Is it random? Or is it a fractal? Or is there a middle ground between the two?

My understanding is that random is just a concept and doesn't really exist.

Hey you are really are

+MADDEMO Random does exist, but for the longest time it was impossible for an algorithm to produce a random number. I'm not 100% on this but I believe there is now, that reads the background radiation of the universe or something that has been determined to be truly random with no pattern, and creates a number based off that.

+David Wilson But then each output was still driven by something, if you get me? So energy from the big bang was placed not randomly but because of what ever reason put it there. Energy displacement for instance would not be randomly scattered, it would have moved to place by energy that was in place to do what ever it does. Then an algorithm is following a method/rule of some sort so it was all decision based on algorithm from a pattern...can't see how anything can be truly random...or am i taking the meaning a little too far? lol

Richard McCain No, no.. you're confusing "Snow Flakes" with "Corn Flakes". =P

M4nbird wow

@@alphayourface 😆 , actualmente corn flakes would sound good right now :]

ITS SNOWING WHERE I AN

@@nnnickydogwolf4576 sameeee :>

@Htx457 What the hell. I guess the science behind crystallization could answer this question. 2 things come to my mind. The center of the snowflake at the moment of bloom must be symmetric, therefore the orientation of the frozen water molecules of the initial shape on each of its peaks are the same. The other molecules add themselves to the crystal in an orientation that depends on the orientation of the other molecules they "stick" to. Also, the air properties (pressure, temperature and humidity) must be alike all around the snowflake when it blooms, that way each arm grows with about an equal amount of water molecules therefore they have about the same length.

Htx457 Remeber science makes models. That’s it. Models to make predictions.

@Htx457 you are a twat. And your response to someones explanation is staggeringly obnoxious

Htx457 why are you so angry that someone answered a question? How is discussing atmospheric conditions akin to religious rambling? Are meteorologists like cult leaders to you? Also, they never said their “mechanistic structure” explanation was new, so why get mad? Also they were answering someone else’s question. If it didn’t help you, get over it. It wasn’t for you

@Htx457 look at it's ok to be smart's comment.

Troll

The design require a genius being which I call God. Without a designer we are an accident.

@@ingtii4320 exactly

Rose Rain could be a poetic name for snowflakes, Superbly crafted like a rose, functioning in its wetting function similar to rain, but arguably in it's loveliest form.

@@ingtii4320 and for us to be an accident, we would have to be one of a really low % of chance to happen, which is almost impossible. Everything has a source of origin.

@caleb I like your enthusiasm, but I'd need to see proof or at least some evidence before believing this. You would need to control and perfectly mimic : the changing and/or constant pressure, temperature, presence of water vapor and types of particles available for nucleation in order to do this.

learn more before talking

@@patrickw.4422 wow what a refutation...

Would you be kind enough t describe them? It seems wonderful! (except the sad life story)

Did you ever reflect back and wonder if this amazing occurrence was to chase the beautiful unique woman that he was letting slip through his fingers 😒 🤔

mebei26 it’s not nice to be delusional. GOD IS REAL.

No it’s not nice to be nice it’s ok to be smart wait what big Chung is

IKR, Bob Ross ftw.

Simply epic

@Ben Jackbag Mank nah your gay

@@raulvidal8846 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂💘🙂

Physics are pretty cool

*slow clap*

Shockine *snow clap*

Hilari-ice.

Ice see what you did there

N-ice one

It must be really good living in that ignorant, logically fallacious little bubble of yours.

I can't even begin to understand the line of reasoning that brought you to that analogy. Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect and then look in the mirror. People like you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

1:47 Dude, you literally just came to show ignorance. You didn’t come to learn something new. If you did you wouldn’t miss the literal start of the video where he talks about this

lol yup XD

+GroovingPict I think the symmetry shows some communication between the arms.

Gravity of snowflake based in center (center of mass) attracts the most. From there, incoming water droplets hit and spread out evenly. The arms are each a result of 1/6th of the impact from each and every water molecule that branches from the center.

GroovingPict GroovingPict at 1:35 he says "we know there was no design .... " laws of physics is what make this happen. God created laws of physics. And it serve its purpose in all of creation. To explain simply, it's like as if he said "engineers made a car factory to build cars... BUT we know the cars are not made by design.... " uhhhhh .... uhhhh ... yeahhhh . "Randomness takes over" physics is NOT RANDOMNESS! Please the guy who wrote this needs to call me to learn . "Chance and physics " is what made them??? 😪😞 oh my.

He explained why. Water molecules are more likely to go to the edges because they’re jutted out, so there is a build-up of molecules on those edges.

take a closer look at a 'symmetrical' snowflake, you will notice that it isnt 100% symmetrical, but it seems symmetrical because two opposite sides of the same snowflake had almost the same weather conditions unlike a different snowflake

@Nebula nɛbjʊlə math didn't made itself either

@Nebula nɛbjʊlə I meant human made math to understand nature so there is an origin to it. On the other hand it's nearly if not at all impossible for the same root design to exist in many different places and be just from chance. It's not difficult to conclude it all comes down to the same source and it is their maker.

