[ernestombayo7]

Type R and Grip

I watched a documentary on fractals geo,etry.And i was really suprised at how intricate nature is.

Fractals were discovered in 1975 by Benoît Mandelbrot.and the most famous fractal is this one



You can find the same shape on the edges of the main shape replicated billions of times.forming a similar patter over and over.

Many other shapes have been found in nature.And even scientists concerning Mandelbrot set above, joked that it was like the "signature of God."

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ATLian

you guys have laid out some things which have very little odds of happening.

Complex patterns are all over the place.

Think about it, when you see an avocado tree, you know that it is an avocado tree, even when there are no avocado fruits hanging from the branches. You recognize the pattern -- of branches, leaves, stem.

The same goes for all complex designs that you "recognize" but cannot put into words or formulas.

A maize patch is an example of a simple design, that can be taught to standard ones. Fractal geometry, on the other hand, can terrorize even graduate mathematicians and can crash older computers.

So, if I may, grip's question is whether a simple design - a square, for example - can exist without human/animal intervention in nature (remember, bees make hexagonal cells in their honey combs).



A maize farm is a square/rectangular grid. Standard One stuff. Can a simple pattern like that exist by itself in nature? Lemme look around.

[Type R]

ice crystal snowflake = hexagon, but edges are complex rainbow = segment of a circle most planets resemble balls (orbs), and planet orbits resemble ovals --- but that's going up in complexity. I can't think of squares or rectangles in nature, let alone boxes, cones, or pyramids, not yet. Anybody? coming closer to grip's challenge: i guess the simple designs would have to be repeated, a field of several same-size boxes, for example. The yatta plateau is interesting because it is quite a straight line on top -- almost looks artificial. N.b.: test of simplicity = "can a child easily be shown how to draw this?"

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by Type R

So, if I may, grip's question is whether a simple design - a square, for example - can exist without human/animal intervention in nature

I guess I misunderstood his question. I understood it to mean that if something as simple as an evenly spaced maize field can only exist if man has a hand at it, then what is the probability of the non-man-made things like the ultra-complex gene sequence existing without a higher being's involvement.

BTW I've mentioned this before - the sciences (to be specific mathematics and physics) just jazz the heck out of me, and the men and women who break down sciences are heroes to me. Reading on how these thinkers do their thing is just amazing. I would kill to have lunch with guys like Mandelbrot, so I can just pick their brains and see what stuff they know. How the hell do you bring up an entire branch of mathematics just by thinking about it? Wow.

I also wonder what would have happened if people like Newton and Einstein lived in this current day of supercomputers. It would be interesting to see what else they would have discovered.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ATLian

I guess I misunderstood his question. I understood it to mean that if something as simple as an evenly spaced maize field can only exist if man has a hand at it, then what is the probability of the non-man-made things like the ultra-complex gene sequence existing without a higher being's involvement.

I had thought along the same lines. I saw nature as inherently chaotic. I saw design as a conscious willed product.

Then I woke up! I saw design everywhere. Everything has a design and a pattern! I could not escape it. Design is the essence of nature. Even in situations where you simply throw a stone into water, the ripples are a pattern. So in fact the challenge was the opposite: can you find true chaos anywhere?

"Chaos" is nothing more than a function of our limited intellectual comprehension. It is simplicity and not ultra-complexity that indicates the presence of a being's involvement.

[grip_daddy]

I had thought along the same lines. I saw nature as inherently chaotic. I saw design as a conscious willed product.

Pattern in itself cannot speak of design.

Then I woke up! I saw design everywhere. Everything has a design and a pattern!

I would say that design and non-design are subjective terms. If everything has a design, then every probable design must have equal probability of occuring, including the zero probable events (by chance) that must be intellectually initiated.

For example, walking into an isolated island and getting a hundred pieces of cloths lying down. 20 pieces are blue, 20 red, 20 pink, 20 black, and 20 purple. Without inteligent design, it is of a zero probability to get an arrrangment that every two similar colours are half metre apart while different colour starts at a metre away.

So in fact the challenge was the opposite: can you find true chaos anywhere?

As said before, chaos or design are non existent...it's perception.

"Chaos" is nothing more than a function of our limited intellectual comprehension. It is simplicity and not ultra-complexity that indicates the presence of a being's involvement.

The reverse can be said to be true.

But how can information exist in absence of intelligent influence? For example, what is the probability of this post existing by itself?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

[b]Pattern in itself cannot speak of design.

You are right. The word "design" implies a subject. Readers, please replace "design" in the earlier post with "pattern."

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

For example, walking into an isolated island and getting a hundred pieces of cloths lying down. 20 pieces are blue, 20 red, 20 pink, 20 black, and 20 purple. Without inteligent design, it is of a zero probability to get an arrrangment that every two similar colours are half metre apart while different colour starts at a metre away.

That is what I have been trying to see in nature. The pattern you have described above is a simple pattern: 20 pieces of cloth, half a metre apart, etc. It seems nature is inherently complex? The patterns we see - e.g. cumolo-nimbus clouds - are complex mathematical formulae.

grip, a snow flake's shape is natural: --

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by Type R

The pattern you have described above is a simple pattern: 20 pieces of cloth, half a metre apart, etc.

My intent is to try and show that some simple patterns cannot exist of and by themselves. A cloth is artificial...but it could be replaced by rose flowers then look out for such an arrangement.

Originally Posted by Type R

It seems nature is inherently complex?

Some of the complexities in nature bit the logic of self begining...

Originally Posted by Type R

The patterns we see - e.g. cumolo-nimbus clouds - are complex mathematical formulae.

If you walked into a thick forest and come up with one pattern, that pattern would be a complex mathematical formula. A second person would walk in the same forest and come up with a second formula...etc. cumolo-nimbus clouds can be explained in more than one complex mathetical formula if you wanted!

Originally Posted by Type R

grip, a snow flake's shape is natural: --

They obey some physical laws...like the water waves you described before. On the other hand, they contain no information (instructions/commands to do A if B is true and C if B is false). They are rather the As and Cs (the results) of some other events that naturally obey some physical laws without the B option. Those events just happen (by chance maybe?).

My question could be, where in nature did condition B come from? Of and by itself?