The Mandelbrot Set: Atheists’ WORST Nightmare
2022 ж. 15 Жел.
1 423 932 Рет қаралды
In this powerful lecture, Dr. Jason Lisle reveals a secret code seen throughout creation: the Mandelbrot set. Why is the Mandelbrot set atheists’ worst nightmare? Because it reveals the infinite, intelligent mind of God in ways that you’ve probably never seen before.
You can watch the original full-length talk here:
• Atheists CANNOT Explai...
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world:
AnswersinGenesis.org/give
In the case of the mandelbrot set. The answer to "What causes the complexity?" is "The work done iterating the formula". It's not a nightmare. It shows us that the beauty and complexity we see in the word around us can arise from a few simple rules.
Rules and laws need to set in motion by a force. Humans did not invent the shape of the Mandelbrot set. What are the actual chances something like this is random chance? Paired with all the other complexities in life? You reach a mathematical number of impossibility when you start adding them all up to chance. Of course an athiest will never give you an inch though so im wasting my time.
I agree. These religious types tend to overlook the simple, but still extraordinary, explanations for things.
@@scottdemarest9315 It's funny and sad at the same time anytime someone thinks that they can disprove God by claiming that "simple laws" are all the explanation we need for the complexity and order of the universe... Where did these "simple laws" and every other perfect law that perfectly maintains order in the universe come from? Why did utter chaos not take over? Did a random big bang create this many perfect laws and this much order? How is the claim that a random big bang creating this many perfect laws and this much order not a supernatural claim that is based on faith? There is nothing simple about the laws and the order that governs our universe... To state that the laws and the order that governs our universe are simple is intelectual dishonesty. Just because you can explain something through science/math or various laws, it doesn't mean that God did not create them. That's the whole point of the video... the fact that something has a "simple" explanation that can be understood through science/math, it doesn't mean that God did not make it be so. Why do these numbers work exactly the way they do in such perfect order? They did not have to be so orderly and systematic, but they are. Why does math make sense and function so perfectly instead of it being complete and utter chaos? I'm not necessarily making the point that the order in our universe proves God, but that would be a pretty good argument. I’m merely pointing out the fact that being able to explain our universe through science/math doesn't mean that God did not create it... How does it make sense to say that the big bang made all of this order, but that God didn't?
@@Vladi.G great points! I see a mic drop. 🙂🙏
@@Vladi.G no one thinks it’s disproves God. People think it doesn’t prove God
As an Atheist, I am fascinated by the Mandelbrot! Not even close to a nightmare!
Same with me
Ikr it's so cool
ironic coming from a minecraft pfp
@@marquiseco.”IrOniC cOmiNg FrOm A hOrSe RiDeR pFp” See how that doesn’t make sense?
hmmm... i mean... hmmm... I'm not going to talk- @@dryfox11
I'm an atheist. I have no idea why this was recommended to me, but it was a very good, entertaining, educational and non-condescending presentation on a series of complex topics. At least until the way it got to religion - you're right that atheist mathematicians/scientists don't understand everything, but to most of us that's the joy of science. To be on the very edge of understanding and not understanding. Religious differences nevertheless, great presentation, thank you.
But that edge never is crossed nor can be. Only eternity will allow us to understand infinity. Hence the tragedy of science - it can NEVER reach its intended goal of understanding the universe. And always falls short...infinitely short...Limited success is ultimate failure. Only faith can answer the question that science forever seeks. When science is looking for how it works, faith points to WHO makes it work. For work it perfectly does, but fully understanding we don't. Friend - find peace in Jesus, Him who is the image of the True God. Science cannot give you that peace, faith in Jesus will.
The tragedy of religion is that it never tries to understand *anything*, it satisfies itself with medieval stories which "explained" things to people who thought iron tools were the last word in sophistication. "How does the work?" "God did it." only satisfies the feeble-minded.
It's not a tragedy of science, it's a strength. Faith is important on a personal level, but science excludes the unprovable. Some things are unprovable, and that's just the way it is. You could say, like this speaker, that God created math. You can say that, but I won't believe you because there's no proof in that claim - only faith. If I don't share that faith, then I can't accept that to be true. Turn to faith for comfort. Turn to science for truth. You can have both, just don't mix the two!
I thought the same. Very good presentation but the conclusion did not inevitably follow the evidence. For me, the reason that we get the same fractal patterns in nature and mathematics is because, in both cases, we are applying a simple rule repeatedly.
Some homosexuality is caused by child abuse. Why does the Bible want to kill them all?
im an atheist with a degree in mathematics and i often find that this argument is self-detrimental as it provides an example of astonishing complexity that arises from an extremely simple basis. If you have an understanding of the mathematics behind the mandelbrot set I would like to know which step along the way is the one in which god steps in
Day ONE, The FiRSt DAY
Great point: incredible complexity can come from simplicity. Everyone is free to choose whether that came from a creator or not, but there isn't any logical requirement to pick one or the other. I prefer the simpler case.
At the beginning 😉
no. the first "choice" is logically invalid. @@JeffLearman
@@yonaoisme I'm not sure it's invalid, but it would get cut by Occam's razor, which is why I'm not a believer.
Now I believe in Math, thank you.
I'm no longer an amatheist.
@@jameswest8280 I’m a mathesist
Anything to escape God huh? Not gonna happen.
@@oreally8605 man shapes dont prove god
@@oreally8605 provide evidence there is anything to escape from.
As an atheist I have always liked mandelbrot set since I first learned about it. It still hasn't given me any nightmares...
Satan has deceived you. In this life you are either a child of God, or a child of satan. Ps. Hell is a lake of fire, NOT a party place. Choose wisely!!
Dito😎
No nightmares, but where is God in that? I don´t see any god at all.
Your an atheist so your not to bright to start with
its a representation of how perfect God’s mind and how infinite it is… not a matter of how you can see Him
Einstein once said the most interesting question is whether God had a choice. He saw that the more we learn about the Universe, the more we can explain about it arising automatically from simple rules. And these simple rules are themselves not arbitrarily chosen, but are just what they are because there is no other way they could possibly be and still make sense! This video has successfully illustrated the point, that the more we learn about the Universe, the less room there is for a God to make up rules. All the rules we have found arise by themselves out of nothing more than examining what is logically consistent. This is really the absolute minimum assumption we can make by the way. To assume that a thing must be logically consistent with itself to be able to exist is the weakest demand we can make. And if that turns out to be ENOUGH to explain all that exists, then religion really has nothing to offer in the matter. And so the atheist position is strengthened, not diminished. Because if everything arises naturally out of the demands for logical consistency, then the only room left for God is to "push the button" that makes the Universe exist, but there is nothing he can do about the process to shape it in any way. Such a God is of course still a logical possibility, but it's not a very interesting God, and it most certainly is nothing like the Christian idea of God. PS I'm not an atheist. I think God is consciousness, and we are part of God, since we have consciousness. The miracle is us, not the Universe. The Universe just is what it must be to exist. But _we_ are magical! Consciousness is magical. It didn't need to exist, but it does. Logic has nothign to say about consciousness. Science can't grasp it. And yet, here we are. It's the mystery of Life itself. THAT is what religion is about, and this video's attempt to shoehorn religion into the realms of science and logic is both counterproductive and ridiculous.
The Greatest Wisdom is knowing how little we actually really do know!
Wow! I really enjoyed reading that. There is one problem that I see with the idea that there is no room for God to make rules, as logical consistency already completes what is left to be completed. Should an interfering God exist, one that is somehow beyond the universe, I don't see why logic, as it works in the universe, should apply to him, or why he can't just change how logic works. I'm an atheist, but this is one argument that I have never been able to think of a counter-argument for, and I find it a genuinely interesting thought experiment.
@@Faroshkas In a way, the scientific method is similar to the famous joke about the guy looking for his lost car keys under a streetlight, not because that's where he lost them, but because it's the only place he can see anything! By that I mean, the scientific method is fundamentally about applying LOGIC to our observations about the world and see what we can find. Since this can by definition only find whatever is logical to begin with, it absolutely cannot answer the question of whether something else _also_ exists that is beyond the limitations of logic. Logic is the streetlight, and if the keys aren't under it they won't be found. IMO, the only thing that is beyond the reach of the scientific method, is consciousness. We can study the brain and find out how it works on a technical level, but we can't say why there is consciousness hiding in there. Nothing is known about the nature of consciousness from external observation, all we can do is observe ourselves as conscious beings. Consciousness itself knows consciousness to exists, and yet there is no way to measure it with an apparatus. My point here, is that it is perfectly reasonable to hold the idea that consciousness is "from God", simply because science can't be applied to it to assert otherwise. But it is at the same time not reasonable to hold religious ideas about things where science actually has something to say! And that's why this video is dumb. Any attempt to "prove God" is dumb, since it's ultimately an attempt to use the scientific method to disprove science itself, by using a clownish imitation of the scientific method to "prove" something that actually is beyond rational purview. People with a religious mindset should leave science alone, and accept that faith is valid where science cannot go, and ONLY where science cannot go. Faith doesn't need to be proven, and CAN'T be proven, so why waste energy on it.
So maybe you or Einstein (the great bringer of death and destruction ) could answer this- who set those “logical” parameters? Who says any of the laws of physics are constant? Idk if you read any recent scientific literature but nowadays physicists are throwing out the Big Bang theory in favor of the idea that time and space are an illusion. So can you tell me who created this illusion? How did it come about? See you atheists can never answer simple questions like where did it all begin. And instead of revering people like the saints and our Holy Mother , you revere the people who gave us the A bomb. There is something wrong with that on such a basic level.
@@Faroshkas who said that God interferes? If they did wow just wow. There are consequences in life. You can choose to go to work or not go to work. Either way there’s a consequence to that choice. If you choose to go to work you get paid, if you choose to not go to work you don’t get paid. We all have a choice in everything we do. If God interfered he would have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning. God just informed them of the consequences before hand. They chose. That’s just simple truth. We all can make a choice to do right or wrong. A man once said “why would a loving God allow bad things to happen” but would a loving God take away your free will. Bad things happen because of people’s choices. If a man woman sexually molest her child the choice she made was bad. Did God tell her to do it or did she make a conscious choice. Bad things happen because of bad choices and other people are affected in the wake of that choice. Truth will not change you take a pencil and call it a sports utility vehicle it’s not suddenly going to become an S.U.V. It’s going to remain what it is. A Christian believes in God and an atheist claims they do not. The truth won’t change. If God exist or not the truth behind that won’t change. Everyone will find out that truth when they die.
I"m an atheist and the mandelbrot set gives me night terrors. I wake up in cold sweats. 🙄
Yooooooo, please take this serious - I care about you and I don't even know you - There's a war going on right now whether YOU believe it or not, more importantly a spiritual war, and you being a self proclaimed atheist is right where the devil wants you to be. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he doesn't exist. Makes you an easy target for his legion of demons. Watch the movie Nefarious. On the other hand God gave us the Best Gift ever, the power to choose bc Love cannot be forced but is chosen. And Jesus shed his Blood on the Cross for all of our Salvation and Redemption - All at the cost of FREE! So not one person can boast out of good deeds to earn it which God (Jesus in the flesh) did not want us to have to earn but given freely to All. We are in Biblical Prophecy now with Israel and Hamas. Please consider getting Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit! All to Gain and nothing to lose!
Yes, me too, it proves the burning bush is real!!! I've already sacrificed a goat and desparately try not to mix the fabric of my clothes which Jahwe really hates.
I have to admit, if you ignore the fallacious reasoning and logical leaps for the last 10 minutes or so, this man did an amazing job explaining sets, complex numbers, fractals, and the Mandelbrot Set. Good job!
What fallacious reasoning and logical leaps?
