Theistic evolution as part of a possible simulation with a non-obvious intelligent force

[shunyadragon]

They're not perfect predictions and I'd say this is because they involve chance. Just like dice and evolution. BTW on average a particular number on a dice comes up 1/6 of the time but it is possible for one number to come up ten times in a row....

The nature of our physical existence does not involve chance or randomness as previous described.

The predictions are not remotely valid based on your assumptions and math.

Back to the blackboard and start over.

 

[excreationist]

The nature of our physical existence does not involve chance or randomness as previous described.

The predictions are not remotely valid based on your assumptions and math.

Back to the blackboard and start over.

Well Einstein also thought that quantum physics wasn't genuinely random and there are "hidden variables". Apparently the Copenhagen interpretation says that quantum physics is genuinely random. The many worlds interpretation says it is deterministic though it is random as to which world you end up in. So what interpretation do you prefer?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well Einstein also thought that quantum physics wasn't genuinely random and there are "hidden variables". Apparently the Copenhagen interpretation says that quantum physics is genuinely random. The many worlds interpretation says it is deterministic though it is random as to which world you end up in. So what interpretation do you prefer?

No, that is NOT what the Copenhagen agreement determined.

There is absolutely no evidence for the possible degree of variation in the many worlds concept. All worlds may be very similar and not problem I would not mind living anyone. This speculation of the nature of our physical existence does not address the downright obvious science of the nature of the world we live in. Actually the Copenhagen agreement is now old and moldy.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is Wrong; Here’s Why

Fermion Physics

medium.com

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, and it is the orthodoxy in physics. It is usually related to all the weird things about quantum mechanics you may have heard, like Schrodinger’s Cat. But what if I told you that the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics — is wrong? Here’s why

What is the Copenhagen Interpretation?​

It would be great to start out by defining the copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation turns out to not be well defined, and there is many disagreement between self identified proponents, but the copenhagen interpretation could be summed up as

• Before a system is measured, it is described by a wave function, which encodes the probability of measuring certain properties of the system (such as energy, position, etc.,.)
• When the system is measured, the measurement is a single eigenvalue

These are the postulates of the Copenhagen interpretation.

The way the copenhagen interpretation is formulated is already problematic. It does not define what a measurement is, it does not talk about the eigenvalue of a system before a measurement, and it does not say why the wave function is related to the probability density. It turns out that this is by design. The copenhagen interpretation is intentionally formulated to be vague, and to just describe what is measured. If a scientist walks into a lab, and does a measurement, the wave function will indeed tell the scientist how likely he will get that measurement. The copenhagen interpretation could be thought as the instructions a medicine container has. “Take 1 pill each day and your sore throat will be cleared.” These instructions do not tell you how the pill clears your throat, it does not say what the pill is doing inside your body, it just tells you what happens. The same thing happens with the copenhagen interpretation. It just tells you what you’re gonna (likely) get, and dodges all other questions. For many physicists, this is satisfactory. They have a theory that can predict stuff, so why will they care more about what’s going on beyond the math? I will respond to this point later, but right now I want to give more arguments about why the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong.

Like I said earlier, it doesn’t say what counts as a measurement. Does the measurer have to be conscious? Does the measurer play by the rules of quantum mechanics? Does the measurer have to be outside the system? It doesn’t answer these. Does the system before measurement even have an energy? It doesn’t answer this either. All it does is it tells you what you might get. Some people will try to answer these questions though and still claim they are copenhaganists. A common answer is that before measured, the system is in “all states at once” or “smeared out into a wave”. This is not the copenhagen interpretation; it’s an objectively false description of quantum mechanics that I debunked in this article.

Another statement is that the object does not have a definite value before measured. This statement, though not directly incorrect, is going a step further and talks about the actual nature of a particle before measurement. The copenhagen interpretation only talks about probabilities before measurement (states are probabilistic), not the status of a particle having a certain quality before measurement. So if that stance is taken, then it is no longer the copenhagen interpretation. That stance is also very problematic: If I never observe an atom decay, does that mean that it does not having a decay status at all (ex. it has neither decayed nor not decayed)? This statement is an oxymoron. An object can either decay, or not decay. This is one of the basic principles of logic: a is not “not a” by definition. Some people decide to bite the bullet, and accept that oxymorons can still be true. This is a philosophy called “trivialism”, which is a topic for next time.

