The Mandelbrot Set: Atheists’ WORST Nightmare

[@michaelclift6849]

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.

[@truthseeker5447]

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.

[@scottdemarest9315]

I agree. These religious types tend to overlook the simple, but still extraordinary, explanations for things.

[@Vladi.G]

@@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?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@Vladi.G great points! I see a mic drop. 🙂🙏

[@nothinghere8152]

@@Vladi.G no one thinks it’s disproves God. People think it doesn’t prove God

[@iogamesplayer]

As an Atheist, I am fascinated by the Mandelbrot! Not even close to a nightmare!

[@qxltedplaysgames7799]

Same with me

[@NoahTravit]

Ikr it's so cool

[@marquiseco.]

ironic coming from a minecraft pfp

[@dryfox11]

@@marquiseco.”IrOniC cOmiNg FrOm A hOrSe RiDeR pFp” See how that doesn’t make sense?

[@jadenmudge]

hmmm... i mean... hmmm... I'm not going to talk- @@dryfox11

[@danieljames7111]

As an atheist I have always liked mandelbrot set since I first learned about it. It still hasn't given me any nightmares...

[@davidnoonan7893]

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!!

[@michaelhansen8959]

Dito😎

[@oskarmetal666]

No nightmares, but where is God in that? I don´t see any god at all.

[@capcrunch7838]

Your an atheist so your not to bright to start with

[@imright489]

its a representation of how perfect God’s mind and how infinite it is… not a matter of how you can see Him

[@simondoesstuff]

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.

[@buffedsans8761]

There is no evidence to confirm that mathematics is invented or discovered. It was recently discovered that tremendously intelligent animals like chimpanzees, wolves and crows know mathematics (clearly, it is nothing compared to what we know, they have very basic concepts) and it turns out that if mathematics is invented, there is a possibility that They see it in a different way than we do, why should they conclude the same things as us regarding mathematics? They are an invention after all, right? Surprisingly, the axioms, the bases of mathematics, apparently, indirectly, animals intuit the same axioms as we do. Example of axiom: A set is always greater than each of its parts. You don't need to explain to a chimpanzee what an axiom is for him to understand that he could not win against a herd of chimpanzees alone. In fact, it was recently discovered that chimpanzees make war by attacking each other among smaller groups in a kind of "skirmishes." and it turns out that before at least fighting, if they see that they are fewer, they prefer to flee, they indirectly understand that a group is superior to an element that could simply be a piece of a group. Animals indirectly intuit several axioms that we conclude. Well, mathematics could be invented and they are simply reinventing it in the same way we are, but isn't it curious that at a certain level of intelligence, mathematical knowledge converges? Why do they reach the same conclusions? Am I a true believer that mathematics is discovered? Not really, but I simply think that denying that absolutely is a mistake, it is a possibility to take into account since there are also valid points to think that they are invented but at the same time also to say that they are discovered. Being completely cold, we don't have enough knowledge to arrive at an absolute truth and anyone who says otherwise possibly has some kind of bias.

[@kristyclonts2799]

And a watch was created by eons of waves crashing on the sands of a beach ..... It's not convincing that the majority of the world needs ... it's unbiased view of being able to say " wow that came from intelligence somewhere , what are the possibilities it is vs its just a never ending cascade of impossible odds happening time and time and time again ...". Coincidences abound ... no they do not ..

[@darthkirby8964]

We did not "invent" the Mandelbrot Set though. We simply discovered it. We may have tried various things which eventually resulted in our discovery of it, but the mathematical truths of the set existed long before we ever thought to put them into symbols or plot them out on a graph. The beauty of the math is that it helps to convey an important reality to us - the reality that order begets order, not the other way around.

[@lynnharrell9598]

“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.

[@filetmignon9978]

this was in the context of humans discovering math, not creating it. He wasn' referring to God

[@lynnharrell9598]

@@filetmignon9978, yes, I understood that too. Thanks for pointing it out though. Good day.

[@filetmignon9978]

@@lynnharrell9598 👍

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

Fractals do not need any creator

[@raulhernannavarro1903]

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.

[@alexd9597]

The truth is always more crazy than the craziest predictions. Math looks boring because of school, but it's implications are absolutely mind-boggling.

[@hereweare9096]

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.

[@sk-un5jq]

When your hour of trying comes, cry out to Jesus and he will save you because He loves you so much.

[@nitaigur6990]

if he loves me so much wouldnt he save me even if i dont cry to him?@@sk-un5jq

[@namangaur1551]

​@@sk-un5jq Srsly One question? What the fk did u gain by this comment😂 Plss enlighten me O Great Sage

[@ellielynx3071]

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

[@deanyona6246]

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!

[@ThePubliusValerius]

What fallacious reasoning and logical leaps?

[@deanyona6246]

@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.

[@moongoonrex]

@@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."

[@moongoonrex]

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.

[@deanyona6246]

@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.

[@leonardosalatube]

As an atheist, I do not see the relationship between the Maldenbrot set and Mary’s virginity.

[@DJ-Eye]

Said her gynecologist!

[@arsonzartz]

its cuz the mandelbrotset never had adult fun time with another fractal, DUH, its cuz its a virgin!

[@mouademalki680]

If you can't see such a simple thing , Then how did you see the start of our universe?

[@BarlasF]

Because you are materialistic. You have no moral values and a spiritual concept

[@Thisisthelifeofzach]

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.

[@JosaxJaz]

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!

[@Jorge-sy4bp]

no buddy, atheists don't need fractals to be afraid, their sole naked factory-consciousness should do the job

[@dI9ESTIVES123]

@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).

[@starcatcherksp1517]

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

[@BrCapitao]

@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

[@Jawkagee_]

@@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.

[@IuliusCurt]

Now I believe in Math, thank you.

[@jameswest8280]

I'm no longer an amatheist.

[@Brusherman]

@@jameswest8280 I’m a mathesist

[@oreally8605]

Anything to escape God huh? Not gonna happen.

[@johnwiese6760]

@@oreally8605 man shapes dont prove god

[@jameswest8280]

@@oreally8605 provide evidence there is anything to escape from.

[@vari1535]

Ignoring the jumps to religion, this is genuinely a _great_ lecture on the Mandelbrot set and the beauty of mathematics.

[@brucewalker6141]

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?

[@jesuschristoph6567]

@@brucewalker6141 Is it wrong what he is saying? His religious interpretation may be disputable, but I think his math isn't...

[@r0und603]

religion is a blessing and a curse

[@jesuschristoph6567]

@Choas_Lord_512 And so are religious people from time to time, attheists aren't wrong mentioning crusades, witch burnings, homophobia, etc...

[@kidgeorgegreenery]

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.

[@360spidey]

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.

[@Arelacse]

😊

[@Arelacse]

😅😢😮

[@jeffreyevans9896]

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.

[@brianwesley28]

@@DlnCDMP3 Simve give not received a reply, I'll suggest that it may possibly be similar to 10:10 in the video?

[@mrbadway1575]

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....

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

Fractal art sounds intriguing

[@nialllambert3194]

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

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

@@nialllambert3194 is that what they think? I lived in the Midwest for awhile and I can assure you most people don't think that. 😂

[@feels9421]

"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

[@jansixhoax]

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

[@theawesomebrit3676]

'''We love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us.' - Saint Augustine" - Norman L. Geisler

[@simonmultiverse6349]

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* !!!

