"THIS is my Letter to the World!"

Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?

The assumption has always been that we should begin trying to
understand reality by detailing the input side, the myriad part
details of each and every 'thing', but doing that we end up with a
nearly infinite number of different problems and just as many
solutions. One for each and every thing that exists.

Which means no simple or universal answer to...how or ...why
reality and life exists.

But if we /inverse/ our initial frame of reference, we inverse
the /results/, we end up with a view as simple and clear
as the classical frame of reference is complex and muddled.

So, the new non-linear mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity
Sciences begins with systems, instead of parts. With what
systems do, instead of what they are. And most importantly
it looks at systems when they are far-from-equilibrium
not near equilibrium.

Non-linear math begins at the point a system has been disturbed
and ends when you can no longer tell it's been disturbed.
The focus is when a system is near it's ...breaking point
not the steady-state.

Why?

Because all the higher levels of order, like clouds, galaxies
or intelligence are being held at or near it's own system-specific
'tipping point' by some disturbance or force.

This 'edge state' is also called it's critical point, or just
The Edge of Chaos.

And when ANY system is critically interacting, at the edge, it
displays two, and only two, universal types of behaviors.
It's own static or chaotic forms.

From a non-linear frame of reference, you now have for
the first time a way of seeing what is /common/ between
every complex system that exists. ALL of them.

And the light is turned on!

Switching to the new non-linear frame is a very difficult step
for most people. Since it first asks you to forget everything
you've learned, and start over from scratch.

The most basic assumption becomes that the fundamental laws
of the universe are best seen in the most...complex...the universe
has to offer, instead of the old assumption to reduce to the
simplest parts and forces for universal truth.

When you accept the new non-linear perspective something
astonishing happens. Suddenly everywhere you look, in every
system you see the truth of this new assumption, and realize
the most complex the universe has to offer is...life.

And the Earth-Shattering realization is that ....Darwin
essentially tells us how the physical universe works.
The fundamental laws of the universe are best seen
in life and intelligence.

If you inverse the initial frame of reference, you also
inverse the results. Instead of being overwhelmed
by all the different things the universe produces, you
become overwhelmed by the utter simplicity of it all
and the complete inevitability of life.

This new view of reality sets everything right.
All the old questions are answered.
The universe is alive, that for richer-or-poorer
this is Heaven, and every single moment we have
is another step in the Garden.

Mathematics and Religion become one-in-the-same.

All that matters anymore is wondering how to make
the future better. Which is what the new non-linear math
does first and best. It shows exactly...why any
real world system is mucked-up, and...how
to fix it.

Which is the ONLY problem and solution that
truly matters.


Jonathan



"This is my letter to the world,
That never wrote to me,
The simple news that Nature told,
With tender majesty.

Her message is committed
To hands I cannot see;
For love of her, sweet countrymen,
Judge tenderly of me!'"


By E Dickinson



Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm

Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/...cosmology.html






s

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?




Whose religion are you trying to reconcile with science?

"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?




Whose religion are you trying to reconcile with science?


My source is the Catholic Encyclopedia. And the more I
read it, the more astonished I am at the exceptionally simple
view most people have of religious philosophy.

More people should have some appreciation that many
of the best minds humanity has created have been debating
all these philosophies for a couple of thousand years. And
when you ...actually...read their arguments in good faith, meaning
spending the time to learn the meaning of their metaphors etc, then
you'll find their logic is pretty much bullet-proof.

For instance, the definition of God, to put it in modern language
would be ...the sum total of the observed properties of the
universe. Now, how does that differ from science?

And a truly unbiased mathematical argument would hold that
religion uses the better initial frame of reference...holism
or emergent system properties as the most important information.

The cost of objective reductionism is the loss of the most central
information of all concerning the future and the ultimate source
of our creation.

For example, objective science is fine for detailing every aspect
of, say,a market system. A philosopher would say it's those
ethereal 'market forces' which guide the whole into the future
and are more responsible for the final product.

So, scientist, give me the deterministic equations for 'market forces'.
How much do they weigh? What is their force per unit?
Same for natural selection, intelligence and wisdom. All the more
powerful variables for our reality are best known through
subjective (holistic) perspectives.



From the Catholic Encyclopedia on God.

"This is technically expressed by saying that all our knowledge
of God is analogical, and that all predicates applied to God
and to creatures are used analogically, not univocally.
I may look at a portrait or at its living original, and say of either,
with literal truth, that is a beautiful face...And similarly
in the case of God and creatures. What we contemplate
directly is the portrait of Him painted, so to speak, by Himself
on the canvas of the universe "

"The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of
metaphorical language in other connections justify and
recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence
ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies,
or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means
to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning
one a fox."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm



s

On Dec 31 2011, 6:38*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?

The assumption has always been that we should begin trying to
understand reality by detailing the input side, the myriad part
details of each and every 'thing', but doing that we end up with a
nearly infinite number of different problems and just as many
solutions. One for each and every thing that exists.

Which means no simple or universal answer to...how or ...why
reality and life exists.