Wrong! Math, geometry and chemistry bring about everything in to existence.

Math is the basis of our reality

The laws of the universe were created, but not by this man made God most people speak of.

No 2 fingerprints

Jorge Mata So why the "appearance" of design? Could it be there is a Designer at the very core, at the atomic, physical level? Oh, perish the THOUGHT!

God must be making snowflakes. It explains why he allows genocide and infant mortality. He’s too busy making snowflakes to help people. Great guy.

Hows that evidence for god? Its evidence for emergence. If it was created by god than god is lazy, because that would mean god just copies each side of the snowflake.

this is science df

@@san99972 then who made science possible?

@@jamxjam4028 science if thats what you think like then ask how was god possible? where did he come from?

@@drip4304I hope this helps you understand even a little about God. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rZxxe8anlp-yeZc.html Please watch 🙏

@@drip4304 he created the earth , we don’t know where he comes from because we have been here for only thousands of years , god has been exciting since eternity

cant find it

Shell B i saw it !

Whispering Owl FOUNT IT!

Still can't find it. Sorry, but can someone please explain...

Every idiotic bully ever.

creationists

+N1ntendolov3r yes. they are like: 'HEY! NERD! UR AR DUMB CUZ UR AR 2 SMART! MABE IF I PUNCH U HEAD IT WILL PUNCH THE SMARTNES OT OF U'

lolcat Gaming I laughed too hard at that XD

+lolcat Gaming Yeah, that happens to me way too much.

But allowing something to be doesn't mean that you designed it. Design means you make something be to serve a purpose or function.

@@-villa4575 Well, I think the original statement should have been "they are designed by that which CAUSES them to be." The laws of physics explain a lot, but they don't explain their own existence.

@@deborahomalley5480 They aren't meant to explain their own existence. They are simply descriptions of observed phenomena and have a mathematical foundation through which predictions can be made or closely approximated. The laws are not conscious entities, they are human constructs that help us understand certain patterns.

​@@-villa4575 Right. My point is that those patterns and phenomena raise the question of a Divine Creator, which is what I think the original comment was trying to point to, and which isn't simply answered by looking at the laws of physics. He quotes, "There is no design. They are formed by the laws of physics," and then suggests that there might be an entity that "allows" those laws to be, thus (rightly) calling into question the claim that there's "no design." But my point was that it might be more helpful to say "cause" rather than "allow" if we're raising questions about design.

@@deborahomalley5480 But what we have are natural explanations that involve this physical reality, thus, rendering the "divine creator" unnecessary. What makes you believe or invoke the supernatural?? Especially since most phenomena explained by the laws of physics can be reproduced. I'm curious as to hat makes you believe that the laws of physics that we know of today have anything to do with the divine?

Yeah its stupid...

Order and Beauty in nature is what leads many to believe that God exists. We certainly conclude a designer when we see a motorcycle. Could we not also argue that the motor cycle design also designed out of necessity due to brain chemistry? This of course leads to determinism, which most reject. To invoke "RANDOMNESS" at every juncture seems little different than invoking God..............unless randomness is not really random. Few believe that. To say "nature did it" or as the host says "there is no design" is a bit cheeky and doesn't penetrate very deeply. Why does the snowflake show beauty and order? "BECAUSE THE ANGLE OF THE HYDROGEN BOND IS 104.5 DEGREES, IDIOT!!" Why is the angle 104.5? BECAUSE OF THE QUANTUM MECHANICS INVOLVED!! and the materialism argument goes on. Ultimately the materials says "It is the way it is, because of the laws of nature'. But why are the laws of nature the way they are???? And what do we know about the Laws of Nature (LON)? Well, the LON are: 1) Immaterial 2) Act ON the material 3) Create the Universe from nothing 4) Beyond space and time because the existed prior to creation for they guided material and material from the initial point of creation. 5) Eternal for that which is beyond space and time is eternal and not subject to change. Sure even a casual observer sees here the Biblical definition of God.

@baileysmithful Thank you for your statement of faith but you must realize that is precisely what it is. You have no evidence whatsoever that the laws of nature do not exist beyond space and time. Now I do agree that the laws of nature bear no moral claims so is it not odd that most of our public discussion is about moral issues (you're a bigot, you are uncaring, you're lazy, you're............................) Curious isn't it?

