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

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I would be happy with any reasonable references you can provide. So far you have provided nothing in relation to the problem of Natural Determinism, computer programing as it is understood in science and math today. Much of what you posted is not relevant. Some of the Youtube videos are downright ridiculous.
I gave a good reference and no response.

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.

50 year old computers?

Babbage’s Analytic Engine was designed to be a general purpose computer.

There’s nothing that today’s computers can do that the Analytic Engine couldn’t do. It was just steam powered, that’s all.

You could run ChatGPT on it.

Maybe a little slower, but so what?

The math is the same.

We stand on the shoulders of giants.

How’s your quantum computer coming along?

 

[shunyadragon]

My strength is in I.T. related things (like simulations), not maths.
see:

Deriving the Nautilus shell spiral equation

Suppose I need to estimate the cross section of a Nautilus shell, which is famously approximated by a logarithmic spiral, $r=ae^{b\theta}$. The cross-section of this spiral could be found by integ...

math.stackexchange.com

I'm not sure an exact equation can be found - but there are at least approximations.
The problem with the golden spiral is that it gets smaller a lot more rapidly than the nautilus shell does.

Yes, the interesting nautilus spiral and the related equations describe one of the geometries in nature, but does not explain the Natural Determinism and fractal nature of outcomes of cause and effect events in nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

50 year old computers?

Babbage’s Analytic Engine was designed to be a general purpose computer.

Actually 200 year old computers

There’s nothing that today’s computers can do that the Analytic Engine couldn’t do. It was just steam powered, that’s all.

No, your in delusions about how computers function today Can this 1820s computer do what the super computers do today?

You could run ChatGPT on it.

Maybe a little slower, but so what?

The math is the same.

No the math is not the same Slower? By 200 years!

We stand on the shoulders of giants.

. . . but we do not live in the past.

How’s your quantum computer coming along?

Mine? Quantum Computers are available if you can afford them.

What Is Quantum Computing? | IBM

Quantum computing is a rapidly-emerging technology that harnesses the laws of quantum mechanics to solve problems too complex for classical computers.

www.ibm.com

What is quantum computing?
Quantum computing uses specialized technology—including computer hardware and algorithms that take advantage of quantum mechanics—to solve complex problems that classical computers or supercomputers can’t solve, or can’t solve quickly enough.
Today, IBM Quantum makes real quantum hardware—a tool that scientists only began to imagine three decades ago—available to hundreds of thousands of developers. Our engineers deliver ever-more-powerful superconducting quantum processors at regular intervals, alongside crucial advances in software and quantum-classical orchestration. This work drives toward the quantum computing speed and capacity necessary to change the world.
These machines are very different from the classical computers that have been around for more than half a century. Here's a primer on this transformative technology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, Paul H. Carr has an interesting theology.

Thank you for mentioning him.

You never answered my question about Easter Mass, by the way.

How much do you know about Semana Santa (Holy Week).

Easter Mass and Semara Santa are not in subject of the thread. I could care lsss I am not a Christian.

What do historiographers and anthropologists and UNESCO have to say about it?

Not interested.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Easter Mass and Semara Santa are not in subject of the thread. I could care lsss I am not a Christian.

Not interested.

That’s cultural, and based on your scientism, which teaches that other cultures don’t matter, because that are idiotic.

 

[shunyadragon]

That’s cultural, and based on your scientism, which teaches that other cultures don’t matter, because that are idiotic.

No, just not the subject of the thread. Scientism involves the pejorative accusations against science and nothing to do with your cultural or religions OFF TOPIC stuff.

I am a scientist and do not believe in scientism.

The subject of the thread is:

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

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No, just not the subject of the thread. Scientism involves the pejorative accusations against science and nothing to do with your cultural or religions OFF TOPIC stuff.

I am a scientist and do not believe in scientism.

The subject of the thread is:

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

I’m an atheist.

An old-school atheist.

And as such, like Bertrand Russell before me, I am willing to keep an open mind about where these non-obvious intelligent forces might come from.

Unlike you, I don’t look at religion thru the lens of scientism. I prefer actual sciences, like anthropology, historiography, and plate tectonics.

Scientism is unscientific. Scientism is the very antithesis of science.


“You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God who made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up—a line which I often thought was a very plausible one—that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.”

Bertrand Russell - Why I am not a Christian (1927)

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell - The Bertrand Russell Society

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

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.

This has been my experience as well.

 

[shunyadragon]

I’m an atheist.

An old-school atheist.

And as such, like Bertrand Russell before me, I am willing to keep an open mind about where these non-obvious intelligent forces might come from.

Unlike you, I don’t look at religion thru the lens of scientism. I prefer actual sciences, like anthropology, historiography, and plate tectonics.

I do not look at religion from the eye of scientism. I am a Baha'i and believe in God. I balieve in the harmony of science and religion. God Created our physical existence by Natural Laws and natural processes.

Scientism is unscientific. Scientism is the very antithesis of science.

Yes

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I do not look at religion from the eye of scientism. I am a Baha'i and believe in God. I balieve in the harmony of science and religion. God Created our physical existence by Natural Laws and natural processes.