[@SilverKnobsHMDT]

@@simonmultiverse6349 can you tell the difference between real photo and CGI? Clearly not.

[@simonmultiverse6349]

@@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?????????????

[@noahjones9833]

It's not scary, it's beauty and wonder

[@dunkin8115]

Exactly!

[@wyattcole5452]

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

[@michalpetrilak3976]

@@wyattcole5452 Jesus Christ! Help! Philosopher. Even fideist-idealist... what could be worse?

[@wyattcole5452]

@@michalpetrilak3976 what makes you think I relate to Fideism whatsoever?

[@michalpetrilak3976]

@@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. ​

[@quietrevelry]

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."

[@thomasellis8586]

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).

[@Thisisthelifeofzach]

Like a fish swimming in disbelief of water.

[@chrisdeffx6548]

They do it because God is real. E.g. we didn't just pop into existence out of no-thing. You see the fingerprints of design over, literally, everything, but everything is, in fact, designed. See: Fractals

[@diemetaevans6627]

There's really nothing nightmarish about the Mandelbrot set but it's sheer beauty as we stare into infinity.

[@statutesofthelord]

Jesus spoke everything into existence in 6 days, then rested the 7th. We are to rest on the 7th day too.

[@VelvetRockStudios]

​@@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.

[@lancepeterson7997]

@@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.

[@statutesofthelord]

@@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".

[@jason-qc5lr]

@@VelvetRockStudios nice

[@ethan_max1792]

I was an atheist and now I'm a mathematician after this video

[@zaplershorts7783]

no.... u r a god's servant!

[@ethan_max1792]

@@zaplershorts7783 I am only my own God

[@Peakfreud]

That was an interesting reply, with multiple layers to it.

[@Peakfreud]

​​@@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 KZbin. 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.

[@ToxiicZombee]

​@@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.

[@OakOracle]

"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.

[@rubiks6]

Nice tidbit.

[@71Fenderv22]

Cartesian skepticism.

[@methatis3013]

If I'm not mistaken, Gauss was the one who prefered to call them lateral. Before Descartes, they didn't really have a name

[@midi510]

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.

[@big_numbers]

Didn't someone call them "fictitious numbers"

[@1bluetoe]

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. ❤

[@you_are_kidding_me_right]

so god's on an acid trip?

[@zloidooraque0]

ironically he has Alienware laptop as an atheist, my worst nightmare people like this have a platform to spread this BS

[@karayuschij]

My worst nightmare is that there are people who believe that a god really exists…

[@christiankrause1594]

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.

[@emmabradford0137]

@@karayuschij I doubt that

[@tilmohnen6521]

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...

[@mrprez4816]

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.

[@mattperkins2538]

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.

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

Well he isn't wrong (x)

[@PJM257]

@@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.

[@mattperkins2538]

@@PJM257 That's very kind of you, but in all fairness, I probably stole most of it subconsciously from Richard Dawkins or somebody. :)

[@zainroshaan]

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

[@waking-tokindness5952]

@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 \ ) \\

[@NebulusVoid]

The Mandelbrot set was discovered because mathematicians like doing math for fun. There's a lot of things like this

[@Feeelipeeee]

But it did not start existing because of that

[@Dragonryu]

@@Feeelipeeee yes it did

[@Feeelipeeee]

@@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.

[@Rocknrollthor_norway]

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....

[@keenanpaterson783]

​@@Feeelipeeee key difference is that gravity occurs in nature and the Mandelbrot set does not

[@dragon_pi]

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

[@Rikki-lh2mw]

Well said it mate..Thank you for your great explanation 👏

[@dohpam1ne]

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.

[@Stuffandstuff974]

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.

[@lukethedude3902]

Complexity does not occur randomly. Concepts of quantity existed before man made characters and representatives of these concepts

[@drzaius844]

@@lukethedude3902 citation needed.

[@justinkennedy3004]

​@@drzaius844 the first commenter makes a claim that needs a citation as well. Why do you not apply this requirement evenly?

[@lukethedude3902]

@@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

[@docwearsred6598]

If a fractal is an atheists' worst nightmare then we truly have nothing to worry about.

[@shadowjuan2]

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?

[@olivercharles2930]

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.

[@olivercharles2930]

@@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.

[@alfredvikingelegant9156]

​@@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.

[@ulflyng]

....Except for the irrational anger towards a kind God

[@peghead]

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.

[@nialllambert3194]

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.

[@peghead]

@@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.

[@Jomartproducts]

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.

[@DaBlaccGhost]

Balancing a checkbook? Like doing addition and subtraction?

[@peghead]

@@DaBlaccGhost Your degree is paying off, good job. Are you off today or unemployed?

[@ironnerd2511]

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.

[@LesNessman2001]

THANK YOU! Math “LAWS” are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[@urie9158]

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

[@mharpold128]

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.

[@BeardedBeerMan]

I was looking for someone to put my thoughts into words. I don't too good with that sort of thing, thanks bro

[@elenplays]

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.

[@johnc4624]

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.

[@TonyWhitley]

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.

[@graybot8064]

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!

[@RobertsMrtn]

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.

[@msimon6808]

Some homosexuality is caused by child abuse. Why does the Bible want to kill them all?

[@wekirch]

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.

[@danieln7777]

This guy knows what he's talking about

[@camilosanchez831]

@@danieln7777Jesus is coming. Repent and believe the gospel

[@walternullifidian]

​@@camilosanchez831Jesus has been "coming" for 2000 years, I think I'll just chill. 🥸

[@Andrewtmcb]

You can also have a set of sets

[@alanlvr36]

Please plot these other sets in color too. Let us see THOSE patterns that have been put in place. God is amazing.

[@jamesking2439]

I like how he shows complexity arising from a simple process as a case for creationism.

[@ddoober]

dude exactly

[@WyvernYT]

I suspect he didn't think of that, despite literally making a video about it.

[@pedroaurelio2193]

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

[@sudiptadeb3107]

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)

[@heado_reler7653]

@@sudiptadeb3107 darwin believed in god, what are you on about?

[@carelgoodheir692]

I had to laugh at the title of this. My maths tutor daughter, a confirmed atheist, is especially keen on the Mandelbrot set.

[@JesseTate]

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.

[@derekwood7329]

"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.

[@megapancaketime]

@@derekwood7329 Finally, someone with sense.

[@WyvernYT]

He's discovered that counting exists within mathematics. Stay tuned, he might discover that the sun gives off light.

[@sudiptadeb3107]

Finally I found the comment thread I belong to

[@megapancaketime]

@@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.

[@superfilmologer]

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

[@JeffLearman]

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.

[@zaqkenny6845]

At the beginning 😉

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

no. the first "choice" is logically invalid. @@JeffLearman

[@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.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

it claims a factually wrong thing.@@JeffLearman

[@drdoomer8553]

“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

[@danielhamilton3496]

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.

[@djw2.0]

@@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.

[@danielhamilton3496]

@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.

[@irokosalei5133]

Religious fanatics have answers without asking themselves questions in the first place. They're sheeps 🤡

[@t-dawg61221]

Faith is healthy tho

[@antonioalbino8896]

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.

[@RAZ3275]

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.

[@James_Bee]

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.

[@savedbygrace4535]

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!