@ThePubliusValerius 1. At around 25:20, he says that "beauty is built into math". It's quite hard to define beauty, since it is something so subjective. I find the fractals beautiful, but one could just as easily find them drab and uninteresting - you can't continue the argument from there. 2. At 26:30, when defining numbers, though I could accept the definition that a number is a "concept of quantity", his analogy of "destroying the number 3 and thus making students count 1,2,4" doesn't make much sense. I have the ability to kill a chicken in front of you, but I didn't eradicate chickens, I only "destroyed" one. So despite accepting his definition, the argument for it doesn't hold much water. 3. At 27:40 he talks about the origin of math. Specifically if math "evolved". I'm not making the claim that math evolved, but his question "did 7 used to be 3 and then it evolved?" Misunderstands the concept of evolution at a fundamental level. I don't think anybody makes the argument that math evolved, but if they did, his breakdown of it makes no sense at all. 4. At 28:05 he asks if the laws of math were created by people. This is actually a deep philosophical question that many people disagree on. He even comments on the fact that some people make that assertion. Again, his explanation as to why the argument that math is man-made is faulty. It is possible to create systems that operate on different logical axioms, though there could be a couple explanations as to why it's difficult to imagine one (be it someone going their entire life using the current system or even the human mind evolving over tens of thousands of years to accept this system as natural). Either way, telling an architect that 2+2=5 or trying it at your bank obviously won't work, because you're still using the current logical system. So giving that explanation and coming to the conclusion that math can't be man-made is faulty. 5. At 33:50 he asks why the universe obeys mathematical laws. If math were man-made, an answer can easily follow: man created math in order to explain the universe. Therefore, the language of math is used to contextualize the universe. It obeys mathematical laws because we formed mathematical laws around the universe. If math isn't man-made, one could argue that the universe and math complement each other and are linked in their existence. 6. At 34:50 he said "you come up with something in your mind, does the universe just obey it?" But that's a misunderstanding of causation. A man sees flowers tens of thousands of times in his lifetime and comes to the conclusion that all flowers have petals. The universe doesn't obey his claim, rather his claim was shaped around the universe. 7. At 36:30 he says that there is no sufficient answer an evolutionist can give regarding math's ability to explain the universe. First of all, he's equating somebody who believes in evolution with atheism, though they aren't equivalent. An atheist can disbelieve in evolution and a theist can believe in evolution. However, my main point here is that even if atheism can't explain why math works so well, it's not reasonable to conclude that God exists (that's the God of the Gaps fallacy). In ancient Greece, just because you didn't know why the sun rose each morning doesn't allow you to conclude Apollo rides a chariot of fire across the sky each day and brings with him the sun. When you don't understand how lightning works, you can't conclude Zeus is fighting with his signature weapon. Likewise, just because you don't understand how math can explain the universe doesn't mean that God created it. 8. At 36:50, he claims that numbers existed before people, but since they're solely conceptual, a mind had to exist before people. But how did he arrive at the conclusion that numbers existed before people? Sure, 4 apples can fall from a tree before people existed, but the number 4 didn't exist, only the apples. The "fourness", as he would call it, is a concept that we attribute. 9. At 37:30 he claims that the world contains fractals. So...? I can create a circular function x²+y²=1. Once graphed, you'll get a circle. Nature has circles, therefore God exists? I don't understand that conclusion. Overall, again, I really liked this video. Most of it's really good. Just the last ten or so minutes are misguided.
@@deanyona6246 If your 'argument' pertains to 'a proof,' you're correct. However, a discussion from his premise will quickly show your "one could just as easily find them drab and uninteresting" to be well below 1% of respondents. So, your dismissive statement would dismiss itself as "drab and uninteresting."
How charming to throw conceptual 'mud' and then simply walk away as if you answered him in-kind. In other words, you liked his presentation but dismiss the implications.
@moongoonrex I commented on the beauty of mathematics because it is a subjective topic. Some people can find something beautiful while others find it ugly. It's a matter of perspective. I do concede my first point isn't a major gripe I had with the video (the only reason why it's number 1 on my list is because my list is organized temporally). Regarding your conceptual mud claim, I see nothing wrong with giving criticism. I didn't just say I hated something and walked away, I started by stating my appreciation towards the video, while giving what I believe is honest and valid criticism. Somebody asked me what I meant and I rewatched the video, going into detail about what my problems were. It took me over half an hour to write. Somebody who wanted to throw conceptual mud and walk away would not respond like that. finally, it's not that I liked the presentation but dismiss the implications, I liked the presentation, but find his conclusions unbased. I don't think the implications are such as he stated.
This is hilarious considering that the Mandelbrot set actually proves that complexity arises not by design but as a natural consequence of the interaction of simple components. 😂
@@abdullahimahamudbilehow does that relate to what he said? just curious
@@Meepmope it doesnt
@@abdullahimahamudbileno correlation
@@abdullahimahamudbilethe sun? You mean a star? Stars, they’re being Literal billions of them in our galaxy alone and there are billions of galaxies out there? Yeah I love stars but ours isn’t that special. The whole reason you have a religion is because you can’t accept the fact that the universe doesn’t care about your existence or mine or anybody’s for that matter. Cope by all means but quit spreading your harmful propaganda around the modern era thanks
@@woohooo4936 actually it is at the core of what he said. Regularity, uniformity, predictability... the very touchstones of science itself, are in fact not even scientifically "provable" but are axioms of sheer faith. We have no ability to "prove" the assumption of uniformity, yet we cannot assume otherwise. Aside from the clickbait title of the vid (which is not helpful) this is the essence of what is being claimed. There is an inescapable order and an "appearance of design" (thanks, Dawkins) to the cosmos. An atheist must argue that his anti supernatural presuppositions trump that appearance. ---ps. you may thank me for summing up The Blind Watchmaker for you in two sentences.
As soon as you plot a graph you have brought the conceptual into the physical. An incremental formula using negative values to infinity creating a pattern that is infinitely smaller and infinitely beautiful is no nightmare. Thank you for confirming to me there is beauty in everything.
As an athiest , i must say that this isn't my worst nightmare. This is pure beauty and just reaffirms my strong beliefs in aliens. ❤
so god's on an acid trip?
ironically he has Alienware laptop as an atheist, my worst nightmare people like this have a platform to spread this BS
My worst nightmare is that there are people who believe that a god really exists…
Man was created in the image of God. Man is a living being, so God is a living being. God created the Earth. If God created the Earth, he cannot originate from the Earth. Living beings that do not originate from Earth are, by definition, aliens. God is just an alien. A completely ordinary alien. Nothing special.
@@karayuschij I doubt that
“Mathematical concepts were not created, they were discovered.”
this was in the context of humans discovering math, not creating it. He wasn' referring to God
@@filetmignon9978, yes, I understood that too. Thanks for pointing it out though. Good day.
@@lynnharrell9598 👍
Fractals do not need any creator
Yes, that's why we use Arabic numbers and not Roman numbers. Oh wait! No, numbers are human inventions. And mathematics describes the properties of those numbers.
As a Christian, I don't think this is "scary" to atheists, or somehow conclusively proves the existence of God. It is some really cool math though, and I personally believe it adds to the glory of God, but I don't see how an atheist couldn't just be like "yeah. that's math." Nice, funny, cool sermon!
no buddy, atheists don't need fractals to be afraid, their sole naked factory-consciousness should do the job
I believe you're straight-up wrong. Evidence for God is literally all around us. It's our Ego and usually lack of a willingness to truly think for ourselves that keeps us blind to it. If you contemplate the complexity of a single cell, and all which composes your body, and all the subconscious processes and interactions which need to occur to keep your body living. If you've contemplated it appropriately, without bias, you must conclude God. I remember being under the age of 8 a determining that evolution, more specifically what they would term now macro evolution, was a lie. In an objective and logical way; mathematically the requirements for a new trait, which could also be considered "good" to come about, and then also become the dominant one that is passed down, even though it's rare, makes macro evolution something which simply would never occur. And literally an intelligent 6 year old can figure it out on their own. Now there's plenty of evidence on the net that macro evolutionist have been clawing at anything for decades, to try to conform it to their beliefs. So info is readily available but most people still believe in macro evolution. Even lots who would call themselves "Christian". A protein, DNA, RNA, all the parts of a cell and how it functions, none of it is "random" or "chance" or "Nature"; the only nature it is, is God's Nature.
@@F2332unn32i.e. your standard of proof is insanely low. You shouldn’t ever walk into a courtroom if that’s all it takes for you to reach a conclusion. P.S. macro evolution is an outdated term. Strangely enough, the only people that use it are ones that don’t believe in evolution (which is the scientific equivalent of not believing in gravity or particles).
Evolution is proven all over the place. AI programmers proved it. The fact that new strands of virus and pathogens were created, not despite, but because of the existence of medicine proves it.@@F2332unn32
@@F2332unn32" It's our Ego and usually lack of a willingness to truly think for ourselves that keeps us blind to it. If you contemplate the complexity of a single cell, and all which composes your body, and all the subconscious processes and interactions which need to occur to keep your body living. If you've contemplated it appropriately, without bias, you must conclude God" Retarded
The guy ironically showed that infinite complexity can arise from a simple rule(s), as per evolution, crystallisation, snowflake formation etc. It's the opposite of what the god hypothesis says: "That complexity must arise from further complexity". Own goal.
The Mandelbrot set didn't arise from anything. It's always been there, someone discovered its existence by means of using a simple equation. That equation is just a means to see that set, doesn't "create" that set. The same way telescopes don't create stars. Snowflakes may come from chance, but using that as an excuse to deify chance, attributing to it the very rise of complex life, is just as much exercise in faith as a theist's proclamation of a supernatural God (except the theist's standpoint is more reasonable).
@john4elohim No it wasn't anywhere. It is just a picture you need to calculate to draw. all the complexity and beauty we see was created by a computer using a simple rules. > The same way telescopes don't create stars. Math ideas are not stars. Ideas are created by men.
@@user-ct6sy5ky8p Ideas are created. Concepts are discovered (or realized). We don't have mathematical ideas, only mathematical concepts.
as a Christian, i agree. however, this argument only really works if it's viewed using a Christian mindset.
I was an atheist and now I'm a mathematician after this video
no.... u r a god's servant!
@@zaplershorts7783 I am only my own God
That was an interesting reply, with multiple layers to it.
@@zaplershorts7783 Evangelising on Social Media is ineffective... Im not even sure these platforms and others like it are even close to be Godly. You have to subscribe to a certain mind set just to even be on KZhead. Reading the bible you're in God's word, logging on to social media and coming to the comments you're exposing yourself to lowest form of spirituality possible. Its like trying to climb the tower of Babel to deliver a sermon and preaching to worldly people consumed with themselves.
@@ethan_max1792 this is foolish. By definition we literally could never be God. All these rappers and famous people claiming they are their own God are just narcissistic. And there is nothing cute or special about it. We are nothing bro. We aren't even a drop In the bucket. Our entire galaxy isn't even a drop in the bucket. Our galaxy would be like a single grain of sand amongst all the sand on earth. And our planet would be like a single grain of sand amongst our galaxy. And we are like a single grain of sand on the beach amongst all the other teeny tiny grains of sand. Don't be foolish be humble. God is watching.
The truth is always more crazy than the craziest predictions. Math looks boring because of school, but it's implications are absolutely mind-boggling.
So true… I’m terrible at maths. Yet when I see people do equations and all the rest of that Mathy stuff .. it’s quite astounding! I’m not be able to do it yet I can understand how amazing and truly brilliant it is.
