"Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?"

"Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future."
Edward Lorenz

Very briefly, Chaos theory discusses how small things can have huge results. This is sometimes called the butterfly effect. Specifically, it discusses how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.(See WIKI)

Implicit is a randomness factor which cannot be completely understood. Chaos theory embraces the idea of innerconnectivity, a common theme in Philosophy, but with a new twist.

In philosophy innerconnectivity is frequently called dependent origination or conditioned arising. Epicurus and Siddartha Gautama, among others, have discussed this concept.

In the ancient Indian formula;

When this is, that is; this arising, that arises; When this is not, that is not; this ceasing that ceases.
Samyutta Nikaya

What is the contemporary importance of chaos theory? If one accepts randomness, the concept of a God becomes increasingly nebulous. Randomness, innerconnectivity, and change seem to be noncongruent with the belief in a god, any god.

Can a perfect, unchanging god exist in a universe that is random and chaotic? I think not.

Comments?

If you fart does it set off a typhoon in borneo ?

Me? My wife would say yes.

If that were the case, my wife and I would be guilty of crimes against humanity!

RB

I had several days of really killer gas just before the election.

Just sayin'...

Brian,

You tricky logician. You asked a question about God using two different definitions of that word.

You implicitly asked if "the concept of a God" is compatible with chaos theory and, by extension, quantum mechanics. The answer to that is "yes, since there is no reason our ideas about God should be accurate or constraining." There could be a God that exists in a realm completely unrelated to us.

Then you offer a narrower definition of deity: is "a perfect, unchanging god" compatible with chaos theory? A God in that sense grows increasingly unlikely as science progresses.

The moral of the story? God is in the details; or God exists in the gap. The probability that God exists is extremely small, but we can't definitely answer the question unless we assign characteristics to that being. Specific Gods--Eloheim, YHWH, Zeus, Odin, Thor, Ahura Mazda, Shiva--are described in enough detail to falsify reasonably persuasively. It is much more difficult to disprove the existence of an undefined entity or concept. So you have to specify your god and his characteristics before we can argue persuasively that he does or does not exist.

Different but related question. Would you say that the Buddhist notion of reality is also disproved by modern science?

before-I-can-'splain-why-you's-full-of-shit-ly yrs,

S

Hi lots wife!

I am not a Buddhist, but I think the three marks of existence, suffering, impermanence, etc is evidence based. All phenomenal things, sankharas, are subject to change.

Buddhists don't usually talk about god. That is a question which is undeclared. Gautama avoided dualistic thinking.

He said, I teach dukkha(suffering) and the cessation of Dukkha
Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 63

Yes, I know. I have an acquaintance who is a Buddhist and an MD, a position I find logically impossible. Every step she takes, every breath she makes (do I sound like Sting?) entails the destruction of untold microscopic lives. The same is of course true when she applies antibiotics and antiseptics.

I guess I'm asking if you view the Buddhist notion of reality/afterlife/nirvana as contraindicated by science. It's obviously a tougher question than the relationship between God and science, where the contrast is clearer.

But it is an interesting issue to ponder.

Lots Wife,


Like you, I suspect, I am not a believer in god, any god. But if I were a believer, Ganesha, the Hindu elephant god is sort of cool.

But I think the argument from randomness, anicca(impermanence) is a very plausible reason for non belief.

Good to chat with you again,

Namaste, Brian

Lots wife,

There is a variety of Buddhism, Secular Buddhism, that rejects, as I do, the idea of samsara.

The four noble truths, and the eightfold path is good enough.

Secular Buddhism is appealing since it is consistent with the focus on praxis (if you meet the Buddha on the road. . .) and hence isn't an obvious break with the tradition. Also, it is a perspective that is compatible with modern science and logic.

I see a couple of weaknesses: first, the weak emotional hold that such a system has on its believers' minds; and second, the tendency of such strains of Buddhism to become materialistic. Karma, if limited to this world, must result in material advantage. But the first observation is more a concern of Nietzsche's--"Secular Buddhism is dead," he'd say--and the second is my idiosyncratic complaint about a subset of the movement.

So yes, Buddhism stripped of its (faint) ideological claims is interesting. Meditation is the heart of Buddhism and has demonstrated medical and psychological benefits. Modern medicine in that limited sense has adopted secular Buddhism. That is indeed where I see the religion's value today.

That and the history of ideas, civilizations, and states.

What if there are TWO butterflies in Brazil?!?!?!

Then they will be done flapping in a few minutes.

I doubt the butterfly flapping its wings play a part in catastrophic weather patterns happening globally.

But we as people, individually and collectively, do play a major role in how our actions combine to create the friction for the extreme weather patterns at home and around the world.

"Over the past 30 years there has been a pattern of increasingly higher average temperatures for the whole world. In fact, the first decade of this century (2001–2010) was the hottest decade recorded since reliable records began in the late 1800s.

These rising temperatures—caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses—are what we refer to as global warming.

