for me also falls in the creator theory.

I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness.  Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator?  The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions.  A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?

No and no. “Awesomeness”  means nothing. It’s simply an emotional response. In no way does it support a creator claim. That’s no more than wishful thinking.

LoisL is a little harsh I think. True scientists, Einstein especially, are driven primarily by that sense of wonder and not knowing. And part of that IS wondering about the possibility of either a Creator or a creator (little c - as in super advanced being that isn’t the big C). I mean look at Star Trek. One of the best characters is Q, who is an immortal omnipotent being who is a small c creator, not a big C. It’s fun and fascinating, but ultimately fruitless because it all boils down to “who created the Creator”. And that’s a showstopper. So scientists move on and get down to the real work of figuring stuff out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2016 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
CuthbertJ - 07 December 2016 11:16 AM

True scientists, Einstein especially, are driven primarily by that sense of wonder and not knowing. And part of that IS wondering about the possibility of either a Creator or a creator (little c - as in super advanced being that isn’t the big C). I mean look at Star Trek. One of the best characters is Q, who is an immortal omnipotent being who is a small c creator, not a big C. It’s fun and fascinating, but ultimately fruitless because it all boils down to “who created the Creator”. And that’s a showstopper. So scientists move on and get down to the real work of figuring stuff out.

Star Trek is science fiction. I agree with your point, but you’re mixing categories. I’ve read quite a bit about science over the decades, and had beers with a dozen or so research cosmologists and astrophysicists, as well as spending time on observing fields with professional astronomers and science educators. I don’t recall any of them pondering a creator. They ponder the origin of the universe, but like Laplace they see no need for a creator. Q is a fictional character. Scientists stick to reality even when they’re trying to figure out things we do not yet know. Their hypotheses must fit the math. With few exceptions when scientists discuss a creator they do so only to refute the idea.

Edit for clarity and typos

[ Edited: 08 December 2016 11:52 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2016 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26

W4U said,

But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB.
He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.

http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?

Mike Yohe said,

The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.

Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a “measurement”, it runs much deeper.
Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333…) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions.

I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature.  It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.

[ Edited: 08 December 2016 12:34 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2016 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
Write4U - 07 December 2016 02:31 AM

@ Lois,

I am not sure if I agree with the very last part of your post. Why do we keep looking? Perhaps new equipment will give us new information, until we have sufficient secondary data to infer a mathematical function which was causal to the BB.

It’s human nature to keep looking, but only irrational people accept explanations without evidence.

Can we establish a math base on pure speculation? How would that work?

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2
 
‹‹ Media bias      Math-related metaphors ››