"Construct Law"

[nebula]

We see a similar kind of optimism in the branching of blood vessels. I happen to think the forces exerted on the walls of the vessel drive (are the causal force) of the branching. Thus the force determines the design.

Are you referring to the growing of new blood vessels or that of initial formation in utero?

Specifically blood vessels, but every model for this I can think of has the forces causing the formation..

I think you misunderstood the question. Are you referring to new blood vessels (i.e. recovering from an injury) or when they are first formed in the body as a developing fetus?

[enoob57]

... that does not imply that his theory is right.

The book reviewer stated such.

What do you think of "math in nature" (I stated examples above)?

I think math in nature is cool. Without it, I would be unemployed.

Laterz

- viole

How do you explain such things occurring out of random meaninglessness?

And if random genetic mutations in unrelated organisms can create mathematically defined pattern, why would the "construct law" not be possible as well?

If you naturally select random meaninglessness than you have random meaning.

Many mathematical properties of nature are derived by local optimizations. If I pull a chain with my hands, I have a nice line segment. If I relax it, I have a nice looking symmetric

figure that looks like a parable. All this can be easily calculated by seeing what configuration requires less energy.

Typical examples are the angle that plants develop to optimize the exposure to light of their leaves. The plants who do not show this property have a disadvantage, so the remaining ones are the winners

who have this energy optimization in place. These angles are in close relationship with Fibonacci sequences etc. Optimization is driven by survival. Symmetry is driven by the fact that our universe derives

from the most symmetrical system of all: nothing.

Nature optimizes locally, not necessary globally. Take trees for instance. Why are they so high? All that energy used to grow high, be resistant against wind, provide channels to supply water higher, etc.

They are high, because they want to be better than they neighbors. If they could settle for a lower height, so that they all get the same energy without getting too complicated, that would be more optimal.

If I were a tree designer, I would optimize energy much better. But this is not how nature works, for the simple reason that a central designer is missing.

Ciao

- viole

Please! Viole open your heart to what rocks cannot teach... this is His Love for us to see

[enoob57]

... that does not imply that his theory is right.

The book reviewer stated such.

What do you think of "math in nature" (I stated examples above)?

I think math in nature is cool. Without it, I would be unemployed.

Laterz

- viole

How do you explain such things occurring out of random meaninglessness?

And if random genetic mutations in unrelated organisms can create mathematically defined pattern, why would the "construct law" not be possible as well?

If you naturally select random meaninglessness than you have random meaning.

Many mathematical properties of nature are derived by local optimizations. If I pull a chain with my hands, I have a nice line segment. If I relax it, I have a nice looking symmetric

figure that looks like a parable. All this can be easily calculated by seeing what configuration requires less energy.

Typical examples are the angle that plants develop to optimize the exposure to light of their leaves. The plants who do not show this property have a disadvantage, so the remaining ones are the winners

who have this energy optimization in place. These angles are in close relationship with Fibonacci sequences etc. Optimization is driven by survival. Symmetry is driven by the fact that our universe derives

from the most symmetrical system of all: nothing.

Nature optimizes locally, not necessary globally. Take trees for instance. Why are they so high? All that energy used to grow high, be resistant against wind, provide channels to supply water higher, etc.

They are high, because they want to be better than they neighbors. If they could settle for a lower height, so that they all get the same energy without getting too complicated, that would be more optimal.

If I were a tree designer, I would optimize energy much better. But this is not how nature works, for the simple reason that a central designer is missing.

Ciao

- viole

Please! Viole open your heart to what rocks cannot teach... this is His Love for us to see

Nice picture.

I like it how the photons from the sun are semireflected by the water. What is interesting is that there is no cause that drives the photons to be reflected or absorbed. The same particle of light hitting the same surface is reflected or absorbed not because of physical differences of state, but just by mere probability. A nice example of the random character of nature.

Another interesting aspect is that the reflected photons seem to hit the water so that the path from the sun to the camera is optimized to require a minimum of time.. This seems like a mysterious link between nature and mathematical regularity, but is not, really.

The same photon actually travels all possible trajectories at the same time; it is just that most of these trajectories come with different phases which cancel each other. Only the trajectories close to the minimum come more or less with the same phase (that is what minimum means, least variation between the time required in its neighborhood). Since the phases around the minimum do not vary wildly, they sum each other instead of canceling each other and are the ones left to be intercepted by the photodetectors of the camera or your romantic eye.

quantum electrodynamics 101,

Ciao

- viole

We love you kid and will keep praying for you to receive sight past the photons.... Love, Steven

[enoob57]

Viole, I know that your god is this place and your rule over your god is your own senses! However your logic stinks girl! Here is what your say because I cannot bring it into my perceptions and dominate it by my senses therefore it can not be! Where at least your logic sound you would say I cannot perceive it therefore I do not know if that it is or is not! No you make your sensual perception a god unto yourself and you command your god till the onset of nothingness... You know as well as I do nothing is a very hard thing to find? If in fact it even exist? Your natural world testifies there is always something and nothing has not yet been found - entropy says end- what then is the something that your natural world testifies of always being? Energy but not usable by our means then usable to what and why without end... these are the indicators that outside of your perception that there is more and that is just not yet perceived! I am in relationship with this Energy but I know Him as My Lord (Spirit) and I consistently witness of Him to you as does His creation... Love, Steven

[~candice~]

Neb, I'm trying to say these cool mathematical things we are talking about are resuls, not causes. They weren't designed, but perhaps the forces which bring them about may have been.

