The Mandelbrot Set: Atheists’ WORST Nightmare
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- In this powerful lecture, Dr. Jason Lisle reveals a secret code seen throughout creation: the Mandelbrot set. Why is the Mandelbrot set atheists’ worst nightmare? Because it reveals the infinite, intelligent mind of God in ways that you’ve probably never seen before.
You can watch the original full-length talk here:
• Atheists CANNOT Explai...
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world:
AnswersinGenes...
In the case of the mandelbrot set. The answer to "What causes the complexity?" is "The work done iterating the formula". It's not a nightmare. It shows us that the beauty and complexity we see in the word around us can arise from a few simple rules.
Rules and laws need to set in motion by a force. Humans did not invent the shape of the Mandelbrot set. What are the actual chances something like this is random chance? Paired with all the other complexities in life? You reach a mathematical number of impossibility when you start adding them all up to chance. Of course an athiest will never give you an inch though so im wasting my time.
I agree. These religious types tend to overlook the simple, but still extraordinary, explanations for things.
@@scottdemarest9315 It's funny and sad at the same time anytime someone thinks that they can disprove God by claiming that "simple laws" are all the explanation we need for the complexity and order of the universe...
Where did these "simple laws" and every other perfect law that perfectly maintains order in the universe come from? Why did utter chaos not take over? Did a random big bang create this many perfect laws and this much order? How is the claim that a random big bang creating this many perfect laws and this much order not a supernatural claim that is based on faith?
There is nothing simple about the laws and the order that governs our universe... To state that the laws and the order that governs our universe are simple is intelectual dishonesty.
Just because you can explain something through science/math or various laws, it doesn't mean that God did not create them. That's the whole point of the video... the fact that something has a "simple" explanation that can be understood through science/math, it doesn't mean that God did not make it be so. Why do these numbers work exactly the way they do in such perfect order? They did not have to be so orderly and systematic, but they are. Why does math make sense and function so perfectly instead of it being complete and utter chaos?
I'm not necessarily making the point that the order in our universe proves God, but that would be a pretty good argument. I’m merely pointing out the fact that being able to explain our universe through science/math doesn't mean that God did not create it...
How does it make sense to say that the big bang made all of this order, but that God didn't?
@@Vladi.G great points! I see a mic drop. 🙂🙏
@@Vladi.G no one thinks it’s disproves God. People think it doesn’t prove God
As an Atheist, I am fascinated by the Mandelbrot! Not even close to a nightmare!
Same with me
Ikr it's so cool
ironic coming from a minecraft pfp
@@marquiseco.”IrOniC cOmiNg FrOm A hOrSe RiDeR pFp”
See how that doesn’t make sense?
hmmm... i mean... hmmm... I'm not going to talk- @@dryfox11
Now I believe in Math, thank you.
I'm no longer an amatheist.
@@jameswest8280 I’m a mathesist
Anything to escape God huh? Not gonna happen.
@@oreally8605 man shapes dont prove god
@@oreally8605 provide evidence there is anything to escape from.
I'm an atheist. I have no idea why this was recommended to me, but it was a very good, entertaining, educational and non-condescending presentation on a series of complex topics. At least until the way it got to religion - you're right that atheist mathematicians/scientists don't understand everything, but to most of us that's the joy of science. To be on the very edge of understanding and not understanding.
Religious differences nevertheless, great presentation, thank you.
But that edge never is crossed nor can be.
Only eternity will allow us to understand infinity.
Hence the tragedy of science - it can NEVER reach its intended goal of understanding the universe.
And always falls short...infinitely short...Limited success is ultimate failure.
Only faith can answer the question that science forever seeks.
When science is looking for how it works, faith points to WHO makes it work.
For work it perfectly does, but fully understanding we don't.
Friend - find peace in Jesus, Him who is the image of the True God.
Science cannot give you that peace, faith in Jesus will.
The tragedy of religion is that it never tries to understand *anything*, it satisfies itself with medieval stories which "explained" things to people who thought iron tools were the last word in sophistication. "How does the work?" "God did it." only satisfies the feeble-minded.
It's not a tragedy of science, it's a strength. Faith is important on a personal level, but science excludes the unprovable. Some things are unprovable, and that's just the way it is. You could say, like this speaker, that God created math. You can say that, but I won't believe you because there's no proof in that claim - only faith. If I don't share that faith, then I can't accept that to be true. Turn to faith for comfort. Turn to science for truth. You can have both, just don't mix the two!
I thought the same. Very good presentation but the conclusion did not inevitably follow the evidence. For me, the reason that we get the same fractal patterns in nature and mathematics is because, in both cases, we are applying a simple rule repeatedly.
Some homosexuality is caused by child abuse. Why does the Bible want to kill them all?
“Mathematical concepts were not created, they were discovered.”
Edit: Please note that my comment was meant to imply that these concepts were created by God and discovered by men.
this was in the context of humans discovering math, not creating it. He wasn' referring to God
@@filetmignon9978, yes, I understood that too. Thanks for pointing it out though. Good day.
@@lynnharrell9598 👍
Fractals do not need any creator
Yes, that's why we use Arabic numbers and not Roman numbers. Oh wait!
No, numbers are human inventions. And mathematics describes the properties of those numbers.
As an atheist I have always liked mandelbrot set since I first learned about it. It still hasn't given me any nightmares...
Satan has deceived you. In this life you are either a child of God, or a child of satan. Ps. Hell is a lake of fire, NOT a party place. Choose wisely!!
Dito😎
No nightmares, but where is God in that? I don´t see any god at all.
Your an atheist so your not to bright to start with
its a representation of how perfect God’s mind and how infinite it is… not a matter of how you can see Him
I was an atheist and now I'm a mathematician after this video
no.... u r a god's servant!
@@zaplershorts7783 I am only my own God
That was an interesting reply, with multiple layers to it.
@@zaplershorts7783 Evangelising on Social Media is ineffective... Im not even sure these platforms and others like it are even close to be Godly.
You have to subscribe to a certain mind set just to even be on RUclips.
Reading the bible you're in God's word, logging on to social media and coming to the comments you're exposing yourself to lowest form of spirituality possible.
Its like trying to climb the tower of Babel to deliver a sermon and preaching to worldly people consumed with themselves.
@@ethan_max1792 this is foolish. By definition we literally could never be God. All these rappers and famous people claiming they are their own God are just narcissistic. And there is nothing cute or special about it. We are nothing bro. We aren't even a drop In the bucket. Our entire galaxy isn't even a drop in the bucket. Our galaxy would be like a single grain of sand amongst all the sand on earth. And our planet would be like a single grain of sand amongst our galaxy. And we are like a single grain of sand on the beach amongst all the other teeny tiny grains of sand. Don't be foolish be humble. God is watching.
The universe does not inherently obey mathematical laws; rather, the physical world has an intrinsic behavior that we have learned to describe using the language of mathematics. Referring to these descriptions as 'laws' is a misnomer, as the universe is not governed by our mathematical constructs. Instead, we stumbled upon numerical patterns and scenarios that closely resemble and model the behavior we observe in the universe as we explored and played with numbers over time.
THANK YOU!
Math “LAWS” are descriptive, not prescriptive.
when the goal of mathematical laws is to describe laws using mathematics, it is not a misnomer to describe them as laws. because you ARE describing governing logical constructs, simply in the "language of mathematics." this would be like claiming that the universe doesn't obey the law of conservation of energy based on the notion that the law of conservation of energy was written as an observation of universal principles rather than a declaration of what they will be.
for further driving home that it is not a misnomer, the american heritage dictionary has an entry about the term law in the field of mathematics ((Mathematics) A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions)
the term "law" in the context of math is no more a misnomer than the term "theory" in the context of science. it is not that it is named incorrectly, it is that many of us as individuals misperceive the meaning of these words because of their more common uses. a scientific theory is not an idea that's being tested, it's an idea that WAS tested, just like a mathematical law is not "a construct that governs the universe" but rather a tested-enough-to-be-reliable mathematical description of logical constructs, which do seem to govern the universe (even if it is hard or nearly impossible for us from our current frame of reference to work with some of those logical constructs in meaningful ways, e.g. in the field of quantum mechanics)
arithmetic is surely to some extent our own synthesis (looking at concepts like division by 0), but i think the nuance and complexity of numbers as well as the fact that more often than not we're "discovering" rather than creating is plenty enough to indicate that we are observing order and complexity that was developed before our ability to comprehend them was. whether or not you believe that's indicative of a higher intelligence or intellectual design is up to you, but in my mind that's the simplest takeaway using the current human frame of reference
I mean, I find it hard to believe that math was something monkeys created to define bags on barley, and we just so happen to end up with space travel, nuclear power, and the mandelbrot set.
I was looking for someone to put my thoughts into words. I don't too good with that sort of thing, thanks bro
As a Christian, I don't think this is "scary" to atheists, or somehow conclusively proves the existence of God. It is some really cool math though, and I personally believe it adds to the glory of God, but I don't see how an atheist couldn't just be like "yeah. that's math."
Nice, funny, cool sermon!
no buddy, atheists don't need fractals to be afraid, their sole naked factory-consciousness should do the job
@F2332unn32i.e. your standard of proof is insanely low. You shouldn’t ever walk into a courtroom if that’s all it takes for you to reach a conclusion.
P.S. macro evolution is an outdated term. Strangely enough, the only people that use it are ones that don’t believe in evolution (which is the scientific equivalent of not believing in gravity or particles).
Evolution is proven all over the place. AI programmers proved it. The fact that new strands of virus and pathogens were created, not despite, but because of the existence of medicine proves it.@F2332unn32
@F2332unn32" It's our Ego and usually lack of a willingness to truly think for ourselves that keeps us blind to it. If you contemplate the complexity of a single cell, and all which composes your body, and all the subconscious processes and interactions which need to occur to keep your body living. If you've contemplated it appropriately, without bias, you must conclude God"
Retarded
@@dI9ESTIVES123dna is to complex for it to be “ random “ and made of matter , because according to scientists whom are atheists believe that everything comes from matter, yet matter hasn’t been proven into Dna, you may find cases on the internet that it is but Dna is way to complex to even understand, see Dna has a code, a code that is to complex for scientists to break open, ti complex for a being of this earth, which is why there must be a higher power, God.
This is hilarious considering that the Mandelbrot set actually proves that complexity arises not by design but as a natural consequence of the interaction of simple components. 😂
@@abdullahimahamudbilehow does that relate to what he said? just curious
@@Meepmope it doesnt
@@abdullahimahamudbileno correlation
@@abdullahimahamudbilethe sun? You mean a star? Stars, they’re being Literal billions of them in our galaxy alone and there are billions of galaxies out there? Yeah I love stars but ours isn’t that special. The whole reason you have a religion is because you can’t accept the fact that the universe doesn’t care about your existence or mine or anybody’s for that matter. Cope by all means but quit spreading your harmful propaganda around the modern era thanks
@@woohooo4936 actually it is at the core of what he said. Regularity, uniformity, predictability... the very touchstones of science itself, are in fact not even scientifically "provable" but are axioms of sheer faith. We have no ability to "prove" the assumption of uniformity, yet we cannot assume otherwise. Aside from the clickbait title of the vid (which is not helpful) this is the essence of what is being claimed. There is an inescapable order and an "appearance of design" (thanks, Dawkins) to the cosmos. An atheist must argue that his anti supernatural presuppositions trump that appearance. ---ps. you may thank me for summing up The Blind Watchmaker for you in two sentences.
I have to admit, if you ignore the fallacious reasoning and logical leaps for the last 10 minutes or so, this man did an amazing job explaining sets, complex numbers, fractals, and the Mandelbrot Set. Good job!
What fallacious reasoning and logical leaps?
@ThePubliusValerius
1. At around 25:20, he says that "beauty is built into math". It's quite hard to define beauty, since it is something so subjective. I find the fractals beautiful, but one could just as easily find them drab and uninteresting - you can't continue the argument from there.
2. At 26:30, when defining numbers, though I could accept the definition that a number is a "concept of quantity", his analogy of "destroying the number 3 and thus making students count 1,2,4" doesn't make much sense. I have the ability to kill a chicken in front of you, but I didn't eradicate chickens, I only "destroyed" one. So despite accepting his definition, the argument for it doesn't hold much water.
3. At 27:40 he talks about the origin of math. Specifically if math "evolved". I'm not making the claim that math evolved, but his question "did 7 used to be 3 and then it evolved?" Misunderstands the concept of evolution at a fundamental level. I don't think anybody makes the argument that math evolved, but if they did, his breakdown of it makes no sense at all.
