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

Status
Not open for further replies.
(continued...)
The artificial copying of naturally occurring processes in the course of applied mathematics has allowed us to start reaching for the stars. All the mathematical descriptions and predictions were met and we landed a Rover on Mars.
There are no naturally-occurring Martian rovers.
And a spider weaves a mathematical pattern for maximum web integrity.
No, it doesn't. Maximum web integrity would involve a very dense, solid web. Spiders don't build those. They build tenuous, easily-damaged structures.
It doesn't know that but evolution has given her with the fundamental blueprint of fashioning a web in an efficient and orderly manner.
Yes. You're only wrong about what is "efficient" for a spider's web.
The different patterns necessary for landing a physical object the size of a rocket existed before humans used them, codified them, and symbolized them with human maths.
Where did those different patterns exist before humans used them?
Other living organisms don't need to codify mathematical patterns, to possess fundamental mathematics. Evolutionary processes will select the mathematically most efficient patterns for survival.
No. Evolution doesn't do that. Lots of things are very inefficient in evolution.

Are you willing to learn anything new about evolution, or are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Or will you just ignore this and keep right on believing what you believe?
The fact we can use mathematical measurements to copy nature and artificially use the mathematical potentials of the universe in a lab.. What we lack is size, a mathematical property, but we make up with the ability to compute and record naturally emergent properties in a small sampling.
A Lemur can tell the difference between "more" and "less", a differential equation, and can use that mathematical skill to make an informed decision and be rewarded with a treat (positive reinforcement).
"More and less" is not a differential equation. Come on, Write4U. You've looked up "differential equation" on wikipedia before. You have even cut-and-pasted definitions across to this forum. Didn't you read those definitions in the process of doing that? Did you not understand them?

What about the conversations we had with you previously, after you misused the term "differential equation"? Did you learn anything from those conversations? Or have you forgotten them? Or did you simply ignore them, to go on believing what you believe, regardless?
Air dwellers (birds, insects) are masters at using aerodynamics from evolved efficiencies in staying aloft and alive in the sky and therefore have an advantage over earth-bound animals.
If "aerodynamics" is the formal study of flight, then birds and insects don't use it.
Many predators use triangulation to hunt or strike prey that has formidable defenses.
Yes. That suggests that they have some sort of intuitive mathematical sense or heuristic "built in" by evolution, which is similar to something you said earlier about bees. However, they aren't getting out pencil and paper and solving equations. They aren't "doing maths". Also, experience counts for lot here. Lots of animals learn from experience.
Isn't the evolutionary process of increasing adaptation to the environment itself a mathematical function?
It is not.

Do you recall previous discussions on what a mathematical function is? Or did you ignore those, to go on believing what you believe?

It's one thing to make a mistake once and then learn how to do better next time. It's another to keep making the same mistake over and over, never accepting correction. It's pathological or, at best, hopelessly stubborn.
I see mathematics as a codified form of Logic that must be a universal "common denominator".
If only you were able to convince anybody else of your views. But that would require having a reason, for starters.
---
That's all there was in terms of actual Write4U contributions to posts #526 through #537. Signal to noise ratio remarkably low, albeit consistent with your usual output here.

Now, just to be clear, though this might not help you, depending on your mental state, I want to tell you that "word salad" is not a compliment.
Thank you James, for your concern. No need to worry. I am doing just fine.

