It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Did ‘God’ create math… or….did ‘Math’ make god?

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:09 AM
‘Random’ …. Thoughts:
1-Ever heard of the Galton experiment? mathworld.wolfram.com... Balls are dropped through a triangular array of nails. This device is also called a quincunx. Every time a ball hits a nail it has a probability of 50 percent to fall to the left of the nail and a probability of 50 percent to fall to the right of the nail. The piles of balls which accumulate in the slots beneath the triangle will resemble a binomial distribution. To reach the bin at the far left the ball must fall to the left every time it hits a nail.
Because Galton's board consists of a series of experiments the piles in the slots are the sum of 10 random variables. Therefore, this simulation provides also an illustration of the central-limit theorem, which states that the distribution of the sum of ‘n’ random variables approaches the normal distribution when ‘n’ is large.
2-Ever heard of the “Central Limit Theorem?” - The means (X) of random samples taken from ANY distribution (mean μ and variance σ2) will exhibit an approximately normal distribution (mean μ and variance σ2/n) In less mathematical terms, it is any of a set of weak-convergence theories. They all express the fact that a sum of many independent random variables will tend to be distributed according to one of a small set of stable distributions. The amazing and counter-intuitive thing about the central limit theorem is that no matter what the shape of the original distribution, the sampling distribution of the mean approaches a normal distribution. Furthermore, for most distributions, a normal distribution is approached very quickly as N increases. The CLT is considered the heart of probability theory, although a better name would be normal convergence theorem. The CLT is why we can predict the American President while surveying only 1100 people! Amazing isn’t it?
Question? If randomly distributed samples, “approximate” the make-up of the population, then does the observed “design” prove a “designer”? The CLT is ingrained in truth; remember…“according to Platonism, the reality of mathematical objects is independent of our knowledge of them. Math is not some abstract science, but an absolute reality of the universe. Every mathematical object is definite, with a definite purpose – some known, many unknown. While some do not exist within the space of physical existence, they were neither created, nor will they disappear. Math is simply “out there,” floating around, regardless of what we as a human race say about it. In short, according to the creed of Platonism, mathematicians are empirical scientists [like a geologist] – they cannot invent anything, only discover things that are already there.” Quote: www.bluwinterashes.com
It states normally distributed data (values) lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean (average)
-About 68% of the values lie within 1 standard deviation of the mean (or between the mean minus 1 times the standard deviation, and the mean plus 1 times the standard deviation). Represented as: .
-About 95% of the values lie within 2 standard deviations of the mean (or between the mean minus 2 times the standard deviation, and the mean plus 2 times the standard deviation). Thus: .
-Nearly all (99.7%) of the values lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean (or between the mean minus 3 times the standard deviation and the mean plus 3 times the standard deviation). And….. .
4-What about the 94/6 Rule? Ever heard of that? surfstat.anu.edu.au... Quality guru W. Deming defines a system as "a network of interdependent components that work together to accomplish the aim of the system. . . . An example of a system, well-optimized is a good orchestra" (1994, p. 50). Source/Book: Deming , WE. Out of Crisis, 1986:314-316 MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering Study Cambridge, MA. “Deming substituted the term special cause for assignable cause. Deming said that uncovering special causes was the responsibility of the local work force (those who had day-to-day contact with the process). Common causes were part of the system. The system is the responsibility of management. If the common cause variation is too large, it is the responsibility of management to change the system. Deming, stated that 85% of the problems with processes were system problems; later he increased this to over 94%, based on his own experience”
www.qualitydigest.com...
“Every system has variation; some of this is due to the system itself, known as common cause variation; some of it is due to singular incidents or special situations; this is special cause variation. In his book, Out of the Crisis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982), W. Edwards Deming estimated that 94 percent of problems (or possibilities for improvement) lie with the system as common-cause variation; 6 percent are special causes.
5- www.leanessays.com... “W. Edwards Deming first popularized the theory of variation, which is now a cornerstone of Six Sigma programs. Deming taught that there are two kinds of variation: common variation and special variation. Common variation is inherent in the system, and special variation is something that can be discovered and corrected. Common variation can be measured and control charts can be used to keep the system within the predicted tolerances. But it is not possible for even the most dedicated workers to reduce common variation; the only way to reduce common variation is to change the system. And here’s the important point: Deming felt that most variation, (95%+)[2] is common variation, especially in systems where people are involved.
The other kind of variation is special variation, which is variation that can be attributed to a cause. Once the cause is determined, action can be taken to remove it. But there is danger here: “tampering” is taking action to remove common variation based on the mistaken belief that it is special variation. Deming insisted that tampering creates more problems that it fixes. In summary: The overwhelming majority of variation is inherent in a system.”
6-“System?” You mean like the universe? You mean like RANDOM evolution? Is it “Inherent?”
What is the Evolutionist’s Premise? Well, the Evolutionary Strategy Methods are defined, “as far as real-valued search spaces are concerned, mutation is normally performed by adding a “normally distributed random value” to each vector component. The step size or mutation strength (i.e. the standard deviation of the normal distribution) is often governed by self-adaptation (see evolution window). Individual step sizes for each coordinate or correlations between coordinates are either governed by self-adaptation or by covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES).” Source: en.wikipedia.org...
There’s that “normally distributed” data again
“Statistical patterns can be found in nature and society. Their distribution may conform to mathematical models. Take a large sample of adult human beings and measure their height. Most cases will fall between five and six feet with very few less than four or more than seven feet. Because this is a continuous variable, the results can be plotted on a graph to which a curve may be fitted. It too will have a single peak with fan tails on the high and low ends. We call this the “normal distribution” or popularly the ‘bell-curve’. For more than a century statistical inference has largely been based on this curve with its parameters of mean and standard deviation.” thememorybank.co.uk...
And in nature, too? elsmar.com... “…. Normal Distributions are the most common type of distribution found in nature….”
And renowned statistician Arnold King from ‘AP Lectures,’ says here: arnoldkling.com... “… The normal distribution is mathematically complex but occurs frequently in nature…”
Normal distribution is important for 2 reasons.
A. Many variables that we observe are distributed normally. --Physical characteristics of plants and animals, such as height and weight, fit a normal distribution quite well. Performance of stock prices tends to fit a normal distribution. Many types of prediction errors and measurement errors tend to be distributed normally.
B. The central limit theorem.--It proves that a particular type of measurement error will be normally distributed. This type of measurement error is called sampling error.”
Dr Herbie says, “To all intents and purposes we can take this as ‘any change to the normal distribution of a characteristic within a population’. That’s why evolution is all about the “normal distribution” drherbie.wordpress.com...
And what about Harvard? adsabs.harvard.edu... “The evolutionary rates of protein-coding genes in an organism span, approximately, 3 orders of magnitude and show a universal, approximately log-“normal distribution” in a broad variety of species from prokaryotes to mammals. This universal distribution implies a steady-state process.”