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Or plural ones (Genesis 3:22)

[@JamesBrown-fd1nv]

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".

[@BWills32]

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

[@robertvangeel3599]

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.

[@EffYouMan]

Most sane man here

[@EffYouMan]

@@robertvangeel3599 zelensky lol

[@bart-v]

R'amen!

[@EffYouMan]

@@bart-v ?

[@arsonzartz]

@@EffYouMan its a play on the type of asian noodles: "ramen" and also the word "amen"

[@scottn7jirosenfeld412]

People who understand mathematics have no problem with this. I had a spirograph. It was like magic, but explained with math, too.

[@WilhelmFreidrich]

Spirographs made me religious.

[@medronhos]

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!

[@1oolabob]

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.

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

@@WilhelmFreidrich I'd get 95% of the way through a complex thing and slip, so they had the opposite effect on me.

[@imright489]

its amazing what God can create

[@varsenika8651]

Me as christian is absolutely wonderful how infinit univers points to Infinite God

[@brianlong9591]

"I barely understand this, therefore magic. And its beautiful, therefore supernatural cause." Something complex isn't by definition magical.

[@stylis666]

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.

[@Nephelangelo]

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. 😂

[@Meepmope]

@@PerspectiveNarrativehow does that relate to what he said? just curious

[@alexwilbrecht6962]

@@Meepmope it doesnt

[@butanerain420]

​@@PerspectiveNarrativeno correlation

[@TheKoloradoShow]

@@PerspectiveNarrativethe 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

[@tanstaafl5695]

@@butanerain420 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.

[@ian_b]

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.

[@timhallas4275]

jaxtraw, the speaker is trying to find proof of a god that he knows was invented by humans. He does this for money.

[@ian_b]

@@timhallas4275 Well yes, there is that as well.

[@mfsevin]

I think you may be missing the forest for the trees.

[@edgelord121]

@@mfsevin No. He is correct.

[@js1817]

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.

[@plantsinrocks]

I"m an atheist and the mandelbrot set gives me night terrors. I wake up in cold sweats. 🙄

[@bk3rd_para_lel]

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!

[@atheistfromaustria]

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.

[@franglasscock5310]

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.

[@entertainmentanimations]

​@@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.

[@zilobeast1927]

My boots = shivered 😮

[@nickDOTbloc]

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.

[@returntozero2112]

Copy and Paste from Wikipedia much? Snicker snicker.

[@returntozero2112]

@Guitarzen Nope, I did not need a god to cross reference Wikipedia to see if the poster copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

[@oldedwardian1778]

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.

[@123Mathzak]

@Guitarzen Says who?

[@srhodes6963]

@@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?

[@malikbenslimane2873]

"Humans are pattern seeking story telling animals and we are pretty adept at telling stories about patterns whether they exist or not" -Michael Shermer.

[@WickedIndigo]

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.

[@TymexComputing]

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 :)

[@zaknefain100]

Yep.. one thing's for sure, these people are harder at work than ever, selling their 'beliefs'.

[@samburgess7924]

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.

[@hejimony]

So this pattern doesn't exist?

[@ablertobchodak4813]

That is not called "worst nightmare", that is called emergance

[@thatoneman1]

emergence*

[@runwithaxx8663]

shut up@@thatoneman1

[@fishpump3058]

​@HearUsRoarprove it.

[@fishpump3058]

@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.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

@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!

[@CelestialDraconis]

Such a great video about mathematics tainted by your religious agenda.

[@aakesson1]

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?

[@Buzz_Purr]

Let's try Buddha.

[@aakesson1]

​@@Buzz_Purr Buddha said delusions are innumerable.

[@GrumpyGrebo]

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.

[@brunojani7968]

Step 1, assume God makes numbers hey look; a complex pattern, must be god. God is real, QED.

[@arealassassin]

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.

[@justpassingthrough...6128]

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.

[@chandlerthebing3472]

​@@justpassingthrough...6128 Consciousness isn't physical, yet it dictates our physical life ,.

[@olivercharles2930]

@@chandlerthebing3472 Consciousness is definitely physical, unless there is evidence otherwise.

[@chandlerthebing3472]

@@olivercharles2930 you need the proof mate , because so far scientists don't even know what consciousness is , so it's definitely not definitely physical.

[@justpassingthrough...6128]

@@chandlerthebing3472 Well, hit yourself on the finger with a hammer, and tell if you don't CONSCIOUSLY feel the PAIN...

[@szymmirr]

Dude literally woke up one day and said he understood God’s mind

[@jokebird6479]

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

[@05degrees]

@@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.

[@user6122]

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.

[@winterroadspokenword4681]

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.

[@ragemachine420]

@@jokebird6479there’s no definiative proof that the world is infinite though lol

[@Timothyshannon-fz4jx]

This is a grate maths lesson if nothing else, and if only it was done this way when I was at college, reminds me to brush up on my calculus!!

[@TheUnlikelyPotato]

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.

[@michaelchoruss7544]

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

[@TheUnlikelyPotato]

@@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.

[@GuapLord5000]

I thought bananas were our worst nightmare.

[@joeduffyy]

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

[@rexen7732]

May I ask why this frustrates you? 🙂

[@jaxmc1912]

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

[@ethanlamoureux5306]

It only frustrates you because you believe that that book is wrong.

[@joeduffyy]

@@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.

[@Tommymybaby]

@@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.

[@DM-jo5ko]

This title unironically made me feel better about being atheist. I couldn’t imagine believing in a religion that takes something so beautiful like the Mandelbrot set, and tries and use it to force your religious view on people.

[@BioChemistryWizard]

Some "owning the atheists" cringe is justifiable when billions of eternities are at stake.

[@Deus_Ex_Machina.]

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.

[@hajimemitsu612]

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

[@jessejordache1869]

@@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.

[@EffYouMan]

@@hajimemitsu612 I had a stroke reading this

[@EffYouMan]

Somehow

[@joeycee2585]

@@EffYouMan 😅

[@winstonsol8713]

“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.

[@mehallica666]

No replies. Interesting... but not surprising. Good work.

[@darkira2129]

yeah, people mistake having confidence on something with faith.

[@iammrsnesbit9729]

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.

[@gtaambassador744]

There is no gain in being an athiest,Christianity holds the most rewards🙏

[@iammrsnesbit9729]

@@IvnSoft then they find a new thing only to realise how ignorant they were previously.

[@miguelvale756]

It's a nightmare how you can't accept that you can't prove God's existence with arguments

[@Jewonastick]

Well it's pathetic... Not sure if I would call it a nightmare

[@miguelvale756]

@@Jewonastick well yeah

[@miguelvale756]

@@Bomtombadi1 how so what?

[@Herzankerkreuz67]

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.

[@miguelvale756]

@@Bomtombadi1 cause it's anoying

[@jacquesd5781]

This is a comedic masterpiece, I laughed all the way through!

[@charleskann886]

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.

[@aseemmateen7696]

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.

[@sarah12232]

well I agree with the second para, I was getting constantly bugged by mention of christianity when it fits in any monotheistic world view

[@olivercharles2930]

@@aseemmateen7696 It is not unreasonable to at all to not jump to god of the gaps because something is complicated.

[@DethSymphony]

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...