4. At 28:05 he asks if the laws of math were created by people. This is actually a deep philosophical question that many people disagree on. He even comments on the fact that some people make that assertion. Again, his explanation as to why the argument that math is man-made is faulty. It is possible to create systems that operate on different logical axioms, though there could be a couple explanations as to why it's difficult to imagine one (be it someone going their entire life using the current system or even the human mind evolving over tens of thousands of years to accept this system as natural). Either way, telling an architect that 2+2=5 or trying it at your bank obviously won't work, because you're still using the current logical system. So giving that explanation and coming to the conclusion that math can't be man-made is faulty.
5. At 33:50 he asks why the universe obeys mathematical laws. If math were man-made, an answer can easily follow: man created math in order to explain the universe. Therefore, the language of math is used to contextualize the universe. It obeys mathematical laws because we formed mathematical laws around the universe.
If math isn't man-made, one could argue that the universe and math complement each other and are linked in their existence.
6. At 34:50 he said "you come up with something in your mind, does the universe just obey it?" But that's a misunderstanding of causation. A man sees flowers tens of thousands of times in his lifetime and comes to the conclusion that all flowers have petals. The universe doesn't obey his claim, rather his claim was shaped around the universe.
7. At 36:30 he says that there is no sufficient answer an evolutionist can give regarding math's ability to explain the universe. First of all, he's equating somebody who believes in evolution with atheism, though they aren't equivalent. An atheist can disbelieve in evolution and a theist can believe in evolution.
However, my main point here is that even if atheism can't explain why math works so well, it's not reasonable to conclude that God exists (that's the God of the Gaps fallacy).
In ancient Greece, just because you didn't know why the sun rose each morning doesn't allow you to conclude Apollo rides a chariot of fire across the sky each day and brings with him the sun. When you don't understand how lightning works, you can't conclude Zeus is fighting with his signature weapon.
Likewise, just because you don't understand how math can explain the universe doesn't mean that God created it.
8. At 36:50, he claims that numbers existed before people, but since they're solely conceptual, a mind had to exist before people. But how did he arrive at the conclusion that numbers existed before people? Sure, 4 apples can fall from a tree before people existed, but the number 4 didn't exist, only the apples. The "fourness", as he would call it, is a concept that we attribute.
9. At 37:30 he claims that the world contains fractals. So...? I can create a circular function x²+y²=1. Once graphed, you'll get a circle. Nature has circles, therefore God exists? I don't understand that conclusion.
Overall, again, I really liked this video. Most of it's really good. Just the last ten or so minutes are misguided.
@@deanyona6246 If your 'argument' pertains to 'a proof,' you're correct. However, a discussion from his premise will quickly show your "one could just as easily find them drab and uninteresting" to be well below 1% of respondents. So, your dismissive statement would dismiss itself as "drab and uninteresting."
How charming to throw conceptual 'mud' and then simply walk away as if you answered him in-kind. In other words, you liked his presentation but dismiss the implications.
@moongoonrex I commented on the beauty of mathematics because it is a subjective topic. Some people can find something beautiful while others find it ugly. It's a matter of perspective. I do concede my first point isn't a major gripe I had with the video (the only reason why it's number 1 on my list is because my list is organized temporally).
Regarding your conceptual mud claim, I see nothing wrong with giving criticism. I didn't just say I hated something and walked away, I started by stating my appreciation towards the video, while giving what I believe is honest and valid criticism. Somebody asked me what I meant and I rewatched the video, going into detail about what my problems were. It took me over half an hour to write. Somebody who wanted to throw conceptual mud and walk away would not respond like that.
finally, it's not that I liked the presentation but dismiss the implications, I liked the presentation, but find his conclusions unbased. I don't think the implications are such as he stated.
As an atheist, I do not see the relationship between the Maldenbrot set and Mary’s virginity.
Said her gynecologist!
its cuz the mandelbrotset never had adult fun time with another fractal, DUH,
its cuz its a virgin!
If you can't see such a simple thing , Then how did you see the start of our universe?
Because you are materialistic. You have no moral values and a spiritual concept
It called creation. One can- we cannot- We re-create from what is already been created. We cannot imagine creating something from nothing so orderly it blows the mind- the infinity alone_ BOOM! Our little minds hold on to nothing.
If a fractal is an atheists' worst nightmare then we truly have nothing to worry about.
No, the atheist worse nightmare is living a life without meaning and purpose. Which inevitable ends up being the case for every atheist. It happened to me, it’s not pretty.
Mandelbrot set should open your mind up about the universe following coherent, logical structures that couldn’t otherwise be possible without the existence of intelligence, a being that made it so on purpose. The chances of such well organized and beautiful phenomenon happening just because of “magic” is not convincing enough, it makes no sense.
Is it plausible to believe that the universe we live in happened out of nowhere?, it just randomly decided to exist and in such a well organized, logical manner. No right?
I mean this seriously, but this is a skill issue.
You absolutely can find meaning and purpose without a mysterious invisible entity creating everything. Unfortunately, it requires a bit more effort than saying "god done did everything" and pretending that gives your life meaning.
Moving on, the universe following a coherent, logical structure is not even remotely proof of an intelligence. This is another weakness of religious people, they assume that any complex structure they can't comprehend MUST have an intelligence behind it.
@@shadowjuan2 It is entirely plausible that we live in a universe governed by chance, from beginning to end. It is not the most convenient concept for us humans to comprehend, but it is perfectly possible.
@@olivercharles2930 Mon anglais n'est pas suffisamment élaboré pour vous répondre dans votre langue. Je ne suis même pas mathématicien et j'avoue que dans ma jeunesse les maths m'ennuyaient profondément... Néanmoins le modeste esprit littéraire qui est le mien, a pressenti il y a de cela plusieurs années, que l'origine de notre univers repose sur des concepts mathématiques... C'est ce qui est dit dans cette vidéo, si le niveau de compréhension de mon anglais ne l'a pas trahie... Pour le reste, je pense qu'il est vain d'entamer des discussions sur l'existence on non d'un dieu créateur. Cela n'aboutit à rien, si ce n'est à des querelles d'égo pour savoir qui a raison... Je trouve bien sûr ridicule et caricaturale l'idée d'un dieu à barbe grise, mais non moins idiote l'hypothèse émise par un physicien athée, d'une onde d'énergie surgit soudain du vide ( néant). Je suis agnostique et je suis sensible à la beauté que je vois autour de moi, dans la nature et dans les plus belles créations humaines.., l'homme qui dans ces moments là, agit comme un petit dieu... Salutations de France.
....Except for the irrational anger towards a kind God
The truth is always more crazy than the craziest predictions. Math looks boring because of school, but it's implications are absolutely mind-boggling.
So true… I’m terrible at maths. Yet when I see people do equations and all the rest of that Mathy stuff .. it’s quite astounding!
I’m not be able to do it yet I can understand how amazing and truly brilliant it is.
When your hour of trying comes, cry out to Jesus and he will save you because He loves you so much.
if he loves me so much wouldnt he save me even if i dont cry to him?@@sk-un5jq
@@sk-un5jq
Srsly
One question?
What the fk did u gain by this comment😂
Plss enlighten me O Great Sage
What did you gain from yours? An internal emotional response to your own actions and perceptions, the mild satisfaction of various social drives, and the feeling that you may have altered another person's cognition in ways you desired? If those things are true for you, then they're probably also true for them: you both found significant yet subtle benefits through what from certain perspectives looks like nothing but meaningless chatter. Further, given that this comment is on a Christian video, it is appropriate to both the topic at hand and its intended audience, meaning that such comments are likely not only expected here, but encouraged. So the comment in question also passes a test for socially appropriate or even friendly and polite behavior given its context, even if elsewhere it would be out of place.
That's my possibly subjective opinion anyway. I know a lot of people frown at any hint of religious proselytization whatsoever, so maybe I'm considered objectively wrong in whichever specific group you feel you may belong to, if any. I do think I'm wrong for trying to answer a rhetorical question that doesn't really concern me, but it's not a bad way to pass a few minutes and I personally think that entertainment requires no excuses if it does little to no harm. @@namangaur1551
Ignoring the jumps to religion, this is genuinely a _great_ lecture on the Mandelbrot set and the beauty of mathematics.
Why would I ignore the idiotic "jumps to religion"? That's what this BS lecture is about. And why does every comment on youtube give a great review no matter how silly the video is?
@@brucewalker6141 Is it wrong what he is saying?
His religious interpretation may be disputable, but I think his math isn't...
religion is a blessing and a curse
@Choas_Lord_512 And so are religious people from time to time, attheists aren't wrong mentioning crusades, witch burnings, homophobia, etc...
The God of Math. Math didn't design itself and it's stupid to think it was always there.
1st off Maths causes the world to operate the way it does but it's conceptual meaning that it only exists in the mind and if maths was in existence before human beings that means There was a mind before human beings. And infinate mind.
God.
As soon as you plot a graph you have brought the conceptual into the physical. An incremental formula using negative values to infinity creating a pattern that is infinitely smaller and infinitely beautiful is no nightmare.
Thank you for confirming to me there is beauty in everything.
😊
😅😢😮
"Augustine was right when he said that we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us." - Norman L. Geisler
There is no truth in atheism. Atheism is simply a disbelief it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true and no quality of evidence can convince someone of something they don't have the willingness or ability to accept as true
'''We love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us.' - Saint Augustine" - Norman L. Geisler
29:33 SNOWFLAKES ... "Snowflakes have a fractal quality to them; they have that six-fold symmetry."
But if you can be bothered to LOOK AT THE PICTURE...... you see a snowflake with .... *EIGHT* fold symmetry. Yes, it has EIGHT arms. If you don't believe me, _COUNT THEM_ !!!
That's not *SIX* - fold symmetry; that's *EIGHT* - fold symmetry. Can you count? *CLEARLY NOT* !!!
@@simonmultiverse6349 can you tell the difference between real photo and CGI? Clearly not.
@@SilverKnobsHMDT The video says it was a SNOWFLAKE. The video says it has SIX-FOLD SYMMETRY. The picture says not.
How can someone deliberately create a picture of something with *8-fold symmetry* and then say it has *SIX* sides?????????????
The Mandelbrot is the greatest fractal formula ever written. Every time I use a Mandelbrot formula for my fractal art, I'm never let down.
@@DlnCDMP3 Simve give not received a reply, I'll suggest that it may possibly be similar to 10:10 in the video?
If you have ears, hear...
Religion is fake....Yeshua is the 10 commandments, whom is the Jew's eternal King or God: and whom became flesh to make himself an example for the Jews as he had promised them;
So Obey the 10 commandments and Apply love to your lifestyle; exit religion, for the very first laws is to have no other gods before him, and it is written that no man can serve two masters;
Sell your unnecessary possessions and help the fatherless, the widows, the poor, etc.
*Again*
Love yourself and your fellow brothers and sisters; if you have an extra t-shirt, give it to him that have none; likewise if you have 2 pair of shoes, give one pair to him that have none...*and no vaccine*
...again, If you have ears, hear....
Fractal art sounds intriguing
Computers. Clever aren’t they? And most people in the Midwest of the USA think that they’re full of little people doing sums and drawing pictures
@@nialllambert3194 is that what they think? I lived in the Midwest for awhile and I can assure you most people don't think that. 😂
It's not scary, it's beauty and wonder
Exactly!
The incomprehensibility is the horror aspect of it, but no need to fear god’s knowledge bc there’s no reason to picture yourself with that knowledge, or picture the knowledge itself
@@wyattcole5452 Jesus Christ! Help! Philosopher. Even fideist-idealist... what could be worse?
@@michalpetrilak3976 what makes you think I relate to Fideism whatsoever?
@@wyattcole5452 Because you are talking about God's knowledge. I would not at all drag into the discussion such indefinite (fuzzy) terms as God. Everyone imagines something different under it and it's just a mess. After all, we wise ones know that there is an Absolute without attributes, outside of space-time, which never came into being or will never disappear. It is Presence and Nothingness beyond all description of words or logic. . It is not graspable by science.
I"m an atheist and the mandelbrot set gives me night terrors. I wake up in cold sweats. 🙄
Yooooooo, please take this serious - I care about you and I don't even know you - There's a war going on right now whether YOU believe it or not, more importantly a spiritual war, and you being a self proclaimed atheist is right where the devil wants you to be. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he doesn't exist. Makes you an easy target for his legion of demons. Watch the movie Nefarious. On the other hand God gave us the Best Gift ever, the power to choose bc Love cannot be forced but is chosen. And Jesus shed his Blood on the Cross for all of our Salvation and Redemption - All at the cost of FREE! So not one person can boast out of good deeds to earn it which God (Jesus in the flesh) did not want us to have to earn but given freely to All. We are in Biblical Prophecy now with Israel and Hamas. Please consider getting Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit! All to Gain and nothing to lose!
