Proving God exists using Math
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- This longer video explains the Mandelbrot set in more detail:
czcams.com/users/livetaKaFUNJ...
Explore the Mandelbrot set yourself:
math.hws.edu/eck/js/mandelbro...
Join our discord community:
/ discord
math does not control the universe, it describes the universe
the laws of the universe eg second law of thermo ect ect most certainly controls the universe without it, we would be nothing there would be nothing, the laws of our existence are very much designed and complex
@@rhysbryant9010 I had a stroke reading that, next time you yap, use a fucking comma or parenthesis.
I just believe:
Bible: Explains everything in general
Science/Math: Explains everything in truth
@@rhysbryant9010the study of thermodynamics is not the same a the physical phenomenon that controls the universe. The former is an observation, the latter is an occurrence. What @chewhammer2213 is saying is that the math we use that exists in the mind does not control the universe. The math that exists in the mind is a description of the universe and its tenancies. We can't change the math in our minds to change how the universe operates, thus the math in our minds is not the same as whatever controls the universe.
Did the universe make up numbers or humans? How do you know the entire edifice of mathematics is not wrong?
If school taught me that math was related to God, I probably would’ve studied more math
Right? God is just so awesome... God bless ♥
How so? If you are a lazy piece of meat, you either wouldn’t
Isn't everything related to God technically?
@@warrior4hire522Especially when God IS RELATIONAL, in his omnipotence
SAME I’d at-least be more passionate for math
Mathematics is NOT just something in our mind, it exists even without humans. All humans did was figure out how to put it on paper. It also absolutely does not control the universe, as math just presents values and their interaction.
thought bro was gonna conclude that mandelbrot is god
hey we could start a religion out of that, mandelbrotism
@@playfulmathematician5928 Welcome to the cult "playfulmathematician"... We have all of the answers. There is no need to worry. Trust Mandelbrot. Trust the fractal. You must begin the initiation.
@@playfulmathematician5928i'll lay down some ground rules
1. you CAN NOT look at the mandelbrot set or any other math and think "this was created by god" BECAUSE THAT GOES AGAINST THE POINT OF MANDELBROTISM
2. mandelbrot is a famous mathmatician and created a famous piece of math, so he must have created math, which is the "language of the universe", and language is required for communocation which causes civilization and when you think of it the universe is kind of like a giant continent of the countries/galaxies which has provinces/states/solar systems of cities/towns/villages/planets, with the stars acting like state/province capitals and centers of galaxies being nation capitals
Mandelbrot didn’t create the Mandelbrot set
He just “figured it out”
@@playfulmathematician5928no don't
To me personally, the Mandelbrot set is not designed to be beautiful.
It just exists, and *we* found it beautiful.
shoutout to johnny test for the idea that you can zoom out the universe far enough and see us or zoom in close enough and still see our dumbasses, like a mandelbrot. But what we see isnt actually "us" its something really similar to us like 1.1 is similar to 1.11 or like where the infinite possibilites can be seen. Maybe when you zoom in its like going forward and when you zoom out its like going backwards.
Johnny test is crazy I swear, favorite show as a 72 year old yall should look it up.
i just see it has a infinite confusing repeating thing
i find it scary, that shape looks creepy
Mandelbrot, lol :D
Correct, because for me even thou we have great knowledge, we also are sensorial-limited. Think only the small fraction we have to perceive light
Math is a language to explain our universe with logical dependencies. It’s not only in the mind, humans just translated it into numbers and equations which we can understand
Exactly. Math is based on constants. Constants exist in nature. Like the properties of geometric shapes etc so it can’t be made up.
It is a language but, not like speaking language. With mathematical language we discover things that are beyond our capacity and it goes into infinity. Many things are discovered through math so you can't say we invented certain stuff. It's just that we discovered there are certain patterns in nature. Patterns do not physically exist, same can be applied to God I guess. So if there is a true pattern of nature, there should also be truth behind our existance, we aren't just a plain coincidence.
I think what you wanted to say is: "Math is a language, that describes our universe by using logical dependencies."
Logistics is the thing that warehouses and shipping services do. 🤓
@@petarpetrovic8133 but it could be a coincidence we exist. Our universe exists because the physical constants are what they are. That could prove that either there is a higher power that personally set that values. Or the multiverse exists and each universe has their own universal constants and the one we’re in just happen to be one of POSSIBLY multiple configurations that allow life to exist. And we don’t really have a way to prove either of them tbh
@@grillpig3860 my engrish not very good
This video, explained in one sentence:
"Man, these Mandelbrot sets are weird, but quite beautiful, so god probably exists"
what?? he didnt make any statements about beauty. he explained the imposibility of infinites in the real world, and all you understood was just that?? go study surreal numbers and come back here.
You definitely were too dumb to understand what he just said the entire video and just rolled with whatever your brain can comprehend what he’s saying
@@yomamafat420 bro you're called "yo mama fat", you clearly didn't study "surreal numbers" either lmao
@@bulb9970just because someone has a stupid name doesnt mean they are stupid :|
@@bulb9970 Ahh yes, Weird Username = You didn't study, This logic makes SUCH sense.
4:21 bro said basic common sense and then did the biggest leaps in logic
Fr 😂
Cope
„Someone designed it, but no human designed it.“ XD. Bro should first inform himself a bit more. We defined it!!! WE! Mathematitians on earth defined the property of a dimension and this is a fractal dimension!!! WE INVENTED IT!!!
@@GrandAdmiralMitthrawnuruodocorrection:You DISCOVERED it
Just like how you discovered addition, then multiplication, then functions, then the complex plane. these phenomena can be found in the real world until they reach infinity, when that happens it does still exist in the world, just not one we can observe ie: not the natural world
@@GrandAdmiralMitthrawnuruodo By saying we invented it, is saying we are literally, gods, you are getting into many other religious bullshit, like kabballa, the gnosis and many others. We observe reality, not like we actually created it, if we created it, then we could change it as we wanted, we cannot change it as we want, therefore: We did not create it. If we did not create reality, then something else did, and created us too(as we are a part of reality.)
Basic common sense says that if math has every combination, then the Mandelbrot set must exist no matter how math was created
Idk, this whole video was so strange and clearly not well thought out. His example for math being above the universe was that it contains the universe? Like just because you can model it or explain its interactions doesn’t mean it’s contained. I say the word “universe”, that doesn’t suddenly mean English is supernatural
Then that just leads to questions about pantheism or pandeism or panendeism
@@sarthak-ti stop sharing your critical thinking abilities, supposed to be a secret
Math doesn’t have every combination, the every combination are only there if someone arranged them. There aren’t every combination, it’s just a concept. Even if they’re were every combination, not counting numbers since they’re just symbols that don’t exist, it wouldn’t be infinite since infinity doesn’t exist as far as we know.
@@sarthak-ti English, and any other language are finite, math is infinite. Infinity is impossible to fully comprehend, due to the nature of infinity, and the finite nature of our minds. If infinity cannot exist in our minds, or the physical universe, how is it possible for the concept of infinity to exist in math (which we did not make up) without an infinite mind?
Math isn't a real product of manship, but it's the instrument humans use to describe the laws of nature and universe.
Nope, pure math is done for its own sake
math is a language we use to speak with God
@@cozzy124damm bro 1 + 1 must mean "god" is blessing me with various gifts FRFR
@@cozzy124🤦♂️
@@cozzy124
God: 2+2?
Human: 4.
God: ∫ π/2
0 x⋅cos ^2 (x)⋅ln(sin(x))dx
Human: 👁👄👁
bro thought he was cooking but the oven was off
😐
so true
bro thought he was cooking but he was baking and he didn't even own an oven
Ong
He was cooking schizophrenia
The fallacies in this vid are way more infinite than math
Their Argument is so fallacious that it almost makes some other dimensions
It makes perfect sense if they're simply saying math=god, math exists, therefore god exists. But it's a very watered-down definition of god, and it would not make sense if they try to go from that to any specific religion or to say anything on abortion, homosexuality, life after death, and all that.