And www.genetics.org... “CHARLESWORTH 1993B …. also investigated the conditions under which a modifier of recombination rates will spread through the population and discussed the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination under such scenarios. These authors assumed a “normal distribution” of phenotypic values that the genetic variance remains constant during evolution and that only the mean phenotype responds to selection.”
7-What can we learn about sample size? And the make-up of the space? Did you know the universe is made up of the same substances everywhere? At its base there are only 6 high-level substances / ingredients / matter. Here’s the break down…heavy elements 0.03%, neutrinos 0.3%, stars 0.5%, hydrogen and helium 4%, dark matter 30% and dark energy 65%. This percentage breakdown is typified in the smallest of elements known to man-atomic make-up/energy. In reality, largeness and smallness are the same thing.
“Space matter is filled everywhere in the universe. All matter in the universe (in the ordinary world) is made of space matter. Since the gravitational force is exerted on space matter, all massive bodies have a denser medium of space matter envelop. Bending of light when it passes through near massive objects like stars, lensing effects in some regions in the galaxies are because of the refraction of light by the denser space matter that present in these regions and are purely the demonstrations for the presence of space matter in the macro world. Increasing of mass of a fast moving body, change in shape of a body resulting from its motion; the effect known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction etc are also the evidences for the space matter in space. Also, electric field lines and magnetic field lines both are created by the alignment of space matter units. All form of energies (except gravitational potential energy) are released because of the explosion, expansion or releasing of space matter. For example, the releasing of energy in a nuclear reaction is due to the rapid-huge increasing of volume of ordinary matter to space matter. The missing mass (mass defect) in a nuclear or chemical reaction is converted into space matter. Since the ordinary matter is an extremely compressed state of space matter, when it released, they will explode violently and release energy.”
Missing matter? Wonder what (WHO) that is? Paul said, “Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” All things ‘hold’ together? Hmm?? Let him who has ears, hear!
8-What is Evolution’s Dilemma? “Gregor Mendel studied mainly traits that have distinct alternate forms for instance, purple flower color vs white flower color. But many traits are more complex than this and basically can take on any number of continuous values. For example in humans there is not just two classes of people - short vs tall- but a whole range of possible heights. In addition many traits are not controlled by a single gene pair but by many genes interacting with each other and also with the environment.. The study of traits controlled by many genes and also by the environment is called quantitative genetics. This a complex area of genetics but some understanding of quantitative genetics is useful for evolution because evolution often acts on complex traits influenced both by genetics and by the environment.
This presents a problem for evolution …. since for evolution to happen by natural selection requires the presence of genetically based variation in the value of a quantitative trait. Yet if offspring tend toward the mean value of the trait for the two parents then, the necessary variation for evolution to happen would be lost. The inheritance of quantitative traits is typically viewed in terms of what is called polygenic inheritance. staff.jccc.net...
==================================
A few questions to ponder…
1) If normally, random, inherent data-distribution is the foundation of evolution as stated by the above proponents…and the central limit theorem fits in the entire universe….meaning samples must fall within (approximate) the population…and the whole universe is made up of the same substances to nullify sample size….then why aren’t EARTH-TYPE planets prevalent? What aren’t Earth-like planets the norm?
2) If system variability follows a predictable pattern….and evolution is a system…why isn’t transitional life more observable? Like 94% of the time?
3) Why do evolutionists hold to the role of normally distributed-data and deny the central limit theorem….meaning, if nature did it only once it … it is not COMMON, and therefore must be assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff? Does the math add up?
4) Doesn’t the biblical premise of Jesus’ ‘omni-present’ characteristic makes sense with him being the supposed “missing matter” Further … What’s missing in Quantum Physics? Mathematically, why doesn’t it all break apart? The more we learn about subatomic particles called ‘gluons’, the more the universe seems to be made of nothing at all? Scientist says that all the electrons and subatomic particles of an atom are held together in their precise position and orbit by an invisible force, by which without it, everything would fall apart and reality as we know it, would cease to exist in an instant. Quotes from Discovery Magazine in 2000, “The weirdness comes from the gluons. Quantum chromo dynamics, the force that holds protons together, is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics, the force that holds atoms together—but the gluons change screening to anti-screening, intuitive to bizarre.” And, “The closer you look, the more you find the proton is dissolving into lots of particles, each of which is carrying very, very little energy," says Wilczek. "And the elements of reality that triggered the whole thing, the quarks, are these tiny little things in the middle of the cloud. In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equations, it gets almost mystical." More info here: discovermagazine.com...