Yes, me too, it proves the burning bush is real!!! I've already sacrificed a goat and desparately try not to mix the fabric of my clothes which Jahwe really hates.
It is okay, It is not a fearful thing. God answers questions. He is real and He loves you to ask questions. He knows everything, absolutely everything. He knows you better than you do and He is loving, tender, and kind. God Almighty and Jesus Christ is One. If you ask God anything in Jesus name, he answers.
@@franglasscock5310Thanks for the advice. I asked that god where the closest alien life is. They said it's in the hollow Earth. 🌎 🕳 👽 Totally 100% real proof of hollow earth.
My boots = shivered 😮
There's really nothing nightmarish about the Mandelbrot set but it's sheer beauty as we stare into infinity.
Jesus spoke everything into existence in 6 days, then rested the 7th. We are to rest on the 7th day too.
@@statutesofthelord , the children of Israel under the Sinaitic Covenant were required to rest on the 7th day. Such a command is not included in the New Covenant under which today's Christ-followers live. If you find that hard to believe, read Colossians 2:16 and the surrounding context. And notice that Sabbath observance was NOT imposed on Gentile Christians at the Jerusalem meeting of the Apostles in Acts 15.
@@statutesofthelord "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." "If a man lost a sheep in the ditch on the sabbath, would he not pull it out?" From New Testament quotes like these, I believe God finds it important to rest on the sabbath, but does not require it of us.
@@lancepeterson7997 Lance, Jesus made those statements to show the true meaning of the Sabbath - to do good and save life.
Nothing of what Jesus did or said in any way lessens the true requirements of the Sabbath. "You shall not do any work".
@@VelvetRockStudios nice
The Mandelbrot set was discovered because mathematicians like doing math for fun. There's a lot of things like this
But it did not start existing because of that
@@Feeelipeeee yes it did
@@Dragonryu So something starts to exist at the moment someone discovers it? By your logic gravity started to exist when newton saw the apple falling... Must be a really weird place, your mind.
Penicillin was discovered because A.Flemming was a very untidy scientist and had a desktop overfilled with stuff that got mixed up and started a life of its own right there.. well thats maybe not 100% true, but not all lies either....
@@Feeelipeeee key difference is that gravity occurs in nature and the Mandelbrot set does not
It is true that the mandelbrot set needs divine explanation. Therefore it is valid to state that the Spaghetti Monster (sauce be with him) made this all.
Most sane man here
@@robertvangeel3599 zelensky lol
R'amen!
@@bart-v ?
@@EffYouMan its a play on the type of asian noodles: "ramen" and also the word "amen"
I had to laugh at the title of this. My maths tutor daughter, a confirmed atheist, is especially keen on the Mandelbrot set.
he literally demonstarted how a random simplest formula given enough time can give rise to infinitley complex structures i think he destroyed his own asssumtion that complexity must come from a complex designer and this is a video every atheist must watch
@zainroshaan's comment is so key; esp. its phrase, "A simplest formula, given enough time, can give rise to infinitely-complex structures" \ -- in infinitely- _elegant_ complexity, as well \ (This naturally happens in so many aspects thru this beginningless endless limitless universe; esp., it happens as living patterns \ ) \\
This is possibly my favorite "atheists can't explain this" argument I've heard so far, both because they're making this argument completely seriously, and because the Mandelbrot Set is such a beautiful example of structure and complexity arising naturally without a need for a god.
I was the elegance of the mandelbrot set that gave me my faith in God. I was blow away by it's infinite beauty and was what made me realise that God and infinity are the same thing.
Complexity does not occur randomly. Concepts of quantity existed before man made characters and representatives of these concepts
@@lukethedude3902 citation needed.
@@drzaius844 the first commenter makes a claim that needs a citation as well. Why do you not apply this requirement evenly?
@@WishfulThinking-vg9tp if the big bang was a random occurrence and the macro evolutionary process arose from that, you have a complex process occuring randomly.. So no evolution doesn't explain anything here. That's circular reasoning
That is not called "worst nightmare", that is called emergance
emergence*
shut up@@thatoneman1
@HearUsRoarprove it.
@HearUsRoar bro can't even spell right talking about "you will loose badly". go to bed bro. you have 1st grade classes in the morning.
@fish "prove it." How about YOU prove that your sadistic evil tyrant called "god" does exist? Because the burden of proof in on YOU, not us!
As an athiest , i must say that this isn't my worst nightmare.
This is pure beauty and just reaffirms my strong beliefs in aliens.
❤
so god's on an acid trip?
ironically he has Alienware laptop
as an atheist, my worst nightmare people like this have a platform to spread this BS
My worst nightmare is that there are people who believe that a god really exists…
Man was created in the image of God. Man is a living being, so God is a living being.
God created the Earth.
If God created the Earth, he cannot originate from the Earth.
Living beings that do not originate from Earth are, by definition, aliens.
God is just an alien. A completely ordinary alien. Nothing special.
@@karayuschij I doubt that
Atheists' worst nightmare: Beautiful fractals
Religious people's worst nightmare: Hell
I've made my choice.
I like how atheists cope with this devastating fact to their worldview
@@RedstoneCriper everything will come to an end, but i don't have to worry about that because i won't be alive when everything stops existing
The implication of the fractal existing is what you should fear.
@@UTTPOfficerBennie that math is an amazing thing?
@@luckythelucklesswolf1419 that math was consciously created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being.
“Atheists don’t have the answers” math and creation arguments aside, we never pretended to have all the answers. We have theories, but everything could theoretically switch based on evidence
Exactly. I feel like this is missed in these conversations. Christian apologists will say we can't prove what came before the big bang, therefore the Christian bible is true? Where is the logic in that.
@@danielhamilton3496 a lot of the bible is history that can be proven true and there are people from it that were proven to be real people. Found through artifacts and writings from different people around the time.
@dejawalston6155 I couldn't care less if a man named Jesus actually existed. I'm talking about the creation of the universe and the nature of existence. Religion provides exactly zero evidence of it's claims here yet Religion pretends that any gap in knowledge by science is somehow a proof of thier religion.
Religious fanatics have answers without asking themselves questions in the first place. They're sheeps 🤡
Faith is healthy tho
It's just a pattern. It's aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't mean any more than that. The confusion being presented here is based on the assumption that the boundary should not show a pattern. But.. it's generated by a human created pattern, the algorithm. You should expect patterns to be the result of algorithms, be it a very simple pattern (like a straight line or curve) or a very complex one like this; in fact it's really really hard to make a deterministic algorithm produce output that is even sufficiently random (pseudo-random) which is a problem that has been addressed in computer programming.
So the speaker makes a false assumption that there should be no pattern, when in fact the opposite is true; one should expect one. The Mandelbrot Set just produces a complex, nice looking one.
jaxtraw, the speaker is trying to find proof of a god that he knows was invented by humans. He does this for money.
@@timhallas4275 Well yes, there is that as well.
I think you may be missing the forest for the trees.
@@mfsevin No. He is correct.
I don't think it's just that we are surprised that there's a pattern; its properties of repetiton and novelty carried on infinitely evoke a sense of awe and we experience it as both wonderful and beautiful. Similar profound experiences happen when we ponder the gratuity and givenness of existence. The mystery of consciousness is also awesome to us, in the technical sense. True love or charity (in the Christian theological sense or the romantic or familial approaches to it) also inspire awe and gratitude; Our sense of objective morality; these are all things that are mysterious, evoke powerful emotional reactions, and are hard to explain, especially on an atheistic worldview. I don't know for sure if there is a God, but the man has a good point.
This is a nightmare in that we get to observe individuals wholeheartedly discount high, yet rational, complexity, to the whim of a deity simply because the human mind finds it difficult to comprehend. The nightmare is knowing that people are inflicting this abject deism on other people throughout societies, guiding policy and lawmaking, and subjugating people to their own narrow band of "belief."
Exactly. It is "the god of the gaps," yet again! Whatever we cannot fully understand is taken as "proof" of the existence of "god" (whatever THAT means).
Like a fish swimming in disbelief of water.
"Imaginary" numbers is not the original term for them, instead they were called "lateral" numbers. The term "imaginary" was utilized by Descarte, who was a critic of the concept.
Nice tidbit.
Cartesian skepticism.
If I'm not mistaken, Gauss was the one who prefered to call them lateral. Before Descartes, they didn't really have a name
I think I'd have called them perpendicular, but lateral is better than imaginary.
As an aside, I think we've inferred the number line as a concept of time, where 0 is now and positive numbers are the future with negative numbers representing the past. After nearly 50 years of deep meditation, it's been decades since I've seen time that way. I see the present moment as being real, with the past and future being imaginary constructs. The present moment is continually being replaced and the creation, existence, and expiration of each moment is perpendicular to the usual timeline. It's the imaginary numbers of it's domain.
Didn't someone call them "fictitious numbers"
“There is no atheistic explanation…”
An “explanation” is a causal sequence leading to an outcome. That’s literally what an explanation IS. “God did it” is not an explanation, it’s a supernatural claim that, by definition, denies causation.
The precise moment you claim faith as an answer to ANYTHING, you’ve epistemologically ejected yourself from any conversation about explanations.
“What if there was a code…” Of what use, then, is your faith? If faith is important, why do you have such an acute interest in codes? If the code is demonstrably a code, why does the Bible exhort you to focus on faith? Where in the Bible does it tell people to be convicted on the basis of claims of mathematical evidence? If you want coded instruction, you’re not interested in faith. If you want explanation, you’re demanding cause and effect.
No replies. Interesting... but not surprising. Good work.
yeah, people mistake having confidence on something with faith.
You over complicated that m8 ngl, faith in further understanding benefits both parties and shows that man couldn't understand the mind of God hence why you search for 'causality' rather than having faith in further understanding, its the same thing. Its not black and white. We are the fools of tomorrow and ur ego has to accept that m8.
There is no gain in being an athiest,Christianity holds the most rewards🙏
@@IvnSoft then they find a new thing only to realise how ignorant they were previously.
im an atheist with a degree in mathematics and i often find that this argument is self-detrimental as it provides an example of astonishing complexity that arises from an extremely simple basis. If you have an understanding of the mathematics behind the mandelbrot set I would like to know which step along the way is the one in which god steps in
Day ONE, The FiRSt DAY
Great point: incredible complexity can come from simplicity. Everyone is free to choose whether that came from a creator or not, but there isn't any logical requirement to pick one or the other. I prefer the simpler case.
At the beginning 😉
no. the first "choice" is logically invalid. @@JeffLearman
@@opensocietyenjoyer I'm not sure it's invalid, but it would get cut by Occam's razor, which is why I'm not a believer.
There's some incredible beauty in math for sure, but while I cannot rule out a "designer" of the mandelbrot set, all of math is connected. You cannot invent only the mandelbrot set without also inventing the notion of complex numbers, squaring, and adding. To paint the beauty of the mandelbrot set is to also paint all the dull or chaotic parts of math with seemingly no pattern. Really, there's just patterns everywhere and it's up to you decide which to enjoy. It's not beautiful because God created it for us, it is beautiful because we ignored all the patterns that weren't.
Here's a sumary of the content with timestamps, for those who want to see either the mathematics, the fractal or his philosophic interpretation thereof. (I tried to keep it neutral)
0:00-1:24 Proposition that there's a secret code built into numbers by god
1:24-10:35 introduction to necessary mathematical concepts needed to generate the fractal images in question
10:35-13:49 some interesting geometric properties of the Mandelbrot fractal
13:49-15:25 claim that the infinity of a gods mind is necessary for the infinite complexity of the fractal
15:25-19:53 exploration of some visually appealing regions of the fractal
19:53-20:14 claim that the beauty of the fractal must have been encrypted in the underlying mathematics by god
20:14-21:57 effects of changing the formula on the appearance of the fractal
21:57-29:00 Secularists are unable to explain why there is beauty or infintite complexity in the fractal, as opposed to christians...
29:00-33:25 examples of proximate fractals in the pysical world similar to fractals in mathematics.
33:25-38:24 Secular people are unable to explain why the physical universe obeys mathematical laws, as opposed to christians...