One consequence of global warming is an increase in both ocean evaporation into the atmosphere, and the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. High levels of water vapor in the atmosphere in turn create conditions more favorable for heavier precipitation in the form of intense rain and snow storms....

This pattern of intense rain and snow storms and periods of drought is becoming the new normal in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise.

If the emissions that cause global warming continue unabated, scientists expect the amount of rainfall during the heaviest precipitation events across country to increase more than 40 percent by the end of the century. Even if we dramatically curbed emissions, these downpours are still likely to increase, but by only a little more than 20 percent.

Regardless of what actions we take to cut emissions, we must adapt to the likelihood that severe storms are becoming ever more commonplace.

Efforts such as modifying local infrastructure to withstand floods, adjusting agricultural patterns to account for droughts, as well as establishing emergency planning in our homes, would be far less costly to implement when compared to the costs of responding to washed out bridges, deluged homes, or loss of life."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/global-warming-rain-snow-tornadoes.html#.WDnXnrIrKpo

As far as God 'rolling the dice' with our lives being random happenstance, not even sure that is the case. If we've lived before and reincarnation is a possibility as I believe it well may be (not something I particularly take comfort in, just saying,) there is a certain absolute order to our existence between our conception, birth, life, and death - and the continuity of life that goes on with or without us.

No man is an island, we are all in 'this' together for better or worse. No one gets out alive. If God is in control of the Universe he pretty much lets us do things our own way on planet Earth. At times I've wondered whether we are nothing more than a peculiar science project for some extraterrestrial engineers who study us under a microscope from a galactic distance, like cells in a petri dish.

Only we are thinking, reasoning, inventive, creative [and at times very destructive] forces to be reckoned with as they must surely marvel at our display of both brilliance and stupidity rolled into one cosmic world.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2016 07:27PM by Amyjo.

Dang, I thought the butterfly effect that caused major impacts was actually based on computer modeling.

When computer programs were written with the idea of predicting something in the future like weather, stock market, etc.

Historical data was used and then adjusted with fudge factors to fine tune the model. If there was a slight adjustment of a factor would cause widely different results forecasts in the future.

Thus the change in wind speed caused by the flutter of a butterfly predicted very different future results.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2016 05:25PM by tumwater.

There are a few elements of the story that are perplexing.

One is the complexity of the systems. The factors involved in determining patterns in weather and financial markets are so numerous and complex that people can't even identify them let alone quantify them. Hence the fudge factors. You make the best model you can and then insert fudge factors to try to compensate for what you don't know or understand. At best, these models will give you a decent prediction of the future. But if something major happens in the fundamental variables or in those variables concealed by the fudge factors, you can be way off the mark. So really ambitious models are more successful at forecasting small or moderate changes than big ones, in which case they can be far off the mark.

Another problem is that the systems keep changing. Weather patterns are different at different levels of temperature and at different degrees of deforestation. Financial markets function differently when bank regulations are changed in China or in the US or when a new technology changes the rate of speed of the transmission of data. Since models are static--based on relationships as understood at that particular moment in time when they were built--they cannot predict what will happen when a system has evolves away from the pattern that is captured in historical data to that point, and such evolution happens constantly.

Yet another complication is quantum uncertainty. In theory it could be that if people grew ever smarter, statistics ever more precise, and computers ever more powerful, an accurate and evolving model of an extremely complex system like weather would become possible. If something in physical nature, however, like quantum fluctuations, then trigger a change in the system or the fundamental variables, the model could still fail to predict outcomes accurately.

Damn!

We need to go to Brazil and stop them butterflies from flapping
their wings!

The flapping lips of elders in Brazil, two by two by two... two elders, two lips, two lips!

Just be happy for butterfly kisses from those that love you the most.

Chaos theory is interesting, and has many merits.

However, it has always amused me that some of its biggest proponents contradict themselves blatantly and regularly.

How, you ask?

They use the "input" of the "random" variations in wind (due to the flapping of butterfly wings, for example) as their premise, then use that input to fill out a completely non-random model.
Ignoring the observed fact that every single step of the "deterministic" chain in the following model there is additional randomness, often far more than the tiny bit of randomness in their initial premise.

Oops.

One thing "chaos theory" has done for us is raise awareness of the "messiness" of reality. That our carefully built, "clean," linear models will never fully reflect reality, because reality has lots of randomness and probability and quantum variation. Recognizing that is a big step forward in reducing our arrogance when it comes to "predictions."

As to the "god" question...I don't really care if any particular "god" idea is POSSIBLE or not. I care if there's evidence to show it real, not just possible.
And there isn't any evidence to show any of 'em are real.
So, "possible" or not, there's no reason to believe.

Yeah, but our notion of what is "real" is time dependent. Mathematics have led to numerous theoretical possibilities--the idea that there were subatomic particles, that black holes exist--long before there was any observable evidence for those phenomena. The early explorations of such possibilities were sometimes viewed as philosophical games because the subjects were, given the science of the times, lacking in substantive evidence.

