Welcome back Cuthberth, we missed you.

Well, you know me, I 'm an atheist

IMO, there is no god as defined in scripture. There are as many gods as there are people believing in gods. A god made in mans’ image?

I like to stick with hard facts, such as human applied mathematics are as “intentionally functional” as if they were spontaneous natural events. That’s power.

But I do my best to remain objective and look at this from a reductionist perspective.

The concept of an “irreducible complexity” is illogical, IMO.

A god presumes an “irreducible complexity” from outside the beginning, and speculation ranges from “mathematical” complexity to “intelligent designer” complexity.

It’s really not complicated. If you believe that the Universe has some mathematical properties then there is no valid argument against the notion that the Universe is a mathematical pattern. I believe the name is “manifold”, like possibly a torus.

I find it interesting that David Bohm used the terms “enfolded” and “unfolded” orders as part of the “manifold” equation. That’s elegant.

If you think I am consistent, you’re right. I consistently label all scientific jargon and descriptions as being mathematical in essence. Mathematics does not only allow us to measure and codify natural phenomena, but also allows us to control the universal physical properties. Mathematics, regardless of human symbolic representatrion is the natural guiding equation of relationships between fundamental values.

Chaos theory calls for an inherent mathematical spacetime guiding equation. (DeBroglie-Bohm)

**Mathematical universe hypothesis**

In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative “theory of everything” (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark.[1][2]

Description

Tegmark’s MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.[3] That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure.

Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are “self-aware substructures (SASs)”. In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they “will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world”.[4]

The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

Now Penrose-Hameroff have proposed ORCH OR , that describes how quantum mechanics can work inside a brain.

See, I cannot associate the term God with anything that is described in science.

There is no definition of God and any metaphysical properties must be of a mathematical nature, not via an intentional supernatural observer.

Mathematics are quasi-intelligent and IMO, all ordering principles that appear to be consciously intelligent designers, i.e. gods, are mathematical in essence. Patterns do not suggest, they prove the mathematical ordering of patterns in nature. It’s axiomatic.

quote=“cuthbertj, post:60, topic:10479”]

But once you realize that the limits of the human mind apply to math as well, then you start to realize there’s more to it.

[/quote]

No, the human mind is remarkable and is only limited in memory storing capacity.

But now we have “solved a problem” (a biological term) of limited access to various levels of expressed reality and have invented AI that is capable of going to places and environments where humans cannot go.

Moreover.

In order to survive, organisms must solve a wide range of physics problems. Understanding the phenomena of life means understanding the emergence and integration of essential biological functions. To search systematically for unifying physical principles, scientists must work together in a highly interactive environment that supports theorists working in concert with experimentalists on multiple relevant systems, rather than pursuing separate projects in disparate fields of biology. To this end, the Center is organized around four general questions, each of which is illustrated by different biological examples and explored through close collaboration between theory and experiment. These include:

- Examination of animal behavior from the development of organisms to the locomotion of worms and flies
- Emergence of collective phenomena in groups of molecules, genes, neurons, and organisms

## Behavior from cells to animals

- Role of physical limits on information transfer and processing in the genetic code, neural circuits, cellular sensors, and genetic and biochemical networks
- Mechanisms via which biological systems arrive at a particular operating point from protein number to adaptive immunity.