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:38 AM
Great !
you are very, very closer...

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:01 AM
Good read thanks. That Galton experiment reminds me of that double slit experiment thing but on a more physical level. I wonder if they ever did it "unobserved"?
Seems the more we measure the more we see. Maybe

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:04 AM

Originally posted by ZeussusZ
...
Seems the more we measure the more we see. Maybe

If we are focused, I guess

OT

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:05 AM

Originally posted by sabalsis1972
Great !
you are very, very close...

Thx...it's a journey, that's for sure...

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:33 AM
It's a puzzle that's for sure.

I can't decide, to be honest. Which came first. You can't have one plane without three points. You can't have three dimensions without four points. I believe what we perceive is only part of something so complex. So it's one in the same. God isn't perceivable to us.. Different plane of existence. As we can control a two dimensional "existence" (I.e. a paintbrush on paper)

Math is what man will never control

Such great references you have, it's quite cool how random isn't so random after all.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:46 AM

Originally posted by phaesporia63incarnate
It's a puzzle that's for sure.

I can't decide, to be honest. Which came first. ........

Such great references you have, it's quite cool how random isn't so random after all.

It is fun to think about it ...

Clever last line of yours....makes me go 'hmmmm'? Questioning a good thing...

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:35 AM

then why aren’t EARTH-TYPE planets prevalent? What aren’t Earth-like planets the norm?

We don't know how prevalent they are because we are just now starting to have the technology to find planets in other solar systems.

2) If system variability follows a predictable pattern….and evolution is a system…why isn’t transitional life more observable? Like 94% of the time?

Every single life form you see around you is a TRANSITIONAL SPECIES because they are constantly evolving...it just takes a really long time. We have hundreds of thousands of fossils that confirm that, as well as the DNA record. But fossilization only happens under rare circumstances, so that's why we don't have remains of every single animal/plant that ever lived.

3) Why do evolutionists hold to the role of normally distributed-data and deny the central limit theorem….meaning, if nature did it only once it … it is not COMMON, and therefore must be assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff? Does the math add up?

You are using the typical god of the gaps argument by filling a gap in knowledge (aka us not knowing about extraterrestrial life) with magic (aka god). We don't know if and how many other planets with life are out there...

Basically, you are trying to find stuff science can't (yet) fully explain...and then simply claim that lack of knowledge is proof of god.

Sorry, but that's not rational or logical

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:48 AM

Originally posted by MrXYZ

3) Why do evolutionists hold to the role of normally distributed-data and deny the central limit theorem….meaning, if nature did it only once it … it is not COMMON, and therefore must be assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff? Does the math add up?

You are using the typical god of the gaps argument by filling a gap in knowledge (aka us not knowing about extraterrestrial life) with magic (aka god). We don't know if and how many other planets with life are out there...

Basically, you are trying to find stuff science can't (yet) fully explain...and then simply claim that lack of knowledge is proof of god.