To say, or imply, that we should only spend neural electrons on things that produce evidence is to neglect the reality that our ability to perceive evidence is a function of technological progress.

This is not to say that anyone should believe anything. Only that a degree of skepticism is appropriate when considering things for which we presently have no evidence.

"...for which we have no evidrnce" and no math...

True.

My point is simply that unless we define a possibility such that we can falsify it given our present level of technology (and math), we cannot completely rule it out. We do have math showing that our physics break down beyond certain points--the speed of light--in realms that do exist. And there is math indicating a significant possibility of alternative universes, including the one in which there is a less cute and funny EOD. So there are realities that we lack the science to understand and hence in which we cannot falsify anything.

So our calculation of the probabilities should be qualified by our ability to falsify things. Level one, is there an interventionist God as described by the Judeao-Christian tradition? Since that God is well defined and therefore falsifiable, we can say that the odds of such a being's existence are very near zero. 99%? 99.9%?

Level two, is there a God in this universe whose characteristics we cannot define and hence cannot falsify? Higher probability, say 10%, ignoring the fact that such a deity would with a high probability not be relevant to us and hence might not deserve the title "God."

Level three, is there a God in another realm either in a parallel universe or in some sense above the multiverse? Probability is almost meaningless in this case but that means we can't say much either way. But again, the existence of a God that either has no relation to us or interacts with us in a way we cannot perceive calls into question whether the title means anything at all.

I'm just saying that our calculation of probabilities is a function of our scientific and mathematical tools--thus time-dependent. Also, the further we get from a God who is involved enough in our existence to be tested, to be subject to falsification, the lower the probability that his/her/its existence even matters. That God starts to look like a mere alien with cool powers whom we'll never encounter.

Correction.

The odds of a Judeo-Christian God existing, given our present science and math, might be 1% or 0.01%. Vanishingly small.

So our calculation of the probabilities should be qualified by our ability to falsify things. Level one, is there an interventionist God as described by the Judeao-Christian tradition? Since that God is well defined and therefore falsifiable, we can say that the odds of such a being's existence are very near zero. 99%? 99.9%?

COMMENT: How is the claimed existence of an interventionist god falsifiable? For that matter, how is the claimed existence of anything metaphysical falsifiable? Falsifiability applies to scientific theories that can in principle be shown to be false by experiment, or by a failure of prediction. What experiment, or failure of prediction, applies to the existence of God?

Moreover, there can be no statistical assessment of an metaphysical existence claim without a Bayesian-type prior probability assessment. Thus, there might be no evidence for God, but such fact does not tell you anything about the probability of his or her existence, any more that postulating about the probability of the existence of a planet Kolob existing through a wormhole out of the fifth dimension. Note also that this applies to theories of multiple universes. Such theories are metaphysical, and non-falsifiable. There are no genuine probability assessments available for such theories.

________________________________

Level two, is there a God in this universe whose characteristics we cannot define and hence cannot falsify? Higher probability, say 10%, ignoring the fact that such a deity would with a high probability not be relevant to us and hence might not deserve the title "God."

COMMENT: Again, this is completely misguided for reasons stated. If not, please provide me with the data of your probability analysis, and the mathematics that supports your conclusion. Your assumption that merely defining a metaphysical entity is enough to conclude that such an existence claim is falsifiable is not correct. For example, all religions (including interventionist ones) claim that god, however defined, is a transcendent entity; i.e. he transcends our knowledge and understanding, including our understanding of space and time. That alone ends the falsifiability question.

__________________________________

Level three, is there a God in another realm either in a parallel universe or in some sense above the multiverse? Probability is almost meaningless in this case but that means we can't say much either way. But again, the existence of a God that either has no relation to us or interacts with us in a way we cannot perceive calls into question whether the title means anything at all.

COMMENT: In any metaphysical claim, probability *is* essentially meaningless--unless you have a Bayesian analysis that involves assumed prior probabilities, which in the context of metaphysics are highly questionable, at best.

____________________________________________

I'm just saying that our calculation of probabilities is a function of our scientific and mathematical tools--thus time-dependent. Also, the further we get from a God who is involved enough in our existence to be tested, to be subject to falsification, the lower the probability that his/her/its existence even matters. That God starts to look like a mere alien with cool powers whom we'll never encounter.

COMMENT: Our scientific tools are not time dependent, they are human knowledge dependent, which is one reason why they cannot assess metaphysical claims.

Your analysis strikes me as entirely rhetorical, based upon a misunderstanding of scientific principles, like falsifiability and probability.

Henry,

Sometimes I wonder about why you state things so stridently.

Beginning at your final comment, I said that our understanding of things is time-dependent. You counter that "Our scientific tools are not time dependent, they are human knowledge dependent." That is of course what I said. Human knowledge increases over time, hence our scientific tools are time-dependent. You have to strive pretty hard to ignore the fact that that is what I said.