Now the critical summary: The mathematical buildup sounded aptly designed for the audience, average citizens that only have rudimentary mathematical knowledge that is. Well done on that part. The exploration of the fractal itself was interesting as well and had some nice variety. But the rest is just the same old storye as always: Claiming, sometimes rightfully so, that secularists don't have the answer to some deep question (Why X?) only to answer it along the lines of: Because the christian god made the world such that X! One couldn't hope for an answer less lazy than this... Or less helpfull for that matter...
Took too long to find this comment. Saying "AtHiEsTs ArE nOt GoNnA lIkE tHiS!" Is for the already christian audience to give them reassurance at best. He is taking a scientific and mathematical discovery and cramming it into his religious narrative. And i don't see why this would prove atheism right or wrong, this changes nothing.
TLDR: Simple rules, when repeated countless times, can reveal surprising beauty and symmetry. This works in math, cosmology, chemistry, plate tectonics, biodiversity, climate & weather, etc.
This video was a fun (and pretty good!) introductory dive into the wonder of fractal math, for those who may have never seen it before! ... but for the rest of us, it reads like a master class in Missing The Point.
Well he isn't wrong (x)
@@mattperkins2538 Beautifully explained, I couldn't have said it better myself. This explanation is somehow thorough, concise, and easy to understand at the same time. Well done.
@@PJM257 That's very kind of you, but in all fairness, I probably stole most of it subconsciously from Richard Dawkins or somebody. :)
People who understand mathematics have no problem with this.
I had a spirograph. It was like magic, but explained with math, too.
Spirographs made me religious.
So that's the name of that thing! Thank you! I had one as a child and still remember my first goose bumps caused by the observation of how it works. Cheers!
This comment made my day.
I'm finding more and more that when things look like magic, it's usually just science I haven't learned yet.
@@WilhelmFreidrich I'd get 95% of the way through a complex thing and slip, so they had the opposite effect on me.
its amazing what God can create
Eight minutes in, I am reminded why I dropped math, and spent the last three years of high school learning business math which I use every time I balance my checkbook.
And that’s also perhaps why much of what makes life worthwhile has totally passed you by, and you’d have no way of knowing. If you live underneath a rock in smallville Ky or Mo etc your world will always look like the underside of a rock in some useless backwater.
@@nialllambert3194 Yeah, you're probably right, Niall, my dismal life would be so much better under this rock had I learned calculus and trigonometry, I still write Pi as 3.141. It appears to me your up-turned nose comes in handy considering your attitude for persons living in 'fly-over country'. I watched the entire video, my comment was 'tongue-in-cheek', get a sense of humor lest your life becomes dismal as well.
You made it about 7 minutes longer than me before I felt that way. You Brainiac you. To be clear, I'm not knocking it. I'm a Christian. Maybe I'll try it another day and my brain will be a little clearer.
Balancing a checkbook?
Like doing addition and subtraction?
@@DaBlaccGhost Your degree is paying off, good job. Are you off today or unemployed?
I mean you CAN attribute how cool the Mandelbrot set is to the infinite, intelligent mind of God, but you can also do so to the dude who came up with defining the set that way instead of another. I'll go with the second one.
The dude didn't make the set to be represented in that order, sure he discovered the correct formula for it but he didn't make the infinitely complex shape.
So because there's a pattern in a set of functions the abrahamitic god exists?
What else than patterns does a theist expect to find in fractals?
Let's try Buddha.
@@Buzz_Purr Buddha said delusions are innumerable.
Religious folk often make the false assumption that their truth about an infinitely complex creator is the simplest... why bother to learn stuff that you perceive to be difficult, when you have an easy explanation and can just defer expertise onto an imaginary entity? The opposite is true: the simplest empirical building blocks can iteratively generate the most complex patterns. If you do not have the will to garner a basic understanding, then you can attribute everything to a creator. The video creator did just that. Fortunately, most people do understand basic maths, so it is more os a comfort than a nightmaere.
Step 1, assume God makes numbers
hey look; a complex pattern, must be god.
God is real, QED.
this was filled other bizarre and unfounded lines, for me at least, such as:
“it makes this very unexpected pattern” and “somehow it knows how to count, that’s kind of remarkable”
his entire speech so far (i’m not finished) has been filled with assertions of hidden and surprising meaning, all of which have so far just seemed like normal math.
"Guy who didn't realize math was cool has just realized math is cool."
He seriously has no idea how to interpret fractals if he's landed on "god exists" as his conclusion.
@@derekwood7329 Finally, someone with sense.
He's discovered that counting exists within mathematics. Stay tuned, he might discover that the sun gives off light.
Finally I found the comment thread I belong to
@@WyvernYT I hope he figures out how to make a baking soda volcano while he's at it. It'd probably end up being more useful then his entire career anyway.
A theist citing the Mandelbrot set as an indication of a creator is maybe the greatest own-goal in the history of this debate. 😂
An atheist citing A theist citing the Mandelbrot set as an indication of a creator is maybe the greatest own-goal in the history of this debate. 😂 is maybe the greatest own-goal in the history of this debate. 😂
Considering that the Mandelbrot set proves that complexity can arise from the natural interaction of simple components, it obliterates the theists’ central argument that the complexity of the universe somehow necessitates a creator. So by all means, elaborate on your argument. Let’s hear it. 😂 @@caret4812
@@caret4812do you understand grammar?
It is not an own-goal because God also created the Mandelbrot set so literally anything is made by God and can be used as proof of his existence
Actually it is an own goal, you just don’t seem to understand why. One of the core arguments theists routinely cite as evidence for God is that they insist that complexity in the physical world, such as that of the human eye or beautiful geological structures, can only arise by design. Yet the Mandelbrot set proves that complexity can be the logical end result of the interaction of simple components. Which completely obliterates their core argument that complexity necessitates design.@@MoloIongo
The guy ironically showed that infinite complexity can arise from a simple rule(s), as per evolution, crystallisation, snowflake formation etc. It's the opposite of what the god hypothesis says: "That complexity must arise from further complexity".
Own goal.
The Mandelbrot set didn't arise from anything. It's always been there, someone discovered its existence by means of using a simple equation. That equation is just a means to see that set, doesn't "create" that set. The same way telescopes don't create stars.
Snowflakes may come from chance, but using that as an excuse to deify chance, attributing to it the very rise of complex life, is just as much exercise in faith as a theist's proclamation of a supernatural God (except the theist's standpoint is more reasonable).
@john4elohim No it wasn't anywhere. It is just a picture you need to calculate to draw. all the complexity and beauty we see was created by a computer using a simple rules.
> The same way telescopes don't create stars.
Math ideas are not stars. Ideas are created by men.
@@РомановВладимир-ю9д Ideas are created. Concepts are discovered (or realized). We don't have mathematical ideas, only mathematical concepts.
@@РомановВладимир-ю9д Ideas are created. Concepts are discovered _(i.e., you acknowledge their existence and then apply it)._ We don't have mathematical ideas, only mathematical concepts - and you discover a concept *by means of* an idea _(the Bernoulli's principle wasn't created, we only came up with an idea to discover it and then put it to use)._ All the computer does is to *show* us what the set looks like, it doesn't "create" it - the same way computers don't create numbers because only arrive at numbers through calculations.
@@john4elohimII googled "concept" - it means literally "an abstract idea". So what do you mean by "discovering a concept"?
There was a Newton - he had a concept. Then Einstein - he discovers another concept. Now we have dark matter - without it what we see differ from what we calculate. Do we discovering anything, or just creating more useful idea? At least chaos theory says so)
Math is just symbols and rules we created to describe smth. Numbers are definetely not as real as a chair I'm sitting - and yes, ideas cannot be destroyed, just forgotten.
> All the computer does is to show us
Without representation, how do we know if set is beautiful or ugly? Without computer we didn't even know many of roots of this solution. Computer gave it to us and show graphically.
So, do solution of equation exist before we solve it? If yes, how? For me, there was no way from Europe to America before Columbus. He made it, that's how it started to be. And all the math solutions - they are created by men.
"I barely understand this, therefore magic. And its beautiful, therefore supernatural cause." Something complex isn't by definition magical.
We've come so far 🤣 We went from people scared of lighting, offering it meat and children in an attempt to bribe the gods to not harm us, to going on stage and uploading a 25 minutes presentation of: iunnomussbegawd 🤣
It's amazing to me how in thousands of years many have learned so much about the world around us, yet some of us became proud of our incredulity and the unfounded conclusions we can't reasonably draw from it and draw anyway and they use the actual knowledge that has proven all those other gods of the gaps false to proudly proclaim that theirs still has a gap to shove it in 🤣
Not that I agree that that gap actually exists, but I don't feel like explaining how languages work right now. Simplified: I am not at all surprised that the word ball is so unreasonably effective at describing a ball any more than I am surprised that math works in a universe that emerges from fundamental fields and their inherent particles that everything consists of. It would be far weirder if the water from my tap behaved different from anyone else's water.
I like how he shows complexity arising from a simple process as a case for creationism.
dude exactly
I suspect he didn't think of that, despite literally making a video about it.
The worse part, and I'm a christian myself, is that the argument itself is disconnected from the presentation about fractals whatsoever. It's just the question about why does the universe obey mathematical laws, and he ends up making a purely emotional argument with "awe" and "greatness" in truly simples beautiful things
Creationism has been disproved a long time ago by scientists like Darwin when they discovered the process of evolution (Pls don't say that there is no proof of evolution; we have a lot of proofs (fossils being the most simple ones), Google them if you wanna learn)
@@sudiptadeb3107 darwin believed in god, what are you on about?
As a Atheist I am laughing out loud at this, the desperation to try to link anything they can to prove a divine being is beyond delusional, we commonly use base 10 (or the decimal) system, it is one of many such systems we can use, he is cherry picking certain traits of our numbering system then adding his own explanations to them, this all falls apart if we use other base systems or other methods of calculation other than base 10, mathematics is purely a format to bring understanding to observational values and was created by man, trying to suggest that this is somehow evidence of God or even that Atheists have nightmares over it is just stupid.
What this guy ignores is base 10 mathematics follows a set of rules, when you have a set of rules and you transpose them into a pictorial image you will see the effect of those rules as a fractal image just like he showed, you can actually mess with mathematics and invent your own rules and as long as there is some logical basis to you rules you will get similar results, this in itself debunks his whole presentation that we can make our own set of rules and end up with similar outcomes.
Fractal images are one of many way to translate numbers, we use graphs, charts, scales etc but he cherry picked the one that suited his ideology and ignored the rest because he cannot use them to make his case.
PS maths is a construct of man, it was invented by man therefore did not exist before the human race nor did it exist when the universe came into place we only see the first evidence of complex maths about 3000BC which is another issue for theists given the bible contradicts such timelines.
Yeah lol. But of course these people are too deep in the religious rabbit hole and are too stupid to see
Nice one, dude. I was also laughing out loud, and will sleep soundly. No nightmares for me.
Thanks for the information genome. As a person whom has a poor grasp of mathematical concepts this was very enlightening.
Yeah....typical Christian thinking. If we don't totally understand it, then it's obviously god. And of course that means Jesus died for our sins....Can't you see that? lol
Correct. Videos like this are basically a document of typical logical fallacies. The cherry picking of information you described here is such a typical fallacy.
I'm always impressed with the sheer ubris of religious believers, having the guts to declare they know it all, believing everything, without questioning, written in a book hundreds years ago. Mathematics is the product of the human mind. Its basic principles are simple, and from this simplicity comes the, still not well undestrood, idea of complexity and, let alone, beauty. Physics builds theories on maths, and the laws of Nature seem to agree with that.
Problem is that these theories are an approximation and we will never achieve perfect laws of Nature (a theory must be falsifiable).
The fact that math now works does not tell us anything about the future. These laws may change, and they may change randomly.
We seem to live in a stable gap of laws, hence the growing complexity and life. From life, mind. From mind, math and, sadly, god.
Dude literally woke up one day and said he understood God’s mind
He doesn’t claim to understand it just a small part of it. The complexity and how it must be impossible for the world to exist in literal infinite complexity just by chance
@@jokebird6479 But that doesn’t follow from anything. And “infinite complexity” are so far just words with no precise definition.
Now let’s do inferences from cosmological questions about inflation, matter-antimatter asymmetry and so on. Real soil for unbased extrapolations here.
This is a new type of heresy and It's honestly incredible. I miss the early church heresies where you could just say stuff and cause a major global conflict.
You are projecting arrogance onto him which, while might be a little true, as we are all arrogant to some degree, is not warranted here.
He said this discovery gives insight into God’s mind.
@@jokebird6479there’s no definiative proof that the world is infinite though lol
"Humans are pattern seeking story telling animals and we are pretty adept at telling stories about patterns whether they exist or not" -Michael Shermer.
