Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

That's your problem. Not mine.

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why?

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support-20160516/

Because it was you who showed the wave function as an example of causality for a self-organizing complex pattern forming.

This great example argues in favor of the wave function as a causal force.
The example even provided the specific frequency which formed the specific pattern.

Are you now questioning your own observation of physical mathematical universal functions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it is, you just don't know it is.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's easily observed to be the fact of the matter - the dandelions are growing in my yard, you are welcome to investigate to your heart's content.

I'm sure the question of "why" it is the fact of the matter is a fascinating one, but this thread is not the place.

We have a thread launched on an overt falsehood, a clearly counterfactual claim, and that falsehood is being defended as somehow fundamental to theistic beliefs. That's interesting enough, don't you think?

 

No, it doesn't. Interpreting a mathematical function as a cause is not at all straightforward, and interpreting it as a force is dubious in the extreme.

Causality, in general, is not well suited to be a fundamental entity or principle in a rigorous science. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0003.004/1

 

Except the link provided by Jan refers to a pattern being formed by a vibration (wave function).
And as you posited in post #904:

I agree.

p.s. thanks for the link re causation. Looks interesting and I'll read it when I have more time.

 

A dandelion is a model of the solar system?

 

Atheism could be treated more or less as an opinion about the existence of the God. And science gives no indulgence to opinions.

 

In my opinion science is correct to act in that manner

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, you completely missed the point. Apart from the fact that naturally occurring phenomena are not models of naturally ocurring phenomena, the Fibonacci Sequence (phi) is an example of a universal natural mathematical function, especially in biology. And it is especially apparent in Daisies and Sunflowers as well as Dandelions.

To equate natural mathematical functions as indicative of a sentient intelligent designer is an erroneous assumption. It is indicative of a self-organizing natural mathematical function, which produces an efficient pattern, such as found in spiral patterns. It is known as "phi".

http://vedanadosah.cvtisr.sk/en/flower-petals-and-the-fibonacci-sequence

https://deepfriar.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/getting-mathematical-on-weeds/

For other areas where "phi" is a fundamental natural occurrence, see;

The lower-case letter φ (or often its variant, ϕ) is often used to represent the following:

• Magnetic flux in physics
• The golden ratio {\displaystyle {\tfrac {1+{\sqrt {5}}}{2}}\approx }

  Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  1.618033988749894848204586834... in mathematics, art, and architecture.
• Euler's totient function φ(n) in number theory; also called Euler's phi function.
• The cyclotomic polynomial functions Φn(x) of algebra.
• In algebra, group or ring homomorphisms
• In probability theory, ϕ(x) = (2π)−½e−x²/2 is the probability density function of the normal distribution.
• In probability theory, φX(t) = E[eitX] is the characteristic function of a random variable X.
• An angle, typically the second angle mentioned, after θ (theta). Especially:
  • The argument of a complex number.
  • The phase of a wave in signal processing.
  • In spherical coordinates, mathematicians usually refer to phi as the polar angle (from the z-axis). The convention in physics is to use phi as the azimuthal angle (from the x-axis).
  • One of the dihedral angles in the backbones of proteins in a Ramachandran plot
  • Internal or effective angle of friction.
• The work function of a surface, in solid-state physics.
• A shorthand representation for an aromatic functional group in organic chemistry.
• The fugacity coefficient in thermodynamics.
• The ratio of free energy destabilizations of protein mutants in phi value analysis.
• In cartography, geodesy and navigation, latitude.
• In aircraft flight mechanics as the symbol for bank angle (sometimes represented with the letter theta, which is also used for pitch angle).
• In combustion engineering, fuel–air equivalence ratio. The ratio between the actual fuel air ratio to the stoichiometric fuel air ratio.
• A sentence in first-order logic.
• The Veblen function in set theory
• Porosity in geology and hydrology.
• Strength (or resistance) reduction factor in structural engineering, used to account for statistical variabilities in materials and construction methods.
• The symbol for a voiceless bilabial fricative in the International Phonetic Alphabet (using the straight line variant character)
• In economics, this is usually an additive term.[clarification needed]
• In flight dynamics, the roll angle.
• In philosophy, φ is often used as shorthand for a generic act. (Also in upper-case.)
• In perceptual psychology, the phi phenomenon is the apparent motion caused by the successive viewing of stationary objects, such as the frames of a motion picture.
• In lexical-functional grammar, the function that maps elements from the c-structure to the f-structure.
• The logo of La France Insoumise, a French political party.