@FatherMartini
It's a very weak opinion to state something without backing it. How about listing some?
@@lukesutton4135 I'll do him a favour and do it for him!!!!:
Here's the contradiction, he first explains that math can not be detected by the 5 main senses, only by consciousness, THEN you say it has to exist outside of our universe because infinity doesn't fit inside the finite. If it is not physical, like you said only a minute ago, then it can fit in the physical bounds of the universe.
Another contradiction!!!!! He says that there is an infinite combination of numbers, this means there is an infinite combination of functions, which will graph an infinite amount of shapes, so the Mandelbrot set, because it doesn't break any laws of math, is guaranteed to exist.
@@That_OneGuy46 You do realize that math is something infinite right? We can only observe it to a certain point to the point that we can’t even comprehend it anymore and yes infinite doesn’t equal finity that’s why the universe has no end is what he’s saying
We can’t see math, touch math, smell math, but can smoke math.
... nice
czcams.com/video/whD5UzxuwY4/video.htmlsi=evzrgAQjA-qsyT-y
Good pun
Bro fr
that shit would go craaaaazy in a rap song
The existence of God can NEITHER be proved nor disproved by human logic.
This should be the top comment of every video debating the existence or non-existence of God.
There will always be another question, placed somewhere new or deeper that can then be deflected / spun by the other side, continuing on and on forever. Personally, I don't subscribe to any one religion, or the existence of God / gods, but I am willing to listen to anyone that thinks they have the true answer, the one final solution to end the debate. But I wholeheartedly believe that day will never come, unless something happens that completely alters the direction of humanity in a way that can be explained completely by divine interference and not some other natural phenomena that we have already observed time and time again.
If god exists, then he definitely can be proven to exist. For example he could just show himself. Disproving god is impossible. So imo it makes sense to assume, that god doesn't exist, as long as the provable existance isn't proven.
@@fabianwittmann8121You need to take into account of God's property before just dismissing it easily as "he could just show himself."
First of all, God cannot be confined by space or boundary, he is everywhere.
God is also omnipotent, so he is not bounded by the natural law.
Problem is how do you expect a human can perceive a being that is everywhere and doesn't follow the natural order? We see through light, hear from vibration. Should a being like that 'show' himself, can we even perceive him?
@@satriadicky3732 dude, he is supposed to be omnipotent. Not being able to show yourself contradicts omnipotence.
Incredibly real take. The whole point of faith is to believe in it, not to have evidence or proof for that belief in question. Have a great day gedstrom
Bro basically saw weird paradoxical looping patterns he could not understand and so he decided it must be god in order to better understand it.
fr he just jumped to conclusions and thought "OH iT muST Be gOd BecaUSe I dOnT UndErstAnd iT." when really it was a coiencedence(i have no idea how to spell that word) that that specific equation got him that
@@DenimInfluenza The same way religious people try to preach that there book/god is answer to everything
FR!@@WHAT._ISPAT
Could not understand? Lol you missed the whole point, it's not just about the Mandelbrot Set. It's about why does infinite possibilities exists in math. And how to explain the infinite possibility behind it. If Humans invented math, this will never be possible. If you compare math with language, since language is human invention, it has no coincidence. You're not gonna accidentally discover a word, since it does not exists until someone make the word. But for math, you don't make it, you find it. It's already there, we're just discovering it and describing it in our own way such as numbers. If we're not the one who invented it, who did it? That's the point of this video lol. This video doesn't proof god tho, all it do is provide a convincing theory of god existence.
@@DenimInfluenza Then do you have any logic to proof that it is a coincidence? There is only 2 explanation, a creator, or coincidence. If you believe that everything including the infinite possibilities of math, origin of the universe and the existence of life as a coincidence, then ok lol. But since it's impossible to proof that it's coincidence, it just the same as any religion. You're believing in something that's not proven.
Math does NOT control the universe, we've made it up to explain and observe things ,Pi isnt that number becuse we said it is,pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter of it. Which would mean that ratio itself has always existed but we made up numbers to know what it could really be, the pi could be letters if we said so. Mandelbrot shape isnt quote on quote "designed" by someone ,it is "designed" by those units we input
but we discovered it that means it was designed. re read what u just wrote.
@@MicahUhlWas it designed, or does it just exist? Where's the proof that it was designed?
@@benrayner17 something cant come from nothing. it was either created by God or bhy our own imagination. but as the video clearly shows, we cannot create it
@@MicahUhl It didn't come from nothing, though. It's a ratio. We observed it.
@@benrayner17the ratio, the pattern the logic of universe is designed by God
We can only communicate those concepts through maths
Maths is like a language to understand the things
Just like eng language, for example if you are seeing ceiling fan, you can comprehend what it is and next time you see it, you will understand it's the same thing but how will you describe it? Of course you will use a Language and call it a ceiling fan, that's how you will communicate it
Same goes for maths
We can see and observe patterns but the way we describe those patterns we call it maths
To be fair, after taking multiple college calculus courses to be an engineer, I wouldn’t be surprised if math was just our opinion.
Well than I can say 2+2=5 and I would be no less correct than someone who says 2+2=4
2+2 still equals 4 even if there is no humans to have an opinion about it, therefore math is objective and not an opinion.
yha i agree
@@NathanPaterson_2 that only makes sense for more complex equations because you can literally count with your fingers 2+2=4
@@cloud9epic26 what are you trying to say? my whole point is that yes 2+2=4 no matter what anyone's opinion says therefore math is objective.
@@NathanPaterson_2 you said it was no less correct than someone else you says 2+2=4
This video is basically
- Math is infinite and complex
- God is infinite and complex
- Conclusion: MATH PROVES GOD!!!??
That's the issue. If he wants to believe in God, that's fine. However claiming the mandelbrot set proves God? That's too far fetch. Math doesn't automatically mean God is real.
thats like saying:
- this towel is wet
- i am wet
- conclusion: this towel is sentient
fallacy of undistributed middle is always funny i think
No it means the patterns are complex and yet beautiful and infinite, which is weird if you consider everything was born from nothingness and pure chaos if God wasn't real
@@vladyslavlavrenov9167 God was created from nothingness Is the only way I could possibly see it witch still has confusion
Man, what you did was an explicit manifestation of the term "'dogma'".
hmmm... it seems that the floor is made of floor ...I find this to be conclusive evidence that god is real.
As a Math major this was a bit cringy... Pi isn't "The number that explains the area of a circle", it's just the ratio between a circumference and its diameter. That's why we can't "make it have whatever value we want", because all circles are similar to each other -- meaning this ratio is the same for every circle.
It's no more mystical than saying that, in a square, the ratio of height divided by length is 1. Or diagonal divided by length is sqrt(2). These things are embedded in the definition of a square or of a circle, you just state the definition and then derive these properties. There's no need for magic in that process.
The argument about how "You can encode books as numbers, therefore Math is supernatural" was a little weird too, how does that argument go exactly? "There's a 1-to-1 correspondence between natural numbers and states of the universe, therefore natural numbers are a larger infinity than the physical universe"? Is that it?
That's just saying "The universe is finite but the naturals are never-ending", but that also just comes from the definition of the naturals. You simply state, "At least one natural number exists" and "Every natural number has a successor" and there you go, from those two sentences you can derive these properties, you don't need them to "exist somewhere". You're just applying logic to statements.
Love this comment. I also cringed when he said "math is the study of numbers". That's how you know he has never taken a college level math class.
It feels like this guy hasn't taken beyond a high school math course. Hell I know kids that understand what math is better.
Lol he’s a math major guys
ur being pedantic.
In that case, logic is immortal.
This makes sense if you don't really understand math in a fundamental level, if you actually get to the source of the number system we use named "the real and complex numbers" you'll find math is based on axioms which are pretty much "things we declare as true because they're obvious to everyone but impossible to prove" such as the existence of 0, 1 being different than 0, and a few more; everything else is a logic consecuence of these axioms which are pretty much made up by human minds to understand the world; of course infinite numbers exist but because they are part of a system which we declared to have infinite numbers so it could be compatible with our experience of space, currency, energy, combinations, etc.