This is the perfect quote for this comment section thank you🙏 the entire time I’ve been watching I’ve thought “this is just showing us the complexity and beauty of math, it doesn’t point to a creator”. The dude is making a bunch of truth claims like “god made numbers” in order to prove his point, like bro you can invoke god to prove that god exists.
I do believe in God as a force that finally can make human or any other system self confident, self conscious and show him that love,hope+faith are the only forces... but on the other hand this astronome guy here and his biblic quotes remind me of JWorg witnesses :) or some other 7th day protestants so i must say to all of you that if you are asking questions about world genesis you will find it finally by yourself - if youre asking how the Julia+Mandelbrot sets views and computation works - then you can watch this movie :)
Yep.. one thing's for sure, these people are harder at work than ever, selling their 'beliefs'.
Simple emergent property. Frustrating that this will make people feel smart about there ignorance, but won't look any further because all evidence and research beyond this points away from a creator. It's a different telling of the "watch on the beech" story, a story that has had valid counters for a long time.
So this pattern doesn't exist?
The subject area of mathematics itself is interesting. There are so many different areas of mathematics that you can study. I prefer Abstract Algebra and Topology, but I studied Differential Geometry, Real Analysis, Complex Analysis, Differential Equations, Number Theory, and more. There is no highest level of mathematics. Each branch of mathematics may have a highest level, but they all branch off from the basic mathematics found in high school and the first year of college. When we prove something new in mathematics, we are really discovering a new property. We are not inventing the property. We may "invent" the notation or definition, but we discover the properties. I wish that high school students saw more of the beauty of mathematics. By the time some of them are in college, they truly hate mathematics and find it boring.
Mathematics aren't boring and I don't think students understand that they aren't bored by math, but the ones teaching it.
Public schools are a failure.
I loved math in elementary to high school, algebra made me love it more. Then to find that math and science go hand-in-hand..I got an A and B in those classes and was failing the others.😂 This presentation speaks volumes of The creator tho!
Or plural ones (Genesis 3:22)
Math proves that you can think. It is thinking without the baggage of emotions and personal opinions. It is the ultimate "it is what it is".
i have to agree. I now see the beauty in mathematics but feel like the time has come and gone to really delve into pure maths
Me as christian is absolutely wonderful how infinit univers points to Infinite God
Mathematicians: “We have a limited understanding of why physical universe obey laws of mathematics”
Him: “We have a god. Period”
A comment I just typed above is also pertinent here:
We derive those laws from the physical world, the solution is rather simple....
We can observe that from the simplest form of math to the most complex, such as counting apples into something that we might stumble upon and then have to look where those new laws are being applied on like the Mandelbrot Set
I'm not a mathematitian yet I can see this simple truth, how can they not? Because their biases are blinding them, most likely for the case above, or the are so deep in the rabit role that they lost perspective, probably the most likely cases, outsiders are often the ones that most clearly catch in house issues.
This is what I’m saying, they are blindly putting their faith in something they can’t understand, they use numbers as a way of conveying that god is real by saying that god made the numbers. Really it is the equivalent of using a word to describe itself. The fact that we get those laws from the physical world and use that concept mentally would completely explain the way that the physical world obeys the laws of mathematics, not because the physical world obeys mathematics, but because that the laws of mathematics derive from the physical world. So there, the secular world view can explain this. Also, using the question of why until something cannot be understood and then after the question cannot be answered secularly saying that “because god made it this way” is not a good way of saying that the secular world view is wrong, there will be questions that neither sides would be able to answer is the word why would be used indefinitely,
@@anubis9151 bro you telling me you're gonna look through EVERY possible mathematical expression and try to fit them into EVERY physical phenomena????
@@NoOne-sy5fg Some are certainly gonna try.
Entropy: Secularist's God.
It's a nightmare how you can't accept that you can't prove God's existence with arguments
Well it's pathetic... Not sure if I would call it a nightmare
@@Jewonastick well yeah
@@Bomtombadi1 how so what?
It is the lack of evidence that is the greatest conformation of the existence of God.
I mean look at it this way, God created the Heavens and the Earth and the one thing he asks is to believe without knowing, without evidence.
One as omnipotent in order to create the Universe is certainly capable of cleaning up the scene of any evidence, no ?
For me the apparent lack of evidence was always the most solid 'evidence ' of the existence of the Creator.
@@Bomtombadi1 cause it's anoying
I thought bananas were our worst nightmare.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of what God made and who He is. Even eternity will not be enough for us finite beings to even begin to understand an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God!
Exactly.
As an "atheist", I see the Mandelbrot set as something similar to Pascal's triangle. You can find a lot of different patterns in Pascal's triangle (my favorite one being the Sierpinski triangle, which is another fractal). But it doesn't really prove the existence of a god for me. I fail to see why just because the universe is full of mysteries, I should suddenly start to believe in what's written in a book that was supposedly based on some god's will. It makes no sense.
So you think it came about randomly? By chance?
@@SK-bw2cv Yes? Why wouldn’t it? The specific rules of our universe don’t matter except that they work with each other. The fact that they do is not an argument for god because if they didn’t nothing would exist. It makes perfect sense to me that a universe wouldn’t be able to form unless the right conditions were met.
Not to mention solid scientific evidence contradicts many things in the scriptures of the world’s largest religions…
@@jtt8237 🙄 yeh ok.
I can see you're not talking. All the garbage you've filled your head with is doing the talking for you.
@@jtt8237 and you think the perfect conditions just happened. By chance.
Oh, brother. Ok.
@@SK-bw2cv Yes. Given that you have an invite number of opportunities, any outcome is certain eventually. The existence of patterns and of things that aren’t super likely is not evidence of intelligent design. The odds of any one person being born are in the trillions, does that mean my being alive is evidence of god, obviously not. Creationists can’t be expected to be taken seriously if they don’t hold to standards of empirical evidence. That’s what makes us different. If you showed me scientific evidence for there being a god or gods I’d believe you. You can’t and so attempt to find anything that could support your view even if it isn’t real evidence by any empirical standard.
The Mandelbrot set is an iterative ordered set, and not the only one. In fact there's an infinite number of them. There is also an infinite number of non-iterative ordered sets, which are ones whose Nth member is a function of N. In iterative sets, the value of the Nth member is a function of N-1.
This guy knows what he's talking about
@@danieln7777Jesus is coming. Repent and believe the gospel
@@camilosanchez831Jesus has been "coming" for 2000 years, I think I'll just chill. 🥸
You can also have a set of sets
Please plot these other sets in color too. Let us see THOSE patterns that have been put in place. God is amazing.
Ah, I see now: IF Mandelbrot Set THEREFORE New Testament. How could could I have missed this obvious connection.
Have you read the Bible?
He’s talking about the how the Mandelbrot set further confirms the illustration of God’s characteristics in the Bible.
@@XxBoriHalaMadridxX Try to find what Mandelbrot set is. And tey sometging to learn not only faith stupidity. It is many proofs of God on this world, but you still find only that are not proofs. :D Laplace or Fourier do not make proofs of God?
@@XxBoriHalaMadridxX If you want I can create it in few minutes in Blender. Can make tutorial for you. And then you can find for me the proof of God. :D It is in X power 2 minus Y power 2 or it is 2 multiply X and Y? Aftwr that you can add new nuber to it. Make new X and new Y. The length betwen this points must be greater like number 2. Becouse it is condition of it. :D And if new coordinates are thry you can make another interactions. When you connect interaction number with colour on points, the result is Julian set. If you add same X and same Y then you create Mandelbrot. It is simple math not proof of God.
@@adrianpolomsky358 I’m a third year mechanical engineering student 🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️ mandem thinks I haven’t done relatively complex math
It feels weird to be an agnostic person because I look at both fundamentalists and atheists as a little bit wacky. Both groups act like they know for certain yet lack substantial proof to prove their case.. wouldn't the most intellectually honest answer be that you simply didn't know for sure?
" I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
- Richard P. Feynman
While it was a very interesting dive into fractals, the entire argument boils down to an argument from ignorance fallacy, I was expecting more than “that’s a stumper, unless you’re Christian” 💀
Obviously if we dont know something yet it must be God. Take stars for example: they were glow stickers in a sphere around the earth that God made until we figured them out.
I don't think it takes being a Christian to figure this one out. Lol
@@newcreationinchrist1423 No, but it certainly takes a christian to be persuaded by it.
I always loved fractals. They are really amazing. And there's a lot of fractal patterns in nature which makes sense. However, I still completely fail to see how this would necessarily in any way be connected to some kind of god. It's just mathematics...
You just need to follow the fractal
@@NapalmAtSunrise tf is that supposed to mean
@@deimos351 I think it’s a joke on “follow the money” or “follow the science”
The first mathematicians or ancient "scientists" were probably priests who had plenty of time on their hands and the motivation to try and make sense of natural phenomena.That is probably where it came from. The lecturer here knows that people in general would not understand much of what he is trying to explain. And so he calls for higher authority to back him up. It impresses people.
People like this are doing that because they get wrong what science is ...
"There must be a god" - "i bent science so it can be proven"
But in reality science is just a language which "tries" to describe what happens in the real world (Physics, Math etc)
Thats the reason why Science "ALWAYS" can be wrong - until someother finds a way "to explain it better" which makes more sense in our brains.
Math is just a "language to describe complex occurrences" - not a "proof" and actually has not "that much" to do with Numbers.... thats the most irritating thing he said: 25:53
You cant imagine how many "Imaginary Codes" were found in the History of the earth lol .... because of this reasons.
The clickbait title cracks me up. Implying that atheists' as a group don't want to find the answers.
Firstly, 1:23 a set is NOT a group (of numbers)! A group is a set together with a binary function/operator (*) which together satisfy the following properties:
1. For all elements x, y, z in the set: (x*y)*z = x*(y*z)
2. There exists an element e in the set such that for any element for: x * e = x, we call that the identity element (also often 0 or 1 depending on your operator)
3. Each element x has an inverse x^-1: x * x^-1 = e
4. The set is closed over *, which means that for every x, y, in the set there exists a z also in that set such that x * y = z
Secondly, 1:42, ALL sets have to be well defined. Maybe youc ant compute that for specific numbers, but still an elemnent is ALWAYS included or excluded in a distinct way. If you cant tell by "looking", well thats a skill issue i guess, doesnt make that set more or less special. Maths isnt concerned by what you can do in your head vs what you need a calculator for
Thirdly, imaginary numbers were INVENTED simply because the "god given numbers" didnt work in that case. if the square root if -1 is given by god, then so are vacuum cleaners and atomic bombs. For me that shows that the mandelbrot is an example for there being no corelation between maths and an omnipotent being
Fourth, 11:49 "the mandelbrot set knows how to count" this is just a plot of the set. a visual interpretation. the set, and certainly not its plot, are not sentient and dont "know" anything. guess ill worship the mandelbrot set now cause it is sentient and smart. Now, why does it "know" how to count? Because its made up of numbers! If you construct something from numbers, its gonna have numeric properties, easy as that.
Fifth, 22:47 why is the fractal god made and the color scheme manmade? why didnt god think of that color scheme when he thought of that set? Why did we not pick that formula the same way we picked those colors, why is one from god and the other isnt?
23:26 regardless of whether the computer plotted this or us by hand - we plotted it, not god. we wrote the code, we built the computers, we did the calculations
25:00 what causes the complexity? its chaos theory. small nudges to input give great differences in output
Well said it mate..Thank you for your great explanation 👏
Basically . . . this is a video of someone who has learned how to count: so he counts
1) Man invented numbers to make sense of the world he lives in.
2) The laws of the universe exist; because, of the existence of two or more particles having an effect on each other.
3) Explain how numbers were discovered. Did someone find a treasure chest with a group of numbers inside.? Explain how numbers always existed (cause numbers don't exist) and man happened to discover something that doesn't exist.
4) Fractals do not assign numbers to themselves. You are assigning numbers to these fractals.
5) I can use numbers to build a spaceship to take me to the moon; but, I cannot hop on a number and travel to the moon.
6) The law of the universe states that, like is known unto like, and like produces like. Your fractal multiplication is no different. Different fractals produce those fractals that are of its fractal kind.
Example: During mitosis, a cell duplicates all of its contents, including its chromosomes, and splits to form two identical cells.
7) We also see fractal budding in nature; whereby, asexual creatures produce identical offspring through budding and is associated in multicellular and unicellular organisms: bacteria, yeast, corals, flatworms, jellyfish, and sea anemones are some of the animal species which reproduce through budding.