The upper-case letter Φ is used as a symbol for:

• The golden ratio conjugate −0.618... in mathematics.
• The magnetic flux and electric flux in physics, with subscripts distinguishing the two.
• The cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution in mathematics and statistics.
• In philosophy, Φ is often used as shorthand for a generic act. (Also in lower-case.)[citation needed]
• The number of phases in a power system in electrical engineering, for example 1Φ for single phase, 3Φ for three phase.
• A common symbol for the parametrization of a surface in vector calculus.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi

 

I never suggested that the form of the solar system somehow replicates itself to manifest a miniature version if itself as a model. I am simply talking about the incredulity of advocating that the solar system, with its intricate checks and balances, arose out of the blind interactions of the universe while, simultaneously, one cannot accept even for a microsecond, that the same blind intetactions gave rise to a crude model (a model that has practically infinitely less than .00001% of the said checks and balances in place).

I made it easy for you. I didn't even bring lifeforms like daisies to the table. I am just talking about lumps of stuff and chemicals. No need to introduce life.

Brilliant.
So why does a crude model of the solar system (or even a teacup) scream "creator" yet the solar system doesn't? I am sure if you looked hard enough at such things you would find mathematical sequences of some sort or other, but their presence or absence is not the issue.

 

Because a teacup is an artifact, fashioned and used by people for purpose of drinking tea.

A crude model of the solar system by humans had the earth at it's center. Incorrect model of nature.
Early models of the earth created by humans were flat. Incorrect model of nature.

If you look hard enough you find only mathematical properties to the universe. The problem occurs, when people do not look hard enough and just assume the universe is an artifact created by an intelligent designer. It isn't!

The issue is that forms of mathematical values and functions are the metaphysical essence of the spacetime fabric.
That's why at first glance it "appears" intelligent to us, but it is only pure mathematical values and functions which produce recurring mathematical imperatives, such as planets orbiting in star's gravitational fields.

Other than probabilistic natural selection, there are no sentient choices made in nature.

Things work as they must by their own inherent values and potentials. Only humans and other sentient animals have the ability to make choices and even that is debatable.

 

Yes, that is the mathematical nature of nature. There are billions, nay trillions of forms and patterns similar to the solar system in the universe, each precisely "tuned" to the inherent mathematical properties and potentials contained in the constituent stars and their orbiting planets.

 

Why do you think that question has not been answered many times over?
Because we have some knowledge and understanding of how such things come to be. For example: We recognize the model as being too simple to be a likely product of growth and self-assembly, resembling instead a product of the simplifying abstractions typical of created things.

Analogy, not model.
It illustrates the principle - pull a dandelion, and you have in your hand something far more complex than the solar system of planets and orbits and such, that you know by observation was not created but instead grew over time (self-assembled, as they say). Then you set it alongside a model, that you know was created.

A model of a dandelion illustrates the ordinary properties of created things, compared with things that grew - things that grow and develop and evolve and accumulate alterations over time are more complicated and complex, not less complicated and complex, than things created. This is a general principle: it's how we tell arrowheads and beads from rocks, beehives and wasp nests and spiderwebs from fungi and debris.

 

I showed sound vibration transformed those random particles into complex patterns and shapes. The Bible states that, in the beginning was the Word (sound), and the Word (sound), was God.

Jan.

 

In the beginning the Word was not sound. Sound was created by the Word. According to Genesis, anyway.
But then, you have repeatedly denied claiming that the Abrahamic mono-Deity is your God - so the sequence details are not important. Right?

 

In the beginning was the Big Bang! Or as Hameroff has named a quantum event by the word, "BING"!! After all the Bible does not specify the word itself, does it?
Strike an anvil and it produces the word "PING", strike a larger object and it produces a "BING" or even a "BANG", but if it is not big enough it cannot produce the word "BONG"...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Interestingly, even as the Big Bang was a mega-quantum event, the lowest wave frequencies are missing from the background, indicating that the universe started as a small singularity, and even after the inflationary epoch was unable to create wave frequencies larger than itself.

 

Yeah well , BB is not the definitive understanding of our Universe . It is a mainstream theory only .

 

And the biblical assertion of a WORD is a definitive understanding?