[@NapalmAtSunrise]

You just need to follow the fractal

[@deimos351]

@@NapalmAtSunrise tf is that supposed to mean

[@nothinghere8152]

@@deimos351 I think it’s a joke on “follow the money” or “follow the science”

[@gunterra1]

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.

[@FreaKzero]

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.

[@zoloegaming]

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.

[@josuelopezmejia5116]

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

[@zooesque]

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! :)

[@ChuckleNuts5155]

Just because math works doesn't mean there is a god

[@debhalld9794]

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.

[@ethanlamoureux5306]

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.

[@robinlingebach9240]

I am not an atheist, but also not a Christian. I identify mostly with Buddhism, but also believe there is some sort of universal consciousness or intelligence. No matter what your beliefs, this was one of the most amazing explanations I have seen yet. His conclusions in the last 10minutes are dubious at best. Just because science hasn't found the answers as to why the universe follows these laws doesn't automatically mean God did it. But despite that, it is well worth the watch!

[@Roger-r7s]

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.

[@gallyalgaliarept410]

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?

[@jackalsgate1146]

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.

[@dand4485]

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...?

[@loriehaisen9555]

I was never good at math or even liked it very much, but I find this video COMPLETELY FASCINATING!!!! I shared the original hour long one with a few of my friends and they all LOVE IT too!!! Thank you for posting a shorter version, I will continue to share with people!

[@wangmary888]

God creates both the people who love math and the people who dislike it among His children, but they can work together as the limbs of Jesus for the whole benefits of the ones beloved by God.

[@hdhh0]

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allāh except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allāh and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allāh and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allāh is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as Disposer of affairs. 4:171 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.5:75 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was. 3:59 That Day shall a man flee from his own brother, And from his mother and his father, And from his wife and his children. Every man that day will have concern enough to make him heedless (of others). [Some] faces, that Day, will be bright - Laughing, rejoicing at good news. And other faces, on that day, with dust upon them, Veiled in darkness, Those are the disbelievers, the wicked. 80/34-42 For such is the state of the disbelievers] until, when death comes to one of them, he says, "My Lord, send me back That I might do righteousness in that which I left behind." No! It is only a word he is saying; and behind them is a barrier until the Day they are resurrected. So when the Horn is blown, no relationship will there be among them that Day, nor will they ask about one another. 23:99-101

[@davidm4566]

Check out the Fibonacci Sequence, too! It's a very simple formula (the current number plus the previous number), but it appears to be found in everything in the universe, both living and nonliving. It's also derived uniquely by angles, straight line, and spiral. It's totally fascinating and also points heavily toward God.

[@kctechie]

I bought the book & loaded the app on my laptop and it is mind boggling. The infinite mind of God does really make one fall to their knees and worship

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@wangmary888 Sorry, so how did that end blood libels, schisms, Inquisitions, or the slave trade? Also, how did one third of all angels, miss the Mandelbrot set, and the implications of Romans 1:18 (or something very like it) directly, in heaven, either? With none being 'natural men' or 'spiritually dead' at the time?

[@chipsounder4633]

Fascinating. Imagine you are the mandelbrot set and as you go through life making choices depends which tendril you end up on. Eventually as time passes after you die, you seem to manifest again into original form. The way i see it. We are all mandelbrot sets repeating infinitely.

[@kristysullivan9540]

Dr Lisle was at our church this October and blew our mind with this lecture. So much I bought the book! God, our Creator, is so intimate with every aspect of life… even math!

[@bjornegan6421]

Amazing to attempt to fathom

[@bjornegan6421]

I want to warn you, creflo dollar is a false teacher. others you follow are false as well. elevation, bethel, etc., are false churches

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@Bomtombadi1 or maybe he just found something that the other guys failed to see

[@mumiemonstret]

Atheists' worst nightmare: Beautiful fractals Religious people's worst nightmare: Hell I've made my choice.

[@vegan-rising]

I like how atheists cope with this devastating fact to their worldview

[@luckythelucklesswolf1419]

@@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

[@TzarTsar]

The implication of the fractal existing is what you should fear.

[@luckythelucklesswolf1419]

@@TzarTsar that math is an amazing thing?

[@TzarTsar]

@@luckythelucklesswolf1419 that math was consciously created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being.

[@Loveaboveallelse]

My daughter just asked the other day 'what is the last number?' I explained that there isn't a last number as we can always add one more and always take one away, and that numbers will go on infinitely both ways. This was quite hard for her to get her mind around. I have a question if you zoom out of the mandelbrot set, instead of in, does it also go out infinitely or is there a first one? Thank you so much, I thoroughly enjoyed your talk.

[@vercalosshow7098]

You answered your own question in your question 😂 it’s infinite

[@michaelm3363]

It only goes inwards infinitely

[@PFYannik]

It does grow to infinity to the left. Not to the right. Depends on your definition of last first one...

[@MrBadfafa]

Well the biggest real number part of the Mandelbrot set should be 0, so I don't think you'll get the shape

[@Azarien]

The first zoomed out shape is the biggest one, and nothing interesting will appear as you zoom out further, I think.

[@aerialpunk]

I'm not a math person, but this might be the most amazing thing I've seen in a long time.

[@giovannicomoretto9224]

In a sense he is right. There is a logic in the universe, a logic which emerges from logic itself. If we think hard enough (but our intelligence is limited) it is possible to understand WHY for example there are infinite copies of the set along the negative real line, it HAS to do so (I figured a skeleton of proof in 10 minutes, because it looked obvious for me that it has to be that way). The first copy is centered around the real root of x^3 + 2x^2+1 (-1.754878). The complex roots of this equation is what generate the two blobs on top and bottom of the cardioid. This derives directly from the iteration formula used to generate the set, an iteration formula has to generate iterated copies of the set. It is just that the math of complex polynomials get very quickly too complex for any human brain, but the logic is inside the simple formula. Simple rules can generate complex and unpredictable structures by themselves, if we are clever enough we may understand exactly why, more often we just are not clever enough. God is math itself. Is the logic, the fact that reality has to follow logic. And this is enough, you do not have to postulate an external intelligence.

[@Yipper64]

that sounds a bit circular. Reality has to follow logic, but why? If it all just happened without a logical creator, how is it even possible that logic exists to begin with?

[@dmitriy9053]

​@@Yipper64 We invented logic based on the regularities we experience in the Universe. Logic is just a set of rules in language that were shown to consistently work. Where regularities came from we do not know. Ask cosmologists, they have some ideas, however nothing is decided yet.

[@Yipper64]

@@dmitriy9053 Well where regularities came from is pretty clear to me, even that I think shows evidence of design in the universe. God is a perfect, consistent God, so he made a consistent universe.

[@dmitriy9053]

@@Yipper64 The mere fact that your answer is consistent with reality does not mean it is true. All powerful God could create the Universe if he existed. The problem is how can we know whether there is such a being.

[@Yipper64]

@@dmitriy9053 Well cause and effect, every effect has a cause, so if you take things back enough, there would have to be a cause without an effect.

[@wumpoleflack]

Ah, I see now: IF Mandelbrot Set THEREFORE New Testament. How could could I have missed this obvious connection.

[@XxBoriHalaMadridxX]

Have you read the Bible?

[@XxBoriHalaMadridxX]

He’s talking about the how the Mandelbrot set further confirms the illustration of God’s characteristics in the Bible.

[@adrianpolomsky358]

​@@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?