To actually prove the existence of god using math in the way you want, you would need to prove that the axioms are a direct consequence of a fundamental force of the universe and that the universe is all a direct consequence of mathematics.
But it's impossible, fundamentalist mathematicians resort to the human experience as the basis of math and phisicist only make models of very precise but limited accuracy of the real world which will never be perfect because math is processed by us mere mortals.
I'm not trying to say god isn't real (which may or may not be) but the whole video is based on the premise that math is fundamentally discovered and not invented when math is at it's core declared by us limited mortals playing with ideas and then discovering other things that come as logic conclusions of those axioms.
Then there is the Mandelbrot set, which is just a graph drawn on a cartesian/complex plane that we invented with established rules for expressing equations on it which we made, is a graph as special as any other graphic such as the circumference graph which also gives you a set of infinite points with a pretty pattern but of course you wouldn't use that as an exaple because it's just too simple and everyone could understand it and replicate it; to me the Mandelbrot set argument falls into the theistic argument category of "It looks pretty but it's natural and only artists can make pretty things so an all powerful artist made it" without taking into consideration the mental computing of what makes a human think that something is pretty and even nothingness could be pretty because "prettyness" is a completely subjective quality that depends of the one that experiences it, not of the one who made it
So, all humans, living throughout the world and throughout time, just happened to create the same set of axioms that lead to the same infinitely logical and yet completely consistent system of math?
Thank you for this. His video sounded like a whole lot of gibberish to me. Especially his part on the Mandelbrot set, which is graphed on something humans invented which happened to look kind of cool. Us humans didn’t invent nor discover maths, maths is merely our interpretation of the world.
@@IncredibleMDbruv... You do realise before the 20h century and the progagation of recorded knowledge throughout the world, different regions had their own regional mathematical systems? Of course, the basics of these were the same; but these could be seen as pretty obvious like the fact that 1 is not equal to 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, purely by observing the world
@@fernandofernandez8723if math is how we interpret the world then why is infinite such an important and foundational subject in Math when it doesn't exist in the known world?
@@krovrainkyour claim that math is different in other regions of the world is just wrong 💀. You do realize we derive our math from the Arabians and the Greeks right? And they build off each other too.
“I can get wet, and so can the grass, therefore; I am made of grass”
This is not a banger and I know bangers
This entire video consists of nonsense, trying to utilize math to sound smart and get people believe there‘s a proove for god‘s existence. There is not. That‘s why it‘s called believe!
@@GrandAdmiralMitthrawnuruodo "Sound smart?" buddy he's been using elementary terms to make it as simple as possible for the entire video. only 2 mathematical terms he mentioned were pi and complex plane, which anyone with a high school education should know about
@@m3nny125his video is still nonsensical
I'm a math major and I can tell you his argument doesn't at all "prove" god@@m3nny125
This is like saying "Because there is no perfect circle in nature and it has an infinite amount of symmetry it is supernatural and God made it"
and if they find a perfect circle they would say that only god could make it. Just irrefutable arguments every time.
it's an argument that there are absolute truths, and absolute truths are cropped version of the true absolute who has them all because they're not really absolutes if they could exist on their own. mathematical proofs are not treated as an absolute because they're true provided that axioms are true but science is yet to discover if it follows in all circumstances.
As someone who loves calculus, it seems that the limit doesn’t exist
😂😂
🤓
🤓🤓🤓
theorem of incompletude of Godel , the reason why moral truth and mathematical truth can't be mixed
Yes
The problem with this video is that maths isn't just discovered or invented, it's both. Maths is definitely something we can quantify and measure but at the same time, mathematics as a system of logic is fundamentally natural. True, mathematics does contain infinite information, an infinite amount of possibilities, but that doesn't necessarily mean they exist, it just means they can exist. We do of course discover math, the example of pi is a good one, but at the same time, we invent mathematics. Take for example, i, the square root of -1, a new type of number that hadn't existed previously, that's used in multiple areas such as holomorphic dynamics. This number cannot exist in the real world because it quite literally doesn't, yet with mathematics we invented it to help solve problems. Similarly we use this invention and leverage its properties to apply it to the real world. Another way you can almost show we invent mathematics is the fact that practically every mathematical problem, at its heart, requires absurd requirements to be calculable outside of an ideal, theoretical environment. Take something as simple as a circle, which is defined as all the points a radius length away from a central point. No matter how hard you try, you can never get an actual, true circle because length is quantised, as in, there is a minimum amount of length(the planck length).
Your argument completely breaks down once you consider that even though we can prove things in maths, we cant always prove things. This is the incompleteness theorem, which proves mathematics is incomplete because it's a logical system. No system of logic can prove everything, and this applies to proving God. To say you can prove God using maths is to say there is a proof for such a thing, but if there was a proof for such a thing then you would have to show it isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. Furthermore to prove God with maths you need numbers, algebra etc. You can't just name qualities of both mathematics and God and declare them equal because of such. That's like saying that since penguins have two feet, two eyes and a mouth and bears have two feet, two eyes and a mouth, they are therefore the same. You also make the mistake of saying mathematics is not of the natural world, which it very much is if we're also inventing it at times, such as with the mandelbrot set. There is also the final step of saying that God invented mathematics as opposed to, mathematics is something that is akin to a God, the difference being that mathematics doesn't care at all about moral and philosophical questions.
While I myself know very little about mathematics, I do know enough to be able to say that you cannot generalise mathematics to either a creation of the human mind or to a creation of God, it's somewhere in between where its more so a creation that applies very closely to the natural world of which we know next to nothing of why it exists. Your video at its heart is lacking in research and misunderstands a lot of what makes maths a creation of the human mind, and its rather fallacious, however If you are interested in mathematics and not just trying to find ways to prove an unprovable God, I suggest you read up a lot on proofs, axioms, complex numbers and everything we have created in pursuit of a finer logical system. Oh and just I small thing about proofs, to prove something, you don't just need to note qualities and quantities, you need to verifiably prove via numerous methods such as contradiction, induction etc that a statement or two variables are true or equal.
Very great argument, summed up exactly why I have always disliked the idea of "proof" when it comes to arguments about theism and atheism. You are very articulate and I would love to see Redeemed Zoomer respond to this.
great response, this video argument is fundamentally flawed and poor in general, the spirit is there, but the creator needs to do his research properly otherwise he makes himself look like a child with those easily disprovable arguments. (sorrry for my english, im not native)
What I had heard of regarding the connection between mathematics and theism comes from an idea from Eugene Winger’s article “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” which argues that it cannot be by mere chance that maths are so effective at explaining the physical world if the universe came from a random explosion and masses crashing into each other by chance. It has to do with the intelligibility of the universe (one of the axioms that makes science work), and a valid answer to this intelligibility is a creative intellect. If we discover a book with a story, setting, conflict, plot, characters, etc, we can reason that it has an intelligent author because the story is intelligible and intends to convey/reveal some truth. In the same way, the theistic argument is that we can observe the entire natural world and find that it has intelligibility, which points to an intelligent creator (though maybe it doesn’t prove it in the strict sense, idk).
Thoughts?
@@killianmiller6107the real world has both intelligible and unintelligible properties so it doesn’t always make sense by our predictable standards of logic. Math is basically our effort at reverse engineering and trying to make sense of the concepts of the universe but it doesn’t guarantee that its how it was originally created, randomly or otherwise.
Math isn’t foolproof either, it starts to more or less fall apart at the quantum level where things start getting hazy and can’t easily be explained by our current version of mathematics.
"While I myself know very little about mathematics" I refuse to believe this lol
"look you can zoom into this shape that means god exists"
yes
We mean its infinite and our world is finite. How something infitine can exsist in finite world?
@@OmarMammadov064 who says the world is finite
@@darkstormheute sience.
