Mathematician proves Atheism to be a false idea

You want to change my identity, because you're being facile and that is a witness of truth, based on integrity.

 

You are trying to re-label me because you are facile and my witnessing that truth is of integrity.

Get back to the thread, or shut up!

 

The premise of the thread is a joke.

First, provide proof god...OR ANY DEITY ever existed.

Second, provide proof god...OR ANY DEITY was responsible for this phenomenon.

Until such time, all you have is a claim from ignorance based on personal incredulity. Shocker.

 

I am just showing how the brain cells through mitosis will naturally produce arrays of neurons which express a physical Binary relationship.
This could be used in the same way as the computer utilizes numbers in a software program.

The Fibonacci sequence is nature is clearly related to this process of mitosis used by ALL living things.
That is why we "see" the consequnces in living thibgs that express this relationship we are all talking about here.

My point was that what Fibonacci said about rabbits multiplying applies to neurons multiplying.
So, through this natural process, the brain is organized into groups of little Logic Circuits ready to evolve into Action/Reaction responses as the environment "programs" the first life forms.

 

There you have it, folks.

Obfuscation = God.

 

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_09/i_09_cl/i_09_cl_dev/i_09_cl_dev.html

HOW STEM CELLS FORM NEURONS

1) "HOW STEM CELLS FORM NEURONS
Mitosis is the type of cell division that takes place in human body cells not only during development but also during tissue renewal in adults. A cell that undergoes mitosis passes through several stages that result in its division into two daughter cells that resemble this mother cell. (i.e.; the mother cell splits into the two daughter cell which replace it), The daughter cells may then divide in turn, which leads to the exponential growth in the number of cells (in accord with Fibonacci's series), during embryonic development."


(The bracketed explanations are mine)

 

Read Fibonacci again.

Ge is explaining how reproduction results in a series which then explains why we see this series at work on all living things.

Fibonacci did not know about cells, but he knew about math and rabbits.
I am telling you here that I have used Fibonacci's reasoning and applied it to mitosis of cells mulyiplying, instead of Rabbits.
I am saying this insight ecplains WHY we see Fibonacci relationships everywhere.

The evidence, that we see Fibonacci relationships everywhere supports my theory that this is due to a Fibonacci mitosis of the cells that create every living thing.


It seems simple enough.
We marvel that we see Fibonacci relatiomships in all living things, ober and over.
The Golden Ratio appears, seemingly in a mystjcal fashion so often.

I explain here, that applying Fibonacci math to mitosis of cells, in general, explains why we see Fibonacci everywhere.

But you don't get it, and insist mitosis works differently, leaving the question open as to why we see the evidence everywhere that I am right?????

 

The premise is that the Creator formed a creation which can be imaged by our computers that use the Rooliab Algebra ingerent in the Binary Number St=ystem.
And, through evolution, man was created by a process of Miosis/Mitosis that formed a brain which works like a computer does, using a Binary Based Boolian Logic which can image the Creation just as do the computers he now builds.

This supports the idea of in Genesis:

Gen 1:26 Then God, (the Ultimate Universal Power) said, "Let us make man, (mentally), in (analogy to the Natural Workings of) our image, (as a reflected, a schmata), in our like-ness (in regard to his perception of the reality external to his mind), and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

No, it doesn't. Period.

That's nothing more than YOU attempting to make the connection without any evidence or proof...because you THINK something implies something, it does. That's not science, that's not proof....that's not how it works.

 

In an effort to demonstrate the prevalence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature, why would you try to apply it to a process for which it is not applicable? Mitosis does not work that way. Why don't you just find an example that actually works?

- - - Updated - - -

When you have to qualify every fourth word or every other phrase with some crap you've made up, you're probably doing it wrong.

 

Was the point of this to show that neurons form from stem cells? Stem cells undergo mitosis, yes, but neurons don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Rabbits are not cells, they do not reproduce the same way. Why do you keep trying to draw an analogy between rabbit reproduction and cell reproduction? It does not hold.

Cells divide like this: 1-2-4-8-16-32-64

That sequence is not the Fibonacci sequence.

 

Sure, it supports Genesis if you add stupid connotations to the book.

What you're doing makes as much sense as me saying:

Then God (Soupmaker) said, "Let us make man,"(Soup), in (The Baker) our image (The essence of a soupmaker).

 

Regarding Fibonacci mathematical numbering sequence being used as proof of God. I take a more mentalist approach to reality. Given that the precise momentum and space of a particle/wave function is revealed only when observed, the patterns and laws, if you will, which emerge are in the mind of the observer rather then in the object observed. In other words, reality is subjective. Objective reality is beyond our limits to observe. It's akin to making an image from a series of dots, pixels. The objective reality is that these are simply colored dots, yet our minds perceive an image by observing them. Our minds try to make sense of things. There are of course objective qualities to a particle/wave which exist outside of a measured state, but the act of observation reduces the objectivity to a subjective state. If that makes sense. These mathematical patterns, therefore...are not inherent to the object being measured...they are inherent to our minds perceiving the object in a subjective way.

How's that for bloviating...and I believe in God by the way, I just do not believe a mathematical proof defines what God is..

God is that which cannot be defined...by definition.

 

I see what you did there.

 

A bunch of non sense

the fibonacci sequence has nothing to do with subjective observation. The numbers are not identifying a subject.

The subject is the pattern that unfolds in and of itself and has been compared to nature, then labeled with identifiers.

correct. You could see blue as orange, but each can experience the same 'wavelength' (color) but characterize it differently.

Man kind can witness an element, a molecule, waves and fields and limited by very little, when in the correct environment.

tv's do it all the time ... Next!

no it dont.