[@adrianpolomsky358]

​​@@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.

[@XxBoriHalaMadridxX]

@@adrianpolomsky358 I’m a third year mechanical engineering student 🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️ mandem thinks I haven’t done relatively complex math

[@brettjern3264]

Just imagine how smart God is

[@ChuckleNuts5155]

Likely just as smart as your average vacuum

[@cosmicabyss7358]

As smart as the flying spaghetti monster, I'd imagine.

[@brettjern3264]

@@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

[@ChuckleNuts5155]

@@brettjern3264 disprove the flying spaghetti monster without disproving christianity

[@brettjern3264]

@@ChuckleNuts5155 history doesn't support the spaghetti monster but it does Jesus. Check mate!!!

[@hareecionelson5875]

I'm a non-religious physics student and STEM tutor for kids, and Dr Lisle is a great teacher. Complex numbers want to be your friend, they do tricks. They help solve x^3 equations ('cubic'), they help you predict the results of experiments with small particles, they've even been applied to blackholes to explain the 'information paradox' For me, fractals appearing in modelling changing systems (population growth, orbital mechanics, temperature variations...) are the best evidence for a rule based universe: why have many different models to generate outputs (i.e., number of rabbits every year) when you can use a few simple ones that will provide all the complexity that you need? EDIT: a nickname for the mini mandelbrots are 'baby-brots'

[@jacksimpson-rogers1069]

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.

[@peterbradbury784]

At last, proof that god does not exist.

[@sanukatharul1497]

​@@peterbradbury784 How so?

[@dfacedagame]

The design of the many aspects of this world is very beautiful.

[@knotsus5482]

@@dfacedagameAnd that disproves God how?

[@rahghlop]

@dfacedagame everything has a creator, the universe can't just form itself out of nowhere

[@spacelem]

Since I think it was a little skipped over, imaginary numbers do exist, but it's best to think of them as a rotation around a point 0. If you have a quarter rotation around 0, then another quarter rotation takes you the opposite of where you started, which is what -1 is (the opposite of where you started). Real numbers scale, 2 takes you away from 0, 1/2 takes you closer to 0, -1 takes you to the opposite side of zero. That's why -1 x -1 takes you back to positive again. When you realise that complex numbers just represent a mix of scaling (real) and rotating (imaginary), it becomes very intuitive. Oh, and fractals are wonderful, nicely explained! But no, they do not imply a creator, sorry. Fractals occur in nature because they form shapes that are just easier to make. It's evolution following a path of least resistance.

[@angelsuniverse6021]

But somenthing cant come from the nothing...n if u add how perfect is everyhing ....it is impossible to think there is not a creator...

[@orvinal2883]

@@angelsuniverse6021 ok but that wouldn't explain the math part. Math would exist exactly the way it is with or without a god

[@MN-vz8qm]

@@angelsuniverse6021 "But somenthing cant come from the nothing" Do don't know... that is the only intelligent thing you can say. And even if one takes your sentence as true, this would mean taht your creator had to be created himself. Here I am refering to the "prime mover" problem which has eluded religious philosophers for centuries.

[@MN-vz8qm]

the term "imaginary" was very poorly chosen. A more appropriate name would have been perpendicular or orthogonal number.

[@angelsuniverse6021]

@@orvinal2883 Agree, If God wills that things follow the blueprint of Mathematics, then Mathematics must exist independently of God. Mathematicians believe in God at a rate two and a half times that of biologists, a survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences a decade ago revealed.

[@JXQU3]

The mandelbrot set has nothing to do with god. Order appears in chaos, as it always did. The problem is there is no order. People always say "oh but the universe cannot be gaining entropy if there's life" nope, life is all but order. Life is chaos. The universe is chaotic, and so is the mandelbrot set. It's not perfection, it's a fractal,

[@bite-sizedshorts9635]

I remember when this formula came out. Later, in the early days of PCs, I remember software that would calculate these plots for Mandelbrot sets and for Julia sets. It took longer, and the images were pixelated compared to the images in this video because of the quality of graphic cards of the time.

[@medexamtoolscom]

This guy actually did a good job of explaining how fractals are generated and the properties of the mandelbrot set. That said, actually, it is YOUR worst nightmare, not mine, and if you're just too dense to properly see the implications of it that is YOUR shortcoming. So I'll spell it out for you why that is the case. See, your crowd is always saying that complex but orderly structures can't emerge spontaneously out of simple rules of interactions and insisting a conscious superintelligence must be behind it all instead. You're always saying that life, or eyeballs, or airplanes, or watches, or whatever, could never appear out of the interactions of atoms bouncing around in a godless universe simply obeying the laws of physics i.e. a bunch of simple equations, and that there must be an intelligence guiding them to have produced life as we know it. Well fractals prove you wrong. There's your example of sophisticated and orderly structures that occur just from simple mathematical rules with no willful intent. And I know what you'd say in response to this argument, that god is behind the structure that emerges because god created math too and so he personally handcrafted that structure and simply made math create what he designed. Well you know what, the problem with that is it doesn't NEED to be the formula fc(z)=z^2+c. There's actually nothing special about the mandelbrot set in the properties outlined here. The generating formula can be modified to your heart's desire and it will still have them despite being a differently shaped structure. It can be fc(z)=z^2+z^3+c. Or fc(z)=z^2+z^3/1000000+c. Or fc(z)=1.397*z^2+.03592*e^z+c, or fc(z)=z^2+.666*z^7-42*z^4+c, come up with almost any crazy function you want, and you'll get a different structure that has these properties and this sort of complexity in it as you pan around the generated image and zoom in on it, but the key takeaway is that now the details of the structure depends entirely upon the numbers and terms you choose. There's nothing SPECIAL about fc(z)=z^2+c, about the mandelbrot set. That's just the formula that produces the image that's FAMOUS and has been analyzed so much. But create any formula you want and it is YOUR CHOICE that decides the new set's structure. It isn't god's choice that makes the custom structure appear when you enter into your computer some crazy formula. It is YOURS. I know your crowd believes in free will (unless you're Calvinist) so you can't even give credit of these results to god. It was YOUR choice on the specific crazy formula you chose to enter in to produce the new structure, and it will be different for every new set of numbers and terms you create. If you create some ad hoc formula, and not merely z^2+c, then if anyone is the designer it is you, but you didn't go to the trouble of deciding on any complex structure, you just set down a simple mathematical rule and the structure emerged on its own despite your neglectful overseeing of the calculation.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Except the pattern was discovered. They didn't invent the pattern. They found it.

[@viv3kanand]

Mathematicians: “We have a limited understanding of why physical universe obey laws of mathematics” Him: “We have a god. Period”

[@anubis9151]

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.

[@acitik9440]

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,

[@NoOne-sy5fg]

@@anubis9151 bro you telling me you're gonna look through EVERY possible mathematical expression and try to fit them into EVERY physical phenomena????

[@Dice-Z]

@@NoOne-sy5fg Some are certainly gonna try.

[@Navigator777777]

Entropy: Secularist's God.

[@jamesclark830]

Jason Lisle is a treasure in the church. There are very few that can connect the complex world of the sciences to the creator as fluidly as he does. It's like preaching from the bible, but instead from the sciences. Well done!

[@savedbygrace4535]

Beautifully said!😢 Amen!