Second, you claim that I need to use Bayesian prior probability assessments. Obviously that would be nice. But social science and anthropology and other "messy pursuits" sometimes have to proceed without quantifiable measurements at given points in time. Your repeated reference to a single set of intellectual tools starts to sound like that is the only tool at your disposal. It is certainly not the only approach used by people who study these things.

Be that as it may, specialists who analyze these questions effectively employ your favored analysis as best they can given the paucity of data. That is why, in my arbitrary example, the probability of an outcome grows more accurate over time--or, at your insistence but equivalently, over the course of improvement in human science. That involves a de facto use of Bayes-style progressive simulations.

Finally, and most curiously, you don't like my proposition that an interventionist God is falsifiable. Here is your paragraph: "How is the claimed existence of an interventionist god falsifiable? For that matter, how is the claimed existence of anything metaphysical falsifiable? Falsifiability applies to scientific theories that can in principle be shown to be false by experiment, or by a failure of prediction. What experiment, or failure of prediction, applies to the existence of God?"

Here you use two fundamentally different phrases as if they were identical. You suggest that "an interventionist god" is the same thing as a "metaphysical. . . existence." Confusing those two concepts leads to incorrect conclusions. Put simply, to the extent that God is interventionist he ceases to be purely metaphysical.

The Judeao-Christian God is defined by all the statements of intervention and all the prophecies in the Jewish writings, the Bible, and by extension in the Koran. We CAN evaluate the propositions that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, that death did not exist before then, that the earth was completely flooded, that all life died but that in the ark, that for one day the Sun stood still, etc., etc., etc. those are the "experiments" and "predictions" that you keep demanding. Explicitly, the more of those things that can be falsified, the less likely the existence of the God who is defined by those texts. That is why the passage of time and the accumulation of scientific knowledge has gradually reduced the probability that the Judeao-Christian God exists.

As for gods that are entirely metaphysical--i.e., haven't left interventions that can be tested--you are correct that we can't falsify their characteristics nor judge the probability of their existence. But that was of course what I said: namely, that the further removed from our realm a supposed entity resides, the less we are able to falsify its existence.

We can say a lot about the Judeao-Christian God because he is uniquely interventionist. He left us lots of falsifiable propositions.

Sometimes I wonder about why you state things so stridently.

COMMENT: I don't always, but I try to make my comments as strong as I perceive them to be. Isn't that what we all do, and should do?

_________________________________________

Beginning at your final comment, I said that our understanding of things is time-dependent. You counter that "Our scientific tools are not time dependent, they are human knowledge dependent." That is of course what I said. Human knowledge increases over time, hence our scientific tools are time-dependent. You have to strive pretty hard to ignore the fact that that is what I said.

COMMENT: O.K. I will take that criticism.
__________________________________________

Second, you claim that I need to use Bayesian prior probability assessments. Obviously that would be nice. But social science and anthropology and other "messy pursuits" sometimes have to proceed without quantifiable measurements at given points in time. Your repeated reference to a single set of intellectual tools starts to sound like that is the only tool at your disposal. It is certainly not the only approach used by people who study these things.

COMMENT: My problem is that you sprinkled your comments with probability assessments that are not valid and not supportable in any way. That leaves the false impression that your rhetorical comments are somehow supported by mathematics or science. If you (or anyone else) wants to assert that some claim is statistically improbable, and cite numbers showing just what such probability assessments are, you better be prepared to present data and analysis. If there is another approach, fine, but it should be presented in such a way as to separate science and logic from rhetoric. You did not do that in my opinion.
_____________________________________________

Be that as it may, specialists who analyze these questions effectively employ your favored analysis as best they can given the paucity of data. That is why, in my arbitrary example, the probability of an outcome grows more accurate over time--or, at your insistence but equivalently, over the course of improvement in human science. That involves a de facto use of Bayes-style progressive simulations.

COMMENT: But that's the point. There is no legitimate "probability of outcome" assessment, and no such thing as a "de facto use of Bayes-style progressive simulations." That is utter nonsense, unless you give me the specific data (however limited) used to make such assessments, the prior probabilities assigned, and the mathematical analysis that supports your results. Otherwise, all you have is rhetorical conclusions based upon your favored intuitions.

_____________________________________________

Finally, and most curiously, you don't like my proposition that an interventionist God is falsifiable. Here is your paragraph: "How is the claimed existence of an interventionist god falsifiable? For that matter, how is the claimed existence of anything metaphysical falsifiable? Falsifiability applies to scientific theories that can in principle be shown to be false by experiment, or by a failure of prediction. What experiment, or failure of prediction, applies to the existence of God?"

Here you use two fundamentally different phrases as if they were identical. You suggest that "an interventionist god" is the same thing as a "metaphysical. . . existence." Confusing those two concepts leads to incorrect conclusions. Put simply, to the extent that God is interventionist he ceases to be purely metaphysical.