The tv and that monitor are making images by pixels/colored dots...etc. What are the objective qualities, to a 'particle/wave' that exist outside of a measured state? Just because you do not have a cause to define, does not mean it is from outside of anything.

The particle wave duality phenomena in themselves are not 'out side' of anything but are misunderstood properties and that's it. There is no uttttttter dimensions and heavens and hells, or black holes going to utttttttttter places. That is all poppy (*)(*)(*)(*)!

the patterns are what the conscious (a person) can describe and with the math/words and many symbols. They are inherent to the minds eye and relative, being that the very patterns observed are of nature. Then find that the ratio of number rational, does fit what can be measured in nature. There is no perfection with a radius and few comprehend that part but the golden ratio and math used to describe nature are in fine working order. The problem is not the math but the theorems are where the tangents reside

 

You adding of your bracketed understanding of the the phrases and meanings of the verse is as LEGITIMATE as mine.

But, what you add as the explanation of the verse makes no factual sense, nor does what Christian readers have been "adding" in their understanding of the verse make any factual sense either.

The Christians, you, and I have the Free Will to understand the verse so as to contradict the facts or, in my case, support them.

 

You are reverting back to Rationalism and ignoring the meaning of The Scientific Method.

Rationalized believed that we can understand Reality simply by reasoning it out, as iof everything is hyst dots that must be seen our way.
This was very much the way Aristotle deduced what is and what is not by such a method.

But, the Scientific Method changed forever that misconception, because it demonstrated that, under Laboratory Conditions, whatever I actual observe everyone else will and can and does also observe.

So the Reality does exist.
But we must use our senses, (empirically), to derive FACTS, and then use those facts to build up our image of Reality as it is for us and everyone else.

What we (by this 21st century) have learned is that, the Facts of Life do exist and the same for us all.
Because the Reality is governed by an interacting web of Natural Laws which will not and do not violate one another,
They work always in a beautiful Harmony which therefore can be understood logically, as we develop a mental picture we call Truth that corresponds to Reality and acts as an image of that Reality,

 

Yes, now you have your finger on the actual issue here.
I am saying "that sequence is the Fibonacci sequence."

I say, cells divide the same way rabbits multiple, because that explains why our mind works like a Binary operated computer, capable of doing all the things we have shown can be done with a Binary Based logic gate network of neurons.

You are saying, "No, it is my opinion that cells do not divide as Rabbits would, and we therefore have absolutely no idea why we think like a computer does."

 

My point, say for example the Universe had no sentient beings....just a lot space, matter and energy doing it's thing, following the natural laws whether an entity is observing them or not.

Seems rather pointless...we could have a parallel Universe with physical laws very different from what we observe, yet if there is no sentient entity observing it, again...rather pointless.

I would still maintain the very act of observation influences the natural laws. True reality, is impossible to observe because once observed this changes the object being observed from an uncertainty..a probability...to a certainty.

As it is, science only understands about 10% of the known Universe, we use vague terms like "dark energy" or "dark matter"...which is the equivalent of Pink Unicorns really, it's just a word game to avoid saying...
We just don't know why the Universe is expanding at a greater rate than natural laws say it should. So we use the term "dark energy"....or "dark matter" to denote the other 90% of the Universe that has so far alluded observation.

There's a misconception that human knowledge has eclipsed all there is to know...that's a fallacy...much of it is beyond our observation and rests solely in the theoretical...if the behavior fits an elegant mathematical formula, it must therefore be the correct theory...it's still abstract...as the mathematical proof itself...it's existent is in the mind of the creator of the proof.

Given a multi-verse scenario, and accepting an infitnite amount of Universes in infinite space...why would the one we reside in, therefore reflect true reality when true reality would reflect infinite probabiliies...it's therefore a rather pointless endeavor to reflect on ultimate reality...just accept the reality we can observe that we can understand, speculation beyond that is meaningless really..it's the realm of the abstract.

An apple falls from a tree...the law of gravity...this is our reality...and the only reality that matters while we are temporal material beings...our bodies follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy, we age. We eventually die. This is the reality we should be concerned with, but it is not the True reality. To say a certain sequence of numbers is found throughout the Universe and taking it further and saying the Universe is all that has ever existed and will exist...is hubris. If one Universe can explode out of a singularity, it's probably happened before, it probably happens all the time given infinite space. It's ridiculous to assume our observable reflects ultimate reality. It does not...the very laws we define with our mathematics...are defied by the very creation of the Universe the mathematics claim to define...matter and energy were created from nothing...a clear violation of physical laws....One can deduce therefore, another reality exists beyond our own observable one.

 

I wonder what you think a natural law is. Physical law, if you like.
and
how you propose to know that matter and energy were "created from nothing'.

 

So you're just saying things that are blatantly untrue. Well thank you for making it easy to ignore your posts from here on out.

 

Well, then you'd be wrong. The Fibonacci sequence is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34. So, how is that the same sequence?

Then you're ignorant. Cells don't reproduce the same way live organisms do.

You think it is my opinion that rabbits don't reproduce the same way as cells? Sheesh. Cupid, you do know that Fibonnaci's rabbit problem is a made up example, right? Rabbits don't always produce one pair of offspring when they mate like the problem requires. I'm guessing you didn't know that.

 

I am saying what Fibonacci explained.
Clearly the mother cell grows to mturity, nd then is ready to produce a daught cell.
That daughter cells then grows to maturity while the other again splits in mitosis.

Hence if this is true, we would confirm Fibonacci by seeing the series build up Binary relationships between neurons.

This MUST be what is the cause of the computer-like similarity of our brain.
Hence, Fibonacci is confirmed by this observation.

Do you have another Hypothesis which can explain the comparable computer-like mind that we see so clearly???

 

And why do you think your revisionism makes factual sense?

 

Welcome to the club. Took ya long enough to get here!