[@Andromedon777]

@@Bomtombadi1 What?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@Bomtombadi1 looks like he touched a nerve

[@jacksimpson-rogers1069]

If he doesn't drag in nonsense about not being dead when you die, or the idiotic Trinity. Good luck to you all.

[@himacho8771]

i love this channel, its so much better comedy than most comedians, like this guy definitely chose the wrong career path

[@KathleenMaryK]

Absolutely fascinating, never heard of this but now I'm hooked. It blows the mind to think how all this works.

[@ericchin739]

Then PLEASE. Please please learn about what it really is. You can watch Numberphile as they give an amazing explanation..... and they don't need a sky wizard to do it!

[@Majestic469]

Yes it’s beautiful and mind blowing but why does that mean a god exists?

[@RickMacDonald19]

@@Majestic469 For some, like me, it demonstrates infinite complexity, truly infinite. One of the hard to fathom defining characteristics of God. To me it means God is more probable than spontaneous creation.

[@RickMacDonald19]

Welcome to the club :)

[@jameswest8280]

@@RickMacDonald19 even if it did prove God, how does that get us to Jesus? Why not Brahma?

[@rickquade]

It's true. When I was an atheist this was a recurring nightmare. And then I woke up to reality.

[@rickquade]

@skeeder Mick peeder when I was asleep at night I had these kinds of nightmares, then I'd wake up in the morning and resume my life in reality.

[@OutsiderX7]

@HighJenny420 I made that shift because you cannot found rational thoughts upon irrational foundations. Every solution we find leads us to more questions. The physical world is made of complex combinations of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made of… quarks? bosons? gluons? Where does it end? What is the thing that makes up the gluon made of? The same thing seems to apply to time. What came before the Earth? What came before solids and gas? What came before energy? What came before the Big Bang? How is it that every movement in the universe seems to follow strict rules? How can it be intelligible? I think there are two possibilities: an act of God, or pure coincidence, and I think believing either one requires faith. But one bears hope, and the other one does not. Why choose the one that fosters meaningless despair?

[@OutsiderX7]

@@helio68 I used to think like you, but then I figured that everything I knew about science was based off something irrational: faith in the people that transmitted that knowledge to me. That’s doesn’t mean it is wrong, but I had to admit that it wasn’t purely rational on my part. I also noticed that scientific inquiries requires faith in the intelligibility of the natural world. We have to assume that there are patterns to be discovered and that those patterns aren’t just arbitrary projections of our human consciousness upon an accidental, chaotic world. Every time we stumble upon a chaotic phenomena, we come to find rules that could predict its occurence. I had to re-investigate religious texts and beliefs assuming they told of something true. It didn’t matter if I believed they were or not, but I had to make the exercise in good faith. The people who wrote these texts couldn’t have access to the knowledge we have now. They made approximate explanations for what they observed, as we still do today. We have to frame their words in the context they wrote them to take lessons from them. Einstein didn’t invalidate what Newton discovered, he learnt from it and enriched our understanding. In my experience, faith has helped me much more than pure, rigid rationality.

[@sweetlife343]

@@OutsiderX7 but then... What's before god? Where dices he come from? How is it so powerfull? How can it be intelligible? I beliebe it's valid to ask quesitons to either side (atheism and religion)

[@sweetlife343]

@@OutsiderX7 @OutsiderX7 @OutsiderX7 responding to these: isn't the bible kind of the same? Bye reading the bible we are choosing have faith in The people that transmitted those words. Also, having faith in god itself is having faith in something inteligible. Is it not? We have to assume that he movies everything all around us. The people who created the foundings of today science and math didnt had the knowledge... Yeah, thats basically what a discovery is. Discovering something you didnt know. Also they didnt have the technology we hace nowadays like microscopes, computers, etc. Basic tools to continue discovering and understanding the world around us.

[@vicg5323]

As a scientist I have always believed in the concept of a divine engineer. But to see it explained is wonderful.

[@mikael.wilhelm]

Einstein once said the most interesting question is whether God had a choice. He saw that the more we learn about the Universe, the more we can explain about it arising automatically from simple rules. And these simple rules are themselves not arbitrarily chosen, but are just what they are because there is no other way they could possibly be and still make sense! This video has successfully illustrated the point, that the more we learn about the Universe, the less room there is for a God to make up rules. All the rules we have found arise by themselves out of nothing more than examining what is logically consistent. This is really the absolute minimum assumption we can make by the way. To assume that a thing must be logically consistent with itself to be able to exist is the weakest demand we can make. And if that turns out to be ENOUGH to explain all that exists, then religion really has nothing to offer in the matter. And so the atheist position is strengthened, not diminished. Because if everything arises naturally out of the demands for logical consistency, then the only room left for God is to "push the button" that makes the Universe exist, but there is nothing he can do about the process to shape it in any way. Such a God is of course still a logical possibility, but it's not a very interesting God, and it most certainly is nothing like the Christian idea of God. PS I'm not an atheist. I think God is consciousness, and we are part of God, since we have consciousness. The miracle is us, not the Universe. The Universe just is what it must be to exist. But _we_ are magical! Consciousness is magical. It didn't need to exist, but it does. Logic has nothign to say about consciousness. Science can't grasp it. And yet, here we are. It's the mystery of Life itself. THAT is what religion is about, and this video's attempt to shoehorn religion into the realms of science and logic is both counterproductive and ridiculous.

[@bk3rd_para_lel]

The Greatest Wisdom is knowing how little we actually really do know!

[@Faroshkas]

Wow! I really enjoyed reading that. There is one problem that I see with the idea that there is no room for God to make rules, as logical consistency already completes what is left to be completed. Should an interfering God exist, one that is somehow beyond the universe, I don't see why logic, as it works in the universe, should apply to him, or why he can't just change how logic works. I'm an atheist, but this is one argument that I have never been able to think of a counter-argument for, and I find it a genuinely interesting thought experiment.

[@mikael.wilhelm]

@@Faroshkas In a way, the scientific method is similar to the famous joke about the guy looking for his lost car keys under a streetlight, not because that's where he lost them, but because it's the only place he can see anything! By that I mean, the scientific method is fundamentally about applying LOGIC to our observations about the world and see what we can find. Since this can by definition only find whatever is logical to begin with, it absolutely cannot answer the question of whether something else _also_ exists that is beyond the limitations of logic. Logic is the streetlight, and if the keys aren't under it they won't be found. IMO, the only thing that is beyond the reach of the scientific method, is consciousness. We can study the brain and find out how it works on a technical level, but we can't say why there is consciousness hiding in there. Nothing is known about the nature of consciousness from external observation, all we can do is observe ourselves as conscious beings. Consciousness itself knows consciousness to exists, and yet there is no way to measure it with an apparatus. My point here, is that it is perfectly reasonable to hold the idea that consciousness is "from God", simply because science can't be applied to it to assert otherwise. But it is at the same time not reasonable to hold religious ideas about things where science actually has something to say! And that's why this video is dumb. Any attempt to "prove God" is dumb, since it's ultimately an attempt to use the scientific method to disprove science itself, by using a clownish imitation of the scientific method to "prove" something that actually is beyond rational purview. People with a religious mindset should leave science alone, and accept that faith is valid where science cannot go, and ONLY where science cannot go. Faith doesn't need to be proven, and CAN'T be proven, so why waste energy on it.

