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

[James R]

by Rene Magritte

The text translates as "This is not a pipe", which is, of course, an accurate statement.

Come to think of it, this one here is not even a painting of a pipe.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Boy, this is hard work.
David Bohm -

If there is a question about the way he finishes his talk, I believe he is saying that reality has a finer-grained underlying reality that has an abstract quasi-intelligent behavior of mathematical pattern-forming in accordance to fundamental relational logical values and functions of spacetime itself.

 

[James R]

Boy, this is hard work.
David Bohm -

I didn't bother watching that. I want you to defend your ideas.

I believe he is saying that reality has a finer-grained underlying reality that has an abstract quasi-intelligent behavior of mathematical pattern-forming in accordance to fundamental relational logical values and functions of spacetime itself.

Word salad.

Previously, I asked you direct questions relating to your "quasi-intelligent" functions. Until you explain what those are, there's no point in your trying to use them to explain something else.

Are you going to answer any of the many other questions I asked you?

 

[Sarkus]

If there is a question about the way he finishes his talk, I believe he is saying that reality has a finer-grained underlying reality that has an abstract quasi-intelligent behavior of mathematical pattern-forming in accordance to fundamental relational logical values and functions of spacetime itself.

Which basically just means that it follows laws, and that those laws can be expressed mathematically. The "quasi-intelligent" is an unwarranted interpretation, methinks. But I may have misunderstood him.

But it doesn't answer the question you were asked, does it?

Let me ask you, as I'm not sure I'm quite sure: what is the position you're arguing?
Is it Tegmark's "everything is a mathematical structure" type philosophy, or the rather different"the universe operates by mathematical laws" type claim? Or something else?
And how does it relate to Quantum Creationism?
(Can you be clear, concise, and use easy-to-understand language, please?)
Thanks.

 

[James R]

I went back and watched the Bohm clip. One quote at random:

"In the implicate order, everything is internally related to everything; everything contains everything".
​

This is a sort of mysticism, not a scientific theory. Bohm then goes on to claim, essentially, that consciousness is "non-mechanistic"; it sounds like he's trying to make an argument for free will. Then he goes on to claim that there's an "intelligence" in his "implicate order", which he essentially equates with a sort of god.

What I take away from this is that Bohm's implicate order is whatever he needs or wants it to be. It's such an ill-defined idea that its practically unfalsifiable. There appears to be no way the idea could ever be tested.

 

[Write4U]

Which basically just means that it follows laws, and that those laws can be expressed mathematically. The "quasi-intelligent" is an unwarranted interpretation, methinks. But I may have misunderstood him.

I admit that I made that analogy. I based it on the idea that because mathematical functions are so predictable, this was interpreted as an Intelligent Designer (God). Bohm put religion firmly in the background as he claims the concept of god tends to limit the mathematical function.
In believe that mathematical functions appear as intelligent behaviors, but it is only an appearance.
Hence my introduction of the term "quasi-intelligent" and I believe that this interpretation is a reasonable speculation.

But it doesn't answer the question you were asked, does it?

I hope the above does.

Let me ask you, as I'm not sure I'm quite sure: what is the position you're arguing?
Is it Tegmark's "everything is a mathematical structure" type philosophy, or the rather different"the universe operates by mathematical laws" type claim? Or something else?
And how does it relate to Quantum Creationism?
(Can you be clear, concise, and use easy-to-understand language, please?)
Thanks.

Answering the question as asked, it's Tegmark's "everything has an inherent generic relational value", and all universal physical interactions begin with the input of relational values and the mathematically ordered processes that yield predictable results.
The fact that we can measure, symbolize, codify, categorize, and utilize these orderly processes, is IMO overwhelming evidence that the Universe has a mathematically logical property inherent in its very "unfolding" of the spacetime, from the beginning chaos, to the self-ordering of complex patterns, and eventually back to a state of chaos due to entropy.

Entropy is the loss of energy available to do work. Another form of the second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant; it never decreases. Entropy is zero in a reversible process; it increases in an irreversible process.

https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.e...s-disorder-and-the-unavailability-of-energy/#

But there is nothing that forbids a "quasi-intelligent" Universe that has the ability and resources to create the most exquisite natural patterns, expressing balance, symmetry, chirality, causal forces, gravity, etc.
I hope this paints a logically sound picture, a map that is the reality, if you will...

Thank you!

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Actually, we do.

The problem is, it is a monumental task. This forum is not a school or a textbook.
We can't be responsible for educating you from the ground up.
That much work is simply beyond the scope of a forum thread.

And we can't teach how things actually work if they start off from a faulty premise. Look at James R's "unicorn theory". We can't give him an "explanation" how the unicorn is "actually" powered by unicorns; the only correct thing to do is disabuse him of the entire notion of unicorns, and start from scratch.