8) Fractal design also occurs naturally. Place numerous particles on a vibrating body (plate); whereby, the vibrating body affects those particles producing a design.
Only in a Christian worldview does this guy make sense. Go Figure.
Ya, as a Christian, honestly have a hard time understanding how some guy at IBM in (?) 1972 came up with some equation, i bet more for an encryption or hashing algorithm comes up with the one single equation for the meaning of life. Or as he kept saying number are imaginary and nothing physical... After that he lost he as to how he might confuse an atheist. Not that atheist are confused enough already. Simply apart from God noting really makes much sense. Even according the the current laws of science, if in fact they are correct, that nothing is created nor destroyed it can only change states or form... And the point being is what is the one un-caused cause. Either God, or nothing? Would assert God is the only thing that makes sense, especially as the Bible clearly teaches God came to earth in the body of Christ, died and rose on the third day to prove His message. Another point which God articulates the prove who he is, are the prophecies that have been revealed.
But honestly it seems embarrassing to see a person as well intended as he might be to prove God.... Sorry that is the entire point when God says "The just shall live be faith", or the "Without faith it is impossible to please God..." Why? Would assert going back to Adam and Eve... What did they get/gain in the garden for the sin??? Knowledge, and why i would say knowledge is a stumbling block for those turning to or leaning to the dog (oops god) of science and put their faith in only that what can be seen. Effectively it is like a thief stealing something, if they want to make things right and give back... First thing to do is return that which was taken illegally... Thus how to you return knowledge? You can't once you learn something one can't unlearn it. Ah but faith, that is how one effectively gives up knowledge... I would agree stories like Noah or any other fanciful miracle, they will all go against science, or technically that which may be observed and known physically... Thus faith is the key... And there in the test God uses? Will one hold onto the knowledge gained in the transgression or go against observed "science" and rely on faith... Not that this makes science irrelevant, just that one will reject what the think and honor God for Who He is... After that, science is amazing, from science we could put a man on the moon, or like Space X launching rockets and retrieving them, still blows my mind... Might only add science works because God is a God of order and had made things that way. Might be amazing if He tweaks or alters some of the parameters and things get really wild. Like movement at the speed of thought. No reason He couldn't tweak things like this... Or even more...?
Everyone is like; "Ooh, aah- it goes on forever...", and; "it's so pretty!"
But no-one is seeing the big message inherent in this formula and it's pattern, namely; that infinity can, and does exist in the natural order.
The Mandelbrot Set shows us that an infinite universe is not only possible, but probable! This Set is one of the answers we are seeking, all we have to do is ask the right questions to make it fit.
However, as was stated in the video the Mandelbrot set, like all things mathematical is an abstract concept ONLY IN THE MIND. Whereas the universe is a PHYSICAL thing. Can you make that absolute comparison and assume they are equal? You'd have to be God to accurately do that.
@@justpassingthrough...6128 Consciousness isn't physical, yet it dictates our physical life ,.
@@chandlerthebing3472 Consciousness is definitely physical, unless there is evidence otherwise.
@@olivercharles2930 you need the proof mate , because so far scientists don't even know what consciousness is , so it's definitely not definitely physical.
@@chandlerthebing3472 Well, hit yourself on the finger with a hammer, and tell if you don't CONSCIOUSLY feel the PAIN...
I remember being excited about Mandelbrot sets in the mid 1980's, when it took 3 days to generate the set on my IBM PC, which if I remember correctly used a 286 chip with a floating point coprocessor. Back then this might have been interesting. 40 years on, his whole presentation feels very dated, like teenagers smoking pot and discussing if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into. It sounds to them like it is meaningful, but it misses the whole point.
I have one big nit to pick with Dr. Lisle. The Dr. Lisle thinks he is arguing a "Christian World View", but he is actually arguing for a "Theistic World View". He is arguing that mathematics proves God. Even if the point on the existence of God was given to him, it does not prove a "Christian World View". He is like most Christians, looking for something to back up his beliefs, even if the argument is flawed.
As for math and existence of God, one only need look to the Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans believed that God had ordered creation with numbers, and that all numbers were expressible by ratios of two whole numbers (e.g. rational numbers). Bad things happened to Hippasus who had the temerity to discover irrational numbers. This talk sounds like Dr. Lisle has a bit of a Pythagorean streak in him.
I think you and him are conflating a little bit. You are right that his theme should be the existence of "A" God, because its impossible to "prove" the existence of the Christian God from first principles. However, this doesn't mean to throw the baby out with the bath water.
The heart of what he was trying to say is that is becomes increasingly unreasonable to reject the existence of a higher power when you witness the staggering complexity of the universe. Why is the universe even structured at all, let alone to be complex enough to house abstract ideals such as a Mandelbrot set? The universe could have been just 1 proton or 2 protons or 3, or the universe could have infinite protons with infinite chaos. Yet the Universe we live in now is complex along with being relatively consistent.
You could say thats all a product of a multiverse, but I say that pushes the blame further back. Since this universe is obviously isolated from other universes since we have consistent mathematical laws in this one, there is some way that this universe is isolated from the other ones. Why? There's absolutely no reason there should be any isolation if this was all unconscious processes. Now I don't have a rigorous basis for this, but this is just my thinking on the subject.
well I agree with the second para, I was getting constantly bugged by mention of christianity when it fits in any monotheistic world view
@@aseemmateen7696 It is not unreasonable to at all to not jump to god of the gaps because something is complicated.
It's sad seeing an intelligent person decide that "it's beautiful, complex and infinite, so it's god" instead of just keep learning about math and patterns and the beauty of never settle for an unexplained mystical entity. Keep learning. Keep exploring. Keep knowing. Faith is a stop.
The "message" or meaning isn't embedded in numbers, it's in the functions/algorithms which were intelligently designed by humans. There are an infinite number of sets/functions, of which the Mandelbrot is just a single one...which we intelligently picked because we like the output.
As an accountant, I can firmly say that numbers used for business and finance have a specific purpose. And that purpose is fully manipulated by humans. I’m honestly not sure what he was trying to convey here, because it’s pretty obvious for anyone who understands the intend of math, that numbers are just human invented symbols that represent quantity. And yes, those algorithms must have a pattern, in order for our universe to function how it is now.
I do believe there is a number of examples from our daily, material life, that point to the divine mind. But this is definitely one of the weaker claims
@@michaelchoruss7544 I agree mostly with what you say. However I'd say the universe basically does not care about numbers. Only laws/rules. Numbers are just a way for us to represent things, and math operations are a way for us to practice laws and rules. Now, the universe being created OR the universe being anthropic biased due to our sample size of one and life having evolved for such anthropic bias...is a whole other discussion. But as long as you have boolean logic, you can create and emulate whatever laws/rules/functions, Mandelbrot set included. And boolean logic is fundamental and universal...even in other universes with other laws of physics.
But yeah, dude saw a pretty pattern (fractals). Doesn't want to understand the grace of numbers, instead thinks it's god. It's the same as if I took my computer running stable diffusion (AI art generator) back 200 years and showed people a magic box capable of creating almost any image you want in any style you want. Instead of taking awe at the sheer amount of math, science, and trying to understand that it's based literally on comparing 1s and 0s, they would assume it was magic.
It's a really good description of the Mandelbrot set, but why does this prove God? And even if it proves an intelligent creator why does it prove the Christian God?
Don't think of it as the "Christian God," but the "Creator." We worship the one and only Creator.
The Creator is God, the same one who sent His son Jesus to us 2,000 years ago
It just points toward a Creator making the universe using consistent laws of mathematics.
@@jeremiahzeiset But that's the Christian God. This video equally shows the existence of a Hindu pantheon or any other creator
@@davidm4566 Do consistent laws of mathematics require a Creator?
"As an atheist, I can confirm math is my worst nightmare"🤓
why, it can be manipulated to serve they're own purpose...... touchy feely, or it doesnt exist... easy as that, and if everything else can be proven to exist that way, why do people believe in a invisible man in the sky?
@@harleyme3163 I'm not actually an atheist I just value comedy over honesty
The true nature of our world, if any, is far more complicated than anything you've said and the existence of a God or any kind of unfathomable reality other than our own is a perpetual paradox of ridicolous proportion
Having for three years taught high school advance mathematics, I am very sad for you. But the man who had taught me was brilliant, and very encouraging.
I just had another idea. If you like playing with your computer, there's an "App" for running cellular automaton pseudo-life, called *golly" that is free, and the Golly Team must be geniuses because it's fast and I've constructed stable populations of 80 rows of 80 columns of patterns of a ring of six live cells, each row and each column separated from the next by a row or column one cell wide so the "world" is 400 x 320 cells, stable but rather crowded. Introduce one flaw somewhere, and the very simple rules of John Horton Conway's "Game of Life" create a quite impressive havoc for hundreds of generations. There's no natural selection, but there's a language by which you can impose one. Yo can try your own just mucking about, or merely admire the not-so-irrreducible complexity of the "Living Sample" supplied by the Golly Team.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 lol mine isn't
An atheist mathematician's take on this: I enjoyed his presentation of the Mandelbrot set, very well done. His conclusions, however, seems like leaps of faith (pun intended).
To me, it seems that the main questions of the talk are (1) where does math come from? and (2) Why do mathematical objects occur (approximately) in the physical world? I will try to answer these more fully, and show how Lisle's conclusion that there must be an intelligent creator is flawed.
(1) For the first question, Lisle quickly concludes that math cannot come from humans, since if it did, we could have invented it differently, and "2+2=5" would not work well for an architect. A different system would not be "true to reality". Immediately, this clashes against his statements later, that math exists "in the mind", but I'll ignore that for now. Since he requires that any mathematical system must fit reality, it is clear that Lisle is already assuming that our current system of mathematics fits reality perfectly, and that this is his basis for his argument. But this is false.
To make a very long story short, our current system of mathematics has changed (or "evolved", if you will) for at least the last couple thousand years, mostly because people kept trying to use their intuition, that they gained from nature, in mathematics, but it turned out that mathematics was more complicated than nature. As examples, look up the parallel postulate, or the Weierstrass function. It would be naïve to assume that this could never happen again in some form. One could then say that our mathematical systems are man-made, therefore fallible, and we are simply approaching *the* mathematical system that God intended. However, this still has a major flaw.
Perhaps the most famous meta-mathematical results in history are those of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Very roughly, they say that in any mathematical system which is complex enough to contain arithmetic, one of two things must be true: EITHER the system is paradoxical, OR the system is incomplete. Let me explain what this means.
A paradoxical system is a system in which a statement can be true and false at the same time. Such a system is completely worthless, since you can prove that if one thing is both true and false, ALL STATEMENTS must be both true and false. In reality we have a strong sense of the law of excluded middle; which is just a fancy name for the fact that a thing is true OR false and never both. Thus, a paradoxical system could never describe reality.
An incomplete system is a system which can formulate statements that are NEITHER true NOR false. It's not that we aren't good enough at our attempts to prove/disprove them - their truth value is independent of the system. In fact, it has been proven using logic (even more fundamental than mathematics) that our current most popular system of mathematics is incomplete: in the system called ZF, there is a statement called "axiom of choice" which is independent of ZF, i.e. it is neither true nor false*. But this contradicts our view of reality and the law of excluded middle again. A statement (that makes sense) is either true or it is false. For example, the statement "there exists intelligent life outside of earth" is a well-formed question, and for any given time, the statement is either true or false - never something in between.
Conclusion being, no mathematical system will ever describe reality perfectly. Saying that God thinks mathematically seems very rude, since then God's mind is either paradoxical or incomplete.
(2) For the second question, Lisle uses Dr. Eugene Wigner as a strawman for non-christian viewpoints. Dr. Wigner was an excellent physicist and mathematician, but he is no philosopher, and his claims that it is miraculous that the physical world obeys mathematical laws, and that we have the capacity to understand them, are not true. Also, his article is now ~60 years old, and philosophy has advanced a lot since then.
There are many ways to explain this, but I will stick to one: bias. The argument very often presented, and very heavily presented by Lisle, is that of "look at this marvelous, intricate thing! THIS must be an example of an intelligent creator!", in the above case, the thing is the Mandelbrot set. But this is a biased argument: there exists such a multitude of things in the universe that, simply statistically, some of them are very likely to be extremely complex/beautiful/whatever. By cherry picking the ones you like, you make it seem like this intricacy is everywhere in the universe - but you will never have someone explain to you why iron ore, or the beak of a bird, or air molecules is an example of intelligent design.