A common belief among Copenhaganists is that the measurement devices have to be outside the system. This makes sense, since the opposite would apply that systems can measure themselves, which would imply that systems always exist as having definite eigenvalues since they are constantly measuring themselves. It is this element of the Copenhagen interpretation that destroys itself from the inside. What I want to stress is that what follows is not personal interpretation, but actual undisputed fact about quantum mechanics. When we have 1 particle in our system, the wave function is a function of that one particle: it maps the locations/momenta/energies of that particles into another dimension (the axis of the wave function). In other words, it is a function that maps one input to an output. For 2 particles, the wave function is a function of 2 particles. For 3 particles, the wave function is a function of 3 particles. You get the idea. What I’m describing here is what is called “configuration space”, the space that contains all possible configurations of a system. We can go higher and higher and higher. Quantum mechanics implies that there is a wave function that is a function of every single particle in the universe. Again, this isn’t an assumption or interpretation. It is just quantum mechanics itself: The wave function if a function of n-particles in an n+1 dimensional configuration space. Just replace n to the number of all particles. So now we know that there is a wavefunction of the universe. What does this mean under the Copenhagen interpretation? Well the Copenhagen interpretation requires the measurer to be outside the system, but the system in question is the universe! This means that for the wave function to collapse, then someone outside the universe would have to measure the universe — but wouldn’t this person also be a part of the system? So you’d need another person outside everything else in the system to measure the person inside the system, and you get an infinite regress. Unless you believe that there is someone outside the universe that is collapsing wave functions left and right, then this is huge trouble for copenhaganists. Again, what we did was just normal quantum mechanics. We showed that the Copenhagen interpretation cannot even reconcile with this without postulating an infinite regress of measurers outside of our universe. Now since we actually do measure things inside the universe, this is a direct contradiction of what is implied by the Copenhagen interpretation, making the copenhagen interpretation (the way it is usually presented), false. Someone could try to save copenhagen by saying that systems can measure themselves, but that would mean that a system will have a definite value prior to us measuring it (since it had already measured itself), which would be a hidden-variable theory — something many copenhaganists are against: you can’t have your measurement device and eat it too.

Some people say, “we shouldn’t ask about what happens before it was measured since we aren’t measuring it.” This statement is self defeating. Quantum mechanics talks about probabilities before measurement, so with the logic, the copenhagen interpretation shouldn’t be talked about at all — no quantum mechanics should be talked about at all. But the stance itself is one on quantum mechanics, so it is a self defeating point. This is somewhat analogous to what happened to philosophical logical positivism.

Let's first stick with the reality of the macroscale nature of our physical existence. We do not live in a "fundamentally random world" as previously described. You have dodged and failed to address that fact.

 

[excreationist]

No, that is NOT what the Copenhagen agreement determined.

There is absolutely no evidence for the possible degree of variation in the many worlds concept. All worlds may be very similar and not problem I would not mind living anyone. This speculation of the nature of our physical existence does not address the downright obvious science of the nature of the world we live in. Actually the Copenhagen agreement is now old and moldy.

What about my quote from Stephen Hawking:

Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen

Is Hawking wrong?
Anyway my opinion which I explore in this thread is that an intelligent force could be guiding what's happening on a quantum (or larger) level even if it gives the impression that it is random or whether it acts how you think it does.

Let's first stick with the reality of the macroscale nature of our physical existence. We do not live in a "fundamentally random world" as previously described. You have dodged and failed to address that fact.

I'm not saying random things are completely random in every way..... dice still are limited to 6 possible outcomes.... and the totals of multiple rolls form a bell curve...

 

[shunyadragon]

What about my quote from Stephen Hawking:

Is Hawking wrong?

I addressed that. Selective citation incomplete out of context concerning physics as the Quantum scale does not address the nature of our existence on the macroscale. I am addressing the Macro scale, which is NOT Fundamentally Random.

Anyway my opinion which I explore in this thread is that an intelligent force could be guiding what's happening on a quantum level even if it gives the impression that it is random or whether it acts how you think it does.

Here comes the horrendous Intelligent Design Argument based on false assumptions and NO science.

Actually I question the views of randomness at the Quantum scale, because Quantum Mechanics is very predictable based on probability and useful in practical terms.

Again, again, again and again . . . we are dealing with the fact that on the Macro scale Nature IS NOT "fundamentally random."

