Thoughts on terminology re  Science 'vs' Religion

We might be the product of an algorithm that was a product of the Big Bang. Fascinating.
And these algorithms emerge along with the emergence of matter with different values and functions.

IMO, mathematical relationships are an essential property of spacetime.

David Bohm went a step further and proposed that the mathematical hierarchy in nature creates an “Implicate order” an inherent potential which may become reality and may be causal to a chronological evolutionary function, as well as "probabilistic’ creativity.

Write4U, I don’t have more than first-year college math and no physics beyond grade 12, so I know none of the math involved in stuff like Chaos Theory.

But at it’s most basic level, the theory seems to be simply: everything follows the rules of the universe, but since we don’t know them all or only know the ones we do to less than perfectly, sometimes things happen that appear chaotic or unpredictable to us.

Am I even close to understanding it?

3point14rat said,

Write4U, I don’t have more than first-year college math and no physics beyond grade 12, so I know none of the math involved in stuff like Chaos Theory.

But at it’s most basic level, the theory seems to be simply: everything follows the rules of the universe, but since we don’t know them all or only know the ones we do to less than perfectly, sometimes things happen that appear chaotic or unpredictable to us.

Am I even close to understanding it?

First, let me qualify that I too am not speaking from a vast scientific background. But IMO, there are several very basic properties to the spacetime geometry.


This is my perspective. Given that the definition of Chaos is presented as:

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

Chaos theory has applications in a variety of disciplines, including meteorology, anthropology,[11] sociology, physics,[12] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, and self-assembly processes.

Chaos theory - Wikipedia


and a narrative: What is Chaos Theory?

Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions, Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.

These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature.

Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.


Principles of Chaos

The Butterfly Effect: This effect grants the power to cause a hurricane in China to a butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico. It may take a very long time, but the connection is real. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at just the right point in space/time, the hurricane would not have happened. A more rigorous way to express this is that small changes in the initial conditions lead to drastic changes in the results. Our lives are an ongoing demonstration of this principle. Who knows what the long-term effects of teaching millions of kids about chaos and fractals will be?

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Order / Disorder: Chaos is not simply disorder. Chaos explores the transitions between order and disorder, which often occur in surprising ways.

Mixing: Turbulence ensures that two adjacent points in a complex system will eventually end up in very different positions after some time has elapsed. Examples: Two neighboring water molecules may end up in different parts of the ocean or even in different oceans. A group of helium balloons that launch together will eventually land in drastically different places. Mixing is thorough because turbulence occurs at all scales. It is also nonlinear: fluids cannot be unmixed.

Feedback: Systems often become chaotic when there is feedback present. A good example is the behavior of the stock market. As the value of a stock rises or falls, people are inclined to buy or sell that stock. This in turn further affects the price of the stock, causing it to rise or fall chaotically.

Fractals: A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.

What is Chaos Theory? – Fractal Foundation


This led to the development of CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) a fractal based theory.

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia


There is much more, but this must be broken in smaller parts with different mathematical properties before they can be recombined into a picture of the mathematical “wholeness”

David Bohm called this the hierarchy of Implicate Orders (Universal Potentials.)

 

I haven’t had much time, so been missing a bunch. It is has been an interesting thread. It begins with:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN & CREATIONISM

“Intelligent design” is a thing — a specific thing.


I’ll admit I haven’t read a lot of stuff on the topic, though I’ve spent lots of time thinking about it. Aside from what others say ID is, it seems to me ID is more a feeling.

I can’t help think I’m not alone, that when I get into reading or listening to the details of biology or evolution, particularly all the stuff being discovered in the past couple decades, it overwhelms, almost a bit of vertigo at times, the complexity is unimaginable, but we have the data coming at us.

Absolutely no way to comprehend it, scientists through much learning and training and doing can grasp it in a way we lay people can’t touch.

Looking at masses of under-educated people - seems to me ID is a sort of inevitable lynch pin to grasping the material world beyond our sense. Just like Jesus is a lynch pin that’s helped countless deal with the challenging difficult lives each of us live. Both are feelings.

Some take it more serious than others, some don’t need any of it at all, and so on.