The argument made by Dr. Wigner in his article is much better, since it seems that mathematics are able to model many different aspects of science simultaneously, and gives incredible results and beautiful simplicity in otherwise chaotic situations. While this is fascinating, it does not have to be a miracle.
Firstly, Dr. Wigner's conclusion is biased implicitly by the questions they ask, and how mathematics was shaped. Mathematics has throughout the ages been developed to help answer questions in science, particularly in physics. Mathematics do not exist independently of sciences, and suddenly being surprised that math is good at explaining science seems unreasonable. Also, mathematics and science has a symbiotic relationship, in that questions in one area motivates research in the other area, and new developments in one allows us to ask new questions in the other. Thus, math has also been part of shaping what questions we are even interested in in the sciences, so again we should not be surprised that math is great at solving them.
One could imagine that another system than mathematics might have been better at explaining other things - such as how our brains work, what the better political system is, or any other question that we might regard as slightly "non-mathematical".
Even if mathematics is truly excellent at describing all aspects of the universe, there is still one hidden bias, called the anthropic principle. In short, it says that for any question we ask, there is a bias that there has to be intelligent life for anyone to even ask the question. It seems so obvious that it is silly, but it is key to understanding our universe.
Saying "why is the universe the way it is?" seems an objective question, but it is always biased by the fact that the universe must exist in such a way as to support intelligent life for the question to be asked. Thus, if we take a frequentist's point of view, one could imagine a million universes, and only one of them capable of supporting intelligent life. Let us for the sake of example say that this single universe can support life because it is warm. Then, intelligent life in that universe could reasonably ask "why is the universe so warm, when it seems unlikely to be so?" Well, it is warm exactly because WE LIVE THERE. This question would not be asked in any other universe, because there is no life to ask it.
Similarly, one could imagine that the question "why is mathematics so good at describing reality?" has a similar answer: A mathematical universe is required, for some reason or another, to support intelligent life. It does not have to be created by God, but simply by statistics.
(*) mathematician's sidenote: even if you accept ZFC, there are still inaccessible cardinals, and so on.
I'm an Atheist and have seen much of what Answers in Genesis publishes, but I was surprised by this video.
It's really quite good and I think it's accurate about all the math stuff, the explanation of the Mandelbrot Set, and some of the super interesting things inside the set (or outside, I suppose).
I just wish you all could keep that up and not resort to the bit at the end about how "the secularist thinks.... blah blah blah"
You could have maybe had me convinced, or at least on the edge of my seat. The math is really incredible and is something special, could even be God, maybe.
I just wish people in your position would lean into the idea that God might not be limited to just Christianity...
I know that would be going against your God of the Bible, but really, how the hell would God only reside over one religion?
He'd be responsible for the "false" ones too, I guess... hmmm interesting
It's an interesting video, all except for the conclusion at the very end. Saying "it makes sense" over and over isn't enough to suddenly jump me from math and what you're talking about to, "it's God's mind." That actually doesn't make sense... there's nothing to suggest that, even the Bible doesn't necessarily agree with that. Nice try though. Very interesting, just maybe keep it there instead of trying to "destroy" the Atheist.
I agree fractals are beautiful but why would they need intelligent design? Nature is full of complexity and patterns but why would they not just be like that, it seems to me that the neccesity for it to be designed is fabricanted by people like the guy from the videi
People who attempt to represent knowledge about God are not perfect... but if you want to find the truth, why would a message that you perceive as imperfect shy you away from the Source? Why not just ask God to prove himself to you if you want to find Him... Maybe you have already. He has given you and us all a mind that is capable of much, but I guess religion would be a void if it would just mean intellectual gymnastics, no, it's a relationship which goes deeper than just the mind, which we often would like to have define us. Anyway, give it a shot! :)
Just because math works doesn't mean there is a god
Intelligent design by our creator. 👍 I believe when one speaks of secularists they mean people who refuse to even consider the possibility of a creator and therefore intelligent design.
I submit to you that attacks on atheism by Christians are because of atheism’s propensity to focus its attacks on Christianity rather than God or religion in general. I never see atheists attacking other religions.
The Mandelbrot Set was first defined and drawn by Robert W. Brooks and Peter Matelski in 1978, as part of a study of Kleinian groups. Afterwards, in 1980, Benoit Mandelbrot obtained high quality visualizations of the set while working at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York.
Copy and Paste from Wikipedia much? Snicker snicker.
@Guitarzen Nope, I did not need a god to cross reference Wikipedia to see if the poster copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
Read my comment on secret codes and messages posted 12/22/22.
It is just another SCAM to fool the FOOLS into thinking that there is some secret messages from god.
But of course ONLY THE CHURCH can interpret these secrets, any god worth having would send out SIMPLE, CLEAR, MESSAGES THAT DO NOT NEED A BUCH OF CRAZED PRIESTS TO INTERPRET THEM.
Just another SCAM.
@Guitarzen Says who?
@@returntozero2112 what’s the problem? I’m quite happy to receive the information and you’re in here reprimanding someone for sharing accurate and relevant info? Exactly why does it matter if it came from Wikipedia?
As an atheist with a maths PhD, I have mixed feelings about this talk.
On the one hand, it's a decent enough pop maths talk if you ignore the "wizards did it" ideology. And I approve of drumming up public interest in maths. And he's right when he says that maths is a beautiful thing, although not usually in a superficial way with pretty colours.
But then he's tacked on a load of dubious stuff about how God made the Mandelbrot Set. He says there's no other explanation for why it's like that. In saying this, he's showing none of the intellectual curiosity you'd expect from a proper educator. Mathematicians look for reasons why their discoveries should be true, and those reasons are called proofs. Scientists look for mathematical models, and do experiments to test them. These investigations satisfy the itch you get when you discover something you weren't expecting, and they have absolutely nothing to do with deities. This is very different from the religious attitude: "Isn't it pretty? Don't think about it too much. God must have done it!"
For most of the stuff I learned at university, I was shown proofs. I don't know how much of what we're told in this video about the Mandelbrot Set has known proofs. Even if it hasn't been proved yet, that's OK - there are still plenty of open problems, but the solutions may come with time. It's a God of the Gaps argument - theists say here's a pretty thing we can't explain so it must have been a god, but meanwhile the researchers are busily filling in the gaps.
Great lecture on Mandelbrot set until the sudden 13:50 jump to "god's understanding is infinite". In other words "the Mandelbrot set is amazing - therefore biblical god loves you."
My man, in that case, there is a whole bag of lectures in between completely missing. Lots of work ahead 🙂
Quantum Leap, Maybe if we say The Universe Loves itself, therefor it love is ❤
Notice there was no Bible quote for "God thinks mathematically". And no explanation why miracles exist if there are "invariant, exceptionless" laws? (34:40)
This kind of god is not a christian god indeed. It is just something look-scientific.
@@Mabel-b1w What?
@@РомановВладимир-ю9д That is not the vibe I got from the video.
It was found that there is a pinch in the Mandelbrot set. That pinch, when the set is applied to the motion of the physical body, causes a flaw in the gait of one revolution of the motions required to complete one whole human step. Therefore, that pinch would physically look like a palsy. God showed me this. He said that every person has their own rhythm. If the rhythm has an interruption, like a pinch, it shows. I asked him, " Then what can be done?" He showed me a line in the air about four feet above the ground. It appeared to me but also seemed invisible. He lifted his finger through this line and broke the interruption, reseting the appropriate rhythm for the motion to be completed smoothly. So, there is an answer for those with palsy. The rhythm formula for their body needs to be reset. With God all things are possible. So we ask, we pray that God lifts his finger and changes the person's mathematical rhythms so they line up with the fullness required to complete a step without a flaw. People are created by God for fellowship with him and are meant to work with God in all of creation. Can you imagine being alone in the universe? If you were God, you would make children you could enjoy who would partnership with you and love you and think you are the most awesome Father ever. You might think this crazy, but you will not know for sure until you seek God for answers.
as a scientist and engineer this just makes me laugh. a set being infinite and repeating a 'beautiful' pattern proves god is real? these patterns being in actual nature proves god is real? no it proves that nature is trying to be as efficiently possible with the set boundaries that are given. how were these boundaries created? I don't know. what these boundaries are? take a look at quantum mechanics and statistical physics. and saying atheist can't answer a certain question and us religious people can with the answer being god is not a point of god being real anyone can have a answer to the question that doesn't mean your answer is right.
Yes
Why is this my worst nightmare? I didn't see anything I'm afraid of.
because according to this "bruh" video this thing gives a crisis to atheism
God of the Gaps tends to terrify rational folks
The Fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING OF WISDOM -
@@marieseltenrych No.
@@punchthecake82 well unless you are the typical kind of atheist which basically will not believe god no matter how good is the evidence provided to them then it really is a crisis for atheists
The opening premise that codes equate to intelligent design, is false, which results in false logic. Second, the Mandelbrot Set is NOT a code.
Ok. I'm an atheist and let's see if this is my worst nightmare. My initial thoughts are that this is utterly preposterous and another attempt to take a beautiful concept and just because it's beautiful, we must assume it's a message from God. That's not how things work, but I'll watch this video with an open mind.
EDIT: So basically this was just an elaborate version of the assumption that just because we don't know why (for example "why the universe exists?"), it must be God. Well done, but fundamentally there was nothing new here and I certainly won't lose my sleep over this.
You might be going to hell for eternity, but thank goodness you're not losing any sleep over this.
So HOW DOES things work then? Please tell us
@@jaclyncayetano do science. Experiment, figure things out and if you can't, it's perfectly OK to say "I don't know".
@@Patralgan your answer is what we finite humans already know through our limited processing capacity using such man-made concept as “science”. Saying “I don’t know” on those that you can’t measure or “science” your way into does not also mean that God does not exist just because YOU with your man-made tools can’t prove it.
@@jaclyncayetano you are correct. I'm not saying that God doesn't exist. I just think it's very unlikely.
The Mandelbrot Set is just a unique way of examining the topography of your own perception. The set itself is blase' in the eyes of an objective universe, but somehow it resonates with your brain to produce an illusion of deep meaning.
Wait how can we know something has deep meaning and is complex if not by our own perception? Even if u consider that it might be wrong it is our only tool is it not? Two options belive ur perception or believe nothing i personally just take the middle path
@@hajimemitsu612 Because infinite detail is an abstraction that runs into particle physics in the real world. And runs into the Uncertainty Principle even if you ignore the whole "atoms and molecules" problem.
@@hajimemitsu612 I had a stroke reading this
Somehow
@@EffYouMan 😅
As an agnostic I really respect the philosophical debate around the bizarre coincidences and patterns in maths and whether there may be a conscious design behind them. It just really frustrates me when these academics relate it to a 2000 year old book
May I ask why this frustrates you? 🙂
these are not coincidences, they are the result of precise equations. if I draw the much simpler function x^2, will you say its curve is a bizarre coincidence? no.
same with the mandelbroot set.
same with pi. at the end of the day, pi is just an infinite sum. 1+1=2 isnt a coincidence.
some equations may be harder to understand for our limited minds but that doesn't mean they are divine. that's a god of the gaps argument
It only frustrates you because you believe that that book is wrong.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 I'm not trying to patronise your beliefs, but using common sense and logic I'm almost completely certain that a book written 2000 years ago in the middle east does not explain accurately the nature of the universe. It was a product of a society before science trying to make sense of everything around them.
@@joeduffyy Does finding out what's true really matter to you? Does it mean everything to you? "If you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you" God has said. You are LOVED by Him even though you may not believe that He exists.
I feel so sorry for brilliant scientists who are atheists - like Stephen Hawking - because with all of their knowledge they have missed the point!
If this is my worst nightmare, I’ll go through life as happy as a cucumber and fear free.
Amen to that :-)
If there is a Creator, then you are accountable to Him and His laws, since you are His creation. That idea alone is enough to make many people reject Him, because they wish to be their own boss, live the way they want to live. The academic side of things rarely play into that decision. However, the Creator knows you, in staggering detail, and will hold you accountable. He also (knowing you and your sinfulness) sent His Son to pay the price of your sin. If you accept that you are not worthy of heaven, God's grace replaces your sin with Christ's righteousness on judgement day. It is an incredible offer. Back to academics for a moment. Why does nature obey mathematical laws, if not for a Creator? Job 39:26, 27 Is it reasonable to reject such staggering complexity, and infinity as disconnected from a designer? Or is it reasonable to connect that infinite detail to the mind of the Creator? The Christian faith is not a foolish faith, without evidence. It takes a foolish hope, ignoring evidence to reject God. Romans 1:20 Please consider these stinging words as a wakeup call, a chance to reconcile with your Creator. He knows you and cares for you. Psalm 94:9
@@nathanh9935 if there is a creator. That’s where you left you train. I’ve been looking for a god all of my life. I just haven’t found one.
