burnt said:
Concerning the scalar analogies used to justify a living and conscious universe.
An atom is held together by electric and nuclear forces. The electron and proton are attracted due to electromagnetic forces. The nucleus of an atom is held together by the strong and weak nuclear forces. The solar system for the most part is held together by gravity.
I never indicated that the same forces needed to perform the same functions at higher/lower scalar levels. Conceptionally it is possible that gravity preforms the same functions at the scales of the very large, while electro-magnetism at the mid-small levels, and strong and weak forces at the scales of the very small. Their functions are exactly the same, holding things together. There is your unified theory, one force that holds things together on varying scales, using different "laws/mechanisms". The sun gives off positive energy (solar wind, radiation), the earth and the planets are attracted to (negative/gravity) and absorbers of that energy, a balannce between positive (radiating energy) and negative (absorbing energy). It is just a different mechanism for the same thing.
Furthermore atoms and the subatomic particles that make them up are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The solar system is for the most part governed by the laws of newtonian and relativistic physics. Quantum mechanics of course plays a role at the small scale but the way it does this is not at all analogous to our solar system. Planets don't just jump around in randomly all over the place at once. They follow clear patterns and orbits. The force of gravity is orders (lots of orders) of magnitude weaker then the electromagnetic and nuclear forces.
No, the planets don't jump around in their orbits. But they do have specific orbits, which are governed mathmatically (Keppler's Thrid Law, the Law of Harmonies) just as the electrons around a neucleus always form in particular "shells" and follow clear orbits. Same thing different scales, different mechanics but similar enough to see the analogy.
Quantum mechanics = Very small
Newtonian/relativistic physics = very large.
Same thing, diffrent names, different numerical values involved. But they perform the same general functions. They hold things together.
Concerning fractal mathematics as evidence for an intelligent universe. I though we should start out comical:
That made me lol, :lol: I am not saying the universe is intelligent. I am saying the universe is
Conscious.
Anyway just because there are ordered patterns and fractals in nature does not indicate that they were designed. It has been mathematically provend that such patterns can occur on accident.
I never said they were designed. I just said they are ubiquitious thoughout nature, in just about everything we see. I'll read that article, but im curious, fractals are mathmatic, and there are many diffrent equations that give you fractals, Mandelbrot Sets are one, Julia Sets are another. Not everything has to be perfect, and of course there will be exceptions, otherwise evolution could not occur. Change is the only constant.
A true mathematical fractal is infinite. All fractal patterns in nature are infinite. Not all patterns in nature are fractals either. Fractals are certainly all over but not everywhere. How does an atom resemble a fractal?
Because an atom resembles a solar system.
Why cells are not analogous to the universe as a whole. This is actually hard to respond to because I actually don't even see any resemblance to the structure of galaxies and a cell. So I am going to turn the argument around. Where the heck does the idea that a neuron resembles a galaxy come from?
This is hard/impossilbe to see, because we are not aware of those scalar levels which are above us, and what organization or function they may or may not have. In my example it was a general outline, the structure will be more similar to the scalar levels closer to eachother than those further apart? I dunno, in some cases this works, and others it does not. There does and does not appear to be a direct correlation between scalar levels.
I never said a neuron resembles a galaxy, I said it resembles a cluster of galaxies.
Concerning the cell being analogous to the human form. Here is one simple example. Most of our cells asexually reproduce. But we cannot do that. We can reproduce sexually. Our cells can be cloned but I cannot just take in nutrients and double my genetic material and then split in half.
But they still reproduce. There are living organisms that produce asexually: bacteria, fungi, plants, aphids, turkeys can sometimes, same with hammerhead/blacktip sharks (In both cases, the sharks had reached sexual maturity in captivity in the absence of males, and in both cases the offspring were shown to be genetically identical to the mothers.) Not exactly a cell dividing, but the
exact same result.
Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia
They all have cells don't they?
Also more on the Gaia hypothesis. The earth does not reproduce its not alive plain and simple.
But all life on it reproduces, and is inextricably linked in a web of life, every species of living thing on the planet is like a cell that makes up the whole which is Gaia. That is why we call her Mother Earth. But...as a correlary to this, it is not
necessary to reproduce! I do not have children, and don't plan on having any...am I not a living thing then?
You are taking too strict a perception of what I am talking about. I'm saying both are blue, and you're telling me, well they are not at the exact same wavelegth in angstoms, so there is no correlation. It is a matter of degrees, they do not have to be exact. The similarities are there, enough so that it makes sense to me and I can see the big picture.
Like I said this is one of few places where spiritual people are not dumb by any means. 