When your hour of trying comes, cry out to Jesus and he will save you because He loves you so much.
if he loves me so much wouldnt he save me even if i dont cry to him?@@sk-un5jq
@@sk-un5jq Srsly One question? What the fk did u gain by this comment😂 Plss enlighten me O Great Sage
What did you gain from yours? An internal emotional response to your own actions and perceptions, the mild satisfaction of various social drives, and the feeling that you may have altered another person's cognition in ways you desired? If those things are true for you, then they're probably also true for them: you both found significant yet subtle benefits through what from certain perspectives looks like nothing but meaningless chatter. Further, given that this comment is on a Christian video, it is appropriate to both the topic at hand and its intended audience, meaning that such comments are likely not only expected here, but encouraged. So the comment in question also passes a test for socially appropriate or even friendly and polite behavior given its context, even if elsewhere it would be out of place. That's my possibly subjective opinion anyway. I know a lot of people frown at any hint of religious proselytization whatsoever, so maybe I'm considered objectively wrong in whichever specific group you feel you may belong to, if any. I do think I'm wrong for trying to answer a rhetorical question that doesn't really concern me, but it's not a bad way to pass a few minutes and I personally think that entertainment requires no excuses if it does little to no harm. @@namangaur1551
This is a nightmare in that we get to observe individuals wholeheartedly discount high, yet rational, complexity, to the whim of a deity simply because the human mind finds it difficult to comprehend. The nightmare is knowing that people are inflicting this abject deism on other people throughout societies, guiding policy and lawmaking, and subjugating people to their own narrow band of "belief."
Exactly. It is "the god of the gaps," yet again! Whatever we cannot fully understand is taken as "proof" of the existence of "god" (whatever THAT means).
I remember when this formula came out. Later, in the early days of PCs, I remember software that would calculate these plots for Mandelbrot sets and for Julia sets. It took longer, and the images were pixelated compared to the images in this video because of the quality of graphic cards of the time.
The Mandelbrot is the greatest fractal formula ever written. Every time I use a Mandelbrot formula for my fractal art, I'm never let down.
@@DlnCDMP3 Simve give not received a reply, I'll suggest that it may possibly be similar to 10:10 in the video?
If you have ears, hear... Religion is fake....Yeshua is the 10 commandments, whom is the Jew's eternal King or God: and whom became flesh to make himself an example for the Jews as he had promised them; So Obey the 10 commandments and Apply love to your lifestyle; exit religion, for the very first laws is to have no other gods before him, and it is written that no man can serve two masters; Sell your unnecessary possessions and help the fatherless, the widows, the poor, etc. *Again* Love yourself and your fellow brothers and sisters; if you have an extra t-shirt, give it to him that have none; likewise if you have 2 pair of shoes, give one pair to him that have none...*and no vaccine* ...again, If you have ears, hear....
Fractal art sounds intriguing
Computers. Clever aren’t they? And most people in the Midwest of the USA think that they’re full of little people doing sums and drawing pictures
@@nialllambert3194 is that what they think? I lived in the Midwest for awhile and I can assure you most people don't think that. 😂
If a fractal is an atheists' worst nightmare then we truly have nothing to worry about.
No, the atheist worse nightmare is living a life without meaning and purpose. Which inevitable ends up being the case for every atheist. It happened to me, it’s not pretty. Mandelbrot set should open your mind up about the universe following coherent, logical structures that couldn’t otherwise be possible without the existence of intelligence, a being that made it so on purpose. The chances of such well organized and beautiful phenomenon happening just because of “magic” is not convincing enough, it makes no sense. Is it plausible to believe that the universe we live in happened out of nowhere?, it just randomly decided to exist and in such a well organized, logical manner. No right?
I mean this seriously, but this is a skill issue. You absolutely can find meaning and purpose without a mysterious invisible entity creating everything. Unfortunately, it requires a bit more effort than saying "god done did everything" and pretending that gives your life meaning. Moving on, the universe following a coherent, logical structure is not even remotely proof of an intelligence. This is another weakness of religious people, they assume that any complex structure they can't comprehend MUST have an intelligence behind it.
@@shadowjuan2 It is entirely plausible that we live in a universe governed by chance, from beginning to end. It is not the most convenient concept for us humans to comprehend, but it is perfectly possible.
@@olivercharles2930 Mon anglais n'est pas suffisamment élaboré pour vous répondre dans votre langue. Je ne suis même pas mathématicien et j'avoue que dans ma jeunesse les maths m'ennuyaient profondément... Néanmoins le modeste esprit littéraire qui est le mien, a pressenti il y a de cela plusieurs années, que l'origine de notre univers repose sur des concepts mathématiques... C'est ce qui est dit dans cette vidéo, si le niveau de compréhension de mon anglais ne l'a pas trahie... Pour le reste, je pense qu'il est vain d'entamer des discussions sur l'existence on non d'un dieu créateur. Cela n'aboutit à rien, si ce n'est à des querelles d'égo pour savoir qui a raison... Je trouve bien sûr ridicule et caricaturale l'idée d'un dieu à barbe grise, mais non moins idiote l'hypothèse émise par un physicien athée, d'une onde d'énergie surgit soudain du vide ( néant). Je suis agnostique et je suis sensible à la beauté que je vois autour de moi, dans la nature et dans les plus belles créations humaines.., l'homme qui dans ces moments là, agit comme un petit dieu... Salutations de France.
....Except for the irrational anger towards a kind God
An atheist mathematician's take on this: I enjoyed his presentation of the Mandelbrot set, very well done. His conclusions, however, seems like leaps of faith (pun intended). To me, it seems that the main questions of the talk are (1) where does math come from? and (2) Why do mathematical objects occur (approximately) in the physical world? I will try to answer these more fully, and show how Lisle's conclusion that there must be an intelligent creator is flawed. (1) For the first question, Lisle quickly concludes that math cannot come from humans, since if it did, we could have invented it differently, and "2+2=5" would not work well for an architect. A different system would not be "true to reality". Immediately, this clashes against his statements later, that math exists "in the mind", but I'll ignore that for now. Since he requires that any mathematical system must fit reality, it is clear that Lisle is already assuming that our current system of mathematics fits reality perfectly, and that this is his basis for his argument. But this is false. To make a very long story short, our current system of mathematics has changed (or "evolved", if you will) for at least the last couple thousand years, mostly because people kept trying to use their intuition, that they gained from nature, in mathematics, but it turned out that mathematics was more complicated than nature. As examples, look up the parallel postulate, or the Weierstrass function. It would be naïve to assume that this could never happen again in some form. One could then say that our mathematical systems are man-made, therefore fallible, and we are simply approaching *the* mathematical system that God intended. However, this still has a major flaw. Perhaps the most famous meta-mathematical results in history are those of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Very roughly, they say that in any mathematical system which is complex enough to contain arithmetic, one of two things must be true: EITHER the system is paradoxical, OR the system is incomplete. Let me explain what this means. A paradoxical system is a system in which a statement can be true and false at the same time. Such a system is completely worthless, since you can prove that if one thing is both true and false, ALL STATEMENTS must be both true and false. In reality we have a strong sense of the law of excluded middle; which is just a fancy name for the fact that a thing is true OR false and never both. Thus, a paradoxical system could never describe reality. An incomplete system is a system which can formulate statements that are NEITHER true NOR false. It's not that we aren't good enough at our attempts to prove/disprove them - their truth value is independent of the system. In fact, it has been proven using logic (even more fundamental than mathematics) that our current most popular system of mathematics is incomplete: in the system called ZF, there is a statement called "axiom of choice" which is independent of ZF, i.e. it is neither true nor false*. But this contradicts our view of reality and the law of excluded middle again. A statement (that makes sense) is either true or it is false. For example, the statement "there exists intelligent life outside of earth" is a well-formed question, and for any given time, the statement is either true or false - never something in between. Conclusion being, no mathematical system will ever describe reality perfectly. Saying that God thinks mathematically seems very rude, since then God's mind is either paradoxical or incomplete. (2) For the second question, Lisle uses Dr. Eugene Wigner as a strawman for non-christian viewpoints. Dr. Wigner was an excellent physicist and mathematician, but he is no philosopher, and his claims that it is miraculous that the physical world obeys mathematical laws, and that we have the capacity to understand them, are not true. Also, his article is now ~60 years old, and philosophy has advanced a lot since then. There are many ways to explain this, but I will stick to one: bias. The argument very often presented, and very heavily presented by Lisle, is that of "look at this marvelous, intricate thing! THIS must be an example of an intelligent creator!", in the above case, the thing is the Mandelbrot set. But this is a biased argument: there exists such a multitude of things in the universe that, simply statistically, some of them are very likely to be extremely complex/beautiful/whatever. By cherry picking the ones you like, you make it seem like this intricacy is everywhere in the universe - but you will never have someone explain to you why iron ore, or the beak of a bird, or air molecules is an example of intelligent design. The argument made by Dr. Wigner in his article is much better, since it seems that mathematics are able to model many different aspects of science simultaneously, and gives incredible results and beautiful simplicity in otherwise chaotic situations. While this is fascinating, it does not have to be a miracle. Firstly, Dr. Wigner's conclusion is biased implicitly by the questions they ask, and how mathematics was shaped. Mathematics has throughout the ages been developed to help answer questions in science, particularly in physics. Mathematics do not exist independently of sciences, and suddenly being surprised that math is good at explaining science seems unreasonable. Also, mathematics and science has a symbiotic relationship, in that questions in one area motivates research in the other area, and new developments in one allows us to ask new questions in the other. Thus, math has also been part of shaping what questions we are even interested in in the sciences, so again we should not be surprised that math is great at solving them. One could imagine that another system than mathematics might have been better at explaining other things - such as how our brains work, what the better political system is, or any other question that we might regard as slightly "non-mathematical". Even if mathematics is truly excellent at describing all aspects of the universe, there is still one hidden bias, called the anthropic principle. In short, it says that for any question we ask, there is a bias that there has to be intelligent life for anyone to even ask the question. It seems so obvious that it is silly, but it is key to understanding our universe. Saying "why is the universe the way it is?" seems an objective question, but it is always biased by the fact that the universe must exist in such a way as to support intelligent life for the question to be asked. Thus, if we take a frequentist's point of view, one could imagine a million universes, and only one of them capable of supporting intelligent life. Let us for the sake of example say that this single universe can support life because it is warm. Then, intelligent life in that universe could reasonably ask "why is the universe so warm, when it seems unlikely to be so?" Well, it is warm exactly because WE LIVE THERE. This question would not be asked in any other universe, because there is no life to ask it. Similarly, one could imagine that the question "why is mathematics so good at describing reality?" has a similar answer: A mathematical universe is required, for some reason or another, to support intelligent life. It does not have to be created by God, but simply by statistics. (*) mathematician's sidenote: even if you accept ZFC, there are still inaccessible cardinals, and so on.
Lisle explains the Mandelbrot set very eloquently and without requiring the audience to know much math at all. As an allegory for the mind of God, I think the Mandelbrot set serves perfectly. It is infinitely complex in the literal sense that it would require infinite resources to render in its entirety and it represents a certain blend of repetition and unpredictability that makes it particularly beautiful. Really, though, it does not serve as an argument for God. There are so many fractals like this and it's pretty easy to come up with new ones on your own, and there are other systems such as the Lorentz Butterfly that are similar in their beauty. The Mandelbulb is another good example, a 3D generalization of the Mandelbrot that was invented in a fractal rendering forum. These things are all beautiful for the reasons mentioned above, but they are even more beautiful because their complexity emerges from such simple rules. That doesn't show God at all, it only demonstrates the property of emergence. It also makes sense that a mathematical equation would give rise to mathematical properties (the cardioid, circles, counting, etc.) It also isn't a "code" by any reasonable definition, I really don't understand how that word is meant to be interpreted here. The Mandelbrot conveys no knowledge that isn't required to make the thing, and doesn't encode any wisdom beyond counting, adding, and so on. It is a fascinating thing to study the properties of, but that's about it. To the contrary, I find its demonstration of emergence to be an excellent counter to the mind-body dualism which Christians often presuppose (and then go on to argue that their god offers the best explanation for). With the Mandelbrot, we see that complex properties sometimes emerge naturally from a simple system. Our consciousnesses, then, may also have emerged rather than requiring some external soul or agent to explain. It isn't a proof of physicalism, but it's a good way to explain emergence as a hypothesis for how our minds came into existence. If you want to use the Mandelbrot as a metaphor for the mind of God, then do that. I completely understand, it's a beautiful metaphor. Please don't call it an "atheist's nightmare", though. It makes no sense.
