"THIS is my Letter to the World!"

"Alan Dicey" wrote in message
o.uk...


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


Not really, religious philosophy begins where proof is
no longer possible.

Order which is open to objective proof is only the lower
levels of order, or simplest systems. But in the real world
systems are highly complicated, have countless parts which
are constantly changing. There's no 'proof' for ...emergent
system properties like market forces, natural selection, emotions
intelligence, wisdom etc, all the higher level system properties
upon which our reality, and even creation itself, are so
thoroughly dependent.

For instance, the famous Hubble pictures showing star and
solar system formation. A large interstellar cloud of gas and
dust are somehow disturbed, which compresses the cloud
enough for gravity to take over. And suddenly stars and
solar systems begin forming.

Another way to say that is...spontaneous cyclic order is the
result of a random disturbance to a totally random system.

Or, creation is the result of the one place where proof is
absolutely impossible. Clouds of uncertainty.

So what are we left with? We only have reason and logic
to use to try to ....figure it out. No proof, only a rational
argument.


s

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
On 2/01/2012 9:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


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


Additionally

Science is about HOW.
Religion is about WHY.

Insisting that the two must be 'reconciled' is rather like insisting
that apples and aardvarks must be 'reconciled' into a single critter.


We find the common aspect - DNA - then argue that the difference is just a
phase transition.


Or maybe the difference between science and religion is more like
the difference between syllable and sound? Has it occurred to anyone
that the simplest or earliest systems of all are NOT the place to
look for our fundamental laws???

What if the truth of our existence is best seen in the most ...complex
the universe has to offer.....us, our thoughts and ideas?
We've been looking and looking for the big answers in one giant 'lens'
after another. Scoured every inch from quarks-to-quasars.

But we've been looking only in places we can easiest see.

And what answer has this objective search given us?
It's given millions of answers, one for every thing that exists.
So many that no /one person/ could possibly comprehend
the totality of all that ...data. Taking us farther from truth
every single day, as the data piles up.

Your beloved objective science only breeds confusion.

So far away from an elegant answer now that it should be
OBVIOUS a different approach is sorely needed. Unless of course
anyone here believes that super-collider just needs to delve a wee-bit
deeper and it'll all suddenly make sense? Or if we image some
really-really, no...really distant galaxy, that the answers will
just pop-out of those fuzzy pictures?

Hasn't anyone noticed that reducing to one extreme or another
micro-or-macro, reached their respective brick walls about
twenty or thirty years ago? And have been crawling around
in circles ever since?

STOP looking from quarks-to-quasars for grand solutions.
They are not to be found there. Those answers are sitting
around waiting to be discovered if you would just use the
proper scientific 'lens'....a mirror!

When it comes to the hierarchy of evolved order in the universe
we would stand on top, with the rest of the universe below.
Now tell me, which statistical sample best shows the underlying
behavior, simple or complex?

Of course, the complex system best shows the underlying
patterns of behavior, or how evolution of the physical and
living universes occurs. There IS one process for both.

Figure out what creates an emotion, an idea, or an earthquake
and you'll figure out how the universe was created.

The other way around has hit a dead-end, there's only
one other direction to go....complexity. Once you do
then the true simplicity of the universe become
crystal-clear.


Ah...that felt good!


s



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








Sylvia.

On 1/3/2012 4:19 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle wrote:

Science does not require the falsification of negative propositions.

Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very well, do
you?

Uh, Fred, do you know how to formulate a null hypothesis? I've never
seen one, properly stated, that included a double negative (which
"falsification of negative propositions" would seem to require).

-Jim

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.


This is a sweeping generalization that does not hold true in all cases.


I was referring to The Vatican. It's the oldest continually existing
institution on Earth, making it a great source. The point was that
the assumption that subjective observations, where 'proof' isn't
really possible, doesn't automatically mean the conclusions are
based on blind faith. It's possible to come to a conclusion through
logic and reason only, without evidence or proof.





Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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

This is off-topic for sci.space.policy, and likely the other groups as
well...


Complexity Science, the 'unified' view, is the only true interdisciplinary
science. It's on-topic anywhere that discusses life, the universe
and everything.


"Dynamics of Complex Systems"

"The study of complex systems in a unified framework has become
recognized in recent years as a new scientific discipline, the ultimate
of interdisciplinary fields. Breaking down the barriers between physics,
chemistry and biology and the so-called soft sciences of psychology,
sociology, economics, and anthropology, this text explores the
universal physical and mathematical principles that govern the
emergence of complex systems from simple components."
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/


For instance, an idea, or even a goal is a complex system.
NASA's recent spate of manned space flight goals, judged
by the cold hard mathematics of Complexity Science, flunk
miserably. So badly they don't even deserve a grade at all.

