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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Eugene Shubert, Jan 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Your reading comprehension skills need some work.
    exchemist and billvon like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    For me it is about understanding the implied truths, not about the symbolic representations.
    OK , but if they are right then humans should have an empathic connection to the "Wholeness" and perhaps be able to "learn" the TOE.

    This is analogous to religion; the Triune, the Trinity. (oops, it's still mathematical)
    That's irrelevant. A quantum is a single objective "value".
    It requires mathematical functions to process interactive values in a predictable manner.


    And that's mathematical.
    They are the true explorers . If bacteria can communicate, how far down does the ability for self-referential interactive behaviors go?
    Then why is Tegmark a charlatan? This confirms his focus in the right direction. I cited him and I only defend unwarranted attacks on his character. IMO, his hypothesis makes perfect objective sense. I believe that all patterns in nature are mathematical objects, physical or abstract.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Ok, I see them as pioneers who have knowledge of the terrain.
    HEAR, HEAR!!!
    Not all science assumes that the physical universe obeys (is guided by) laws that are mathematical (in essence).
    And Creationists certainly do not believe in a quasi-intelligent logical principle that regulates physical events.
    Do not ignore the second part of the OP. There is the question.
    "Quantum Creationism- Is it Science or is it Religion." (?)

    I propose that it is neither extreme perspective , but lies in the middle on the probability scale.

    And here I always cite Robert Hazen. His studies in mineralogy and the range of physical patterns that can be created logically (mathematically).

    Last edited: Jul 30, 2023
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    A little poetic liberty comparing the self-referential nature of the Universe with the properties described in Stoicism. I meant "stoical" properties. but should have used "emotionally indifferent", unlike the concepts described by Intelligent Design and Motive in religions ("God saw it was Good")

    A source of wonder
    By SABINE HOSSENFELDER, August 25, 2022 7:00 AM EDT
    Hossenfelder is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Germany, and has published more than eighty research articles about the foundations of physics, including quantum gravity, physics beyond the standard model, dark matter, and quantum foundations. She has written about physics for a broad audience for fifteen years. Her first book, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, appeared in 2018.
    Why not them? They have been discussing this for many years.
    Yes a mathematically guided evolutionary process.
    I agree.
    In the context of the OP or scientifically, or religiously?
    Has anyone told us what Quantum Creationism refers to?

    As a minimalist going turtles all the way down, I have been addressing in opposition to the concept of eternal existence implicit in the proposition that the Universe has always existed in some prior form instead of emerging out of a singular nothing.

    There must have been a beginning, no?

    As for Universal mathematics; they emerged as a result of differential equations existing between quanta, which became necessary in the evolutionary process as the fledgeling Universe expanded and particles started to self-form and evolve into matter and complex systems.

    I have given you my model and why that generally agrees with and rests on common denominators found in the scientific disciplines of Penrose, Tegmark, Bohm, Robert Hazen, some of the scientists specializing in the mathematical concepts of the Universe.

    Last edited: Jul 31, 2023
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member


    If anything, I'm advocating a return to the thread topic, a suppression of random shit "from off of ve internet", and a new approach towards Write4U, as a person with impaired mental capacity, whom we should only engage in full awareness of that.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Mod Hat — Don't (b/w, "Just Sayin'")

    Two points, here:

    • Are we really going to do the bit about mental capacity? Trust me, reading comprehension is an interesting question, but I already know nobody really wants that stuff on the table for realsies, but just so they can have after someone in particular.

    • Inasmuch as we might "return to the thread topic", I would simply remind that it is "Quantum Creationism", so I need to see its formal boundaries before I can understand if this or that quantum-derived whatnot is relevant to the scientific boundaries of creationism.​
    Write4U likes this.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Yes I am serious about that. If you look at the posts Write4U was making 6 or 7 years ago, they were quite different, a lot more coherent and without the random irrelevant internet inclusions. Something has got a lot worse.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    I'll Do This Part in Black Ink

    It's true that a few years ago, maybe even several, I noted to a colleague that it sometimes felt like I was beating up on the noncompetent.