Some Titles get more clicks (Atheists will cover their heads in ash and be all crying when they see this) than other Titles (Learn about a beautiful math formula) Some Titles get more clicks (Christians like you are smart, and Atheists are not) than other Titles (Everyone will get along better after watching this video) Some Titles get more clicks (You are smart, everyone else isn't, and they will pay!) than other Titles (Let's all get along) I gather info from this meta data, as to WHY people click on these videos. It's almost like they still need approval from Dad and Mom, and this video gives them that? Maybe I'm wrong? Cheers!
Not a religious person at all and always found science and math could explain things... that being said I do find it odd that tesla said everything is energy, frequency and vibration which basically describes sound... and the Bible says In the beginning, God brought creation into existence by the power of His spoken Word. Not just by his word. They added spoken to that sentence. Idk I'm finding all sorts of things from long ago that seem to vaguely answer questions science has just recently proven. It's making me feel like we had these answers all along and something happened making us either forget or destroyed our records and only hidden answers survived but they're so vague...
@@BallsMcGee88 Ideas pertaining to vibration, energy, frequency, and so on have emerged throughout the world in many different ways. Scientifically, the concept pertains to the fact that everything is in motion. A hermeticist, for example, would probably relate the concepts to the vibrating motions of all atoms as well as to the orbit of the Earth and even the fluctuations of our unpredictable emotions. Not trying to devalue your thoughts, but I feel I should point out that the connection you draw is rather tenuous. Modern Christian apologetics tends to eschew the concept by saying that the Bible is not a science textbook, which is a great choice to make it in my opinion. The Bible also talks of all humanity descending from a single pair of people, of a flood covering all the Earth, of all languages diverging from the tower of Babel, and of an Exodus from Egypt and a war on Ca'naan that historically have no evidence. This is accepted fact among not only the scientific community but most Christian Bible scholars as well. AiG is an outlier. Stories like these can of course be read as metaphor, but we only now have the ability to discern what is true and what is not true in the Bible by comparing it to our observations. In the past, there was no way to discern the literal from the metaphorical. In a sense we always did have answers, but many of them were not the correct answers. Yes, the bible provides some answers where science may never be able to do so. That does not mean that the Bible's answers are accurate. Even if it is right about a personal god that made the universe, how can we assume it's right about what God wants? His personality? The afterlife? It certainly is not the only book that claims to be the word of such a god. I also can't help but wonder where, exactly, you are getting these answers from. It's not for me to know, but the best source is the Bible itself. If you are learning through AiG, I implore you to open a Bible. The Oxford study Bible is my go-to. The Bible is very much subject to interpretation (hence the countless Protestant denominations), and I would recommend you allow yourself to form your own.
@ekobadd1966 idk what AiG is, but I've been looking up stuff via Google and kinda started with the flower of life and kept rolling. Interesting it resembles so many different things. Like holographic light interference and the seed of life is in it, which looks like an embryo. The yin-yang also resembles a toroid, which is found all over, like in magnetic fields, tornados, plasma fields, etc. that's also in the flower of life. Lots of things just seem weird about people that long ago could know without the tech.
@@BallsMcGee88 AiG = Answers in Genesis, the channel we're currently on. That's why I thought you might be watching them. Can you tell me what you mean by holographic light interference?
This is possibly my favorite "atheists can't explain this" argument I've heard so far, both because they're making this argument completely seriously, and because the Mandelbrot Set is such a beautiful example of structure and complexity arising naturally without a need for a god.
I was the elegance of the mandelbrot set that gave me my faith in God. I was blow away by it's infinite beauty and was what made me realise that God and infinity are the same thing.
Complexity does not occur randomly. Concepts of quantity existed before man made characters and representatives of these concepts
@@lukethedude3902 citation needed.
@@drzaius844 the first commenter makes a claim that needs a citation as well. Why do you not apply this requirement evenly?
@@WishfulThinking-vg9tp if the big bang was a random occurrence and the macro evolutionary process arose from that, you have a complex process occuring randomly.. So no evolution doesn't explain anything here. That's circular reasoning
"Augustine was right when he said that we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us." - Norman L. Geisler
There is no truth in atheism. Atheism is simply a disbelief it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true and no quality of evidence can convince someone of something they don't have the willingness or ability to accept as true
'''We love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us.' - Saint Augustine" - Norman L. Geisler
29:33 SNOWFLAKES ... "Snowflakes have a fractal quality to them; they have that six-fold symmetry." But if you can be bothered to LOOK AT THE PICTURE...... you see a snowflake with .... *EIGHT* fold symmetry. Yes, it has EIGHT arms. If you don't believe me, _COUNT THEM_ !!! That's not *SIX* - fold symmetry; that's *EIGHT* - fold symmetry. Can you count? *CLEARLY NOT* !!!
@@simonmultiverse6349 can you tell the difference between real photo and CGI? Clearly not.
@@SilverKnobsHMDT The video says it was a SNOWFLAKE. The video says it has SIX-FOLD SYMMETRY. The picture says not. How can someone deliberately create a picture of something with *8-fold symmetry* and then say it has *SIX* sides?????????????
Great lecture on Mandelbrot set until the sudden 13:50 jump to "god's understanding is infinite". In other words "the Mandelbrot set is amazing - therefore biblical god loves you." My man, in that case, there is a whole bag of lectures in between completely missing. Lots of work ahead 🙂
Quantum Leap, Maybe if we say The Universe Loves itself, therefor it love is ❤
Notice there was no Bible quote for "God thinks mathematically". And no explanation why miracles exist if there are "invariant, exceptionless" laws? (34:40) This kind of god is not a christian god indeed. It is just something look-scientific.
@@Mabelstarot What?
@@user-ct6sy5ky8p That is not the vibe I got from the video.
There's some incredible beauty in math for sure, but while I cannot rule out a "designer" of the mandelbrot set, all of math is connected. You cannot invent only the mandelbrot set without also inventing the notion of complex numbers, squaring, and adding. To paint the beauty of the mandelbrot set is to also paint all the dull or chaotic parts of math with seemingly no pattern. Really, there's just patterns everywhere and it's up to you decide which to enjoy. It's not beautiful because God created it for us, it is beautiful because we ignored all the patterns that weren't.
Ignoring the jumps to religion, this is genuinely a _great_ lecture on the Mandelbrot set and the beauty of mathematics.
Why would I ignore the idiotic "jumps to religion"? That's what this BS lecture is about. And why does every comment on youtube give a great review no matter how silly the video is?
@@brucewalker6141 Is it wrong what he is saying? His religious interpretation may be disputable, but I think his math isn't...
religion is a blessing and a curse
@Choas_Lord_512 And so are religious people from time to time, attheists aren't wrong mentioning crusades, witch burnings, homophobia, etc...
The God of Math. Math didn't design itself and it's stupid to think it was always there. 1st off Maths causes the world to operate the way it does but it's conceptual meaning that it only exists in the mind and if maths was in existence before human beings that means There was a mind before human beings. And infinate mind. God.
There's really nothing nightmarish about the Mandelbrot set but it's sheer beauty as we stare into infinity.
Jesus spoke everything into existence in 6 days, then rested the 7th. We are to rest on the 7th day too.
@@statutesofthelord , the children of Israel under the Sinaitic Covenant were required to rest on the 7th day. Such a command is not included in the New Covenant under which today's Christ-followers live. If you find that hard to believe, read Colossians 2:16 and the surrounding context. And notice that Sabbath observance was NOT imposed on Gentile Christians at the Jerusalem meeting of the Apostles in Acts 15.
@@statutesofthelord "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." "If a man lost a sheep in the ditch on the sabbath, would he not pull it out?" From New Testament quotes like these, I believe God finds it important to rest on the sabbath, but does not require it of us.
@@lancepeterson7997 Lance, Jesus made those statements to show the true meaning of the Sabbath - to do good and save life. Nothing of what Jesus did or said in any way lessens the true requirements of the Sabbath. "You shall not do any work".
@@VelvetRockStudios nice
The universe does not inherently obey mathematical laws; rather, the physical world has an intrinsic behavior that we have learned to describe using the language of mathematics. Referring to these descriptions as 'laws' is a misnomer, as the universe is not governed by our mathematical constructs. Instead, we stumbled upon numerical patterns and scenarios that closely resemble and model the behavior we observe in the universe as we explored and played with numbers over time.
THANK YOU! Math “LAWS” are descriptive, not prescriptive.
It's sad seeing an intelligent person decide that "it's beautiful, complex and infinite, so it's god" instead of just keep learning about math and patterns and the beauty of never settle for an unexplained mystical entity. Keep learning. Keep exploring. Keep knowing. Faith is a stop.
It's not scary, it's beauty and wonder
Exactly!
The incomprehensibility is the horror aspect of it, but no need to fear god’s knowledge bc there’s no reason to picture yourself with that knowledge, or picture the knowledge itself
@@wyattcole5452 Jesus Christ! Help! Philosopher. Even fideist-idealist... what could be worse?
@@michalpetrilak3976 what makes you think I relate to Fideism whatsoever?
@@wyattcole5452 Because you are talking about God's knowledge. I would not at all drag into the discussion such indefinite (fuzzy) terms as God. Everyone imagines something different under it and it's just a mess. After all, we wise ones know that there is an Absolute without attributes, outside of space-time, which never came into being or will never disappear. It is Presence and Nothingness beyond all description of words or logic. . It is not graspable by science.
Here's a sumary of the content with timestamps, for those who want to see either the mathematics, the fractal or his philosophic interpretation thereof. (I tried to keep it neutral) 0:00-1:24 Proposition that there's a secret code built into numbers by god 1:24-10:35 introduction to necessary mathematical concepts needed to generate the fractal images in question 10:35-13:49 some interesting geometric properties of the Mandelbrot fractal 13:49-15:25 claim that the infinity of a gods mind is necessary for the infinite complexity of the fractal 15:25-19:53 exploration of some visually appealing regions of the fractal 19:53-20:14 claim that the beauty of the fractal must have been encrypted in the underlying mathematics by god 20:14-21:57 effects of changing the formula on the appearance of the fractal 21:57-29:00 Secularists are unable to explain why there is beauty or infintite complexity in the fractal, as opposed to christians... 29:00-33:25 examples of proximate fractals in the pysical world similar to fractals in mathematics. 33:25-38:24 Secular people are unable to explain why the physical universe obeys mathematical laws, as opposed to christians... Now the critical summary: The mathematical buildup sounded aptly designed for the audience, average citizens that only have rudimentary mathematical knowledge that is. Well done on that part. The exploration of the fractal itself was interesting as well and had some nice variety. But the rest is just the same old storye as always: Claiming, sometimes rightfully so, that secularists don't have the answer to some deep question (Why X?) only to answer it along the lines of: Because the christian god made the world such that X! One couldn't hope for an answer less lazy than this... Or less helpfull for that matter...
Took too long to find this comment. Saying "AtHiEsTs ArE nOt GoNnA lIkE tHiS!" Is for the already christian audience to give them reassurance at best. He is taking a scientific and mathematical discovery and cramming it into his religious narrative. And i don't see why this would prove atheism right or wrong, this changes nothing.
TLDR: Simple rules, when repeated countless times, can reveal surprising beauty and symmetry. This works in math, cosmology, chemistry, plate tectonics, biodiversity, climate & weather, etc. This video was a fun (and pretty good!) introductory dive into the wonder of fractal math, for those who may have never seen it before! ... but for the rest of us, it reads like a master class in Missing The Point.
Well he isn't wrong (x)
@@mattperkins2538 Beautifully explained, I couldn't have said it better myself. This explanation is somehow thorough, concise, and easy to understand at the same time. Well done.
@@PJM257 That's very kind of you, but in all fairness, I probably stole most of it subconsciously from Richard Dawkins or somebody. :)
I'm always impressed with the sheer ubris of religious believers, having the guts to declare they know it all, believing everything, without questioning, written in a book hundreds years ago. Mathematics is the product of the human mind. Its basic principles are simple, and from this simplicity comes the, still not well undestrood, idea of complexity and, let alone, beauty. Physics builds theories on maths, and the laws of Nature seem to agree with that. Problem is that these theories are an approximation and we will never achieve perfect laws of Nature (a theory must be falsifiable). The fact that math now works does not tell us anything about the future. These laws may change, and they may change randomly. We seem to live in a stable gap of laws, hence the growing complexity and life. From life, mind. From mind, math and, sadly, god.