@baileysmithful Materialism is a philosophical world view unsubstantiated by science simply because science cannot do such a thing. Science is a methodology which acts on material WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO IT. Science cannot ultimately tell you why (though it can tell you how) Boyle's Law accounts for the behavior of low pressure gases, only that it does. Science can tell my how the Keurig machine works but it cannot tell me 'why' it works. The 'why' questions is answered in that my wife wants a cup of coffee. Ultimately we cannot say why the Cosmos behaves as it does, only that IT DOES. "How" relates to mechanism, 'Why" relate to meaning and purpose. You cannot look at material and determine what should and should not be done. You cannot look at a stone and make a judgement about truth telling. This is to say you cannot get "Ought" from "Is". We all come to Life's moral questions with predetermined suppositions but those suppositions cannot be derived from science. The atheistic materialist claims there is nothing beyond matter but then goes on to make moral judgements. I think this is inconsistent. Your hydrogen cannot tell my hydrogen what to do (and vice versa). So YES, it is curious that the materialist makes moral judgement, knowing that material alone can provide substantiation for such claims. I don't do "Burden Shifting" thing. You come to the table with your claims and I will come with mine. "See, the laws of nature as science describes them are not a force: they don't exist outside of spacetime and impose themselves upon it." "Science" doesn't "SAY" anything. Some 'scientists' with predetermined world views, biases and presuppositions (as we all have) may say the Laws of Nature don't exist beyond space and time, others may say they do. However, science has NO POSSIBLE way to substantiate that statement. It is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one. It might be worth noting at this point that 'science" has no mechanism to say what a Force is or even what Energy is. It can tell us how material behaves under their influence but what these tow entities are, no one know. You say science is a system of "thought" but science cannot say what thought actually is or where it precisely resides. Don't get me wrong, I love science. I'm a Chemical Engineer and teach math but we must not make a god or a world view out of science alone.

Because God creates everything.

███ 219 ███

Based upon what evidence have you concluded our universe to be infinite? To the best of my knowledge that question remains very open. There are tons of scientists who believe that the universe is not infinite, but just very, very large.

Jacob Golden You can't say either way but if the universe is infinite then the above holds if it very large it is still unlikely to have a unique snowflake but is possible .

I'm saying IF the universe is infinite. Besides, we have no evidence (that I know of) that the universe is finite and the size of the observable universe is constantly increasing and is showing no signs of coming to an end.

Charles2531 If the universe was infinite, the night sky would be completely white as there are an infinite number or stars.

I think you're forgetting that the speed of light isn't infinite. It takes time for the light from those stars to get to us.

john banana john's banana? 😂

YYYYYAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY MY PEOPLEEEEEEE

MCR! MCR! MCR!

john banana OMGGGG YESSSSSSSSSS

i thought that was hilarious too. Acting like Bob Ross lol

Physics.

It's Okay To Be Smart Just think about physics and science for a moment. How everything can be logically explained, the way the laws of physics created the universe (and us) as well as keep everything running the way they do. Whenever something happens you can always say this is why it happened and this will probably happen next. It's funny because wouldn't you expect an accidental universe with no design or purpose to make no sense? I feel like the fact that physics and science exists does not disprove God but proves him. They definitely point to an obvious design. I know some people will say that the universe just happened to work out this way but u gotta keep in mind that there are literally an infinite other ways which the universe could have turned out that we could never exist, and millions of billions of coincidences necessary for us to have gotten to the point that we have from the original start of the universe. Just a thought.

wilson Arimah The system makes so much sense to you because you are a part of it. The thing is, as unlikely as our existence is, our not existing would be even more improbable. The Universe is a vast and ancient place, unlikely events failing to occur would be a curious and improbable thing in a system as complex and massive as this.

+wilson Arimah Maybe you should watch cosmos by carl sagan and then share your opinion cause right now it seems like it's so utterly and dreadfully biased.

Mike Username Which is more probable: "From nothing came everything," or "From something came everything?" You cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, considering that things do exist, something must exist eternally. And we know it is not the universe, as the universe had a beginning and therefore is not eternal. Whatever existed before the universe had the power to create matter from non-matter. Also, considering that the values of the laws of physics are such as to permit the existence of a stable enough universe as to permit the existence of intelligent life, we can further ascribe intelligence to this creating source.

No doubt... Allow the mystery to permeate the human mind, it's good for it. There are no real answers for these matters, just questions.

Yes. Even the science proofs GOD

Anyone Who believes in god is mentally disabled.

@@sebastianhuber6865, And if anyone who believes you are considered mentally able? Don't talk to us and our God like that. You don't know who you dealing with.

@@jamxjam4028 Ooh, we are so scared

@@biasedjedi4353 YES ADIN,YOU BETTER BE SCARED.

Don't worry, I've got ya covered on wind, too! What is Wind? | It's Okay to be Smart | PBS Digital Studios

its not gods design as he clearly explained its just emergent complexity from simple rules of physics

@@NoThing-ec9km And it s a miracle, dont you see that ? How the simplest details are perfect and can lead to such beauty

@@NoThing-ec9km God uses science to create things. 😊 He even uses it to create you. (Science = God's Way of Making things)

@@jamxjam4028 and who told u that..The God ..or the book which claims god created universe...what facts brings u to this conclusion that god created everything using science... Can u tell some "Facts".

@@oumaaima1613 nothings is miracle.."Things which are beyond our understanding and which are fabulous..we call them miracles and claim that these are made by god."

That's not true. God indeed actualizes reality itself, and He must do so in quantity and measure.

Or extraordinary. how is a spontanious idea that everything formed itself by accident boring? There's literally nothing more interesting than discovering the secrets behind that. A book of simple answers and rules of one person creating everything, now that's what I call lack of imagination, Buddhism is way more creative compared to that!

He called the shapes of the snowflakes "random" yet their obvious symmetry proves that there's an order.