A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"THIS is my Letter to the World!"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 12, 03:38 AM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 03:25 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Robert Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 04:01 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Uncle Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 04:19 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 04:42 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 04:48 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 05:02 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Uncle Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 06:01 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
BlackBeard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 06:37 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Keith W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default "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  
Old January 1st 12, 06:59 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Ray O'Hara[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default "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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.