[@jry3270]

So maybe you or Einstein (the great bringer of death and destruction ) could answer this- who set those “logical” parameters? Who says any of the laws of physics are constant? Idk if you read any recent scientific literature but nowadays physicists are throwing out the Big Bang theory in favor of the idea that time and space are an illusion. So can you tell me who created this illusion? How did it come about? See you atheists can never answer simple questions like where did it all begin. And instead of revering people like the saints and our Holy Mother , you revere the people who gave us the A bomb. There is something wrong with that on such a basic level.

[@jcfreaks3175]

@@Faroshkas who said that God interferes? If they did wow just wow. There are consequences in life. You can choose to go to work or not go to work. Either way there’s a consequence to that choice. If you choose to go to work you get paid, if you choose to not go to work you don’t get paid. We all have a choice in everything we do. If God interfered he would have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning. God just informed them of the consequences before hand. They chose. That’s just simple truth. We all can make a choice to do right or wrong. A man once said “why would a loving God allow bad things to happen” but would a loving God take away your free will. Bad things happen because of people’s choices. If a man woman sexually molest her child the choice she made was bad. Did God tell her to do it or did she make a conscious choice. Bad things happen because of bad choices and other people are affected in the wake of that choice. Truth will not change you take a pencil and call it a sports utility vehicle it’s not suddenly going to become an S.U.V. It’s going to remain what it is. A Christian believes in God and an atheist claims they do not. The truth won’t change. If God exist or not the truth behind that won’t change. Everyone will find out that truth when they die.

[@degradingbear7412]

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” 💀

[@maxe624]

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.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

I don't think it takes being a Christian to figure this one out. Lol

[@aliensoup2420]

@@newcreationinchrist1423 No, but it certainly takes a christian to be persuaded by it.

[@DeadKoby]

It's really neat that shapes that we've observed in space, and in nature appear here in the numeric plot.

[@rah2287]

I consider myself intelligent but “math challenged” and this man explained a complex miracle in a way that even I could understand.

[@watachee6558]

I'm not sure you can believe this, man. But do as you wilt!

[@b0unce805]

@@watachee6558 if you don’t believe ‘this man’ do your own research. Mandelbrot set is a well documented phenomenon. Theist or not, it exists.

[@watachee6558]

@B0UNCE Sorry, son, but I don't accept pseudo science crap! I expect all science to be backed by the scientific method! If it's not backed in this way, then it's a theory at best. Your generation hangs themselves on thoughts other men have! My generation doesn't! The scientific method was built to produce imperical evidence. Without that, you have no truth! Your generation will never survive the future. You have no God there. All you have is men telling you what they want you to believe with absolutely no facts to back them either. Good luck with that. You are going to need it! And without God, you don't have a chance!

[@watachee6558]

@B0UNCE here's another clown that believes pseudo science! Bahahahahaha!

[@roscius6204]

So you confess to not understanding the math.... and yet are convinced to believe an explanation that fits your existing world view. This is exactly the formula by which indoctrination is achieved. Spend a little time researching the Dunning Kruger Effect.

[@mitchellmichael7823]

The mandelbrot set is fascinating. As a computer scientist I've made my own version of the software this guy is using. That being said, I'm an atheist and it's no mystery why these patterns appear in nature. Fractals appear in nature because they maximize surface area with minimum amount of encoding(DNA). They're naturally selected to be as efficient as possible. I.e. how the infinitely complex shape of the mandelbrot set can be described with a single line of math.

[@padawan1754]

Cool als ingenieur und Mathe Fanatiker habe ich mir gedacht das einzige was unendlich ist ist die zeit und der Raum wahrscheinlich endlich werden alle Möglichkeiten von Anordnungen und Konstellation der Teilchen im Raum durchgespielt bzw alles eine Kopie vom vorherigen nur anders aber was ist mit der qautenmechanick da müssten die Zustände/Entropien gleichzeitig vorhanden sein wie wenn man die Zeit als zweidimensionales Koordinatensystem aufspaltet beides ist mit der mandelbrot Menge im Einklang somit wäre dann ja die Zeit die wir wahrnehmen nur die Abfolge von zn+1 = zn²+c und c der Parameter der für die Dimensionen verantwortlich ist der die vier fundamentalen Wechselwirkungen bestimmt. Bei Simulationen von unserem Universum zeigt sich wenn wir die starke Wechselwirkung verändern und somit die Gravitationskonstante G würden sich keine Atomkerne oder gar Masse bilden oder wenn man die kleinste elementarladung verändert kann sich kein Kohlenstoff bilden und somit keine organische chemie 😅 nur leider ist unser Universum kein Kontinuum (planksche Einheiten/ Planksche wirkungsqauntum)

[@TheJoeGutsExpress]

Too funny. Please keep posting. 😄

[@thestrongestlivingcreature]

The funniest part is the redditors seething in the comments 🍷🗿

[@ponytailpotato309]

@Homunculus I am and will not be speaking for the 'redditors' you're targeting in this comment, but as an agnostic I do find his explanations to be pretty decent for about 70-75% of it, until he pinpointed it down to an omnipotent and omniscient creator limited to christianity alone, which is kind of really humorous, I won't lie What I find even funnier is how some of you take the trouble to scroll down to some comments that are opposing your incredibly biased beliefs just to seethe and attempt to assert the said beliefs onto others, which is kind of selfish as well, and all the more funnier to me

[@thestrongestlivingcreature]

@@ponytailpotato309 Who's seething and who's laughing here though? You're the one who just wrote a whole cope essay 🤣

[@EffYouMan]

Wow a pattern in nature, just be God, feelsspecialman

[@crunchylemon2849]

@@thestrongestlivingcreature toilet deer

[@notavailable4891]

This is an underrated, powerful argument. None of these things can exist in the real world because there is a minimum length of time and span of space. Yet they still exist. Atheists are dismissing this as if it is no big deal but still haven't heard one single atheist justify how this could be in the absence of a mind greater than any we could possibly conceive of.

[@aidenhastings6341]

Would you like to talk about this? I see no evidence for god here

[@notavailable4891]

@@aidenhastings6341 Sure, heres a syllogism. If materialism is true then abstract mental objects do not exist. Abstract mental objects exist. Therefore materialism is not true. If materialism isn't true, then I'd argue there's no reason to believe atheism is either. Edit: Also mental objects that are infinite cannot exist solely in finite minds. Therefore an infinite mind exists. That's a pretty good first step to God.

[@aidenhastings6341]

@@notavailable4891 Great! I do enjoy this type of conversation. I will try to respond more or less promptly, but don't worry if I miss a couple days as I can get busy. And apologies in advance if I get too long-winded. I like this syllogism because it makes me wonder how/where mathematical objects are categorized. A materialist could disagree with the first premise by claiming that "abstract mental objects" like feelings, thoughts etc are the product of the brain being in different states; that abstract mental objects are the product of neural processes or emergent properties of physical systems. But what about a perfect circle? What about the Mandlebrot set? Do these objects exist only in the mind? Do you believe that abstract mental objects could possibly be explained by varying brain states? I believe it would be reasonable if one thought that feelings etc are explained by varying brain states, but to address your second point, let's just say some type of abstract mental object exists that cannot be explained by varying brain states (mathematical objects? I am not claiming to be a materialist here necessarily). This person could still be an atheist under other philosophical views. For example, Idealism introduces the idea that reality is composed of mental or subjective experiences rather than material substances. It suggests that the external world is fundamentally mental or mind-dependent. This is just one example of a philosophical world view that is not consistent with materialism while remaining open to atheism, but there are others. Naturalism (everything can be explained by natural processes) I think would be the first fall back if Materialism was proved false, but dualism (the mind and body are separate and distinct) and panpsychism (consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe) are two more examples. I would just like to be clear that not holding a materialist stance does not exclude a consistent atheist stance. One last point is that atheism (in my view) is a lack of belief, not a positive belief. Maybe it would be useful to first come to a consensus about the definition of atheism here. What is your working definition?