@@OmarMammadov064 Math isn’t a physical thing, it’s just a language we created to understand the universe. Languages also have an infinite amount of letter combinations because they don’t literally exist in the real world. The Mandelbrot Set exists not because someone designed it, but because it MUST exist in an infinite amount of number combinations. So there’s no contradiction or supernatural thing going on here.
Bro learned about fractals and thought he had everything figured out.
Math is a system designed to fail me in academics
Lol too true 🤣
Me who can do set theory but has a C in algebra:
i failed calculus 1 ... but i am sure good at using c ++ !!!
i'm sure i could understand calculus 1 if it was explained to me in programming terms instead of academic mathematical notation... unforch...
@@dangit69420 Ok bro, you can't just make a claim and back it up without reasoning. Plus, you haven't (and never will) live in the consciousness of someone else's, so you can't just say math isn't hard because it isn't hard for you. That's called an opinion, and based on the way your saying it, it's quite inconsiderate of people who don't truly understand it. I don't know the science behind it, but I am more than sure that math people have a psychological advantage over "non-math people." Rather foolish comment.
@@TahirAhmad-io6uw true, while i wasn't exactly trying to say that "bro math is the simplest thing ever you are dumb if you don't understand it" or something like that, the way i wrote that reply made it seem like i was trying to say that. almost everything in your reply is absolutely true.
also math people don't have psychological advantage over others.
"Science can't prove or disprove god."
"Now we'll be using this branch of science called mathematics to..."
that doesnt really make much sense OP is against that argument but still entertains it
Math is not a branch of science. Math is the language of science. Without maths there is no science. Thus, math is above science.
Maybe math is not into science, maybe science is into math
@@herclasnido "Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change."
_Science._
QED
@@emmerson6903 yeah one of my issues is that he seems to just twist words to equate what is being referred when OP isn’t doing or saying that at all it’s little changes to make the dishonest points in either case the real mystery is how this thread doesn’t have like 20 r-slurs autists screaming at each other
The amount of yapping in this video is infinitely funny.
NO IT Explained GOD OUR GOD
The Mandelbrot set has a beginning so it can’t be infinite. I don’t know if you can flip the equation to zoom out instead? But from how it seems I wouldn’t say it’s infinite. Some one explain
It’s a graph, it has an infinite series of points, the Mandelbrot is as infinite as every other mathematical function
As a person who is bad at math, this is very intriguing to me
Math is literally everything. The size of a table, how many steps you take, the air pressure, how many gallons of water in the ocean. Etc. Etc. Etc. Numbers don't lie.
@@Ninja_Koopa then 3 + 3 = 7? numbers dont lie
As a person who is good at math, this is very intriguing to me
Same
Bruah
As a math major, I would like to point out that the Planck length exists, and math studies relationships between groups, just because math (especially analysis based systems) describes infinite things doesn’t mean the universes set of possible information is infinite.
I always thought of that, can all physics be reduced to a indivisible unit like plank length?
@@shuwohd2343essentially, because distances below a plank length basically have no meaning, as it is physically impossible to determine the positioning of something to that fine of detail, and generally nothing we've come up with can explain gravity, geometry, and time at that small a scale (yet)
But it could be if we expanded outside of our own universe. Maths can contain infinite possibilities, but some of those possibilities are not infinite. As I say elsewhere x^2 + y^2 = 1 is finite, and yet exists within maths which is infinite. In fact there would be an infinite number of finite things within that infinite set. Maybe our finite universe is one of them?
I don't believe in this nonsense of a video, but I have a curious question. If the Planck length exists, does that mean that nothing is actually, absolutely infinite?
@@g_g...YES!!!!!!!
One big issue -- How can you say that the universe is finite? That is a statement present evidence for it. And something which is infinite can have more infinites in it.
This is fucking hilarious i keep coming back to this every few months
Explain yourself
@@TheOneChosenI mean, if you aren’t smart it might be funny ig
@@darthrevan2961 It's funny because its nonsensical and the creator has 0 education on math
@@Ms-xq6jx Again, tell me you didn’t understand the argument without telling me you didn’t understand the argument.
@@darthrevan2961 Again, tell me how many hyper-generalizations and misrepresentations he made about math, logic, and history and tell me how the argument holds any water.
I’m a catholic, so i believe in God, but couldn’t one argue that we designed math in such a way that “has to be” like this and thus explaining the points in the video?
Yes, there are axioms "simple basic non-proven rules" that develop into all sorts of interesting propierties, potentially infinite, but math is invented
The universe wasn't created to fit math, math was created to fit the universe
@@mism847exactly
@@kingvax064 That might be true, but the Concepts and Systems that Math is based off aren't invented, they already exist in the Universe.
neither bc math wasn't invented@@mism847
It makes sense why most ancient civilizations across all continents considered mathematics to be a philosophical discipline, as opposed to just a tool.
Edit:
1. Ancient Greek Society:
• Pythagoreans (6th century BC): Explored the idea of the mathematical harmony of the cosmos, connecting mathematics with the fundamental structure of the universe.
• Euclid (3rd century BC): Demonstrated the logical rigor and axiomatic structure in mathematics, laying the foundation for deductive reasoning and the philosophy of mathematics.
2. Ancient Indian Society:
• Aryabhata (5th century AD): Explored the astronomical significance of mathematics, integrating mathematical calculations with celestial observations, contributing to the philosophical understanding of the cosmos.
• Brahmagupta (7th century AD): Introduced philosophical concepts related to zero, negative numbers, and the solutions to quadratic equations, challenging traditional Indian philosophical ideas about the nature of numbers and reality.
3. Ancient Chinese Society:
• Liu Hui (3rd century AD): Philosophically explored the concept of infinite geometric series, raising questions about the nature of infinity and its implications for the understanding of the universe.
• Zu Chongzhi (5th century AD): Extended the philosophical discussions on the mathematical concept of π, contemplating the infinite and the finite within mathematical and cosmological contexts.
4. Islamic Golden Age:
• Al-Khwarizmi (9th century AD): Philosophically delved into the nature of equations and solutions, leading to abstract algebraic thinking, challenging conventional philosophical ideas about mathematical abstraction and reality.
• Omar Khayyam (11th century AD): Explored the philosophical implications of mathematical geometry, investigating the nature of Euclidean postulates and the conceptual foundations of geometric space.
But the first civilizations did use mathematics as a tool, such as the "Kashim" table, from Babylon, the oldest civilization, only later with the Phoenicians, Greeks and Latins had a truly "complete" vocabulary like today's.
Math was originally used to quantify and measure our world it wasn’t meant to be something that explained the world
that has little to do with metaphysical reasons, it's just that academic thoought and philsophy were much more related before they had time to branch off during modernity
The Bible is a contradictory mess.
Sam Harris and the reason project found near 70,000 contradictions between the canonical Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text version of the Torah.
Do you think the Bible is supposed to be that way?
I don't. So here's how to remove the contradictions:
During the Babylonian captivity the "harlot of Babylon" syncretized God's biblical titles, those being El, Elah and Elohim, to all simply mean "God".
So from 500-600bc to this day El still means God, which is cool, but Elah also just means God... and Elohim...yep, just means God.
Anyone think that creates a lot of contradictions in the Bible? I sure do.
The Church even made it heretical to call Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 the bad guy of the Old Testament. This spawned "apologetics" (for the Devil).
They did this because the Septuagint just said Theos everywhere that El, Elah and Elohim should be. So, the Greeks thought Yahweh was introduced as "Theos" in Genesis 2.
The Vulgate does the same thing it just says Deus in all the places El, Elah and Elohim should be. Also, the Latin people thought Yahweh was introduced as "Deus" in Genesis 2.
Modern English Bibles still do this with removing God's titles. Most just say God and LORD God everywhere.
Try using the NOG translation it's on Bible Gateway and also there's a free App on your phone.
Remember to use a different language when you want info on God's titles. Hebrew is forever syncretized. The Latin counterparts are Deus "God", Dea "Goddess or feminine title of God" and Dei which has two uses one plural "gods" and one possessive "God's" based on context.
