It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: quintessentone
I was reading a science study not on this subject but rather on how will humans evolve in 50,000 years and the science theorizes that we will change very little. So, I surmise in answer to your question re: increase in rate of evolution, I would say 'no'.
We are the universe. It’s all mental, but how & why is the mystery. I have my ideas , but that isn’t important here .
originally posted by: Degradation33
Let me try one of these threads. I'm kinda a noob, but we'll see how it goes.
An article titled, "Scientists Discover 'Pure Math' Is Written Into Evolutionary Genetics" came through my Newsfeed.
www.sciencealert.com...
It seems black and white were all we saw in our infancy and the ratio may be golden, after all. They found a Fibonacci sequence in our genome.
The meaning of life the universe and everything may be a number thing afterall.
Luckily for us, a motley team of researchers has just uncovered another striking connection between math and nature; between one of the purest forms of mathematics, number theory, and the mechanisms governing the evolution of life on molecular scales, genetics.
Abstract as it may be, number theory might also be one of the more familiar forms of math to many of us. It encompasses the multiplication, subtraction, division, and addition (arithmetic functions) of integers, or whole numbers and their negative counterparts.
The famed Fibonacci sequence is but one example, where each number in the sequence is the sum of the previous two. Its patterns can be found all through nature, in pinecones, pineapples, and sunflower seeds.
"The beauty of number theory lies not only in the abstract relationships it uncovers between integers, but also in the deep mathematical structures it illuminates in our natural world," explains Oxford University mathematician Ard Louis, senior author of the new study.
Of interest to Louis and his colleagues were mutations, the genetic errors that slip into an organism's genome over time and drive evolution.
I swear I was just in thread on something almost similar...
This so-called mutational robustness generates genetic diversity, yet it varies between species, and can even be observed in the proteins inside cells.
Studied proteins can tolerate around two-thirds of random errors in their coding sequences, meaning 66 percent of mutations are neutral and have no effect on their final shape.
We have known for some time that many biological systems exhibit remarkably high phenotype robustness, without which evolution would not be possible," explains Louis.
"But we didn't know what the absolute maximal robustness possible would be, or if there even was a maximum.
They then looked into protein folding and RNA to see how genotype maps to a specific trait.
Louis and colleagues wondered how close nature could get to the upper bounds of mutational robustness, so ran numerical simulations to compute the possibilities.
They studied the abstract mathematical features of how many genetic variations map to a specific phenotype without changing it, and showed mutational robustness could indeed be maximized in naturally-occurring proteins and RNA structures.
What's more, the maximum robustness followed a self-repeating fractal pattern called a Blancmange curve, and was proportional to a basic concept of number theory, called the sum-of-digits fraction.
"We found clear evidence in the mapping from sequences to RNA secondary structures that nature in some cases achieves the exact maximum robustness bound," says Vaibhav Mohanty, of Harvard Medical School.
"It's as if biology knows about the fractal sums-of-digits function."
Now I can make commentary. Their words are better anyway.
This implications are that perhaps everything in the universe really is unified under a ratio in which to exist.
The Fibonacci sequence isn't just some solipsistic mathematical precept that only exists in observation, it existed before our planet had pawn scum and went into our very construction.
Thanks science alert, your pushed me a little further to the agnostic today... sorta
And I can't title it that without the song...
originally posted by: pthena
"Does the system operate just fine without human observation, or must humans observe so as to change reality in an order out of chaos sort of way?"
I believe the primordial consciousness
Prometheus made the first human out of organic matter
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: cooperton
I believe the primordial consciousness
But we have not yet determined whether the primordial is conscious or not.
Prometheus made the first human out of organic matter
Pretty sure it was Pandora(every blessing) the sister in law of Promethius who made man by throwing pieces of Gaia (stones).
Computer scientists and mathematicians working in complex systems at the University of Sydney and the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences in Germany have developed new methods to describe what many of us take for granted – how easy, or hard, it can be to fall in and out of sync.
Synchronised phenomena are all around us, whether it is human clapping and dancing, or the way fireflies flash, or how our neurons and heart cells interact. However, it is something not fully understood in engineering and science.
Maybe I am just grasping at straws, but who knows?
(could this be along the lines of the 'spark' or how the spark may have formed?)
To understand how these systems work, the researchers studied what are known as “walks” through a network in a complex system. Walks are sequences of connected hops between individual elements or nodes in the network.
The world exhibits mathematical predictability because it is intimately linked with the intelligence of the creators (humans) observing it.
...
I believe the primordial consciousness took bodily form as a human to interact with the vast creation it made in its mind, the matrix in which we all live to this day.
I have a semi-lucid grasp on,
originally posted by: pthena
Lest someone mistakenly assumes that my stance on duality necessitates The Man in the Sky concept, I will say no. It doesn't.
The first part of your quote above is actually the human projection of human intent upon the Ground of Being(Tillich), the Organizing Principle(Degredation33), which she equates with Spirit.
The primordial consciousness(Cooperton) may be a human mythological construct. The Organizing Principle (perhaps Mathematically understood) may not be conscious as humans define consciousness.
Moreover, the Myth of Man in the Sky taking human form may be human invention also, a myth of mythological proportions.
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Degradation33
I have a semi-lucid grasp on,
I thought it said "grasp on p"
I don't see how unconsciousness could implement mind-boggling physical algorithms to allow the consistency exhibited in all matter and energy.
The human body is the ideal vessel to create and manipulate matter physically.
Metabolism (/məˈtæbəlɪzəm/, from Greek: μεταβολή metabolē, "change") is the set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms. The three main functions of metabolism are: the conversion of the energy in food to energy available to run cellular processes; the conversion of food to building blocks for proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and some carbohydrates; and the elimination of metabolic wastes.
It makes sense when we look at ourselves as manifestations of this spirit, or, in other words, its 'children'
It did. It was an edit mistake or overtype or something. Sorry about that.
originally posted by: pthena
Ratios and equations exist before people discover them? (sounds Platonic) Kind of how gravity and atomic bonds don't rely on human intellect or discovery.
And ignore all other life?
All if not most of the World's mythology is very humancentric. Is it because humans are the only one's who need these stories? One day we may learn enough animal languages to ask them about their metaphysical speculations. That might be very educational.
I am making the argument that the creation existing with mathematical predictability and beauty is indicative of it being a mentally contrived system.