Is there a pattern to the universe?

[Admin]

For decades, cosmologists have wondered if the large-scale structure of the universe is a fractal — that is, if it looks the same no matter how large the scale.

Is there a pattern to the universe? : Read more

 

[rod]

"So, while the universe as a whole isn't a fractal — and Mandelbrot's idea didn't hold up — we can still find fractals almost everywhere we look."

This view of the universe in cosmology is needed it seems. If fractal patterns combined with various constants like the Cosmological Constant, G, C, etc. could make explaining the origin of the universe via nature at work via random events - more difficult.

 

[David-J-Franks]

"So, while the universe as a whole isn't a fractal — and Mandelbrot's idea didn't hold up — we can still find fractals almost everywhere we look."

This view of the universe in cosmology is needed it seems. If fractal patterns combined with various constants like the Cosmological Constant, G, C, etc. could make explaining the origin of the universe via nature at work via random events - more difficult.

This view of the universe in cosmology is needed it seems. If fractal patterns combined with various constants like the Cosmological Constant, G, C, etc. could make explaining the origin of the universe via nature at work via random events - more difficult.

I don't understand what you mean, is it possible to clarify please rod

 

[rod]

Post #3. I like these six questions for investigative reporting. Who, what, when, where, how, and why. Physical constants that describe how nature works and math patterns found in nature is challenging to explain in origins science teaching based upon naturalism. The naturalism worldview cannot allow any evidence for intelligent design and purpose seen in the origin of the universe, thus the *creator* must always be time and chance, no matter how many physical constants are found or math patterns observed in nature.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Post #3. I like these six questions for investigative reporting. Who, what, when, where, how, and why. Physical constants that describe how nature works and math patterns found in nature is challenging to explain in origins science teaching based upon naturalism. The naturalism worldview cannot allow any evidence for intelligent design and purpose seen in the origin of the universe, thus the *creator* must always be time and chance, no matter how many physical constants are found or math patterns observed in nature.

I think I just about get it, but why did you feel the need in the first place to explain that it is difficult for naturalism to explain the origin when the article didn't even suggest any kind of intelligent design or anything like that. (Or maybe I don't get it)

Also why does having pattern make things difficult to explain after all even a simple snowflake is a pattern, you can't get much more natural than that

 

[rod]

Post #5, there are 5 references to *random* in the article, all suggesting the naturalism worldview of origins

 

[David-J-Franks]

Post #3. I like these six questions for investigative reporting. Who, what, when, where, how, and why. Physical constants that describe how nature works and math patterns found in nature is challenging to explain in origins science teaching based upon naturalism. The naturalism worldview cannot allow any evidence for intelligent design and purpose seen in the origin of the universe, thus the *creator* must always be time and chance, no matter how many physical constants are found or math patterns observed in nature.

Afterthought, if there weren't any patterns or constants, there would just be random chaos everywhere, and there wouldn't be anything to explain at all.

 

[rod]

Afterthought, if there weren't any patterns or constants, there would just be random chaos everywhere, and there wouldn't be anything to explain at all.

Correct David-J-Franks. You and I would not be here today to read this article either