Here's my coffeeshop philosophy regarding the philosophical implications of fractals and so on.

Let's start by showing how there is no need for God according to fractal theory.

Scientists have figured out the world is described by the "standard model" (SU(2)XU(1) electroweak + SU(3) strong + classical General Relativity) which is a bunch of simple equations. Simple is a relative concept, but it's simple in that a human can understand it with, say, a decade of study, assuming a brain in working order. Nothing has ever been discovered that is not consistent with that simple theory.

Simple surely compared to the complexity of the universe: starry sky, dogs, volcanos, the ocean, bipeds stammering "fractals", and what not. That is not in those equations! Surely such complexity can not come out of such simple equations!

Yes it can, said Mandelbrot. Look at \( z \leftarrow z^2+c \). Such a simple equation, yet by zooming you can encounter more and more complex structures (like spiderwebs: https://fractalforums.org/image-threads/25/gerrit-images/565/msg3696#msg3696) that are not built into it in any way. So in a similar way the simple equations of physics can lead to complex stuff like bananas and Einsteins.

Linkback: https://fractalforums.org/fractal-philosophy/23/god-and-the-mandelbrot-set/3045/

I am very ambivalent on this topic. My world view is decidedly scientific, in the sense that I can see how much more successful scientific explanations are in enabling humans to shape the world. Clearly, knowing the right explanation of effects in nature gives us much more power over the world. Contrast that to believing in some unfathomable divine being shaping the world in ways that mere mortals are not meant to understand. The latter will not lead to human empowerment.

Despite this, very subjectively, "spiritually" you could say, I feel a deep gratitude. I am glad that I am living in this wonderful world; that I was given the privilege to see and explore it; that I was given the head start of some education to sort my observations and experiences into an orderly explanation of almost everything around.

Now, this gratitude, in my understanding, has two ends: one that extends the "thank you!", and one that receives it. I am the grateful one; god (in no particular variety of any one particular religion) is at the other end. In that loose and vague sense, I do believe in some god - I feel like there is someone to be thankful towards. However, beyond that I do not believe in specific divine ideologies.


I can't help noticing, though, that throughout human history, there never seems to have been a large society that thrived for extended periods of time completely without any kind of religious beliefs. Something of this kind always seems to be at least a big chunk of culture's gamut. The only exceptions seem to be scientific eras (and they are not quite as new and rare as we Europeans often think).

So, since I "believe" in the principle of evolution, I must conclude that at least some religions must have had some effect on their respective societies that improved the chances of survival of that society. That doesn't mean that religions must generally be good; but it does mean that some religions helped their believers to survive and to thrive.

In other words: I don't think that religious believers are unquestionably dumb. If that religion has helped the ancestors to survive, then descendants adopting that same religion might well be a smart move overall.

So how do you get something out of nothing like https://fractalforums.org/image-threads/25/mandelbrot-set-julia-morphings/708/msg16470#msg16470 out of \( z^2+c \)? Well, you have to zoom intelligently.

OK, it's clear where I'm going I think: In a similar fashion the equations of nature (standard model) have the capability of producing, amongst more interesting things, us, but only if the "initial conditions" (the analogon of the "zoom strategy" in M-set explorations) have been chosen intelligently by someone name God.

But the whole notion of something interesting depends on one's definition of interesting. Rendering the Mandelbrot set solely by iteration count is easy, but can lead to uninteresting images in many locations/magnifications. However, that relies on only one aspect of the dynamics; using other aspects may reveal structures that are very interesting to another viewer. So, perhaps there isn't any intelligent zooming needed, as interest lies everywhere. It's all in how you look at it.

especially that added to suit the  greed of those who were once in power.

That is a failing of many ideologies, not just religious ones. Even a largely scientific ideology can exhibit that particular flaw. I guess it's just too easy to gradually slide from healthy survival instincts, by claiming ever slightly more resources, into pure greed.

Hello,

I am new to the forum, but please allow me to give my overview on this.

Your idea of what God is or "is needed" for comes from the assumption that he is only necessary or plausible if there are things which science can not explain. I see that assumption almost every time someone comes with the Science versus Religion debate.

Honestly, I don't think God's existence has anything to do with that. Since he is immaterial and transcendent, comprehending how the physical world works (through science) doesn't remove the possibility of the existence of spiritual realities which have nothing to do with ours.

Please understand that I talk about God here from an Orthodox Christian perspective, so that we don't get confused about the definitions of what he is and so on.

I can tell you how a light bulb works right down to the photons... but I can't tell you why it works that way

Its a complex answer... re = how, im = why

As the story goes
God created man to his image
Now it appears he's nowhere to be found
Perhaps not existing at all
What does that say about us?

When we iterate from the beginning
Starting with some cells that divide and multiply
At what moment do we become self aware
And see ourselves as separate souls?

How can matter feel solid
While atoms are mostly empty space
Sparsely surrounded by electrons
Who are all the same, though
never in the same place in space?

How many iterations does it take
Before a seemingly simple system
Like the mandelbrot set finally
Shows it's true shape?

It all seems to be about
The journey instead of the goal
The context not the points
Life and dream alike

Space flowing from the vacuum
Blows bubbles in all matter
And everything is caught
At the corners in between

If I had to image a god, it would be the one who is joggling space in a loop from nothing (vacuum) to all matter, through the realms of his dimensions back into ours.