It is you who insisted I use "my own words" and I do. If that is confusing to you I am sorry.
I do appreciate your interest and in time you will find that I have been making some valid observations and you will say, "wait, isn't that what W4U was talking about?" and little by little you will see the simple truths in my posits.
In a previous post, you cut-and-pasted a paper on the "Ontology of Mathematics". I asked you several specific questions about that. As expected, you answered none of them. I assume this is because you have not actually read the paper, or if you read it you didn't understand it. So you decided to ignore this and go off to look for pretty pictures of beehives instead. It's a pity you can't focus because there was a chance we could make some progress there.
Do you realize the volume of posts I am responding to? I do have a life apart from SF. Be patient! In time all your wishes will be fulfilled ...
"A state of One" is just something you made up on the spot and it is meaningless.
No, this is based on the premise that there is no irreducible complexity.
In the theory, a singularity describes the center of a black hole, a point of infinite density and gravity within which no object inside can ever escape, not even light. The current knowledge of physics breaks down at the singularity and can't describe reality inside of it.
What is the singularity?
In technology, the singularity describes a hypothetical future where technology growth is out of control and irreversible. These intelligent and powerful technologies will radically and unpredictably transform our reality.
The word singularity has many different meanings in science and mathematics. It all depends on the context. For example, in natural sciences, singularity describes dynamical systems and social systems where a small change may have an enormous impact.
The technological use of singularity took its name from physics. The term first came into popular use in Albert Einstein's 1915 Theory of General Relativity. In the theory, a singularity describes the center of a black hole, a point of infinite density and gravity within which no object inside can ever escape, not even light. The current knowledge of physics breaks down at the singularity and can't describe reality inside of it.
When singularity is used to describe the future, the focus is on a level of extreme unknown and irreversibility. The term is used describe the hypothetical point at which technology -- in particular artificial intelligence (AI) powered by machine learning algorithms -- reaches a superhuman level of intelligence and capability.
https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/Singularity-the#[/quote]

Last edited:
In my next post, I will extract out the very few contributions that are yours and respond.
Yes and I will refer you to the article I quoted.
You are demanding that I claim authority, but I won't. That's why I cite authoritative articles. If you don't read them you will have no clue what I am talking about. Those quotes are the proofs supporting my posits.

Second: There has been no discussion of "does time exist independent of space?" I have made no claims to that effect. Perhaps you have, somewhere in the drivel; I don't recall. There is no need for me to defend a claim I have not made.
Yes, that's your problem. You make no claims other than that I don't know what I am talking about (drivel).

Fact is that you contribute very little to the conversation at all, other than rejecting all propositions that require some time in reading the supporting materials to gain clarity in my condensed posits. I see no reason to post my own version of that which has been extensively posited by knowledgeable people. The reading time remains the same regardless of who is the author. Perhaps you missed that equivalence.

Talking about time, tell me where do you find time?

Does the future already exist? If not where is future time located?

And for once I insist you answer that simple question.

If "aerodynamics" is the formal study of flight, then birds and insects don't use it.
That is a misleading statement and it is wrong.
The science of aerodynamics is a formal study of that subject. But aerodynamics exist without human symbolisms. It's part of the mathematical universe.

What Is Aerodynamics?
Aerodynamics is the way objects move through air. The rules of aerodynamics explain how an airplane is able to fly. Anything that moves through air is affected by aerodynamics, from a rocket blasting off, to a kite flying. Since they are surrounded by air, even cars are affected by aerodynamics
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-aerodynamics-58.html

And I'm sure birds are familiar with the effects of aerodynamics, without human assistance. I believe most birds have aerodynamic physical properties.

Biomechanics in the Wild because biomechanics is everywhere!

Staying airborne: How bird wings are built for aerodynamic and efficient flight
One of the most unique aerodynamic characteristics of birds is that nearly all of their lift and thrust is exclusively generated by their wings, as opposed to aircraft that implement both wings and engines. This provides, among other things, near instantaneous control of both flight direction and speed.
https://sites.nd.edu/biomechanics-i...e-built-for-aerodynamic-and-efficient-flight/

Last edited:
OMG

OMG
And from what library did you get your information? You did not have to do research? You knew it all before it was even published.

Google is a reliable search engine for a range of subjects , including references to scientific literature.

I refer to and cite science in support of my understanding on a scientific subject, no more no less.
Is a lecture by a respectable scientist on YouTube any less respectable than the live lecture being filmed?

What is it with this exclusivity, if you don't know it you're stupid, if you research it you're a pain.

If you have nothing to contribute, why not sit back and watch the conversation. You might learn something.