Genesis 1 is the possessive context for Elohim.
True Elohim.
Genesis 2 is the plural context for Elohim.
False Elohim.
BAM! No more contradictions in the Bible. Cohesive story :)
@@AnkuronMahantaRx4nthat's why physics is all math 😂
Just got reminded of this video by the fact it's in my memes playlist.
I don't know what's worse, the sheer amount of disinformation or Comic Sans
Both.
If you apply this logic, that means that the English alphabet, for example, was discovered and not invented as the 26 letters (plus the spaces between them) can create an infinite amount of words, combinations, and everything ever, in the past or future, has been encoded.
it can creae a fuck ton of w9rds and combinations of words however that number is nowhere near infinity
The alphabet doesn't have only 26 letters, for some reason after the alphabet "z" there's "aa" and after "zz" there's "aaa".
But why though...
@@kingkwam3816 Its countably infinite, but nevertheless it is infinite.
Language is infnite, what would be the problem with that
@@jumbeer5572 so if numbers are infinite, it’s created by god?
why does math have to "control" anything? it's simply a way to describe what happens.
It does describe what happens, but it describes what our human minds can't fathom or comprehend by rules we didn't make
@@user-fb3hd5lb5w thats not true, math is exactly about inventing rules and proving truths (Theorem and propositions) about objects we define using those rules (mathematical objets like numbers, functions, matrixes...). If we find something in the natural world that is similar in some sense to those objetcs we invent, we can apply those rules to the natural world too.
@@FireArch1024 The things we're discovering we didn't invent. We write out a formula for something, but we didn't make the formula, that's merely just our way of explaining what we found, and we still don't even realize what it really means. The rules of math always stay the same, we didn't make them, because if we tried to change them math wouldn't work. The rules and formulas were already there, we just discovered them and learned how to use them.
@@user-fb3hd5lb5w If you put an example of what you call formula and why "it was always there" I could explain better, but take for example (a+b)²=a²+b²+2ab. That formula is true for real numbers (that apply to measuring physical quantities). But if you work in 2mod, you would write (a²+b²)=a²+b², so whether a formula is true depends on the rules/definitions you make.
There are many math branches that have very little application to the real world and their objects of study are completely useless, they are just fun and challenging areas of math (knot theory for example, which is the math area I study). Sometimes the math techniques developed inside these theories are used to prove important truths in other areas though.
No, as you can see math is a language that only a non-existent mf can understand
who tf said this universe dont got infinites
The Universe expands infinitely for God who knows how long until the Universe itself ends and all things cease to exist after every planet, star and eventually black holes die out is when the Universe will truly end, but the Universe itself is technically finite, but not infinite. So long the Universe still exists, it will expand infinitely until it ends. So technically the Universe by term is finite and infinite at the same time, it just depends on how you look at it.
1:48 “This number exists therefore god”
This is the level of Logic I have when I'm drunk
so fucking real
Even for a bible thumper this is some terrible logic lol
@@millec60 explain, or else you're just a thumper except without the Bible. Lol.
@@juilianbautista4067 First of all, our universe is infinite, not finite. Second of all, math was invented to comprehend the universe. Mandelbrot set is cool and all that but because there's an infinite amount of real numbers to plug in, it has some weird properties, which has nothing to do with there being a god or not.
@@millec60Its still possible for it to be finite. All we can declare for now is just that its bigger than we can observe. Its big, but it definitely has a limit. General relativity agrees to this, since it requires a finite spherical universe; it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite. Conclusion is that we cannot prove the universe as finite neither infinite.
Math is a language model, this is like saying that the English language contains everything in the universe because the language can he used to describe it. Math doesn't contain anything, it represents it. It's just a way to understand what we observe and hypothesise what we may observe using patterns that have been demonstrated to be consistent
english cant describe evrything in the universe though nor is english infinite
@@kingkwam3816 Doesn't refute his point though, do you believe that it's a 1 to 1 or a representation based on testable results? do you believe that our ruler to measure the universe is absolute, and not a scale made from our frame of reference?
He literally talks about your argument at thr start of the video
@@hoetaru1711☝️🤓
@@hoetaru1711 i dont really give a fuck. just pointing out the difference
Man did not create math, he discovered it.
Just because we can’t see outside the observable universe doesn’t consequently make it “unnatural” we know the universe is bigger than what we can see because by the time light reaches us it has expanded further.
This video makes a huge leap in logic when it goes from math possessing a concept of infinity to math therefore being created by God. Infinity is just that -- a concept.
facts top to bottom
It's not that simple. We don't know if we invented math or we just discover it.
But he mentions that math can only exist in the mind near the beginning of the video. So if math is infinite, it must exist in the mind of a infinitely existing person. I wish he spend more time on that aspect, or made a longer video, but idk.
@@007arek Correct, and this argument assumes that math was discovered, which renders it invalid
@@thegreatchipmanthat is the problem we will never know. Like, we may never disprove super natural because we don’t know what it is, and we can’t prove super natural. Because it is the supernatural. The video is arguing for a God which is pretty invalid cuz God is supernatural and it will be hard to observe. The question, “did we invent math or discover math” already renders “math proves god exist” pointless.
This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "information" in quantum mechanics. Just because an idea can be indefinitely expanded upon, or because the concept of infinity exists within mathematics, does not mean that the universe would need to be infinitely large to "contain" every possible number in mathematics. There is an infinite number of digits in pi because pi does not fit neatly into our numbering system. That's it. There is also an infinite number of digits in 1/3 after the decimal. That doesn't prove that the numbers pi and 1/3 must be supernatural in origin. Those infinite digits do not actually exist anywhere unless you compute them, because numbers and digits are just an invention of the mind that we use to more easily understand mathematical relationships. Now, actually *computing* all of those digits would require an infinite amount of information, which is impossible in a finite universe, but that's not what you were talking about.
Exactly. This guy makes a huge fallacious argument.
As an atheist I wonder how this man thinks a flying god that knows everything and can do everything and just existing bc of no reason is more logical then a universe just simple existing fir no reason, theres no debate, god objectively does not exist, anyone who belives in god today is either a person who was in a religous family their whole childhood and now they're to emotionaly connected to leave flying tea cups and a bunch of bs, or they have 50-90 iq and first didnt belive in god and then suddently they start beliveing in it. have tou also noticed that every religous person ever has been religous for their entire life almost? Hmm maybe thats bc god was made up thousands of years ago by dumb people trying to explain reality? So now that we know how the world works, naturally, without god and magic supernatural things that objectively cant exist, shold we still bring back Tor to explain lightning???????? Fuck me man
And some people believe this guy, can you believe that? Because they don't know anything about FUCKİNG SCİENCE.
Exactly
Disagree with all of you
hope this is satire
sadly it is not
I had this spiral thing like this Mandlelbrot thing you described in my shroom trip, it wanted to make me crazy, it wanted to prove me that i know nothing and never know nothing and the more i search I'll be more lost , the more i thought i got more confused and it was like hell.
"math cannot be contained in our universe so it must be contained somewhere else"
i love how you completely ignored the possibility that it is not contained
Everything can be contained silly goose
@@renasci_ explain
This
@@renasci_Where are concepts contained?
@@edwinjaner5978 bet they'll say "god's mind"
To provide a more formal analysis of the argument presented in the video using propositional logic, let’s break down the argument into its core propositions and analyze the logical structure. We’ll use standard logical notation and then assess the validity of the argument.