COMMENT: To my knowledge there is no religion that postulates an interventionist god that is not fundamentally based upon host of metaphysical properties involving transcendence. I suppose that there might be some defined God having certain properties that are not "purely metaphysical" (like the Mormon God of body, flesh and bones). But any such properties, including most certainly interventionist properties, are rarely divorced from an overall claim of transcendence such as to remove any hope of falsifiability. As such, there is no way for a critic to get a handle on how and why god may or may not intervene. Therefore, there is no way for such a god's existence to be falsifiable.
____________________________________________

The Judeao-Christian God is defined by all the statements of intervention and all the prophecies in the Jewish writings, the Bible, and by extension in the Koran. We CAN evaluate the propositions that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, that death did not exist before then, that the earth was completely flooded, that all life died but that in the ark, that for one day the Sun stood still, etc., etc., etc. those are the "experiments" and "predictions" that you keep demanding. Explicitly, the more of those things that can be falsified, the less likely the existence of the God who is defined by those texts. That is why the passage of time and the accumulation of scientific knowledge has gradually reduced the probability that the Judeao-Christian God exists.

COMMENT: Well, I agree that if a person ties their faith in the existence of God to questionable historical texts, then there is a problem. Note, however, that it is not the existence of God per se that becomes falsifiable, but certain religious tenets that connect him (or her) to the supporting texts. Moreover, the Christian God is not *defined* by Jesus' life on earth. Such historical facts do not represent attributes or properties of God, but rather a context for religious faith. Your claim was quite different. You said that the "interventionist" character of God; his alleged intervention of worldly affairs, made his (or her) existence falsifiable. That is what I have a problem with.
_______________________________________

As for gods that are entirely metaphysical--i.e., haven't left interventions that can be tested--you are correct that we can't falsify their characteristics nor judge the probability of their existence. But that was of course what I said: namely, that the further removed from our realm a supposed entity resides, the less we are able to falsify its existence.

COMMENT: But again, your mistake was engaging in falsifiability in the first place, and providing a probability assessment that has no basis in any legitimate analysis. Take the Mormon God, for example. Here we have a God with body, parts, and passions, very closely tied to our materialist realm of science. How is this God any more falsifiable than the God of the Catholic trinity. Both are transcendent beings. Now, we might say that all of the "facts" of Jesus' life on earth, e.g. virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc., are all highly improbable. I am O.K. with that intuitive assessment, based upon scientific knowledge. But Jesus (or the Father) as the transcendent, interventionist, God of Christianity is not rendered falsifiable by undermining these extraneous historical "facts."

__________________________________________

We can say a lot about the Judeao-Christian God because he is uniquely interventionist. He left us lots of falsifiable propositions.

COMMENT: Name one such falsifiable proposition that relates to, or undermines, his transcendent existence. What do you say to the Christian who says, I don't literally believe in any of the Biblical stories about Jesus, except that he lived, atoned for my sins, was resurrected, and lives today as my Lord and Savior. Such a belief is the transcendental essence of Christianity. Whether he also walked on water is beside the point.

Again, I am frequently surprised by the obduracy of your positions and the implicit arrogance. You, for instance, have no idea about my career and my familiarity with sophisticated statistical and probabilistic methodology. You simply assume that if I do not agree with you, I don't know what I am talking about. You are wrong.


HENRY BEMIS: "please provide me with the data of your probability analysis, and the mathematics that supports your conclusion."

LOT'S WIFE: Your insistence on data and mathematics is elegant but inadequate. That approach does not apply well to the vast majority of intellectual questions, including ones of religion and belief. Moreover, your approach is sometimes misleading even in the fields where it is most appropriate. Take the vast mathematical models used by Wall Street to deny that a crisis was just around the corner in 2006 and even as late as the summer of 2008. Those had all the "data" and "math" that you require and were indeed based on Bayesian and Monte Carlo logic. They were completely and utterly wrong. Why? Because people with your penchant for data and quantifiability are sometimes blind to major factors that are not easy to measure; factors such as degree of limitation in the data used for the prior runs and changes in constantly evolving systems since the last iteration.


HENRY BEMIS: "Your assumption that merely defining a metaphysical entity is enough to conclude that such an existence claim is falsifiable is not correct. For example, all religions (including interventionist ones) claim that god, however defined, is a transcendent entity; i.e. he transcends our knowledge and understanding, including our understanding of space and time. That alone ends the falsifiability question."

LOT'S WIFE: This is just more of your confusion. Not all religions worship an entirely transcendent deity. The religions that claim that God intervenes in human affairs do not believe that their God is transcendent. What they claim is that he is transcendent except in those cases where he has deigned to intervene as proof of his existence, his love, his power, or something else.

