Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
As for mathematics, especially statistics...the equations are only as good as the people who design them and the data which is entered into them. You can make them say anything you like, but that doesn't make then true or have any veracity at all.
|
In certain circumstances, this may be so.
Would you say
with mathematical certainty that, 1+1=2 ?
If not, why not ?
This example is intended to demonstrate the absoluteness of a 'mathematical certainty'.
In statistics, even a probable outcome, is not a dead certainty.
Which is why statistics is not used, when it comes to statements involving mathematical certainties.
Chaos theory is able to make statements with certainty.
Which is why (I assert) we should be looking at this from this perspective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by renormalised
That only comes with a great amount of trial and error, a lot of experimentation and the consensus as to their veracity by the whole body politic of the (in this case, science) community.
|
Ok .. forget statistics. Chaos/Complexity doesn't rely on statistical inference.
I'll admit that the rationale for my argument is subject to
some speculation. However, the speculation has observational evidence supporting it.
Here goes, (I hope I get this right … I'm still working on the wobbly bits, but its still way better than statistical inference methods):
i) "we can, by
observation and inference, conclude that given the right conditions, life will inevitably occur …
given the correct conditions." (This statement comes from Evolution Theory and the Laws of Physics and Chemistry, and has a working assumption that life began on Earth).
ii) given these
exact same conditions, the
same life (as we presently recognise it), may also
not emerge; (This statement comes from Chaos Theory. The outcome of a chaotic system is critically dependent on the initial conditions. The working assumption is that the emergence of life follows a fractal process.)
iii) the
exact environmental conditions for life to emerge, are not presently known. We are unlikely to ever know the
exact environmental conditions, under which life (as we know it), originally emerged. Even the tiniest, seemingly insignificant factor in the initial conditions, can make
all the difference to the outcome. Ie: life, no life, or different life. (The working assumption is that the emergence of life, is based on a fractal process).
iv) the environmental conditions throughout the solar system, galaxy and maybe, even the universe, are fractal in nature at the macro (observable) scales ... (courtesy of the laws of physics, chemistry and biology and direct observational evidence at the macro scales). The home-based evidence is, that the various environmental combinations that
may have given rise to life on Earth, (of which we are only partially knowledgeable about), are also subject to self-similarity, with both repeating and non-repeating outcomes. (Evidence for: life processes: replicatation, reproduction, respiration, metabolisation, etc function according to fractal rules, which have been demonstrated in computer simulations, biological sciences, etc)
v) the frequency of occurrence of repeating and non-repeating instances of the appropriate environmental conditions is unknown, certainly within a universe of infinite size, and is also unknown within our own observable universe. The pattern of combinations however, appears as a fractal pattern in nature.
vi) the exact same combinations of life-supporting environmental conditions, may also result in
no life emerging. (One of the possible outcomes of combinations giving rise to fractals under the mathematical laws of fractal geometry).
vii) so, if both the occurrence of life-supporting environmental combinations AND the frequencies of occurrence of both life and non-life instances are unknown, we seek more data in the hope that we can draw statistical, probabilistic inference from.
This approach is flawed when coming from the recognition of the fractal nature of the conditions for the emergence of life. This is because the end result of this approach,
will always be subject to the reality that: "In statistics, even a probable outcome, is not a dead certainty".
Under this approach no predictions will deliver any certainty and what's more, will not lead to anything but more debate, due the the fundamental uncertainty which will always remain.
viii) Based on the above points, and with direct observational supporting evidence relating to the fractal nature of the environment, driven by the physical laws of the sciences, and based on the mathematical laws of fractal geometry (which is the hallmark of Chaotic/Complexity processes), we are also able to say with 100% assurance, that
we cannot predict where or when life will emerge, even if we knew the exact environmental conditions, under which we think our own life emerged.
This is where I'm coming from, and why I feel Chaos Theory has delivered something very profound, which I think has been overlooked. "Look again !", is my reaction when I get these feelings. I have done this, and the most likely area, which may be subject to some debate I can see, is whether or not the emergence of life processes are fundamentally fractal in nature. Given that the other processes which life follows
are fractal in nature, I get a very strong sense that something's going on here, which bears A LOT MORE attention.
I hope I got the steps right (in terms of rationality/logic). I am open to corrections on this aspect. I actually request it ! ..Wouldn't want to be accused of an obsessive religious behaviours or anything !
Cheers, Captain Chaos.
PS: Take a look at my
post #34 on the "Japan Earthquake Science" thread. Here is a (maybe) classic example, of how Classical deterministic approach to prediction of a fundamentally Chaotic System, has resulted in death of tens of thousands of lives ! Cheers.
Bit hard to rationalise cross-contamination in that situation (neglecting Star Trek III's example, for instance)