    It's also true that I've been criticized for remembering six or seven years ago, but, no, I'm not going to give you shit for that. I'm actually encouraged to know that people are at least trying to share a common experience; it's not always clear that they are.

    And, frankly, yes, a lot was different six or seven years ago. And perhaps people are changing that much, but there is also a winnowing of our range, over time, as people put less and less effort into their participation. I've described it, before, as what we have cultivated over time. It's not complicated insofar as it describes circumstances favorable to certain behavior and unfavorable to other. And we see the results; slothful cynicism, perpetual complaint, &c.

    I have plenty of questions about people's reading comprehension, and, yes, I have had reason, before, to wonder about this or that person's state of mind, but at the same time, for all the stuff that goes on in science, posting that sort of news and discussion is not as important as fighting the proverbial good fight. And, sure, whatever, I kind of get it. Some people find ufology and cosmological crackpottery just that dangerous. While it's true, I have other priorities, that shouldn't be taken to diminish the goodness of making certain stands.

    Still, we're talking about quantum creationism. Let me be clear: "Quantum"-asserting crackpottery pertaining to nature of existence is not inherently irrelevant to "quantum"-asserting crackpottery pertaining to the origin of existence.

    Or, perhaps: Are we going to legitimize "quantum creationism" in order to exclude crackpottery?

    Because it's creationism.

    What are the boundaries of quantum creationism? I'm just saying, a "quantum creationism" thread that ran in the Religion subforum and is now moved to Pseudoscience is a virtual garden for W4U's stuff. I get that people are sick of it, but are we really going to legitimize quantum creationism in order to validate the complaint so that we might exclude this particular crackpottery? Of all the complaints, people are on about irrelevance? It's quantum creationism, how would they know?

    And the latest complaint included some frustration featuring a new adjective and describing factions in order to worry that the faction fighting the good fight is losing, and this can make people cynical. And in general, it's true I am sympathetic to the notion. However, the occasion absolutely reminds of the need to reiterate that the "good fight" is supposed to be the "good" fight. We had a recent, not-unrelated occasion in which the good fight saw fit to meet crackpottery with crackpottery, so, no, that wasn't really the good fight, pseudoneologisms aside.

    Also, it's true that six or seven years ago, the question of the good fight was faltering in another context, already suffering from our forfeiture. The reason I talk about diverse issues and long history in these questions is because what people complain about today is an ongoing effect years in the making. When we perpetually disincentivize better discourse, fewer people try, and if we complain that anyone would try, then even fewer. And, sure, something goes here about a winnowing of habits and ranges of discussion.

    Toward mental capacity, I can only reiterate, nobody really wants that on the table for real; it gets vicious and dangerous real quick. To wit, inasmuch as I might ever have reason to wonder about someone's mental capacity, it's hard to figure what to do about that. Consider the potential for a cluster of clueless having an internet argument accusing each other of noncompetency. Perhaps it will even be hilarious, at least right up to the moment it isn't.
    Write4U likes this.
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Just a bit of a nitpick:
    There's a world of difference between:
    - behavior X started six or seven years ago, affects all of us, and is ongoing to this day
    - incident X happened six or seven years ago and I personally have never been able to let it go.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Lol, ....Write4U, our beloved village idiot.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Not quite. "Village idiots" are unable to function.
    You are able to function, but choose not to.
    You choose to behave like a village idiot.
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You said "mathematics is not causal to physical interactions". Opening my hand to drop the ball is a physical interaction, isn't it?

    You suggest that "mathematical activity in [my] brain ... was causal to [my] decision to drop the ball". That sounds like you're saying that mathematics is causal to physical interactions after all. Is "mathematical activity in my brain" a physical interaction, or not?

    Do you agree that physical interactions in my brain caused my hand to open and drop the ball?

    You say that mathematics caused my brain to command my hand to drop the ball? How did it do that, exactly? At what point did the mathematics get a handle on my physical neurons, and then my physical hand, and then the physical ball?
    What does "guides" mean, in this context? What is the mathematics doing when it is "guiding" something physical? And how does it do it?
    I take issue with your claim that mathematics "guides" the physical world. You have, so far, demonstrated no mechanism for any "guiding". Moreover, the idea seems implausible on its face. How could a conceptual thing possibly affect the physical world in any way? I have asked you this question many times. You never answer it. Why not?
    The question I asked you was the same one I just repeated here, because you didn't answer it, again: "what do you mean when you say that mathematics "guides" physical interactions?"

