Large Scales & Chaotic Behaviour

[avandonk]

There are elements of fundamentalists in Catholicism, Opus Dei comes to mind. As far as fundamentalists in the USA bible belts they are the model for ignorance and superstition. The fundamentalists in Islam are the extremists that produce terrorists. I could go on and an and on. No faith does not suffer from this. How many people were killed for religious differences when India was partitioned in the late forties?

I find it very curious that science is attacked from all quarters when a major breakthrough changes any long held paradigm. At first the religious lot dissagree and then quietly agree centuries later well after they have buried the bodies that were burnt at the stake!

The thing I find most hilarious is that any argument within scientific circles is held up as 'proof' that we scientists do not know anything. This from people who cut a bit off their willies before they know how big it will get.

Quantum Mechanics and Chaos theory both point to a Universe that is not predetermined. In simple terms there is no such thing as destiny.

Chaos theory does not apply at the quantum level as an indeterminate state can hardly feed back to the current state by any real means as there is nothing real to feed back yet!

Bert

[CraigS]

Ahhh … you are talking about religious fundamentalism! (And what I'd call fairly extreme fundamentalism, at that).

Sorry !… I missed that ! I didn't quite understand your use of the term 'fundie'!

Sure .. there are always extremes in any human society … I notice its a relative term, also.

As a corollary, you're also saying that Science has no extreme fundamentalists.

Hmm .. none seem to come to mind .. I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

Dawkins seems to hover dangerously closely to that sometimes, at least, so it seems. (And, as you have pointed out, that is probably due to manipulation of his image by the media, to promote ratings and to provoke controversy).

Cheers

[CraigS]

On the topic of Dawkins and the question of 'Scientific Fundamentalism', it seems others have contemplated Dawkins' tendencies before: (from Wiki)

Richard Dawkins has rejected the charge of "fundamentalism," arguing that critics mistake his "passion" - which he says may match that of evangelical Christians - for an inability to change his mind. Dawkins asserts that the atheists' position is not a fundamentalism that is unable to change its mind, but is held based on the verifiable evidence - as he puts it: "The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."

Cheers

[CraigS]

Coming back onto the original topic and, as unexciting as it may seem (compared with the other discussion), I found these words which I'll add to this thread , just for the sake of completeness:

A new study shows that general relativity, a theory in which observers in different reference frames measure time differently, is not incompatible with chaos theory, in which events unfold in absolute time. Chaos is an ordinary word with lots of meanings. In physics, however, the meaning is more precise: a system---a weather system, say---is chaotic if a very slight change in initial conditions sends the system off into a very different history. How different? The degree to which a system is chaotic can be encapsulated in a parameter called the Lyapunov exponent: when it is positive the system is chaotic and to some extent unpredictable; for a negative value, the system becomes nonchaotic---a small perturbation will not radically change its history. What has worried physicists for many years was the fear that a shift in a frame of reference might so alter the time parameter as to change the Lyapunov exponent from null or negative to positive or vice versa. In other words, the change of frame would seem to make a chaotic system nonchaotic or vice versa. Now, the work of Adilson Motter of the Max Planck Institute for Complex Systems in Dresden, Germany lays this matter to rest. He shows that over a wide range of conditions, a change of time parameter does not alter the Lyapunov exponent enough to change chaos in a system. Motter believes that this is good news since the equations of general relativity are nonlinear, as are those of chaotic systems, and many common situations described by general relativity, such as the motion of massive bodies near black holes or a nonuniform expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang ("mixmaster universe model," see PNU #158) are expected to be highly chaotic. (Physical Review Letters, 5 December 2003)

Cheers

[avandonk]

Thanks for that Craig as I am not really up with the latest in Chaos theory etc as it is an interest outside my specialised field of Structural Molecular Biology.

What is important here that science can say nothing about any faith. What people wish to believe about the supernatural is completely outside science by simple definition.

Neither should blind faith interfere with any science when it does not match their limited or primitive world view. Here they are on shaky ground as evidence should trump the nonsensical versions they hold about reality.

We have enough knowledge now to explain how the Universe ticks from the Big Bang all the way to the complexities we see now in biological systems. This of course includes us. It does not need a supernatural force or being to drive anything.