For example, if a student were to sit down for a test
in calculus, and the question was, say..."compute the
area under this curve". And the student answered ...'blue'
that would be at about the same level of correctness
as NASA's goals.


s



Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 1/3/2012 6:08 PM, Alan Dicey wrote:
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.

You (and I and millions of others) believe in automatic transmissions
and much else. Others believe in salvation, life after death,
achievement of enlightenment or even forty eleven black eyed virgins and
self-frying chickens. Their faith cannot be disproved by you and your
(and my) faith in some aspects of scientific theory sometimes passes
_our_ ability to understand the scientific basis and is based on, yes
faith in the priesthood of scientists.

There is remarkably close resemblance between religious masses and their
relations with their scripture and priesthood and the secular mass and
the scripture according to Scientific American and the priestly class of
science populizers who make it all clear for the masses. In neither case
do the masses believe based on proofs that they can manipulate, verify
and understand. If you find that resemblance offensive, so much the
worse for you.

There is also this resemblance: religion in the hands of some priests
sometimes offers dictats in areas where religion lacks competence. One
reason we get into these kinds of erm intense conversations is because
the Christian Church once claimed universal jurisdiction and Islam still
does. Science is likewise sometimes used to make claims beyond _its_
competence. There are areas where science has absolutely no competence,
esthetics, morals and justice being examples.

Paul

"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

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.


This is a sweeping generalization that does not hold true in all cases.


I was referring to The Vatican. It's the oldest continually existing
institution on Earth, making it a great source. The point was that
the assumption that subjective observations, where 'proof' isn't
really possible, doesn't automatically mean the conclusions are
based on blind faith. It's possible to come to a conclusion through
logic and reason only, without evidence or proof.

Even using "The Vatican" as a specific example, your argument is still
complete and utter B.S.

Why did it take "The Vatican" 400 years to rewrite history on Galileo?
Anyone with an understanding of basic mathematics and a small telescope
could do the same observations performed by Galileo. This is the exact
sort of "observation, reason and logic" that you're asserting is the
foundation of "religious philosophy". This would have show that Galileo
was right all along. If "The Vatican" operated based on "observation,
reason and logic", history wouldn't have played out as it did.

Vatican Rewrites History On Galileo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1...tes-history_n_
153232.html

Galileo is *the* textbook example of the complete lack of "observation,
reason and logic" at "The Vatican".

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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

This is off-topic for sci.space.policy, and likely the other groups as
well...


Complexity Science, the 'unified' view, is the only true interdisciplinary
science.

You sound like Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory. Pathetic, really.

It's on-topic anywhere that discusses life, the universe
and everything.

Now you're essentially quoting Douglas Adams to make your point?
Really? You can't be #*^%ing serious. You just can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_t...and_Everything


"Dynamics of Complex Systems"

"The study of complex systems in a unified framework has become
recognized in recent years as a new scientific discipline, the ultimate
of interdisciplinary fields. Breaking down the barriers between physics,
chemistry and biology and the so-called soft sciences of psychology,
sociology, economics, and anthropology, this text explores the
universal physical and mathematical principles that govern the
emergence of complex systems from simple components."
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

That's great, but has nothing to do with "religious philosophy".

For instance, an idea, or even a goal is a complex system.
NASA's recent spate of manned space flight goals, judged
by the cold hard mathematics of Complexity Science, flunk
miserably. So badly they don't even deserve a grade at all.

NASA's "goals" are largely politically driven. Always have been, always
will be. Unfortunately, science is currently taking a beating in
politics. Politicians largely ignore science when it disagrees with
their world view. Sounds similar to religion to me...

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Science does not require the falsification of negative propositions.

Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very well, do
you?

Not that proposition.


Yes, that proposition.


Look. I might assert that the Earth's moon is
a hologram generated by hyper-sophisticated machinery, capable of
simulating physical reality sufficiently to accommodate lunar probes
and primitive moon landings by 20th century technology, and then ask
you to disprove my assertions. Your question amounts to the same
thing. No sane person is going to allow you to make that kind of
set-up and then get down to work to disprove your idiot assertions.


I've made no assertions. You have. Put up or admit you have no proof
and that you're basing it on 'faith'.

There is an implied assertion in asking someone to prove that 'god'
doesn't exist. To ask that question at all, you must first assume
that 'god' exists. Well assume all you want, but manufacturing the
conditions of your premise and then asking someone to disprove your
assumptsion is a little like a right-tard wasting people's time with
the abortion debate.

Actually, you answer comes as something of a surprise as I thought you
might make some sort of pointless excursion towards illustrating how
or why religious people claim to know certain things as contrasted to
the way I use the verb 'know', as in my previous message above.


You've asserted an absolute claim based on no evidence. I'm still
waiting for you to trot out said evidence.

Note that an absence of evidence FOR something is not the same as
evidence of an absence OF something....

As above, so below.

Indeed.

Next.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed 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 assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms