Hi and help!

[Melancholyman]

Is "Melancholyman" from the track by the Moody Blues ?

Yes it is indeed 

[kram1032]

David Makin: Your idea of the nature of the universe (and beyond ) is very close to mine

Half comes from relativistic and quantum-phyiscs and the other half from the fact that each time "step"'s state is the result of applying the whole set of rules (physical formulae, many of them not yet found) to the state of the previous time step.

However, time seems to be a creation of our perception.
There must be something more general, outside of time.

The trick would be to get fractals in one step; to find the closed form of the sum.

(Hmm... that might be one of the shortest tries to explain this, I ever wrote

@ Mandelbrot set definition:

There are three kinds of points:
Those that converge against a fixed point, those that converge against infinity and cycles.

Afaik, the "beetle" is all that converges against a fixed point (like 0), the outside is what goes to infinity and the border is basically all the cycles.
Though I'm not sure about the cycle-part right now...

The circle of radius >2 is just where it becomes obvious that the points escape. There are certain geometric propperties which could be used to define the shape of the M-set more clearly but they are all way more complex and most likely would take more time to calculate than the additional information would shorten the needed time.

For instance (dunno if that helps for the outside but it could for the inside) the main "circle" of the Mset is indeed a circle (while all the other copies are slightly distorted) and the thing the circle is attached to is a true cardioid.

That's at least what I've read

[Melancholyman]

David Makin: Your idea of the nature of the universe (and beyond ) is very close to mine

Half comes from relativistic and quantum-phyiscs and the other half from the fact that each time "step"'s state is the result of applying the whole set of rules (physical formulae, many of them not yet found) to the state of the previous time step.

However, time seems to be a creation of our perception.
There must be something more general, outside of time.

The trick would be to get fractals in one step; to find the closed form of the sum.

(Hmm... that might be one of the shortest tries to explain this, I ever wrote

@ Mandelbrot set definition:

There are three kinds of points:
Those that converge against a fixed point, those that converge against infinity and cycles.

Afaik, the "beetle" is all that converges against a fixed point (like 0), the outside is what goes to infinity and the border is basically all the cycles.
Though I'm not sure about the cycle-part right now...

The circle of radius >2 is just where it becomes obvious that the points escape. There are certain geometric propperties which could be used to define the shape of the M-set more clearly but they are all way more complex and most likely would take more time to calculate than the additional information would shorten the needed time.

For instance (dunno if that helps for the outside but it could for the inside) the main "circle" of the Mset is indeed a circle (while all the other copies are slightly distorted) and the thing the circle is attached to is a true cardioid.

That's at least what I've read

But the border around the "beetle", isn't that border getting smaller and smaller after more iterations? One thing also that is boggling my mind, is the fact that what I've heard the Mandelbrot was "discovered". Isn't our reality totally anthropomorphistic? Isn't math a human invention, what if we created fractals, and we are creating our future, and the Mandelbrot wasn't discovered, it was simply invented by ourselves?

[David Makin]

But the border around the "beetle", isn't that border getting smaller and smaller after more iterations?
One thing also that is boggling my mind, is the fact that what I've heard the Mandelbrot was "discovered". Isn't our reality totally anthropomorphistic? Isn't math a human invention, what if we created fractals, and we are creating our future, and the Mandelbrot wasn't discovered, it was simply invented by ourselves?

Yes the iteration bands get progressively thinner as the true fractal boundary is approached.

IMHO maths itself was "discovered" rather than "invented" - the rules of maths are absolute, like the rules of logic
Similarly fractals themselves were "discovered" rather than invented and in this case it's straightforward since no-one can deny the fractal nature of a coastline, or clouds or broccoli or ferns or lungs etc.
Also I'm pretty sure that the same applies to the Mandelbrot Set because, although maybe the exact equivalent of z^2+c hasn't yet been found in nature, studies of the variation of magnetism in materials at different temperatures and pressures show fractal behaviour which when mathematically modelled results in fractals that contain z^2+c type "minibrots" - just look up "Magnet fractals", or simply try them in Fractint or Ultra Fractal

[Melancholyman]

But the border around the "beetle", isn't that border getting smaller and smaller after more iterations?
One thing also that is boggling my mind, is the fact that what I've heard the Mandelbrot was "discovered". Isn't our reality totally anthropomorphistic? Isn't math a human invention, what if we created fractals, and we are creating our future, and the Mandelbrot wasn't discovered, it was simply invented by ourselves?

Yes the iteration bands get progressively thinner as the true fractal boundary is approached.

IMHO maths itself was "discovered" rather than "invented" - the rules of maths are absolute, like the rules of logic
Similarly fractals themselves were "discovered" rather than invented and in this case it's straightforward since no-one can deny the fractal nature of a coastline, or clouds or broccoli or ferns or lungs etc.
Also I'm pretty sure that the same applies to the Mandelbrot Set because, although maybe the exact equivalent of z^2+c hasn't yet been found in nature, studies of the variation of magnetism in materials at different temperatures and pressures show fractal behaviour which when mathematically modelled results in fractals that contain z^2+c type "minibrots" - just look up "Magnet fractals", or simply try them in Fractint or Ultra Fractal

Ok sure, there is obviously a connection between fractals and nature. And we are able to describe nature in a more elaborate way with fractals. But how do we know that fractal geometry isn't just that, an elaborate way to imitate and describe reality. The true essence of the universe might not have anything to do with numbers, math, or fractals, it's just happens it's an improved way of describing it. I am just trying to countermeasure, I'm not saying the laws of logic aren't absolutes, all I am saying is, how do we know that when we are discovering we are in fact inventing it?

[David Makin]

I'm not saying the laws of logic aren't absolutes, all I am saying is, how do we know that when we are discovering we are in fact inventing it?

Aha - I take it on faith that we've just "discovered" such things as logic, maths, entropy.....whereas things like philosophy or spiritual beliefs are things we've invented - I do believe there is a "God" but that's purely a belief and a faith and until proven otherwise to me this "God" is an invention of Man just like philosophy and other spiritual beliefs, but even if just an invention that doesn't make such a "God" an impossibility.
Having said that I also think spiritual beliefs and such are on the whole far more important to the well-being of humankind in the long run than logic, maths, entropy etc. In other words I'm not really a materialist I should also state that that doesn't alter my extreme suspicion of all organised religions (plus dislike of some and of all fundamentalism==intolerance) (though I am "officially" Church of England).

[Nahee_Enterprises]

I'm not saying the laws of logic aren't absolutes, all I am saying is, how do we know that when we are discovering we are in fact inventing it?

Aha - I take it on faith that we've just "discovered" such things
as logic, maths, entropy..... whereas things like philosophy or
spiritual beliefs are things we've invented

Should not this discussion be moved to the new Philosophy Board within the Forum ??     

[Melancholyman]

I'm not saying the laws of logic aren't absolutes, all I am saying is, how do we know that when we are discovering we are in fact inventing it?

Aha - I take it on faith that we've just "discovered" such things as logic, maths, entropy.....whereas things like philosophy or spiritual beliefs are things we've invented - I do believe there is a "God" but that's purely a belief and a faith and until proven otherwise to me this "God" is an invention of Man just like philosophy and other spiritual beliefs, but even if just an invention that doesn't make such a "God" an impossibility.
Having said that I also think spiritual beliefs and such are on the whole far more important to the well-being of humankind in the long run than logic, maths, entropy etc. In other words I'm not really a materialist I should also state that that doesn't alter my extreme suspicion of all organised religions (plus dislike of some and of all fundamentalism==intolerance) (though I am "officially" Church of England).

Ok, thx for your opinions. I myself am trying to make up my own mind about such matters. To take a radical example, when we discovered America, ofc the land didn't just appear out of nothing, so it cannot have been invented. But there are other areas of reality, where the border between invented and discovered seems to erode a bit. It is also quite common among known philosophers, to believe that the world is in some way, subtle or radically, "made" by us. I would like to add one thing aswell, you mention the laws of logic are absolutes, but isn't it true, that in modern quantum physics the law (or principle) of the excluded third has been altered to fit empirical data?

I'm not saying the laws of logic aren't absolutes, all I am saying is, how do we know that when we are discovering we are in fact inventing it?

Aha - I take it on faith that we've just "discovered" such things
as logic, maths, entropy..... whereas things like philosophy or
spiritual beliefs are things we've invented

Should not this discussion be moved to the new Philosophy Board within the Forum ??     

   Well it has strayed away from it's original topic. 

[David Makin]

I would like to add one thing aswell, you mention the laws of logic are absolutes, but isn't it true, that in modern quantum physics the law (or principle) of the excluded third has been altered to fit empirical data?

I wouldn't know - but Physics is not Logic.
IMHO if Physics defies the logic or maths behind the modelling then there are more variables to consider or the model is incorrect in some other way.
In the same way as Maths, to me Logic is about the actuality whereas Physics is restricted to the merely apparent (observable)
Some things that are actually true may never be observable directly or provable with satisfactory certainty even indirectly and hence can never be part of accepted Physics.
Also IMHO logic/pure maths are not materialistic in nature but applied maths/physics/chemistry/biology are.

Should not this discussion be moved to the new Philosophy Board within the Forum ??     

   Well it has strayed away from it's original topic. 

I guess any further such discussion should now be be posted on the Philosophy board

[Timeroot]

My 2 cents...

There's a theory called Bohm theory, which defines a deterministic quantum world. It states there are "pilot waves", and whenever a superposed particle is observer and must collapse into one of its states - something that would otherwise be random, an idea which many reject - the pilot waves value at the specific space-time location determines which state it will collapse into. I don't know how well substantiated this theory is, but I like it a lot, and I've seen it mentioned in several respectable science magazines (not tabloids). I like it because it allows a scientific explanation of basically whatever religion you want: For instance, one could argue "God" is actually a collection of pilot waves working in unison to make minute changes everywhere and make apparent magic happen; to create the human race by changing some particles in some faraway galaxy; to spread the will they describe, the will which we say is the will of God. I'm not saying I'm Christian, I'm mostly agnostic, but that's just an example. Also, things such as Karma or whatever you want can be described with this idea. Beyond it, I don't have anything to say on religion/philosophy... :-D