|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion. Robert Collins |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:25:04AM -0500, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion. I hate it when that happens. Fred, I know you didn't do that on purpose because just I know you don't know what kind of software I use, nor how it might be subverted for trivial tactical reasons. The "alt.poetry" newsgroup is the icing on the cake. Don't worry, I am not phased by your unprofessionalism. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. They have to if we're ever going to have a complete and sensible view of reality and the source of our existance. Here's how to combine them into a single science. IF science and religion are abstractly defined in terms of their chosen methods of gathering data and their chosen frame of reference with respect to causation. Then... 1) Science; a. Methods; tools of modern science b. Causation; upward (objective reductionism) 2) Religion; a. Methods; scripture and revelation b. Causation: downward (subjective holism) I think it's clear that (1a) is completely correct. And just as clear (2a) is completely idiotic. Let's keep what makes sense and toss the rest. So in logically /resolving/ the two competing methods we start with (1a), but we still need to decide which direction to use for causation, in order to build the new unified view of reality. Upward or downward? Particle physics or system behavior? I would argue that since system behavior gives us emergent properteis like gravity, light, natural selection, market forces, intelligence and wisdom etc. That the better frame of reference is downward causation, or a systems perspective. Since those system properties best show the future /and/ the source of creation. So, the logical method would become.... Complexity Science a) all the tools of modern science b) holistic (systems) frame of reference. One method for it all, life, the universe and everything. There is a way of turning subjective observations into mathematical form. Read for yourself.... 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 -- "The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one's neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the people next door are headed for hell." -- Aleister Crowley |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
"Robert Collins" wrote in message ... On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. Why not let logic resolve the two into one system of understanding? IF science and religion are abstractly defined in terms of their chosen methods of gathering data and their chosen frame of reference with respect to causation. Then... 1) Science; a. Methods; tools of modern science b. Causation; upward (objective reductionism) 2) Religion; a. Methods; scripture and revelation b. Causation: downward (subjective holism) I think it's clear that (1a) is completely correct. And just as clear (2a) is completely idiotic. Let's keep what makes sense and toss the rest. So in logically /resolving/ the two competing methods we start with (1a), but we still need to decide which direction to use for causation, in order to build the new unified view of reality. Upward or downward? Particle physics or system behavior? I would argue that since system behavior gives us emergent properties like gravity, light, natural selection, market forces, intelligence and wisdom etc. That the better frame of reference is downward causation, or a systems perspective. Since those system properties best show the future /and/ the source of creation. So, the logical method would become.... Complexity Science a) all the tools of modern science b) holistic (systems) frame of reference. One method for it all, life, the universe and everything. There is a way of turning subjective observations into mathematical form. The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion. I believe there should be more discussion on that topic also. But looking past the simple stories of mass religion might surprise you, when I read what the Vatican claims to be their definition of God, I just don't see where it's incompatible with science at all. 'God' is defined to simply be the sum total of the observed properties of the universe. 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 this is an example of analogical predication. Beauty is literally and truly realized both in the portrait and its living original, and retains its proper meaning as applied to either; there is sufficient likeness or analogy to justify literal predication but there is not that perfect likeness or identity between painted and living beauty which univocal predication would imply. 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 Robert Collins |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
"Uncle Steve" wrote in message ... On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:25:04AM -0500, Robert Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. The epistemology of religion is what really makes it fundamentally incompatible with science and scientific inquiry. I'm not sure why we don't have more discussion about that aspect of religion. I hate it when that happens. Fred, I know you didn't do that on purpose because just I know you don't know what kind of software I use, nor how it might be subverted for trivial tactical reasons. The "alt.poetry" newsgroup is the icing on the cake. Don't worry, I am not phased by your unprofessionalism. Are you ok? Drink too much last night? 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 10:42:12AM -0500, Jonathan wrote:
"Robert Collins" wrote in message ... On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. Why not let logic resolve the two into one system of understanding? Because the structure of common organized religion doesn't allow rational thinking about natural phenomenon. It requires that children be brainwashed so their habits of thought are set in the ways of magical thinking. They have the doctrines of fate, the doctrine of suffering, the mystics, and much more -- all of which is barbaric and anti-intellectual at best. Intellectual dishonesty is utterly opposed to science and the real world. Recapitulating religion and religious doctrines in other terms won't help either. 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Jonathan" wrote: Why are science and religion still at odds? When will we have a unified view? Never. The two bear no relationship to each other, nor should they. People who want to reconcile the two generally mean that they want science subordinate to religion, but there are those who would use science (actually, technology) to impose their religion on the 'peasantry'. We would generally call those people plutocrats. Plutocrats dont care a flying fig about the beliefs of the people. As long as they can hang on to power and wealth the people can believe anything they want. The best historical example of a plutocracy was the ancient Roman republic. The Romans adopted gods and belief systems from around the mediterranean in a thoroughly promiscuous manner. Keith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
"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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 18th 06 04:18 AM |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 17th 06 11:58 AM |
On inroads by the right's "ID" and creationism: Open letter to AAAS president Omenn | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 22nd 06 05:42 AM |