Propositions
1. P1: Science cannot explain the supernatural (S → ¬SN)
• Where S = Science explains, SN = Supernatural
2. P2: Mathematics is not observable in the natural world (¬O → M)
• Where O = Observable, M = Mathematics
3. P3: Mathematics explains the natural world (M → EN)
• Where EN = Explains Natural world
4. P4: Either mathematics is a human invention or it pre-exists as a controller of the universe (H XOR P)
• Where H = Human invention, P = Pre-existing controller
5. P5: Mathematics contains infinite information (M → I)
• Where I = Infinite information
6. P6: The universe is finite (U → F)
• Where U = Universe, F = Finite
7. P7: If mathematics is infinite and the universe is finite, then mathematics cannot be contained within the universe (I ∧ F → ¬C)
• Where C = Contained within the universe
8. P8: The Mandelbrot Set demonstrates infinite complexity (MDS → IC)
• Where MDS = Mandelbrot Set, IC = Infinite Complexity
9. P9: Infinite complexity suggests a designer (IC → D)
• Where D = Designer
10. P10: If mathematics is in the mind and contains infinite information, it implies an all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind (M ∧ I → G)
• Where G = God (all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind)
Logical Structure
1. (S → ¬SN) ∧ (¬O → M) ∧ (M → EN) ∧ (H XOR P)
2. (M → I) ∧ (U → F) ∧ (I ∧ F → ¬C)
3. (MDS → IC) ∧ (IC → D)
4. (M ∧ I → G)
Analysis
• The argument’s validity depends on whether the conclusions logically follow from the premises.
• Premises P1, P2, and P3 set up the distinction between the natural world and the realm of mathematics.
• Premises P4, P5, P6, and P7 suggest that mathematics, being infinite, cannot originate from the finite universe.
• Premises P8 and P9 link the complexity of the Mandelbrot Set to the idea of a designer.
• The crucial premise P10 asserts that the nature of mathematics implies the existence of God.
Critique
• The transition from P7 to P10 is a significant logical leap. The conclusion that an infinite, abstract realm implies a divine mind is not a necessary consequence of the premises.
• Premises P8 and P9 (related to the Mandelbrot Set) employ a form of the teleological argument, which is more an inference than a logical deduction.
• The argument also assumes that the abstract nature of mathematics (P5) necessitates a supernatural origin, which is a metaphysical assumption rather than a logical conclusion.
While the argument presents a series of logical propositions connecting mathematics with the concept of God, the leap from abstract mathematical concepts to the existence of a divine, supernatural being is more inferential and metaphysical than strictly logical. The premises do not necessarily entail the conclusion, indicating a potential weakness in the argument’s overall validity.
cap
Cap
Also we are talking about God, Whom you cannot see, Hear or other stuff in normal circumstances, so it probably seems life a metaphysical leap, but its not. its just that we cant define God in our minds, and if we do, the thats not the true God, it would be your version,
Math is just one proof of God, There is Much more, for instance, History , Creation itself, the Bible and how historically and Scientifically accurate it is long before people discovered what it says
Sometimes my ingenuity is Stupendous🥲I dont know
Also im 17 failing math, so i wont pretend i know what you said in the math, but i read the conclusion and made my answer based on that
top tier comment
agreed
If math is infinite, and math describes the universe, then the universe is actually infinite, or there is a multiverse which is infinite
My math teacher starts every lesson with "[Topic in Math] is a man-made concept."
i'll just say something: "just because something is beyond our comprehension, it doesn't make it divine, just worth studying"
Randomness can not create a design. Both are literally the opposite of eachother
you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am
@@tox3417 elaborate
@@tox3417 the mandlebrot shown in this video literally shows how randomness can appear to be designed, go read some madlebrot books and look into chaos theory and you imght have a better undrstanding on the mathematics behind this. I myself am an agnostic but just dont think your comment has much merit to it.
Randomness can create perceived order. For example, if every atom in the universe changed to a random location every second for an infinite amount of time, eventually our universe would be created.
Isn’t saying that the Mandal BR Set having infinite patterns being proof of a supernatural creator no different than saying putting two mirrors against each other to create an infinite void proof of a supernatural creator? Finding patterns in the natural formations of the universe adds to the mystery yes, but I’d hardly consider that proof of otherworldly influence.
It's far easier to argue in favor of god using human imagination and consciousness than math
Mirrors aren't infinite, eventually the light gets absorbed into the mirror.
@@ghoulbuster1 semantics
@@ghoulbuster1 consider two hypoethetically perfectly aligned perfect mirrors with photons bouncing on a straight path between them
@@LeLe-pm2pr thats still a hypothetical, not whats actually in the video being clearly demonstrated.
All the results of mathematics, such as the Mandelbrot set, follow as a logical consequence of axioms (simple statements that we assume are true). Once you fix your set of axioms, there is no way to 'design' any result after that.
1:54 exept that numbers don't occupy physical space.
Mathematicians are secretly philosophers
Since they both explain logic one just does it with numbers, and the other one does it with words
well I mean
mathematics started as a branch of philosophy, basically
Are the words "God isn't real"
@@jakeroyle3127 I’m atheist so I’d agree
I just really wanted to make the comparison to math and philosophy
math IS philosophy
yea but it does not mean it cares about us or made heven or hell it might not even care about us
Hands down, the best math propaganda I've ever seen.
True💀
Fr I'm using it as motivation to study for my math exam
Yeah it’s good for math thou
Thought this was god propaganda
He just disproved him self at 2:05
Plot twist:
Mandelbrot was god the entire time.
unfunny
I’ve learned not only math controls the universe, it controls time. Zooming in at the editor thing basically means you saw an object grow more overtime. In the picture displayed at 5:21. It shows resebalance of a galaxy. In a solar system, overtime, it may become a supermassive black hole, making another galaxy. The same thing with the planets if they become a star. Same evolution with moons. Which means every single same spiral at that right image of 5:21 is a solar system, or used to be a solar system. And if you zoom into them, it turns into a galaxy. Therefore, it’s showing about a reference of how when you go further from an object, you’ll see more into its past. Inevitably, this also means The MandelBrot set, or making an equation of z = z by the power of 2 + c is equivalent to the expansion of the universe, just like how the universe continually expands faster than light. Meaning that an equation that makes the Mandelbrot set makes the universe. Possibly, Mandelbrots probably duplicate which is how the universe expands. We can’t see the full universe, but math can tell us about it. This also proves the multiverse does not exist, it is just a verse that continues to duplicate like how bacteria does.
As a PhD scholar in a field of science I doubt any scientist believe or ever claimed that we know everything about the universe as stated at the beginning of the video.
this dude making the video barely knows a thing, cluelessly confident
he never said we know everything about the universe
@@swamprat22He did say that atheists believe science explains everything in the universe.
yes. science explaining everything is not the same as us understanding everything about the universe.@@hmingthansangavangchhia4913
@@hmingthansangavangchhia4913that doesn't mean atheists know all about science then right?
how did you jump from "math is infinitely complex" to "math must be created by god" dawg
Cuz somehow infinite amount of information cannot be here, in possibly infinite Universe.
Hmm, great "argument" for infinite Universe.
watch the vdo again
@@zerinkhan3332 No need to rewatch, there is little to no reason for that.
@@Unknown_Planet the information isn't infinite, there's just nothing to stop it from *potentially* become infinite. There's a difference.
@@Teo97b Yeah, that's right. It's even not actual mathematics, it's just an unstoppable list of 0's and 1's.
Woah cool you learned math. Didn't prove god exists using it though.
I would have went with Einstein’s theory of special relativity where it suggests the future is already laid out. Also how the past, present, and the future are dimensions that are currently all happening right now. At least I think that’s right if I remember correctly.
That “someone” is Benoit Mandelbrot, and he taught at Yale for years before he retired and unfortunately passed away in 2010. He was the man that figured out that very calculation to explain fractals. I’m sure you can find a lecture or thesis where he explains it.
But he didn't invented it, he discovered it like gravity.
@@noobnessmeenobody said he did?
@@noobnessmee inventing vs discovering math is an interesting debate, point is that mandelbrot was the first to graph it
@@LeLe-pm2pr I agree. Is there anything new? Or is everything simply reformed something?
benoit mandelbrot is god guys
I was gonna make a long comment regarding the fallacies but many people already did that. I just wanna point out that it seems as like the author of this video has just experienced a completly normal fascination with math and the mandelbrot set, and he attributed it to his beliefs.
If you are going to call out this video then I will call out your claim (that's the way I do things).
