Is life and/or consciousness a fractal pattern?


#61

You will probably find this hard to believe, but there is nothing in there that I do not agree with.


#62

St. Thomas Aquinas understands the uniqueness of human (rational) thought to be something more like recursion, self-referencing. So, what makes humans different from other animals is that we can have thoughts about our own thoughts, and thoughts about those thoughts, and so forth. That is to say, we can reflect on our thoughts, compare them to the world, and discover whether these thoughts are true to the world, or not. We call thoughts that are true to reality truth, and those which aren’t false.

We do not have mere knowledge, which all conscious beings have, but knowledge of knowledge. Not merely conscious, but conscious of our own consciousness, conscious of that consciousness of our own consciousness, etc. It is this recursive consciousness that allows us to be aware of ourselves, the “I.”

We might say that our intelligence creates a microcosm of what is outside of us, inside of us, and we call this knowledge, with both of them being a fractal of one another.


#63

How do you come up with a mathematical description for what is “indefinable”?


#64

Joining the conversation late.

Fractals have the same or similar form at all scales. Life and consciousness do not. Therefore fractals do not look like an appropriate model.

In my opinion, this is an overly enthusiastic application of fractals. It’s like when you have a new hammer, every problem looks like a nail. :hammer:


Is the substance of creatures 'potentiality'?
#65

You read into those words something entirely different than what I read into those words. Incomprehensible and indefinable aren’t a problem for mathematics. Mathematics is perfectly at home defining the indefinable.


#66

You seem to be saying that conscious living beings possess no similarities? But the very fact that they’re conscious and living implies that they do indeed have similarities. Isn’t life, in all of its various forms, still life?

Just because we may fail to recognize nature’s patterns, doesn’t mean that they’re not there. Even you believe that you’re made in God’s image.


#67

Mathematics is perfectly at home defining the indefinable.

Not meant as an insult to you personally, but you literally just said something can be done and not done at the same time. The law of noncontradiction forces me to notice the incoherence.


#68

You seem to be saying that conscious living beings possess no similarities? But the very fact that they’re conscious and living implies that they do indeed have similarities. Isn’t life, in all of its various forms, still life?

I will just quote myself from earlier:

“So the closest to a mathematical description you can get of God is the basic Math formula which is still not a description of God. It’s a description of coherence or the law of non-contradiction. A=A. It’s just a way of saying, mathematically, God is himself. Or everything is itself. But it cannot say what “God” is. i.e. what “A” is. Only THAT he is himself.”

Math can say THAT Life is Life, but Math still cannot say what “Life” is. :slightly_smiling_face:

Just because we may fail to recognize nature’s patterns, doesn’t mean that they’re not there. Even you believe that you’re made in God’s image.

Same thing as above.


#69

The question that you should be asking is, if I’m not an idiot, why did I do that?

That really is peculiar, isn’t it, how can something define the undefinable.

Incomprehensible isn’t it. Hmmmm…where have I seen that word before?

That’s not quite an adequate description of God. But it’s a reasonable first attempt.

Nope, that’s not it either.

Now you’re getting warm.

Technically, math can’t define what anything is. Not you, or me, or figgy pudding. So in what way is God any different than you or I?

Well, I’m myself too, so what, how is God any different than you or I?


#70

Well thanks! It took a few weeks but you finally got here. Glad we can finally put this behind us now. :wink:


#71

Well, since I’m undefinable, that must make me God. It took a few weeks but you finally got there. Glad we can finally put this behind us now. :wink:

Yes, math can define God…and me, and figgy pudding.

There, I did it again…I contradicted myself…how incomprehensible of me.

The odd thing is…math both can, and can’t define something. How is that possible?


#72

something = x

“Something”, which exists as itself, beyond or transcendent to what we experience through the senses, can be pointed to by that definition, which describes some aspect of its structure, the relationship it has with other elements of the system within which it exists, for example representing the mass of a particular planet in the universe.

It would seem that the only thing that is the same as its definition would be mathematics and geometry. Maybe the word “word”.


#73

You’re good.

I don’t think that you’ve quite got it, but darn you’re close.


#74

An argument that no one made. If you’re going to donate me arguments, at least give me some I would actually make.