But here is a step in the right direction: instead of making claims based in ignorance and then doubling down when corrected, practice asking questions and making an attempt to ruminate on what you're being told.

 

[Sarkus]

I hope the above does.

No, unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that it does. The question that your reply was/is to was "How can anything which is abstract affect the physical world?" and I'm not seeing how explaining your interpretation of there being "Quasi-intelligence" answers that question.

Answering the question as asked, it's Tegmark's "everything has an inherent generic relational value", and all universal physical interactions begin with the input of relational values and the mathematically ordered processes that yield predictable results.

This position of Tegmark's is not really disputed, as it is, much like Bohm was saying, that everything obeys laws. Is that really disputed by anyone? Science doesn't think so. The alternative would be that there are some things that exist that do not obey any law.
Tegmark, however, goes much further than that, and to what you were previously seemingly supporting, that the only thing that exists is a mathematical structure. That maths is everything. Not that the motion and interaction matter is governed by mathematical laws, but that the matter itself, even the medium through which it moves, is a, or part thereof, of a mathematical structure and has no other mind-independent property (like "matter").
It unfortunately speaks to your rather brain-dump style of responding to questions that it's hard to fathom just what it is you're supporting / claiming etc.

But there is nothing that forbids a "quasi-intelligent" Universe that has the ability and resources to create the most exquisite natural patterns, expressing balance, symmetry, chirality, causal forces, gravity, etc.
I hope this paints a logically sound picture, a map that is the reality, if you will...

There is also nothing that forbids invisible pink unicorns, to use the oft-exampled absurdity. Or pixie dust. Or anything else that is simply a matter of faith rather than testable science.
But it does beg the question of what you consider to be the difference between "quasi-intelligence" and "actual intelligence"? Are you able to answer that?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Can you please respond to the following important questions that you have been consistently ignoring or trying to worm your way out of answering?

1.

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

This is in conflict with Tegmark's claim that everything is mathematics. According to Tegmark, there is literally nothing except mathematics.

Please post so that we know that you recognise and accept that your beliefs are different from Tegmark's.

2.

You have repeatedly claimed that "The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order."

Please explain how a condition without any order could possibly create an ordered, mathematical universe.

3.

You have repeatedly claimed that "It's the mathematical properties of physical objects that guides its behavior."

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.

If you can't come up with an example, please acknowledge that you are unable to come up with an example.

4.

You wrote: "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."

Is it your claim that mathematical functions (or properties) are intelligent? Please answer "yes" or "no", so we're clear about this.

Then, since you claim that there are "quasi-intelligent" properties of this universe, define "quasi-intelligent".
Does it mean something looks intelligent but it really isn't? Or what?

5.

You have referred to "quasi-intelligent mathematical functions".

Is the function $f(x)=x^2$ a quasi-intelligent function?

If not, can you please provide one example of a quasi-intelligent mathematical function?

Are all mathematical functions quasi-intelligent?

If not, please explain how you go about telling the quasi-intelligent ones from the non-intelligent ones.

6.

You have claimed that the universe as a whole is "quasi-intelligent". Does this follow from the "quasi-intelligent" nature of mathematical functions, or does the universe's quasi-intelligence come about in some other way?

Are you using the same definition of "quasi-intelligent" when you discuss both mathematical functions and the universe, or does the meaning of that term shift when you apply it to different things?

 

[Write4U]

And we can't teach how things actually work if they start off from a faulty premise. Look at James R's "unicorn theory". We can't give him an "explanation" how the unicorn is "actually" powered by unicorns; the only correct thing to do is disabuse him of the entire notion of unicorns, and start from scratch.

Yes, and this is exactly what I am talking about. I am trying to touch on the physics of "Quantum Creation". Now you say I am wrong and cite unicorns as an explanation of why I am wrong in regard to Quantum Creation ?
And what does that have to do with me? I don't deal with unicorns.

For the same amount of time and effort you could cite a link to the fundamentals involved in Quantum Creation.

 

[Write4U]

This position of Tegmark's is not really disputed, as it is, much like Bohm was saying, that everything obeys laws.

And these laws are not the abstractions of how things work in real world?

These codified and symbolized laws are abstract mathematical constructs, no?

What exactly is a natural law if not an abstraction?
Can you explain how natural laws are causal to very specific interactions?

I never said that maths are causal to physical interaction. I said they are causal to HOW the physical actions interact.

 

[Write4U]

Tegmark, however, goes much further than that, and to what you were previously seemingly supporting, that the only thing that exists is a mathematical structure. That maths is everything. Not that the motion and interaction matter is governed by mathematical laws, but that the matter itself, even the medium through which it moves, is a, or part thereof, of a mathematical structure and has no other mind-independent property (like "matter").
It unfortunately speaks to your rather brain-dump style of responding to questions that it's hard to fathom just what it is you're supporting / claiming etc.