Yes

You look at Catholicism thru the lens of scientism.

You look at slavery thru the lens of scientism.

You look at the treatment of slaves thru the lens of scientism.

You look at brujeria thru the lens of scientism.

You look at war thru the lens of scientism.

You look at the devil thru the lens of scientism.

You look at mathematics thru the lens of scientism.

And you look at computer science thru the lens of scientism.

You look at historiography thru the lens of scientism.

You look at anthropology thru the lens of scientism.

You look at art thru the lens of scientism.

In fact, I can’t think of a single thing that you don’t look at thru the lens of scientism, right off hand.

I’m sure that there must be something.

 

[excreationist]

I would be happy with any reasonable references you can provide.

I mean you'd say it is flawed or not relevant rather than say that I've rebutted your argument.

So far you have provided nothing in relation to the problem of Natural Determinism, computer programing as it is understood in science and math today. Much of what you posted is not relevant. Some of the Youtube videos are downright ridiculous.
I gave a good reference and no response.

I think in academic papers the writers just include summaries or short quotes of their references. Your 900+ word quote doesn't even use the term "determinism". Maybe you just thought it was relevant because it included words like "fractals", "nature" and "computers".

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

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean you'd say it is flawed or not relevant rather than say that I've rebutted your argument.

Rebuttal???? Nothing provided addressed the argument. Again . . .

I think in academic papers the writers just include summaries or short quotes of their references. Your 900+ word quote doesn't even use the term "determinism". Maybe you just thought it was relevant because it included words like "fractals", "nature" and "computers".

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

The references was relevant to the question of determinism, because it presents a description of the contemporary view that we live in a 'Natural Deterterminism whare natural variability of the outcome of cause and effect events in nature are fractal described by Chaos Theory depending in on the number of variable, which is how modern computers model nature such as predicting weather, climate and global warming.

Your view stated as computers are 100% deterministic is just flat down right wrong. Your ancient 1820's computer cannot compare to modern supercomputers which cannot compare to the Quantum Computers on the market, Even 1950s computers could not easily model fractal models with hundreds of variables as modern computers can. In fact it was not until much more recently that advanced computer models on modern machines began to use fractal models to model nature.

You are not paying attention to actual relevance to my reference. I can provide many references that describe the Natural deterministic nature of fractal world if you persistently refuse to acknowledge the relevance of the refrence.

Physiological systems such as the cardiovascular system are capable of five kinds of behavior: equilibrium, periodicity, quasi-periodicity, deterministic chaos and random behavior. Systems adopt one or more these behaviors depending on the function they have evolved to perform. The emerging mathematical concepts of fractal mathematics and chaos theory are extending our ability to study physiological behavior. Fractal geometry is observed in the physical structure of pathways, networks and macroscopic structures such the vasculature and the His-Purkinje network of the heart. Fractal structure is also observed in processes in time, such as heart rate variability. Chaos theory describes the underlying dynamics of the system, and chaotic behavior is also observed at many levels, from effector molecules in the cell to heart function and blood pressure. This review discusses the role of fractal structure and chaos in the cardiovascular system at the level of the heart and blood vessels, and at the cellular level. Key functional consequences of these phenomena are highlighted, and a perspective provided on the possible evolutionary origins of chaotic behavior and fractal structure. The discussion is non-mathematical with an emphasis on the key underlying concepts.

I mean you'd say it is flawed or not relevant rather than say that I've rebutted your argument.

I think in academic papers the writers just include summaries or short quotes of their references. Your 900+ word quote doesn't even use the term "determinism". Maybe you just thought it was relevant because it included words like "fractals", "nature" and "computers".

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

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The references was relevant to the question of determinism, because it presents a description of the contemporary view that we live in a 'Natural Deterterminism whare natural variability of the outcome of cause and effect events in nature are fractal described by Chaos Theory depending in on the number of variable, which is how modern computers model nature such as predicting weather, climate and global warming.

”The” contemporary view by an author who you yourself dismissed as irrelevant due to his Catholic theology.

By the way, did you prove uniqueness? If not, you should replace your “The” by “A”.

If you need help in proving uniqueness, please see my Rado Graph video above for an example of how to do it.

 

[Pogo]

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)

Actually, if I remember correctly from 50 years ago, computers use digits of pi or some other similar source because while you could use a reverse biased zener diode, the loss of randomness in sampling the output of the diode would actually make it less random. That and it creates unnecessary problems in debugging.

 

[shunyadragon]

”The” contemporary view by an author who you yourself dismissed as irrelevant due to his Catholic theology.

It was not a contemporary view involving the subject of the the thread, Roman church holidays are not the subject of the thread.

By the way, did you prove uniqueness? If not, you should replace your “The” by “A”.

Your over stating the simple wording of the text of my post and not addressing the post meaning as usual. Nothing here to prove ????anything.Uniqueness???? Please address the post and not picky about the wording.

If you need help in proving uniqueness, please see my Rado Graph video above for an example of how to do it.

I am not trying to prove any such thing as uniqueness. In fact we have not got beyond the plain reading o my posts without trivial concerns.