[@notavailable4891]

@@aidenhastings6341 I think we have several reasons not to believe that abstract objects exist just in the mind. Maybe the most convincing to me is that our minds are finite, but some abstract objects are infinite and therefore cannot be even conceptualized in the mind and yet they still apply to reality. There's also the problem of, say, numbers. If I have seven pencils, can we say that the seven-ness of those objects exists as patterns in my brain waves? Like is the fact that there are seven of them dependent on my subjective mental state? I don't see how that could be correct. Idealism almost seems to make the matter worse to me. If mind is prior to reality, and reality includes constructs which, again, are infinite, then that suggests if not necessarily proves, that at the bottom of reality is an infinite mind prior to all of reality. I agree it's a bit hasty to say that if materialism is toast then so is atheism. Only in the sense that, in my experience most atheists seem to hold to some form of materialism. I have trouble with the idea that atheism is a lack of belief. Because then inanimate objects become atheist, because they lack belief by the nature of what they are which seems to pollute the definition. Plus, when I talk to atheists, they usually have some philosophy that seems to be the foundation of their disbelief. So for instance, a lot of atheists seem to assume naturalism is true from a scientific perspective, something that can't be proven, and so to them it seems obvious that life evolved, began, and the universe itself was even created by natural processes. In which case, their lack of belief is because they just don't see a point to God to explain anything. To me, the more interesting thing about their atheism isn't the lack of belief, it's their positive belief in scientism/naturalism and how they interpret the evidence with those philosophies. Of course, if you define atheism by their positive beliefs, you run into the fact that those positive beliefs will change from person to person so it's hard to give a one-size fits all definition imo. So maybe I'd say an atheist is someone who lacks belief in God because their worldview has no room for him, or something like that. I'd have to think about it. No worries if you can't respond at any point, I've got a lot going on here so I may just disappear because I ran out of time.

[@aidenhastings6341]

@@notavailable4891 When I use the term "atheist" to describe someone, I understand that the recipient is rejecting a particular theological truth claim, and inanimate objects do not choose to reject claims. In other words I think "atheist" implies the ability of conscious decision making in order to reject a claim. It's a funny thought to consider a table or bookshelf an atheist. XD In the strictest sense of merely "lacking belief" we could, and despite it sounding crazy I think it would at least be a coherent definition. Maybe my table does have a degree of consciousness like the panpsychist believes. I think there could be multiple reasons someone is atheist in regard to a deity. I would expand on your point of not having room in one's worldview to also include philosophical arguments, and a lack of evidence. In simplest terms, the definition I prefer for an atheist is "someone who lacks belief in a God," and I do not like to include particular reasons because there are multiple. People may choose any they like, but for me the key is rejecting belief. Can we improve on that? If you still do not like the idea that atheism is not a positive belief, we could also define "strong atheist" (making a positive truth claim about the nonexiatance of a god) vs "weak athiest" (fails to be convinced and therefore rejects the claim). Both reject the truth claim, but in a different way. Idealism is certainly a strange and interesting perspective! It is not one I often think from, and I am not interested in defending it. It was merely an example to contest 'not materialism' implies 'not atheism'. Regarding abstract mental objects, I think it is important to be specific about "actual infinities" and "potential infinites." When we talk about infinite mathematical objects, I would agree that we do not fully comprehend their infinitude, but also that the challenges in comprehending infinite concepts do not necessarily demonstrate their objective existence beyond the mind. For example, there are infinite natural numbers, and we understand this as a concept. Similarly, there are infinite fractions between 1 and 2, and we understand that as a concept without problem. We do not comprehend the infinite object itself as a whole, that I agree is impossible (there is no understanding of "actual" infinity in our finite minds), but I am not convinced there are any actual infinities at all, only conceptual "potential" infinities. I believe we comprehend potential "conceptual" infinities, and that the infinities we talk about in math are potential infinities. I would back up the nonexistence of actual infinities by saying that because we have a smallest unit of space, time, etc (the Planck units) for which anything is able to have a comprehensible physical meaning in our universe, that everything material in our universe if finite. And if we want to claim an actual infinity outside of these physical restrictions, it would then only able to be conceptualized in the mind (though there could be one outside our universe). The concept of numbers, or seven-ness, is also interesting. It could be that the concept of numbers is socially constructed and subject to linguistic conventions. after all, different cultures have had different number systems. That will be a good one to think about, but I have to go for now. I might have to come back later and edit this into something more comprehensible haha

[@Puleczech]

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 🙂

[@mabelstarot888]

Quantum Leap, Maybe if we say The Universe Loves itself, therefor it love is ❤

[@РомановВладимир-ю9д]

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.

[@Puleczech]

@@mabelstarot888 What?

[@Puleczech]

@@РомановВладимир-ю9д That is not the vibe I got from the video.

[@franglasscock5310]

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.

[@jhoughjr1]

Im a former atheist and yeah the mandelbrot set is such a strange and beautiful thing to discover where it was. Idk if it demonstrates god though. But being in awe is tangent to recognizing god

[@heraghanessian7017]

There’s a really cool documentary about the Mandelbrot set called the colors of infinity. And it’s set to the music of Pink Floyd

[@grassrootsflshp]

Whoa! And PF happens to be my fave band of all time too! Can you pls give me the link pls? Would not be surprising if the Mandelbrot patterns are set to the whole "Dark Side of the Moon" album, both are masterpieces of beauty and magic.

[@marczbinden2372]

I think the beauty of fractals comes from the fact, that they don't try to bite you.

[@waking-tokindness5952]

(-; -- Actually, since all living beings are actually various fractals, then, .. yes, they _do_ sometimes try to bite you \ -- ;-) \\

[@Politebanana1]

You win 🤣

[@brettsteed7242]

I really appreciated the first mathematical part. Great pedagogy. For the rest, to bring smthg to that issue of the effectiveness of maths and so, I will only quote another brilliant mathematician : "Nothing takes place in the world whose meaning is not that of some maximum or minimum."(Euler, btw)

[@codeninja1832]

I have done some game development. Euler angles are used a lot. I especially hate them with regard to quaternions. That Euler guy gives me immense displeasure.

[@brettsteed7242]

@@codeninja1832 when your name has been given to 100000 things, their might be some collateral damage...

[@codeninja1832]

@@brettsteed7242 He's got it coming alright. Euler better not let me catch him slippin.

[@josephsaab7208]

Euler was a devout Christian by the way

[@zaknefain100]

@@josephsaab7208 Yep, and Francis Collins mapped the human genome. What's your point about broken clocks being right twice a day?

[@_Zenmu]

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.

[@Blankoo3d]

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.