I don't claim to be a scientist trying to solve scientific problems. I am expressing my general ageement with both Tegmark and Bohm as they speak of an underlying reality which Tegmark calls mathematical, and Bohm calls the Implicate Order. (IMO; "Order" suggests an abstract generic mathematical ordering process).

Implicate Order = Inherent mathematical functions.

 

[Write4U]

.

 

[Write4U]

There is also nothing that forbids invisible pink unicorns, to use the oft-exampled absurdity. Or pixie dust. Or anything else that is simply a matter of faith rather than testable science.

If mathematics is a matter of faith, what is science doing by citing the laws of mathematics. Should we respond with "amen" when someone recites an equation?

But it does beg the question of what you consider to be the difference between "quasi-intelligence" and "actual intelligence"? Are you able to answer that?

I see mathematics as a codified system of logical arguments (equations) using the inherent mathematically measurable relational and interactive properties (values) of all matter (Tegmark?) or as Bohm calls it "Potential" (Implicate Order).

When humans make maths to describe natural active and interactive behaviors of physical objects in nature, it is a product of conscious intelligent thought and observation or imagination (theory). The behaviors of physical objects IS the model behavior that science observes and symbolized as "human mathematics" as opposed to the generic Universal mathematics which emerge in OUR reality as the result of interactive mathematically determined functions of physical interactions.

Bohm, Tegmark, Penrose suggest that the universe is a geometrical object, a mathematical object that was created in chaos and followed a chronological path of self-ordered actions via very specific "natural laws" (mathematical functions between interactive values).

The Universe is not conscious, but it acts as if it were conscious. That's why we can codify what we actually see unfolding in front of our eyes in regular chronological order.
Thus to a religious person, there is an "unseen but conscious God", whereas to a scientist there is an "unseen and unconscious spacetime condition" that functions and expresses itself in a logical manner that is codifiable as a quasi-intelligent, self-referential, mathematically functioning construct and system that behaves like, but is not really consciously intelligent.

All 3 go even further and propose that if consciousness is an emergent property of certain "interactive (self-referential) patterns", it is a valid proposition that the Universe does have some form of self-referential systems or harbors them. Our Universe is an example.

 

[Write4U]

"In the implicate order, everything is internally related to everything; everything contains everything".

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

Right.

This is in conflict with Tegmark's claim that everything is mathematics. According to Tegmark, there is literally nothing except mathematics.

That's not how I see it. It just means that the Universe is mathematically self-referential at all levels .
At the smallest level, physics ceases and only abstract relational values exist and interact in a regular and regulated manner, as expressions of an unconscious, but knowable (by us) mathematical Universe.

 

[Write4U]

Please explain how a condition without any order could possibly create an ordered, mathematical universe.

Let's take Chaos theory to start with.

Assumption: The BB began in a state of utter chaos. ok?

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]

So the question is not if there exists a self-ordering system as eventually expressed as physics, but at what level this self-ordering guidance system is present as an original excellence in spacetime.

I see discussing Universal mathematics as discussing Time. They are both abstract concepts but whereas Time is assumed to be a Universal function (an abstract dimension), in spite of all the symbolic mathematics associated with time, the concept of abstract Mathematics is purely man-invented and man-made and any quality or quantity derived from observation and copied from the Universe can only be described as a mathematical language.

I believe that is not a valid argument. I find it very interesting that the scientific community denies the concept of a mathematically logical Universe more vigorously than the religious community defends the concept of a sentient God.

If Mathematics as an abstraction of a quasi-intelligent "guiding principle" is ruled out as being instrumental in the phenomenon of the BB, and the resulting process of Quantum creation evolving in sets of separated but similar patterns throughout the Universe, what is left.....????

 

[Write4U]

Is the function f(x)=x2f(x)=x2f(x)=x^2 a quasi-intelligent function?

No, it is a mathematical function, it's just not a conscious function. It is a quasi-intelligent function.
I could say "semi-intelligent or pseudo-intelligent', but they just don't seem to fit exactly.

 

[Write4U]

You have repeatedly claimed that "The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order."
Please explain how a condition without any order could possibly create an ordered, mathematical universe.

C'mon James, that is not what I meant or said.
Several times I have posted that IMO, the BB (Creation) was a chaotic event, and if cosmology is correct, from this chaos of dynamic fields patterns (particles) began to emerge, interacted and 13.8 billion years later evolved into the Universal order we can observe and quantify today.

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

Are you saying this is incorrect?

 

[Write4U]

Implicate Order = Inherent mathematical functions.

Sorry, I'm still working on this....

 

[DaveC426913]

James R: "You claimed that "The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order." and "... create[d] an ordered, mathematical universe."

Write4U: ... that is not what I meant or said.
Also Write4U: I posted that ... the BB (Creation) was a chaotic event ... that evolved into the Universal order we can observe and quantify today.