    When I asked you "what do you mean...?", is "No, ..." an answer to that question? It is not. You're supposed to tell me what you mean, when I ask you what you mean.

    Now you're telling me that you think mathematics is equiavlent to "what religious people call (intentional) God". Mathematics is your god? Have I got that right? So mathematics guides physical things by mathematical god magic?

    And yes, I would ask a religious person if it is God that makes a ball drop, if they claimed that God "guides" the dropping of a ball. I would ask them the same question I asked you: how does it work? What's the mechanism for the God reaching into the physical world to move the ball?
    You have not demonstrated any need for the "mathematical structure", so far. You're just assserting that it is necessary. Can you do any better than that?
    Relevance: zero.

    Why can't you focus on what we're discussing?

    It's almost random what you choose to respond to, and then when you do respond you're constantly going off on irrelevant tangents.
    All this. Relevance: zero. Why, Write4U?
    Why not toss out the maths and just let gravity guide the rate of fall as well? What is the maths doing, and how is it doing it?
    Recall that it was you who tried to distinguish between "causing" and "guiding", not me. If there's no difference, why do you have 2 different terms for the same thing?
    If you removed the word "mathematically" from that sentence, would anything important be lost?
    Is the dropping of a tennis ball too abstract for you?
    None of the greatest minds with deep knowledge of physics seem to share your views, as far as I am aware. Does that concern you at all?
    Quantum computing has nothing to do with making measurements down to the Planck scale.
    You might as well say we don't need to know any physics; we can just watch how physical systems behave and then ... watch some more physical systems and then ... er... something.

    Does your mathematics also become moot? It would seem so.
    What are you talking about? We can't see any "mathematical values" in "natural processes", let alone follow them.
    Language implies a map of something. Language is used to describe things.
    No. The core issue is that your nonsense is, a lot of the time, not even internally consistent. It is full of half-arsed claims and contradictions and things that make no sense. You won't solve your problems just by inventing new Write4U terms for things.

    It's not true that I cannot understand a word you're saying. If you were posting in Swedish (a language I don't know), then I would probably understand very few words. Conversation would be impossible. But you're conversing in a version of English, a language with which I have some competency. In English, words have widely-accepted meanings. But often, in the current discussion, we have found that the meanings you attempt to assign to English terms are nothing like the meanings that scientists, say, assign to the same terms. Moreover, when such inconsistencies are pointed out to you, you typically refuse to accept correction. More importantly, when asked to explain how you would define the word, you are often unable to give a precise definition. What this tells us is that, a lot of the time, you are content to use words without actually having any specific meaning in mind. Rather, you seem to think that the meanings you assign to words can randomly float around, to mean whatever you need them to mean at any given time.

    Since many of your ideas are incoherent, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that your attempts to describe your ideas are similarly incoherent.

    If you wanted to make sense, you would make some effort to concentrate on one thing at a time. You'd attempt to understand one thing before flitting to the next. You'd make some attempt to learn science and to learn how scientists define the terms you want to use. You would be willing to learn from people who have already put in that sort of effort to learn. But you don't do any other these things. So, I have to conclude that making sense is not something that is very important to you.
    That doesn't actually mean anything. It's a sort of deepity. At best, it's an analogy, and as such you need to recognise that when you use it you're not really talking about the universe, but about a map of the universe. But this is a simple idea that you seem to be utterly unable (or unwilling) to grasp.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2023
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Please tell me what you find to be "excellent" about this article from which you have quoted, Write4U.

    What did you learn from the article? Can you give a brief summary in your own words?
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    There's a blue flower! There's a blue car! There's the blue sky!

    Maybe flowers are the cause of cars. Maybe the underlying principle of the cosmos is "blue" - the secret glue that links everything together.

    I have a blue bible! That can't be a coincidence. Everything has to be connected. Excuse me, I'm off to swim in my blue swimming pool.