Please simply respond to my posts in context

 

[shunyadragon]

You look at Catholicism thru the lens of scientism.

I do not believe in the Roman Church (RCC) nor scientism

You look at slavery thru the lens of scientism.

You look at the treatment of slaves thru the lens of scientism.

You look at brujeria thru the lens of scientism.

You look at war thru the lens of scientism.

You look at the devil thru the lens of scientism.

You look at mathematics thru the lens of scientism.

And you look at computer science thru the lens of scientism.

You look at historiography thru the lens of scientism.

You look at anthropology thru the lens of scientism.

You look at art thru the lens of scientism.

In fact, I can’t think of a single thing that you don’t look at thru the lens of scientism, right off hand.

I’m sure that there must be something.

Nothing of the above makes any sense.

 

[excreationist]

The references was relevant to the question of determinism, because it presents a description of the contemporary view that we live in a 'Natural Deterterminism

But it never mentions determinism....

whare natural variability of the outcome of cause and effect events in nature are fractal described by Chaos Theory depending in on the number of variable, which is how modern computers model nature such as predicting weather, climate and global warming.

Your view stated as computers are 100% deterministic is just flat down right wrong.

About non-deterministic computers:

MIT School of Engineering | » Can a computer generate a truly random number?

engineering.mit.edu

Not all randomness is pseudo, however, says Ward. There are ways that machines can generate truly random numbers. And the importance of true randomness is not to be underestimated, he adds. “If you go to an online poker site, for example, and you know the algorithm and seed, you can write a program that will predict the cards that are going to be dealt.” Truly random numbers make such reverse engineering impossible, he adds. There are devices that generate numbers that claim to be truly random. They rely on unpredictable processes like thermal or atmospheric noise rather than human-defined patterns. The results might still be slightly biased towards higher numbers or even numbers, but they’re not generated by a deterministic algorithm.

Your ancient 1820's computer

I never talked about that computer. You're mixing me up with someone else.

cannot compare to modern supercomputers which cannot compare to the Quantum Computers on the market, Even 1950s computers could not easily model fractal models with hundreds of variables as modern computers can. In fact it was not until much more recently that advanced computer models on modern machines began to use fractal models to model nature.

You are not paying attention to actual relevance to my reference. I can provide many references that describe the Natural deterministic nature of fractal world if you persistently refuse to acknowledge the relevance of the refrence.

Like I said your 900+ word quote doesn't even mention determinism....

Physiological systems such as the cardiovascular system are capable of five kinds of behavior: equilibrium, periodicity, quasi-periodicity, deterministic chaos and random behavior. Systems adopt one or more these behaviors depending on the function they have evolved to perform. The emerging mathematical concepts of fractal mathematics and chaos theory are extending our ability to study physiological behavior. Fractal geometry is observed in the physical structure of pathways, networks and macroscopic structures such the vasculature and the His-Purkinje network of the heart. Fractal structure is also observed in processes in time, such as heart rate variability. Chaos theory describes the underlying dynamics of the system, and chaotic behavior is also observed at many levels, from effector molecules in the cell to heart function and blood pressure. This review discusses the role of fractal structure and chaos in the cardiovascular system at the level of the heart and blood vessels, and at the cellular level. Key functional consequences of these phenomena are highlighted, and a perspective provided on the possible evolutionary origins of chaotic behavior and fractal structure. The discussion is non-mathematical with an emphasis on the key underlying concepts.

The source of that 187 word quote, which you didn't even give a link to, does mention determinism about 20 times, but it is about cardiovascular systems. It seems to be saying that the chaos is deterministic. I'm not sure that is relevant to your claim that computers aren't deterministic.

Deterministic Chaos and Fractal Complexity in the Dynamics of Cardiovascular Behavior: Perspectives on a New Frontier - PMC

Physiological systems such as the cardiovascular system are capable of five kinds of behavior: equilibrium, periodicity, quasi-periodicity, deterministic chaos and random behavior. Systems adopt one or more these behaviors depending on the function ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Pogo]

I would be happy with any reasonable references you can provide. So far you have provided nothing in relation to the problem of Natural Determinism, computer programing as it is understood in science and math today. Much of what you posted is not relevant. Some of the Youtube videos are downright ridiculous.
I gave a good reference and no response.

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.

Babbges difference engine can still process any modern instructions, just very slowly and parallel processing is just linear processing broken into streams of linear that can be done at the same time and recombined. Fractals and chaos simulations are time intensive but not something different.

 

[Pogo]

50 year old computers?

Babbage’s Analytic Engine was designed to be a general purpose computer.

There’s nothing that today’s computers can do that the Analytic Engine couldn’t do. It was just steam powered, that’s all.

You could run ChatGPT on it.

Maybe a little slower, but so what?

The math is the same.

We stand on the shoulders of giants.

How’s your quantum computer coming along?

Drat, beat me to it.
ETA by a lot, I got this thread out of order. LOL

 

[excreationist]

There’s nothing that today’s computers can do that the Analytic Engine couldn’t do. It was just steam powered, that’s all.

You could run ChatGPT on it.

But isn't it limited to how much memory it can address? e.g. whether it is 16 bit, etc?