[enoob57]

However your logic stinks girl! Here is what your say because I cannot bring it into my perceptions and dominate it by my senses therefore it can not be!

Of course. There is an infinity of things that we cannot bring into our perceptions and might exist.

Examples:

- An invisible teapot is orbiting proxima centauri

- The ghost of my grandmother is at the drugstore now

- There are invisble mosters in this room

- The waether in Sweden might be influenced by Thor

- etc.

We are left with two posiibilities:

1) We pick some of these things and believe in them. But based on what criteria, since they cannot be seen? Personal taste? Intuition? Hope that they might be true?

2) We suspend judgement and treat them all with the same level of skepticism, for lack of better evidence

I hope you indulge on my stinking logic if I choose 2)

Ciao

- viole

Hope they are true is exactly what I get From His Word (hope is what your world needs! )

Heb 11:1-3

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

NKJV

There are closely 2500 prophecies in God's Word 2,000 of which have been fulfilled to the letter! Because this is empirical evidence

it can be studied by you to ascertain it validity! The mathematical probability 10²⁰⁰⁰happenstance or the Bible is false. Two of the most powerful witnesses of God's Own Word are

Da 12:4

4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end;

many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

NKJV

Daniel written about 536bc 2400 years before we see this combined prediction of travel knowledge and walla...

_{Job 9:8-13}

_{8 He alone spreads out the heavens, and treads on the waves of the sea;}

_{9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, and the chambers of the south;}

_{10 He does great things past finding out, yes, wonders without number.}

_{11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; if He moves past, I do not perceive Him;}

_{12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him? who can say to Him, 'What are You doing?'}

_{13 God will not withdraw His anger, the allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him.}

_NKJV

_{This stretching out of the Heavens is empirically founded in the find of the Dead Sea Scrolls 250bc and is believed to be}

_{written at the time of Abraham 2200bc bringing it in empirically 2150 years before scientifically proved or historicity wise 4100 years before proven...}

_{and is mentioned many times elsewhere}

_{Job 9:8}

_{Job 37:18}

_{Job 38:4-9}

_{Ps 102:25-26}

_{Ps 104:2}

_{Isa 42:5}

_{Isa 44:24}

_{Isa 51:13}

_{Jer 10:12}

_{Zec 12:1}

_{Heb 1:10-12}

_{Note also verse 11 as you yourself bear witness to this truth 'that you do not perceive Him'....}

_{11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; if He moves past, I do not perceive Him;}

_{Historicity and Biblical prophecy is empirical evidence of a magnitude to give evidence of Him! Here is a site of proving events both of historical record and predictions made by God's Word http://www.reasons.o...liability-bible}

_{This also fulfilling the witness of His Word that faith is to come by His Word!}

_{Ro 10:17}

_{17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.}

_NKJV

_{God's Word will instill saving faith in you... If you desire it? Love, Steven}

[nebula]

By the way, Viole -

Take trees for instance. Why are they so high? All that energy used to grow high, be resistant against wind, provide channels to supply water higher, etc.

They are high, because they want to be better than they neighbors. If they could settle for a lower height, so that they all get the same energy without getting too complicated, that would be more optimal.

Why did you describe a tree as if it has a mind, will, and emotions?

Does the tree know it needs to be better than its neighbors in order to want to be better? Does the tree even have an awareness of what makes it better?

Does the tree have a conscious awareness of the benefits and disadvantages of more height vs. less height?

Does the tree have the ability to choose to be higher or lower?

Are "wanting" and "settling with" regulators for tree height?

[nebula]

Neb, I'm trying to say these cool mathematical things we are talking about are resuls, not causes. They weren't designed, but perhaps the forces which bring them about may have been.

Are you saying that math created itself then?

[~candice~]

Neb, I'm trying to say these cool mathematical things we are talking about are resuls, not causes. They weren't designed, but perhaps the forces which bring them about may have been.

Are you saying that math created itself then?

Well what we are really discussing is not mathematics the tool but a particular mathematical result. A result doesn't exist without some causal factor. The results are really beautiful and to be admired, I just think they come about as the natural response to existing pressures on organisms, natural laws like gravity. Those causal factors were designed. Hope I'm making sense. It's still beautiful and praise worthy, and God is still the creator .

[nebula]

I can't speak for Viole, but I'm pretty sure it's just personification - everyone does this all the time. The tree "wants" to be taller to get more resources in the same way that same-charged particles "want" to get away from each other. It's the necessary outcome according to our knowledge of how the world works.

But if evolution is a mindless process, it confuses the issue to insert a "mind" into describing its processes. Don't you think?