I had to laugh at the title of this. My maths tutor daughter, a confirmed atheist, is especially keen on the Mandelbrot set.
I was an agnostic and God revealed himself to me with this. I had no idea what it was. It was profound. I knew there was a creator after I saw it in my head. It sent me on a mission to see what it was about. Praise God
Good,or god? I believe in good, but not god.
@@jerrylong6238 pretty sure he said praise God
Hey there! May I ask how you're doing now? Lemme know if I can share some helpful resources with you that have been tremendously beneficial for me.
@@angelt.5276 I have a relationship with God that I never had before. I'm always open to more information though. Let's see what you have.
@@marksimmons4414 God has infinite beauty to discover friend! I pray you would continue to dive deeper and that God would be tangibly present in your life. God bless you brother!
It's just a pattern. It's aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't mean any more than that. The confusion being presented here is based on the assumption that the boundary should not show a pattern. But.. it's generated by a human created pattern, the algorithm. You should expect patterns to be the result of algorithms, be it a very simple pattern (like a straight line or curve) or a very complex one like this; in fact it's really really hard to make a deterministic algorithm produce output that is even sufficiently random (pseudo-random) which is a problem that has been addressed in computer programming. So the speaker makes a false assumption that there should be no pattern, when in fact the opposite is true; one should expect one. The Mandelbrot Set just produces a complex, nice looking one.
jaxtraw, the speaker is trying to find proof of a god that he knows was invented by humans. He does this for money.
@@timhallas4275 Well yes, there is that as well.
I think you may be missing the forest for the trees.
@@mfsevin8782 No. He is correct.
I don't think it's just that we are surprised that there's a pattern; its properties of repetiton and novelty carried on infinitely evoke a sense of awe and we experience it as both wonderful and beautiful. Similar profound experiences happen when we ponder the gratuity and givenness of existence. The mystery of consciousness is also awesome to us, in the technical sense. True love or charity (in the Christian theological sense or the romantic or familial approaches to it) also inspire awe and gratitude; Our sense of objective morality; these are all things that are mysterious, evoke powerful emotional reactions, and are hard to explain, especially on an atheistic worldview. I don't know for sure if there is a God, but the man has a good point.
The statement that that the Mandelbrot set reflects nature and that therefore nature obeys math and that therefore god must exist, can easily be disproved: The Mandelbrot set is inherently deterministic, and nature is inherently non-deterministic.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of what God made and who He is. Even eternity will not be enough for us finite beings to even begin to understand an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God!
"If I can't explain it, God did it"
"if i cant explain it, must be a random accident"
More accurately, “if an explanation does not appear to exist in the natural world, it necessarily must be explained supernaturally”
Yes
Oh, many people said in God’s name, the earth is square and the Sun cycles it until some day, someone smart questioned the notions and did measurements and objective observations and calculations. Also, we cannot find the cold truth by finding evidences on what they tend to believe. In fact, to know who created the universe does not matter. Exploring how to be a fair human being is much more practical and productive than that. Wish it makes some sense. Self-similarity is one of the natural phenomena to form a stable and sustainable physical and biological system; however, it does not mean it is created by any God. Also, no one can judge what God thinks and likes, which is pretty arrogant. Doctor, right?
That's basically it, just said in a much more elaborate way
The Mandelbrot set was discovered because mathematicians like doing math for fun. There's a lot of things like this
But it did not start existing because of that
@@Felipe2009cvb yes it did
@@Dragonryu So something starts to exist at the moment someone discovers it? By your logic gravity started to exist when newton saw the apple falling... Must be a really weird place, your mind.
Penicillin was discovered because A.Flemming was a very untidy scientist and had a desktop overfilled with stuff that got mixed up and started a life of its own right there.. well thats maybe not 100% true, but not all lies either....
@@Felipe2009cvb key difference is that gravity occurs in nature and the Mandelbrot set does not
As an atheist with a maths PhD, I have mixed feelings about this talk. On the one hand, it's a decent enough pop maths talk if you ignore the "wizards did it" ideology. And I approve of drumming up public interest in maths. And he's right when he says that maths is a beautiful thing, although not usually in a superficial way with pretty colours. But then he's tacked on a load of dubious stuff about how God made the Mandelbrot Set. He says there's no other explanation for why it's like that. In saying this, he's showing none of the intellectual curiosity you'd expect from a proper educator. Mathematicians look for reasons why their discoveries should be true, and those reasons are called proofs. Scientists look for mathematical models, and do experiments to test them. These investigations satisfy the itch you get when you discover something you weren't expecting, and they have absolutely nothing to do with deities. This is very different from the religious attitude: "Isn't it pretty? Don't think about it too much. God must have done it!" For most of the stuff I learned at university, I was shown proofs. I don't know how much of what we're told in this video about the Mandelbrot Set has known proofs. Even if it hasn't been proved yet, that's OK - there are still plenty of open problems, but the solutions may come with time. It's a God of the Gaps argument - theists say here's a pretty thing we can't explain so it must have been a god, but meanwhile the researchers are busily filling in the gaps.
12:35 "It knows how to count". No, it does not. It is literally like saying "the three stones lying on the ground next to each other know how to count to three". I know he might be using this figuratively, but this is exactly how it gets wrongly assigned to some "higher being" that can count to infinity = is infinite itself = listens to my prayers = etc etc.
Yeah but then what about the branch in the middle equalling the sum of the 2 branches on each side ?
@@maddogtannen6984 ...therefore god?
It is true that the mandelbrot set needs divine explanation. Therefore it is valid to state that the Spaghetti Monster (sauce be with him) made this all.
Most sane man here
@@robertvangeel3599 zelensky lol
R'amen!
@@bart-v ?
So, first of all, math is not the study of numbers, though it may have started as such. The speaker lost all credibility when he stated that it's a miracle (and, btw, Wigner's "miracle" was more of a manifestation of geekly awe rather than "wow, there's no natural explanation for this") that math describes the physical world. It's actually worked the other way. When setting up the foundation of Euclidean geometry, for example, it was postulated that there's only one line going through a point that will never meet another line (which doesn't contain the point). Why? Because the physical evidence pointed to that being a law of the universe. Mathematical axioms (and all math is built on axioms) are statements accepted as true, and all the math is built on them. The axioms are sometimes adopted as fitting the pysical reality, sometimes not so much (math can diverge a lot from physical reality if it cares to). Plus, most modern math has played catch up with science (math is not science, it is the quantitative language of science), especially Physics. Some dude didn't like the loose way physicists were computing new things and put some order in all that. So, math does describe the physical world inasmuch as the adopted axiomatics does.
This is a grate maths lesson if nothing else, and if only it was done this way when I was at college, reminds me to brush up on my calculus!!
“Atheists don’t have the answers” math and creation arguments aside, we never pretended to have all the answers. We have theories, but everything could theoretically switch based on evidence
Exactly. I feel like this is missed in these conversations. Christian apologists will say we can't prove what came before the big bang, therefore the Christian bible is true? Where is the logic in that.
@@danielhamilton3496 a lot of the bible is history that can be proven true and there are people from it that were proven to be real people. Found through artifacts and writings from different people around the time.
@dejawalston6155 I couldn't care less if a man named Jesus actually existed. I'm talking about the creation of the universe and the nature of existence. Religion provides exactly zero evidence of it's claims here yet Religion pretends that any gap in knowledge by science is somehow a proof of thier religion.
Religious fanatics have answers without asking themselves questions in the first place. They're sheeps 🤡
Faith is healthy tho
I like how he shows complexity arising from a simple process as a case for creationism.
dude exactly
I suspect he didn't think of that, despite literally making a video about it.
The worse part, and I'm a christian myself, is that the argument itself is disconnected from the presentation about fractals whatsoever. It's just the question about why does the universe obey mathematical laws, and he ends up making a purely emotional argument with "awe" and "greatness" in truly simples beautiful things
Creationism has been disproved a long time ago by scientists like Darwin when they discovered the process of evolution (Pls don't say that there is no proof of evolution; we have a lot of proofs (fossils being the most simple ones), Google them if you wanna learn)
@@sudiptadeb3107 darwin believed in god, what are you on about?
I believe this entire comment section missed the part where the equation doesn’t make the Mandelbrot but rather puts what already has existed since the very beginning into or onto something that always you to see it visually In caveman terms Man play with equations Man discover a equation that make this shape Man discover shape is infinite Man confused with math discovery how shape is man doesn’t know But shape always exists Shape very complex Who made shape
The Mandelbrot set actually proves that complexity does not require design. It's the apologists worst nightmare.
Eight minutes in, I am reminded why I dropped math, and spent the last three years of high school learning business math which I use every time I balance my checkbook.
And that’s also perhaps why much of what makes life worthwhile has totally passed you by, and you’d have no way of knowing. If you live underneath a rock in smallville Ky or Mo etc your world will always look like the underside of a rock in some useless backwater.
@@nialllambert3194 Yeah, you're probably right, Niall, my dismal life would be so much better under this rock had I learned calculus and trigonometry, I still write Pi as 3.141. It appears to me your up-turned nose comes in handy considering your attitude for persons living in 'fly-over country'. I watched the entire video, my comment was 'tongue-in-cheek', get a sense of humor lest your life becomes dismal as well.
You made it about 7 minutes longer than me before I felt that way. You Brainiac you. To be clear, I'm not knocking it. I'm a Christian. Maybe I'll try it another day and my brain will be a little clearer.
Balancing a checkbook? Like doing addition and subtraction?
@@DaBlaccGhost Your degree is paying off, good job. Are you off today or unemployed?
"Imaginary" numbers is not the original term for them, instead they were called "lateral" numbers. The term "imaginary" was utilized by Descarte, who was a critic of the concept.
Nice tidbit.
Cartesian skepticism.
If I'm not mistaken, Gauss was the one who prefered to call them lateral. Before Descartes, they didn't really have a name
I think I'd have called them perpendicular, but lateral is better than imaginary. As an aside, I think we've inferred the number line as a concept of time, where 0 is now and positive numbers are the future with negative numbers representing the past. After nearly 50 years of deep meditation, it's been decades since I've seen time that way. I see the present moment as being real, with the past and future being imaginary constructs. The present moment is continually being replaced and the creation, existence, and expiration of each moment is perpendicular to the usual timeline. It's the imaginary numbers of it's domain.
Didn't someone call them "fictitious numbers"
Mathematics is a conceptual language, a human creation which arises from the human tendency to look for patterns, which is something our brains have evolved to do. But all the mathematical laws in physics e.g. Kepler's laws, are the best approximate descriptions we can find to describe things we observe in the world, until they are replaced by a better approximation, like Einstein's general relativity. Really we have a patchwork of different physical theories that describe different aspects of the physical world to a lesser or greater extent depending on the context. It does not prove the existence of an intelligent creator, it just shows that we have evolved to be rather clever at creating mental models that give an accurate picture of what we experience. If you study mathematics, especially mathematical logic, then you will find there are different choices of axioms for set theory, and certain statements can be consistent or inconsistent depending on what axioms you start with. Also, there are many different choices of number systems: the number pi makes sense in the real numbers, but there are other number systems (finite fields, p-adic numbers, etc.) where pi doesn't exist. Assuming that physical space is a real continuum is something we have been doing at least since Euclid, but there's no reason why this must be true (especially at the quantum level).
Mathematics was actually "Discovered" and taught to us by a higher intelligence. Math describes relationships between numbers. Why is there 60 sec in a minute or 24 hours in a day? Who knows - we were just taught this to be a true measure of time - which is once we spend it (Time) - we don't get it back. 369 theory.......