But if we /inverse/ our initial frame of reference, we inverse
the /results/, we end up with a view as simple and clear
as the classical frame of reference is complex and muddled.

So, the new non-linear mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity
Sciences begins with systems, instead of parts. With what
systems do, instead of what they are. And most importantly
it looks at systems when they are far-from-equilibrium
not near equilibrium.

Non-linear math begins at the point a system has been disturbed
and ends when you can no longer tell it's been disturbed.
The focus is when a system is near it's ...breaking point
not the steady-state.

Why?

Because all the higher levels of order, like clouds, galaxies
or intelligence are being held at or near it's own system-specific
'tipping point' by some disturbance or force.

This 'edge state' is also called it's critical point, or just
The Edge of Chaos.

And when ANY system is critically interacting, at the edge, it
displays two, and only two, universal types of behaviors.
It's own static or chaotic forms.

From a non-linear frame of reference, you now have for
the first time a way of seeing what is /common/ between
every complex system that exists. ALL of them.

And the light is turned on!

Switching to the new non-linear frame is a very difficult step
for most people. Since it first asks you to forget everything
you've learned, and start over from scratch.

The most basic assumption becomes that the fundamental laws
of the universe are best seen in the most...complex...the universe
has to offer, instead of the old assumption to reduce to the
simplest parts and forces for universal truth.

When you accept the new non-linear perspective something
astonishing happens. Suddenly everywhere you look, in every
system you see the truth of this new assumption, and realize
the most complex the universe has to offer is...life.

And the Earth-Shattering realization is that ....Darwin
essentially tells us how the physical universe works.
The fundamental laws of the universe are best seen
in life and intelligence.

If you inverse the initial frame of reference, you also
inverse the results. Instead of being overwhelmed
by all the different things the universe produces, you
become overwhelmed by the utter simplicity of it all
and the complete inevitability of life.

This new view of reality sets everything right.
All the old questions are answered.
The universe is alive, that for richer-or-poorer
this is Heaven, and every single moment we have
is another step in the Garden.

Mathematics and Religion become one-in-the-same.

All that matters anymore is wondering how to make
the future better. Which is what the new non-linear math
does first and best. It shows exactly...why any
real world system is mucked-up, and...how
to fix it.

Which is the ONLY problem and solution that
truly matters.

Jonathan

* * *"This is my letter to the world,
* * * * That never wrote to me,
* * * The simple news that Nature told,
* * * * With tender majesty.

* * * Her message is committed
* * * * To hands I cannot see;
* * * For love of her, sweet countrymen,
* * * * Judge tenderly of me!'"

*By E Dickinson

Calresco Themes (*in essay form)http://calresco.org/themes.htm

Self-Organizing Faqhttp://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physicshttp://wwwphy.princeton..edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html

s

Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB

"BlackBeard" wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.


Jonathan

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:41:01PM -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"BlackBeard" wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

And faith, which is used to fill-in the logical inconsistencies. Plus
the /a priori/ assumptions that you start out using before you begin
'reasoning' are without merit.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

I don't care how the Vatican defines God, what matters is what
Catholics mean when they use the term. This is similar to the
difference between the Ten Commandments and how they are applied in
everyday Catholic living. I.E., two completely different sets of
propositions modified by the everyday hypocrisy of most so-called
Christians.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.

Perhaps you've taken the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic too far.
Merely because you can take an arbitrary thesis and antithesis and
combine them doesn't necessarily mean you actually should.



Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

"Uncle Steve" wrote in message
...
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:41:01PM -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"BlackBeard" wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

And faith, which is used to fill-in the logical inconsistencies. Plus
the /a priori/ assumptions that you start out using before you begin
'reasoning' are without merit.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

I don't care how the Vatican defines God, what matters is what
Catholics mean when they use the term. This is similar to the
difference between the Ten Commandments and how they are applied in
everyday Catholic living. I.E., two completely different sets of
propositions modified by the everyday hypocrisy of most so-called
Christians.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.

Perhaps you've taken the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic too far.
Merely because you can take an arbitrary thesis and antithesis and
combine them doesn't necessarily mean you actually should.


That's a good point, so I test these ideas out for myself
in the cold hard world of the stock market. To see if they
provide testable predictions of very complex adaptive systems.

Here are my last two public 'tests' or demonstrations of the
validity of these ideas with respect to real world complexity.
They are both predictions concerning panics. Which are
normally considered the least predictable and most volatile
situations of all. AND they are both one-off events, which
have never happened before for that system. Which means
I have no historical template to use for prediction.
Only my...universal...knowledge concerning complex system
dynamics.

And one of them predicted the most traumatic economic
events of the last fifty years. It's analogous mathematically
to predicting the time and magnitude of an earthquake.
It's not supposed to be possible.

.......................

I used this new math of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences
on Nov. 14 to make this /public/ prediction....