Back to Quantum Creationism,

Astronomers discover complex organic matter exists throughout the universe
Date: October 27, 2011
Astronomers report in the journal Nature that organic compounds of unexpected complexity exist throughout the Universe. The results suggest that complex organic compounds are not the sole domain of life but can be made naturally by stars.
...
Not only are stars producing this complex organic matter, they are also ejecting it into the general interstellar space, the region between stars. The work supports an earlier idea proposed by Kwok that old stars are molecular factories capable of manufacturing organic compounds. "Our work has shown that stars have no problem making complex organic compounds under near-vacuum conditions," says Kwok. "Theoretically, this is impossible, but observationally we can see it happening."
Most interestingly, this organic star dust is similar in structure to complex organic compounds found in meteorites. Since meteorites are remnants of the early Solar System, the findings raise the possibility that stars enriched the early Solar System with organic compounds. The early Earth was subjected to severe bombardments by comets and asteroids, which potentially could have carried organic star dust. Whether these delivered organic compounds played any role in the development of life on Earth remains an open question.
more ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111026143721.htm

Back to Quantum Creationism,

Astronomers discover complex organic matter exists throughout the universe
Date: October 27, 2011
... more ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111026143721.htm
This has nothing to do with quantum creationism.

Note: if it's not about the quantum realm, it's not about quantum creationism.

It's all well and good supporting your claims with articles and papers, but you need to actually explain the relevance of them, and show how they support what you're saying. You don't do that. You just post article after article and leave it to us to guess a relevance, which is usually absent from the outset.

Tldr: you're really not helping yourself.

My bold below.
I refer to and cite science in support of my understanding on a scientific subject, no more no less.
A librarian was asked what is Quantum Creationism? She replied,"middle shelf under Q."

That’s all you're doing, pointing to things with quantum in the title and doing little or nothing to explain your supposed point. It seems when you do try, you only show how much you misunderstand things. Any person trying to explain where you are misunderstanding, will be met, from you, with another Q item from Google, again with no explanation of connection to your supposed point.

Last edited:
My bold below.

A librarian was asked what is Quantum Creationism? She replied,"middle shelf under Q."

That’s all you're doing, pointing to things with quantum in the title and doing little or nothing to explain your supposed point. It seems when you do try, you only show how much you misunderstand things. Any person trying to explain where you are misunderstanding, will be met, from you, with another Q item from Google, again with no explanation of connection to your supposed point.
You're absolutely right, but either he's incapable of understanding your point or, possibly more likely, given the length of time this has gone on, he doesn't care because he just wants the exchange to continue, regardless of its content.

We're not really dealing with a person able to carry on a discussion, any more.

Without knowing why, some find a Pseudoscience sub-forum a great comfort blanket.
Wallowing in the comfort that their talking real science because their on a science site.

Before I close this thread, I will allow you one more chance to attempt a rational response to the matters that have come up in our recent discussions.
Well, so much for a rational response. I suppose this embarrassing dumpster fire of a thread can now be closed.

Well, so much for a rational response. I suppose this embarrassing dumpster fire of a thread can now be closed.
And we can place our bets on what thread Write4U will light upon to hijack next............

This has nothing to do with quantum creationism.
Then why don't you explain it to me.

Without knowing why, some find a Pseudoscience sub-forum a great comfort blanket.
Wallowing in the comfort that their talking real science because their on a science site.
Then why don't you explain it to me.

p.s. If you are going to lecture me, you can start by using proper diction.

Last edited:
To all the critics, if I don't know what I am talking about and you do know what we are talking about, why don't you explain it to us all. Wouldn't that be wonderful. We might all learn something.

But, ...alas.... I am the only one actually trying to find a common denominator in all the creative processes that go on in the universe, hoping that some particular universal process might shed light on that "very interesting" question.

I am not getting much help, am I?
And we can place our bets on what thread Write4U will light upon to hijack next............

How can I hijack a thread that has no other posts but mine? The religious perspective was dealt with in post #1

What aspect do you want to investigate? I am open to suggestion.
But I am still waiting for some else to test deep waters. Closed minds.

How can I hijack a thread that has no other posts but mine? The religious perspective was dealt with in post #1

It was an attempt to hijack the thread onto your OrchOR obsession, which has nothing to do with creationism of any kind.

