Catholicism's religioue doctrines

"Rusty" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Can anyone tell me more about the catholicism's religioue doctrines?


What is the Vatican's position on aborted spaceflights Gemini 8, Soyuz
1, Apollo 13, Soyuz 10, Soyuz 15, Soyuz 18a, Soyuz 23, Soyuz 25, Soyuz
33, Soyuz T-8, Soyuz T-10-1, STS-83?

;-)



The Vatican vs Nasa/science


The Vatican believes the properties of God are found
in the holistic properties of Nature. That the natural
world is an expression of God's wisdom.

If Nature is this and that, so must be God they say.

Nasa also believes observing Nature is the path
to understanding truth.


The 'answers' are indeed found in observing Nature
in all it's spendor.

Vatican 1 Nasa 1


The Vatican believes Nature is understood through
holistic means. That the total wonder of life and the
universe indicates an something greater. That
we are not the product of random chance, but
some kind of design.

Nasa believes Nature is understood by looking
at the detailed parts of Nature. From quarks
to quasars. From inner to outer space.

But in complex adaptive systems, the parts behave
chaotically, are non-linear and thus are entirely'
unpredictable. Just as the parts of water act
chaotically and unpredictably when at the phase
transition between water and vapor. Chaotically
jumping back and forth between opposite states.
So too in living or more complex systems the
parts jump back and forth between states.

As in a cloud, jumping back and forth from
water to steam.

In complex systems, such as life or nature, the
parts or initial conditions are inherently unknowable in detail.
So using objective reductionist methods dependent on
initial conditions.....the 'scientific method' is INVALID
as a way of understanding the complex world of
life and natural law.

Since the components of complex systems act
chaotically, the initial conditions of complex systems
are....IRRELEVANT.

This simple truth has so far eluded most of the scientific
world. Since objective reductionist methods has so
far given us so many shiny cool 'things'. Everyone just
assumes it will solve the problems of life and reality too.

No, it won't. Methods based on understanding part details
CANNOT discern natural law. CANNOT understand reality
or fundamental truth. Such are too complex for a
reductionist method.

Nature is too complex.
Nature is chaotic at the part level, and predictable
at the system level.

Does anyone get this simple point????

Nature can only be fully understood by the
OUTPUT. Not by the input.

In Nature only the OUTPUT is predictable and
orderly enough for scientific analysis. Initial
conditions are IRRELEVANT for complex
or living systems.


Religion uses the better frame of reference for understanding
truth. Objective methods, based on initial conditions, are the
opposite of what is required to derive fundamental natural law.


Vatican 2 Nasa 1


The Vatican uses chaotic methods such as scripture and
stories passed down throughout the ages.

Nasa uses the tools of science and math etc.

The tools of modern science are far more reliable.


Vatican 2 Nasa 2



So we have a tie it seems.

1) Both sides look to Nature for their answers.
2) One side use reductionism, the other holism
3) One side uses modern tools, the other ancient.

So a synthesis of the two should provide a new
level of understanding. Let's keep what makes
sense of the two, and toss the nonsense of each.


1) Clearly let's retain Nature as a source of knowledge.

2) Clearly, for undersanding complex systems, let's
toss objective reductionist frame of reference
since the parts or initial conditions of complex systems
act chaotically.

3) Clearly, let's toss the nonsense of scripture and
ancient stories and retain the tools of modern science.


In conclusion.

We should keep the tools of modern science, but
entirely reverse its frame of reference. From a part
driven model dependent on initial condition.
To a systems driven model dependent on
global patterns.

This is ...EXACTLY...what complexity science is doing right now.

Using an opposite frame of reference to derive fundamental
laws of the universe. By looking at the most complex
the universe has to offer....the properties of life....to
derive fundamental law. Instead of doing the opposite
by looking at the simplest...the part details first.

Fundamental laws of the universe should be derived
from LIFE..the most complex.
Not from particles...the simplest.

A simple frame of reference error has kept us in ignorance.



DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html


The Complexity & Artificial Life Research Concept
for Self-Organizing Systems
http://www.calresco.org/concept.htm

Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions Version 2.99 July 2006
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm



S




























Rusty