"For instance, I fully expect stock ticker ATPG will have a
spectacular rally sometime this week. A quick rally of 25%
or more."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...hor: jonathan


It was $5.78 when I posted that prediction, and 3 days later
it peaked at $7.20. Which is a 25.4% increase. (cha-ching).

As far as I know, no one else publicly predicted the timing and immediate
magnitude of the Great Stock Market Crash of Oct, 2008. The single
worst market ...panic in modern history. The quintessential 'one-off' event.

I predicted it the Friday before it happened and predicted
the immediate total fall to within 1%, a similar margin
of error for the first prediction above...btw.


On Friday Oct 3, 2008 9:11 pm I wrote....


....The Stock Market Crash is Far From Over!

"This is a typical panic-sell situation due to the massive
system wide uncertainty concerning mortgage debt.
The cliché "buy on the rumor, sell on the news"
most certainly applies I believe.

The 'news' in this particular panic is the rescue bill.
Which was just signed, making the next few weeks a sure
sell-off, and big time imho. People will look around the next
week or so asking ..."is it over, are we saved?"

"No, not really, nothing much has changed!"
Might be the reply.

And like a shotgun blast to a flock of birds, the panic-sell
will resume, ....and with a fervor not yet seen.
This kind of panic sells always have a false bottom
around half way down. For the Dow it {halfway down}was
just above 11,000, and the Nasdaq at around 2200.

The bottom will be around 8500 for the Dow, and
around 1700 for the Nasdaq ...imho.

I aint getting back in till then."

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....or:j onathan#

..........................

The following Monday the Dow closed down almost 400 points.
Tuesday saw the single largest drop in the Dow since 1937
dropping over 500 points for the day. And it dropped an
astonishing 950 points more by Friday to close the week at 8577.
The Nasdaq ended the week at 1690.


My prediction?

Dow
77 / 8500 = .009% (error)

Nasdaq
10 / 1700 = .005% (error)

~ one week later....

The Stock Market Crash of 2008
October 10, 2008 10:03 AM

"ABC News' Betsy Stark reports: In 1987, it happened in a day. In 1929 it
happened in two days. Now it has happened in seven days, but the result is
same. The stock market has crashed.

...............


cha-ching!

I can make more stock market predictions if you like.
Would three or four more winners, like the first one, suffice
as proof of concept?



s
















Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On 02/01/2012 22:41, Jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.


Jonathan











but religion still requires you to believe without proof. Which was
BB's point.

On 1/2/2012 11:29 PM, Alan Dicey wrote:
On 02/01/2012 22:41, Jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.


Jonathan











but religion still requires you to believe without proof. Which was BB's
point.

Do you believe in automatic transmissions? Very few people can explain
in any fashion how one works. Most laymen also the same kind of
simplified, caricatured understanding of science as most religious folk
have of _their_ faith. Evolution, to most people amounts to "a long time
ago, there were dinosaurs then there were monkeys and now there's us".
Similarly, try to describe geological dating of the earth or the methods
for measuring the size and age of the universe. Most folks have almost
no understanding, they take it on "faith" without proofs that they
understand. Even professional scientists invoke "The Multiverse", in
principal unfalsifiable, to speak of first origins without referring to
a creator.

There's little difference between the faith of the medieval millions in
the power of a bone fragment supposed to be from the jaw of St Agnes or
a thorn from Christ's crown and the faith that modern millions have for
Doctor Oz's latest diet and one is about as reliable as the other.

Paul

On 03/01/2012 15:28, Paul F Austin wrote:
On 1/2/2012 11:29 PM, Alan Dicey wrote:
On 02/01/2012 22:41, Jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.


Jonathan











but religion still requires you to believe without proof. Which was BB's
point.

Do you believe in automatic transmissions? Very few people can explain
in any fashion how one works. Most laymen also the same kind of
simplified, caricatured understanding of science as most religious folk
have of _their_ faith. Evolution, to most people amounts to "a long time
ago, there were dinosaurs then there were monkeys and now there's us".
Similarly, try to describe geological dating of the earth or the methods
for measuring the size and age of the universe. Most folks have almost
no understanding, they take it on "faith" without proofs that they
understand. Even professional scientists invoke "The Multiverse", in
principal unfalsifiable, to speak of first origins without referring to
a creator.

There's little difference between the faith of the medieval millions in
the power of a bone fragment supposed to be from the jaw of St Agnes or
a thorn from Christ's crown and the faith that modern millions have for
Doctor Oz's latest diet and one is about as reliable as the other.

What a nice dance you do, leading us in loopy patterns away from the point.

An automatic gearbox works whether you believe in it or not, because it
is a piece of engineering, mass-produced from machined parts. Belief is
irrelevant. Engineering produces reliable, repeatable, explicable and
analysable items which work and carry on working in the same way no
matter what the belief or otherwise of the user.

It doesn't matter if you believe in a gearbox, a computer, a TV set - it
works.

Faith - note the word - is about uncritical belief in one or another
story, told by the "priesthood". If you don't believe, have faith and
do what they tell you, you are not part of their gang, and their
benefits are no longer available to you. You *must* believe in order
for the religion to work.