@@bk3rd_para_lel the reason we use 60 and 24 comes from the Sumerians, who used sexagesimal notation (base 60) in 300 BC. The reason for using that base, and those divisions for time, is that 60 and 24 have lots of factors, so provide lots of ways to divide things up (land, goods, time). There's no reason to invoke any supernatural or 👽 extraterrestrial intelligence! Furthermore, most mathematics does not describe relationships between numbers. The core parts of modern mathematics are geometry, algebra and analysis. Most of these subjects have very little to do with numbers, in the sense you understand them. They deal with abstract patterns and structures.
Tackling just one point that sort of represents the whole thing: "The secular worldview cannot account for why the physical universe obeys mathematics." is conceptually false in multiple ways. The physical universe does not "obey" mathematics. Mathematics was created by people to describe the universe. Which exactly fits with the secular worldview. Why does their need to be a "why"? You only need "why" if you can't accept reality as it is in all its magnificent mix of complexity and simplicity. If you don't get what I mean then you need to examine both fractals and reality in more detail.
he literally demonstarted how a random simplest formula given enough time can give rise to infinitley complex structures i think he destroyed his own asssumtion that complexity must come from a complex designer and this is a video every atheist must watch
@zainroshaan's comment is so key; esp. its phrase, "A simplest formula, given enough time, can give rise to infinitely-complex structures" \ -- in infinitely- _elegant_ complexity, as well \ (This naturally happens in so many aspects thru this beginningless endless limitless universe; esp., it happens as living patterns \ ) \\
People who understand mathematics have no problem with this. I had a spirograph. It was like magic, but explained with math, too.
Spirographs made me religious.
So that's the name of that thing! Thank you! I had one as a child and still remember my first goose bumps caused by the observation of how it works. Cheers!
This comment made my day. I'm finding more and more that when things look like magic, it's usually just science I haven't learned yet.
@@WilhelmFreidrich I'd get 95% of the way through a complex thing and slip, so they had the opposite effect on me.
its amazing what God can create
As someone who studies religions, this argument hinges on what's called "The God of the Gaps", combined with a form of Intelligent Creationism. I assume most people know Intelligent Creationism: the concept that the universe was Designed by some deity(s) on purpose. "The God of the Gaps" is the concept that science and math can explain a lot of things, but not everything, and that the gaps which aren't yet explained by science and math, are then explained by religion. It's a fallacy for many reasons, most critically that lots of those gaps are eventually explained by science/math, but also because a lot of science/math was invented explicitly to try to understand god(s).
Firstly, 1:23 a set is NOT a group (of numbers)! A group is a set together with a binary function/operator (*) which together satisfy the following properties: 1. For all elements x, y, z in the set: (x*y)*z = x*(y*z) 2. There exists an element e in the set such that for any element for: x * e = x, we call that the identity element (also often 0 or 1 depending on your operator) 3. Each element x has an inverse x^-1: x * x^-1 = e 4. The set is closed over *, which means that for every x, y, in the set there exists a z also in that set such that x * y = z Secondly, 1:42, ALL sets have to be well defined. Maybe youc ant compute that for specific numbers, but still an elemnent is ALWAYS included or excluded in a distinct way. If you cant tell by "looking", well thats a skill issue i guess, doesnt make that set more or less special. Maths isnt concerned by what you can do in your head vs what you need a calculator for Thirdly, imaginary numbers were INVENTED simply because the "god given numbers" didnt work in that case. if the square root if -1 is given by god, then so are vacuum cleaners and atomic bombs. For me that shows that the mandelbrot is an example for there being no corelation between maths and an omnipotent being Fourth, 11:49 "the mandelbrot set knows how to count" this is just a plot of the set. a visual interpretation. the set, and certainly not its plot, are not sentient and dont "know" anything. guess ill worship the mandelbrot set now cause it is sentient and smart. Now, why does it "know" how to count? Because its made up of numbers! If you construct something from numbers, its gonna have numeric properties, easy as that. Fifth, 22:47 why is the fractal god made and the color scheme manmade? why didnt god think of that color scheme when he thought of that set? Why did we not pick that formula the same way we picked those colors, why is one from god and the other isnt? 23:26 regardless of whether the computer plotted this or us by hand - we plotted it, not god. we wrote the code, we built the computers, we did the calculations 25:00 what causes the complexity? its chaos theory. small nudges to input give great differences in output
this was filled other bizarre and unfounded lines, for me at least, such as: “it makes this very unexpected pattern” and “somehow it knows how to count, that’s kind of remarkable” his entire speech so far (i’m not finished) has been filled with assertions of hidden and surprising meaning, all of which have so far just seemed like normal math.
"Guy who didn't realize math was cool has just realized math is cool." He seriously has no idea how to interpret fractals if he's landed on "god exists" as his conclusion.
@@derekwood7329 Finally, someone with sense.
He's discovered that counting exists within mathematics. Stay tuned, he might discover that the sun gives off light.
Finally I found the comment thread I belong to
@@WyvernYT I hope he figures out how to make a baking soda volcano while he's at it. It'd probably end up being more useful then his entire career anyway.
"I barely understand this, therefore magic. And its beautiful, therefore supernatural cause." Something complex isn't by definition magical.
We've come so far 🤣 We went from people scared of lighting, offering it meat and children in an attempt to bribe the gods to not harm us, to going on stage and uploading a 25 minutes presentation of: iunnomussbegawd 🤣 It's amazing to me how in thousands of years many have learned so much about the world around us, yet some of us became proud of our incredulity and the unfounded conclusions we can't reasonably draw from it and draw anyway and they use the actual knowledge that has proven all those other gods of the gaps false to proudly proclaim that theirs still has a gap to shove it in 🤣 Not that I agree that that gap actually exists, but I don't feel like explaining how languages work right now. Simplified: I am not at all surprised that the word ball is so unreasonably effective at describing a ball any more than I am surprised that math works in a universe that emerges from fundamental fields and their inherent particles that everything consists of. It would be far weirder if the water from my tap behaved different from anyone else's water.
As a staunch and devout Christian, I thank all the humans who, throughout the past several millennia, came up with this system of mathematics to produce such rigid models and beautiful fractals. From the ancients in the middle-east all the way through Benoit Mandelbrot himself. These works of man are gorgeous and wondrous, and surely bring a smile to God's face seeing what we can create. Mathematics, however, is a human invention. God did not invent it; They created the universe and all things within it up to humans, and then humans invented the societies we live in and all the tools we have, including mathematics. Don't praise God because your surgeon is talented and spend decades refining their craft; thank the surgeon.
This clearly displays the depth and eternal magnitude of "The Author" of life. What is even more fascinating is that THIS portion being presented is but a very miniscule peek at who the Almighty Creator is. Atheists would do well to put their prideful ignorance aside and recognize God's magnificence and holiness. "For what shall it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and lose his eternal soul?" Mark8:36 "It is the fool who will say in his heart, "There is no God." PS14:1
It's a nightmare how you can't accept that you can't prove God's existence with arguments
Well it's pathetic... Not sure if I would call it a nightmare
@@Jewonastick well yeah
@@Bomtombadi1 how so what?
It is the lack of evidence that is the greatest conformation of the existence of God. I mean look at it this way, God created the Heavens and the Earth and the one thing he asks is to believe without knowing, without evidence. One as omnipotent in order to create the Universe is certainly capable of cleaning up the scene of any evidence, no ? For me the apparent lack of evidence was always the most solid 'evidence ' of the existence of the Creator.
@@Bomtombadi1 cause it's anoying
Dude literally woke up one day and said he understood God’s mind
He doesn’t claim to understand it just a small part of it. The complexity and how it must be impossible for the world to exist in literal infinite complexity just by chance
@@jokebird6479 But that doesn’t follow from anything. And “infinite complexity” are so far just words with no precise definition. Now let’s do inferences from cosmological questions about inflation, matter-antimatter asymmetry and so on. Real soil for unbased extrapolations here.
This is a new type of heresy and It's honestly incredible. I miss the early church heresies where you could just say stuff and cause a major global conflict.
You are projecting arrogance onto him which, while might be a little true, as we are all arrogant to some degree, is not warranted here. He said this discovery gives insight into God’s mind.
@@jokebird6479there’s no definiative proof that the world is infinite though lol
The statement "The mathematics of sets and logic are not infinite" was made by Kurt Gödel in his famous paper titled "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I". In this paper, he introduced the concept of undecidability, which showed that there are mathematical statements that cannot be proven true or false within certain formal systems.
Is this like the idea that logic always necessarily leaves a piece unanswered, because in answering that unaswered piece you create a new logic with its own new unanswered piece? (Sorry if I'm misrepresenting, I'm just trying my best to understand.)
Fractals are infinite.
mathematical identities follow by logical necessity. 1+1 equals 2 in virtue of the identity of the terms. what is equals (=)? an operator which takes two or more parameters and yields a truth indicating if its arguments represent the same entity. what is addition (+) (and multiplication (×))? binary operations on a set which satisfy at least some of following axioms: 1. there is a 0 such that for all x, x+0=x. (addition identity) 2. for all x and y, x+y=y+x. (addition commutativity) 3. for all x, y and z, x+(y+z)=(x+y)+z. (addition associativity) 4. for all x, there exists a (-x) such that x+(-x)=0. (inverse element addition) 5. there is a 1 such that for all x, x×1=x. (multiplication identity) 6. for all x and y, x×y=y×x. (multiplication commutativity) 7. for all x, y and z, x×(y×z)=(x×y)×z. (multiplication commutativity). 8. for all x, iff x is different from 0, then there exists a y such that x×y=1. (multiplication inverse element) 9. for all x, y and z, x×(y+z)=(x×y)+(x×y). (distributive property) what is 2? if it exists, a number which satifies the following equation, for all x: 2×x=x+x. let's suppose that 1+1 indeed equals 2. then i can substitute it in the equation above: 2×x=x+x (1+1)×x=x×x applying some of the axioms above, we can see that this expression is trivially true: (1+1)×x=x+x x×(1+1)=x+x (x×1)+(x×1)=x+x x+x=x+x it is inconsistent for 1+1 not be equal to 2, hence necessary that 1+1=2.
A theist citing the Mandelbrot set as an indication of a creator is maybe the greatest own-goal in the history of this debate. 😂
An atheist citing A theist citing the Mandelbrot set as an indication of a creator is maybe the greatest own-goal in the history of this debate. 😂 is maybe the greatest own-goal in the history of this debate. 😂
Considering that the Mandelbrot set proves that complexity can arise from the natural interaction of simple components, it obliterates the theists’ central argument that the complexity of the universe somehow necessitates a creator. So by all means, elaborate on your argument. Let’s hear it. 😂 @@caret4812
@@caret4812do you understand grammar?
It is not an own-goal because God also created the Mandelbrot set so literally anything is made by God and can be used as proof of his existence
Actually it is an own goal, you just don’t seem to understand why. One of the core arguments theists routinely cite as evidence for God is that they insist that complexity in the physical world, such as that of the human eye or beautiful geological structures, can only arise by design. Yet the Mandelbrot set proves that complexity can be the logical end result of the interaction of simple components. Which completely obliterates their core argument that complexity necessitates design.@@MoloIongo
I think the discovery of numbers should have been the sign of the infinite God. But as the Bible says "the fools said in his heart there is no God"
Pythagoras led a religious cult that held numbers to be sacred..as Paul would say later, the Greeks have open minds and though pagan, were insightful in certain areas
Leibniz thought this when he discovered Calculus.
Psalm 14 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, Who eat up my people as they eat bread, And do not call on the Lord? 5 There they are in great fear, For God is with the generation of the righteous. 6 You shame the counsel of the poor, But the Lord is his refuge. 7 Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord brings back the captivity of His people, Let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad.
@@arguescreamholler all of scripture is inspired by God. That's why it's included in the Canon of 66 books.