And no, you’re not undefinable, sorry to break it to you. :slightly_smiling_face:

Here’s the sentence your little strawman are trying to butcher so unsuccessfully:

For all intelligences except His own, God is incomprehensible and indefinable.

Now as to the actual arguments I have made on this thread, Math cannot describe all reality.

Things claimed to be indescribable by math in this very thread by myself:

  1. Being
  2. Life
  3. Freedom
  4. Consciousness
  5. God.

:slightly_smiling_face:

Nowhere shall you find a claim that only God is not describable by Math.

I’m sorry you wasted so much time thinking such a ridiculous thing like indescribability by Math = indefinability by anything less than God. I’m sorrier you spent so much effort refuting a phantom. And I’m very glad, again, that you now admit the obvious readily: Not everything is describable by Math, least of all the unconditioned reality we call God.


#75

Sorry, to disappoint you but yes I am.

Aloysium, is on the right track, we can define things in a couple of ways, with words, and with math. And it’s true, you can define me with words, but then again people define God with words too. They do it all the time. Now you may claim that these words don’t convey the fullness of what something is, and that’s true. But it’s true both for God and for me. So anything is definable by words…to a point…just as anything is definable by math…to a point.

But what’s that point? In words you might consider it to be the point where something can be defined simply as existence itself…Actus Purus. Not divisible into any constituent parts. It’s being itself. No definition beyond that is possible.

In math it’s slightly different. Things have certain properties. And you can define those properties. Such as mass and momentum. But there comes a point where things can’t be accurately defined by their properties, because they don’t have any definite properties. They exist, but they have indefinite properties. You, me, and figgy pudding can all be mathematically defined by our properties…to a point.

But even at that point math can still define things that have indefinite properties. In such a case math doesn’t define them as having the property “X” or “Y”, but rather as having the properties “X” and “Y”. Math simply defines them indefinitely.

An indefinite definition.

Now for you, or me, or figgy pudding, we have properties that can be defined by things such as mass and momentum. Even past the point where they can be definitively defined any longer. Math can still define them indefinitely. But the question is, does there exist that which doesn’t have any properties at all that can be defined definitely, and only properties that can be defined indefinitely?

Such a thing might be referred to as Actus Purus, or the first cause. That which has no definite properties, but only indefinite ones. But such a thing can still be defined by math.

It simply isn’t defined as having the properties “X” or “Y” or “Z”, but as having all of them.

Such a thing could well be described as being incomprehensible to us, because it would be here, there, and everywhere, all at the same time. So you see, I can believe everything that you quoted. That God is incomprehensible and indefinable, and yet still believe that God is definable by math.


#76

You are not undefinable. You have an essence that is a clear, finite boundary to your being. Again, lets not skirt around the actual context in which the word “definable” entered this discussion:

Yeah, you are most certainly not this^. And so no. Definitely definable.

I don’t know how often I’m expected to thank you but thank u again 4 admitting the argument. Literally this is the claim I made: repeatedly. That there is reality Math cannot define and not just Math but I included words and logic too. So it seems to me you came in, did not get the point being made and then proceeded to make unnecessary arguments denying that there is in fact reality that cannot be modelled by Math. You literally claimed “everything can be modelled by Math”, repeatedly.

What you are now distinguishing between “definite properties” and “indefinite” has actually been made a few times above. In fact, I’ll just go ahead and quote one of those posts from earlier:

This was days ago and is just one of the posts in which the idea of “some description” that did not include what these realities are was expressed. It was repeated several other times.

So no. I will not accept a lecture that is nothing but now finally admitting the obvious.


#78

Why are you on a forum where the majority of us are Catholic then?


#79

Because there is hope. Why did Christ come to a world full of sinners?


#80

LOL. And you’re doing what I didn’t expect: Stooping low.

This is pathetic.

You made ridiculous claims, SEVERAL TIMES, clearly not understanding what you sought to refute and now you think adhominems and insulting Catholicism on a Catholic forum gives you a high road.

Next time, maybe try listening yourself.

Two other very early posts, for those “open-minded others” you want to read this thread:


#81

Then you should be quite happy, you’ve won.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.