Who knows what we can discover once quantum computing becomes mainstream. My guess is that it will show that the whole Universe is a quantum computer. It may even be self referential.

Is our consciousness part of the calculations or the final output? Only the mice really know!

Bert

[CraigS]

Totally agree with that one, Bert.

I see that we all have to struggle to keep not just 'faith' at bay, but also to keep something undefined by most of us called, 'opinion' separated from our rational side. It would seem that even the best minds in Science have to contend with this one, every day. Some are better at it than others. We also have that trait constantly exhibited here at IIS.

I'm really excited about quantum computing .. fantastic stuff .. and all courtesy of science !

Funny the medicos are still wrestling with what consciousness is .. it still makes me laugh when I read up on the latest where they're trying to understand how it comes about .. and yet we all yield to anaesthesiologists and anaesthetics when the going gets rough !!

By the way, the mice have been superseded by us Hamsters !!



Cheers, Rgds & thanks for your input on this one.

[avandonk]

Craig anaesthesiologists do not know what underlying mechanism is responsible for the shutting down of consciousness. It just works!

The LHC is producing huge amounts of data even on idle. The fat pipes can barely transmit the data to where it will be analysed.

Quantum computing will reveal a universe more strange than we can even imagine.

Although I have no concrete evidence I am sure that consciousness is based on interactions at the quantum level. There is a bit of evidence where photosynthesis relies on quantum tunnelling for charge transfer. So if photosynthetic bacteria and by evolution plants can by trial and error harness quantum effects who knows what else is hidden in four billion years of biological evolution.

Have you ever had a problem without an easy solution and then hours if not days later a possible answer seems to come to mind from nowhere?

What is important in science is good questions, not to sit smugly and think we have all the answers.

Bert

MS word does strange things or I am stupid.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Craig anaesthesiologists do not know what underlying mechanism is responsible for the shutting down of consciousness. It just works!

A bit like gravity, huh ? (chuckle, chuckle)

The LHC is producing huge amounts of data even on idle. The fat pipes can barely transmit the data to where it will be analysed.

Quantum computing will reveal a universe more strange than we can even imagine.

Although I have no concrete evidence I am sure that consciousness is based on interactions at the quantum level. There is a bit of evidence where photosynthesis relies on quantum tunnelling for charge transfer.

That sounds really interesting.

So if photosynthetic bacteria and by evolution plants can by trial and error harness quantum effects who knows what else is hidden in four billion years of biological evolution.

So how about 'quantum effects gave rise to the plants and bacteria which then do what they were always going to do because of it … ie: photosynthesize ? (Just playing with the concept of what plants really are. They have no intent, they just are).

Have you ever had a problem without an easy solution and then hours if not days later a possible answer seems to come to mind from nowhere?

All the time. Something blocks us from seeing the solution. It takes a while for it to dissolve … (although, i have no evidence for that … ).

What is important in science is good questions, not to sit smugly and think we have all the answers.

Got it !

Cheers & Rgds

[avandonk]

So how about 'quantum effects gave rise to the plants and bacteria which then do what they were always going to do because of it … ie: photosynthesize ? (Just playing with the concept of what plants really are. They have no intent, they just are).


Exactly!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing! Evolution has no intent as it is the random interactions of matter produced by stars and supernovae. It just so happens where liquid water exists for a long time these random self sorting experiments lead to sentient life.

Nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae are no more miraculous than chemical interactions in liquid water that ultimately leads to 'life'.

Complexity is an inevitable outcome of the 'simple' rules that is quantum mechanics, chaos theory and the fractal nature of the Universe.

I am sure I have left out the bits I do not understand.

What if the huge Universe needs to exist so in one tiny corner at the outer arm of one of billions of galaxies life only exists on Earth? I find this hard to believe!

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

What if the huge Universe needs to exist so in one tiny corner at the outer arm of one of billions of galaxies life only exists on Earth? I find this hard to believe!

Bert

Sorry just had to go out to church !! (Just kidding).

Actually, the universe doesn't have to exist for any reason.

But, I think it is perfectly valid to say that the fluke of life, that did happen … once - perhaps here on Earth, does require a very big, big universe for it to emerge. (Statistically speaking).