@@arguescreamholler "I said your God is not God" and? Since when are you the final authority on who's God is the one true God? 🤔😂
The mandelbrot set is fascinating. As a computer scientist I've made my own version of the software this guy is using. That being said, I'm an atheist and it's no mystery why these patterns appear in nature. Fractals appear in nature because they maximize surface area with minimum amount of encoding(DNA). They're naturally selected to be as efficient as possible. I.e. how the infinitely complex shape of the mandelbrot set can be described with a single line of math.
Cool als ingenieur und Mathe Fanatiker habe ich mir gedacht das einzige was unendlich ist ist die zeit und der Raum wahrscheinlich endlich werden alle Möglichkeiten von Anordnungen und Konstellation der Teilchen im Raum durchgespielt bzw alles eine Kopie vom vorherigen nur anders aber was ist mit der qautenmechanick da müssten die Zustände/Entropien gleichzeitig vorhanden sein wie wenn man die Zeit als zweidimensionales Koordinatensystem aufspaltet beides ist mit der mandelbrot Menge im Einklang somit wäre dann ja die Zeit die wir wahrnehmen nur die Abfolge von zn+1 = zn²+c und c der Parameter der für die Dimensionen verantwortlich ist der die vier fundamentalen Wechselwirkungen bestimmt. Bei Simulationen von unserem Universum zeigt sich wenn wir die starke Wechselwirkung verändern und somit die Gravitationskonstante G würden sich keine Atomkerne oder gar Masse bilden oder wenn man die kleinste elementarladung verändert kann sich kein Kohlenstoff bilden und somit keine organische chemie 😅 nur leider ist unser Universum kein Kontinuum (planksche Einheiten/ Planksche wirkungsqauntum)
His entire argument boils down to: "If patterns exist, that means the Bible is factually correct." What a terrible false equivalency. The hubris of Man truly knows no bounds.
The Mandelbrot set is an iterative ordered set, and not the only one. In fact there's an infinite number of them. There is also an infinite number of non-iterative ordered sets, which are ones whose Nth member is a function of N. In iterative sets, the value of the Nth member is a function of N-1.
This guy knows what he's talking about
@@danieln7777Jesus is coming. Repent and believe the gospel
@@camilosanchez831Jesus has been "coming" for 2000 years, I think I'll just chill. 🥸
You can also have a set of sets
Please plot these other sets in color too. Let us see THOSE patterns that have been put in place. God is amazing.
All this proves is that simple patterns can make complicated things. It's just as strong as an argument for atheism
Facts, they trying so hard to say a magical sky daddy made everything
First off, not a simple pattern. Secondly, it proved that mathematics (an abstract concept in the mind) has identical patterns in the material world. It simply proves that everything is engineered, and it doesn't make sense except for the mention of a creator. Who is that creator? I believe its the christian god but this simply doesn't prove its him, just that a creator creating this laws is much more possible than it being random. The "golden number" is a great way of seeing how the universe seems to be designed, or engineered, perfectly and its incredible to see. Would recommend you checking on it. edit: and if you wanna say "oh but its random, thats how nature works doesnt prove nothing" the important thing to consider is that it is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a creator exists than a bouncing of atoms creating this complex and universal patterns. It doesnt mean its the case, but its MUCH MORE LIKELY. An objective man looks at the possibilities and makes his own choice.
@datboi imma keep this short and sweet. The human mind is terrible for understanding things to scale. The full scope of concepts can barely be scratched. You lack an understanding in concepts such as random and infinity. Understanding enough about something to understand that you dont know enough about something is a great start to true understanding.
@@thebakenboy it's common knowledge that numbers go into infinity in both directions. Random probability isn't as common but it's taken into account when researching quantum theory.
There is no basis for morality, physics or maths in the evolutionary Atheist world most of us belonged to. Intricate design can't come from biological chemicals
I think if I had a hotdog cart it would be fun to have a Mandel Brat that allowed for infinite variations in basically the same toppings. I'd call it the Barbara Mandel but she's really a Mandrell so I'd go with Howie Mandel because it's my hotdog cart and I could say "And Howie havin' it?" when I scribble down their order and then mess it up like real life.
Ha !
The name Mandelbrot comes from a Yiddish term for "almond bread," so you could have a food truck that bakes infinite varieties, too!
@@JeffLearman I would maybe need to offer Kosher brats which might be a logistical problem. What could be the wurst of that? 👼
@@intentionally-blankHah!
And because "spirit" arises from simple and at the same time complex structures, this is one of the most important indications that philosophical schools of thought that rely on physicality are the right approach. "Emergence" is the key word. There is no god. And if there are gods, then they would be my enemies because they want to interfere in my life unasked and uninvited. Religion did not arise so that man could be good. It came about because people are good and want to achieve good things.
"Humans are pattern seeking story telling animals and we are pretty adept at telling stories about patterns whether they exist or not" -Michael Shermer.
This is the perfect quote for this comment section thank you🙏 the entire time I’ve been watching I’ve thought “this is just showing us the complexity and beauty of math, it doesn’t point to a creator”. The dude is making a bunch of truth claims like “god made numbers” in order to prove his point, like bro you can invoke god to prove that god exists.
I do believe in God as a force that finally can make human or any other system self confident, self conscious and show him that love,hope+faith are the only forces... but on the other hand this astronome guy here and his biblic quotes remind me of JWorg witnesses :) or some other 7th day protestants so i must say to all of you that if you are asking questions about world genesis you will find it finally by yourself - if youre asking how the Julia+Mandelbrot sets views and computation works - then you can watch this movie :)
Yep.. one thing's for sure, these people are harder at work than ever, selling their 'beliefs'.
Simple emergent property. Frustrating that this will make people feel smart about there ignorance, but won't look any further because all evidence and research beyond this points away from a creator. It's a different telling of the "watch on the beech" story, a story that has had valid counters for a long time.
So this pattern doesn't exist?
The "message" or meaning isn't embedded in numbers, it's in the functions/algorithms which were intelligently designed by humans. There are an infinite number of sets/functions, of which the Mandelbrot is just a single one...which we intelligently picked because we like the output.
As an accountant, I can firmly say that numbers used for business and finance have a specific purpose. And that purpose is fully manipulated by humans. I’m honestly not sure what he was trying to convey here, because it’s pretty obvious for anyone who understands the intend of math, that numbers are just human invented symbols that represent quantity. And yes, those algorithms must have a pattern, in order for our universe to function how it is now. I do believe there is a number of examples from our daily, material life, that point to the divine mind. But this is definitely one of the weaker claims
@@michaelchoruss7544 I agree mostly with what you say. However I'd say the universe basically does not care about numbers. Only laws/rules. Numbers are just a way for us to represent things, and math operations are a way for us to practice laws and rules. Now, the universe being created OR the universe being anthropic biased due to our sample size of one and life having evolved for such anthropic bias...is a whole other discussion. But as long as you have boolean logic, you can create and emulate whatever laws/rules/functions, Mandelbrot set included. And boolean logic is fundamental and universal...even in other universes with other laws of physics. But yeah, dude saw a pretty pattern (fractals). Doesn't want to understand the grace of numbers, instead thinks it's god. It's the same as if I took my computer running stable diffusion (AI art generator) back 200 years and showed people a magic box capable of creating almost any image you want in any style you want. Instead of taking awe at the sheer amount of math, science, and trying to understand that it's based literally on comparing 1s and 0s, they would assume it was magic.
The Mandelbrot set, like many mathematical structures, is indeed fascinating. It is an inevitable and unavoidable result of strict step by step logic. The simple algorithm that generates the Mandelbrot set is indeed "designed" by an "intelligence" - _human intelligence._ The amazing pattern that results is an _inevitable_ consequence. Imagining that it's "designed " by a "higher intelligence" displays a profound misundersanding of what mathematics is.
Yep
humans made the universe ?
@@madhumangaldas333humans created the concept of math. it seems to already be there, because math is made off measurements and values and that are consistent throughout the universe, we just have the ability to understand it a bit better.
@@esfbse8347 NOT a personal attack.... just my honest answer prakrteh kriyamanani aprakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarvasah ahankara-vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.
@@madhumangaldas333 very confused by that answer
I'm an atheist and have been studying and enjoying the beauty of fractal graphics since the discovery of the Mandlebrot set. It in no way challenges my secular appreciation of the world. No more than the beauty of DNA or the beauty of a sunset. Our ability to see beauty is just a primate brain evolutionary strategy that has worked for us.
The Mandelbrot Set was first defined and drawn by Robert W. Brooks and Peter Matelski in 1978, as part of a study of Kleinian groups. Afterwards, in 1980, Benoit Mandelbrot obtained high quality visualizations of the set while working at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York.
Copy and Paste from Wikipedia much? Snicker snicker.
Yes. And not once was a god required to do all of this.
@@guitarszen Nope, I did not need a god to cross reference Wikipedia to see if the poster copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
Read my comment on secret codes and messages posted 12/22/22. It is just another SCAM to fool the FOOLS into thinking that there is some secret messages from god. But of course ONLY THE CHURCH can interpret these secrets, any god worth having would send out SIMPLE, CLEAR, MESSAGES THAT DO NOT NEED A BUCH OF CRAZED PRIESTS TO INTERPRET THEM. Just another SCAM.
@@guitarszen Says who?
The fact that we can construct formulae that create interesting and infinite patterns when plotted on a graph does not prove or disprove the existence of a god. If you're convinced it proves there's a god, which god would that be? You not only conclude that math proves there's a god, but it somehow proves that it's the christian version of god. What do you think you would have concluded if you had been born and raised in a country that was predominantly islamic, or hindu, or any other religion? Is there room in your mind for a universal god for everyone, or just _your_ particular notion of god?
“The physical universe obeys mathematical laws” is wrong. The mathematical universe is based of physical laws. We see an apple falling off a tree (or onto our head) and we write mathematical equations after that. This allows for the universe to exist before math and for humans to create math as a way to make sense of the universe.
The subject area of mathematics itself is interesting. There are so many different areas of mathematics that you can study. I prefer Abstract Algebra and Topology, but I studied Differential Geometry, Real Analysis, Complex Analysis, Differential Equations, Number Theory, and more. There is no highest level of mathematics. Each branch of mathematics may have a highest level, but they all branch off from the basic mathematics found in high school and the first year of college. When we prove something new in mathematics, we are really discovering a new property. We are not inventing the property. We may "invent" the notation or definition, but we discover the properties. I wish that high school students saw more of the beauty of mathematics. By the time some of them are in college, they truly hate mathematics and find it boring.
Mathematics aren't boring and I don't think students understand that they aren't bored by math, but the ones teaching it. Public schools are a failure.
I loved math in elementary to high school, algebra made me love it more. Then to find that math and science go hand-in-hand..I got an A and B in those classes and was failing the others.😂 This presentation speaks volumes of The creator tho!
Or plural ones (Genesis 3:22)
Math proves that you can think. It is thinking without the baggage of emotions and personal opinions. It is the ultimate "it is what it is".
i have to agree. I now see the beauty in mathematics but feel like the time has come and gone to really delve into pure maths
Mathematicians: “We have a limited understanding of why physical universe obey laws of mathematics” Him: “We have a god. Period”
A comment I just typed above is also pertinent here: We derive those laws from the physical world, the solution is rather simple.... We can observe that from the simplest form of math to the most complex, such as counting apples into something that we might stumble upon and then have to look where those new laws are being applied on like the Mandelbrot Set I'm not a mathematitian yet I can see this simple truth, how can they not? Because their biases are blinding them, most likely for the case above, or the are so deep in the rabit role that they lost perspective, probably the most likely cases, outsiders are often the ones that most clearly catch in house issues.
This is what I’m saying, they are blindly putting their faith in something they can’t understand, they use numbers as a way of conveying that god is real by saying that god made the numbers. Really it is the equivalent of using a word to describe itself. The fact that we get those laws from the physical world and use that concept mentally would completely explain the way that the physical world obeys the laws of mathematics, not because the physical world obeys mathematics, but because that the laws of mathematics derive from the physical world. So there, the secular world view can explain this. Also, using the question of why until something cannot be understood and then after the question cannot be answered secularly saying that “because god made it this way” is not a good way of saying that the secular world view is wrong, there will be questions that neither sides would be able to answer is the word why would be used indefinitely,
@@anubis9151 bro you telling me you're gonna look through EVERY possible mathematical expression and try to fit them into EVERY physical phenomena????