 

[excreationist]

I addressed that. Selective citation incomplete out of context concerning physics as the Quantum scale does not address the nature of our existence on the macroscale. I am addressing the Macro scale, which is NOT Fundamentally Random.

Would you call it a clockwork universe? That's what I'd call a completely deterministic non-random world.

Here comes the horrendous Intelligent Design Argument based on false assumptions and NO science.

Well I am saying that it has no hard evidence - that's why I call it "non-obvious".

"......I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud"

Actually I question the views of randomness at the Quantum scale, because Quantum Mechanics is very predictable based on probability and useful in practical terms.

Very predictable implies it is 100% predictable.

Again, again, again and again . . . we are dealing with the fact that on the Macro scale Nature IS NOT "fundamentally random."

About dice - they form a bell curve over time.... that part is predictable - but can you predict every single number a dice will come up as? I explain that problem as it being due to chance. You could hypothetically use physics to determine the numbers but what about in a practical way?
BTW if the quantum level is random I think it would affect the macro scale... what if a human was making decisions based on their observations of quantum phenomena...

 

[shunyadragon]

Would you call it a clockwork universe? That's what I'd call a completely deterministic non-random world.

No that is the other Newtonian extreme. A Naturally deterministic universe is not "clock-work." The variations of cause and effect event outcomes are natural feature of our universe are predictable and not random, and are not clockwork rigid mechanically.

Well I am saying that it has no hard evidence - that's why I call it "non-obvious".

Problem here of vagueness,

"......I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud"

Very predictable implies it is 100% predictable.

NO, predictable by Chaos theory

DOES GOD PLAY DICE? INSIGHTS FROM THE FRACTAL GEOMETRY OF NATURE​

Paul H. Carr
First published: 02 December 2004

Abstract​

Abstract Albert Einstein and Huston Smith reflect the old metaphor that chaos and randomness are bad. Scientists recently have discovered that many phenomena, from the fluctuations of the stock market to variations in our weather, have the same underlying order. Natural beauty from plants to snowflakes is described by fractal geometry; tree branching from trunks to twigs has the same fractal scaling as our lungs, from trachea to bronchi. Algorithms for drawing fractals have both randomness and global determinism. Fractal statistics is like picking a card from a stacked deck rather than from one that is shuffled to be truly random. The polarity of randomness (or freedom) and law characterizes the self-creating natural world. Polarity is in consonance with Taoism and contemporary theologians such as Paul Tillich, Alfred North Whitehead, Gordon Kaufman, Philip Hefner, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Joseph Ford's new metaphor is replacing the old: “God plays dice with the universe, but they're loaded dice.”

About dice - they form a bell curve over time.... that part is predictable - but can you predict every single number a dice will come up as? I explain that problem as it being due to chance. You could hypothetically use physics to determine the numbers but what about in a practical way? Can you completely predict the lotto numbers? Why not?

Like all patterns of outcomes of cause and effect events the timing and nature of one event may appear random, but the series of event outcomes follows a predictable frctal pattern in nature and dice.
. . . because the pattern over time of the the throw of dice can be predicably modeled and described by fractal Geometry.

 

[excreationist]

@shunyadragon

Well computer simulations are normally 100% deterministic anyway unless you introduce "pseudo" randomness.

 

[excreationist]

Like all patterns of outcomes of cause and effect events the timing and nature of one event may appear random, but the series of event outcomes follows a predictable frctal pattern in nature and dice.

. . . because the pattern over time of the the throw of dice can be predicably modeled and described by fractal Geometry.

So basically a bell curve? What about not being over time? What about generating what the individual dice rolls are? Also an example of a non-random fractal is the Mandelbrot set which has a very simple equation: Zn+1 = Zn2 + C
Do you have any specific fractal formulas/procedures that relate to dice rolls? Or is this all hypothetical?

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon

Well computer simulations are normally 100% deterministic anyway unless you introduce "pseudo" randomness.

Actually no, computer simulations are not necessarily 100% deterministic. Computer simulations can simulate fractal outcomes of the range of possible natural chains of causes and effect events. Simple example is weather prediction computer models that consider the different natural factors that determine the weather.

 

[excreationist]

Actually no, computer simulations are not necessarily 100% deterministic. Computer simulations can simulate fractal outcomes of the range of possible natural chains of causes and effect events. Simple example is weather prediction computer models that consider the different natural factors that determine the weather.

