[zbyte64]

>I'm not sure I follow. What does "transform into new situations" really mean?

Emergence as a side-effect.

>If this is really what he meant, I appreciate the correction. If it would have been clear from the text, I would have proceeded with pointing out with pointing out the dodgy assumptions that underly the finetuning problem, but that would be even more like arguing against a deist/theist.

Yes, I am probably putting words in the author's mouth. He goes on a bit about computer simulations and how the Mandelbrot always "existed" because it is a mathematical consequence. In his view it seems different simulations are different universes and our universe is particularly amazing because it has evolved minds (computational constructs) that can distinguish different realities. Pair that with the idea that mathematics is a choice based on preconditions and you arrive at my statement.

[DCKing]

Talking about "side effects", "transformation" or "emergence" seems to assign properties to mathematics that I can't really wrap my head around. I thought that all we could be certain of when it comes to math is that it is a self-consistent set of axioms and rules. A set, of infinite size or not, that would be static and fixed.

[zbyte64]

A set is fixed but you have an infinite number of sets. We could imagine a (infinitely large) set that contains all primes. But how was that set constructed? To construct such a set an iterative process has to be continuously applied to the prior set. I consider this akin to emergence because physical processes act much the same way and result in novel configurations (sets).