(continued...)
There are no naturally-occurring Martian rovers.
There are lots of falling bodies.
Keyword "landing".
No, it doesn't. Maximum web integrity would involve a very dense, solid web. Spiders don't build those. They build tenuous, easily-damaged structures.
You're not very good at relativity, are you?
How spider webs achieve their strength
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
Publication Date: February 2, 2012

It’s not just the strength of the silk itself, a new study finds; the silk’s way of stretching and the structure of the whole web help it resist damage.
The silk that spiders use to build their webs, trap their prey and dangle from your ceiling is one of the strongest materials known.
But it turns out it’s not simply the material’s exceptional strength that makes spider webs so resilient; it’s the material’s unusual combination of strength and stretchiness — silk’s characteristic way of first softening and then stiffening when pulled. These properties, scientists have found, vary depending on the forces applied, as well as on the overall design of the web.
Spider webs, it turns out, can take quite a beating without failing. Damage tends to be localized, affecting just a few threads — the place where a bug got caught in the web and flailed around, for example. This localized damage can simply be repaired, rather than replaced, or even left alone if the web continues to function as before. “Even if it has a lot of defects, the web actually still functions mechanically virtually the same way,” Buehler says. “It’s a very flaw-tolerant system.”
https://news.mit.edu/2012/spider-web-strength-0202
Yes. You're only wrong about what is "efficient" for a spider's web.
Are we clear now?
Where did those different patterns exist before humans used them?
What are common patterns in the universe?
Natural patterns include symmetries, trees, spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tessellations, cracks and stripes. Early Greek philosophers studied patterns, with Plato, Pythagoras, and Empedocles attempting to explain the order in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#
No. Evolution doesn't do that. Lots of things are very inefficient in evolution.
But evolution does not stop at inefficiency. That'll get you killed. And then you won't have any babies who will improve the gene-pool
Are you willing to learn anything new about evolution, or are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Or will you just ignore this and keep right on believing what you believe?
Are you going to tell me I am wrong?
Or elegant scientific poetry. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
"More and less" is not a differential equation. Come on, Write4U. You've looked up "differential equation" on wikipedia before. You have even cut-and-pasted definitions across to this forum. Didn't you read those definitions in the process of doing that? Did you not understand them?
Oh, James, yes I understood the process, it's part of mathematics, remember? The question is if you understand the probabilistic relationship between self-organization and spaces, raw materials, and time.
What about the conversations we had with you previously, after you misused the term "differential equation"? Did you learn anything from those conversations? Or have you forgotten them? Or did you simply ignore them, to go on believing what you believe, regardless?
Naahh... it's all about "differential equations" and the function applies lies between.
If "aerodynamics" is the formal study of flight, then birds and insects don't use it.
Wrong, it is the "science of aerodynamics" that is a formal study. "Aerodynamics" are the abstract mathematical rules by which evolution creates different size and shape wings on birds.
Yes. That suggests that they have some sort of intuitive mathematical sense or heuristic "built in" by evolution, which is similar to something you said earlier about bees. However, they aren't getting out pencil and paper and solving equations. They aren't "doing maths". Also, experience counts for lot here. Lots of animals learn from experience.
Yes they are doing maths. We call it "applied mathematics".
W4U said; Isn't the evolutionary process of increasing adaptation to the environment itself a mathematical function?
It is not.
Anything that relates and influences something else in a regular way is a pattern. Patterns are mathematical objects.
Do you recall previous discussions on what a mathematical function is? Or did you ignore those, to go on believing what you believe?
No, I decided that my perspective is more expansive than yours.
It's one thing to make a mistake once and then learn how to do better next time. It's another to keep making the same mistake over and over, never accepting correction. It's pathological or, at best, hopelessly stubborn.
Unless I'm the one who is right, from my perspective. All you do is comment on the different perspectives from which I look at natural phenomena.
If only you were able to convince anybody else of your views. But that would require having a reason, for starters.
How about a common goal of "gaining knowledge" in a self-referential universe.
---
That's all there was in terms of actual Write4U contributions to posts #526 through #537. Signal to noise ratio remarkably low, albeit consistent with your usual output here.
But it was peaceful until the sirens started blaring.

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.