 

I believe the challenge is to take back the term “Intelligent Design” by providing a more realistic definition to what ID could be. Making “could” a key part of the lesson.

Oh and of course making clear it belongs in the Philosophy, Religion Domain and not in the Domain of Science.


As for getting people to appreciate Evolution seems to me the key to that is trying to tell the fantastical story of Evolution. Give people something to fill their heads with. Creationism is a self-centered one-dimensional cartoon. It has nothing, whereas Evolution, lordie the story scientists have stitched together. And so on and so forth

My two cents on that topic

https://centerforinquiry.org/forums/topic/pageant-of-earths-evolution-in-24hr-part-two/


@Tee

and I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I’m disappointed you’ve never comment at the thread where I present this idea since I can’t help but think this is part of what you’re trying to work out.

The missing key is appreciating the fundamental “Magisteria of Physical Reality,” and recognizing both science and religion are products of the “Magisteria of Our Mindscape.”

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

What’s the point?
Science, religions, heaven, hell, political beliefs, even God, they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.

{That’s not to say they are the same thing, they are not!
Though I think they’re both equally valid human endeavors,
but fundamentally qualitatively different.
Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that.}


And in any event, I’ll repeat my conviction that this is First Base self-realization needed before one can seriously discuss our place in the world, God, Creation and Evolution and all that jazz. Cheers

CC-v.3 said,

I believe the challenge is to take back the term “Intelligent Design” by providing a more realistic definition to what ID could be. Making “could” a key part of the lesson.


IMO, we need not take back anything, just add a modifier, i.e. “quasi-”.

This produces a “quasi-intelligent design” which is an accurate description of the self-organizing and self-assembly of regular patterns in nature.

It properly removes the implication of a “motivated intelligent designer” and replaces it with an “unmotivated mathematical potential”.

And that is a perfectly acceptable scientific term which could also be used for “unmotivated artificial intelligence”, or quasi-intelligent information processing in the human intelligent designed Artificial Intelligences such as computers…

As to the size and scope of complexity that quasi-intelligent functions are able to produce, Robert Hazen notes that, given enough time (14.7 billion years) and spatial surfaces (immeasurably large) and dynamic behaviors (4 fundamental forces), by the laws of probability it becomes not chance but inevitability of the exponential increase in the near infinite variations of self-organization and self-assembly of what we see today.

If it is mathematically possible, nature will eventually produce it, given enough time.

 

Not many people are able to communicate at the level of Sam, so if he’s unable to do it, I honestly don’t know how I can. — pi-rat

I got kicked off an author/podcaster’s facebook page because I took the position that Sam Harris is not racist. They were making a case based on a half dozen quotes from him, which is actually a pretty good case, but it’s too isolated for me to accept it. The author himself wasn’t so much buying it, but he was saying that there are racist groups that refer to his work and use it to promote themselves, and Sam should see that and do something about it.


Not sure how I missed this reply to me.

Sam has some ‘controversial’ positions that, if you listen to his words rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to them, are perfectly reasonable. I’m sure most of you remember Ben Affleck’s overblown reaction to Sam on the Bill Maher show. Sam was perfectly reasonable but Ben had a melt-down because he couldn’t separate the reality of the ideas from the cultural/political/popular stigma attached to the airing of those ideas.

I don’t follow Sam closely, but I have yet to hear anything he says that can be used to label him as hateful or intolerant of anything (other than terrible ideas.)

If it is possible to let me know what made the person on Facebook think Sam is hateful, I would appreciate those quotes and what the racist groups are getting from it. (Without knowing anything about it, it sounds like the equivalent of condemning Darwin because people twist his ideas to promote social Darwinism.)

I figured I’d be able to find that YouTube pretty easy, but, huh, not so. Makes you wonder how fringe the opinion is. It was around the time Harris had Charles Murray on his podcast. People got upset that Sam was cordial to him and let him defend his book “The Bell Curve”. I listened to that before I heard the controversy, and I was swayed that Murray may have been misjudged. I’m not going to go around saying that, because people who haven’t read the book are sure it’s racist, and I don’t care to read an old book and try to convince them of anything. What I felt happened in the podcast was, they treated that as the old news that it is.

Here’s somewhat of a recounting of that and general context. The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’ | Race | The Guardian