Cheers

[avandonk]

I lost my 'faith' at about nine years old Craig. I was up till then brought up as a Catholic and through the further years. In year twelve at school we had to go to a retreat with Jesuit priests. As usual at a discussion I voiced my opinion that all religious teachings were a mish mash of folklore and downright superstition. My class mates collectively drew a deep breath. The Jesuit priest leading (there were six in the room) the discussion questioned me further. I got bold at this stage and told him it was all crap! He then agreed with me! Then he asked me to give reasons for my conclusions.

Long discussions then went on in front of all my class mates. Some of them later were in fear of what would happen to my immortal soul. They were ignorant fearfull indoctrinated fools.

These priests to this day wonder how I got to their position at nine years old.

Bert

The year this happened was 1967.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I lost my 'faith' at about nine years old Craig. I was up till then brought up as a Catholic and through the further years. In year twelve at school we had to go to a retreat with Jesuit priests. As usual at a discussion I voiced my opinion that all religious teachings were a mish mash of folklore and downright superstition. My class mates collectively drew a deep breath. The Jesuit priest leading (there were six in the room) the discussion questioned me further. I got bold at this stage and told him it was all crap! He then agreed with me! Then he asked me to give reasons for my conclusions.

Long discussions then went on in front of all my class mates. Some of them later were in fear of what would happen to my immortal soul. They were ignorant fearfull indoctrinated fools.

These priests to this day wonder how I got to their position at nine years old.

Bert

You have mentioned this before and you are proud that you broke through that barrier at such an early age. I wouldn't attempt to undermine that pride in any way. Sounds to me like the Jesuits had some other variant of belief. Still faith and belief orientated however .. also sounds hypocritical somehow, too.

But what of DNA and of self-replication ? The 'coding' in DNA and the permutations required to build a single, simple protein ! Mind boggling ! Just as incomprehensible as the Scale of the Universe, eh ?

I read just yesterday, somewhere, that there's a new project getting kicked off at Darling Harbour this week .. a 10 year one .. has a fancy name … something about relating human genes to the proteins transcribed by them?? Fascinating .. need quantum computer for that beauty !

Cheers

[avandonk]

The really interesting science is not in the simple transcribing of DNA to RNA to protein. The so called 'junk' DNA contains the information needed for the architecture of cells and organs.

It gets more complicated as everything you do in your life shuts down or allows DNA to replicate.

What is even worse this gets passed on to your offspring as your actions can shut down access to the DNA you inherited to your children.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The really interesting science is not in the simple transcribing of DNA to RNA to protein. The so called 'junk' DNA contains the information needed for the architecture of cells and organs.

It gets more complicated as everything you do in your life shuts down or allows DNA to replicate.

What is even worse this gets passed on to your offspring as your actions can shut down access to the DNA you inherited to your children.

Bert

I'm not sure I understand that. You say your actions can shut down access to inherited DNA ?

Interesting also, is that viruses have infiltrated human mitochondrial DNA !
Now isn't that interesting ? Wonder how that influences it all ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

Yes the actions of your ancestors can change their core genome not by erasure but by switching bits of it it off! This first came to light with populations who had good recorded histories. After a famine for example the granchildren were smaller in spite of food resources being back to normal.

It is called epigenetics so google it and be very scared!

Bert

[CraigS]

Hmm … I'll do that when I get a chance.

Its also very disturbing reading the creationist/ID take on DNA.

And they're always trying to get it into the curriculum at schools !
(I think Bill O'Reilly mentioned this in the YouTube you mentioned yesterday).

Pseudoscience in the classroom … masquerading under the subject header of 'Science' !! NSW Dept of Education almost did it, too !

Mind you, there's many things I object to in that curriculum, also.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Education should be giving children the tools to deal with life. Not telling them fairy tales!

Bert

[CraigS]

Interesting chatting with you Bert but I've got to go …
Time for Confession .. !

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

.....Sounds to me like the Jesuits had some other variant of belief.......

Jesuits have always been the intellectual and frequently the controversial arm of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church has attempted to destroy the Jesuits in the past.

Jesuits have made important contributions to science in particular astronomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hmm …

Very interesting .. an order which originates from true thinkers and naturalism.
The Catholicism component seems to stem from history. After all, everyone had to have a religion way back in the 14th/15th Century .. on up until fairly recently.

Cheers