@@nathanh9935 Athena and Zues beg to differ.
@@JosBroder Look, I don't want to play the insult game, I want to be respectful to you. Being honest here, are you waiting for a god who meets your definition and expectations? Or would God be beyond your expectations? Consider that He exists. Job 39 is a great place to start, it is a place where God tells us Who He is.
This doesn't prove anything, it just proves math is a strong subject
It doesn’t prove anything. You are correct. It does pose an unanswerable question though...
“if the laws that define our universe are abstract, why then do we find nature imitating them?” The answer he gives is “the creator of the universe (the one who defined the laws) is responsible for both the abstract and the physical.”
Actually a really solid argument. And if someone forced you to answer the question, you would have to conclude that:
A. You don’t know; or
B. There is a creator
@@DethBy3ToeSloth B: ... whom you cannot know and cannot understand ... by definition.
Where is the big difference?
A person can understand/know/believe (with or without believing in any kind of gods) that he cannot understand EVERYTHING :-)
Many people have the mistaken idea that God manifests his design only in complexity but in point of fact the real astonishing genius of God is in bringing infinite complexity unfolded out of the most perfect elegant indeed wondrous simplicity.
It has been proven that if a set of rules follows a few criteria complexity will naturally follow no joke this proof has been around for 60 years now. So if your god would have made almost any rules complexity would have followed and if its that high chance why even rely on this concept of god?
My favourite moment in this presentation is when he says that the color he chooses to represent the set is arbitrary. What ISN'T arbitrary about this entire thing? Was your choice to define a number x such that x² = -1 not arbitrary? How about the choice that that those numbers follow the same algebraic rules as real numbers? Was that not arbitrary? How about choosing to represent complex numbers in a 2D axis? Was that not arbitrary? Of course, all of these choices are equally arbitrary, but throughout the entire video, this astronomer, who knows better, hints at the contrary. The sole purpose is to make it seem like the Mandelbrot set is something we stumbled upon, as if it was found carved on a rock, as opposed to something that deductively follows from multiple arbitrary rules WE set up. It's akin to showing a visual representation of the set {x,y : x² + y² = r²} and expecting you to marvel at the fact that it is a circle... Except that example would be too simple to fool people who don't know that much math.
I agree with all you say except the last sentence. There are plenty who be fooled - many commenters here certainly would - e.g. they buy snake-oil every sunday.
Just imagine how smart God is
Likely just as smart as your average vacuum
As smart as the flying spaghetti monster, I'd imagine.
@@cosmicabyss7358 oh I see, you're another "smart" guy that thinks there was nothing then all of a sudden there was everything and with time for some reason we "evolved" into what we are lol
@@brettjern3264 disprove the flying spaghetti monster without disproving christianity
@@ChuckleNuts5155 history doesn't support the spaghetti monster but it does Jesus. Check mate!!!
You could really just argue the converse of his argument. You can always argue that this shape can exist without a god interfering with it.
This guy is smart and charming, he explains fractals really well. Whatever he says about religion must also be true. Oh wait, that's not how logic works.
My favorite bit... Biological evolution can't be true because math doesn't evolve. Good one!
The main argument is that the laws of Nature obeys mathematical laws which are only discovered, observed, and not created by man. Conceptual things affect reality, creating patterns which do exists and are present. All of these accounts to an intelligent creator to which all these mathematical patterns, laws of Nature and everything in the observable and non observable reality is derived.
That argument makes no sense. A creator must be governed by rules just as mathematical as the one he enforces, otherwise he is just pure chaos - hence he does not exist as an intelligent entity.
@@rlstine4982 then he's no creator. If a person created a computer, is he under the computer? obviously not.
@@paparoevlogs2524 I said "a creator" not "God", and a creator can be created, there is no conflict with that. Now, if you consider a creator to be God in the logical statement I made then, yes, it would be a paradox, hence why God does not exist.
@@rlstine4982 it's not a paradox. God is God. He cannot fit in a 3 dimensional spectrum of logical reasoning. Hence, we could waste our time debating and using logic to explain His existence and yet nothing will ever be able to change what we believe. I believe He exist and you don't. End of story.
Imagine claiming something created by rigorous mathematical iterations proves god.
The Mandelbrot set is amazing! That must mean there is a loving creator God who will burn most folks in hell for eternity!! How delightful...
People choose to go to hell themselves than to listen to a merciful God. He isn’t going to force us to make a decision, if you want to suffer in hell for all eternity go ahead he will send you there, but if you want to be with him in paradise than obey his commandments and believe in Jesus.
Math merely describes the "physical world".
Well...part of it does. Mathematics also defines concepts and abstractions that are not part of the "physical world". Take for example an n-dimensional vector space and the operations on that space as defined in linear algebra. The world in which we live is not n-dimensional. It is simply a subset.
@@moonza2201 or, from this very video: imaginary numbers
I was taught that the tendrils coming off of the Mandelbrot Set were all Fibonacci numbers, making it even more amazing ❤
Pi is also hidden in the geometry of the mandelbrot set, and you can use it to calculate logarithms and exponents.
@@thenonsequiturthe main part of the set is just one circle going around the other so yeah pi is also somewhere in there
Fibonacci is also used in stock market and day trading, meaning even the combinations of human actions are still happening in the confines of the laws from the mind of God.
@@mariangelasanabria9049 That's amazing. I know that Benoit Mandelbrot was a stock trader as he developed fractal geometry.
*I have RecentLy Read thatv as Late as the 1870's, The PeoPLe of London, "SupposedLy" the Smartest*
*& Most Scientific in the WorLd, & Dying of ChoLera, thought that (Stink) was the cause of Death,*
*& NOT theShit in the Water that EveryOne was Drinking!!!!*
*NOW we Have Trump Voters who just Gave us a Trump Congress & who 52% want to Vote for Trump!!!*
*I have a Low Opinion of the Human Race, esp. of White PeoPLe!!!!*
*My SoLution??? I BeLieve in GOD, but NOT this EviL ViLe JesusFukery!!!!*
We can get you can zoom in infinitely. If you zoom out does it mean this would be the end of it?
when you dont understand something always just say god did it 😻
That’s how religion manifested. A way to explain the unknown in stories and texts.
@@BenDover-mw6ic That's not true, maybe in Western culture. In most cultures their religion is a way to connect with nature, like Japanese culture or Hindu culture. Native Americans also have a culture where they seem to praise God which made them closer to nature. Same as with Mayans... Same with most of South America and now that I think of it, Africa too. Seems that the only place where people turned God into a story is the West and was used mainly to keep the people working, reproducing and fighting wars. Now we know what went wrong here 😂
@@timspiker I mean I agree with you, but they are texts. They are stories. Whether you believe in them or not they are still stories. I’m not trying to say they aren’t valid. I’m just saying that it is comforting for people to say they know what happens. If you die then you go to heaven, or are reborn or something of the sort. Religions aim to try and explain how things came to be in stories and teachings.
@@BenDover-mw6ic You're completely right when you talk about the Western view and Middle Eastern view of God, Romans viewed it like this too and so did the Egyptians. But when you go back to a time before humans gave God an avatar (notice how those are linked to empires), God was a geometry pattern. That's how I see God too. One could say the Mandelbot effect is God or that the Fibonacci Sequency is God. That's what I think God is, something forever complex out of which all things form. One doesn't need to be religious to see God, there's scientists who found God in mathematics. I guess it tells a story in numbers, but it is completely different.
You could say that the moon is God or that the sky is God. Without either of these we wouldn't exist. But the moon or the sky both contain geometry patterns that we find everywhere in life. I guess all those stories try to explain, but none are as accurate as mathematics. Isn't it interesting how some Asian cultures 20 thousand years ago knew of these patterns before mathematics? I think that we're not the first advanced civilization to have lived here.
@@timspiker oooo that’s actually a really cool way of looking at it. I love talking about philosophy with my friends as much as I can(my nickname is Socrates for asking a lot of questions). I’m really fascinated by religion because I don’t know much about it and we often talk about things of this topic. I don’t like to have a fixed mindset, so I am open to the possibility of God, but until I feel I have sufficient evidence I will remain neutral to the possibility. The history behind it is also interesting. As an agnostic myself, I believe in the possibility of everything. Possibility being highlighted here. Love to see someone else I can learn from 👍
Imagine beiing an Atheist?! How can you be so brainwashed believing everything came out of an explosion. How can they think like this is so scary but fascinating at the same time.
Imagine being a Christian?! How can you be so brainwashed believing everything came from a god there is no proof of? How can they think like this is so scary but fascinating at the same time.
@@thomasmcconville9199 Did you not even watch the video lol 😂
Watch the video first before going straight to the comments to rage.
I will admit Champ Mafe's comment was a bit disrespectful, but your comment was to! You don't need to retaliate like that.
@@rextheraptor2184 my comment was a joke as i literally just parroted what he said, i watched the video, it doesnt prove anything at all except a misunderstanding of maths
@@thomasmcconville9199 Would you care to elaborate on your claim that this video misunderstands math? 🤨
@@thomasmcconville9199 you must be joking
The Mandelbrot set, involving simple relationships carried to sufficient extremes, is remarkably like the simplified computer weather prediction experiment that gave different predictions for two weeks in advance, at a fourth decimal place of initial conditions.
Hence the butterfly effect.
At last, proof that god does not exist.
@@peterbradbury784 How so?
The design of the many aspects of this world is very beautiful.
@@dfacedagameAnd that disproves God how?
@dfacedagame everything has a creator, the universe can't just form itself out of nowhere
So, first of all, math is not the study of numbers, though it may have started as such.
The speaker lost all credibility when he stated that it's a miracle (and, btw, Wigner's "miracle" was more of a manifestation of geekly awe rather than "wow, there's no natural explanation for this") that math describes the physical world. It's actually worked the other way. When setting up the foundation of Euclidean geometry, for example, it was postulated that there's only one line going through a point that will never meet another line (which doesn't contain the point). Why? Because the physical evidence pointed to that being a law of the universe. Mathematical axioms (and all math is built on axioms) are statements accepted as true, and all the math is built on them. The axioms are sometimes adopted as fitting the pysical reality, sometimes not so much (math can diverge a lot from physical reality if it cares to). Plus, most modern math has played catch up with science (math is not science, it is the quantitative language of science), especially Physics. Some dude didn't like the loose way physicists were computing new things and put some order in all that. So, math does describe the physical world inasmuch as the adopted axiomatics does.
Religion is what early man used to explain the unknown,. Now we have science. Mind blown.
So you're saying that science can be a religion? That explains so much lol
@@davidm4566 He is saying science replaced the need for religion. religion follows blind faith to prove reality. Science can be used by anyone o prove reality. It's like if you were doubting Thomas and Jesus said put your hand in the whole in my side except everyone can be Thomas with science. Don't believe in gravity? you can calculte it yourself. Don't believe in bacteria. You can grow them. Don't believe in evolution take some of those bacteria. Give them selective pressure, and watch them evolve.
@@davidm4566not at all. Science is a way of thinking and furthering our understanding of hoe the universe works. You missed the point he was making. Back when they wrote the Bible, those people had no idea how the world or universe worked. Making up a religion and a god to follow was the easiest solution at that time. It just happen to stick and be part of humanity for way too long. It’s popularity is running thin throughout the world though.
@@chrisb.7787 "He is saying science replaced the need for religion. religion follows blind faith to prove reality. Science can be used by anyone o prove reality. It's like if you were doubting Thomas and Jesus said put your hand in the whole in my side except everyone can be Thomas with science. Don't believe in gravity? you can calculte it yourself. Don't believe in bacteria. You can grow them. Don't believe in evolution take some of those bacteria. Give them selective pressure, and watch them evolve."
Science at its heart is like you say, just trying to understand the universe and generally can be tested. However, the vast majority of people never test it. They take it for granted whatever was taught to them from someone who was also taught, not different from religion. It's no different from the middle ages being taught that the Earth was the center of the universe or something. They were taught by someone who made logical sense so they believed it.
Do bacteria exist? I've personally seen them with good quality, high-powered microscopes. Most people just take the words of others that there are these little tiny living things everywhere that makes us sick or help us and will *never* look for themselves.
As for the evolution of bacteria, I would ask for clarification what you said you can observe. To my knowledge, they make use conjugation to transfer antibiotic immunity, but you won't find them evolving into another species or even into a multicellular organism.