The Judaeo-Christian God in particular dares his followers time and again to witness his interventions and to test his predictions. In other words, the Judaeo-Christian God TELLS us he is subject to falsification. So your statement that all religions posit gods that are transcendent or entirely metaphysical and hence untestable is inarguably false.

CONCLUSION: You are misrepresenting what I said about the time/science-dependency of human knowledge. You ignore intellectual approaches that are routinely applied to certain topics and insist that your favored technique, no matter how inappropriate, is the only standard of truth. You ignore the immense mistakes that have arisen from the approach you preach. And you insist that all religions view their deities in the same way, which is obviously inaccurate. You do yourself a disservice when you make such sweeping generalizations about epistemology and about social organizations.

Again, I am frequently surprised by the obduracy of your positions and the implicit arrogance. You, for instance, have no idea about my career and my familiarity with sophisticated statistical and probabilistic methodology. You simply assume that if I do not agree with you, I don't know what I am talking about. You are wrong.

COMMENT: I only can comment on what I read in the posts. I cannot know, nor do I care, what intellectual background produced them. They stand on their own. If I am wrong, I am ready and willing to accept it. But you need to show me. Here, give me an outline of a probability assessment, any probability assessment, that supports your numbers. Just suggesting you may have credentials of some kind, and that I am just wrong is hardly satisfying.
_________________________________

HENRY BEMIS: "please provide me with the data of your probability analysis, and the mathematics that supports your conclusion."

LOT'S WIFE: Your insistence on data and mathematics is elegant but inadequate. That approach does not apply well to the vast majority of intellectual questions, including ones of religion and belief. Moreover, your approach is sometimes misleading even in the fields where it is most appropriate. Take the vast mathematical models used by Wall Street to deny that a crisis was just around the corner in 2006 and even as late as the summer of 2008. Those had all the "data" and "math" that you require and were indeed based on Bayesian and Monte Carlo logic. They were completely and utterly wrong. Why? Because people with your penchant for data and quantifiability are sometimes blind to major factors that are not easy to measure; factors such as degree of limitation in the data used for the prior runs and changes in constantly evolving systems since the last iteration.

COMMENT: Fully agree. So, why did you cite explicit probability assessments out of thin air? You did the very thing that you are now disavowing. If you have no data, you have no probability assessment.
______________________________________________

HENRY BEMIS: "Your assumption that merely defining a metaphysical entity is enough to conclude that such an existence claim is falsifiable is not correct. For example, all religions (including interventionist ones) claim that god, however defined, is a transcendent entity; i.e. he transcends our knowledge and understanding, including our understanding of space and time. That alone ends the falsifiability question."

LOT'S WIFE: This is just more of your confusion. Not all religions worship an entirely transcendent deity. The religions that claim that God intervenes in human affairs do not believe that their God is transcendent. What they claim is that he is transcendent except in those cases where he has deigned to intervene as proof of his existence, his love, his power, or something else.

COMMENT: I did not say that such a God is entirely transcendent. By definition an interventionist God is not transcendent to the extent he or she intervenes in human affairs. But, again, cite for me a religion that believes that, notwithstanding interventionist attributes, the existence and attributes of their God is NOT fundamentally transcendent. Maybe Greek Gods might qualify, but even that is a stretch.
__________________________________________

The Judaeo-Christian God in particular dares his followers time and again to witness his interventions and to test his predictions. In other words, the Judaeo-Christian God TELLS us he is subject to falsification. So your statement that all religions posit gods that are transcendent or entirely metaphysical and hence untestable is inarguably false.

COMMENT: Right. A religion might very well suggest we test God. Mormonism for example. What is the result. Some test God and find he does not exist, and some test God and find he does exist. Where then is the falsifiability? Where is the scientific test, or the predictive power of falsification from which you want to make valid and useful probability analysis?
______________________________________________

CONCLUSION: You are misrepresenting what I said about the time/science-dependency of human knowledge. You ignore intellectual approaches that are routinely applied to certain topics and insist that your favored technique, no matter how inappropriate, is the only standard of truth. You ignore the immense mistakes that have arisen from the approach you preach. And you insist that all religions view their deities in the same way, which is obviously inaccurate. You do yourself a disservice when you make such sweeping generalizations about epistemology and about social organizations.

COMMENT: I did not criticize any approach, nor preach any approach. What happened was quite simple. YOU CITED PROBABILITY "FACTS" LOOSELY AND IRRESPONSIBLY, PRETENDING THAT THEY HAVE SOME SCIENTIFIC OR INTELLECTUAL MERIT, WHEN THEY DO NOT. That is the only reason why I responded at all.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, but our notion of what is "real" is time
> dependent.

Partially, yes.
However, *at this time* (and at every time in the history of humanity), there is no evidence for any "god" thing -- so until there is, I won't consider one "real." When (and if) there is such evidence, I will. Whatever time that happens to come in...

However, it has always amused me that some of its biggest proponents contradict themselves blatantly and regularly.

How, you ask?