First I've been scrolling down a while and have only seen one comment against this video other than yours.
Second this entire video is using math to prove his beliefs so thank you for verifying that I guess.
Third the Mandelbrot set is an example of proving (infinite) fractals and how we have discovered them.
The Mandelbrot set already existed before we discovered it, it is like a tree falling in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it.
research axiom theory, fundamental logic, and incompleteness theorem of math, and then you will realize that math is invented at its core and the arguments in this video are totally wrong @@hyperblueeonbeta
@@hyperblueeonbeta By that logic the code behind procedural terrain generation existed, and notch just discovered it?
So Minecraft is a creation of "gOd"?
Discovering something abstract and inventing it, are very close, dare I say, impossible to distinguish!
@@hyperblueeonbeta, I'm seeing a lot of comments disagreeing and I'm relieved about that, because a lot of misconceptions are being spread by someone who clearly doesn't have the expertise to deal with math concepts, and there are people who are there to point out these errors.
Complex things arise from a system of simple rules. Conway's Game of Life is a perfect example of this. The simple rules he dictated for the game are not intended to create specific things, but many things were created obeying this system of rules, and they exist because they respect them and not because they already exist. Things that do not exist, but can exist, fall into the realm of possibility and not of existence. I can invent a machine that stamps sheets while doing flips on mondays, but that doesn't exist if it hasn't been created yet, it's just possible.
@@hyperblueeonbeta, furthermore, the Mandelbrot set is just a fractal. Newton's fractal was born before we could draw cool graphs and know what fractals were like. But we had an idea of what they are because fractals are merely the product of recursive mathematics and repeated patterns.
Amazing combo of garbage-tier math knowledge and garbage-tier trolling.
The best part about this video is he makes a tierlist on arguments for god and lists this as #1
The fact that that’s the case makes me certain that deep down people have to know that it’s fake. You can’t honestly be contempt with this as your explanation for believing in something.
I have a friend that I love dearly and he is so much smarter than this but he truely believes in it and it breaks my heart that he believes in something so primitive.
those were some leaps in logic.
math is not a physical thing which is the reason why it doesn't need physical space. it also doesn't control the universe, it describes it. the physical properties we use are completely made up. we just defined what a force or a potential is, it's not something that was revealed to us. the reason math is so complex now is because over a long period of time a whole bunch of people found new ways to explain the universe.
I'm pretty sure if you go back to the start of the video that no matter what language you study math with it will always be infinite. Even if it's in letters.
We only chose numbers because it's easier for us to study.
Mandelbrot is something that is exactly the opposite of randomness. You can't have an infinite set of designed figure and claim it came from randomness. You gotta understand that it is Infinitely desgined and that will make it impossible to ever be made up from randomness.
For example About Infinites:
If a car moved 100 mile per hour and each mile it passed the speed will be cut in half becoming 50 miles per hour,
And it just continues doing so to a point where it starts to barley even move and be closer to staying still than it is to moving fast.
you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am
@@deejaythedeejay This statement is flawed. It suggests that any thing which cannot be disproven is intrinsically true. This holds up under deductive reasoning, but falls apart when it is not supported by any evidence or observation to be broken down into fundamental parts. Your argument is saying that since you cannot disprove that universe came from a singularity, it must be true, being contrary to your statement. As I said, this logic is sound given any physical evidence, but can not be used to form postulates. I hope this makes sense. Also please capitalize.
@@deejaythedeejay thats not how formal logic works like at all
@@naizyexcept i can, because harry potter is a fictional character written for a book, just like god
The whole argument relies on a serious misunderstanding about what math is and does.
Its a fundamental difference in philosophy between the two of you, not him being misunderstood about what math is. He dose a great job explaining the difference between nominalist and realist philosophy in other vedios of his, and I definitely think that this vedio works best with that prior understanding. Which is why I wish he had included his nominalist vs realist explanation in this vedio, this cpmmemt section would look way diffrent if he did
same guy that made the first reply, just swapped from alt to main for reasons not pertaining to this discussion
czcams.com/video/ZVLCGCRf7YU/video.htmlsi=FWrI7fUWSY7oMLp1
even though it's on a different subject, he explains the philosophy that goes into his argument in this vedio
Prove it instead of just stating some random conjecture without any proof
Okay, then what is math and what does it do?
@@8-bitpersona16 Math describes the process of making rigorous conclusions from a set of assumptions.
Math does not contain infinite numbers nor proves their existence. Existence of infinite numbers is just an assumption that often is made.
4:30 I was waiting for an argument but all I got was an appeal to common sense and the assertion that "math controls the universe"
As a physics major, I really hope this is satire for your sake
The amount of logical fallacies in this video is so much that it's laughable.
This dude said and I quote: "our universe Is finite". like what
our universe is expanding so it has borders @@ethanpatch6840
new planets dont just pop up out of no where, it is finite@@ethanpatch6840
@@ethanpatch6840 our universe is not infinite, you can ask scientists they say the same but they do always say this when saying that "The universe is not infinite, but its growing". other than that any fallacies you might find I don't have an answer for.
When calling anything fallacies it would be in best practice if you plan to discuss it to simply give your list of examples so others can debate instead of just leaving a comment with the debate set up and no actual information to debate about is being given.
Math isn’t an inherent property within physics. It’s merely our human conceptual understanding of physics. It’s the way that we quantify physics based on our own basis of knowledge.
How do you quantify infinity?
@@LetsDOARTinfinity is simply a concept we determine by a never ending result of something, or a seemingly never-ending result. The fact that you see infinity as this strange and mysterious concept shows how little you know of math. Infinity is not a complicated concept at all. In fact, it's one of the easier ones.
@@LetsDOART To ask for a quantity means to ask “how much”. Therefore infinity is quantified as infinity. Just as 4 is quantified as 4. Or pi is quantified as pi
Infinity is conceptual. The number 4 is conceptual. Pi is conceptual. All math is a concept. Attempting to “quantify” infinity as anything more than its mathematical definition (it being infinite) won’t yield any results
I think this is a truism. No one claimed otherwise. Everyone knows, that math is an abstraction to describe reality. But due to the fact, that we use this tool to remodel what we see around us, it is our current understanding of it, and not entirely flawless. Some of which seems to fit into this universe, other things don't.
We have an approximation on how close we are to describing reality with math, by its application and coherence/consistency.
Good example, Newtons laws apply up until a certain threshold of size. They are obviously useful to describe a good chunk of physical interactions, but not flawless. By refining those unknowns, we come closer and closer to objective reality.
@@LetsDOARTsimple we invented something called a limit to do just that
My friend uses that as his google background and every time I look at it it makes me wonder if the Gif Ever stopped
Ooh, my turn! My turn!
- Cold exists.
- Ice giants in Norse Mythology are cold.
- Conclusion: NORSE MYTHOLOGY IS REAL!!!!111!!11!
underrated
Heck yeah!
Humans can't create infinities, but we *can* create sets of rules that create infinite possibilities. Math, and the components of it that created the mandelbrot set, are sets of rules that happened to be accidentally put together in a way that forms the mandelbrot set. Sometimes, when coding, I accidentally create a program that could theoretically create infinite information, in an infinite computer. Does this mean I'm god? No. It means I've incorrectly coded a recursive function, and I'm going to fail the exam coming up.
WRONG
did you pass
i think you are wrong in this because in the video it says that the math itself is infinite, and creates infinite possibilities. You are talking about creating something finite that creates infinite possibilities. Not the same thing, there is actually a big difference and that may be the gods difference. I still dont know what to believe tho😊
u would not been able to create infinite information on a computer without binary math my man
lol
A logical fallacy used here is that math "contains information". Math is a tool, not a library of information. There are some constants in the world like π or the speed of light that can be described by using math. If there is a clue that a higher consciousness exists, that would be the fact that these constants hold their particular values instead of different ones.