Sorry, but that's not rational or logical

Appreciate you taking the time to reply...

I'm just asking a few questions based upon Science...it's either Special or Common...which do you say friend?

And I'm not willing to say ET is the 'special' cause....

OT

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:59 AM

We don't know yet how life first started, so how on earth can anyone answer that question?

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by MrXYZ

We don't know yet how life first started, so how on earth can anyone answer that question?

Correct, let me re-phrase...to be clearer with my question

All data (effects, for lack of a better term) has a discrete cause...religion aside....

Discrete meaning either/or....

Either SPECIAL or COMMON...there are no other options...its a LAW....

So...with that said...if you hold that the observed data...is from COMMON, inherent, random, adaptation...it is exclusive from SPECIAL cause...i.e. ET, Yahweh, etc....

So...the logical outcome of that point of view is.....Intelligent LIFE should be the norm, not the exception...

And if you hold that it is special...was it ET?

OT

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:15 AM
I have one for you. Who gives a \$hit? I am tired of getting on here, hoping to learn something new about evolution and being let down by this meaningless crap. I would even settle to hear a new argument for Intelligent Design or Creationism. It's disappointing that people don't care to hear compelling arguments for Evolution and for some reason, ALWAYS get derailed by philosophy of whether or not god is real. I really wish the moderators of this forum would do what they said they were going to do and delete threads that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Evolution or Creationism. Come on! I am pretty sure I have a couple people backing me up on this.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Tony4211
I have one for you. Who gives a \$hit? I am tired of getting on here, hoping to learn something new about evolution and being let down by this meaningless crap. I would even settle to hear a new argument for Intelligent Design or Creationism. It's disappointing that people don't care to hear compelling arguments for Evolution and for some reason, ALWAYS get derailed by philosophy of whether or not god is real. I really wish the moderators of this forum would do what they said they were going to do and delete threads that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Evolution or Creationism. Come on! I am pretty sure I have a couple people backing me up on this.

Tony, DE-CAFFE bro...

Two questions...

1) How is the 'LAW' of data distribution "meaningless crap"?

2) Did evolution happen without data?

Seems relevant to me

OT
edit on 4-12-2011 by OldThinker because: spelling

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:44 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by KennyDurazo
www.disclose.tv...
this is my presentation.
what goes down must go up there.

I guess gravity is a LAW, too

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by OldThinker

3) Why do evolutionists hold to the role of normally distributed-data and deny the central limit theorem….meaning, if nature did it only once it … it is not COMMON, and therefore must be assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff? Does the math add up?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

You are using the typical god of the gaps argument by filling a gap in knowledge (aka us not knowing about extraterrestrial life) with magic (aka god). We don't know if and how many other planets with life are out there...

Basically, you are trying to find stuff science can't (yet) fully explain...and then simply claim that lack of knowledge is proof of god.

Sorry, but that's not rational or logical

Maybe.
I think he knows that and already factored it in.
The only assertion I heard him make was that it's either 1 or infinite.

I don't think he is using the 'god' word to limit knowledge.
He said that either their would be one cause OR infinite variety.
And when examined from the perspective of systems, and system itself.
All the evidence points to ONE system, and there is zero evidence pointing to
the existence of a wide variety of evolutionary systems.

If anyone should say sorry, and make a correction,
it's the Evolutionary theorists themselves,
for trying to reduce everything to one theory.
Because as the opening post has clearly shown
with the undeniable authority of mathematics
if there is only one theory of evolution, then god designed it.

TO LONG DIDN'T READ: If evolution wants to really start disproving god it should start finding more than one theory of evolution.

David Grouchy
edit on 4-12-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:18 AM

If anyone should say sorry, and make a correction,
it's the Evolutionary theorists themselves,
for trying to reduce everything to one theory.
Because as the opening post has clearly shown
with the undeniable authority of mathematics
if there is only one theory of evolution, then god designed it.

And now you're doing the exact same thing as him. First of all, evolution is fully backed up by objective evidence...so it's not really in question. Secondly, you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution...because it makes no statements regarding how life started. And lastly, how on earth does one or the other speculation mentioned here prove/disprove a creator??

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:24 AM

Originally posted by MrXYZ
how on earth does one or the other speculation mentioned here prove/disprove a creator??

What is the difference between information and knowledge.

David Grouchy

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:24 AM
ohhhh,
a double post
edit on 4-12-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:51 AM
Well the idea the opening post gave me
seemed quite creative and I appreciate the author for saying it.

If we want to be atheistic about evolution
then we should have, say, the twelve theories of evolution.
Set the debate around the central premise of the theists,
that there is only one god.
Show that no, there are twelve theories of evolution.
In response the monotheists will find themselves
in the position of trying to proove that
no there is in-fact only "one" theory of evolution.

See how that works?

David Grouchy
edit on 4-12-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

4