The lack of Math and Scientific Knowledge in Ultra-Religious.

Quantify chaos please.

Of the billions of neurons that are firing in your brain as you think of this, very few bridge the synapse. How would you predict which ones will hit using mathematics?

The very nature of existence is rooted in chaos. Change, evolution, mutation, the spread of the universe based on the bang.

Chaos... cannot be quantified.


Going further... if you attempt to suggest there is no such thing as chaos, but misunderstood determination... then you believe everything, including us, are pre-destined... and you are religious.

 

It would seem you have never heard of Chaos Theory.

Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including meteorology, physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. This was summarised by Edward Lorenz as follows:[5]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[6][7] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

Sensitivity to initial conditions means that each point in such a system is arbitrarily closely approximated by other points with significantly different future trajectories. Thus, an arbitrarily small perturbation of the current trajectory may lead to significantly different future behaviour. However, it has been shown that the last two properties in the list above actually imply sensitivity to initial conditions[10][11] and if attention is restricted to intervals, the second property implies the other two[12] (an alternative, and in general weaker, definition of chaos uses only the first two properties in the above list).[13] It is interesting that the most practically significant condition, that of sensitivity to initial conditions, is actually redundant in the definition, being implied by two (or for intervals, one) purely topological conditions, which are therefore of greater interest to mathematicians.
Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", so called because of the title of a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that if we start with only a finite amount of information about the system (as is usually the case in practice), then beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. This is most familiar in the case of weather, which is generally predictable only about a week ahead.[14]
The Lyapunov exponent characterises the extent of the sensitivity to initial conditions. Quantitatively, two trajectories in phase space with initial separation \delta \mathbf{Z}_0 diverge
| \delta\mathbf{Z}(t) | \approx e^{\lambda t} | \delta \mathbf{Z}_0 |\
where λ is the Lyapunov exponent. The rate of separation can be different for different orientations of the initial separation vector. Thus, there is a whole spectrum of Lyapunov exponents — the number of them is equal to the number of dimensions of the phase space. It is common to just refer to the largest one, i.e. to the Maximal Lyapunov exponent (MLE), because it determines the overall predictability of the system. A positive MLE is usually taken as an indication that the system is chaotic.
There are also measure-theoretic mathematical conditions (discussed in ergodic theory) such as mixing or being a K-system which relate to sensitivity of initial conditions and chaos.

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

AboveAlpha

 

I am quite familiar with chaos theory. It is basically a convenient x for unknown, that can be further extrapolated to sometimes predict things. It is educated guessing. THAT, is not math, it is a cheat to account for an unknowable. Nor does it address the last line, which is what chaos theory attempts to do... dismiss that chaos is. It is fun, but born of a faith that everything can be quantified. It is not accurate. Chaos exists... and cannot be quantified... or chaos does not exist, and you are religious. Pick your poison and we can continue.

 

You have posted....For any constraint within a system, there are an infinite number of potential corrections.

Only in an OPEN SYSTEM...not in a CLOSED SYSTEM.

AboveAlpha

 

That is my signature.
The universe is not a closed system.

Stop avoiding the question. Is there such a thing as random, or not?

 

NOTHING....is truly random.

As we do not live in a Universe but a Multiverse and this is highly likely due to Quantum Mechanics.

Thus every possibility, choice, action and reaction are accounted for.

AboveAlpha

 

What do you know of the field of Noetics?

 

yes, because "people who ignore REALITY [with no reason for caps" is synonymous with "ultra-religious."

You know how weak, pathetic, and unbased the opinion you want to formulate actually is, so you just back off and make a circular argument. Cause that's not weak, pathetic, and unbased.

 

In philosophy, noetics is a branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind and intellect. Noetic topics include the doctrine of the agent/patient intellect (Aristotle, Averroes) and the doctrine of the Divine Intellect (Plotinus).

AboveAlpha...p.s...I think NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell formed the Institute of Noetic Sciences?

- - - Updated - - -

And you do realize when a member resorts to insults and name calling it is a sure fire way for others to determine how desperate such a member is having lost their agrument upon all levels?

LOL!!!!

AboveAlpha

 

I sense supreme irony. First, you chide a poster for 'not being the kind of person who would actually ignore and refute scientific or mathematical facts and proof'...

...and then you go do that exact thing by not offering M-Theory as a theory, but as fact.

The notion of a MultiVerse is pure faith at this point. Hawking himself had to invent a form of math to make the calculations work.

By pushing the notion of parallel universe, you're engaging in faith. M-theory is not sound scientific theory, because it is not testable.

But let's go with your little excursion into faith.

You believe ALL OUTCOMES are not only possible, but exist in some Universe. That's interesting, because it means that in some Universe somewhen, you're arguing my position, and I'm arguing yours.

And not just arguing it, pork chop: what we're arguing is actually FACT. After all, if all possibilities exist, then all possibilities are FACT.

You comfortable with that SchooledAlpha? You've just found yourself having to support - AS FACT - the religious zealotry that you despise!

I suggest you rethink your faith. Just as multiple posters have pointed out, it's utterly circular.

You've defeated your own position. Happy to point it out to you.

 

yeah, good thing I didn't do that! But you know what else is a surefire way to know that someone is desperate? They make a weak, pathetic, circular argument, and when called out on it they try to shift the subject to avoid talking about it.

 

Yeah, we don't know what they did to you on the other side!