@@NoOne-sy5fg Some are certainly gonna try.
Entropy: Secularist's God.
The main error in the reasoning is where he says at 26:26 that "Numbers are abstract in nature, not physical." This is in fact wrong... We could totally assume that numbers arises from the repetition of discrete observations (3 sheeps, 3 stones, 3 trees, etc). So this may have its roots via bayesian induction performed by the brain.
And after that when he says "Laws of math are conceptual", well actually this is still not the case, as these are just construction from axioms. If we have to compare, laws of physics are much more conceptuals...
38:24 Very nicely done. Some criticism. It could be said that your final argument, at least hints at affirming a formal logical fallacy. Set that aside. Paredolia is a very human error where esthetics prevails over reason. The beauty of mathematics can be stunning, but no certainty follows from that. Mathematics has NO laws, but conjectures that apply to each class. A perfectly fine mathematics can be explored from any set of conjectures. It is a question WHICH conjectures appear to be rules in the physical universe-that is where the game plays out. Whitehead and Russell wrote the Principia Mathematica with definition of the natural numbers from which your thoughts might benefit. In general, Jason, your approach to wondering at how things are and why, is a refreshing and energetic voice in inquiring about metaphysical reality.
I'm an Atheist and have seen much of what Answers in Genesis publishes, but I was surprised by this video. It's really quite good and I think it's accurate about all the math stuff, the explanation of the Mandelbrot Set, and some of the super interesting things inside the set (or outside, I suppose). I just wish you all could keep that up and not resort to the bit at the end about how "the secularist thinks.... blah blah blah" You could have maybe had me convinced, or at least on the edge of my seat. The math is really incredible and is something special, could even be God, maybe. I just wish people in your position would lean into the idea that God might not be limited to just Christianity... I know that would be going against your God of the Bible, but really, how the hell would God only reside over one religion? He'd be responsible for the "false" ones too, I guess... hmmm interesting It's an interesting video, all except for the conclusion at the very end. Saying "it makes sense" over and over isn't enough to suddenly jump me from math and what you're talking about to, "it's God's mind." That actually doesn't make sense... there's nothing to suggest that, even the Bible doesn't necessarily agree with that. Nice try though. Very interesting, just maybe keep it there instead of trying to "destroy" the Atheist.
I agree fractals are beautiful but why would they need intelligent design? Nature is full of complexity and patterns but why would they not just be like that, it seems to me that the neccesity for it to be designed is fabricanted by people like the guy from the videi
People who attempt to represent knowledge about God are not perfect... but if you want to find the truth, why would a message that you perceive as imperfect shy you away from the Source? Why not just ask God to prove himself to you if you want to find Him... Maybe you have already. He has given you and us all a mind that is capable of much, but I guess religion would be a void if it would just mean intellectual gymnastics, no, it's a relationship which goes deeper than just the mind, which we often would like to have define us. Anyway, give it a shot! :)
Just because math works doesn't mean there is a god
Intelligent design by our creator. 👍 I believe when one speaks of secularists they mean people who refuse to even consider the possibility of a creator and therefore intelligent design.
I submit to you that attacks on atheism by Christians are because of atheism’s propensity to focus its attacks on Christianity rather than God or religion in general. I never see atheists attacking other religions.
I always loved fractals. They are really amazing. And there's a lot of fractal patterns in nature which makes sense. However, I still completely fail to see how this would necessarily in any way be connected to some kind of god. It's just mathematics...
You just need to follow the fractal
@@NapalmAtSunrise tf is that supposed to mean
@@deimos351 I think it’s a joke on “follow the money” or “follow the science”
The first mathematicians or ancient "scientists" were probably priests who had plenty of time on their hands and the motivation to try and make sense of natural phenomena.That is probably where it came from. The lecturer here knows that people in general would not understand much of what he is trying to explain. And so he calls for higher authority to back him up. It impresses people.
People like this are doing that because they get wrong what science is ... "There must be a god" - "i bent science so it can be proven" But in reality science is just a language which "tries" to describe what happens in the real world (Physics, Math etc) Thats the reason why Science "ALWAYS" can be wrong - until someother finds a way "to explain it better" which makes more sense in our brains. Math is just a "language to describe complex occurrences" - not a "proof" and actually has not "that much" to do with Numbers.... thats the most irritating thing he said: 25:53 You cant imagine how many "Imaginary Codes" were found in the History of the earth lol .... because of this reasons.
I will give props to Answers in Genesis for not removing dissenting comments on this video. For many Christian channels, it seems that atheists in the comments section disagreeing with them are their worst nightmare.
Yea, thats actually a fair point.
I'm an atheist, and thank you for this argument that god does not exist! A very interesting argument for god is that the world is too complex to be created "on accident". This however shows beautifully that a very simple world with very simple rules is able to create infinite complexity just by interacting with other simple rules, and even itself!
I'm an athiest and I must say, this is by far my favorite argument for creationism that I've seen so far. We need more teachers who can find the beauty in math the way Dr. Lisle does! That being said, I do have a criticism that I want to address. The fractals that Dr. Lisle identifies in nature aren't actual fractals. For example, if you tried to infinitely zoom in on a fern, you wouldn't keep finding tinier and tinier leaves -- you'd eventually hit cells and other things that don't resemble the original shape.
he mentioned that
Yeah he literally said “approximate fractals”, you can go down a few and then they will break into atoms and so forth.
i know this is very old but this being said, what is your rebuttle towards his argument, and if you don’t have any what’s your reason for not believing in God?
@@-TheDevilsAdvocate I went ahead and rewatched the video and you're right, he does mention that the fractals he identifies in the real world are approximate. However, for a shape to be considered a fractal in any capacity, it MUST be infinitely recursive, as that is the definition of a fractal. If we can set an arbitrary, non-infinite limit on how many repetitions it takes to reach the final recursive structure in a fractal, then we could effectively categorize any shape as a fractal, which defeats the purpose of defining them as a special type of shape. Not to mention, in many of the comparisons Dr. Lisle makes between abstract fractals and shapes that exist in the physical world, the abstract shapes are clearly based on physical ones, rather than vice versa as he implies -- one of them is even called the Barnsley Fern. Human beings are perfectly capable of dreaming these kinds of structures up in the abstract (especially the simpler ones), but they're completely impossible to create within the physical universe. This doesn't necessarily disprove the God argument, as you could still argue that the mind of God exists in a metaphysical sense. I just want to make sure that people aren't misunderstanding what a fractal is 😁
@@THEBEST-yi2rs My main rebuttal to this argument is that it cannot explain the existence of the Christian God specifically -- it can only attempt to prove the existence of a higher power in the general sense. There's no reference to any sort of Christian theology that can be found in the Mandelbrot Set, so any person that believes in a higher power could easily claim that it reveals the truth behind their own personal beliefs. Fundamentally, all world religions cannot be true at the same time because their holy texts contradict each other on cosmological topics. If this argument can support each of these (contradictory) ideologies equally well, then its use as proof for any of them should be considered paradoxical.
That is not called "worst nightmare", that is called emergance
emergence*
shut up@@thatoneman1
Right I do not know why these people think they can beat atheists by saying something logical. There is no logic in religion. Religious people should just accept that.
@@HearUsRoarprove it.
@@HearUsRoar bro can't even spell right talking about "you will loose badly". go to bed bro. you have 1st grade classes in the morning.
The physical universe has infinite complexity but in its complex manifestation it is finite. That finite interaction creates the complexity which we sentient beings battle to investigate and understand. As a mathematician and physicist I think Slartibartfast has the right answer... "I'd much rather be happy than right any-day".
Another way to visualize eternity (infinity in mathematical terminology) is simply to look up. The sky has never looked exactly as it does today; each day features a unique sky with large fluffy clouds, with high cirrus, etc., and those are always unique. It is as though God provides a new and unique vista for each day. And it's all for our own enjoyment; all we have to do is look up at least once per day.
The Mandelbrot Set is just a unique way of examining the topography of your own perception. The set itself is blase' in the eyes of an objective universe, but somehow it resonates with your brain to produce an illusion of deep meaning.
Wait how can we know something has deep meaning and is complex if not by our own perception? Even if u consider that it might be wrong it is our only tool is it not? Two options belive ur perception or believe nothing i personally just take the middle path
@@hajimemitsu612 Because infinite detail is an abstraction that runs into particle physics in the real world. And runs into the Uncertainty Principle even if you ignore the whole "atoms and molecules" problem.
@@hajimemitsu612 I had a stroke reading this
Somehow
@@EffYouMan 😅
Ah, I see now: IF Mandelbrot Set THEREFORE New Testament. How could could I have missed this obvious connection.
Have you read the Bible?
He’s talking about the how the Mandelbrot set further confirms the illustration of God’s characteristics in the Bible.
@@XxBoriHalaMadridxX Try to find what Mandelbrot set is. And tey sometging to learn not only faith stupidity. It is many proofs of God on this world, but you still find only that are not proofs. :D Laplace or Fourier do not make proofs of God?
@@XxBoriHalaMadridxX If you want I can create it in few minutes in Blender. Can make tutorial for you. And then you can find for me the proof of God. :D It is in X power 2 minus Y power 2 or it is 2 multiply X and Y? Aftwr that you can add new nuber to it. Make new X and new Y. The length betwen this points must be greater like number 2. Becouse it is condition of it. :D And if new coordinates are thry you can make another interactions. When you connect interaction number with colour on points, the result is Julian set. If you add same X and same Y then you create Mandelbrot. It is simple math not proof of God.
@@adrianpolomsky358 I’m a third year mechanical engineering student 🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️ mandem thinks I haven’t done relatively complex math
It is not just math it is also consciousness. We have five senses for experiencing, a sense mind for processing experience, and an intellect that ranges far beyond our environment to the further reaches of space; awareness through consciousness. All that is amazing,, and in addition, all based on a spark of light that is unique to each of us a wonderful gift that connects us with the elemental forces of nature. The stage was set for us with oxygen and water when we arrived. We should treat nature and animals better, they are for our use, not for our abuse based on greed or entitlement.
“There is no atheistic explanation…” An “explanation” is a causal sequence leading to an outcome. That’s literally what an explanation IS. “God did it” is not an explanation, it’s a supernatural claim that, by definition, denies causation. The precise moment you claim faith as an answer to ANYTHING, you’ve epistemologically ejected yourself from any conversation about explanations. “What if there was a code…” Of what use, then, is your faith? If faith is important, why do you have such an acute interest in codes? If the code is demonstrably a code, why does the Bible exhort you to focus on faith? Where in the Bible does it tell people to be convicted on the basis of claims of mathematical evidence? If you want coded instruction, you’re not interested in faith. If you want explanation, you’re demanding cause and effect.
No replies. Interesting... but not surprising. Good work.
yeah, people mistake having confidence on something with faith.
You over complicated that m8 ngl, faith in further understanding benefits both parties and shows that man couldn't understand the mind of God hence why you search for 'causality' rather than having faith in further understanding, its the same thing. Its not black and white. We are the fools of tomorrow and ur ego has to accept that m8.
There is no gain in being an athiest,Christianity holds the most rewards🙏
@@IvnSoft then they find a new thing only to realise how ignorant they were previously.
"Atheists BEWARE!!!! We discovered this mathematical phenomena and we can't explain it which means its direct proof of god's existence! Checkmate atheists!"
No secret code - just simple math. I teach Mandelbrot in cartography which is a didactic exercise to prove that scale (map scale) determines what can be visualized or modeled. Keep zooming into a map using fractal math, and coastlines grow from finite lengths to infinity. The exercise being if you don't pick the right question, with the right model (math), you get an imprecise answer. Sorry that there is no secret code - yes, I am an atheist.