Note in a computer program a particular input always results in an identical output - unless you add randomness to the code - which is considered "pseudo-randomness" (due to it being technically deterministic)

 

[shunyadragon]

Note in a computer program a particular input always results in an identical output - unless you add randomness to the code - which is considered "pseudo-randomness" (due to it being technically deterministic)

No, you are considering computers 50 years old or more. This post and your previous post is false based on an intentional ignorance of contemporary computer science advance, Modern programing is no longer "linear"and Newtonian 100% deterministic, which after the the advances using fractal math and chaos models like AI programing, which can respond intelligently in human interactions You need to go beyond your assertions and provide references to support your argument. like the following.

https://www.worldscientific.com/page/fractals/callforpapers13

Special Issue on Mathematical Modeling of Complex Systems: Fractals-Fractional-Itô-AI-DEs-Based Theories, Analyses and Applications​

Mathematical modeling, geared towards describing different aspects of the real world, reciprocal interactions and dynamics thereof through mathematics, must be able to address universal concepts, which makes mathematical models unique as they, on their own, allow for the mechanization and automation of intellectual activity. The mathematical model based on specialized knowledge can be described as one which has a material pertaining to mathematical nature, and in the process of determining the properties of a model, there exists reliance on the rigor by which the different components are identified, formulated and arranged. The role of mathematical modeling and scientific computation becomes evident in processes such as analyzing, decision-making, solving practical problems, predicting and simulating, which requires the definition of which level of detail needs to be introduced in different parts of a mode as well as which simplifications need to be performed for facilitating its integration into different models that can simulate highly complex problems taking into account uncertainty.
Fractals as complex and infinitely detailed geometric shapes that are recursively defined having their small sections being similar to large ones are quintessentially used for describing different natural structures that adopt various degrees of self-similarity besides for designing some artificial structures. Fractal mathematics as an inspirational field reveals the underlying beauty of the universe whose whole is fractal in essence. Fractal geometry, in this landscape, as a mathematical tool provides lenses to comprehend complexity in systems and shapes towards the description of the chaotic, irregular and unpredictable. Differential equations (DEs), as exemplary units of analysis of dynamical systems as continuous and discrete time-evolution processes, on fractals pave the way to grasping exhaustive analysis foregrounding the construction of different mathematical models in complex settings. Differential equations can be employed to describe dynamic phenomena and model complex systems’ behaviors while facilitating the prediction of future behavior depending on how existing values are connected and change in relation to one another over time. In the fractal setting, differential and integral operators with fractional order and fractal dimensions are employed to mathematically model complex problems with high multiplicity encountered related to phenomena which are not possible to be modeled with classical and nonlocal differential and integral operators with single order. Fractional differential equations can be employed for modeling problems through the exploration of various definitions of fractional derivative and integrals with new methods on fractional analysis, theory and applications. Stochastic differential equations, on the other hand, are used to model complex real-world problems; and Itô calculus, extending the methods of calculus to stochastic processes, has significant application areas in stochastic differential equations and mathematics-related fields. The inclusion of fractional-order operators in this setting, with order being a parameter per se, enables a single fractional-order operator to interpolate between all the orders’ derivatives, which allows fitting a specified number of fractional derivatives to data. Fractional derivatives, on the other hand, provide a means to describe memory and hereditary related properties of different processes as well as materials.

Fractional Calculus (FC), introduced as the extension of classical derivative calculus, is used to replicate complex problems and to examine the dynamical and nonlinear aspects of mathematical models that arise in science and engineering. All in all, fractional calculus approach provides novel models with the introduction of fractional-order calculus to optimization methods with the aim of maximizing the model accuracy and minimizing computational burden and other functions. Although fractal mathematics may not directly be used to predict the big events in chaotic systems, it can suggest such events will happen, and in this setting, Artificial Intelligence (AI) reminds us that the world is complex while being amusingly unpredictable. Neural networks, equipped with self-learning and self-adaptive capabilities, as well as deep neural networks are capable of solving numerical aspects of partial differential equations are important applications in systems, providing a broad array of interfaces for the output of calculation results. The multiple layers of neural networks can approximate nonlinear continuous functions with arbitrary accuracy which enables applicability to solve problems that have inherent complex mechanisms. Fit into the neural network framework, differential equations with some parameters produce the solution as output to describe the behavior of complex systems, and thus, using differential equation models in neural networks enable the models to be combined with approaches related to neural networks. Consequently, differential/integral equations, fractals, multifractals, fractional calculus, Itô calculus, as well as machine learning methods such as AI, deep learning, data science, algorithms, probability and stochastic processes, data-driven modeling, quantization optimization algorithm, system identification, synchronization, control, power, convergence, bifurcation, chaos, sensitivity, stability, complexity and computing, among many others are worthy of further investigation. Thus, the importance of generating applicable solutions to problems for diverse realms in engineering, medicine, life sciences, environmental sciences, physics, mathematical science, applied mathematics, mathematical biology, biology, bioengineering, applied disciplines, computer science, data science, image / signal processing and scientific computing, social sciences, to name some, appears to be a compelling requirement. This kind of a unifying approach is believed to enable comprehensive understanding towards behavior related to a broad range of systems and how complex phenomena are at work spanning across extensive spectra.