They use the "input" of the "random" variations in wind (due to the flapping of butterfly wings, for example) as their premise, then use that input to fill out a completely non-random model.
Ignoring the observed fact that every single step of the "deterministic" chain in the following model there is additional randomness, often far more than the tiny bit of randomness in their initial premise.

COMMENT: The point of Chaos theory is that deterministic physical processes within a system can produce random effects. The flapping of a butterfly wing is a deterministic event that in principle can be introduced into a system (like the weather) perturbing the system, and thereby produce random effects, e.g. a tornado. The question is why assume that there is anything about the weather (the tornado) that is random? Doesn't the butterfly wing just add another deterministic element to fill out all other deterministic elements to create the result in question? The answer is that the "random patterns" that emerge out of chaos represent more than what can be explained by the convergence of isolated deterministic events.

_________________________________________

One thing "chaos theory" has done for us is raise awareness of the "messiness" of reality. That our carefully built, "clean," linear models will never fully reflect reality, because reality has lots of randomness and probability and quantum variation. Recognizing that is a big step forward in reducing our arrogance when it comes to "predictions."

COMMENT: Well said! But remember that the "messiness" is *organization!" So, the challenge is to explain the emergence of organized complexity (e.g. life, consciousness) from deterministic processes that of themselves are inadequate to provide such an explanation. Arguably, there is something more fundamental that is missing from modern science to provide explanatory power for the natural, emergent, systems we observe.

__________________________________________

As to the "god" question...I don't really care if any particular "god" idea is POSSIBLE or not. I care if there's evidence to show it real, not just possible.
And there isn't any evidence to show any of 'em are real.
So, "possible" or not, there's no reason to believe.

COMMENT: Well, I get that. However, as we have discussed before, what counts as "evidence" is paramount in this regard. And if science cannot explain the emergence of organized complexity, there is a metaphysical foot in the door of science to be exploited by religionists.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Well, I get that. However, as we have
> discussed before, what counts as "evidence" is
> paramount in this regard. And if science cannot
> explain the emergence of organized complexity,
> there is a metaphysical foot in the door of
> science to be exploited by religionists.

The other points need no comment.

However, I'll point out that since anything "metaphysical" by your own definition isn't "falsifiable," it has no foot in any door anywhere. Hence my regular dismissals of "metaphysics" as useless pap (other than, occasionally, to come up with testable/falsifiable hypotheses, at which point it ceases to be "metaphysics" anyway).

And that "science" not being able to explain something does not open any doors for any alternative explanations, since that would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. Which, of course, religions use regularly...but that doesn't give them any worth in rational discourse :)

Henry Bemis
ificouldhietokolob
Lot's wife


Just to bring the discussion back to the present, just look at the situation that occurred on Nov 8th in the USA.

All the computer models, with opinions and data from all kinds of experts said the Nov 8th incident was going to result in one particular way. Now we have that the opposite occurred and we got high school kids, not old enough to vote, protesting the Nov 8th results.

What a kick in the mouth for computer models, data and expert opinions.

Good point.

I'll mention, though, that the results that occurred were within the margin of error of the reliable polling organizations, they just weren't considered the most probable outcome. And when you accept the well-established fact that people flat-out LIE to poll takers, the probabilities should probably have had larger error ranges to begin with. Finally, all of the "big" poll organizations got the popular vote really close to spot-on. Not much to crow about, of course...:)

That does help make my point, though, that "chaos" is present at all levels of "deterministic" outcomes, and that the models often used don't take that into account -- even the ones that "chaos theorists" use. :)

I say yes....

Look at the destruction joey smith has done over many years...

As a voracious reader, a phrase I have run into often is supposed to come from analysis of armed conflict: "No plan of attack survives first contact."

It has an important meaning, but it's not a law of nature. For instance, if three men plan a surprise attack on one man, probably well over 75% of the time, the plan works to perfection. But the idea the aphorism points to is valid.

We use a word, "variables", and it serves a purpose as we try to plan for the future, but no one knows what variables will be punched into the equation.

I bet Brazilians blame butterflies in Nova Scotia.

Does a flap...? Well, why not testing it experimentally. We just have to run reality twice, once with the flap and once without, and then see what happens.

You don't know how to run teality twice? Well, then we could do some other cool thing, like squaring the circle.

once you become a ghawd, you can set up two, or as many as you want, realities and run them with the different variables you're testing!!

I figure there's probably another reality, and in that one, "I" am not as cute and funny as I am in this one. Tragic, que no?

Chaos theory makes more sense if you take a cyclical view of time. Every so often, it cycles back around to a point where a small perturbance causes big changes. Look at old Joe. He was at one of those points where a dishonest horn dog could change history.

Maybe we live in a world of strange attractors. It looks so messy, but it all works out because it's pulled to this invisible thing that nobody understands.

I can see it now....Front page news!!

"Texas issues extermination order on all butterflies to end tornadoes!"