    As somebody said about Freud (or was it Freud himself who said it?), sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Have you ever considered that possibility?
    Your word salad bowl is really overflowing in this post, Write4U. Did you just spam all of this out of your brain, more or less at random, this time around?
    A "quantum" is just a fixed amount of something. I guess you could say it's mathematical, if you are concerned with amounts of things. As an adjective, on the other hand, "quantum" tends to be a physics term, not a mathematical one.
    Jesus had blue eyes. Bohm had a blue cat. Common demominators, you see!
    Are you ever going to answer my question about what "quasi-intelligent" means? Or are you going to just going to keep skipping over that, as you skip over so many other questions?

    I mean, if you're going to keep using a word, do you think it is unfair for your readers to ask what you mean by it? Is it too much to expect you to be able to actually explain what you mean by things?
    Complete word salad. Virtually meaningless.
    Isn't the cooling down itself a "patterned expression"?

    You're not making any sort of sense. Are you aware of this, at all? Does it bother you?
    Just pure, unadulterated drivel.

    Who do you think you're fooling with this rubbish, Write4U? This is an insult to the intelligence of your readers.

    Are you just posting to make a random noise? Why this?
    Which ways? You haven't mentioned two ways.
    Why do they require that? How do the mathematical principles affect the physical objects? What's the mechanism?
    Yes. I have noted the absence of any logical principles in your post so far. Will you get to those, eventually?
    More word salad. Nothing like anything Sarkus wrote. The "exactly!" implies an agreement between you and Sarkus that is entirely illusory.
    So now you're saying that the universe, which is 13.8 billion years old, lacked any mathematics for the first several billion years of its existence. And then what happened? Why did mathematics suddenly pop into existence after several billion years of cooling down? How did that happen?

    Let's pause briefly on this roller coaster to look around and notice that none - not a single one - of Write4U's wild claims about how the universe evolved is supported by a shred of evidence or physical or mathematical argument. It's surprising, given the supposedly central role that Write4U tells us that mathematics plays in his philosophy. We see no maths of "chaos theory" in his posts. No "chaotic universal quantum dynamics". No mathematics of "universal potentials". No mathematics of an "FTL inflationary epoch". No maths at all, anywhere.

    Oh wait, I'm wrong. He did cut and paste the Fibonacci sequence from wikipedia, once.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2023
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Mathematics is not causal to interaction. It does not have physical properties. It regulates how the physical interaction is processed.
    Generic mathematics doesn't do anything at all. It is the unwritten rules that guide the dynamic exchange of physical causal "values". This is why we have a Table of elements, the intrinsic mathematical properties of atoms, all neatly arranged in accordance with the inherent values of the composite parts. Is that good enough?
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And that simple sentence alone contains a mathematical equation, not because of my posting the Fibonacci sequence, but your use of the mathematical term "once", a mathematical term!

    I need not do the maths to know that it is all mathematical in essence. Instead of asking me for something mathematical, allow me to ask you for something non-mathematical. Can you come up with a physical interaction that does not have a mathematical aspect at all?
  20. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Do you think of Math during sex?
    Write4U likes this.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That is the wrong question. It should be "What are the geometric of spacetime that guides the ball physically dropping at a precise and measurable mathematical trajectory and rate of "fall". Oops, a mathematical term.

    And unless you are a Teleporter, your brain can only decide if there is sufficient "cause" to make you want to drop the ball or throw it.

    It didn't. You are misreading my posts.
    I specifically said that during the "inflationary epoch" the universe was too chaotic to have any mathematical regularities to start but which became expressed during the cooling (change in values) and the more gradually controlled "unfolding" of the spacetime fabric, a geometric object with mathematical properties slowly emerging with the self-formation of elements as spacetime expanded and began to0 form repetitive (mathematical) patterns.

    What is the Inflation Theory?
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    It depends on how much she charges..... I want to get my money's worth! ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Mathematics is not just about amounts.
    Measure (mathematics)
    more..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)

    Ontology of Mathematics
    Edited by Rafal Urbaniak (Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego)
    Assistant editors: Pawel Pawlowski, Sam Roberts
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page