In what way do you like the fact that I suggest going lighter?

 

Also: Noetics is interesting. It is the study of conscious thought on matter. This would cover - among other things - the power of prayer. Noetics is not easily dismissed by your run-of-the-mill secularist, as several studies have already been published, and the case being made is convincing.

Perhaps the Scientific Method - which is written to automatically disqualify metaphysics - isn't sufficient?

Perhaps the SM itself was structured to make science an adversary to faith of the non-physical?

 

This is a shallow OP.

People pursue what they feel is important. A person drawn toward physics will spend his time learning physics and improving his ability and understanding of physics, to the detriment of his understanding of other things such as the repair and modification of automobiles, the ability to operate a farm, and his understanding of spiritual matters.

A person drawn towards a study of God and human relationships will devote his time to those fields to the detriment of his understanding of other matters such as math and physics.

That the "ultra-religious" are not masters of math and physics is not at all unexpected.

There are exceptions, but I would no more go to physicist to modify my car or provide marriage counseling than I would go to a priest for an explanation of quantum theory.

What this OP is really about is the false claim that only the accepted hard science realms are worthwhile, and all else is for the misguided and unintelligent. That's exceptionally naïve.

 

First of all...M-Theory short for Brane Theory or Membrane Theory which is a theory of Multiple Universal States existing among themselves and separated by a Space-Time Multi-Dimensional Geometric Membrane....is NOT MULTIVERSAL THEORY...although M-Theory has aspects of Multiversal Theory within it.

As far as being testable...we see this in the behavior of Quantum Mechanics.

Within every Hadron exists a number of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Quarks, Gluons, Mesons, Leptons, Higgs-Bosons...etc.

The thing is the Quarks existing in all Hadrons are in a constant state of Numerical Existence at and between a numerical minimum and maximum but the quarks in all Hadrons never exceed the maximum or exist numerically lower than the minimum as these Quarks are BLINKING IN AND OUT OF OUR UNIVERSAL EXISTENCE.

This lends proof to these Quarks being in a flux state and exchanging their existence in Hadrons existing in our Universal Reality with Quarks in Hadrons existing in other Alternate Divergent Universal States of Reality.

I know more about such things than you could possibly ever imagine.

AboveAlpha

 

Well....because of what I do...both for my Families Companies as well as the JOBS I go on....I enjoy good hearted light conversation sometimes as it is a nice change.

What I can't understand is why when I or another member posts a topic and concept that instead of other members who might disagree with it do not do so in a good natured open debate.

Instead we get people who post angrily and personally.

I have to often hold back as few here with the exception of a few...and that includes you....really know what I am.

AboveAlpha

 

Let's be honest here, Alpha. This whole thread is about your devious attempt to name a group of people as fringe, and then throw whomever you wish into that fringe group. You did it with several people in this very thread, even though I see no evidence at all that any of them - including me - are devoutly religious. You have named a category - "ultra-religious" - in the same manner liberals label the category "the rich".

That way, you can bash away, implying that your debate adversaries are members of said group, while providing yourself the convenient - and utterly dishonest - loophole to deny such an assertion whenever you wish.

I think that you consider anyone who goes beyond belief akin to Einstein's 'Spinoza's God' as "ultra-religious".

And that, quite frankly, is just about everyone.

 

Well...it has been determined that simple observation will change a Quantum Particles behavior or functional outcome.

I can see how it might...and I said...MIGHT....be possible to change outcomes if enough people concentrate upon a certain event.

Just like people watching a Football Game...and everytime a persons bald head get's rubbed their team scores!

It isn't weird if it works!!

AboveAlpha

 

The problem isn't about those things you may know that I couldn't possibly imagine. The problem lies in your imagining things, and then thinking you know them.

 

Yeah...that's me...Mr. Devious! LOL!!!

I am single handedly trying to derail all religious beliefs with my simple post which has a great deal of validity to it...as you are so demonstrating now.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Another person assuming things about me.

Believe me you have no idea what I am capable of doing.

AboveAlpha

 

And could you please post a single thing you believe I am imagining?

AboveAlpha

 

Simple people have simple ideas.

 

This is true....but that does not mean those ideas are reality.

AboveAlpha

 

You just did it again. You are claiming that my retort to your position is evidence of my 'zealotry', which is utter nonsense. No one claimed anything about you 'de-railing' religious belief. You are attempting - dishonestly - to smear people who have religious belief as uneducated in math and science.

But you have named no one, providing - on purpose - no target upon which to focus. You vaguely reference forum members, but no one specific. The moment someone goes subdermal on you, you simply call them that particular kind of zealot that you're targeting, even though nothing you've offered disproves the validity of religious belief, nor does it provide evidence of a willful ignorance of any math.

If anything, several posters have demonstrated unquestionable interest and acumen in math and science - the same posters you'd like to ridicule baselessly.

Your thread is a drive-by shooting, and nothing more.

- - - Updated - - -

We've assumed nothing. We merely read the posts you've offered.

- - - Updated - - -

You are imagining multi universes as fact, when it cannot be determined as fact.

 

Oh PLEASE...my post was a joke!

A Multiverse although as of yet not having been proven to exist is highly likely and this is shown and dictated by Quantum Mechanics.

We at one time could not definitively prove that their were Planets orbiting around other stars but the science and math dictated they did....until one day we proved it to be a reality.

AboveAlpha