Brian, thank you for asking the question. You always give me pause. Your question caused me to consider perfection. Perfection is complete organization. It cannot contain chaos. If there is chaos, there can be no god. At least as commonly defined.

LotsWife - hell, girl. If you have a man in your life he must feel like the luckiest bastard alive. Could you whisper 'quantum physics,' in my ear and breath softly against my neck? I love you, not in the nasty way, but I love the way you think! Of couse, the whisper would be kinda kool, too...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2016 05:53PM by incognitotoday.

Or data ? Is that randomness?

Or just unawareness of the capacity of chemicals or elements or variables in what one was measuring- graphing, noting, observing?
I am not sure about the definition of randomness, it seems a statement of the explorers or observers limitation of awareness of definitive variables possibly more than the randomness of the unviverse to me. Possibly an impact of my training, but I see a possible projection of self or the thinker into that definition and an assumption that that is reality.

(Interpolation in a simple way, is for instance, a guesstimate between measured points on a graph that the data in between the points will probably be in a line between the points (not higher or lower) but, it could miss a huge spike or giant drop) because you don't really know about the data between those two points. You interpolate it.
An example might be a giant radiation peak in between times measured or an ocean tide level fall like right before a tsunami which would be missed in 12 hour measurements or something. Completely random? well it had a reason!)

I think that randomness seems to say that we just don't know all the values or weightings of the factors that contribute to situations. Butterfly wings and seemingly insignificant or unnoticed not yet focused on overlooked things interact and contribute making impacts. Does it being complex and beyond ones knowing make it random, or is random not the limit of the human perception calling it random because it's beyond the limitation of awareness measurable that, it's not an observable complexity

Yet

"I am not sure about the definition of randomness, it seems a statement of the explorers or observers limitation of awareness of definitive variables possibly more than the randomness of the unviverse to me. Possibly an impact of my training, but I see a possible projection of self or the thinker into that definition and an assumption that that is reality."

COMMENT: There is a great deal of equivocation over the word "random" in the scientific and philosophical literature. Here is my take on the matter for what its worth:

(1) In physics the word is usually associated with the disorder of thermodynamic states, as opposed to order. Thus, randomness is associated with high entropy states of a system. By this definition, "random" does not imply the lack of a deterministic process; since all events and processes in classical physics are deterministic.

(2) "Random" is also associated with "a lack of a cause," which is more of a philosophical-metaphysical definition. This definition is inconsistent with determinism. This is most often associated with quantum uncertainty, and the probabilistic nature of the quantum collapse of the wave function. It might also be applied to emergent properties of systems that seem to appear out of nowhere without causal connection, as when complex systems emerge out of chaos.

(3) Finally, there is a concept of "random" associated with human activity and knowledge. One example is when a human action is not associated with a methodological criteria; like when the selection of data for some study is through a "random process." (For example when a statistical study selects 1000 households "at random" for study.) It also can mean a lack of knowledge of the more subtle deterministic processes underlying a phenomenon. A good example of this is the idea of "random mutations" in biology, which does not imply that such mutations are not deterministic, but only that they are unknown, or not part of the ordinary operation of the system as currently understood.

So, in chaos theory and complexity theory, which definition applies? I would say there is a place for both (1) and (2). With respect to (1) "random" represents the disorder (high entropy) associated with a physical state prior to a phase transition where an ordered (low entropy) complex system emerges. Regarding (2) "random" might be associated with the aspects of an emergent, complex system that cannot be explained or understood solely by an appeal to its parts. To that extent and emergent system, in its unique features, is not strictly caused by the interaction of its "causal components," i.e. there is something more. The best example I can think of is consciousness. Although physical, neural, processes underlie conscious experience, we cannot connect the dots such as to explain the emergence of mind solely from physical brain processes; i.e. there is no "causal" *physical* link between the physical brain and the mind. Of course, this could just be a lack of knowledge as in (3) above.
________________________________________

"I think that randomness seems to say that we just don't know all the values or weightings of the factors that contribute to situations. Butterfly wings and seemingly insignificant or unnoticed not yet focused on overlooked things interact and contribute making impacts. Does it being complex and beyond ones knowing make it random, or is random not the limit of the human perception calling it random because it's beyond the limitation of awareness measurable that, it's not an observable complexity."

COMMENT: See above definitions. "Random" based upon a lack of knowledge of deterministic processes represents (3) above. However, it is a mistake to think that either (1) or (2) is mistaken or not part of reality; both of which are well established by experimental methods. One lesson from this is that the word "causation" is itself problematic, as we know from philosophers like Hume. It is not surprising that physics textbooks generally do not mention "causation," notwithstanding the fact that it seems to underlie our intuitions about the physical world. Arguably, concepts like "random," "causation," and determinism should be left to philosophy.

Finally, regarding interpolation, that seems to me to be a methodological device related to (3) above, but I am not sure about this. Maybe Kolob, or other mathematicians on the board have a comment on that.