"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"george" wrote in message
news:W1xrd.701208$8_6.529964@attbi_s04...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wet113004.php

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, ninety percent of marine species
disappeared and life on land suffered greatly during the world's largest mass
extinction.


This kind of research demonstrates the true ignorance
of the human race and objective science in general.


Hang on Jonathon, don't you know 'George' is becoming a closet
catastrophist, and is now taking to surreptitious advertisement of his
conversion?


Catastrophes are inevitable, they behave like an earthquake.
With the rare large ones, followed by many small ones.
Like a sand pile that's become too steep. Or a
hurricane, a riot, evolution or great discoveries. Creation
occurs with a few very large steps and countless
little ones.


Before long he'll be rabid and need calming. You watch.
He's seen the mounting web-entries on Earth expansion. He knows now
in ways he didn't before, that watching his fingernails grow is not
really the key to understanding the workings of the world about him.
He knows his self-organization is critical and is trying to do
something about it. It's really quite commendable. He'll get there,
with help, ...and the litter he's lugging is bound to follow.

It's Aidan you want to talk to about sand... He gets paid for it.



I have nothing against that kind of research George was
posting, I find history interesting also. I just see that
as an exercise in futility.

Well somebody's got to do it. Might as well be 'George'. Though
you'd think with flat Earth and Geocentricism he might be a bit more
circumspect with his 'plate' tectonics. He's leaving out the third
dimension all over again. What a guy, eh?


You have to visualize an organized
system like that narrow point where water is just turning
into steam, and back again. So that it's not really
either. The /components/ of a self-organized ecosystem
would behave in the same way, chaotically.
Simplicity and predictability are only found
in the system as a whole.

So reducing to components to figure 'things' out
produces a contradiction. An attempt at precisely
determining the chaotic. In the end one is doomed
to conclude everything is ultimately 'uncertain'.
The uncertainty principle is the result of observing
through reductionism, not a property of nature.

It's the same thing with the duality of light.
A natural system is an unstable equilibrium
between static and chaotic forms. So when
breaking into components/measuring it become
one or the other. In the case of light either a
particle or wave. When in motion it's both
and neither, like the nearly steaming pot.
Like a cloud.

You mean it is only valid/ only exists when in motion? certainly
adding in the motion makes things take on a completely different
significance.


It's bad enough to try to unravel an existing
system that's at hand, to travel far back in
time, or deep into the sky, compounds this
by leaps and bounds. Inherently chaotic means
inherently error filled. To extrapolate that any
distance at all is futile.

So why do we keep trying?


Well, error is the way we learn, ..error begets change, including that
for the 'better'. Why do we do it? Dunno. Pushing the boundaries
of cosmic mystery or something. Insecurity. Knowing our mortality.
The need to understand in ways that integrate and validate our
experience. An unfortunate consequence of intelligence - the ability
to recognise analogies and put them to use ('useful analogies').
'Unfortunate' because it's bred of dissatisfaction. Maybe it's the
lot of humanity to be grumpy and insecure.. Maybe we weren't meant
to be happy. Why we keep wanting to 'improve' things. Maybe that's
why 'to be happy' is such a sought after goal - and so elusive. I
mean look at George, lugging his popes around. What is there in that
to cheer a bloke up, ...I ask you?

That was a heavy question.





s