Also the Mandelbrot set is an example of fractal geometry that emerges by using math (a man made tool to describe the natural world) and plotting it in the complex plane (another man-made tool). This is just an example of the concept of emergence, which roughly means order is created by chaos.
order is created by chaos 🙌
I think the point here is that the author starts from the idea “science explains everything,” and thus it turns out that mathematics = God, because she explains everything exactly like God, but for atheists
Well considering the fact that his argument for a higher consciousness relies on the horrible assumption that math is a library of information?
Math contains information buddy. It’s like a code, you never took a coding class. I can tell
@@adamfrank1182 I have a Bachelor degree in Computer Science, "buddy".
the like-to-dislike ratio on this video is unfair. it was a super fun watch.
We definitely can define math to be whatever we want it to be. The core of mathematics is that arbitrary assumptions ought to be made, for then we can perform mathematics.
Too many people are confined by euclidean geometry, real numbers and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. They assume this is mathematics, and the only true way.
Embrace different geometries, number systems, and axiomatic systems. Then you shall get closer to understanding mathematics.
There are atheists: "God does not exist!
There are theists: "God exists!"
And then there's this guy: "God is math"
and math is a concept we invented to help explain the world around us.
the difference is we can observe that math applies to the real world because it's all LITERALLY a description of physical phenomena, but god is still just an abstract concept made up to control medieval peasants
Pythagoras?
Prolly@@DLCguy
you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am
@@naizy bro u got a point
But probably you've misunderstood the video
It’s also fun to point out that ancient Greeks used math to attempt to know the divine. The reason why they (especially pythagoreans) studied it so intensely was they believed they could know God thru math
The mathematician Pytagoras was believed to be related to God Apollo.
"God" you mean the ancient greek gods lol.
the ancient greeks didnt have one "god" so your comment falls apart
@@lilpullout the cool thing about those cult religions was they were usually monistic, so they had the belief that all gods were a face of the one, ultimate god. it was often the "secret" revealed to those initiated. it's also why so many were sort of combined in worship, or have different variations that were worshiped in different areas. but it's not my idea, that's literally the entire point of pythagoreanism. it's really well-known, they're the cult that didn't eat beans.
What is the musical piece that you used at 2:15?
The video's argument is basically:
-Maths exists
-Maths must exist in the natural world or the supernatural world
-Maths contains infinite information but the natural world is finite, so math cannot exist in the natural world (therefor exist in the supernatural world)
-Math is only in the mind, has infinite info, and controls everything, so it must be from a mind, that knows all and controls all (GOD)
Math is a system we created that deals with values on a theoretical level, to describe how the universe works. This is like saying human language is proof of god, because it's not physical, and it can describe infinite situations. It's not like humans are omniscient just because we created vocabulary that is capable of describing the entire universe.
Everything he said about maths also applies to games like Go. There an infinity of possible games, so is Go supernatural? Is the Chinese guy who invented Go gods?
@@scatmanbutwithanc684 please explain the leaps in logic... everything seems logically correct to me
god is infinite situations. the universe is infinite situations, math is infinite situations. All correlate.
@@Jeffersonjeffing my pen can be in infinite situations, is it god?
@@ttyblender1580 god invented it. Its made of atoms isnt it.
Math doesn't CONTROL everything, as it was stated in the video, it DESCRIBES, and not even everything, only phisical properties of objects. This is because math is only in our minds, so it can't control anything, but we can describe something with math
@@athletico3548L
If you take it literally, math does actually control everything. At a certain level, every function of everything in the universe could be described as a near infinite series of mathematical equations. Even the individual cells within your own body could be described using equations.
@@athletico3548 Math by its very nature requires a mind to exist. You seem to be conflating mathematics with physics. Mathematics is simply one of the ways that humans interpret physics.
@@Aygeu Every cell in the body could be described using words, if we wanted to. Does that mean that words control everything, or does it mean that we use words to describe what already exists?
@@jennosyde709 I don’t think you’re understanding my comment. Literally every individual movement, transfer of information, chemical reaction, LITERALLY ANYTHING, is at it’s most basic level a bunch of equations. You can describe something with words but that doesn’t change anything about it no matter how horribly you were to describe it. If you try to define an object’s motion with 1000 equations and even one of them is wrong, you are incorrect and it is not undergoing the same motion.
Logical Fallacy
they always get me with the "basic common sense dictates"
No. Discovering math wouldn’t make it supernatural. That’s like saying hydrogen is supernatural because we discovered it. Also, math isn’t the thing that’s ruling the universe, physics is - and there’s literally no way of confirming whether our models of physics are what’s actually going on. We’re making repeated inferences and attempting to explain phenomena using limited information. You could say “the universe is a smooth manifold because general relativity is accurate” but it would be more accurate to say “when the universe is treated as a smooth manifold general relativity is accurate.” It doesn’t mean that the universe is a smooth manifold, it means that when it’s treated like one, gravity is explained accurately by general relativity.
You misunderstand; hydrogen and all of physics functions within the bounds of the universe or natural world; beyond space, time and existence those things do not exist. whereas maths exists both within and beyond the universe and the natural world.
if maths is a language; then all of existence is a story book i.e language exists beyond books.
@@hamzaimran771 Why do christians keep confusing analogies with the real thing? this is the same as the "DNA is code" bs.
You just said that things don't exist beyond existence, which is true albeit redundant. Math doesn't exist either beyond existence because if you're beyond 'exist'ence than nothing exists, including math. The biggest misconception is that math existed before humans and was discovered by us: this is false. Math is a tool created and used by humans to help process complexities with ease. The fundamental truths of math, which are cited as proof of a supernatural power, are called axioms, and they exist because mathematicians decided that they should since they make the system of analyzation we call "mathematics" function.@@hamzaimran771
@@Leadlight280 i mean dna is code
@@uncut4127 omfg
[ Discrete mathematics has entered the chat ]
By the way, the Mandelbrot Set visualization does, in fact, contain evidence of intelligent design. The reason for this is because it was made by computer scientists. I hope this helps.
It already existed but was found
It wasn't created by computer scientists, however it _was_ created by sets of rules that were also invented by humans, so your argument still stands.
It dose not, there is a God read the Bible
It was not made by computer scientists. It started existing when the universe started existing, and all computer scientists did was find out that it exists.
@@EnderHedge you just completely ignored the argument and your rebuttal was a statement with no backing
saint anselm woke up and was like
Does it have to do anything with black holes?
"we cant comprehend infinity, therefore god exists"
Lol
That's the worst summary I've ever seen to be honest
@@Totally_Not_Dan it's entirely accurate.
lol
@@Totally_Not_Dan The most concise, actually
So basically what it comes down to is "math is complex, god is complex therefore god exists"
hes saying that God created math. Math is everywhere and it is everything therefore God created "everything and is everything. However since God is outside of human comprehension such as math is sometimes out of human comprehension, we cannot fully understand how God came to be or how God is but we know God has to exist.
@@brandonnunez5401 but that whole argument falls apart if god didnt create math, just because something makes sense doesnt mean that its supernatural, the color blue will always be the color blue, thats just something thats true, nobody designed the color blue to be the color blue, its just something that is either true or false, maths is the exact same but on a more complicated scale surely.
Yes, someone did design the color blue to look the way it does. His name is Jesus Christ.@@funnymark5494
@@brandonnunez5401
If math is everything, its also that a grasshopper is the fact that god exist and therefore a grasshopper is everything aswell as the fact that god doesn't exist. If he is everything, he is surely the fact that he doesn't and can't exist too. Which is just as little proof as the counter argument.
Also I find it shocking that people think infinity and everything is even remotely close to equivalent.
Also, if there practically exist a god that created our milkyway, I bet my soul in hell that he is just as clueless about whatever created him.
@@lurven666 At some point something has to exist outside of the realm of creation to create said collection. you logically at some point need to come to a creator.
Math is a language, we defined math with axioms and its functions with our logic to help better describing the world we live. Its better to use math to describe the behavior of electrons than to use common language. It is not a rule set that dictates what the universe is
Where does it come from - a mind
And who discovered that mind ??