In view of these aspects, our special issue aims to provide a way towards original multidisciplinary and goal-oriented research based on advanced mathematical modeling and computational foundations. Hence, we expect to receive submissions on theoretical, computational and applied dimensions, merging mathematical analyses, methods, simulations, experimental designs, case studies, analyses, reviews, computer-assisted translations, computing technologies, and so forth to be presented in order to demonstrate the significance of novel approaches and schemes in real systems as well as related realms.

Please respond with references?

 

[excreationist]

No, you are considering computers 50 years old or more.

1974 and earlier? Note I have a Bachelor of Information Technology and a Bachelor of Software Engineering - what is your background? Apparently it takes about 10,000 hours to master a topic.

This post and your previous post is false based on an intentional ignorance of contemporary computer science advance, Modern programing is no longer "linear"and Newtonian 100% deterministic, which after the the advances using fractal math and chaos models like AI programing,

Do you mean Python? (if you even have any idea what that is)

which can respond intelligently in human interactions You need to go beyond your assertions and provide references to support your argument. like the following.

Please respond with references?

There's no point - whatever "reference" I'd give you'd be unhappy with it. I'd rather do what normal people do and just use straight forward arguments.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Our physical existence is not prone to exact clones. That would be unnatural. How this translates is if similar planets and suns in our universe exist they will have a physical evolution that will be similar and when the environment is suitable life will begin, and the as the environment evolves similar life forms to our world will evolve, and likely intelligent life forms, but not exactly like humans.

We would have fellow intelligent aliens.

They're Made Out Of Meat​

 

[Pogo]

I have a Bachelor of Information Technology and a Bachelor of Software Engineering - I've also done math subjects. I'm not going to try and find references. I can't convince you that you're not an expert in what you're talking about so I guess I'll have to give up. BTW do you know many programming languages well? I mean I think to understand computers on a deep level you should know a lot about programming.

If you actually had the math background to understand fractals (recursive) and the basics of Comp sci beyond engineering this might be interesting

 

[excreationist]

If you actually had the math background to understand fractals (recursive) and the basics of Comp sci beyond engineering this might be interesting

When I was in high school I used "Fractint" quite a bit (which lets to explore a large variety of fractals). Later I combined custom animations of fractals into a music video. I've used computer programs where you make fractal trees and ferns and mountains. I have understood the mathematical equation behind the Mandelbrot set. I still believe they are deterministic and when they aren't they normally use a "seed".
On the topic of chaos - a common example is a "strange attractor"

Attractor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pogo]

They're Made Out Of Meat​

Skimmed the video, not something I was going to watch, but you might have a point.

 

[Pogo]

When I was in high school I used "Fractint" quite a bit (which lets to explore a large variety of fractals). Later I combined custom animations of fractals into a music video. I've used computer programs where you make fractal trees and ferns and mountains. I have understood the mathematical equation behind the Mandelbrot set.

And 50 years ago, I studied computer science with punch cards, There are a lot of curiosities in math that can have interesting relationships to reality just as Newton and Leibnitz invented calculus in their day, The map is not the territory. This goes for both of you.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

So basically a bell curve? What about not being over time? What about generating what the individual dice rolls are? Also an example of a non-random fractal is the Mandelbrot set which has a very simple equation: Zn+1 = Zn2 + C
Do you have any specific fractal formulas/procedures that relate to dice rolls? Or is this all hypothetical?

Beyond the Mandelbrot set, an intro to holomorphic dynamics​

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Skimmed the video, not something I was going to watch, but you might have a point.

Here's the wikipedia article:

They're Made Out of Meat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org